Why You Feel Overwhelmed All The Time (and how to fix it) - David Epstein - #1121

What's the green eggs and amyffact? That is a Describes of finding in psychology that people become more creative when the easiest solution is taken away from them So it is named after the doctor, Susbook green eggs and ham Which he wrote on a bet that he couldn't write a children's book using only 50 words And that restriction forced him to Experiment with his rollicking rhythm, right because he couldn't experiment with vocabulary so It's it got that name in psychology because it represents this huge body of work that shows As the cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham likes to say you may think your brain is made for thinking But it's actually made for preventing you from having to think whenever possible because Thinking is energetically costly and so your brain wants to do the convenient thing the easy thing what neuroscientists call the path of least Resistance like just reach for stuff you've seen before and so it actually becomes kind of impossible to be creative Unless the easiest thing you would reach for is is blocked Mm-hmm. So the thing they actually led to that bet with theodore Geisel aka Dr. Sus was before that He was asked if he could write a children's book using about 200 words from a vocabulary list for kids Is that so that most kids would have access to it not not be able to not comprehend? That's right and there was a kind of visionary publisher Who correctly deemed children's literature at the time very boring and so he wanted to it was an assault on a literacy He said look kids are not learning to read in his big of numbers as they should why don't we try making something interesting for them and Dr. Sus takes this list Looks at it realizes there are almost no adjectives and starts complaining to his wife He basically it makes this very fine. I think Susie in comment. He says it's like trying to make a strutle without any strutles And then he just throws his hands up and says I'm just gonna take the first two rhyming words on the list and write a book first two rhyming words cat and hat and The rest is history so that's what forced him originally to develop that relic in rhythm that he became known for because the things He would have done otherwise were were blocked So that green eggs and ham effect that a psychologist named is Summarizing this huge body of work that shows it the best way to prompt creativity is to pull away the path of least resistance The convenient thing that people would look for otherwise what would be the convenient path of least resistance when it came to writing that book Because what it sounds like is that it is more effort To work with fuel woods. Yes, definitely. It's it is more effort because the the things that the easy things familiar phrases right like one of the things that jumps out about Susie's work is the phrases are unfamiliar Normally if he'd been left to his own devices he would have gone for more familiar phrasing Which is what all children's literature did at the time you know was very literal, you know Johnny ties his shoes walks to school and all these things Not this sort of LSD absurdism that he ended up with exit well put And and he actually used this to co-found a whole book imprint that changed Literature for kids and and help boost literacy where he basically put constraints on the authors It was you know vocabulary constraints. It was the pictures all have to be continuous across two pages They can't depict anything that isn't described directly in the text etc And he said if you don't like those constraints and some of them didn't then you're just not one of our authors But they built the most successful Children's imprint ever made by restricting people from the things you know those who bought in said I'll give it a try Found that they were able to do work that they never would have envisioned otherwise. Why do you think talking about constraints is so unsexy? I think the word itself is Yeah, unfortunately unsexy for me. I think the word itself is like almost synonymous with something that's frustrating and so I think our brains are built for To always overvalue freedom complete freedom and choice in the abstract right and in the theory for why this is Is that in our evolutionary history? We didn't really have a problem with having too much of stuff or too much choice But we did have a problem with having too little issues of scarcity not abundant That's right and so that we evolved to always want more to be programmed to want You know, I think if it is similar to the brain in the way that we are with sugar with our bodies, right? We evolved to like it because there was only a little bit available when it was useful when you found it Now it's all over the place and and we consume way too much of it because we're just not built to treat it as like the scarce resources We should and so you can see in all these Surveys and things people always say they want more choice, right? One of it when when psychologists did this international survey of known creativity myths since we were talking about creativity Things that we know from research are not true then top one was that people are most creative when they're most free and we know this is in true So they surveyed people and said what are your beliefs around creativity? Yeah, they came back and said the more freedom equals more creativity Yeah, I mean they offered them a whole a huge list of Rang sort of things that they that they and then people would say they agree with it or they don't agree with it And so they can see what we're myths. Yeah, most agreed with myth. Yes, it was like tied with that group brainstorming is a good way to come up with lots of novel ideas That's that's another one we can talk about but Or you see like people always say they want more options for consumer. Thanks, right? So consumer options have increased by about 100 million fold compared to pre-industrial societies which dwarfs the increase in wealth which is only like 400 fold and People always say they want it economic theory models us as if we'll always be better off with more choice But then you look at things like since the introduction of infinite scrolling People have been getting progressively more bored which makes no sense And researchers who are trying to figure out how this could be like how could more choice make us more bored in entertainment options Would run experiments where they would say randomize some people to a group where they would have 20 videos that they could Choose whatever they want to watch or they were just given one from that same set of 20 and they have to watch it And the people who had to watch the one are less boards than the people who have the 20 And the thinking is that because our brains are comparison engines that just the idea that there's some other thing that you could be doing Underminds the experience of the moment itself and so it's all this disconnect with how you know Rational actor man is modeled in economics and and what's real in our psychology where the rubber meets the road is this similar to Barry Schwartz's stuff some of it is yeah, I mean Barry Schwartz's Some of it absolutely is so I think the way we're it and he was one of the pioneers of I think showing that The economic models of what should make us happy and satisfied and lead to good decisions are are not the case And one of the places that he was really impactful had to do with the The affective consequence or the consequence on our psyche of too much choice. So there was a Is he and his colleagues built this thing called the maximization scale and so this is How much of a Satisficer on one end satisfy is a term coined by this Nobel laureate Herbert Simon It's a combination of satisfy and suffice. So it basically means setting good enough rules for decisions and taking it on one end versus How much of a maximizer are you on the other end? Maybe we would call that an optimizer now, but it basically means You will explore all of the possible options looking for the best thing And it turns out that there's not a lot of evidence that maximizers actually make better decisions Even though they spend a lot more time making decisions and they are less happy with their choices They're more prone to regret They are less happy with their lives They're much more likely to opt for reversible decisions even though that typically prevents them from kind of committing one way or the other And so the people who are more satisfied tend to be these people say here's what good enough looks like and once I get to it I'm going to take it and move on because we can't we can't actually Maximize anyway because we're not good at predicting the consequences of our choices. We can't evaluate infinite options And so if you counted the cost of agonizing over decisions I think people would see that satisfying is actually the maximizing strategy in the long run It's so interesting I think when people consider Do you want to go into the jeans store and see one pair of jeans or do you want to see 20 pairs of jeans? You know, I want to see more because I'm going to be able to get closer to my fully maximized optimized utility function to derive the most value from the jeans that I'm going to buy But for all of those reasons people seem less happy something would tell me that if you couldn't return jeans If there was no refund Option and no returns no exchanges that people would probably be happy with their jeans as well probably that certainly actually no exchanges because that would be the most right Direct one to one you know, this is basically directly tested in some studies not with jeans But with other objects where people are either allowed to exchange it or not Okay And the people who are not end up happier with what they have so it's kind of like Despite the fact that they could have chosen wrong and being unable to switch it That's right, but but they're committed so that's so they don't end up regretting This is like Ellen Lang or famously said don't make the right decision make the decision and then make it right Right, you can't know what the perfect thing is anyway So I think it's sort of more important what you do with it after you've after you've made the choice and agonizing on the front end It's the thing that's interesting is what very bad rationally assessing how a decision will make us feel yes what we do in advance is look at this perfect sterile Hometically sealed environment where we would be rational actors And we would be able to derive the maximum amount of satisfaction effective satisfaction affective satisfaction from the decision that we made But we aren't able to discount for the paralysis analysis the regret minimization concern the I'm gonna go about take I'll gonna take them back. I'll do this thing Uh, I mean how many times I remember when I was a