Why Antisimplistic

I’ve been using this handle for almost 30 years. It emerged from frustration - the productive kind.

I was working with my business partner and friend.¹ Our roles boiled down to this: he was business development, I was production. Classic setup, familiar tension. He’d make promises; I’d have to figure out how to keep them. When I’d explain why something was harder than it looked, I’d get “you’re overcomplicating this!” When he’d pitch a quick fix, I’d think “you don’t get it!”

We were both partially right. I do embrace complexity, and he did prioritize results. The reason our business worked was because we trusted one another enough to have vigorous debate. Constructive conflict, they call it, and it is essential.

But I could never shake the feeling that “overcomplicating” was the wrong frame. Often things are complicated. Sometimes the elegant solution requires wrestling with that complexity rather than dismissing it.

So: Antisimplistic. The only real opposite of “overcomplicating” I could come up with. I’ve not since found a better word for it. One may exist, but it’s not nearly as catchy, and the domain name is almost certainly taken.

Not anti-simplicity, and not a license for overengineering. Antisimplistic is a reminder that simplicity should come from rigor, not reduction. That the world doesn’t owe us simple answers, and hard problems are the ones most worth solving. That true understanding comes when complexity can be distilled honestly.

There are no shortcuts to understanding.

That’s my stance, and it shapes everything I do. How I build, teach, write, live.

Footnotes

We both did a mix of dumb and (arguably) great things, and Erick was one of the smartest, most driven people I’ve ever known. Don’t take this as a slight to him or elevation of my position. I’m not judging.↩︎