Afleveringen
-
After nearly eight years of the Love Your Work podcast, Iâm quitting. Hereâs why, and Whatâs Next.
Podcasting is a bad businessThis is not the immediate reason Iâm quitting, but it is at the root: Podcasting is a bad business. When the indirect benefits of an activity run out, itâs hard to keep doing it if itâs not making money.
I realized long ago podcasting is a bad business, but I kept going for other reasons. Iâll explain why in a bit.
Though I didnât start my podcast with dollar signs in my eyes, I did at least hope I would grow to earn money doing it. Iâve earned about $32,000 in the eight-year history of Love Your Work. More than half of that has been from Patreon supporters, many of whom support for reasons other than the podcast.
During that time, Iâve spent:
$1,008 on hosting $11,749 on assistance with editing and publishing $241 on equipment And some other expenses, for a total of about $13,000In raw numbers, Iâve made a âprofitâ on the podcast. But, as I broke down in my latest income report, my âwageâ was about $6 an hour. My podcast comprised about 5% of my income over these eight years, and took much more than that portion of my time and energy.
Of course, I donât think about whether the podcast was worth it in terms of an hourly rate. Creative work happens in Extremistan, not Mediocristan, and Iâve made massive life choices to be free to explore creatively without worrying so much what Iâm earning in the short-term.
Ways to make money podcastingBut there are many different ways to make a podcast a solid business, and none of them worked for me, for various reasons.
Here are some of these business models, as they apply to the âthought-leaderâ space (Iâll ignore the more entertainment/infotainment space that podcasts like Gimletâs inhabit).
Be so massively famous, you can pick-and-choose advertisers, while demanding a lot of money. This is where Tim Ferriss and Joe Rogan are. They both started with large platforms, and applied whatever talents that helped them earn those platforms to make their podcasts huge. After more than fifteen years as a creator, I have a modest platform, but orders of magnitude smaller. Build a âcontent machineâ that manufactures ad slots. I wonât name names, but youâve heard these podcasts. Theyâre formulaic and donât seem to discern much who they have as a guest, nor what sponsors they accept. This business model is why my inbox is still full of pitches â they think I actually want more guests, because more guests would mean more ad slots. It takes a very rare set of circumstances for me to be excited to interview someone. Share information that directly helps people make money. If you have tactical and actionable information thatâs useful to professionals in a specific industry, you can charge for premium podcast content. Iâm not as interested in the tactical and actionable as I am in the abstract and exploratory. Cover a niche topic. If you have a leading podcast about a very specific topic, advertisers within that niche will be willing to pay high rates to reach that audience. I didnât want to build my podcast according to a specific topic â more on that later. Have a âback-endâ business. If you have a thriving consulting business, or training programs to sell, you can attract more clients and customers through your podcast. As I wrote in my ten-year reflections, âI want to make a living creating. I donât want creating to be merely a marketing strategy for other things. Is that completely insane?âI flirted with success in a few of these business models. Early on, I hoped my podcast would be famous enough to pick and choose advertisers at high rates. For a while, it looked like I had a chance. I was approached by a podcast network, and I had some reputable advertisers such as LinkedIn, Skillshare, Casper, Audible, Pittney Bowes, and University of California. Various times, I thought I was on the cusp of my âbig breakâ â such as when Love Your Work was featured on the Apple Podcasts home screen.
But the more I tried to go the âget famousâ route, the louder the siren-song of the âcontent machineâ route got. There were plenty of opportunities to do âinterview swapsâ with hosts I wasnât interested in interviewing. There were a few advertisers that had money, but whose products felt sleazy. Joining a podcast network would have pressured me to crank out content even if I didnât feel like it. There was (and still is) the never-ending stream of pitch emails for guests. I had too much wax in my ears to go the âcontent machineâ route.
Not included in my lifetime revenue-estimates for Love Your Work is money I made through the âback-end businessâ route. I was somewhat comfortable with this model, but I havenât made a course in years, as Iâve been focused on writing books. And as bad a business as people say writing books is, itâs better than making a podcast.
The podcast has helped me sell books in more ways than one. One way is that people who listened to the podcast bought my books. The other way is, making my podcast helped me write my books.
This brings me to the reason I kept making my podcast, even after I realized it wasnât a good business.
Make for what making makes youIn my sixteen years experimenting with different business models as an independent creator, Iâve settled on one thing that works: Make for what making makes you.
If making a podcast, writing a book, sending a weekly newsletter â you name it â merely makes you money, and doesnât make you who you want to be, whatâs the point?
Sure, sometimes you donât feel like creating, and you do it anyway. Yes, sometimes you pick one project over another because you think it will be more lucrative. But you can only redirect the river that is your creativity so much before it overflows and returns to its natural path.
I learned from my guestsWhen I started Love Your Work, and was struggling to make it big enough to work with an ad model, even if I wasnât bringing in lots of ad revenue, I was still connecting with and learning from my guests. It was an incredible privilege to have in-depth conversations with people like Seth Godin, Elise Bauer, and David Allen. It was like having my own personal advisory board of heroes.
Talking to them helped me learn how to go off the beaten path and find my calling. I was able to find patterns in their stories that I could apply to my own life and career. I would be a completely different person today if I hadnât had those conversations.
It was time to exploreBut there came a point when doing interviews was no longer serving me the way it once had. It was when I had gained the confidence â thanks to my previous guests â to explore further my own ideas.
Thatâs when I stopped interviewing guests, so Iâd have more time to explore. Love Your Work shifted from my personal advisory board to my personal sounding board â a sort of âopen mic,â where I fleshed out ideas. I got to see how it felt to effortfully explore each idea. I got to hear how they sounded when I read them aloud. I got to feel how they resonated (or didnât) with others.
It helped me write my booksA couple years after I started Love Your Work, I started writing a book called Getting Art Done. Getting Art Done turned out to be three books, two of which Iâve published. Love Your Work has been there to help me explore the ideas in these books. The Heart to Start was full of conversations from my early guests, and came from my very real struggles in gaining the confidence to take my ideas seriously enough to pursue them. Mind Management, Not Time Management came from my very real struggles to harness my creative energy and push my ideas forward.
As I work on the final book in the Getting Art Done trilogy, Finish What Matters, Iâm asking myself, What struggle does this book come from? Clearly, Iâve finished a lot of creative work: three books, over two-hundred consecutive weekly newsletters, and over three-hundred episodes of this podcast. But as Iâve dwelt on that final word in the title, matters, Iâm asking myself if Iâm really working on what matters?
Love Your Work and Getting Art Done have been an exploration in creative productivity. But at some point, writing about Resistance becomes a form of Resistance. I donât feel Iâve reached that point yet, but I donât want to. If Iâm going to learn enough to write Finish What Matters, I have to really test my ideas of what matters.
Iâve probably explored enough ideas, through Love Your Work, that I want to develop further in Finish What Matters. But for the time being, I need space to explore what matters. Thatâs the biggest reason Iâm quitting Love Your Work. I had considered doing so in the past, but I kept hoping Iâd know Whatâs Next before I quit. Iâve come to realize that I canât know Whatâs Next until I have the space to explore.
Whatâs Next is finding Whatâs NextItâs a little scary to have that void. But itâs also exciting. Furthermore, Iâve faced The Void many times before: when I started on my own, after finishing each book, and a little bit after each podcast episode or newsletter. Whatâs scarier now than facing the void is that Iâll stick with whatâs safe, and distract myself into dying with my best creations inside me.
I could just say Iâm taking a break, or not say anything at all and stop until I felt inspired to make a new episode. Iâve talked before about how I struggle to burn my boats and close doors. So, Iâm calling it quits, knowing I could always drop another episode in the feed down the line if I wanted to. But I hope I find something that matters more, before that ever happens.
Thank you for listening!Thank you for listening to Love Your Work. Thank you especially to my Patreon supporters, who can of course feel free to stop supporting, or keep supporting for the bonus content, and to support Whatâs Next. To learn Whatâs Next once I find it, be sure to subscribe to my newsletter at kdv.co.
One last time, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Image: Pierrot Lunaire by Paul Klee
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email New bonus content on Patreon!I've been adding lots of new content to Patreon. Join the Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/quit-podcasting/
-
Youâve probably heard that, in a blind taste test, even experts canât tell between white and red wine. Even if this were true â and itâs not â it wouldnât matter.
I was in Rome last month, visiting some Raphael paintings to research my next book, and stopped by the Sistine Chapel.
Iâve spent a good amount of time studying what Michelangelo painted on that ceiling. There are lots of high-resolution images on Wikipedia.
But seeing a picture is nothing like the experience of seeing the Sistine Chapel. Youâve invested thousands of dollars and spent fifteen hours on planes. Youâre jet-lagged and your feet ache from walking 20,000 steps. Youâre hot.
When you enter, guards order you to keep moving, so you wonât block the door. They corral you to the center, and you can finally look up.
When you hear wine experts canât tell between white and red wine, you imagine the following: Professional sommeliers are blindfolded, and directed to taste two wines. They then make an informed guess which is white, and which is red. In this imaginary scenario, they get it right half the time â as well as if they had flipped a coin.
If it were true wine experts couldnât tell between white and red wine, the implication would be that the experience of tasting wine is separate from other aspects of the wine. That the color, the shape of the glass, the bottle, the label, and even the price of the wine are all insignificant. That they all distract from the only thing that matters: the taste of the wine.
Thereâs some psychophysiological trigger that gets pulled when you tilt your head back. Maybe it stimulates your pituitary gland. When you have your head back and are taking in the images on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, you feel vulnerable. (You literally are vulnerable. You canât see whatâs going on around you. Youâd be easy to physically attack.)
What you see is overwhelming. As you try to focus your attention on some detail, some other portion of the imagery calls out and redirects your attention. This happens again and again.
After a while, your neck needs a rest, and you return your gaze to eye-level. And this is almost as cool as the ceiling: You see other people with their heads back, their eyes wide, mouths agape, hands on hearts, tears in eyes. You hear languages and see faces from all over the world. You realize they all, too, have invested thousands of dollars and spent fifteen hours on planes. They, too, are jet-lagged and hot and have walked 20,000 steps.
You can look at pictures of the Sistine Chapel ceiling on the internet. You can experience it in VR. In many ways, this is better than going to the Sistine Chapel. You can take as much time as you want, and look as close as you want. You donât have to spend thousands of dollars and fifteen hours on a plane, take time off work, or even crane back your neck.
But seeing the Sistine Chapel ceiling on the internet or even VR is only better than seeing it in person, in the way that a spoonful of granulated sugar when youâre starving is better than a hypothetical burger in another iteration of the multiverse.
Weâve seen an explosion of AI capabilities in recent months. That has a lot of people worried about what it means to be a creator. Why do we need humans to write, for example, if ChatGPT can write?
The reason ChatGPTâs writing is impressive is the same reason thereâs still a place for things created by humans.
Anyone old enough to have been on the internet in the heyday of America Online in the 1990s will remember this: When you were in a chat room, most the conversations were about being in a chat room: How long have you been on the internet? Isnât the internet cool? What other chat rooms do you like? Part of the appeal of the question âASL?â â Age, Sex, Location? â was marveling over the fact you were chatting in real-time with a stranger several states away.
Or maybe you remember when Uber or Lyft first came to your town. For the first year or two, likely every conversation you had with a driver was about how long they had been driving, about how quickly the service had grown in your town, which is better â Uber or Lyft?, or which nearby cities got which services first.
The first few months ChatGPT was out, it was seemingly the only thing anyone on the internet talked about. But it wasnât because ChatGPTâs writing was amazing. ChatGPT is a bad writerâs idea of a good writer. It was because of the story: Wow, my computer is writing!
Now that much of the novelty of ChatGPT has worn off, many of us are falling into the Trough of Disillusionment on the Gartner Hype Cycle. Weâre realizing ChatGPT is like a talking dog: Itâs impressive the dog can appear to talk, but itâs not talking â itâs just saying the words itâs been taught. ChatGPT is very useful in some situations, but not as many as we had originally hoped.
What made us talk about the internet while on the internet, talk about Uber while in Ubers, and talk about ChatGPT while chatting with ChatGPT was the story. Once the story behind the internet or Uber wore off, we started to appreciate them for their own utility.
Part of whatâs cool about seeing the Sistine Chapel ceiling in VR is that â weâre seeing it in VR. But even if that werenât impressive, what would still be impressive about the paintings would be more than just that theyâre amazing paintings. Itâs incredible to us a human could paint such a massive expanse. We think about the stories and myths of Michelangelo, up on that scaffolding, painting in isolation. Part of our appreciation of the Sistine Chapel ceiling lies outside the ceiling itself. While marveling at it, we canât help but think of Michelangeloâs other masterpieces, such as the David or the PietĂ .
Lloyd Richards spent fourteen years writing Stone Maidens, and had almost no sales for decades. Suddenly, he sold 65,000 copies in a month. He was interviewed on the TODAY show, and got a book deal with a major publisher.
How did he do it? His daughter made a TikTok account. The first video showed Lloyd at his desk, and explained what a good dad he was, how hard he had worked on Stone Maidens, and how great it would be if he made some sales. Then the #BookTok community did the rest.
Stone Maidens is apparently a good book. But itâs no better today than it was all those years it didnât sell. Most the comments on Lloydâs TikTok account â which now has over 400,000 followers â arenât about what a great book Stone Maidens is. Theyâre about how Lloyd seems like such a nice guy, or how excited each commenter is to have contributed to his success.
The study that started the myth that wine experts canât taste the difference between white and red wine didnât show that. The participants in the study literally werenât allowed to describe the two wines the same way â they couldnât use the same word for one as the other. It wasnât blindfolded â it was a white wine versus the same wine, dyed red. The study wasnât about taste at all: Participants werenât allowed to taste the wine â they were only allowed to smell. And wine experts? That depends on your definition of âexpertâ. They were undergraduate students, studying wine. They knew more than most of us, but were far from the top echelon of wine professionals. Most damning for this myth was that the same study casually mentions doing an informal blind test: The success rate of their participants in distinguishing the taste of white versus red wine: 70%.
That this myth is false shouldnât detract from the point that even if it were true, it wouldnât matter. What the authors of this study found was not that wine enthusiasts couldnât tell between white and red wine, but that the appearance of a wine as white or red shaped their perceptions of the smell of the wine.
Once you bake a cake, you canât turn it back into flour, sugar, butter, and eggs. You canât extract the taste of a wine from the color, the bottle, your mental image of where the grapes were grown and how the wine was made, or even the occasion for which you bought the wine. Something made by an AI can be awesome, either because itâs really good at doing what itâs supposed to, or because you appreciate it was made by an AI. Something made by a human is often awesome because of the story of the human who made it, and the story you as a human live as you interact with it.
If you want to be relevant in the age of AI, learn how to bake your story into the product. Because AI canât bake.
Image: Figures on a Beach by Louis Marcoussis
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email New bonus content on Patreon!I've been adding lots of new content to Patreon. Join the Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/ai-cant-bake/
-
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
We trust the food we eat, the drinks we drink, and the air we breathe are safe. That in case theyâre unsafe, someone is working to minimize our exposure, or at least tell us the risks. In The Triumph of Doubt, former head of OSHA David Michaels reveals how companies fight for their rights to sell harmful products, expose workers to health hazards, and pollute the environment. They do it by manufacturing so-called âscience.â Most this science is built not upon proving theyâre not causing harm, but by doing whatever they can to cast doubt. Here, in my own words, is a summary of The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception.
Products we use every day cause harmChances are youâve cooked on a pan coated with Teflon. Teflon is one of many polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. When introduced in the 1940s, they were considered safe. We now know theyâre linked with high cholesterol, poor immune function, cancer, obesity, birth defects, and low fertility. PFAS, it turns out, have such a long half-life, theyâre called âforever chemicals.â PFAS can now be found in the blood of virtually all residents of the United States, and have been found in unsafe levels worldwide â in rainwater.
Youâve probably heard that, in moderation, alcohol is actually good for you. But even one drink a day leads to higher overall mortality risk. More than one drink, greater risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Alcohol is a causal factor in 5% of deaths worldwide â about 3 million a year. 13.5% of deaths between ages 20â39 are alcohol-related.
If youâre in pain after an injury or surgery, your doctor might prescribe for you an opioid. But the rise in opioid addiction is responsible for the first drop in U.S. life expectancy in more than two decades. Itâs sent shockwaves throughout society. Itâs helped launch the epidemics of fentanyl and heroin overdoses, and the number of children in foster care in West Virginia, for example, rose 42% in four years.
You might love to watch professional football. But NFL players are nineteen times more likely to develop neurological disorders, and thirty percent could develop Alzheimerâs or dementia from taking so many hits.
The âproduct defenseâ industry sows doubtHow have they done it? How have companies been able to manufacture and sell products that cause so much harm, for so long? They do it by defending their products, when the safety of those products are questioned. On the surface, thatâs not so bad. But besides lying and deliberately deceiving, they abuse societyâs trust in so-called âscience,â and our lack of understanding of how much we risk when we move forward while still in doubt.
The tobacco industry is a pioneer of product defenseThereâs an entire industry that helps companies defend their products from regulation: Itâs called, appropriately, product defense. The tobacco industry is most-known for its product defense. In 1953, John W. Hill of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton convinced the tobacco industry to start â one floor below his office in the Empire State Building â the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC). The TIRC was supposed to do rigorous scientific research to understand the health effects of smoking, but mostly they just attacked existing science, doing what they could to sow doubt.
Just a few years earlier, in 1950, a study had found heavy smokers were fifty times as likely as nonsmokers to get lung cancer. With the help of the TIRC, it would take a long time for these health risks to influence public policy. About thirty years later, most states had restricted smoking in some public places such as auditoriums and government buildings.
Smoking had proliferated in American culture when cigarettes had been provided in soldiersâ rations in WWI. Michaels describes one surgeon who, in 1919, made sure not to miss an autopsy of a man who had died of lung cancer, because it was the chance of a lifetime. He didnât see another case of lung cancer for seventeen years, then saw eight within six months. All eight had started smoking while serving in the war.