kid I um when Nokia was still sort of the phone on the market and there was lots to choose from. Do I want the one that's sideways, do I want the one that slides up, do I want? And I would spend, it was kind of interesting to me. It's the same as people with cars, to a degree. What level of trim do I want, what sort of interior do I want, what particular type of alloys do I want, and actually, if I get the 2023 model instead of the '22, they upgraded this thing on the Incerium. But a lot of the time that I probably wasn't all that satisfied with my decision. But in advance, do you want to have that choice restricted? No, absolutely not. Of course. So we have this inability to predict how unsatisfied we will be with the maximum amount of the thing that we think that we want, which is freedom. And this runs into all sorts of consequential things. Like if you survey people, you know, and say, if you got cancer, would you want to be involved in choosing your treatment? And something like two thirds of people say, yes, absolutely. I would want that agency. And then among people who actually get cancer, it's like 10%. Once that actually comes, they want somebody taking that burden off of interest. And some of it has to do with complexity, too. So more choice is good to an extent. It's just that we've usually blown way past that extent. So if you look at things like people's retirement plans, 401Ks, if they have a company match, once the choice sets get increasingly complex, they're more likely to make no decision at all. And it's for going free money from the company, right? And so at a certain level of complexity, it's like, it makes no sense that you wouldn't want more choices, right? But human psychology does not behave according to the rational act or model neoclassical economics. What is going on in human psychology that means that we don't like it? Why would that be the case? Why would choice be overwhelming and trying to work out what the source code is or what the particular bug that's been hacked here? Yeah, I think some of it in that case, like with the retirement plans, is anticipated regret, basically. I think that's because it was on your shoulders. Yeah, the fear of having made the wrong decision that you get so obsessed, it becomes, it feels so bad, the idea that you might make the wrong decision, that you end up making no decision, basically. And people stall and stall and stall. So we are comparison engines, right? So the ability for us to feel bad about what other thing we could have done, it's kind of a, the deviling aspect of psychology, right? In all things, to go back to maximizing, there's evidence from these international surveys that some aspects of maximizing tendencies are actually on the right. Nobody's a maximizer or a satisfacer in all things, but some people are much more of maximizer or a satisfacer. And there's evidence that the maximizing tendency is on the rise, particularly in like the richest parts of the world. And that includes things like socially prescribed perfectionism, right? People feeling like they're never, like their life should always be doing something better. And of course, the theory is that it's the ability to compare yourself infinitely to what other people are doing, like on social media and all these things. And we're not built for that, right? It's like, we are comparison engines, we are, you know, we compare our status, all these things. But in our history, that was like, to the people in your immediate vicinity, the people on your block, not to the entire world. And so I think it's just a poor fit for our brains work. >>Hermit Simon wore the same socks, ate the same breakfast, lived in the same house for 46 years and won the Nobel Prize. >>Yeah. You would, you would, you'd almost accuse the guy of having low ambitions for some of the things that he did if he hadn't won both the Nobel Prize in economics, the touring awards of the highest prize in computer science because he was a founder of AI. And then he won the highest award in psychology. And in his feeling, so he coined satisficing because he said humans, humans do not behave according to these economic models. We can't, we're not equipped to evaluate infinite options. We have all these other motivations that aren't just maximizing utility. And we can't predict the consequences of our choices. And so his feeling was that we should proactively satisfy in areas of our life where we can. So the reason he had one beret, one perisox, he told his daughter, one only needs three sets of clothing, one on one back, one in the closet rated away. And one in the wash, right? And so he sounds kind of lame, except he was, he was preserving cognitive bandwidth for the things that he found most meaningful, which were his, his work. >>Yeah, so there's research that shows people are more satisfied with irreversible decisions from reversible ones. And yet modern optimization, culture, decision theory, a lot of the time if it doesn't have a psychological informed view, specifically seek reversible decisions. Does that mean that keeping eruptions open is a form of self harm? >>I think it often can be, especially when it becomes an end to itself. Like I can't tell you how many people, through my peers, who will be talking about a decision and they'll start talking about optionality and which one preserves optionality. And I'm like, that makes a lot of sense at a certain point in your career for that to be like a certain value. But at a certain point, you don't want preserving optionality to be the end in itself, right? There's this. >>You've preserved optionality to preserve optionality to preserve. >>Exactly. Turtles all the way down, optionality. And then there's, there's this interesting research by this guy Scott Stanley on relationships that's finding increasingly younger people are doing what he calls sliding versus deciding in relationships where in the interest of keeping their options open, they'll say like, I'm just going to keep seeing how it goes. I'm not really committed. And then their options are closing whether they like it or not if they stay in, right? So they kind of sleepwalk into this escalating commitment. And if they end up getting married, they're more likely to get divorced, they're less likely to be happy. So compared to people who say I'm in or I'm out and that's the decision. So sliding in the interest of feeling like you're keeping your options open actually leads to these bad outcomes. And you don't do the hard work of saying like, am I in or am I out? >>Yeah, I mean, how many people, well, she's kind of hot and you know, well, well, hang out. She seems quite nice. Well, she's coming over a good bit. I'll give her a draw and she can have a toothbrush and hold her. And well, I mean, you know, her leases up. So we, well, cool. Like she can move in or whatever. And that's one of the ones he mentions in the research. It's like someone's leases up. So like, well, it'd be easier just to move in, but they didn't really make a commitment to each other. That one comes up a bunch and that respect it does. >>Well, I was going to get a dog anyway. So why don't we buy a dog? And we've been together for a couple of years. So I suppose like it's the thing that you do is to get engaged. Now you're engaged and it's like, well, you know, like she, I'm off the pill. So like, oh, maybe we didn't fully plan to have you, like you can fall backward through your entire life. >>Yeah. >>Relationally. >>Yeah. >>And in terms of career, like, well, you know, like I'm here. Like it's, I did the thing at uni and it was sort of the, it was the first guy that I spoke to at the graduate fair. >>Yeah. >>And he just seemed nice and like convenient. >>And I think taking data, right, whether it's dating or with your career is really important. In fact, I think if we treated careers like dating, we'd never force people to settle down so quickly, right? You want them to take data, but you want this to be intentional. What am I doing here? What did I learn about myself? How does that inform the pivot? Whether it's a relationship or not just am I keeping my options open and seeing what comes around? >>Did you know your gut controls your energy, your recovery, how well you absorb everything that you eat and the one nutrient that keeps it all running properly is fiber? Well, it turns out that 95% of Americans don't get enough of it, which is why I'm such a huge fan of moments is fiber plus. Fiber supplements are a one trick pony, one type of fiber solving, one part of the problem. Fiber plus is a three in one formula built to tackle digestion, gut barrier strength and blood sugar stability all at once. I use this every single day. It is kind of hard to get in a fiber just through food alone. And best of all, Mementus offers a 30 day money back guarantee. So you can buy it, try it every single day for 29 days. And if you don't love it, they will just give you your money back. Plus, they ship internationally. Right now, you can get up to 35% of your first subscription and that 30 day money back guarantee by going to the link in the description below or heading to livemomentus.com/modernwizdom and using the code "modernwizdom". Check out. Interesting that if somebody's CV looked like their dating history, they would look like an incredibly unreliable employee. But if somebody's dating history looked like their CV, they would look like someone that didn't have an awful lot of experience depending on what it was that you did. But yeah, I, I, learning can only be done through updating. So there is attention here, right? There is attention between the desire for freedom and the need for constraints. Absolutely. Because in order to update your model, you need to expose yourself to as much as possible. So it feels like these two things are in tension. Yeah, absolutely. And, and I mean, my previous book was about expanding your experiences. You know, ever since. So that was on the show. Uh, I don't know what episode. I mean, it must have been seven years ago. Basically. 84. This will be like, I want like a, I want like an 84 out of, you should. You should. 1,180 something this maybe. 1,150. I was 84. 84. I was, I would not have guessed double digits. 