Principles as a Shared Language
I have often said that principles are the Rosetta Stone to life’s many conundrums.
What I mean is simple.
The same truths quietly govern movement, relationships, technology, health, and identity. We just recognize them faster in domains we already understand.
The humbling part comes when we step into a system where we do not speak the language.
Sitting With People Who See Differently
I often find myself trying to understand two Johns and a Sammy.
Brilliant programmers. People whose minds move in patterns I can sense but never fully inhabit.
They speak fluently in constraints, defaults, edge cases, and system behavior. I speak in abstractions, instincts, and outcomes.
When something feels off, I often lean on them individually to help me make sense of what, on the surface, looks like a technical problem.
Margins behave differently on mobile than desktop. Spacing feels inconsistent. Rhythm shifts depending on context.
My instinct is to patch, adjust, override, fix.
Theirs is to pause.
- “What’s the default doing?”
- “What rule is already governing this?”
- “What happens if you stop fighting the system and redesign it instead?”
That question landed harder than any technical explanation.
Mostly because the system was not malfunctioning. It was behaving exactly as designed.
Which meant my way of seeing the system no longer fit the system I was in.
Defaults Are Not Moral Failures
Here is the quiet lesson I almost always walk away with.
Many systems function exactly as designed, even when the outcomes are harmful.
The trouble begins when we try to change outcomes without ever interrogating the defaults producing them.
In technology, that looks like stacking patch after patch instead of revisiting the source of truth.
In health, it looks like asking people to optimize behavior inside environments that quietly resist change.
In relationships, it looks like working harder without ever naming the rules that are already in place.
The system is not moralizing. It is simply executing its rules.
Genetics, Environment, and the Shape of Choice
In health and medicine, we often talk about root cause versus symptom management.
In philosophy, Thoreau said it more bluntly:
“For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root.”
Both are pointing at the same truth.
Our choices are shaped and constrained by factors we rarely choose:
- genetics and inherent proclivities
- culture and social norms
- geography and access
These are not moral shortcomings. They are starting points.
Every system has affordances and constraints. Ignoring them does not make anyone more disciplined. It usually just makes them tired.
Why This Matters More Than It First Appears
Watching these men work through problems I never fully understand continues to upgrade how I think about health.
Not because they are more sophisticated thinkers. But because they are patient with the system.
They do not moralize defaults. They redesign environments.
They ask fewer questions about effort and more about structure.
And slowly, I realized this is the same mistake we make when we ask people to change behavior without ever asking what that behavior is quietly preserving.
A Parallel From a Different Language
A close colleague of mine, a financial advisor, once described how she approaches her work.
Before talking about tactics or investments, she sits with clients to clarify a priority hierarchy. Not to optimize, but to decide in advance what actually matters.
She often starts by helping people understand what is already draining attention and resources. Naming hard constraints first creates orientation.
From there, the questions become clearer.
- What do we want retirement to look like?
- Is college on the horizon?
- How much uncertainty can we truly tolerate?
These are not decisions about perfection. They are decisions about direction.
Once the hierarchy is visible, day-to-day choices become less reactive. Fringe cases still arise, but they are met with context instead of panic.
What struck me was how familiar this felt.
In finance, habits without governing principles are often just patches. They can work briefly, but remain fragile if the system beneath them is unclear.
It is the same pattern, spoken in a different language.
The Quiet Parallel
This experience reinforced something central to Health401k®, without needing to restate it directly.
Health is not about doing more inside a misaligned system. It is about getting clear on which system you are actually living in.
Clarity about:
- what health means to you
- which constraints are non-negotiable
- what your real priorities are
When environments change, behavior often follows without force.
The Takeaway I Did Not Expect
I did not walk away wanting to code better.
I walked away wanting to listen longer.
To spend more time with people who speak languages I do not understand. To notice when confusion is a signal, not a deficit. To ask whether the friction I feel is personal or structural.
Sometimes the most meaningful health investment is not a new habit.
It is learning how to see the system you are already inside.
Ryan Travis Woods