Today, more than a century after cigarettes were widely introduced, weâve finally seen a massive reduction in smoking in the U.S. We can fly on planes and go to restaurants and even bars, without being exposed to secondhand smoke.
The sugar industry has been at it even longerPredating the product defense efforts of the tobacco industry is actually the sugar industry. The Sugar Research Foundation was started in 1943. Scientific evidence first linked sugar with heart disease in the 1950s. In 1967, as Dr. Robert Lustig told us, Harvard scientists published in the New England Journal of Medicine an article blaming fat rather than sugar for heart disease. Fifty years later UCSF researchers discovered the scientists had been funded by the Sugar Research Foundation â which they hadnât disclosed. Even more misleadingly, they had disclosed funding that actually made them look more impartial â from the dairy industry.
Companies and industries set up âastroturfingâ organizationsThe Sugar Research Foundation and the Tobacco Industry Research Committee are are early examples of âastroturfingâ organizations. This tactic of the product defense industry involves setting up organizations with innocent- or even charitable-sounding names, then doing low-quality research to defend a company or industryâs interests.
The American Council for Science and Health has published articles opposing regulation of mercury emissions, and attacked science finding harm in consumption of sugar and alcohol. When the National Football League was first looking into the effects of playing their sport, they formed the MTBI. the âMâ in MTBI gave away their stance: TBI stands for Traumatic Brain Injuries, and this committee formed for finding the effects of brain injuries was called the Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries committee. The alcohol industry set up the Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation. The first board of directors included Peter Stroh, William K. Coors, and August A. Busch III. Their first president, Thomas B. Turner, was former dean of Johns Hopkins University Medical School, a tie of which they made good use in promoting their agenda â more on that in a bit. The American Pain Foundation ran campaigns to make pain medication more widely available for veterans, running ads reminding patients of their ârightâ to pain treatment. Astroturfing organizations are funded by âDark MoneyâAstroturfing organizations are funded by so-called âDark Moneyâ. In other words, they do whatever they can to hide where their funding comes from, lest their biases become obvious.
The American Council for Science and Health claims much of their funding comes from private foundations, but investigative reports have found 58% of it coming straight from industry, and that many of those private foundations have ties to corporations. Leaked documents show a huge list of corporate donors including McDonaldâs, 3M, and Coca-Cola. The NFLâs MTBI committeeâs papers included a statement saying, ânone of the Committee members has a financial or business relationship posing a conflict of interest.â Yet the committee consisted entirely of people on the NFLâs payroll: team physicians, athletic trainers, and equipment managers. Documents collected by the New York Times revealed that administrators at the The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism wanted to do a randomized clinical trial on the effects of alcohol. To fund the study, they went to industry, calling it âa unique opportunity to show that moderate alcohol consumption is safe.â They were going into the study with the conclusions already in mind, saying, âone of the important findings will be showing that moderate drinking is safe.â Several companies pledged nearly $68 million toward the $100 million budget. As part of the National Institutes of Health â a federal organization â the NIAAA was pitching this as a chance for the alcohol industry to use a government-funded study to prove their product was safe. Money directly from alcohol manufacturers was to be routed through the NIH Foundation, since itâs illegal for private companies to fund government studies. When the Senate Finance Committee began investigating ties between the American Pain Foundation and pharmaceutical companies, the APF quickly dissolved, apparently knowing what would be found otherwise.Besides private foundations, straight-up lying, and routing money through a federal foundation, another way of keeping money âdarkâ is by taking advantage of attorney-client privilege. By having the law firm pay accomplices, even if thereâs a lawsuit, the documents are private.
Using connections and flawed science to manufacture pseudo-eventsWhen corporations do get studies published about the risks of using their products, theyâre often low-quality studies. If they donât deliberately conceal their findings, they often use their connections to create what are essentially pseudo-events to prop up their flawed conclusions.
Internal documents from DuPont show they knew the PFAS in Teflon was a problem. In 1970, they found it in their factory workerâs blood. In 1981, 3M told them it caused birth defects in rats, and DuPontâs own workersâ children had birth defects at a high rate. In 1991, DuPont set an internal safety limit of 1 ppb. Meanwhile, they found a local water district had three times that amount. In 2002, they set up a so-called âindependentâ panel in West Virginia, and set a safe limit at 150 times their own internal safety limit â so theyâd have less-strict standards for polluting their communityâs drinking water. In 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency set a safe limit of 70 ppt (trillion!) â less than one-one-hundredth DuPontâs previous internal safety limit. The NFL did very little for many years to ask serious questions about the long-term effects on their players. When players Junior Seau and Dave Duerson committed suicide, they both shot themselves in the chest instead of the head, so their brain tissue could be studied after their deaths. The MTBI argued that players were clearly fine if they returned to play shortly after concussions. They abused the concept of survivorship bias, arguing that those who didnât drop out of football in college or high school and made it to the pros were more resistant to brain injury. The editor of the journal, Neurosurgery, which published MTBIâs papers, was a medical consultant to the New York Giants, and later to the commissionerâs office â a clear conflict of interest. I mentioned earlier the first president of the alcohol industryâs ABMRF was a former dean of Johns Hopkins. When ABMRF published a study, the Johns Hopkins press office would issue a press-release, which would instantly make the study seem more credible. One of the studies that has proliferated throughout media and culture, finding that moderate alcohol use is actually good for you, was a door-to-door survey â a very flawed methodology. Non-drinkers in a study are likely to include people who donât drink because theyâre already sick, or are former abusers of alcohol. One of the main âpapersâ the pharma industry used to defend their positions that opioids had a low risk of addiction was, from 1980, a five-sentence letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Itâs a letter, not a paper â there was no peer review. It has been cited hundreds of times in medical literature â often by researchers with ties to opioid manufacturers. TIME magazine unfortunately called it a âlandmark study.â (This is a great example of a pseudo-event: the proliferation of flawed information throughout media made it accepted as true.) The double-standard in access to study dataThe papers that do get published by the product-defense industry are usually not original studies. Theyâre often reanalysis of existing data. Industry takes advantage of the Shelby Amendment, which the tobacco industry promoted under the guise of concern over pollution.
The Shelby Amendment requires federally-funded researchers to share any data they collect. In this way, industry can reanalyze the data in ways that arrive at any conclusion they want. So, âre-analysisâ has its own cottage industry within product defense. When industry does conduct original studies, they donât have to share their data, and so it isnât subject to the same scrutiny.
Manufacturing doubt in other industriesThe Triumph of Doubt goes on and on with examples of deception and collusion from various industries. Some other highlights:
Volkswagen installed a device in their diesel cars to detect when their emissions were being tested. The device would activate, causing the car to pollute forty times less, only when being tested. Johnson & Johnson knew as early as 1971 their baby powder was contaminated with asbestiform particles â asbestos-like particles that cause cancer â but pressured scientists to not report them. Monsanto publishes many studies in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, which Michaels calls âa known haven for science produced by corporate consultants.â Many authors have done work for Monsanto, donât disclose their conflicts of interest, and have denied Monsanto had reviewed their papers â later litigation showed they had. Should chemicals be innocent until proven guilty?Thereâs a concept called the precautionary principle. It states that when we know little about what the consequences of an action will be, we should err on the side of caution. If a new chemical is developed, we should wait before we let it get into our food and water. If a new technology is invented, we should wait until we introduce it to society.
In criminal courts, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We like this, because we hate the idea of someone being thrown in jail despite being innocent. And we can physically remove someone dangerous from society and more or less stop them from continuing to harm others.
Criminal harm can be halted, chemical harm cannotBut this is also our policy for chemicals, drugs, and potentially dangerous activities. We have an extremely high bar for deciding something is harmful enough we should reduce our exposure to it. OSHA â the Occupational Safety and Health Administration â has exposure limits for only 500 of the many thousands of chemicals used in commerce. Because the regulatory process is so onerous, Michaels says, in the half-century OSHA has been around, theyâve updated only twenty-seven of those 500.
Yet, as with PFAS, even after we start reducing our exposure, the effects of harmful substances keep going. As one Stockholm University scientist has said about PFAS in rainwater, âWe just have to wait...decades to centuries.â And, unlike a criminal court, where the only people motivated to keep from punishing a defendant are the defendantâs lawyers and family members, huge networks of people stand to profit from harmful products â executives, shareholders, and entire industries have the incentives to conspire and collude.
Balancing harm with innovationOn the other hand, the precautionary principle can slow or halt innovation. Many products that may be harmful may also be useful. Teflon and other PFAS have a huge number of applications. Supposedly itâs been replaced by other chemicals in cookware â though theyâre probably similar (taking advantage of loopholes in the slow regulatory process). Supposedly exposure potential from cooking is low â but you know now how hard it is to âtrust the science.â
As horrifying as some of these abuses of science are, you canât be horrified by them without at least some sympathy for those who didnât want to get the COVID vaccine: If a product is immediately harmful to everyone who takes it, thatâs easy to prove. But could it harm some people in the long term? Itâs nearly impossible to be sure. Thereâs more money and power behind sowing reasonable doubt than behind exposing sources of harm. Meanwhile, itâs easy to sow and abuse the existence of doubt, and thatâs why itâs the main tactic used in product defense.
Thereâs your summary of The Triumph of DoubtIf you liked this summary, youâll probably like The Triumph of Doubt. As a career regulator, Michaels comes off as somewhat biased, clearly partisan at times, a little shrill with his use of dramatic terms such as âBig Tobaccoâ and âBig Sugar.â Get ready for lots of alphabet soup, as you try to keep track of the myriad agencies and foundations identified by acronyms.
Because of mediaâs key role in the doubt-sowing Michaels writes about, Iâll be adding this as an honorable mention on my best media books list.
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email New bonus content on Patreon!I've been adding lots of new content to Patreon. Join the Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/triumph-of-doubt/
-
According to philosopher Isaiah Berlin, people think in one of two different ways: Theyâre either hedgehogs, or foxes. If you think like a hedgehog, youâll be more successful as a communicator. If you think like a fox, youâll be more accurate.
Isaiah Berlin coined the hedgehog/fox dichotomy (via Archilochus)In Isaiah Berlinâs 1953 essay, âThe Hedgehog and the Fox,â he quotes the ancient Greek poet, Archilochus:
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one thing.
Berlin describes this as âone of the deepest differences which divide writers and thinkers, and, it may be, human beings in general.â
How are âhedgehogsâ and âfoxesâ different?According to Berlin, hedgehogs relate everything to a single central vision. Foxes pursue many ends, often unrelated or even contradictory.
If youâre a hedgehog, you explain the world through a focused belief or area of expertise. Maybe youâre a chemist, and you see everything as chemical reactions. Maybe youâre highly religious, and everything is âGodâs will.â
If youâre a fox, you explain the world through a variety of lenses. You may try on conflicting beliefs for size, or use your knowledge in a wide variety of fields to understand the world. You explain things as From this perspective, X. But on the other hand, Y. Itâs also worth considering Z.
The seminal hedgehog/fox essay is actually about Leo TolstoyEven though this dichotomy Berlin presented has spread far and wide, his essay is mostly about Leo Tolstoy, and the tension between his fox-like tendencies and hedgehog-like aspirations. In Tolstoyâs War and Peace, he writes:
In historic events the so-called great men are labels giving names to events, and like labels they have but the smallest connection with the event itself. Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in an historical sense involuntary and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.
In War and Peace, Tolstoy presents characters who act as if they have control over the events of history. In Tolstoyâs view, the events that make history are too complex to be controlled. Extending this theory outside historical events, Tolstoy also writes:
When an apple has ripened and falls, why does it fall? Because of its attraction to the earth, because its stalk withers, because it is dried by the sun, because it grows heavier, because the wind shakes it, or because the boy standing below wants to eat it? Nothing is the cause. All this is only the coincidence of conditions in which all vital organic and elemental events occur.
Is Tolstoy a fox, or a hedgehog? He acknowledges the complexity with which various events are linked â which is very fox-like. But he also seems convinced these events are so integrated with one another that nothing can change them. Theyâre âpredeterminedâ â a âcoincidence of conditions.â
A true hedgehog might have a simple explanation, such as that gravity caused the apple to fall. Tolstoy loved concrete facts and causes, such as the pull of gravity, yet still yearned to find some universal law that could be used to predict the future.
According to Berlin:
It is not merely that the fox knows many things. The fox accepts that he can only know many things and that the unity of reality must escape his grasp.
And this was Tolstoyâs downfall. Early in his life, he presented profound insights about the world through novels such as War and Peace and Anna Karenina. That was very fox-like. Later in his life, he struggled to condense his deep knowledge about the world and human behavior into overarching theories about moral and ethical issues. As Berlin once wrote to a friend, Tolstoy was âa fox who terribly believed in hedgehogs and wished to vivisect himself into one.â
Other hedgehogs and foxes in Berlinâs essayOther thinkers Berlin classifies as foxes include Aristotle, Goethe, and Shakespeare. Other thinkers Berlin classifies as hedgehogs include Dante, Dostoevsky, and Plato.
What does the hedgehog/fox dichotomy have to do with the animals?What does knowing many things have to do with actual foxes? What does knowing one big thing have to do with actual hedgehogs? A fox is nimble and clever. It can run fast, climb trees, dig holes, swim across rivers, stalk prey, or hide from predators. A hedgehog mostly relies upon its ability to roll into a ball and ward off intruders.
Foxes tell the future, hedgehogs get creditWhat are the consequences of being a fox or a hedgehog? According to Phil Tetlock, foxes are better at telling the future, while hedgehogs get more credit for telling the future.
In Tetlockâs 2005 book, Expert Political Judgement, he shared his findings from forecasting tournaments he held in the 1980s and 90s. Experts made 30,000 predictions about political events such as wars, economic growth, and election results. Then Tetlock tracked the performances of those predictions.
What he found led to the U.S. intelligence community holding forecasting tournaments, tracking more than one million forecasts. Tetlockâs own Good Judgement Project won the forecasting tournament, outperforming even intelligence analysts with access to classified data.
Better a fox than an expertThese forecasting tournaments have shown that whether someone can make accurate predictions about the future doesnât depend upon their field of expertise, their status within the field, their political affiliation, or philosophical beliefs. It doesnât matter if youâre a political scientist, a journalist, a historian, or have experience implementing policies. As the intelligence communityâs forecasting tournaments have shown, it doesnât even matter if you have access to classified information.
What matters is your style of reasoning: Foxes make more accurate predictions than hedgehogs.
Across the board, experts were barely better than chance at predicting what would or wouldnât happen. Will a new tax plan spur or slow the economy? Will the Cold War end? Will Iran run a nuclear test? Generally, it didnât matter if they were an economist, an expert on the Soviet Union, or a political scientist. That didnât guarantee theyâd be better than chance at predicting what would happen. What did matter is whether they thought like a fox.
Foxes are: deductive, open-minded, less-biasedFoxes are skeptical of grand schemes â the sort of âtheories of everythingâ Tolstoy had hoped to construct. They didnât see predicting events as a top-down, deductive process. They saw it as a bottom-up, inductive process â stitching together diverse and conflicting sources of information.
Foxes were curious and open-minded. They didnât go with the tribe. A liberal fox would be more open to thinking the Cold War could have gone on longer with a second Carter administration. A conservative fox would be more open to believing the Cold War could have ended just as quickly under Carter as it did under Reagan.
Foxes were less prone to hindsight bias â less likely to remember their inaccurate predictions as accurate. They were less prone to the bias of cognitive conservatism â maintaining their beliefs after making an inaccurate prediction. As one fox said:
Whenever I start to feel certain I am right... a little voice inside tells me to start worrying. âA âfoxâ
Hedgehogs are: deductive, close-minded, more-biased (yet more successful)As for inaccurate predictions, one simple test tracked with whether an expert made accurate predictions: a Google search. If an expert was more famous â as evinced by having more results show up on Google when searching their name â they tended to be less accurate.
Think about the talking-head people that get called onto MSNBC or Fox News (pun, albeit inaccurate, not intended) to make quick comments on the economy, wars, and elections â those people. Experts who made more media appearances, and got more gigs consulting with governments and businesses, were actually less accurate at making predictions than their colleagues who were toiling in obscurity. And these experts who were more successful â in terms of media appearances and consulting gigs â also tended to be hedgehogs.
Hedgehogs see making predictions as a top-down deductive process. Theyâre more likely to make sweeping generalizations. They take the âone big thingâ they know â say, being an expert on the Soviet Union â and view everything through that lens. Even if itâs to explain something in other domains.
Hedgehogs are more-biased about the world, and about themselves. They were more likely than foxes to remember inaccurate predictions they had made, as accurate. They were more likely to remember as inaccurate, predictions their opponents made that were accurate. Rather than change their beliefs, when presented with challenging evidence hedgehogâs beliefs got stronger.
Are hedgehogs playing a different game?Itâs tempting to take that and run with it: The close-minded hedgehogs of the world are inaccurate. Success doesnât track with skill. Tetlock is careful to caution that hedgehogs arenât always worse than foxes at telling the future. Also, there are good reasons to be overconfident in predictions. As one hedgehog political pundit wrote to Tetlock:
You play a publish-or-perish game run by the rules of social science.... You are under the misapprehension that I play the same game. I donât. I fight to preserve my reputation in a cutthroat adversarial culture. I woo dumb-ass reporters who want glib sound bites. ââHedgehogâ political pundit
A hedgehog has a lot to gain from making bold predictions and being right, and nobody holds them accountable when theyâre wrong. But according to Tetlock, nothing in the data indicates hedgehogs and foxes are equally good forecasters who merely have different tastes for under- and over-prediction. As Tetlock says:
Quantitative and qualitative methods converge on a common conclusion: foxes have better judgement than hedgehogs. âPhil Tetlock, Expert Political Judgement
Hedgehogs may make better leadersAs bad as hedgehogs look now, there are some real benefits to hedgehogs. Theyâre more-focused. They donât get as distracted when a situation is ambiguous. So, hedgehogs are more decisive. Theyâre harder to manipulate in a negotiation, and more willing to make controversial decisions that could make enemies. And that confidence can help them lead others.