84, dude. Crazy. Fucking crazy. That's pretty cool. That was one of the, the one that we did on range was one of the highest played that was the first time that we ever hit the charts on Apple in 2019, who's the first, it was the episode that put us on, put us onto the charts. Yeah, it was like mid, middle of the year in 2019. I remember it was that I just started doing two a week, a couple of week, a couple of months before. And I'd started the year with Rory Sutherland and he was insane and it was brilliant. And I was like, I should do this twice a week. And then yeah, partway through the episode 84. That was us. Wait, who is episode one? Stuart Morton. He's a guy that I trained with at the gym and he was going to row the Atlantic solo. There's 14 million all strokes across the course of a few months and every single expedition, this is before he went out, every single expedition that he tried to do. there was some huge meteorological catastrophe or the boat had a got hit by a something and every single time he may have done it now, I kept an eye on him for a good while 'cause it compelling story, really cool. But yeah, I just found some dude in the gym and was like, "Hey you, you, to me and you." Sit down. - That's amazing. - Let's ask him about this thing. - You're a beginner of a way to start. - It's fun and you're ready for. - How many people in the top 100 have been repeat guests? - In the first 100? - Yeah. - In the fair, oh, a good few. - Okay. - Robert Green, James Clea, Rory Sutherland's been on eight times, a bunch of my other friends, including George Mack, yourself. - Fuck me. - We have to figure out some way to slice and dice this data for me to have a record of some type. I'm sure we can do it if we can. - Very easy. Yeah, the earliest, I mean, you'll be in terms of book sales over the last five years, you will be certainly up there with range 'cause that absolutely smashed it. So, I mean, yeah, it's cool dude. Seeing the full arc of people, I had Robert Wright who wrote The Moral Animal and Why Buddhism is True, had him on for his new AI book this week or last week. And we haven't spoken for five years. That was the most, the moral animal was the single most influential book in my intellectual journey. I got to sit down, have a chat with him again. So Chris has been so great to see you. I love your sub-stack, I subscribe. It's cool, it's like a little professional, you're in different universes of, it's great, there's a Christopher Hitchens line, he says, it's a melancholy lesson of old age that you cannot make old friends. And, I think it's interesting, wow, what a beautiful quote. - That great, yeah, I think about that a lot, especially with the show, that I get to what, I don't know who, I love had someone on the show that's died, I love had someone on the show that's gone to prison, I love had someone on the show who's been in a car wreck, who's maybe gone to jail for something like Heeners crime or some false accusation crime or whatever, like a thousand people, this big, big, I think you should have a family reunion. - I have guests. - Fuck me, could you imagine that? I think there's probably quite a lot of beef in between some of the guests, I'm not aware of that. - Exciting. - What family reunion doesn't have some beef with some of the people coming? - I can make it into a Hunger Games thing, the one that is left over. All right, what was general magic? 'Cause this was a company that I feel like I should have heard of what had happened. - I like to call it the most important company nobody's ever heard of. - Yes. - Not important because of what they accomplished, 'cause they went down in flames, but because of the people that came out of it. So this is a story about the danger of having two few constraints. So this was a company that was so visionary in the early 90s that Goldman Sachs took them public in the first so-called concept IPO in Silicon Valley history. They went public just with an idea, right, not with a product. Founded by three former Apple employees, two of whom designed the original Mac. The third guy, his job inside of Apple was seeing what's the next frontier after personal computing, named Mark Peratt, an absolute visionary, he was the CEO. I was reading his PhD dissertation during book reporting, 1976 at Stanford, he coins the term information economy on the first page, and this thing is eerie to read. He saw the future in a way that I certainly never have. And not just the promise of technology, but the dangers with automation, with misinformation, et cetera, et cetera. And in 1989, in a big red leather notebook, he draws a thin glass rectangle with no protruding buttons and a touchscreen with rectangular apps on it that's gonna be a phone and a computer and a fax machine and ATM and video games and messaging and everything else. The web didn't exist yet, right? 15% of American households had computers, but this thing is so visionary that money pours in, talent pours in. They formed this 17-member alliance of international telecom companies, so big that their meetings have to start with nanti-trust lawyer listing all the things they're not allowed to discuss, right? And they can do anything. They have unlimited money, they have unlimited talent. And so they frequently do do anything. Any good idea they're making this personal communicator, any good idea that somebody has, they basically do it. They define their customers, Joe Six Pack, which is good as no definition at all because nobody has met that guy. And so they're doing this incredible innovation, precursors to USB, the precursors to emojis, all these things, but it just keeps growing and growing and growing until it starts to collapse under its own way because they have no focus whatsoever. This incredible amount of resources obviates the need to decide what they should actually be doing. So I interviewed dozens of former employees, and I'd say three quarters of them said something to the effective. I just couldn't figure out what not to do. The emblematic interview was with this engineer named Steve Perlman, who was writing a calendar function for the communicator. And he writes it to go from 1904 to 2096. Checks it in, thinks he's done. Then a team leader comes to him and says, Steve, someone might write historical apps. You have to make this thing go back farther. So he opens it up and writes it to go from year one to the future. Done. Then another team comes to him and says, Steve, why are you tying it into this arbitrary religious context? You should make it go back to the beginning of astronomical time. So he opens the calendar function up and writes to go from the big bang to the future. And it takes months when it would have been four lines of code if they stuck it in 1904 to 2096. This is how everything happened at General Magic. They go public in the mid '90s. Mark Perlman said he raised so much money because he wanted to create heaven for engineers, right? Where they were free to create and limited only by their imagination. He said, what more could anyone ask for? I think the answer was less freedom because they could not figure out what not to do. So it totally imploded. Stock price doubles first day. Worthless two years later. Wow. But the people that came out of it, especially the young people, were scarred by this and took these lessons about the importance of putting limits in place. And they co-founded LinkedIn and eBay and Nest and created Android and iPod and iPhone and Google Maps Safari, all these other things. And so I think it became important in that way because the lessons that these other founders took about the need for constraints became incredibly important. One of the important characters in the book, this guy Tony Fidel, was like the most scarred because it was his first job out of college. And these were his rock star heroes and it goes down in flames and it's like a trauma for him. He goes on to lead the design of the iPod. And then he co-found Nest, the smart thermostat company where he, when I first interviewed him, by the way, I was like, interested in constraints. And Bill Gurley, the venture capitalist, had connected me with him. Founded the show. And Bill had told me when I said I was interested in constraints, he said we have a saying in venture that more startups dive into gestion than starvation. He says you got to talk to my friend Tony. I talk to Tony, Tony says that's my saying. I say that. - I've got to interject, did you know what Churchill and Drift is? - No. - So any unattributed quote over time is more likely to be attributed to Churchill. But it's kind of, if nobody can define who said it first, it's almost everybody's. I think dogs are sort of like that. If you've got a child with you, I can't go up and pet your child. If you've got a dog with you, that is a gift of humanity. An unattributed quote is kind of the same thing that the public intellectually has. - It's fair, okay. I would've thought, see, my first thoughts would've been you attribute either a yogi bearer or a Mark Twain. - Mark Twain, there's definitely a Twainian dress as well. - I don't think he said almost any of the things that he has actually said. - That's the position you need to get into though. - Okay. - One of my favorite things is to be accused of having said great quotes that I didn't. This is the freest plagiarism that I can ever do. I'm culpably deniable. - Are they good quotes though? - The ones that are bad. - I mean, that is the entire, he said this thing and I didn't, and now I'm getting castigated for it. A lot of the time, they're pretty good. A lot of the time, they're not sloppy. - That's nice. So I have a different quote problem with this one quote where I gave it for an article once and I thought I was taking it from someone else. And I sort of told the reporter, like I can't remember who said this, but the quote was, I was talking about how expert performers often don't know how they do what they do. Like they'll give an explanation, but they actually often don't know. - Don't tell me that you quoted yourself and forgot. So I said the quote was just because your bird doesn't mean an ornithologist. Can I excuse you to fly, doesn't mean you know how you're doing it. And neither she nor I have ever been able to find another. So I swear I was taking it from somewhere but I've never been able to find another source. So she ended up attributing it to me and I still am skeptical. But like quote. - Well that's okay. I feel like originality's just undetected plagiarism and if it wasn't detected, then it means that you got away with it. - Okay, I'm wondering if you'll find it. - However, if you forget someone watching this is gonna find it now. It'll be fine. - The internet's gonna get it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Find out who it is. If you say, I can't remember who said this quote, but this, this, this thing. And it later turns out that you said it, that's an additional level of embarrassment. Not knowing who said it is moderately embarrassing, especially if you say it a lot, but not knowing who said it and finding out that it was you is a sort of dementia that should be reserved for all day. - It doesn't put well. - Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Bill Gurley, indigestion. - Tony Fiddell. So at Nest, this was kind of the apotheosis of his fervor for constraints where he forced the team to work inside a literal box where he made them prototype the packaging before the product. Because he said, this is what the end user is going to