What a strange post. This guy namedrops Scott Adams and writes a few lines referencing Adams' 2013 book How to Fail At Almost Everything And Still Win Big, but it's pretty unclear to me if he understood the point that Adams was trying to make. In Ch6 Goals vs Systems, Adams writes:
> To put it bluntly, goals are for losers. That's literally true most of the time... The systems-versus-goals point of view is burdened by semantics, of course. You might say every system has a goal, however vague. And that would be true to some extent. And you could say that everyone who pursues a goal has some sort of system to get there, whether it is expressed or not. You could word-glue goals and systems together if you chose. All I'm suggesting is that thinking of goals and systems as very different concepts has power. Goal-oriented people exist in a state of continuous presuccess failure at best, and permanent failure at worst if things never work out. Systems people succeed every time they apply their systems, in the sense that they did what they intended to do. The goals people are fighting the feeling of discouragement at each turn. The systems people are feeling good every time they apply their system. That's a big difference in terms of maintaining your personal energy in the right direction.
Looking at the blog post author's emboldened claim, "Systems don't work without goals", and his implication that every olympic athlete who does not claim his or her medal emoji is a failure, it seems clear to me that he either missed Adams' point entirely or has his own agenda with respect to "goals" as a buzzword. I will also point out that the project that his blog links to is a $10/month subscription service that itself functions as a system to help people achieve their goals -- so perhaps this is someone who has a vested interest in this semantic battle.