Overall, hedgehogs are better at getting their messages heard. Given the mechanics of media today, that means the messages we hear from either side of the political spectrum are those of the hedgehogs. Hedgehog thinking makes better sound bites, satisfies the human desire for clarity and certainty, and is easier for algorithms to categorize and distribute. The medium is the message, and nuance is cut out of the messages by the characteristics of the mediums. Which increases polarization.
But, there is hope for the foxes. While the media landscape is still dominated by hedgehog messages that work as social media clips, there are more channels with more room for intellectually-honest discourse: blogs, podcasts, and books. And if many a ChatGPT conversation is any indication, the algorithms may get more sophisticated and remind us, âitâs important to consider....â
Hedgehogs, be foxes! And foxes, hedgehogs.If youâre a hedgehog, youâre lucky: What you have to say has a better chance of being heard. But it will have a better chance of being correct if you think like a fox once in a while: consider different angles, and assume youâre wrong.
If youâre a fox, you have your work cut out for you: You may have important â and accurate â things to say, but they have less a chance of being heard. Your message will travel farther if you think like a hedgehog once in a while: assume youâre right, cut out the asides, and say it with confidence.
Image: Fox in the Reeds by Ohara Koson
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email New bonus content on Patreon!I've been adding lots of new content to Patreon. Join the Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/hedgehogs-foxes/
-
Many creators and aspiring creators struggle not because they donât have enough ideas, but because they have too many. Their situations, in summary, are âToo many ideas, must pick one.â Embedded in this belief are assumptions that, if challenged, can help you feel as if you have just enough ideas.
In my recent AMA, I got a question Iâm asked about creativity, probably more than any other:
How can you pick a creative project when you have too many ideas?
Iâve experienced, âtoo many ideas, must pick one,â many times. I still often do. I of course answered this question in the AMA, but here Iâll answer more in-depth. This is the thought process I guide myself through when Iâm in the land of âtoo many ideas, must pick one.â
There are three assumptions embedded in, âtoo many ideas, must pick one.â
All these ideas are equally likely to succeed. Iâm equally capable of succeeding at each of these ideas. I canât work on multiple ideas at once.Letâs look at each of those.
Assumption 1: âAll these ideas are equally likely to succeedâIf you feel you have too many ideas, you must think theyâre equally likely to succeed, which is the first assumption. That might not sound correct at first, but think about it. If you were starving, and only allowed to eat one of various sandwiches, you would probably pick the biggest and most calorie-rich.
You might not be able to tell so easily which is the biggest and most calorie-rich sandwich. In fact, there may be other factors that play into your decision. Maybe the avocado and pork belly sandwich is the most calorie-rich, but youâre craving roasted duck in this moment, and there happens to be a roasted-duck sandwich amongst the selections.
While satisfying your hunger is one objective of choosing a sandwich, there are other goals in mind, such as satisfying cravings, which may compete with one another. If you have a hard time deciding amongst all the sandwiches, you expect eating one sandwich to be equally likely to succeed as eating any of the others.
As with projects, âsuccessâ may come in many forms. Weâll get to that in a bit.
Assumption 2: âIâm equally capable of succeeding at each of these ideasâIf you feel you have too many ideas, you must think youâre equally capable of succeeding at each of these ideas, which is the second assumption. If assumption one werenât correct, and you didnât feel each idea were equally likely to succeed, you would probably pick the one most likely to succeed. The avocado and pork belly sandwich would clearly be more filling than peanut butter and jelly.
Now, if you werenât equally capable of eating each of the sandwiches, that would make your decision easier. If youâre choosing between avocado and pork belly and peanut butter and jelly, but youâre a strict vegetarian, the decision is easy. Same if youâre not a vegetarian, but allergic to peanuts.
But since you feel each idea is equally likely to succeed, and you feel youâre equally capable of succeeding at all of them, you feel you have too many ideas.
As with projects, you may have little information about your capability of succeeding, which is why, for all you know, your capability to succeed is equal across all ideas. Weâll untangle that later.
Assumption 3: âI canât work on multiple ideas at onceâIf you feel you have âtoo many ideas,â you feel theyâre equally likely to succeed and youâre equally capable of succeeding at each of them. If you feel you âmust pick one,â you feel you canât work on multiple ideas at once, which is the third assumption.
In our sandwich scenario, youâve been told you have to pick one sandwich. If thereâs no one else around and the sandwiches will go to waste otherwise, you might as well taste all the sandwiches, then pick one. Or eat a little of each, until youâre full. But, in that case, you wouldnât finish any of the sandwiches.
Challenging the assumptionsWith all three of these assumptions, youâre in a deadlock. Your ideas are equally likely to succeed, youâre equally capable of succeeding at each, and you must pick one. Well, how can you pick one if theyâre all equally appealing ideas?
There are five questions that can help you challenge these assumptions:
What is success? What is my risk profile? What am I good at? Whatâs necessary to succeed? What pain do I pick?Letâs look at each of these.
Question 1: âWhat is success?âSuccess can come in many forms. Maybe you want to make the most money possible. Maybe you want the most freedom possible. Maybe you want to do what youâre most passionate about.
You may feel each idea is equally likely to succeed, because each idea is likely to get a different kind of success. One sandwich will fill you up, another will taste great, still another seems like the healthy choice.
If you have a clearer picture of what forms of success are more important to you than others, your many ideas will no longer be âequally likely to succeed.â
Question 2: âWhat is my risk profile?âNot only can success come in many forms, it can come with various risk profiles. One idea may have a big chance of bringing you mild success. Another idea may have a small chance of bringing you wild success. The overall expected value of each idea may be the same, but the risk profiles may be very different. Some are sure bets, some are wildcards.
There are also various things you may risk in pursuing an idea. Mostly, what I call âTOMâ â Time, Optionality, and Money. If you are young, healthy, and with no commitments, you have a lot of Optionality, but you might not have much Money. Making enough Money to live may take up much of your day-to-day Time. You can try a crazy idea, so long as it doesnât take up too much Time and Money. If you fail, youâll still have plenty of Optionality.
Or, you might want to make some changes that reduce your Optionality, but free up your Time. For example, I live in South America, which limits my options for anything requiring physical presence, but it has reduced my need for Money, thus freeing up my Time.
On the other hand, you may be in your sixties, retired after a successful career. You have plenty of Money and Time, but less Optionality than when you were in your twenties. You can only take on so many big projects in the rest of your life, and you may not have the energy you used to. But, you may feel you have nothing to lose by trying a wild idea.
If you have a clearer picture of what your risk profile is, not all your ideas will seem âequally likely to succeed.â
Question 3: âWhat am I good at?âEven if all your ideas seem equally likely to fit your definition of success and fit your risk profile, youâre probably better at some things than others.
If you have a clear picture of what youâre good at, the assumption that youâre âequally capable of succeeding at each of these ideasâ will no longer make sense.
It may be that you donât know what youâre good at, likely because you donât feel you have information to tell you what youâre good at. You probably have more information available than you think. Think about times in the past when someone was impressed with or complimented you on something you did, which came to you naturally. Or, ask your friends what they think youâre good at.
If you really donât have information on what youâre good at, relative to your many ideas, then the third assumption, âI canât work on multiple ideas at once,â no longer makes sense. In this case, you can and should work on multiple ideas, to get an idea what youâre good at. If you feel your ideas are too big to work on more than one, scale them back into smaller ideas. Donât fall for âThe Fortress Fallacy,â like I talked about in The Heart to Start. Instead of building a fortress, try building a cottage.
Itâs important to remember that what youâre good at is not necessarily what youâre best at, nor what you most enjoy. This will make more sense as we answer the last two questions that challenge the three assumptions.
Question 4: âWhatâs necessary to succeed?âIn reality, you probably donât have a clear picture of how likely all your ideas are to succeed, nor how capable you are of succeeding at each. You have to ask of each, Whatâs necessary to succeed?
Whatâs necessary to succeed at an idea is usually very different from what attracts you to the idea in the first place. You may love to play music. You may even love to play music in front of an audience. But will you love driving around the country, sleeping in a van, lugging gear, and dealing with curmudgeonly AV techs at each venue? You may love the idea of signing books for adoring fans at the local Barnes & Noble. But will you love sitting in a room by yourself, writing several hours a day?
Itâs worth noting that what most people in a domain think is necessary to succeed may not be. Lots can change in the industry, and changes in the mechanics of media can open up opportunities to succeed without doing some things that were once necessary. For example, thanks to self-publishing, I donât have to write boring book proposals or get countless rejection letters to succeed as an author.
Question 5: âWhat pain do I pick?âYou may be really good at whatâs necessary to succeed at an idea that has a good chance of meeting your definition of success. But there may be some things necessary to succeed that you donât enjoy. That doesnât mean you shouldnât pursue the idea.
No matter what you do, there will be some parts of it you arenât crazy about â especially at first. When I was a kid, all I wanted to do was draw. But making a living at drawing as an adult doesnât fit my risk profile, and whatâs necessary to succeed would interfere with parts of my definition of success: I canât travel if I have to lug around supplies and artwork, and if I do all my work on a computer, then Iâm chained to a computer.
I didnât used to like to write, but I found out Iâm reasonably good at it. Forcing myself to write each morning was painful at first, but through building a writing habit, itâs transformed into a strangely enjoyable sort of pain.
Additionally, there are parts of making a living writing that I donât like, or at least didnât at first. My first one-star review shook me for days, but now I can brush them off relatively quickly. Same with angry emails from readers. I used to really hate bookkeeping, but now that I write monthly income reports, I actually look forward to tallying up my earnings.
Do you really âhave too many ideas,â and must you âpick oneâ?After all this, you may realize you donât have âtoo many ideas,â and you donât really have to âpick one.â If you donât feel you have enough information to form a clear picture of the odds of success and your capability of success, even after asking these five questions, then you need more information.
You get more information not by choosing one idea, but by pursuing many. Youâll more clearly see what has a chance of succeeding and what youâre capable of succeeding at, and choosing one â or several â will become easy.
Image: Stage Landscape by Paul Klee
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email New bonus content on Patreon!I've been adding lots of new content to Patreon. Join the Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/too-many-ideas/
-
Today I have a special episode for you. If you missed last monthâs AMA/Livestream, Iâm delivering it right to your ears. In this AMA, I answered questions about:
Whatâs the best self-publishing platform, and how did I publish 100-Word Writing Habit, non standard-sized, outside of Amazon? Buenos Aires versus MedellĂn, which is better for mind management? How to pick a creative project when you have too many ideas? Whatâs surprised me most in the past two years? What task management software do I use for mind management? How to focus on one project when you have multiple curiosities? How to keep from falling down a research rabbit-hole? How many half-formed ideas do I have captured somewhere?There are some parts where I refer to visuals, for the best experience, watch on YouTube.
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email New bonus content on Patreon!I've been adding lots of new content to Patreon. Join the Patreon »
Show notes: http://kadavy.net/blog/posts/four-sources-of-shiny-object-syndrome/
-
Shiny object syndrome can be evidence of a problem, or it can be a normal part of the creative process. If you can identify the four sources of shiny object syndrome, you can tell the difference between being lost, or simply exploring.
Three first three sources are problemsThe first three of the four sources of shiny object syndrome hold you back from finishing projects. They are: ambition, perfectionism, and distraction.
Ambitious shiny object syndrome is starting projects that far outpace your abilities and resources. Perfectionistic shiny object syndrome is endlessly tweaking a project that could otherwise be called done. Distracted shiny object syndrome is juggling so many projects, you finish none.Before we get to the fourth source, a bit more about these three most dangerous sources.
Ambitious shiny object syndromeYou probably have a friend with ambitious shiny object syndrome. One day they proclaimed they were writing an epic fantasy novel. A few months later, they had dropped that and had a new plan: a feature film. A few months after that, they were starting a health-tech startup.
All the while, you were shaking your head, because your friend clearly didnât have the experience or resources to take on these projects. They were writing the epic fantasy novel, yet had never written a short story. They were working on the feature film, yet had never made a short film. They were working on the health-tech startup, yet had no experience in technology, the health industry, nor raising funding.
Delusional optimism can be an asset. Maybe your friend will get lucky, and one of these projects will click. Theyâre more likely to get struck by lightning.
Instead, you know whatâs coming when you ask how the latest project is going. Theyâve abandoned that, and are taking on something new. Conveniently, your friend always has a great excuse for why. They find a scapegoat: You canât get a million dollars for a feature-film without a rich uncle. They claim to have never been serious about it in the first place: Oh, that silly book? I was just dabbling. More likely, they shift the conversation to another subject: Oh my god, did you see the article about the celebrity!
If they had made a public prediction about their potential success in the project, you could hold them accountable. Yet they didnât, so you have to take their word for it. Interestingly, youâll never hear, That was foolish taking on that â I didnât know what I was doing!
Perfectionistic shiny object syndromeOr maybe you have a friend with perfectionistic shiny object syndrome. They endlessly tweak a project that could otherwise be called done. The âshiny objectsâ in this case arenât other projects, but rather details within one project.
Your perfectionist friend has one project theyâve been clinging to for years. Their novel has been through eleven revisions. It started as a memoir, but after becoming an urban-fantasy novel, itâs now a thriller. They had a great-looking cover for each of these. But theyâve changed some details about the plot since the latest world-building workshop they traveled to attend, and they want to try a different cover designer. But before they spend money on another cover, they want to decide whether theyâre going to publish in places besides Amazon, because that affects the design specs. So theyâre taking a cohort-based course so they can ask a successful author what she thinks.
Thereâs nothing you could tell your friend to get them to ship this project. By now, they could be on their third book, having learned lessons from the previous two. Instead, theyâve convinced themself it has to be perfect.
Distracted shiny object syndromeOr maybe you have a friend with distracted shiny object syndrome. Theyâre taking on projects they could conceivably complete, given their skills and resources. They donât seem to suffer from perfectionism, but you canât tell, because none of their projects get anywhere near the finish line.
Instead, once they make a little progress on one project, they switch to another, then another. Once their screenplay is completed for their short film, they start recording demos for their album. Once theyâve recorded demos for their album, they write their memoir. Once theyâve finished a draft of their memoir, theyâre writing a business plan for a non-profit.
This âfriendâ may be you, and it certainly has been me. Shiny object syndrome is difficult to cure, because these sources are often mixed together. You may take on projects that are too ambitious, but also be distracted by the many other projects youâre taking on. The perfectionism that is keeping you from shipping one project, may divert you to one overly-ambitious project, or a mixture of smaller projects.
The fourth source is only naturalYet there is a fourth source of shiny object syndrome that doesnât have to keep you from finishing projects: Natural shiny object syndrome.
Natural shiny object syndrome is the diversions and dead-ends that are a natural part of the creative process. When youâre being creative and innovative, by definition, you are going to try some things that donât work, or need to explore new areas with which you arenât familiar.
[Projects are like halfpipes.] Itâs fun and easy to skate into a halfpipe â to start a project. But once youâre trying to skate out of the halfpipe, youâve run out of momentum. Itâs more fun and easy to skate into a new halfpipe â to start a new project, or tweak a new aspect of the existing project.
But in the natural course of being creative and innovative, youâll also start new halfpipes. When Leonardo da Vinci developed his painting style, he skated into many halfpipes. To accurately depict light and shade in his paintings, he systematically studied the way light traveled through the atmosphere, and interacted with objects. This led him into other fields, such as optics, fluid dynamics, and geometry.
Leonardo da Vinciâs natural shiny object syndromeIn fact, one of Leonardoâs most pre-eminent observations in astronomy greatly informed his painting style. He correctly theorized that the light area on the dark side of the moon was created by light reflecting from the sun, off the earth.
By understanding how light worked, he was able to make paintings with an unprecedented sense of realism. The âearthshineâ caused by light reflecting from the earth is the same phenomenon that causes a lighter area within the shadow on the underside of the chin of the Mona Lisa. Thatâs caused by light being reflected off her upper chest.
Okay, so Leonardo had the other sources, tooLeonardo of course was an infamous procrastinator. In addition to the natural shiny object syndrome he experienced, he also had shiny object syndrome from the rest of the four sources.
He had ambitious shiny object syndrome, such as when, over the course of decades, he failed twice to cast in bronze the largest-ever horse statue.
He had perfectionistic shiny object syndrome, such as the fact that he never delivered the Mona Lisa to his client. He instead carried it around fifteen years, until he died, and well after it could have easily been called done.
He had distracted shiny object syndrome, which caused him to run around Italy, trying to please his clients in art, architecture, and engineering.
Donât fight the fourth sourceYou can do something about most sources of shiny object syndrome.
If you have ambitious shiny object syndrome, take on smaller projects. You can use the surround and conquer technique. If you have perfectionistic shiny object syndrome, simply ship your project. Recognize the Finisherâs Paradox. Like Maya Angelou said, âDo the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.â If you have distracted shiny object syndrome, pick a project, and finish it. Build your shipping skills as you work your way up to larger projects.But even if you clear those sources away, youâll still have to live with natural shiny object syndrome. To connect ideas from disparate fields, you need to wander into them. To find out what works, you have to try some things that wonât.
Image: Main path and byways, by Paul Klee
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: http://kadavy.net/blog/posts/four-sources-of-shiny-object-syndrome/
-
Writing a tweet is a microcosm of writing a book. If you think deeply and carefully about every word in a tweet, and what the tweet as a whole communicates, you can extend those skills to all your writing. In this article, Iâll break down how to think about every word in a tweet, nearly tripling its performance.
Step 1: The first-impression tweetThe tweet weâll work on came to me like most tweets, a thought that popped into my head. It was this:
Ironically, strong opinions are the ones that are easily argued against.
I could have just tweeted that. But Iâve made a habit of instead writing down my first-impression tweets in a scratch file, and later working on them before publishing. Hereâs what my thought process looks like.