see. - On a shelf. - If we can't fit it here, this thing that we're trying to tell them, it's not a priority and we're putting it on the back burner. And so it's, I think that's what useful constraints can often do is force you to clarify your priorities in a way you wouldn't otherwise. - How do limits palo-learning? - This is the, a kind of complicated part of the book where I write about the so-called replication crisis in science, the fact that most published research is not true. And the reason it's not true is because people haven't had enough limits in how they go about discerning the truth. So before I got into writing, I was training to be a scientist and I should just say, since I'm going to accuse scientists in a way, I made these same exact mistakes when I was a grad student. The issue is we gather data, whether we're doing it like scientists or we're just doing it in our own life or we're doing market research or whatever it is we're doing, what we should be doing first is making predictions about what do we think? What is our theory of the world? What is our theory of this drug we're testing? What is our theory of our product and its value add in the market or whatever it is that we think we're doing? And then you gather the data and you look to see if that prediction was correct. But that's not really how people have been doing it. They've been sometimes make a prediction, sometimes not, gathering data and then retrospectively looking for. So, socials and the days, guests go something. Well, parking is one of the things that's it. How pathosizing after the results are known. So it's like a sharpshooter firing randomly at a wall and then throwing a bull's eye around some clump and someone who comes later will say, "Oh, they're really good shooter but really they just circled retrospectively." And that's what a lot of scientists have been doing. So there's this interesting point in the year 2000 where in the lead up to 2000, decades leading up to 2000, there are all these big trials for medications and supplements to improve cardiovascular health and most of them are positive. And then in 2000, all of a sudden, almost all of them are negative from 2009. And there was this question of what the heck is going on. They go in medicine, stop working at the millennium. But in fact, it was because of funding agency decided, "For these trials, you have to record your prediction of what's going to happen ahead of time." And so they put more constraints on the people doing the work. And suddenly they saw that their predictions were not right. And what they had actually been doing all along was retrospectively making predictions by sifting all the data, right? Just whatever they thought was not right. So they just said, "Well, we've got all this data. Let's go find something else that pops out." It seems like you should be able to do that. You have a bunch of data. Why can't you draw a conclusion? But it turns out that for statistical reasons, that's actually like running an infinite number of tests. And I'm like, "What's here?" That I can find. And so it might pinpoint something for you to then test. But to say you can draw true conclusions from that, you can't. And so some of this thinking was applied to businesses in a study where businesses were randomized to different types of training for market research. And some of them were trained in the scientific method where they said, "Come up with your hypothesis of how your product fits the market. Come up with a way to test it. These have to be specific predictions of what you think. What you think people will value in your product or whatever it is, and then test it and see what happens. And most of the companies that did that, that got that training, found that there's something about their theory was wrong, about the value they thought they were adding, what people would want and all those things and they would pivot. And those companies were much more likely to succeed and start making money than the ones who really didn't make a strong prediction, didn't test it, and ended up not pivoting so they really didn't learn. So you want to learn whatever it is, your own exercise, something you're improving it to work, make a prediction for what you think that something you're going to try, whether it will work or not, and then test it. And then you tweak your beliefs slowly according to that. We should all be making a lot more predictions about what we think is going to happen whenever we make a decision. And then you update little by little by little. Who's that guy with the soup bowl? Brian Wonsink was the soup bowl guy. He's kind of a poster child for a non-replication science. So the soup bowl was this famous study where people were given bowls of soup and just told eat until you're full and then stop. And some of those people secretly had a tube under the table that was filling the soup bowl while they were eating slowly. And the finding was that those people ate much more, even though they were told like just stop eating when you're full, that the people who had the secretly refilling bowl ate like way more than the people who didn't. And so the conclusion was we don't have a good visual mechanism. We don't have a good mechanism for deciding when we're full. It actually depends on this visual aspect. Well, that's true. Well, yeah, whether that's true or not, I don't know. But basically his entire life's work has been retracted. So Wonsink was the most famous nutrition researcher in the world. Nutrition research is a friggin' mess. There's a sadly humorous paper that sometimes people call the everything in your fridge causes and prevents cancer paper. It gathered up all these different studies of different foods and plotted them and you could see literally every food had been found to cause and prevent cancer. Multiple times except bacon, which was found only to cause cancer, which is sad, but real shame. But for mental health, you know, you got to keep your mental health. Tracked my tooth on a piece of bacon recently. I think my soul take away from that piece of bacon. Bacon? Bite down, pull. My soul take away from that wasn't anything to do with nutrition. It was just that the Muslims were right. That was a law getting me back. Yeah, or maybe the Jews as well. But both of them actually finally something they can agree on. What? Deploment. We can use that. That's something we can go on. We can come together guys. There's no pigs. The Wonsink. So Wonsink was doing this the way that his career came down because he was like one of the people in charge of issuing, you know, making recommendations for dietary guidelines to Americans. And the time when his career came down and he was a superstar, he wrote a blog post talking about how he does research. The blog post I believe was titled the grad student who never says no. And he was writing this praise worthy account of this grad student where he said they would test something like did the price you paid for pizza effective, how much satisfaction you had from it, you know, whatever it was. And they would find out no, it doesn't matter. Or like does watching a talk show versus sports matter for how many pretzels you'll eat or something and they would make some prediction and find out, oh, it didn't pan out. And so he said, but we have all this data. So I would tell the grad student go and find something in there that's true. And he says she never says no. She always goes to the data and finds something. That's exactly the problem. So other scientists immediately jumped on this and said, that's like a textbook way of how to get false positives. And ultimately about 18 of his famous papers were retracted. But it's nutrition research is a mess like that. This episode is brought to you by Jim Shock. If you're going to spend an hour in the gym, you might as well look hot and feel comfortable while you're doing it. Jim Shock makes the best men's and women's training gear on the planet. And here is something I realize a few years into training. When you actually like what you're wearing in the gym, you show up differently. You train harder, you stay longer, you get way more high fives. Their hybrid shorts are unreal. They're the perfect length. They're super lightweight. They're easy to wash and dry. And their sleeveless t-shirts are basically what I've trained in every day for a year now. They're the ideal fit, they're breathable and they hold their shape perfectly. So no more looking like Adam Sandler's your stylist. Basically, everything they sell is unbelievable, well designed, high quality and you get 30 day free returns globally with global shipping plus a 10% discount sight wide. Right now you can get 10% off everything by going to the link in the description below. I heading to gym.sh/modernwisdom and using the code modernwisdom10, a checkout. That's gym.sh/modernwisdom, a modernwisdom10. Check out. It feels like our brains are sort of a cognitive miser. Definitely. Just want to default to familiar things. That's pathively resistant, leaning into past habits. Why would it be the case then that it takes more cognitive effort given that decision making is such a huge burden? Why does it feel more effortful when there's fewer choices? Because we think harder, we think deeper, it's a psychologist called desirable difficulty. So when there are fewer choices, you don't survey as much. And it sort of depends. If you're talking about a consumer decision, it won't necessarily feel more effortful when there are fewer choices. But if you're talking about a creative decision, it will. And it's in large part because you explore the possibilities of this limited space in much more depth than you would if you were just given open possibilities. Do you know if people spend more time assessing the entire set of options when there's more or less? I don't know. If they spend more time deciding the pie, thinner over the, that's a good question. I think it probably depends on the context. For consumer options, they do spend more time when there are more options. Like if it's like, what's the thing that you're going to buy at the store? Which is where the paralysis analysis, exactly why happens. You go into the store that's got every type of genes on the planet and you walk out with no genes. That's right. Or you walk out with genes and you're just thinking if you should have gotten something else, so then there's a great aspect. So I think it's probably context dependent. But for consumer decisions, people spend more time when there are more options. Okay. So constraints forces beyond those defaults, rather than being in freedom. Having constraints pushes you off the path of least resistance, which is typically leaning on what you've done previously. So actually a pivot from freedom to constraint must be a unique situation for humans to go through if it's within the same sort of decision-making