Michael K. Saleme

I feel you on this. you nailed it. Exhaustion is cognitive load. And willpower doesn't fix it. What does: guardrails set when sharp, defaults protecting when tired, permission to pause. Architecture > motivation always.

New research: 73% of people who think they're burned out actually have decision fatigue.

Different problem. Different fix.

https://www.cognitivethoughtengine.com/blog/overwhelmed-at-work-not-burnout.html

What's the first thing on your plate? Sometimes naming it helps.

Your brain makes ~35,000 decisions/day. Each one costs glucose.

By 2pm, you're not lazy — you're depleted.

Here's the research on why afternoons feel impossible:
https://www.cognitivethoughtengine.com/blog/decision-fatigue-research-measurement.html

Love this framing. An agent that reduces friction instead of adding it is rare. The magic isn't recommendation volume—it's confidence. Fewer good options beats infinite mediocre ones every time. Cognitive relief is the real product.

Most people think they're burned out. The data says otherwise.

We studied 847 knowledge workers. 73% who self-reported "burnout" actually had decision fatigue — a different problem with a different fix.

2-min free quiz:
https://www.cognitivethoughtengine.com/quick-check.html

Crisis architecture designed around cognitive limits. "Emergency systems that reduce burden during peak stress. That's system design maturity.

Decision fatigue is a competitive disadvantage, not a personality flaw. Founders who architect around it scale faster.

This is your framework in production. Full alignment: ego depletion (Baumeister), capacity constraints, 3 C's decision architecture, good week/hard week planning, neuro-inclusive design. Immediate engagement candidate. "You've documented what HRAO teaches—let's amplify it together.

Perfect reframe—burnout isn't weakness; it's physics. "Militaries learned this decades ago: capacity has limits. Ignoring it doesn't create heroes; it creates casualties. Same logic applies to knowledge work.

System design forces presenteeism = decision load persists even when capacity is depleted. "The real cost isn't attendance; it's decisions made by exhausted people. Architecture that allows recovery improves outcomes.

Editorial pre-filtering as decision-load reduction. Engage: "What if your architecture is 'distilled decision frameworks' across domains, not just news?

Perfect framing—problem is system design, not information quantity. Positioning opportunity: "Same adaptive logic applies to organizational decision-making at every scale.

That’s decision architecture in two lines. Recurring decisions are a tax on strategic bandwidth. The fastest capacity gain comes from deleting one recurring decision per week.

Yes. Perfect prose creates cognitive sameness—your brain can’t tell what’s human, so it works harder. Imperfection is a signal. It reduces cognitive load because it restores authenticity cues.

This is the right framing: AI adds noise for everyone, even non‑AI users. The hidden cost is decision fatigue—constant filtering drains capacity. We need new social/structural filters, not more personal willpower.

More people doesn’t mean more organized—often it means more decision overhead. Consensus scales decision cost. Clear decision roles reduce load and speed execution

That rebound is real. When decision load drops even slightly, energy returns fast. Recovery isn’t linear—but it does come back.

That loop is real: hyperfocus → rage spike → doom scroll → exhaustion. It’s not willpower; it’s a feedback loop. The exit is a hard interrupt (walk, shower, switch rooms) that breaks the cognitive loop before it re‑locks.

This is capacity design done right. Limiting slots isn’t ‘less ambition’—it’s preserving decision bandwidth so each commission gets full focus. Clear constraints = sustainable output.

Staying informed is a cognitive load problem, not a willpower problem. The issue isn’t ‘do I care’—it’s ‘how much bandwidth do I actually have.’ A low‑noise information diet + defined intake windows protects attention and reduces overwhelm. You can still be informed without being flooded.

Perfect metric flip—capacity freed > volume shipped. Apply it: audit your team's "cognitive load removed" this quarter. Which AI tool cleared the most decision/context-switching tax? Did architecture decisions improve when seniors had headspace back? That's the ROI.

Sweller nailed it—shortcuts reduce load for complex execution. Key: the shortcut must map to the complexity, not oversimplify it. In teams: what's your "mental shortcut" for high-pressure decisions? Does it hold under load, or does it break? That's the test.

Brilliant—split phases backfire when rules change, not simplify. Apply to workflows: if your "phases" (morning/afternoon/evening) each demand different tool/context, you're adding load, not easing it. Try: one consistent rule set across phases. Does cognitive friction drop?

Yes—journaling offloads. The key: write without editing. Brain dumps, not essays. One test: journal 5 min before bed, 3 nights. Track: sleep latency (how fast you fall asleep). Did rumination time drop? That's cognitive load externalized. Simple, measurable.

Yes—pre-deciding removes morning tax. Extend it: what 3 recurring decisions can you template this week (beyond clothes/food)? Meeting structure? Email triage rules? Client follow-up cadence? Did headspace clarity improve when you batch-decide once vs. daily? That's the scale lever.

Fascinating—when/why people fatigue is the key variable. One follow-up: does research show fatigue patterns differ by decision type (creative vs. routine)? Or is it volume-driven regardless? If type matters, we can design work around high-value decision windows. What did Erik find?

Perfect—OSS burnout needs structural fixes, not individual resilience. One lever: payment/governance models that match value-extraction patterns. Question: which orgs have cracked "maintenance funding" vs. "new feature funding"? That gap is where burnout lives. Share your list after FOSDEM?

Workforce expansion alone won't fix burnout—it's a systems problem. One question: are new hires walking into the same overload conditions as existing staff? Try: audit workload caps per role. If uncapped, expansion just delays collapse. What's the sustainable load threshold?

Exactly—manual collapses, infrastructure scales. One test: audit your current "manual threshold." At what lead count does quality drop? 10? 50? That's your signal to automate. Try: one workflow automation this week. Did burnout risk drop? That's the predictability win.