As a tweet, this phrase is a little wordy, and weak. It starts somewhat nonsensically with an adverb: âIronically.â What action is being performed ironically?
Step 2: Improving word economyThere are also some extra words that could be cut out. Do we have to refer to âstrong opinionsâ again, by using the word âonesâ? The word âthatâ is often not necessary, and it doesnât seem necessary here.
If we cut out all those extra words, we end up with:
Strong opinions are easily argued against.
Step 3: Adding back in meaningThatâs shorter, more elegant, and economic. But now itâs weaker. Itâs a simple statement of fact, without presenting whatâs remarkable about that fact, or how anyone should feel about it. At least when it said, âironically,â it pointed out the irony that strong opinions are those that are easily argued against.
Also, since Iâve removed the second reference to âstrong opinionsâ by removing the word âones,â the statement no longer pits âstrong opinionsâ against other types of opinions. Before, I was implying the existence of opinions that werenât strong, and describing what was different about opinions that were.
Our shortened statement is also in the passive voice, which makes it weaker. âStrong opinions are easily argued against,â by whom? Who is doing the arguing? It would be more direct to say:
Itâs easier to argue against strong opinions.
But still, this statement doesnât pit strong opinions against other types of opinions. Fixing that, we could instead say:
Of all opinions, strong ones are easiest to argue against.
Finally, I think we at least have an improvement over the original, âIronically, strong opinions are the ones that are easily argued against.â Itâs more direct, and pits strong opinions against opinions at-large. It also has the important quality, in tweet format, of delivering the most surprising â or ironic â thing about the statement at the end.
Thereâs a bit of misdirection in this statement. Weâve addressed all opinions, homed in on the strong ones, which primes you to expect them to be lauded in some way. Instead, the statement points out the irony that what makes an opinion âstrongâ is that itâs easy to argue against.
Step 4: Tweaking for the audienceBut this tweet is still not ready. The most glaring problem is, nowhere in the tweet is the term, âstrong opinions,â and, as a tweet, thatâs where its potential lies.
âStrong opinionsâ is a term in the parlance of some sections of Twitter. This term became popular after Marc Andreessen appeared on Tim Ferrissâs podcast, where he advocated for, âstrong opinions, weakly held.â
By trying to be economical with words in our tweet, weâve broken apart this term. In our latest iteration, âOf all opinions, strong ones are easiest to argue against,â itâs simply referred to as âstrong ones.â
Depending upon how prevalent the term âstrong opinionsâ is in the minds of our audience members, we could stick with that more subtle hint. Sometimes thatâs more effective. In my experience, on Twitter, you have to bash people over the head with what youâre saying to cut through the noise.
So we could instead say:
Of all opinions, strong opinions are easiest to argue against.
Weâve replaced âstrong onesâ with âstrong opinions.â Itâs less economical, but includes the term âstrong opinions,â pits them against opinions at-large, and delivers the counterintuitive element at the end, like the punchline of a joke.
Step 5: What are we trying to say?This is probably as economically as we can write this, meeting that criteria. But itâs still not ready. Now itâs not clear from this observation how the author wants us to feel about strong opinions. Itâs, ironically, not a strong opinion.
Is the upshot that you shouldnât hold strong opinions? Is it that when you hold strong opinions, you have to be comfortable with the fact they are easy to argue against?
What makes an opinion âstrong,â anyway? Is it the force with with which you express the opinion? If so, the statement, âstrong opinions, weakly heldâ would mean you express the opinion with force, but are quick to change it if presented with contrary evidence.
Or maybe it means that you should take decisive action on your opinions, and if that action presents you with contrary evidence, you should change your opinion and act accordingly?
Now weâre starting to get to what I, as an author, really think â which is like an excavation to discover, Where did this idea come from in the first place?
My personal opinion is that to hold a strong opinion, you have to be faking. There are few things any of us are qualified to have opinions about. Having a strong opinion is a very âhedgehogâ way of being, and hedgehogs are scientifically proven to be wrong.
Yet if you express your honest opinion â which is to be more like a âfoxâ than a hedgehog â youâre essentially expressing no opinion at all. Instead, youâre exploring thoughts around a potential opinion. Given the mechanics of media today, few who see what you have to say when expressing your fox-like opinion will interact with it. And because few will interact with it, fewer will see it.
So in a way, to be fox-like in media is doing oneself a disservice. Your message doesnât get seen, and since nobody can disagree with your non-opinion, you learn less. Itâs beneficial to masquerade as a hedgehog on social media, but be a fox in your private intellectual life.
Whatâs our angle?Itâs at this point in revising a tweet, where I often step back and write plainly the sub-text of what Iâm trying to say. One angle is, In your pursuit of learning, you have to pretend to have strong opinions, because strong opinions are the easiest to argue against â which helps you collect information.
Another angle is that When you express a strong opinion, be ready to be disagreed with, because strong opinions are by definition the easiest to argue against.
So now I have two potential angles:
âYou should pretend to have an opinion.â âWhen you express your opinion, be ready for criticism.âSince this is a tweet, the sub-text of the tweet is very important. Because of the social mechanics of Twitter, people will not like or retweet something that makes them look bad.
The âYou should pretend to have an opinionâ angle is weak, because to retweet something that espouses being inauthentic is to admit to being inauthentic, and thatâs socially repugnant â even if our angle has merit. Also important, itâs not socially-repugnant enough to get people to argue, which would be another way of driving engagement.
The âWhen you express your opinion, be ready for criticism,â angle is somewhat stronger. It would be a small flex to like or retweet this, because it would show that youâre a person resilient enough to expose yourself to criticism, a quality which has social clout in some circles.
Moving forward with that best angle, in the clearest way possible, we could say:
When you share strong opinions, you will be criticized. Because strong opinions by definition are the easiest opinions to disagree with.
Besides the fact itâs much longer, thereâs something weak about this tweet. I think itâs that it makes strong opinions not look good. Why have them if theyâre so easy to disagree with? As someone with a fox cognitive style, to me it doesnât feel right.
So ultimately it seems, I believe a third angle: âStrong opinions arenât good.â If we put that simply, weâre back to âOf all opinions, strong opinions are the easiest to argue against.â
That still doesnât express clearly how I feel about strong opinions. Itâs just a statement of fact.
Step 6: Applying rhetoricMaybe we can make this more economical, while also expressing more clearly my feelings about strong opinions, if we use a rhetorical form. Rhetorical forms are time-tested structures in language that add meaning beyond the simple content of the words.
âAntithesisâ is a good rhetorical form for tweets. Mark Forsyth in The Elements of Eloquence describes antithesis as âX is Y, and not X is not Y.â
We wonât use that exact formula, which would essentially be âStrong opinions are easy to argue against, and weak opinions are hard to argue against.â Instead, letâs pit the word âstrongâ against its antithesis, âweakâ â which is part of why the phrase âstrong opinions, weakly heldâ is so memetic.
As it happens, the idea of a âweak argumentâ is a commonly-used metaphor, so we can add extra power to our phrase by tapping into that existing idiom.
With those elements in mind, we end up with:
Strong opinions are weak arguments.
Thatâs about as good as we can do. Weâve reduced the phrase from eleven words to only five. Itâs now clearer what I think of strong opinions, and it presents the irony I wanted to point out in the first place.
Was all this work worth it?So, how did this tweet do? I published it, making sure to record a prediction that I was 70% sure it would get fewer than 1,500 impressions (in 48 hours). It actually got 1,081.
One month later, I published the unedited tweet I presented at the beginning of this article. I was 70% sure it would get fewer than 1,000 impressions. It got 384.
The data suggest that through all that excruciating detail â more than 1,500 words about writing only five â I nearly tripled the performance of this tweet.
The tweet still didnât go viral, which isnât the point of thinking of language in this level of detail. The real point of this exercise is that if you make a habit of thinking carefully about language, you internalize much of this process, which makes all your writing better.
Image: Flower Myth, by Paul Klee
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/how-to-write-a-tweet/
-
Here's a bonus preview of a new podcast I've brewed just for Patreon supporters. It's Coffee w/ Kadavy. In this episode, #4, I talk about:
I talk with special guest ChatGPT about why we will (or won't) see another AI winter An inventory of things I believe (at least more than 50%) A cool thing that makes reading paper books way more comfortable! A (controversial?) history book about an amazing clash of civilizationsFor more episodes of Coffee w/ Kadavy, join the Patreon! There are three more episodes waiting for you, and a sneak audiobook preview of a chapter from my next book.
-
Every message is shaped by the mechanics of media. Whether itâs a tweet, a TikTok video, a news article, or a movie, the characteristics of the medium determine how itâs made, how itâs consumed, and whether it spreads. If you understand the mechanics of media, you can more effectively communicate in a wide variety of mediums, and protect yourself from being manipulated by media.
The message is the mechanics of mediaAs media theorist Marshall McLuhan said, âThe medium is the message.â In Understanding Media, he wrote:
The medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium...results from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs....
In other words, itâs not the content of the medium we should be worried about, but the way the characteristics of that medium determine its content â the mechanics of media.
The five characteristics of mediaI propose that there are five characteristics present in any medium, which determine these mechanics. These characteristics affect the creation, consumption, and distribution of media. (In other words, what message is delivered, how that message is received, and whether or not that message spreads.)
Those five characteristics are:
Incentive Sensory Physical Social PsychologicalThe mechanics of media are so complex, these characteristics naturally interact with one another. Iâll give a brief introduction of each, then show how these characteristics work in the popular mediums of podcasts, Twitter, and TikTok.
1. IncentiveThe Incentive characteristics of a medium are sources of motivation, whether money or otherwise, that shape the creation, consumption, and distribution of messages in that medium.
The creator of a piece of media is motivated by various incentives, such as money and relationships. Whether or not someone is able to consume a piece of media depends upon whether its affordable or otherwise accessible. Whether or not a piece of media spreads depends upon whether incentives are aligned for the distribution platform to allow it to spread.
So, a journalist may be motivated to write a story that gets page views, because thatâs how theyâre paid. Thatâs how theyâre paid, because the newspaper doesnât have paying subscribers and thus relies upon ad revenue. The stories with click-bait headlines spread and get more page views because they increase engagement for the social media platform theyâre shared on, which increases the social media platformâs ad revenue.
2. SensoryThe Sensory characteristics of a medium are the ways in which the medium engages senses such as sight, hearing, and touch. Marshall McLuhan wrote about how so-called âsense ratiosâ were engaged by a medium. Sensory characteristics primarily affect the consumption of the medium, but those effects overlap with creation and distribution.
Written content, for example, can be absorbed at a readerâs own pace. As Neil Postman pointed out in Amusing Ourselves to Death, the written word is especially well-suited to careful review and comparison, which makes it easier to convey the truth. Audio content can be replayed to be reviewed, but itâs more work than simply moving your eyes back over the content.
3. PhysicalThe Physical characteristics of a medium are the ways in which the medium engages the body. The subtitle of Marshall McLuhanâs Understanding Media is Extensions of Man. As a medium extends our abilities, it also removes or âamputatesâ abilities.
When you listen to a podcast, your entire body is free to do other things. You may be cooking, showering, or fighting your way to the exit of a crowded subway car. So, audio with dense content may not be absorbed as well as if the same content were printed in a paper book â which can still be read on a subway car, but not likely while walking. Podcasts became distributed more widely as they became easier to download on smartphones, which people physically carry around.
4. SocialThe Social characteristics of a medium are the ways in which the medium facilitates interactions amongst people. In the age of social media, these interactions affect creation, consumption, and distribution, in concert.
Algorithms that drive distribution on platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok are designed to distribute a piece of content based upon its engagement. Much of that engagement is social. If you comment on, like, or share a piece of content, that social interaction leads to further distribution.
Additionally, the level of privacy involved in consuming or sharing content has social consequences. You may be reluctant to even âlikeâ certain content, for fear of who might see. But you might share the same content with a close friend through a text message â so-called âdark socialâ â or even a dinner conversation.
5. PsychologicalThe psychological characteristics of a medium are the ways in which a medium interacts with human psychology.
Cognitive biases affect the way people interpret a piece of media, and media platforms are designed to exploit these biases. For example, variable rewards make social media platforms habit-forming for both consumers and creators. You never know when youâll find something incredibly valuable during a social media session, and as a creator, youâre always checking to see if youâve gotten more comments and views.
To go back to our example of a journalist paid by the page view, incentives may motivate them or the newspaper at which they work to cover more natural disasters, shark attacks, and terrorist attacks, which grab peopleâs attention as a result of the availability heuristic.
Hereâs a sampling of how these five characteristics shape various mediums.
Podcasts 1. IncentiveThere are two main ways podcast creators make money: either have a lot of listeners and sell sponsorship, or have few listeners, but make money on some kind of âback-endâ business. Itâs very hard to get new listeners for a podcast, for reasons that will be clear when we analyze the other mechanics, so this motivates many podcast hosts to do âswaps,â wherein hosts interview one another on each otherâs podcasts.
2. SensoryMany listeners listen to podcasts alone, through headphones. Audio canât be rewound as easily as someone can re-read, so the content should present simple ideas with simple language, and storytelling can keep the listener engaged.
3. PhysicalListening to a podcast doesnât engage much of your physical body, so listeners may be doing nearly anything while listening. They could be driving, showering, or doing household chores. With AirPods, they could even be hitting golf balls. Listeners may be in distracting situations, so again, the mechanics of the podcast medium lend themselves to simple ideas presented through simple language, and strong storytelling.
4. SocialA podcast host makes an intimate connection with a listener because theyâre often talking right into the listenerâs ear, often while theyâre alone. In this way, the host becomes like the internal monologue of the listener. This is part of why there are so many podcasts despite it being so hard to attract new listeners. This intimate connection can attract new customers and clients for high-ticket items, and advertisers are willing to pay a lot per listener, especially when the host reads the ads.
Itâs hard to attract new listeners to podcasts, because podcasts donât lend themselves well to social consumption and distribution. Podcast listeners are usually physically occupied when listening, and unlikely to engage through likes, shares, and comments. These features arenât available in most podcast-listening apps, since podcasts are distributed through decentralized feeds that can be captured by one of many such apps.
Podcast content can be several hours long, with the information presented in the disorganized form of a conversation. Even when pieces of a podcast are presented as clips on social media, there are a few formidable barriers to such clips attracting listeners: Editing long-form content to be interesting in short-form is difficult, audio content has trouble competing with other content on social media feeds, and social media is often consumed in contexts in which itâs not convenient to download and listen to a podcast.
5. PsychologicalPodcast producers take advantage of the ways in which audio content can affect the psychology of the listener. Narrative podcasts use music and storytelling to manipulate listenersâ emotions and build suspense and engagement. Compelling podcast interviewees know how to talk passionately and persuasively in a way that will excite listeners. Still other podcast hosts deliberately speak in an unpolished way, to make their shows feel more like listening to a friend.
Twitter 1. IncentiveOn Twitter, journalists can build followings, which can help them get more page views, which can help them either get paid more, or not rely on their employers at all. Entrepreneurs can grow their businesses. Writers, such as myself, can test out ideas. People, generally, can be entertained, or feel as if theyâre heard.
Twitter is still primarily an ad-supported platform, so more engagement with the platform means more ad revenue. While I presented above an example of a social media platform presenting articles with click-bait headlines, the incentive characteristics of Twitter also work against this. If you were to click on a link, you would leave Twitter, where you could no longer be served ads. So tweets that are just links get less distribution.
2. SensoryTwitter is primarily text, which is supposed to be the form of media most-capable of communicating the truth. Yet anyone who has used Twitter has noticed there is a lot of sensational content, with lots of arguing and fighting amongst tribes. How can this be?
Since Twitter is mostly a collection of snippets of text, which can be easily skimmed, it puts people in a âhuntingâ mode. Unlike reading a book, where the sensory experience locks you into the progression of ideas presented by the author, on the Twitter timeline, the sensory experience is like scanning the landscape for the gazelle in the grass, or the tiger in the bush.
3. PhysicalMany Twitter users consume its content on their phones. Theyâre looking at their hands, often slouched over with neck craned downward. This is a posture that makes you more close-minded and negative, as opposed to say, standing up, with a monitor at eye-level, and shoulders back while typing on a split keyboard.
Users can be in a variety of settings, such as on public transport, or even crossing the street. On Twitter, consumption and creation can be physically the same, which lends itself to off-the-cuff and often reactionary or poorly-thought-out content. So content creators on Twitter who do the majority of their thinking away from the app, and put intention into their creation process, are essentially practicing attention arbitrage.
4. SocialTwitter has followed the lead of platforms such as TikTok, and decoupled the distribution of content from the follower relationship, in lieu of a feed driven by engagement or relevance of topic. Still, the number of followers greatly influences distribution on Twitter. Thus, savvy Twitter creators know they have to be active âreply guysâ â replying to tweets on related accounts â until they gain a following.
Besides followers and the ever-more-rare retweet, the biggest driver of distribution on Twitter is replies. Therefore, tweets that drive conversation get more distribution. Ironically, if a tweet is clear and factual, it wonât get as much distribution as if it is unclear and controversial. So, creators who are either unintelligent in a lucky way, or savvy and machiavellian enough to feign ignorance, see great distribution through âfake takes,â or expressing with great confidence a simplistic opinion people will argue over in the replies.
5. PsychologicalAlmost all activity on Twitter is public by default, so this creates a media environment with a bias toward behavior thatâs either prosocial or tribal. There can be social consequences for merely following someone or liking one of their tweets. Thereâs a lot of what Timur Kuran calls âpreference falsificationâ on Twitter, to signal that one is part of a tribe. The only characteristic that counters this is that expanding a tweet or media within a tweet is private, so this private engagement can help somewhat the distribution of content people may not be comfortable supporting publicly.