criteria. Like if previously you had all of the options in the world and now those are being constrained, especially including the one that you use to resort to an awful lot. That must really generate creativity. My favorite example of this when I found out what your buck was about. I've only ever had what. It's great to have like, I don't know what it is that you do for a research. Process but you have more stories per page than I think any other author. It's fucking insane. I only ever had one example of this. Jack Butcher, who does visualize value. Graphic designer worked with huge companies for a long time, left to go and do things on the internet. Very influenced by Naval's work came up sort of the same time as me and George Mack. It's come to the England game at Houston in Dallas with us this week. He decided to restrict himself one font, one colorway, one style of design, geometric shape. And it meant that all of that. Dude, you're a graphic artist. The clue is in the name. It's about the graphics. It's about how they're font and the drop shadow and how well this thing's rendered and the color gradient. No, I don't want to do that. All I want to do is focus on the two things that matter most, which is what is the quote that I'm choosing to represent or the idea that I'm choosing to represent and the way that I'm representing it. That's it. So you only had two things and he blew the-- - And I've been talking-- - Really hard about those two things. - He blew the-- and yeah, so he was choosing the best ideas and representing them in the best way. This is-- so that's fascinating. So one, he explores the space more readily once he limits those, what's there. And this happens in all sorts of things. Like there's this approach in sport learning called the Constraints Let approach or CLA that's been around for decades, but it's having a moment right now because Victor Wemme and Yamma and Shohe O'Tani have publicly associated with it. Where instead of sort of teaching someone a repetitive motion, the coach is like an environment architect where they try to set up just restrictions that force the person to find their own best solution and the key thing of it. So it's like Kyrie Irving, he has all these weird spins and angles and he grew up with a backboard that was missing a chunk. And so he had to like reach under and do all these sorts of things. And you see in these studies that you put like four on four soccer in a small space and people start exploring what's available. There's less available, but they explore what is available in this much more vigorous way and try all sorts of new and different things. So there's that aspect of it where he would explore the space more actively and vigorously because he limited it, but it's also in a way sort of textbook of artistic innovation. I mean, there's the history of artistic innovation. There's this woman who studied it named Patricia Stokes a psychologist and creativity researcher. And the theme that she identified in artistic innovation was this process that she called paired constraints, paired because it's two steps. The first is what she called a preclude constraint, which means blocking the familiar thing, like identifying the status quo and then block it. And then the next step is called a promote constraint. You take this thing that you do wanna do, you say I must use this. So the classic example is Claude Monet who said, all right, painters are using light and dark shades to portray light. I'm not gonna use light and dark shades. I'm not gonna use black at all. I'm not gonna mix anything with black, no black. He banished black so thoroughly that it is funeral and someone draped a black shroud over his coffin. One of his friends freaked out and started yelling, no black for Monet. And when we got a floral tablecloth and put it over his coffin. And Monet said instead of using light and dark, I'm just gonna use only pure color. And I'm just gonna put pure color next to each other and sort of a mosaic and see if I can give off any impression of light that someone could see. And that was the birth of impressionism. But that's kind of the pattern that she identified in artistic innovation. You say, here's the status quo. I'm blocking that. And here's this thing I'm forcing myself to use in its place, which sounds quite similar to what you were describing. Not presumably you can force a constraint that it turns out makes the work worse. Definitely. No question. This is a messy. As Stokes would document, often these innovators would do this repeatedly. And they would have one of the things about these successful innovators. And this is true not just an art, is that they have more failures than other people do. Like they have, you know, it's like Thomas Edison's, like over a thousand patents, most of them are stinkers, right? Don't lead anything. And then if you were world changing, does this suggest then that if you're going to take a constraint focused approach, you need to have a degree of longevity, resilience, and a sufficiently broad enough set, because they're likely to, if you're going heavy on constraint, you may end up with some of the winners. You may invent the light bulb, but you may also fall way worse than sort of the middle of the bell curve, which is typically where most people are going to give in all of the options. That makes sense. Yeah, yeah. I guess it depends. You draw all the dice a bunch of times. Yeah, I guess, I mean, I guess it depends what you're going for, right? The easiest thing to do is to just look at what everyone else is doing and do that and you probably kind of end up somewhere in the middle. If you can do that competently, right? If you're trying to do something-- That's AI. That's AI. That's AI. Yeah, so you may not want to be there much longer. But if you're trying to do something different or something new, then you have to come up with some way to force yourself to try something new. And what Stokes was arguing was, this is the structured way that these people do it. It doesn't guarantee success, but this gives you a structure to try to get somewhere new. You know, I've been trying to think about things that I've done through the podcast, 1,100 episodes. About 400 episodes in. We stopped using Smash Cut trailers at the start. So we never did the full on Hollywood style trailer thing, but we did use to just take episode 88 for you. 84 will probably have 15 seconds of 25 seconds of a good bit from the middle of the episode. We got rid of that. And now the episode always just launches with a question that I'm really interested in or a comment about something that I'm really interested in. That's constrained me down that I only have whatever five seconds to try and say something good that's as engaging or more engaging, hopefully, than a fully edited trailer with all of the movement and all of the-- this is the bit that's going to come up later on in the open loop and there's a Garnock effect kicks in. But what it means is it's focused my attention on what's the most compelling and interesting thing that sets the term for the rest of the conversation that I want to ask. That's fantastic. It forces you to clarify your priority. And by the way, I've never heard someone use the Garnock effect that fluently in a sentence, so congratulations on that. Unless they were describing the Garnock effect. Yeah, I think I've readpilled everybody on this enough. It's one of my favorites. James was in Austin, downtown. And this is four years ago. James, my business partner in Utonik, was sat next to me at a bar. And I just farted out the story about the Garnock effect. Six months later, it was in his best selling book. And he said-- That's a good magpie writer right there. Absolutely. So you said that about originality. How do you come to think about creativity and originality? Is there anything that's truly original? Only if it's not going to be that useful. So things that are truly original usually don't really connect with people in any particular way. So the idea that creativity and originality were synonymous wasn't even really a thing until the late 18th century romantic period, which was a reaction against the Enlightenment, basically, with its emphasis on logic and science and all this stuff. So there was a group that wanted to build what they called the cult of the hero. These creators that were just struck by divine lightning. And ideas came out of nowhere. But that's not the reality of how creativity works. I mean, before that, creativity was more associated with taking something that people generally understood. And your skill was in showing that you could make it different. So Shakespeare, for example, I mean, you didn't write Romeo and Juliet, or you didn't come up with the idea. No, not even cl-- no. He adapted it from Arthur Brook, who had his countrymen, who had adapted it from other people. By the time Arthur Brook was writing it, he had any introduction, you'll recognize this play, people, because they'd already seen it somewhere else. I mean, there are lines in Romeo and Juliet that today you would probably call close enough to plagiarism. There were-- there were chains. Shakespeare would put a spin on them, but there were very unique words that he would use in the same lines. But that wasn't a problem, because it was about him taking the hits, like a musician, and putting his spin on it. And that was seen as what you do, because people understand the story. And so now they get to really focus in on what is this person doing differently with this thing that I understand. And that's the case for artistic creatives. It's for-- like, to go back to Edison, he didn't invent a light bulb. He wasn't even close to inventing a light bulb. But he made it-- he got people to accept it, because he did things like keeping the wattage low and keeping lampshades, even though you didn't need them for gas, because he didn't have gas lamps anymore, because it gave this sense of familiarity. What modern designers call skewomorphism, where you give a new thing, characteristics of the old thing, so that people understand what they're supposed to do with it. So you have folders on your computer, why the first electric cars had a thing that looked like a gas nozzle that plugged into where the non-existent gas tank is. And so any idea-- the more radical an idea is, the more important it actually is to ground it in something that people already understand. So I think this is also a more democratic view of creativity, because you don't need to just come up with this bolt of lightning. It's like, take something that's there and start tweaking. There is a judgmentalness. And understandably, you've spent a long time coming up with an idea and somebody else comes along and takes it. Probably likely to get pretty pissy. I think that's the typical way that people approach idea ownership in the modern