Reasonable > Rational

In his new book, Morgan Housel makes a great case for taking reasonable actions that enable you to sustain an activity long-term, as opposed to taking fully rational actions that look amazing on paper, but are hard to commit to indefinitely.

I’ve since been seeing this idea pop up in all areas of life.

Consider: when I was in college, I used to try to will myself to run a mile along a woodland trail by my apartment. I hated every minute of it, which is why I’d so often gave up. On the other hand, I loved walking the trail.

Sure, running might burn more calories. But if the sheer difficulty of it causes you to give it up every other time, it’s not a sustainable (or effective) form of exercise. In my case, walking was, and is, more reasonable, because I enjoy it enough to keep doing it.

Or consider another health-related habit: diets. Many diets are far too strict for any reasonable person to stick to long-term (strict keto and strict vegan come to mind). On the other hand, there are many other diets that, while a little less effective, are more sustainable.

One last example: saving and investing. Many people assume that a successful investment strategy involves either making the right bets, making a ton of money, or living like a monk. Strategies that are far too difficult for many people to commit to long term.

Might I suggest a better approach: Save what you can. Don't spend too much. Invest in a better investment strategy (i.e. index funds). By seeking out moderation (in your expenditures and bets) you can afford to not be a great investor, just an average one.

Less risk. Less reward. But certainly easier to stick to for the long-haul.

Reasonable. Not completely rational.