TikTok 1. IncentiveMany creators are attracted to TikTok because itâs a platform where itâs possible to have a lot of success very quickly, and seemingly for no good reason. You can get tens of millions of views just dancing in front of your bathroom mirror. TikTok is an ad-supported platform, so the platform distributes content that will overall increase the time spent on the platform. Yet TikTok overall has a more-positive vibe than Twitter. Weâll get to why.
2. SensoryIf the sensory experience of Twitter puts the viewer into âhuntingâ mode, the sensory experience of TikTok is more like the campfire. Youâre not skimming a vast sea of text. Instead, youâre immersed entirely in a video â at least for a moment. Youâre often face-to-face with a person talking. Itâs harder to get angry with someone when youâre looking right at them. This campfire instead of hunting experience makes content on TikTok more positive than on Twitter.
But youâre not immersed in that video for long. Users can quickly swipe and be immersed in the next video. So, there is a lot of pressure for creators to create content that grabs the attention of the viewer. Itâs not unusual, when looking at an engagement graph on a TikTok video youâve created, to see a note informing you there was a drop in viewership at the one second mark.
This is part of why TikTok has a reputation for being all about looks. Indeed their new âBold Glamour Filterâ reshapes womenâs faces to an astounding degree (yet they still have nothing for my gray beard hairs).
3. PhysicalTikTok, like all social media, is primarily consumed on a mobile phone. So consumers may be in any of a variety of settings, including highly distracting environments where they donât have control over sound. So, TikTok videos present simple ideas, presented quickly, and videos with captions perform better, as viewers may have audio off.
However, there is some incentive for creators to present complex data associated with their simple ideas. If you flash a data-rich graphic in a TikTok video, viewers will try to pause it, which is a signal of engagement for the TikTok algorithm. Youâll do even better if the graphic flashes so quickly it canât be paused the first time. The viewer will have to let the video play again, to once again attempt to pause at the right time.
For example:
@davidkadavy Time multiplying helps you create more time. Credit: Rory Vaden #timemanagement #timemanagementhacks #timemanagementskills #xkcd ? original sound - ???David Kadavy
4. SocialSince pausing or rewatching a video signals engagement to TikTok, dance videos have performed well on the platform. Consumers can become creators and post âduetsâ, in which they perform a dance next to its originator. Of course you have to watch the video many times to get your dance moves right, which signals engagement. This physical bias towards dance videos, helped along by the social characteristics of TikTok, may also contribute to its more-positive vibe.
Like anywhere many humans congregate, there is still some negativity on TikTok. But if youâre going to be explicitly negative, youâre going to have to show your face. Comments are limited to 150 characters. Beyond that, you can make a reply video, a âduetâ â such as in dance videos, or a âstitch,â where you place your video at the end of the video youâre responding to.
5. PsychologicalBecause simple videos that viewers re-watch get more distribution, videos on TikTok resist the sense of closure humans have been used to since at least the time of Homer. If you summarize what youâve covered at the end of a video, your engagement will drop and youâll get fewer views. So videos donât have the satisfying end weâre used to. Some creators make their videos âloop,â wherein the final thing said connects to the first thing, which hypnotizes the viewer into watching again.
This being an article, itâs not bad for me to take the time to present a conclusion. Thatâs my overview of what I believe to be the five characteristics that shape the mechanics of media, and how those mechanics shape the mediums of podcasts, Twitter, and TikTok.
The next time youâre creating something for a medium, or feeling highly-persuaded by a piece of media, take time to think about the five characteristics that shape the mechanics of media.
Image: Painting 1930, by Patrick Henry Bruce
Thank you for having me on your show!Thank you for having me on your podcasts. Thank you to Rachel Roth at The Rachel Roth Show.
As always, you can find interviews of me on my interviews page.
300 episodes!This is the 300th episode of Love Your Work. Something I haven't asked in years: Can you please rate the show on Apple Podcasts?
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/mechanics-of-media/
-
Submit your questions and mark your calendars for my upcoming AMA/Livestream.
-
Making, recording, and evaluating predictions is a simple way to improve your thinking and decision-making. But the way to properly make and record predictions isnât obvious. In this article, Iâll share some predictions Iâve made, what Iâve learned, and how you can improve your thinking by making predictions.
Making predictions has grown my businessFive years ago, I had been running my business for ten years, and it wasnât going great. Then, I started publishing monthly income reports, and along the way, making predictions. My income has nearly doubled, and I attribute much of that success to my habit of making predictions.
I began by predicting how much money Iâd make in a product launch, and grew to predicting how much traffic articles I had written would gain, and how many copies books Iâd written would sell. I now routinely make predictions for things as seemingly mundane as whether Iâll enjoy a conference, whether Iâll still be publishing on TikTok a year from now, or whether an avocado is ripe.
On the surface, making predictions seems like a pointless game. This is, indeed, true of making predictions the wrong way. But making predictions the right way helps you deal with uncertainty you otherwise have no hope of handling.
Predictions help you bet your life, betterEach of us has limited resources, such as time, money, and mental energy. Weâre constantly making decisions about how to use these resources, and when we make those decisions, we are expecting outcomes.
If we go on this date, will we find the love of our life, or wish weâd stayed in? If we write this book, will we achieve fame and fortune, or feel as if weâve wasted years of our life? If we spend an hour on social media, will we make valuable connections, or spiral into self-hatred over our lack of discipline?As Annie Duke, author of Thinking in Bets wrote:
In most of our decisions, we are not betting against another person. Rather, we are betting against all the future versions of ourselves that we are not choosing. âAnnie Duke, Thinking in Bets
Each decision we make is a bet. We bet a resource, and expect something in return. Most of us donât recognize or express the expectations of our bets. But we should.
Some bets are clearer than othersIf you bet a dollar on a coin flip and only win $1.50 for guessing correctly, youâd easily recognize that as an unfair bet: Thereâs a 50% chance of guessing correctly, so you clearly should receive two dollars. But the more variable the odds, and the more vague your wager and winnings, the more difficult it becomes to think clearly.
Whatâs the value of finding the love of your life? What other benefits can you get writing a book besides fame and fortune? What are the chances that during this hour of social media youâll make a life-changing discovery? Making objective decisions taking into account all these variables becomes so complicated you might as well throw up your hands, surrender to randomness, and do what feels right in the moment.
And thatâs what most of us do. Case in point: The multi-billion-dollar gambling industry, propped up by people doing what feels right in the moment â their decision-making shrouded by the smokescreen of ever more complex and variable bets.
The key to making predictions in a way that helps you evaluate your decisions is to avoid what Annie Duke calls âresulting.â If you wager a dollar on a coin flip, with a chance to win $10, and lose, the result of your decision was bad, but your decision was good. The odds were clearly in your favor. Mathematically, you were sure youâd win that bet one of two times. If you had won, you were going to win ten times your money.
Now how do you apply this thinking to more complex and vague situations, such as a product launch, your Saturday night plans, or whether or not your new hobby is a passing obsession? The key is to make a prediction, the right way.
How to make predictions the right wayThere are two components to making predictions the right way.
Turn it into a coin flip. Identify the odds. 1. Turn the outcome into a âcoin flipâFirst, turn the prediction into a coin flip. I donât mean in terms of odds, but in terms of result. When you flip a coin, it comes up heads or tails. When you make a prediction about a result, that result must either happen or not. For a prediction to be useful, it has to be falsifiable.
This is not easy to do, which is why few of us make predictions the right way, if at all.
If you think itâs going to rain, in what area will it rain, by what time? Does a single raindrop count? If you think youâll still be doing bird photography in six months, how many bird photos will you have taken, within the previous month? If you think youâll enjoy going to the party, how many good memories will you be able to recall a week later?You can define a successful result in whatever measurable way you want. The important thing is that to make a prediction, you need to turn the result into a coin flip. Not in terms of odds, but in terms of how you define the result.
Some actual predictions Iâve turned into coin flips:
My Black Friday promotion will earn $3,000â$6,000. My blog post on Zettelkasten will average worse than a ranking of 10 for the keyword âzettelkastenâ, the first three months after publish, according to Google Console. I will sell 5,000â15,000 copies of Mind Management, Not Time Management within the first year.With each of these predictions, I was wagering resources. It took, time, money, and energy to run a promotion, write a blog post, and write a book. But what did I expect from those investments? I could have done any of these without making a prediction. Besides the long-term benefits of making these predictions â which Iâll get to in a bit â turning these predictions into coin flips had immediate benefits.
Turning predictions into coin flips helps answer these questions:
Is this worth doing? By defining a successful result, youâre forced to ask yourself if itâs worth the investment, based upon your expectations. How will I achieve this? In the process of defining a successful result, you start thinking about why you expect to achieve that result. Do you have prior experiences or past data to draw upon? Youâll never search as hard for these as when youâre making a prediction. Can I do better? Defining a successful result has a symbiotic relationship with the effort you put forth trying to achieve the result. Making the prediction motivates you to try to make that prediction correct, which sometimes motivates you to predict and try to achieve an even better result.When you flip a coin, you of course arenât sure whether it will come up heads or tails, and when you make a prediction, you arenât sure whether youâll achieve that result. And that is how it should be.
2. Identify the oddsThe second way to make a prediction the right way is to identify the odds of achieving that result. Youâve turned the prediction into a coin flip, but itâs not necessarily a coin flip with 50/50 odds. It may be more like a die roll, with 1:6 odds, or a roll of four or lower, with 2:3 odds.
If youâve turned your predicted result into a coin flip by adjusting a range, you can adjust that range according to your expected odds. In this way, if you want to literally turn your prediction into a coin flip, you can pick a range you feel you have 50/50 odds of achieving. For example, I believed I had 50/50 odds of making $3,000â$6,000 on my Black Friday promotion, and of selling 5,000â15,000 copies of my book in the first year. I specifically chose those ranges based upon what I expected to have 50/50 odds of achieving.
If your prediction doesnât involve a range, such as whether or not you will regret going to a party, then you simply have to identify your expected odds of that result. For all odds, I think itâs easiest to choose a percentage of confidence, such as 50% for 50/50 odds, or 66% for 2:3 odds. For example, I was 70% sure I wouldnât regret attending a conference in Vegas last year.
Each of these predictions is for one event. But the result will either be achieved, or not. Therefore, what you felt 70% sure would happen will in retrospect look as if it had 0 or 100% odds of happening. So what is the point of choosing odds for your prediction?
There are three benefits of choosing odds:
It helps you gain clarity on each decision. It helps you distinguish risky from not-risky decisions. It helps you rate and improve your decision-making, over time. Choosing odds helps you gain clarityFirst, choosing odds of achieving a result helps you gain clarity on a decision. Letâs say you buy your first guitar. Surely youâre picturing yourself being a pretty good guitar player someday. But how do you define that, how sure are you youâll become a good guitar player, and how soon? A year later, when your guitar is collecting dust in your closet, you might feel pretty bad about yourself.
But suppose that when you bought your guitar you had predicted that you were 50% sure, one year later, you would have practiced guitar at least fifteen minutes in the previous month? Based upon that prediction, it turns out you werenât so sure to begin with that youâd become a good guitar player.
Choosing odds helps you distinguish sure bets from wildcardsWhich brings us to the second benefit of choosing odds, which is that it helps you distinguish risky decisions from not-risky decisions. You took a chance buying a guitar, and it didnât work out. Thatâs easier to live with if you know you were taking a chance.
Some of life and businessâs greatest benefits come from taking chances. But you only have so many resources to gamble with. Professional poker players know they need a certain âbank rollâ to stay in the game and keep making bets. If they have a lot of bank roll, they might play a riskier bet than if they have little. Theyâre able to do that because they know the odds.
In business, especially creative business, your âsure betsâ keep you in business, while âwildcardsâ can change your business. As you decide how to invest your resources, and evaluate whether youâve achieved successful results, youâll make better decisions if you know ahead of time whether youâre playing a sure bet or a wildcard.
For example, I was 95% sure my Zettelkasten blog post wouldnât rank in the top ten for the search term, so I was clear going into it I was playing a wildcard. Additionally, while I was 50% sure Iâd sell 5,000â15,000 copies of my book in the first year, I was 90% sure Iâd sell fewer than 250,000 copies, which helped put a ceiling on my expectations.
Choosing odds improves your decision-makingWhich is the third benefit of choosing odds: improving your decision-making over time. If you had been 90% sure youâdâve practiced guitar ten hours in a month, youâd still feel bad when it turned out you didnât, but at least youâd have data to learn from. Without that data, you might say to yourself, âI never finish what I start. Iâm a loser.â With that data, you can say, âI overestimated my enthusiasm to play guitar. Iâll keep that mistake in mind in the future.â
Notice you wouldnât tell yourself you were âwrong.â Because you werenât. Even if you were 90% sure youâdâve practiced guitar ten hours in a month and didnât, youâd only end up 90% wrong. Which means you were 10% right. When you choose odds of your expected results, itâs easier to learn from your mistakes because youâre never totally wrong, and always a little right â which makes your mistakes sting a little less.
But to get enough data to know how good your predictions are, you need to make a lot of predictions over time. If you donât know the odds of a coin flip, and your prediction turns out wrong, you donât learn a whole lot. But if you make a hundred predictions, youâll end up with a pretty good idea of the odds of that coin flip.
Make many predictions with the same odds, for faster calibrationThe more predictions you make with the same odds, the more quickly you can tell how good your predictions are. Iâve presented to you examples of predictions Iâve made with various odds. But whenever possible, I try to choose âcoin flipsâ I believe have a 70% chance of being correct.
70% is an arbitrary level of confidence. Whatâs important is that by making many predictions of which I have 70% confidence, I learn how accurate my predictions tend to be at that confidence level.
Iâve made 19 predictions at 70% confidence. Only 63% of those have turned out correct. By making and tracking many predictions, Iâve learned that when Iâm 70% confident something will happen, it will generally happen only 63% of the time. Iâm slightly overconfident at that range, and so should be more conservative with my future predictions.
My prediction track-recordI keep track of and publicly display many of my predictions on PredictionBook.com, which is one of those totally free websites with no ads that makes you nostalgic for 2007. Because Iâve made more than fifty predictions, I can see how good I am at predicting at various levels.
For example, after fifteen predictions at 90% confidence, 80% have turned out correct. After five at 50% confidence, and five at 60% confidence, those have turned out correct 80% and 100% of the time, respectively. While I should to be more pessimistic about things Iâm pretty sure will happen, it seems I should be more optimistic about things Iâm not so sure will happen.
It turned out the prediction that my Black Friday promotion would earn between $3,000 and $6,000 was correct. Since I was 50% confident, I was half-right, and half-wrong. I did sell between 5,000 and 15,000 copies of my book in the first year. Again, half-right, half-wrong. And the Zettelkasten blog post I was 95% sure wouldnât rank in the top ten, actually did! I was happy to be 95% wrong about that â it was a wildcard that turned out.
Making predictions feels unnatural â which is why you do itThe next time youâre choosing whether something is worth doing, I highly recommend you make a prediction. If turning the outcome into a coin-flip and picking a percentage of confidence feels uncomfortable to you â it should. Thinking in this way doesnât come naturally â which is why itâs a superpower.
Image: Ghost of a Genius, by Paul Klee
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/make-predictions/
-
In the midst of the Great Depression, cereal manufacturer Kelloggâs switched to a shorter, six-hour day. This continued a trend that seemed inevitable: people would work less and less. But economic policies, management strategies, and cultural attitudes changed. The story of the rise and fall of Kelloggâs six-hour day is a microcosm of these changes, as well as of our attitudes about the roles of money, leisure, work, and women and men.
In the book, Kelloggâs 6-Hour Day, historian Benjamin Kline Hunnicutt shares his findings in studying Kelloggâs shorter workday. His main sources of information were 434 interviews conducted by the Womenâs Bureau of the Department of Labor, 124 interviews he himself conducted of workers, and 241 responses to a survey he had sent. What follows is a summary of the story, and Hunnicuttâs findings.
Kelloggâs switched to a 6-hour day to create jobsDuring the Great Depression, American businesses took on a policy of âwork sharing.â The idea was that fewer would be unemployed if everyone shared jobs â more workers, working fewer hours. So, on December 1, 1930, W. K. Kellogg changed most departments in Kelloggâs Battle Creek, Michigan plant from three eight-hour shifts to four six-hour shifts.
A shorter workday had seemed inevitableThis continued a decades-long trend of shorter working hours. Labor activist William Heighton had written in 1827 that the workday should be reduced from twelve hours to ten, eight, and so on, âuntil the development and progress of science have reduced human labour to its lowest terms.â John Stuart Mill had written in 1848 about his vision for a âStationary Stateâ: After necessities were met, people would seek progress in mental, moral, and social realms. John Maynard Keynes would predict in the same year Kelloggâs switched to six hours, 1930, that weâd have a fifteen-hour work week by 2030. George Bernard Shaw and Julian Juxley had predicted a maximum two-hour workday by the end of the 1900s.
Other businesses shortened their workdays, tooOther businesses followed Kelloggâsâ lead. A survey by the Industrial Conference Board in 1931 estimated 50% of American businesses had shortened hours to save jobs. President Herbert Hoover was considering making a 6-hour day a national policy. In the 1932 presidential campaign, both major parties were advocating shorter hours.
The 6-hour day was the hot business topicNot only did the six-hour day help create jobs, it seemed for a while like it was a better business policy. Forbes called it âthe topic of discussion in the business world.â Business Week concluded it was profitable. The New York Times called it âa complete success.â Factory and Industrial Management magazine called the six-hour day, the âbiggest piece of industrial news since Ford announced his five-dollar-a-day policy.â
At Kelloggâs, 15% more shredded wheat cases were being packed per hour. Profits had doubled in 1931, versus three years prior. After five years with the six-hour day, overhead costs had been reduced 25%, labor costs 10%, with 41% fewer accidents. W. K. Kellogg said, âWe can afford to pay as much for six hours as we formerly paid for eight.â (That should be taken with a grain of salt. W. K. Kellogg took pride in crafting a public image as a âwelfare capitalist,â as evinced by the full-page newspaper ads he took out, boasting how Kelloggâs had done its part. In reality, nearly half of workers later surveyed recalled that their wages were reduced.)
