The cost of correcting a direction rises with the square of the distance already travelled: the later, the costlier. The claim rests on a physical lower bound: for any process that covers a distance within a finite time, the minimum extra cost is proportional to the square of the distance and inversely proportional to the time taken (L²/τ). This form appears independently in mechanics (kinetic energy), thermodynamics (thermodynamic length) and information erasure (the finite-time Landauer principle). Four consequences follow. Lateral deviation grows linearly with the distance travelled, so the cost of correcting it grows with the square of that distance. Direction, which sets the length of the path, enters the cost squared, whereas pace, which sets the time, enters only to the first power. Crossing the same boundary at a deviation angle δ multiplies the cost by 1 + tan²δ. And standing still is not free: waiting a time t_w before starting raises the cost by τ/(τ − t_w), while moving at the proper pace but off course is worse than not moving once the angle exceeds 60°. Along a single chain the paper carries this result from science to human nature, psychology, behaviour and outcomes. A person's direction is set by innate drives and developmental time windows; sunk costs, status-quo bias and conformity make deviations hard to correct in time; the optimal behavioural strategy is therefore to fix the direction first, then adjust the pace, and to correct small deviations at once. Over a lifetime the outcome is a process: deviation is almost free when young and therefore goes unmeasured; it accumulates into the illnesses and impasses of middle age; delay closes the window; and looking back in old age becomes regret. In society the outcome is a sequence of gates, each settling accounts by cost, that filter out deviations of direction. The paper closes by noting the same principle of least effort at cosmic scale and states two testable predictions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yunjing Chen (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: