This is another one of those "well, duh" obvious statements that happened to, for some reason, stick with me. I don't have the direct quote, because I heard it several weeks ago, but it's been rolling around in my head ever since. > All results have mechanisms, but not all mechanisms give results When doing analysis of some [[Empirical|observed result]], you will come up with theories about how the result happened. If you're smart, your theory *might* be correct... but **it's very easy to come up with wrong theories about what mechanisms were effective**. Creative thinkers can come up with dozens of plausible explanations (or "pathways", as Dr. Norton was saying) that could have lead to a result, and you might find: - One mechanism you thought of caused the effect - A few mechanisms you thought of caused the effect - A mechanism you hadn't thought of caused the effect - A mechanism you thought of + a mechanism you hadn't thought of together caused the effect - All the mechanisms you thought of + many mechanisms you haven't thought of together caused the effect This is basically why [[The Scientific Method]] exists - and why you're supposed to replicate experiments over and over, controlling for the mechanism (independent variable). This is probably why things like [[Habit Loop & Change|Habit Change]] are hard. You've got an [[N=1 Experiment]] and theories about what mechanisms you can use to achieve the desired habit changes. You might be right, or you might not be. **** # More ## Source - [[Huberman Labs]] with Dr. Layne Norton