Kelloggâs returned to an 8-hour day for WWIIIn 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order to direct the maximum amount of manpower toward supporting the countryâs fight in WWII. Kelloggâs responded in kind by temporarily returning to eight-hour shifts.
A rift formed between Kelloggâs management and the labor unionThis was actually an opportunity the company had been looking for. Kelloggâs management and that at other companies were beginning to resent the six-hour day, and workers were becoming divided over whether they wanted a shorter workday, or more pay. In 1936, the National Council of Grain Producers had started a union chapter in Kelloggâs Battle Creek headquarters. W. K. Kellogg had been proud to pay what he considered the best hourly wages in town. During the first meeting with union officers, he wept, and kept saying, âIf only they had come to me, I would have given them what they wanted.â
The union got an inch, and wanted a mileAfter this point, the relationship between Kelloggâs workers and management became adversarial. W. K. had left in 1937, after the union came in, and at that point the union leaders had been pushing to not only have a six-hour day, in which they could earn a bonus based upon productivity, but they had also wanted time-and-a-half pay for working more than six hours in a day. Hunnicutt wrote, âMore than any other union demand, this position would come to haunt Kellogg workers.â Demanding overtime pay on a six-hour day helped turn management against the shorter workday, and create a rift between workers who wanted higher wages, and workers who wanted shorter hours.
In the larger relationship between management and labor, the American Federation of Labor introduced a bill in congress, prohibiting goods produced by workers working more than thirty hours a week from being traded across state lines. Hunnicutt cites this as having shifted the business worldâs stance on shorter hours from support to opposition.
Shorter hours became exploitation, longer hours a rewardIn 1938, Kelloggâs management deepened the divide between six-hour and eight-hour workers by proposing they be allowed to schedule 40-hour weeks during periods of heavy production. Overtime became available instead of a productivity bonus. Senior workers had priority access to overtime, and so they lost interest in the productivity bonus.
So in the early 1940s, before the war, worker opinions were shifting to view shorter hours not as a benefit, but as instead an exploitation of workers â making them bear the brunt of fighting unemployment. And Kelloggâs was actively campaigning against shorter days, asking workers to consider how much more they would make working eight hours.
Human Relations Management saw work as lifeâs centerMeanwhile, the business world was shifting from a Scientific Management philosophy to a Human Relations Management philosophy. Scientific Management practitioners were obsessed with efficiency, but Human Relations Management practitioners were more interested in imbuing work with joy and meaning â making work its own reward. The Human Relations Management school envisioned that as work brought satisfaction, engineers and scientists would lead society into an orderly world, where desires met obligations, consumption met production, and work and leisure merged.
According to Humans Relations Management, time away from work and consumption was a relic of an illogical past. Instead of work becoming obsolete, giving way to more freedom, work would become the center of life, and help us ascend Maslowâs hierarchy.
Fewer workers wanted to return to 6 hoursAfter the war, many departments returned to six-hour shifts, but six-hour workers slowly lost their beloved shorter shifts over the following decades. Central to this struggle was how workers viewed leisure. Kelloggâs workers had previously voted to essentially âbuyâ shorter working hours, being paid less overall, in exchange for more leisure time. Employees used their time to improve their homes, go hunting, grow and can food in their gardens, and spend time volunteering in their communities. But slowly, workers became less interested in having time away from work.
Leisure was outsourced to mass mediaOne explanation from a worker Hunnicutt interviewed was, people were now outsourcing all things they used to spend time on. One place they were outsourcing to was mass media. Sports had been such serious business amongst Kelloggâs employees, they had hired âsemi-proâ softball or basketball players to play on the teams. But why watch the company team play, when you can watch pros on television? One former six-hour worker bemoaned that even conversation had been outsourced â to radio, or television talk-show hosts.
Shorter hours became seen as weak and feminineThe question, Six hours or eight? became a gender issue. Early on, both men and women were interested in six-hour shifts. Three-fourths of men voted for six-hour shifts in 1937, but half of men were working eight hours by 1947. The six-hour departments began to be referred to as âgirlsâ departments,â doing âwomenâs work.â Management also assigned sick and disabled employees to the six-hour departments. Men who chose to work six-hours were labeled âsissies,â âlazy,â or âweird.â
Men saw work, not leisure, as a source of control and identityHunnicuttâs interpretation was that men were increasingly seeing work as a place for control and identity â that many hadnât known what to do with themselves after their shorter shifts. They didnât like spending more time at home and being assigned chores by their wives, or hearing what they considered gossip. As a result, men placed more importance on working longer hours â or at least appearing to. Hunnicutt said men he interviewed commonly claimed to have gotten second jobs while they were working six hours. How often is âcommonlyâ?, he doesnât say, but he points out only 35% ever did get second jobs.
Men felt they âhad toâ work long hoursThis attitude, which we might today call âtoxic masculinity,â extended into attitudes about leisure. When asked why they preferred longer hours, men spoke of necessity, and used dramatic language, saying they had to âkeep the wolf from the door,â âfeed the family,â and âput bread on the table.â When Hunnicutt pointed out to men who had been working in the 1950s that workers in the Great Depression had been willing to take pay cuts to have more free time, he says they got defensive, lectured him on âthe facts of life economically,â called six-hours ânonsenseâ or a âpipe dream,â or dismissed the question as silly.
While Hunnicuttâs conclusions here are plausible, it seemed like he really wanted it to be true, and didnât present menâs attitudes scientifically. Thereâs no mention of what earnings were relative to cost-of-living, and no acknowledgement of what these menâs roles might have been, truthfully, in the economics of their homes. Thereâs not even a mention of how throwing thousands of young men into the meat grinder that was WWII, tasked with saving the world, might have affected their own perceptions of what was expected of them. Though he did present a story of one man who had found that the extra money he made going back to eight hours was due to his ex-wife, as alimony.
A shorter workday became âa sexist ployâIn the 1970s, Kelloggâs women worked with a local womenâs-rights group, who presented the case that six-hour shifts were a sexist ploy meant to subjugate women. They demanded management âallowâ women to have âfull-timeâ jobs. Kelloggâs posted notices in the plant claiming that to make pay âcomparable,â they were opening up eight-hour departments to women. In doing so, they skirted the issue: The activists had wanted not just comparable hours, but comparable hourly pay.
The 6-hour mavericks held onWorkers who stuck with the six-hour shift â who Hunnicutt calls âsix-hour mavericksâ â were about a quarter of the Kelloggâs workforce from 1957, into the 1980s. The union worked according to a department-by-department vote on the length of the day, so long as the six-hour workers didnât interfere with the union majorityâs strategy to try to get higher wages and more benefits.
With longer hours, efficiency fell by the waysideOvertime had previously been thought of as a penalty to the company for being understaffed, but it became a way for workers to earn more money while the companyâs staffing requirements remained flexible. According to Hunnicutt, with overtime instead of productivity bonuses, workers were less-motivated and careful. The company had to resort to being more controlling, motivating workers with fines, threats, and firings.
The death of the 6-hour shiftThe increased benefits the union had fought for over the years may have worked against the six-hour shift. The final nail in the coffin was driven in 1984, when Kelloggâs threatened to relocate if workers didnât vote to abandon the six-hour shift. So the six-hour workers gave in and voted to give it up. Some retired, some worked eight hours, but the coffin in which this nail was driven was both figurative and literal. The six-hour workers held a âfuneral,â building a full-sized cardboard coffin, painted black, placed on the workroom floor, a cut-out skeleton placed inside.
Thus reversed a trend that had held on for over 150 years. The idea of less work and more leisure gave way to a stable amount of work, and more consumption.
Itâs tempting to blame the death of the 6-hour shift on one of many juicy narratives. You could say people forgot how to spend their leisure time. You could say people were overly-materialistic, and wanted more money, instead of time. You could say toxic masculinity and a patriarchal society tipped the scales so those who wanted to work shorter hours were no longer in the majority. You could say the unions got too demanding and sabotaged the long-fought battle for a shorter working day.
All these are probably true to an extent. Ultimately, businesses want to, need to, maximize profit. They have to offer benefits to employees to stay competitive. To offer those benefits profitably, they need more work from fewer workers. If you believe the efficient-market hypothesis, if a shorter workday were indeed more profitable, some business would beat its competitors by offering one, and other businesses would follow suit.
So far, that hasnât happened. If, as I believe, creativity becomes more important, productivity will be about [Mind Management, Not Time Management, and a more-relaxed work schedule will be embraced. But probably not for boxing corn flakes.
Thereâs your summary of Kelloggâs 6-Hour DayThis episode is essentially a summary of the book, Kelloggâs 6-Hour Day, by Benjamin Kline Hunnicutt. The book is very dense and written in an academic style, so I canât recommend it unless you really want to dig deep into questions about work and leisure. Itâs a provocative story that makes you wonder if we could be living in a world where a 6-hour day is standard. But it sounds like it wasnât even close.
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/kelloggs-6-hour-day/
-
Desire paths are trails left on the ground, by anything that frequently travels along a route. There are subcultures fascinated by desire paths as symbols of collective wisdom, disregard for authority, or mere evidence of existence. Desire paths are also celebrated as a design technique. Desire paths in their pure form are about what you can see, but the characteristics of desire paths â which you canât always see â can help you optimize your life and gain clarity in your creative projects.
Desire path examplesDesire paths are also known by a number of other names: cattle trails, cow paths, elephant paths, just to name a few. In forests or grassy meadows, it seems pretentious to call them desire paths â theyâre just paths.
Desire paths that question authorityDesire paths are most interesting when they show up in places where a man-made path has already been put in place. A sidewalk turns a corner at a ninety-degree angle, but as people cut the corner, a desire path develops at forty-five degrees.
An overgrown hedge encroaches on a sidewalk. To avoid squeezing between the hedge and a tree, people walk off the sidewalk and around the tree, and a desire path develops.
A landscape architect tries to get fancy by building a curved path, but people instead take a straight path, and a desire path cuts through the grass.
These desire paths that eschew the suggestions of man-made paths are like visual jokes that show a disregard for authority.
Desire paths that acknowledge existenceBut some desire paths acknowledge the existence of a single being. A dog leaves a desire path where heâs cut across the yard a thousand times.
A woman leaves a desire path where all summer sheâs walked off the end of a dock, into the shallow water, to the shore of a lake.
When a single being who has left a desire path passes away, the desire path remains as a reminder of their existence. The thought of nature reclaiming the desire path â for example, the grass growing back â is a sad reminder of how long theyâve been gone, and a reminder one day weâll be gone, too.
But the being doesnât even have to be a living one. Delivery robots have left desire paths, their tire tracks marking the sidewalk with GPS precision.
Desire paths as a design techniqueThe most striking thing about desire paths is they can be used as a design technique. As I said, desire paths are like visual jokes that show a disregard for authority. They poke fun at civilizationâs feeble attempts to plan, make decisions for others, or control people.
Sometimes âauthorityâ surrenders to the crowd and lets desire paths do the decision-making for them.
University campuses are often full of desire paths. With so many students migrating from one of many buildings to one of many other buildings, thereâs no way to predict what routes exactly will be the most efficient.
So some schools, such as Ohio State University, held off on creating paved paths. Once the desire paths showed up, they then paved on top of them. The result is a latticework of criss-crossing paths, of varying widths, that no single human would have designed.
Desire paths arenât always goodBut sometimes âauthorityâ has a good reason for building a path that seems inefficient. On the leading subculture of desire-path enthusiasts â Redditâs desire paths community â parks planners have explained that nature trails often have switchbacks going back and forth across steep inclines, because such a design prevents soil erosion. When people cut across these switchbacks, hiking directly up the hill, they hasten erosion.
Additionally, desire paths express the desires of the majority. Sometimes the path expressed by desire paths donât work for people in the minority. That curved path that looks like the result of a landscape architect gone wild might soften the incline for people in wheelchairs â and how does that work out when path installation is delayed until desire paths form?
Ultimately, people are going to tend toward their desires to get to their destinations quickly. Whatever practical reasons âauthorityâ has for designing a path, the wisdom carried by desire paths canât be ignored.
The power of invisible desire pathsDesire paths, in their pure form, are about what you can see. It seems the use of desire paths in design projects originated with analyzing data you canât see. A 1942 transit study in Detroit charted origins and destinations of commuter trips, to determine where best to build roads.
If you break the phenomenon of desire paths down to its essential components, you can find desire paths you canât see, and harness their power to optimize your life and achieve clarity in creative projects.
When used as a design technique, a desire path essentially does four things:
A good-enough solution Collects data Exposes a pattern in the data Which leads to an ideal solutionThe unmodified ground is a good-enough solution people can use. Through the usage patterns of that good-enough solution, data builds up. Each footprint is a piece of data. The footprints donât overlap, all in the same place. Instead, a pattern emerges, in the form of a path. That pattern is then used to determine an ideal solution. In the case of a college campus, that ideal solution is usually a paved sidewalk where the desire path once was.
1. Start with a prototypeWhen a desire path forms, the untreated ground is essentially a prototype. So to create an invisible desire path, build or find a prototype. Find a low-cost, low-commitment way to give yourself a good-enough solution.
For example, if youâre looking for the perfect backpack, you could take the top-down approach that desire paths so often protest: You could plan out everything you want your backpack to hold and do, then design a custom backpack. Or, you could start with a prototype: Buy any cheap backpack at a thrift store, and try it out.
2. Collect dataDesire paths collect data based upon use of a prototype. Once you have a good-enough solution, youâre collecting data as you use it.
With your cheap backpack, maybe you notice the straps gets loose, or dig into your shoulder. Maybe a pen falls out of it, or you find yourself rummaging through a big compartment full of small items.
3. Look for patternsDesire paths collect data, but that data is only useful once a pattern emerges. When a desire path forms, you can see it, but when an invisible desire path forms, you canât.
After enough time using your prototype, individual bits of data turn into patterns. Maybe a pen fell out of your cheap backpack only once and you fixed the straps so they didnât loosen anymore, but the strap kept digging into your shoulder and you got sick of rummaging through a compartment full of small items.
Youâve found your invisible desire path: You want a backpack with comfortable straps, and lots of small compartments for small items.
4. Find a solutionWhen desire paths are used as a design feature, the visible path becomes the backbone of the solution. The designers simply pave a path over the desire path.
Once youâve found an invisible desire path, that becomes the backbone of your solution. Now that youâve used a prototype enough times for patterns to emerge, you can find a solution that fits those patterns.
Desire paths in creative projectsNow how can invisible desire paths help you gain clarity on creative projects? Creative projects are a lot like choosing a backpack: You have a variety of requirements and preferences, not all of them are clear, and many contradict one another. Thereâs no one perfect solution, but thereâs some ideal solution that balances everything.
Too often, we approach creative projects thinking top-down: We donât want to act until we have the perfect plan. But the perfect plan doesnât exist.
The best way to find an ideal plan is create an invisible desire path: Find a good-enough solution, collect data, and see what patterns emerge. Only then can you quickly and efficiently get where youâre going.
Thank you for having me on your show!Thank you for having me on your show. Thank you to Ajay Mathur at the Be Yourself show.
As always, you can find interviews of me on my interviews page.
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/desire-paths/
-
The term, âvulnerabilityâ has spread into realms where itâs not an accurate description of whatâs going on. The case for being vulnerable often doesnât make sense. In the creative realm â and possibly in others â we should pursue something beyond vulnerability.
When I wrote about vulnerability to my Love Mondays newsletter, saying some of what Iâm about to say, I got a lot of pushback. In the current â and what I believe to be incorrect â parlance, some might say I had made myself vulnerable. I donât agree. Iâll build up to why in the course of examining the vulnerability movement.
Iâll try to keep this organized, so that if you disagree with my line of thinking, itâs easier to identify where. Itâs hard to talk about vulnerability in an organized way, because the more the term is abused, the more vague its definition gets.
Vulnerability means âopen to harmâLetâs start by defining vulnerability. In the most basic terms, vulnerability means, âopen to harm.â If you want to be more technical and specific, âopenâ in this case doesnât mean âinvitingâ harm, but rather âsusceptibleâ to harm.
Now Iâll paraphrase some examples of how vulnerability is espoused in the current movement:
âBe vulnerable at work. If you need help, donât be afraid to ask.â âBe vulnerable in relationships. Share your feelings, even if it means you might be rejected.â âBe vulnerable in your writing. Share your struggles.â (Anyone familiar with my work might be surprised to hear me tee up this last one.)I donât deny that a person might feel vulnerable in these situations. Iâm not convinced they are vulnerable. Iâm definitely skeptical that striving to be or even feel vulnerable is helpful.
Emotional harm is the most-subjective harmIf being vulnerable is being open to harm, to understand vulnerability we have to define what harm is. There are many types of harm, but I think most are covered in three categories: physical, economic, and emotional harm.
Physical harm is the least-subjective realm of harm. Yes, people might perceive their physical wounds differently, and someone can have physical pains with an emotional cause, but for the most part, you can measure physical injury.
Economic harm is slightly more-subjective. If you lose your job in a flourishing modern economy, you wonât necessarily have scars, such as if you experienced physical harm. You may ultimately be better off.
Emotional harm is almost entirely subjective. What seems like emotional harm to one person may not to another. Some canât stand to be looked at by a stranger. Others donât care if someone criticizes them. Importantly, what causes emotional harm to a person when theyâre inexperienced in a realm may not â later, to that same person â cause emotional harm after they become experienced in that same realm. More on that later.
The vulnerability movement: âBe vulnerable, and benefitâNow that weâve defined vulnerability as âopen to harm,â and identified most harms as physical, economic, or emotional, letâs try to identify the case being made for vulnerability by the vulnerability movement.
When I say vulnerability movement, Iâm not talking about any one person, but rather my perception as a very-confused outsider, trying to make sense of the conversations being had about vulnerability in TED talks, on social media, on podcasts, and at cocktail parties.