world. But yeah, that line, originality is just undetected plagiarism. And that's why I've been thinking a lot about Suno, this AI music thing. Have you tried it? I haven't tried it now. It is fucking terrifying how good it is. I mean, I saw there was just like some huge hit, right? There was just like-- A number of artists are over half a million plays a month on Spotify, which is a big band. And they don't exist. It's all silicon. But I've been thinking about that. And obviously, there's an awful lot of pushback from musicians that this is turning a much more sacred industry than content creation, which I don't think anybody thought was that sacred to start with. Your Instagram newsfeed hasn't been the place of sort of the highest good in terms of artist. Artism. However, they have been getting increasingly unhappy and saying this should be stopped or this should be banned or it should have some sort of label on it. And I understand why, because if you've spent a decade or two decades learning to play the guitar, That feels like a high cost. that some guy that's able to just prompt an app on his phone has slipped-streamed, being able to speedrun this thing that you're supposed to put your time in, not at the same level that starting a podcast is. A podcast is also gonna get pissy about notebook LM and other services similar to that, taking our jobs. But broadly, a podcast is just a good dinner. Like, and everybody's had a good dinner. So the skill gap seems to be less. Like, we've put less in on the front end, even though when you get to the top, like hopefully you develop some skills, but no one has spent 20 years podcasting in their bedroom to finally go out onto the stage to play the main gig that they've always wanted to with the equivalent of their guitar. But the, like, ethics of it sort of fall apart a little bit when you realize that every musical movement has just built on the ones that came before. And every great musician has taken something that they loved from their inspo and just tweaked it a little bit because my guitar only had four strings. So I had to do it. My guitar only had one string. So I had this particular constraint. You're well, the corpus that you have taken your inspiration from, or your originality is just undetected plagiarism there. This is just easier to detect. Because the corpus that it's learning from has been literally taken from everyone is opposed to a elevator jingle that you were listening to in the airport. And you realize that's an interesting chord progression. I hadn't really thought about using three over four as opposed to a four of it, whatever the fuck. Like, it's more obvious when we see that plagiarism now and I think that's why people are getting increasingly territorial about their ideas. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of deep philosophical questions embedded in that. How much does the human involvement matter, right? Does it matter? Do people only care about the product? I mean, because obviously there's the, I mean, look, I'm a book author. Like, Garb stuff is, you know, my works, Pirated the Day, it comes out, right? But I'm not territorial about ideas. I mean, it's a tough one. It's a tough one. And I think there's, I think it's a bit of a golden age for in-person events, like in-person podcasts, in-person concerts because people do want that humanness to it. But for the things that are gonna play on Spotify a million times, do they care about that? I'm not so sure. Yeah. And I think that's, you know, one of the legal arguments that gets made. I mean, I've gotten notices, you know, when AI's like, digested my books for like class action suits and all that stuff. And those notices, my understanding is that they're primarily because they pirated them. Not because they were using them, but because they got them in a pirated method. But had they just bought them and digested it into the model, is that tan amount to a person who could just read a ton. Yeah. And now it's a part of my inspiration soup. Yeah, maybe. I've learned from over a thousand podcast episodes that the easier you make your health routine, the more consistent you'll be. It's like golf, right? You want to keep it simple and not mix a bunch of pills. You want the eye of the tiger, not the DUI of the tiger. That's why I'm such a huge fan of AG1. One scoop contains 75 vitamins, minerals, probiotics and whole food source ingredients in a single daily drink. And now they've taken it a step further with AG1 next gen, back by four clinical trials. And in those trials, it was shown to fill common nutrient gaps and improve key nutrient levels in just three months and increase healthy gut bacteria by 10 times even in people who already eat well. Gone are the days of needing to buy a load of pills in the gym parking lot from some juice, bro and a cyber truck. But if you're unsure about it, AG1's got a 90 day money back guarantee. So you can try it every single day for three months. And if you do not like it, they will give you your money back. Right now, you can get a free AG1 welcome kit. It includes a bottle of D3K2, an AG1 flavor sampler and that 90 day money back guarantee by going to the link in the description below. I had to drink AG1.com/autom wisdom. How do you, okay, so how do you break with habit and convention that's come before them in this, in this way? Break instead of embedding in it, like if you want to get somewhere new, I think first identifying what it is, what do you want to break with, right? So there's some of the innovators in the book that I write about, like for example, Virginia Woolf. There's one of the, I'm a big fiction writer 'cause I'd read her 'cause I think you have to read, if you want to be a great writer, fiction has much more structural diversity. So I think it's important to read for someone who wants who cares about their writing craft. I care about writing craft a lot even though maybe it's getting commodified, but even when AI turns out my light time to be doing it because I just find it very engaging. But she was writing these, she's written three of the 100 best books ever written, probably, but before that, she was writing these conventional books and she wasn't happy with them, but she couldn't get out of that mode. And so she took this time to start writing essays about what the conventional status quo of the time was, reading all these books, defining it, and saying, look, these modern novels at the time they're out of step, like life has become more complex than these things reflect. And so she really defined what the status quo was, and then literally said, now I'm blocking this. Here are these techniques of writing that every popular writer is using, including me, and I'm not allowed to do this anymore. You know, and for example, a narrator that knows everything about the characters, I'm not allowed to do it anymore. And that's how she came up with what we now call stream of consciousness, basically, by really working hard to define what is the status quo, and then saying, I'm not allowed to do it. And then she launched in these short stories, each one of which was a single experiment in a different form of narration. And then one of those experiments, she was like, this is the thing. And then she took off in her next three books, were three of the greatest ever written. Didn't Stan Lee use this as well? Stan Lee was, he had some constraints forced on him, where he was the editor at a comic company, Atlas Comics, and their whole business strategy was to pump out a huge volume of comics. They were a volume shop, fire hose of content. And then their rivals, DC became their distributor and limited them to only about eight titles a month. So they were like, they kneecapped their business strategy, basically. And so Stan Lee, so, okay, we only get eight titles. Then we have to make long running stories with characters that people are going to engage with on a long-term basis. And that's when they came up with superheroes with character flaws, you know, teen angst, anger problems, all these things, and that was the-- More complex. That was the birth of Marvel. That's where they rebranded his Marvel. They were forced into that. If they were allowed to keep, they never, there would be no Marvel, if they hadn't been limited by their own rival to a small number of titles a month and had to figure out how to make longer stories that had had narrative development. So cool. Okay, so do you think that designing with constraints in mind leads to better designs, then, like this principle of universal design? In many cases, some people find this controversial, but the idea of universal design, it came out of the disability rights movement in the 1960s. But the idea was that if you design for people, the most constrained users, let's say those are people who are young or old or big or small or pets, whatever, or have disabilities, you'll often be identifying user problems that are just extreme versions of problems that many more users have. And so it can show you where to focus your design effort. So some of the simple things in the world, like the reason that curbs have a part that's level with the street, those are originally made for wheelchairs, but it turns out they're better for everybody, right? Or web pages that work on mobile have these hierarchical, logically structured menus. And but that really came out of making websites that could be read by screen readers for people with visual impairment. But that led to the need to hierarchically organize these menus on websites, which turns out to be beneficial for everybody. Or one of the examples I use in the book where, I've lost it now, but I gained about 12 pounds to research one chapter because I had to do an army obstacle course, wearing body armor from Vietnam to the present. And I'm not a big guy. And so some of this stuff like, I weighed me if once I had like water and batteries and all this stuff. And I was there because I was learning about the design of modern body armor. And what had happened since about Vietnam, it had just gotten heavier and heavier and heavier and heavier. Especially like in Iraq, when people could be hit by shrapnel from any standpoint, they just like covered turned soldiers into turtles. And they were protected, but they couldn't move. And that caused all these other dangers. And then about 10 years ago, when women were first allowed into the close combat force, in the military for the first time, they realized the body armor was way too heavy. And so the army had to design body armor specifically for women. So it had to be smaller, more mobile. You could mix and match parts. And they made it much lighter. And it turned out that it was better for a huge portion of the force. So they had to start calling it, they had things like a notch in the back for a hair bun, but it turns out everyone wants to be able to