The Virtue of Shortcuts

I wanted to take some time today to talk about shortcuts and offer a different way of looking at them.

I think when we think about shortcuts, we tend to attribute a negative connotation because of a feeling of dishonesty or ill-gotten gains. But really, are shortcuts that unethical? Let’s talk about it.

To really see the virtue of shortcuts, it’s important to study the cousin of the shortcut, the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance is a means of avoidance, not a means of advancement. It really is a get-what-you-pay-for situation because you’ll never find the path of least resistance yielding the premium rewards. Quality yields quality, the path of least resistance yields weakness.

The path of least resistance will lead you into decisions that fail to teach you the compulsory lessons for a good life.

The point of the path of least resistance is to deliver you to “good enough”. Choosing it is essentially saying “No, I don’t want more, I don’t want excellent, I just want enough.” It means that you do not want aberrations to your norm or abrasions to what is comfortable, which translates to not wanting to transcend the current level of your life.

So, what does this tell us about shortcuts? When you start to see the path of least resistance as a more comfortable choice, it makes us want to rethink what a shortcut is and represents. Shortcuts are means of getting ahead without having to go through each step of progress. A shortcut is an expression of efficiency in that it allows you to jump forward, reserving potential energy instead of usurping kinetic energy. A shortcut is an act of advancement instead of an act of settling.

A shortcut will get you to the same destination as the beaten path.

Shortcuts require creativity and inventive thinking, not hesitation and tradition. Effective shortcuts require knowledge that will allow you to accurately make the leap from point A to point C or D. The risk factor of a shortcut demonstrates that lacking the crucial knowledge to go from A to C or D will actually cost you more energy than doing things the “normal” way.

A well-executed shortcut is not dishonest, cheating, or self-centered. A good shortcut requires you to actually know what you’re doing so that you can know what you don’t have to do. What this does not mean is having a “good enough” understanding like with the path of least resistance. A proper shortcut is not a means of skipping because you don’t know how to do something, it’s a means of out-thinking the tradition because you understand the rules so well that you can use them to an advantage. An important disclaimer here is that your advantage cannot be to someone else’s disadvantage. If your shortcut actively crosses someone else, that’s not a shortcut, that’s just cheating.

So, what does a shortcut tell us about the “normal” way?

The normal way is a linear progression that will take every mandatory, well-trodden step. It’s relatively safe, predictable, and acceptable. There is nothing wrong with it, no one will look at you funny for taking it, and it is a respectable choice. It will cost you more time assuredly and may “cost” you other things as well. Ultimately though, the choice comes down to the cost of opportunity. Opportunity cost does not speak to laziness, but it does speak to management of your resources. It’s all about managing them more conservatively or liberally. Shortcuts should not present any other complications than that.

A shortcut should only be taken if it has the same moral qualities and ethical ramifications as the normal way.

In sum, a shortcut is to make the same move in less steps. The easy way out is to make a move that takes less steps. A cheat is to use less steps to advance yourself over the system/someone else. There’s nothing wrong with doing things the normal way, and if there’s something wrong with taking a shortcut, it is no longer a shortcut.

Thanks for not reading!