As far as I can understand, the pitch of the vulnerability movement is, âbe vulnerable and benefit.â
To paraphrase, using the prior examples from work, love, and art:
âIf you need help at work, ask for it. You risk looking like you donât know what youâre doing, but you and your team will perform better.â âBe the first in a relationship to say, âI love you.â You risk rejection, but otherwise youâll have a deeper relationship.â âShare your struggles in your writing. People may laugh at you, but your words will help others.âTo be clear, I think these actions can be wise. But I donât believe theyâre objectively vulnerable, and you donât have to make vulnerability a goal â and maybe you shouldnât make vulnerability a goal â to catalyze these actions.
These are all cases to âbe vulnerable and benefit.â To be vulnerable is to be open to harm. If you ultimately benefit from an action, were you vulnerable â were you open to harm â in the first place?
Is it vulnerability if it needs boundaries?Some might say, Well, you donât know the outcome of these actions in advance, so youâre risking harm by taking them. Yet anyone who speaks intelligently about vulnerability rightly says it should come with boundaries. A CEO shouldnât freak out about the potential fate of the company, in front of employees and shareholders. You shouldnât spend your first date complaining about your ex. You shouldnât share your struggles with depression in writing a user manual for a Bluetooth speaker. Too much vulnerability is oversharing.
So, according to the movement, vulnerability should be a calculated risk, one youâre likely to benefit from, and one that isnât likely to ruin you.
Donât seek vulnerability, seek idealsIt seems to me the case being made for vulnerability is in pursuit of important ideals, including but not limited to truth, security, and alignment. The more weâre honest at work, the more effective we can be in an efficient marketplace. The more we share our feelings in our relationships, the more secure we feel. The more of our true selves we put into our art, the more it resonates with others.
âFearâ is the word youâre looking forI think a better term for what we experience in pursuit of these ideals is âfear.â Fear is a feeling of discomfort in the face of perceived danger. Fear can be irrational. The perceived danger can be entirely in your head. Some people experience fear just looking at a spider that has no chance of physically harming them. Some people experience fear looking at birds.
Valid vulnerability isnât the type being promotedIâve ventured into unfamiliar territory thinking about vulnerability and putting together this critique. I found many areas where truly being vulnerable resulted in benefits, such as in combat, activism, and workplace inclusion.
True vulnerability, it seems, is the product of power, and people sometimes have to be vulnerable to dissolve that power. These areas are outside the scope of this short critique. Besides, I havenât come across much chatter in the vulnerability movement that makes cases for vulnerability in these valid areas.
But arenât I a âvulnerableâ writer?One area I am very familiar with is creative work. Some readers have described some of my work as âvulnerable.â Iâve written about the death of my mother, the death of a lover, and published a conversation about grief. Iâve listed my failures and published my private doubts in my pursuit of a career as a writer. Iâve written about my health struggles in graphic detail, and shared my struggles with moving to another country. Iâve been publicly reporting my income for years, starting when it was even less-impressive than it is now. Iâm further critiquing vulnerability in this article, even though I got angry emails in response to my short newsletter on the topic.
Was I, am I, vulnerable in creating these things? I donât think so. Am I risking physical harm? Not likely. Economic harm? I donât think so. Emotional harm? Thatâs not up to someone else to decide.
What looks like âvulnerabilityâ is âantifragilityâHave I ever felt vulnerable writing these things? In retrospect, I guess I did. More accurately, I felt fear. Because I was not vulnerable. I benefitted greatly writing these things. I grew, and got to know myself. I found my voice and got closer to doing work that comes from my core. It was all real and came from an authentic place, but I grew my business in the process.
I took calculated risks, and I got better at calculating along the way. I thought that by writing public income reports, I would improve my thought processes and grow my business â I did. I thought that having a public conversation about grief would help me live with it â it has. I thought that by writing about my mysterious health issues, readers would send me ideas that would help me get better â they did.
Iâm not claiming to be Galileo or Harvey Milk, which is kind of the point â their work made them objectively vulnerable. But I know Iâve never set out to deliberately be vulnerable. Iâve set out to face fears, because I believed they were irrational. Somewhere along the way, I stopped being scared. What once felt like fear morphed into excitement to see what would happen â to see if this action would take me closer to truth, security, and alignment.
Vulnerability as a boundary, not a beaconNow that Iâve been at it a long time, if I were to feel vulnerable, I would see that as a boundary, not a beacon. That would be a warning sign that Iâm oversharing, and needlessly putting myself in danger.
Thatâs one problem with espousing the pursuit of a subjective feeling: Being afraid is not the same as being vulnerable. The more experienced you get â in work, love, or art â the more adeptly you can recognize when you really are vulnerable, and decide itâs a good idea to stop.
Performative vulnerability is a slippery slopeWhen I wrote about this in my newsletter, some readers said they had been in communities where appearing vulnerable became a sort of contest. People seemed to be oversharing just to outdo one another.
Thatâs another problem with espousing the pursuit of a subjective feeling: If vulnerability is the goal â whether thatâs being, feeling, or appearing vulnerable â you incentivize vulnerability. The definitions and the actions fitting those definitions tumble over one another down a very slippery slope.
Vulnerability can be a productive lieSometimes we tell ourselves productive lies. You can commit to working for ten minutes, knowing youâll keep going once youâve reached that goal. You can give yourself permission to suck â notice thatâs âpermission,â not âdirectiveâ â knowing youâll improve or do better than you had expected.
Maybe the pursuit to feel vulnerable is a productive lie. It teaches you to face your irrational fears. But at some point you hopefully grow beyond vulnerability â where feeling vulnerable is a sign of danger. There are cases where danger â true vulnerability â is worth the risk, but thatâs only because the ideals youâre pursuing are worth that much.
What looks like vulnerability is a byproduct, not a goalChoosing your actions with vulnerability as a goal is like building a boat designed to splash water. Boats splash water because theyâre traveling to a destination. You feel or even are vulnerable in the pursuit of something more important. A boat designed to splash water wonât travel as efficiently as a boat designed to go somewhere.
I believe that a person designing their actions to feel vulnerable wonât be as effective as a person driven to pursue an ideal. Thatâs what lies beyond vulnerability.
Image: Error on Green, Paul Klee
Thank you for having me on your podcasts!Thank you for having me on your podcasts. Thank you to Brilliant Miller at The School for Good Living podcast.
As always, you can find interviews of me on my interviews page.
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: http://kadavy.net/blog/posts/beyond-vulnerability/
-
The Prince is a political treatise, written by NiccolĂČ Machiavelli, first distributed in 1513. Itâs infamous for its apparent advice to political leaders to lie, murder, and manipulate. Itâs still a fascinating read today, and is thought-provoking when considering any context where the true motives of actions may not be what they seem. Here, in my own words, is a summary of NiccolĂł Machiavelliâs, The Prince.
Is The Prince advice, satire, or sabotage?Machiavelli wrote The Prince while in exile from Florence. Since he opens it with a letter to Lorenzo dâMedici it seems like Machiavelli was trying to get a political position with the Medici, by demonstrating his political knowledge. (The Medici had recently returned to power in Florence, after themselves being exiled fifteen years.) But, some scholars think The Prince is satire. Others think the advice within was a ploy, in that if it were followed, the actions would weaken the power of the Medici.
âThe ends [justified] the means,â in Renaissance ItalyThough the phrase isnât in the book, The Prince is the origin of the saying, âthe ends justify the means.â In other words, if you have an important goal, morality doesnât matter. Itâs also the inspiration for the name of the personality trait of âMachiavellianismâ, which is characterized by manipulativeness, insensitivity, and an indifference to morality. Psychologists include Machiavellianism in the âdark triadâ personality traits, along with narcissism and psychopathy.
Sixteenth century Italy was the perfect environment for advice like that in The Prince to flourish. There was constant conflict amongst small governing bodies, including the most-notable city-states of Florence, Milan, Rome, Naples, and Venice. Additionally, there were frequent invasions by Spain, France, or the Holy Roman Empire. If the numerous examples Machiavelli cites in The Prince are any indication, if you didnât lie, murder, and manipulate, you wouldnât stay in power, and probably would be murdered yourself.
You donât have to be Machiavellian to learn from The PrinceAs you listen to this advice, itâs not hard to think of similar, less-violent situations in our everyday lives, as we build relationships and careers, or watch others vie for power. So what is some of this juicy advice that has made The Prince and NiccolĂČ Machiavelli so infamous?
Iâll break down this summary into two sections, followed by some historical examples Machiavelli cites, peppered with some quotes. Those two sections are:
Gaining power Retaining power(Note this isnât how Machiavelli organizes The Prince.)
1. Gaining powerFirst how to gain power. Machiavelli points out that the people within a state are eager to change rulers. People naturally expect change to improve their lives, so, theyâre willing to join in armed resistance against the ruling power.
This attitude extends from the people, to other states. If a powerful foreigner invades a country, the states within want to help overturn the rule of the most-powerful state.
But you have to be careful. Itâs normal to want to acquire more land, but when you try to do it by any means possible, you end up making dumb mistakes.
How this applies to other domainsAs you hear this, you may already have some parallels to other domains bouncing around in your head. How many times have you bought a product just slightly different from one you already had, because you believed the change would make your life better?
Marketers take advantage of this. Iâve read one marketing book that advised to think of the product youâre marketing as a ânew opportunity.â Changing leadership is a ânew opportunity,â that temporarily makes you optimistic, like how we feel when a New Year comes around. But often, the new product, the new ruler, or the New Year doesnât make your life better. We get stuck in a cycle of wanting change and striving for it, only to find we arenât better off than before, which drives our desire to change once again.
This is why, to quote Machiavelli:
There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. âNiccolĂČ Machiavelli The Prince
In other words, you might get short-term support in the change youâre trying to introduce, but the support you once had will soon wane, and those who were doing well before will try to overthrow you.
2. Retaining powerThis brings us to the second section, about retaining power. Being able to retain power starts with choosing carefully where and how you gain power. This is why Machiavelli warns:
He who has not first laid his foundations may be able with great ability to lay them afterwards, but they will be laid with trouble to the architect and danger to the building. âNiccolĂČ Machiavelli The Prince
Any new state is extremely fragile, unless the person who unexpectedly gained power over that state is highly-skilled. You can gain power by getting the help of the people, or other states, but whoever helped you will probably be disappointed in what they get from it, and will no longer want to help you.
Be especially careful not to make your allies much more powerful, because then theyâll become threats. Additionally, theyâll distrust you, because in the process of helping them, they saw how cunning you are.
So, if youâre invading a place, you want to be on the good side of the natives. However, if theyâre used to being free, youâll have to destroy them, or theyâll destroy you. As Machiavelli said:
Men ought to either be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot. âNiccolĂČ Machiavelli The Prince
In other words, if theyâre dead, they canât get revenge. And:
He who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it. âNiccolĂČ Machiavelli The Prince
If you want to retain power in a new state, you need to start a colony there. You donât have to spend a lot on the colony, because after you take the land and houses of people, they will be, âpoor and scattered,â and canât hurt you. Itâs important to be in the place youâre ruling, because otherwise you donât find out about things that go wrong until itâs too late to fix them.
Statecraft is a lot of work, because, as Machiavelli says:
He who has relied least on fortune is established the strongest. âNiccolĂČ Machiavelli The Prince
How this applies to other domainsSome of this advice may resonate with situations youâve experienced. Some of it may be horrifying to you. Hereâs how it can apply to other domains.
Imagine youâre a CEO, and youâve just acquired a new company. Itâs best to get it right the first time. If you make mistakes, youâll have a hard time leading the company.
When a company acquires another, or a new leader comes into a company, you often see layoffs right away. This mirrors Machiavelliâs related advice, which is:
Injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavor of them may last longer. âNiccolĂČ Machiavelli The Prince
If done according to Machiavelliâs advice, after the brutal layoffs, there will be ice-cream socials, team-building exercises, and bonuses scattered over the coming months and years, hopefully without more massive layoffs. Whoever is in charge had better have close oversight to an office thatâs far away from headquarters, otherwise by the time you find out about problems, itâs too late to fix them.
How not to rule: King Louis XIIA leader who Machiavelli uses as a warning for not ruling well is King Louis the XII, of France. The Venetians brought in King Louis, because they wanted to seize half the state of Lombardy. But they later realized, they had helped make Louis king of two-thirds of Italy.
Louis was now well-positioned, but then his mistakes began. He helped Pope Alexander occupy the Romagna, divided the kingdom of Naples with the king of Spain, and turned around and tried to conquer Veniceâs territories.
So, he weakened the minor power of Venice, losing their alliance, made a great power â the pope â even more powerful, and brought in a foreign power â Spain. He didnât settle in the land he had conquered, and didnât set up colonies.
How to rule: Cesare BorgiaLike Louis XII when the Venetians enlisted his help, Cesare Borgia came into power through fortune. Unlike Louis, he made what Machiavelli felt were wise decisions.
Cesare was the son of Pope Alexander VI, who himself was cunning. He wanted to give Cesare a state to rule, but there werenât good options. For example, the Milanese or the Venetians would stop him, and anyone in Italy who might have helped knew better than to make the pope even more powerful.
When the Venetians brought the French into Italy, Alexander didnât make a fuss, and even helped Louis out by dissolving his marriage. He provided some soldiers to help out in a military campaign in Romagna, and now his son, Cesare was the duke of Romagna.
But Cesare wasnât thrilled with his military. The Orsini soldiers didnât seem psyched to take Bologna, and when he attacked Tuscany after taking over Urbino, Louis made him stop. So Cesare decided to figure out how to do things on his own.
Cesare Borgia followed Machiavelliâs advice (somewhat literally)Anywhere Cesare took power, he was sure to kill the nobles and their families. He weakened the Orsini and Colonna parties in Rome, by making them nobles and giving them a good salary. Then he brought in a Spaniard named Ramiro dâOrco (also known as Ramiro de Lorca) to govern the Romagna. The Romagna had been in disorder when Cesare took over, and dâOrco restored order, but through nasty means, using lots of torture, public executions, and fines.
Once dâOrco had cleaned things up, Cesare â according to Machiavelli â didnât want to be associated with dâOrcoâs reign of terror. So, he had him publicly executed, and put his head on a stick in the town square.
Machiavelli was an advisor to Cesare during this time, and felt that Cesare did almost everything right to make the best of the power he had gained through fortune, and lay a foundation that could withstand the inevitable death of his father, the pope. Machiavelli says:
He told me that he had thought of everything that might occur at the death of his father, and had provided a remedy for all, except that he had never anticipated that, when the death did happen, he himself would be on the point to die. âNiccolĂČ Machiavelli, The Prince (on Cesare Borgia)
When the pope did die â sooner than expected â Cesare himself was nearly dead from malaria. Though he won the favor of the next pope, Pius III died after only twenty-six days. Machiavelli felt Cesareâs one mistake was then helping elect Pope Julius II, who had promised him favors in return. As Machiavelli says:
He who believes that new benefits will cause great personages to forget old injuries is deceived. âNiccolĂČ Machiavelli, The Prince
Cesare had slighted Julius in the past, and he wasnât going to forget that. Julius seized land from Cesare, and didnât support him.
You can see a dramatization of the story of Pope Alexander and Cesare Borgia in Showtimeâs excellent-but-incomplete series, The Borgias.
The Prince, todayMachiavelliâs advice â if it really is that â sounds brutal to modern ears, but it was a product of the reality of the time. Machiavelli was the only one brave enough â maybe desperate enough â to describe that reality.
In many areas of life, business, and politics, the true effects of actions are often more complex than they appear on the surface. Sometimes this is an accident, many times itâs deliberate. Why does a politician, a CEO, or a even a friend say what they say?
Iâm almost tempted to list The Prince on my best media books list, because the effect of a piece of media is always deeper than it appears on the surface. Political leaders in sixteenth-century Italy influenced perceptions through public events that could be described as media. You could say Cesare Borgiaâs public execution of Ramiro dâOrco was a pseudo-event. If so, Ryan Holidayâs Trust Me, Iâm Lying is like a modern day, The Prince: exposing the fundamentally-ugly reality of how a complex and brutal system that affects public perceptions works.
Why Machiavelliâs exile wasnât lonelyLest you have a low opinion of NiccolĂČ Machiavelli from the content in The Prince, I want to leave you with something more endearing about him. When the Medici returned to power, they suspected Machiavelli of conspiring against them, so had him jailed and tortured â a decent reason to believe The Prince may have been satirical or, fittingly, a Machiavellian gambit to cause the Medici harm.
Exiled to his farm estate, and stripped of his position as a political advisor, Machiavelli did his best to keep doing the work he loved, and retain a sense of dignity. In a letter to a friend, he described his daily ritual:
When evening comes, I go back home, and go to my study. On the threshold, I take off my work clothes, covered in mud and filth, and I put on the clothes an ambassador would wear. Decently dressed, I enter the ancient courts of rulers who have long since died. There, I am warmly welcomed, and I feed on the only food I find nourishing and was born to savor. I am not ashamed to talk to them and ask them to explain their actions and they, out of kindness, answer me. Four hours go by without my feeling any anxiety. I forget every worry. I am no longer afraid of poverty or frightened of death. I live entirely through them. âNiccolĂČ Machiavelli, Letter to Francesco Vettori
Thereâs your summary of NiccolĂČ Machiavelliâs The PrinceIf you enjoyed this summary, I highly recommend you read NiccolĂČ Machiavelliâs The Prince. Thereâs also an excellent free online annotated version online, called The Annotated Prince.
Thank you for having me on your podcasts!Thank you for having me on your podcasts. Thank you to David DeCelle for having me on The Model FA podcast.
As always, you can find interviews of me on my interviews page.
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: http://kadavy.net/blog/posts/the-prince-niccolo-machiavelli-summary/
-
Which would you rather have? Mild success, or wild success? Most of us would prefer wild success. But we pursue mild success. And you canât have one when youâre going for the other.