raise their head when they're lying prone on the ground. Or to be able to shoulder a rifle, things like that. And so this armor that was designed specifically with women in mind, who were only like one to two percent of the close combat force, ended up being used by a ton of the men. So the army actually had to rebrand it as unisex just to get all the guys, like who would be good for it. Use it. - All right. - So it came out of, you know, studying these very specific mobility problems and ended up building something better for everyone. - What was that story about, was it the F-16 seat? - Oh yeah, yeah. This was pre-F-16, I believe, where, when Jets were proliferating, there were a whole bunch of accidents in the Air Force. And like, there was one weekend where there were like 17 different accidents, not all deaths, but accidents. And at first, the Air Force thought it was pilot error. And then they commissioned a young lieutenant to study, these cockpits had been created based on the average measurements of a whole bunch of pilots. and this young lieutenant, the they commissioned a study at, went and started taking body measurements and realized there is no such thing as the average pilot. Like if you took even three measurements on someone, you know, arm length, thyser conference and height, it was like 3% of people who would even be in the middle 30% tiles just with those three measures. So in designing this cockpit for the average pilot, they had actually designed it for for no one. And so the answer was adjustable cockpits and they started having a lot fewer accidents. So still of this mean that doing one thing at a time is crucial, I have to assume that multitasking is basically the enathomer of being able to do this well. Multitasking is worse than I thought it would be. Well, so first of all, it's not really possible because it's actually our brain. That's not true. There's some types of multitasking that are possible. We can walk and talk at the same time. When we're combining it with a function that's basically automatic, you know, we can do things and breathe, then multitasking is possible. But the way that people generally think about it, two different cognitively engaged tasks, is not passing about parallel processing when in fact it's task switching. That's right. You have to drop one set of rules and activate another one and there's always a cost when you do that. So it's Gloria Mark, a psychologist who studies people at work, says your brain's like a whiteboard and you erase when you switch, but there's that residue left for the next thing and it interferes with the next thing that builds up over the day until you sleep, basically. And she's been studying people at work. Her research is the scariest thing that went into the book, I think. She's been studying people since about 2000 and when she started, like she would, first she would sit behind people with a stopwatch. These days it would be keyloggers and cameras and everything. People were switching tasks about every three minutes on average. Then by 2012 it was every 75 seconds. Then by 2022 it was every 45 seconds. That's where it's stuck for a few years. And that's terrible for your ability to get anything done. The more switches someone does a day, the lower their end of day productivity and the higher their end of day stress. That measured by things like heart rate variability and immune function, like you can see this huge impact on stress. And the scariest thing is she found that your attention gets trained. So such that if you're interrupted by notifications or other people or whatever all day and then you suddenly say I'm putting this away, it's time to focus, you will self interrupt with intrusive thoughts at the rate to which you've become accustomed. As if we have this internal distraction barometer that wants to keep a certain cadence going. And so the ways to combat this are to try to work in blocks where she found that people a few years ago were doing about 77 different email. So in and out of the inbox about 77 times a day on average, which actually sounds a little low to me. If you have to answer all those emails, but can you do it in one or three or five or seven blocks where you're just doing email and then you're not doing email and have a block of other things and you can start to regain some of your ability to pay attention. One thing I find for me, this isn't from Dr. Marx and keep a pad next to yourself by the way. So when those intrusive thoughts pop in, you write it down, cognitive outsourcing. One thing that's I've found useful is what I call the Hemingway Principle where Ernest Hemingway would stop his work day in the middle of a sentence. Because then the next morning he knows an important thing that I am starting with is this sentence. So I try to make the last thing I do in every work day defining what is the important thing I'm going to start in the morning because it kind of saves me from two possible problems. One, getting lost in feeds, mindless stuff, or two, getting lost in my inbox or falling prey to this thing called the mere urgency effect where people prioritize things that feel urgent over things that are important, even if it's a worse use of time. You've got the eyes on how a matrix upside down. Just a little as I got into the key as well with that open loop. For sure. The night thing. Very cool. Who are your favorite examples of people who locked in singularly? Very well. My favorite examples. It's a good question. I mean, I love the example of I write about Isabella Yende, but I would say that because I'm a writer again, I really strongly identify as a writer, as a craftsman in that way. And for this book, I got to shadow one of the greatest living writers. Isabella Yende, who didn't start publishing books until she was about 40, and then started her first book on January 8, has started a new book every January 8, assuming the previous one is done since then, since the age of 40. It's been 44 years now. She's produced a bestseller about every 18 months on average for 44 years, 80 million copies, sold. And she organized her life around ritual. And again, this started when she was just before she was 40, every book January 8, she clears out this room. But before she had all these resources, she didn't have a closet, right? Wherever she could, she makes a quiet space, designates certain times. She lights a candle to start her work day, blows it out at the end, closes the door, so that story is staying for you there. And she implemented all of these rituals. She puts a certain book of Pablo Neruda poems under her computer, just for inspiration. But really all this stuff is a cue, like a basketball player who takes three dribbles and claps before they shoot a free throw. You start to associate these rituals with how you get into your headspace for performance. And so as she said, like when I was around her, her family would say, "If you want anything from her, she has this big foundation, she's given $20 million of her book proceeds to. You have to get it by January 7, because then her life turned outward as she calls it, is disappearing." And everyone around her knows that and respects that. And so it was just amazing to see that and think about, "What could I take for myself?" But just to be around someone like that, I will say though, she offered to send her an advance copy of the book because she's in the book. And it was like April. And so she probably just started a novel, she can't read it. So she emails back, "Yes, send me a copy." As you know, it was January, it was recently, so I started another book I can't read it, but send it thanks by. Great, perfect answer. Like I know she's locked in. And then I, just a few weeks ago, I get a message from her saying, like, "I'm loving the book all this time." Like, "What are you doing? You're supposed to be writing, not reading anything." And she sends me this email. Can I read the email? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. She says, "She said I could share this." She says, "I started a novel on January 8 and gave myself a deadline to finish a first manuscript by the end of March, which is crazy." She says, "The reason for this short deadline is not important." So whatever it is, she doesn't want to tell me. She said, "My agent, my brother read it and liked it a lot. It still needs polishing, but it's May, and I find myself without work until next January 8. I'm going crazy. I'm getting rid of my clothes, replacing the furniture, walking in circles, reading compulsively, et cetera." Your book's been an inspiration. I need to give myself a task with boundaries, for example. Write a novel set in Lima in the year 1610 about a cowardly Spanish soldier and Inca maid in the Inquisition. Or a story set in 1810, Ireland about a girl/witch expelled from her village who seeks revenge. You get the idea. I can't start writing until January 8, but I can start researching and planning. I have total freedom to do whatever I want, and in my age 84, I have no obligation to keep writing. This freedom is lethal. Help. Exclamation point, exclamation point, exclamation point. Love your penpal. Then an hour later, she sends another email that says, "Have any ideas for me? Not the Inquisition or the Irish Witch?" So it's kind of. It's free to make. It's free to make. She, because her whole life has been this cycle, this ritual, and all the sudden, she decided to give herself this ridiculously short deadline for reasons I don't know. And has suddenly found herself without that structure that gave meaning and pace and seasonality to her life. Jared, you ever considered that you might have a drinking problem? I don't consider a lacrosse. Well, you drank an entire case of athletic brunque last night, but they're non-alcoholic. And that's not a problem? Sorry, man. I just kept charging away for the regret to creep in. Never happened. The most people, like Jared, don't want to change what they drink. They just don't want the next day to be a complete write-off. And that is why I'm such a huge fan of athletic brunque. They make the best NA brews on the planet. You can find athletic brunque's best selling lineup at grocery or liquor stores near you or best option, get a full variety pack of four flavors shipped direct to your door. Right now, get 15% off your first online order by going to the link in the description below or heading to athleticbrunque.com/modernwistam using the code "modernwistam" or "checkout". That's athleticbrunque.com/modernwistam and "modernwistam" or "checkout". Nearby, a terms and conditions apply, athletic brunque company fit for all times. Bottoms up. There's an interesting trend that's going on at the moment. You interchangeably use the word "maximizer" with optimizer early run. I do think that kind of the era of the optimizer is maybe we're toward the tail end of it now, but has certainly been around the back. No, you think? Yeah, more. This is me licking my finger and putting it in the air. There is a big pushback at the moment against over-optimization against, I think what people see is an unnecessary obsession with tracking metrics, with restricting life, especially what's seen as being associated with fun, not drinking alcohol, not staying up late, not cheating on your diet, not training, etc, etc. And I get it, I do understand, and I've certainly gone through my era of David Allen's getting things done and Pomodoro timers and Cal Newport. I think everybody kind of goes through that and squeezes themselves out of the aperture of the anus on the other side of it, which is pretty important. What's fascinating to me though is what people see routine as when they can't understand why the routine is there is something much closer to superstition than preparedness, that why are you doing all of this stuff? Like, it doesn't relate to your performance. performance in any case. Why are you lighting the candle? The candle doesn't matter. I think baseball is probably the canonical example of this, where it's a sport that's very iterative, that success and failure in each of those iterations is very tightly defined. You either got on base or you didn't get on base. And you see the players in between every pitch, one glove, other glove, tap tap, helmet, sand, wiggle. But like everybody has, I mean, there's stories of baseball players who didn't clean the helmet for their entire career, because they thought it would become imbued with some special sacred. And if I change this thing, that is the reason. Yeah, it is. It becomes way closer to a rain dance than it does to a ritual or a routine. And you kind of slippery slope your way down. I think the era of the optimizer, it's having a huge wobble. If there was a VIX index for optimizers at the moment, it would be fucking through the roof. And I think that this is because people feel like they're overwhelmed. I think that it is due to massive amounts of optionality, chaos, unpredictability about the future, is they are going to take my job, is they're going to come and fucking blow everything up. In that, I just want a little bit of simplicity. I want to do something that feels like fun, and I don't want the rest of my life to feel like homework. That makes sense. I mean, I'm a self-improvers, I've felt those things. Sometimes I kind of like experimenting on myself. At the same time, I was division 1,800 meter runner. And the better I got, the actually, the less I used to commit, eventually, I said, "I don't need to watch anymore. "I can go by feel because I understand this well enough." And I thought that was sort of freeing. On the other hand, so I try to think of this because I do have a tendency. I have some maximizing tendencies myself, and I have a tendency to get overwhelmed when I see some of these optimization things. That's the thing, you know? - It's going to be the answer. - But then if you have enough of them, it's like, "Okay, I have to write five pages in the morning, "and then I have to do this kind of exercise." - Oh, well. - And so I try to ask myself sometimes, if there were one behavior I wanted more of right now. If I could only pick one behavior that I wanted more of right now for myself, what would it be? And I find that it's just like a helpful thought exercise for me to say, like, I'm just gonna do this one. - I don't know if it's true, but I've heard this story a bunch of times that for a very long time, and maybe even still now, every decision that Elon made, Tesla, SpaceX, was run through the same single-ordinating principle, which was does this get us closer to Mars. No, it's definitely changed at least 'cause he spotted with the moon more than he is with Mars at the moment, and that Bezos had the same thing Amazon, which was does this improve customer experience. If you have a single-ordinating principle, one thing that everything else gets squeezed through, it's pretty easy to understand, does this thing contribute to the world that goal or not? As soon as you have two or three or four different conflicting goals, well, this one's gonna improve goal A, but actually take a little bit of a hit on goal B, and it's gonna make goals C, it's neutral for goal C, but it's gonna make goals C a little bit easier. But I value goal B a little bit more than C and A, so it's really, really hard to work out, but if you squeeze that down, and I think this is one of the unseen benefits of doing macro multitasking too, from a life direction perspective, not just within the day, but across periods of time. Absolutely pro macro multitasking over, yeah. Go ahead, sorry, continue. Yeah, just the periodization. Periodization of goals, right? Like you'll make, you will lose more fat in six months if all you're doing is fat loss, and you will gain more muscle in six months if all you're doing is muscle building, which means that across a year, you can lose more fat and gain more muscle if you do them separately than if you try and do 12 months of them together. Absolutely, and I think you'll do those things, right? Yeah, you'll do them better. You'll bring clear easier, you'll be less- Concelected. Yeah, yeah, totally agree. What about avoiding constraints becoming too constraining? How do you know when the problem is too much freedom or too much constraint? Yeah, I think there's an art to that, right? I think you can see in studies, for example, of problem-solving, when people are basically told not only what they have to do, but how they have to do it, that's too much constraint. Like their ingenuity or creativity goes way down. So you'll see it in these studies of mechanical inventions, like if people are given 100 pieces and told to make anything, they make less creative inventions than if they're given only 20 pieces and said you have to make a piece of furniture. But if they're given only 20 pieces and told that they have to make a chair, then it goes the other way, like the creativity totally drops. So if you say, could I still surprise myself and the answer is no, then your way too constraints. I think the point is to leave that wiggle room where you're forced to explore. That's fascinating. What have you applied to your own life beyond the dance halls and the pickle bowl and the turning up at the same time? Oh yeah. I mean, I totally, I do my work completely in blocks now, which requires a little more pre-planning, right? So this is a block room to be doing email. This is a block room to be doing research or writing or whatever it is. And again, the last thing I do at the end of every workday is to say, what is the important thing I'm going to start with tomorrow? So I'm not making any decisions when I wake up. I've already designated this important thing. I set decision rules for things that I do. I mean, my newsletter, this isn't going to make anybody want to read it, but is a satisfying exercise for me because I have these optimizing, maximizing tendencies. So if a book says, it has to be like a nine or 10, the newsletter, if I reach six and a half, I send it out. Right? Again, how do you make that judgment? It's just my own quality judgment. I mean, I always subjective, obviously. But I always have these other things in my head every time I send it out where I'm thinking, here's like three, you know, here's something else I should put in there. But if I feel like it's a six and a half out of 10 already, I send it. And that's been a very important satisfying exercise for me to actually ship, you know, to actually get things out the door. Because otherwise I can kind of feel that paralysis at anything short of a book, basically. What's the true meaning of the road less traveled? It's funny that you should ask that. It is not what the way that people usually often quote it in graduation season, which is that it's this ode to rugged individualism, the poem, saying that, you know, you take the road that less people have trod and therefore that's what led to your success. What Robert Frost was actually doing was sort of criticizing his Edward Thomas, his walking partner, who would, when they would come to two roads that looked the same would agonize over which one to take. And then no matter which one they take, when they were done, he would say we should have taken the other one. So if you look at that poem, the road less traveled closely, Frost says both roads were just as fair. He says neither had footprints in it from that morning. So he was actually criticizing the drive to think about what else you could have been doing. So I think the rugged individualism, like, zicking one other people's tagging, I think that's an important message also. But it's not the one he intended, and I think the one he intended is actually even more important for our modern condition. I've got an essay that I wrote a little while ago. "Does conscience does make cowards of a soul? The line comes from hamlet, and it's usually misheard as an insult, as if Shakespeare is sneering at morality, like ethics often soften us, or thought drains courage from the body. That's not what's happening. Shakespeare isn't attacking goodness, he's pointing itself awareness and naming its cost. In the, to be or not to be so illiquely, hamlet isn't really weighing life versus death. He's circling a more practical question. Why do humans hesitate to act, even when action would clearly relieve suffering? Why do we endure situations we don't want and why do we tolerate lives that we could in theory change? Well, pain isn't the only obstacle imagination is. By conscience, Shakespeare means something closer to consciousness, the ability to think ahead, judge ourselves and simulate futures before they arrive, to see consequences coming and experience them emotionally in advance, and unfortunately, that ability cuts both ways. The very capacity that makes us reflective, ethical, and intelligent also makes us hesitate. We imagine worst case futures so vividly that we treat them as already real. So courage isn't defeated by fear, it's defeated by simulation. - Passing, that's beautiful, pass. - Like cool. - Very cool. - Fantastic. - No, our ability to think about those counterfactuals, which I think is also unique as far as we can tell, among life, a blessing and a curse. - David Epstein, legend gentleman, you're all, from episode 84 to episode 1100 and whatever the hell this is, why should people go to keep up to date with everything you're doing? - Davidestine.com, they can find my stuff there, my newsletter, which is free, some tips from inside the box, info about my books. - Heck yeah, David, I appreciate you. All right, see you next time in my beauties. - Dude. (upbeat music) - Thank you very much for tuning in. If you enjoyed that episode, YouTube knows who you are, deeply. It thinks you're gonna like this one even more. One, press it.