The struggle of an aspiring novelistA more specific version of the scenario I mentioned in episode 253: Imagine youâre working at Starbucks during the day, and at night youâre writing novels â not just any novels, but your favorite kind. You call it Care Bear Fanfic Urban Fantasy. As far as you know, youâre the only person who writes Care Bear Fanfic Urban Fantasy. Judging by your sales, youâre also the only person who reads it. Youâve written three novels in this genre youâve created, and there have been hardly any sales, aside from the handful of copies youâve sold to your mom and close friends.
After a couple years writing and promoting your Care-Bear novels, you decide itâs time for a change. You told yourself when you started writing that as soon as you made as much as your Starbucks job, youâd quit and write full-time. Youâre not even close. Your hourly Starbucks wage isnât great, but youâve actually lost money writing your three novels, after investing in cover designs and some ads.
A new opportunityFortunately, one of your friends is a pretty successful author. She makes a middle-class living writing in a genre called Sweet Romance â mostly read by retired women, some of whom read a new Sweet Romance novel every day. You buy your friend a coffee â or rather steal it from work â sit her down, and drill her to tell you all about writing and selling Sweet Romance novels. Sheâs super helpful, and tells you everything you need to know about the story structure readers expect, what tropes each novel has to hit, and even what keywords to advertise under.
Armed with your knowledge of the Sweet Romance genre, you get to work. Itâs not your favorite, but it would beat serving coffee, you figure. The first couple novels are a challenge, but once you get it down, youâre cranking out a new one every several weeks. Youâve got it down to a whole system: You change the character names, the locations, and a few scenarios from your last novel, and they practically write themselves.
Making it, as a middle-class novelistThree years later, you, like your friend, are a middle-class Sweet Romance novelist. Youâve written eighteen novels, in three series, and in the past year have profited $70k. You quit your job at Starbucks a couple years ago, and you were right: Writing Sweet Romance is way more fun than serving coffee.
Still, something is missing. Youâre getting tired of writing the same stories over and over. New ideas for Care Bear Fanfic Urban Fantasy stories keep coming to you. But you keep pushing them down. Why would you bother writing another Care Bear novel, when youâre sure youâll sell none? Why would you not write another Sweet Romance novel, when youâre sure youâll sell some. Besides, youâve upgraded your life: You now have a mortgage and a car payment, and your dog eats Purina instead of the off-brand stuff from Aldi. These novels donât sell forever. If you donât keep the Sweet Romance machine going, youâll make less and less money.
A missed opportunityBut, one day, you discover something that changes everything you thought you knew about the business of being an author. As youâre tallying up your earnings at the end of the month, you realize that your Care Bear Fanfic Urban Fantasy series has started selling. In fact, youâve sold a hundred copies in the past month! Thatâs more copies than youâve sold in all the previous years.
You dig a little deeper, and discover another author, writing under the name Brave Heart Brian, has written seven Care Bear Fanfic Urban Fantasy novels. Youâre filled with excitement, confusion, and envy. Youâre excited to have some Care Bear novels to read, confused as to how Brave Heart Brian seems to have popped up out of nowhere, and envious that â judging from the Amazon ranks of his books â heâs making more money than you are!
You take a deep breath and wash away the envy â it is fanfic after all, itâs not like you invented Care Bears. You email Brian to congratulate him on his success, and ask him how it all happened. It turns out Brian stumbled upon your Care Bear series last year. He loved it, and wanted to read more Care Bear Fanfic Urban Fantasy, but since you clearly werenât active anymore, he decided if he wanted to read more, heâd have to write the novels himself. Not only has he built up a nice following of readers, he just sold film rights for his series, for millions of dollars!
The good news is, Care Bear Fanfic Urban Fantasy is quickly becoming a popular genre. The bad new is, youâre not the author who will reap most of the benefits.
Where did you go wrong?You wonder, Where did I go wrong? You tried writing Care Bear Fanfic Urban Fantasy for years, and the writing was on the wall: Nobody cared.
The problem was, Sweet Romance was a sure bet â or at least one of the surer bets writing novels could be. You expected writing in Care Bear Fanfic Urban Fantasy to behave like a sure bet, but it was not a sure bet. The Care Bear novels were a wildcard. You didnât distinguish your sure bets from your wildcards, so you gave up on your wildcards too soon.
Sure bets for mild success, wildcards for wild successWeâre used to playing sure bets. You didnât show up to your job at Starbucks for the small chance of making a lot of money. You instead had a high chance â a guarantee, in fact â to make a little money. You knew how much youâd get paid every hour you worked.
Sure bets have a good chance of mild success. Even when you fail at a sure bet, you succeed somewhat â if you slack off at Starbucks, you still get paid, so long as you donât get fired. If your next Sweet Romance novel isnât your best, you still make some sales.
Sure bets have a good chance of mild success, but wildcards have a small chance of wild success. When a wildcard fails, all your effort goes to waste. You get nothing. But when a wildcard succeeds, the sky is the limit.
In my second interview with Seth Godin, on episode 177, he told me this:
Your last book was really juicy. Your last book did not sell a million copies. Those things arenât completely related. But itâs very important that your next book not be something that you think fits into a juicy slot â not be something that is searched for from an SEO point of viewâŠ. Thatâs how you become a second-rate romance novelist. Itâs not how you write The Martian.
What Seth was telling me, essentially, was to not play sure bets â donât write something just because you know some people are searching for it. Instead, play wildcards, to write what was interesting to me, and take the risk that it might not work.
Donât rate your wildcards as if they were sure betsEssentially, when youâve played a wildcard, donât evaluate its performance as if it were a sure bet. The number of sales you get on one book is not a direct reflection of the quality of that book. As Seth had told me in my first interview with him on episode 77, and as I explored on episode 286, nobody knows anything.
As I talked about on episode 251, if you keep playing wildcards forever, eventually ergodicity will take effect, and one of them will hit. But you canât play wildcards forever. Your life is only so long, and thereâs only so much time in the day to generate wildcards. If you had kept writing Care Bear novels, thereâs no telling how long it would have taken to quit your job at Starbucks â or if you would have ever succeeded at all.
The security of sure bets + the success of wildcardsYou donât have to choose between playing sure bets and wildcards. As I talked about on episode 256, you can play the barbell strategy. Have the security of mediocristan, with the excitement of extremistan. If, instead of going all in on Sweet Romance novels, you had written, say, one Care Bear novel for every three Romance novels, youâdâve greatly increased your chances of being the breakout Care Bear Fanfic Urban Fantasy writer, at the expense of a small pay-cut in the short-term.
You can play all sure bets, you can play all wildcards, or you can do a mix of both. But be clear with yourself when youâre playing one or the other. The quality of the decisions you make with your creative career depends on it.
Image: Mountain Village (Autumnal), Paul Klee
Thank you for having me on your podcasts!Thank you for having me on your podcasts. Thank you J Thorn at Writers, Ink.
As always, you can find interviews of me on my interviews page.
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/sure-bets-wildcards/
-
You canât get through a project on momentum alone. But there are mechanisms you can use to tweak your motivation and make better use of what momentum you have. These motivation mechanisms arenât one-size-fits-all â you have to choose which ones work for you.
Motivation requires self-masteryAs I talked about on episode 291, getting through a creative project is like skateboarding through a halfpipe. You have a lot of motivation going into a project, due to your high expectations. Even if your expectations were to be met, it would still be impossible to coast through to the end of a project. Thereâs too much friction along the way.
Experienced skateboarders know how to soar out of halfpipes, because they know how to tweak their momentum. Experienced creators know how to follow through on creative projects, because they know how to tweak their motivation. But gaining this experience is a catch-22: You canât finish projects if you donât know how to tweak your motivation, and you donât know how to tweak your motivation if you havenât finished projects.
You have to learn, through trial-and-error, what keeps you motivated. Finish smaller projects and build your shipping skills along the way. But it doesnât have to be guesswork. If you know what motivation mechanisms are at your disposal â and the strengths and pitfalls of those mechanisms, you can more quickly gain an understanding of your motivation.
Three motivation mechanismsThere are three main motivation mechanisms: carrots, sticks, and blinders. The carrot and the stick are classic motivation mechanisms that have been in the scientific literature on motivation for a long time. If youâre riding a horse, there are two ways to motivate him: dangle a carrot in front of his face, or strike him in the flank with a stick. The carrot represents the promise of potential reward, the stick represents the threat of potential punishment, and what I call blinders block out distractions and keep the horse focused on the road ahead.
Weâre attracted to rewards, and we avoid punishments. If we set up our projects so action leads to carrots and inaction leads to sticks, weâll get motivated and maintain the momentum to finish â in theory.
Carrots: internal and externalOne way to work carrots into your projects is to have promising data. If you have market research that suggest youâll earn a lot of money if you finish the project, you might have an easier time getting motivated. Or, you might merely be so curious about the outcome of the project, that motivates you to follow through.
You can also use external rewards as carrots. For example, you might promise yourself a vacation if you finish a project. On a more granular level, you might promise yourself a piece of chocolate for every 100 words you write.
Sticks: internal and externalOne way to work sticks into your projects is to do part of a project that will result in a punishment if you donât finish the rest of the project. I called this âThe Whip,â in my book, The Heart to Start. When I create a new email course, for example, I use the whip. I set up a landing page promising emails on a schedule, then send traffic to the landing page. Once I have sign-ups, Iâm highly motivated to finish writing all the emails in the course, as the promised dates approach. This same tactic has worked for other people who have tried my âExplosive Email Courseâ formula.
You can also use external punishments as sticks. You can promise to pay your friend $100 if you donât finish your project by a certain date. On a more granular level, you can punish yourself for behavior that doesnât drive your project forward. Maneesh Sethi, who I interviewed on episodes 13 and 117, created Pavlok, a wristband you can program to shock you when you do things youâd rather quit. I once used it to quit Facebook, and it was shockingly effective.
Blinders: physical and mentalCarrots can reward you for the behavior you want to be motivated to do, and sticks can punish you for what you donât want to be motivated to do. Blinders can keep you more focused on what you want to be motivated to do, while blocking out what you donât want to be motivated to do.
Blinders can be physical, or mental. If you have a dedicated office, or space you do your work, thatâs a form of physical blinder. By working in that space many times, your mind has been trained to focus on work when in that space. As I talked about in Mind Management, Not Time Management, even if you donât have much space, you can set up certain cues in your environment to serve as blinders. When I was first starting on my own, in a tiny bedroom in San Francisco, I transformed that space from bedroom to office through strategic use of a room divider, aromatherapy, and lighting.
Physically separating yourself from a potential source of distraction is another type of physical blinder. If you put your phone in another room, or in a lockbox with a timer, thatâs a blinder. By using a âgrippyâ instead of âslippyâ tool, youâre also using a blinder. There are many options of distraction-free writing devices, but I write my first drafts on an antique typewriter.
Rules and schedules as mental blindersRules and schedules can serve as mental blinders. Simply by deciding that you will or wonât do something within some period of time, you focus your mind on the target behavior, while blocking out distractions. The first-hour rule is an effective blinder: Spend the first hour of your day working on your most important task. You can get a lot done in an hour, and can usually hold off any other activity for that short period of time.
Mental blinders with secondary benefitsYou can also use mental blinders not only for the benefits of the behaviors they promote, but also for the secondary effects of those behaviors. The ten-minute hack â or setting a timer for ten minutes to focus on one task â isnât powerful so much for the work you do in those ten minutes, but for the momentum it creates. Ten minutes is an easy decoy goal that short-circuits your egoâs excuse engine, but once those ten minutes are up, you usually have the momentum to keep going. On the contrary, âcheat days,â whether when dieting or reducing, say, social media intake, can let the superego take a rest, and let the id blow of steam. It can be hard or even detrimental to quit things cold-turkey, but if thereâs one day a week you cheat, it can make the rest of the week tolerable.
Pitfalls of motivation mechanismsAs you can see, there is a huge variety of motivation mechanisms you can use to keep yourself going when projects get tough. But the motivation mechanism that works for one person wonât necessarily work for another. And some mechanisms are prone to particular pitfalls that others arenât.
Rewards lose effectivenessFirst, some of the pitfalls of these mechanisms. The biggest problem with carrots is eventually you get your fill of carrots. This tends to be more of a problem when the rewards youâre using are external, and not an integral part of the project. If youâre, say, giving yourself a piece of chocolate for every 100 words you write, thereâs a good chance you wonât be as motivated by the tenth piece of chocolate as you were by the first. But even when the rewards are integral to the project, you can tire of those rewards, and need to search for another source â as I talked about in my reflections on fifteen years as a creator on episode 283.
Rewards can backfireAlso, external carrots especially can make doing the work more about the destination â the carrot dangled in front of you â than about the journey. External rewards can actually reduce your motivation. Behavioral scientist Dan Ariely described on episode 51 that Intel lost productivity when an experimental monetary bonus was removed â relative to more integral rewards, such as verbal praise.
Rewards require disciplineWhen self-administering external carrots, you also need to be disciplined enough to dole out the reward to yourself properly. It doesnât take much imagination to see how giving yourself chocolate for every 100 words could backfire.
Punishments can lose effectiveness, backfire, and require disciplineSticks can be prone to many of the same problems as carrots: The punishment may lose its effectiveness, doing the activity while motivated to avoid punishment may cause you enjoy it less, and you have to be disciplined enough to administer the punishment for it to matter.
Blinders entrain behaviorBlinders tend to have fewer problems than carrots or sticks. They donât use external stimuli, so thereâs less chance of your motivation getting misdirected. Instead, the more you use blinders, the easier the target activity tends to get. As the neuroscience saying goes, âNeurons that fire together wire together,â so each time you do the target activity, itâs easier to do it again. Each time you work in your home office, you train yourself to work when in your office. When you spend the first hour of your day working on your most important project, you make it easier to do it again tomorrow.
Blinders are nearly foolproofBlinders are nearly foolproof because the source of your motivation stays within the project or the activity itself â and thatâs the best source of motivation. So if you must use external carrots and sticks, do so sparingly. If youâre relying on external rewards and punishments to motivate yourself, or if you canât find the self-discipline to administer your own blinders, thatâs a bad sign. You clearly donât enjoy the activities involved in completing the project, and/or completing the project isnât meaningful enough to you to be a source of motivation.
Be an expert on your personal motivation mechanismsThereâs of course a lot of research on motivation â how effective carrots, sticks, or even blinders are â but none of that matters as much as how each of these motivation mechanisms work for you, personally. A motivation mechanism, such as external rewards, may backfire in the confines of a scientific study, in a context different than your project, and averaged out amongst the study subjects, rather than on an individual basis.
If you want to finish lots of creative projects, you need to become an expert on your own motivation. Be a curious observer of yourself, and how you respond to carrots and sticks, internal and external, and how well you can administer and react to your own blinders. Youâll get through more projects, and each time you do, youâll learn a little more about how keep and build upon momentum to get through bigger and bigger halfpipes.
Image: Park of Idols, Paul Klee
Thank you for having me on your podcasts!Thank you for having me on your podcasts. Thank you to Paul Millerd at The Pathless Path.
As always, you can find interviews of me on my interviews page.
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/carrots-sticks-blinders/
-
The Network, by Scott Woolley, tells the history of wireless communications, and the stories of the characters that were a part of it. Itâs the first book strictly about media history that Iâm summarizing and adding to my best media books list.
Wireless communications start with wired communicationsWireless communications today of course include cell phones, but The Network takes us from the wireless telegraph, to radio, to television, and finally to satellites. First, it gives a little background on the history of the electric telegraph, the invention which suddenly made it possible to move, in minutes, messages that used to take weeks to reach their destinations.
The electric telegraph was able to change the world thanks to one simple action: The ability to move a piece of metal at the end of a wire. That was enough to develop codes that could transmit messages, based upon the simple movement of that piece of metal. This process started in 1822, when Christian Ărsted attached a copper wire to a battery and saw a nearby compass needle move.
There was a several-decade-long race to develop an electric telegraph. The first transatlantic cable was opened for business by 1866. A big customer of these telegraph services were stock traders, who could buy shares in London, sell them a few seconds later in New York, and always profit if their trades were executed in time.
Morse code was the winning format for turning the movement of a piece of metal into messages that could travel around the world. A claim in The Network I couldnât find a source for, but that sounds pretty cool: The clouds in New York City at night used to have projected on them news, election results, and sports scores â in Morse code.
From a worthless accidental discovery to worthwhile wirelessThe history of wireless communication started with a discovery as accidental as Christian Ărstedâs: Heinrich Hertz noticed that metal objects moved slightly when lightning struck nearby. He later conducted experiments where he successfully generated sparks through the air. It was pretty cool, but he concluded that the invisible waves he had discovered were âof no use whatsoever.â
Electrical signals that traveled through the air were made very useful, indeed, by Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi. For much of its early years, most people thought his Marconi Company was a scam. Like the dot-com and crypto booms, many companies at the dawn of wireless technology made off with investorsâ money. One article, with the headline, âWireless and Worthless,â pointed out that more criminals were being prosecuted from wireless companies than from any other industry.
Besides, what did we need wireless technology for, when there were companies such as The Commercial, which was probably the hottest tech company in New York in the early 1900s? It owned five of the sixteen cables crossing the Atlantic Ocean, and one of the two that crossed the Pacific â which was 10,000 miles long.
10,000 miles was pretty impressive, especially when you consider that in 1896, Guglielmo Marconi could only send a wireless message one mile. What was the point?
The pseudo-events of Guglielmo MarconiMarconi was good at building buzz for his wireless technology through public demonstrations â you could call them pseudo-events, a la Daniel J. Boorstinâs The Image, which I talked about on episode 257. In front of an audience, heâd ask a volunteer to carry around a âmagic box.â Heâd build tension from the stage, then push a lever, which would make the magic box buzz from afar. In 1898, when his wireless range was somewhere around ten miles, Marconi set up a telegraph receiver on the yacht of the prince of Wales. Queen Victoria sent the first mundane wireless text message, asking, âCan you come to tea?â The prince replied, âVery sorry, cannot come to tea.â After all, he was on the ocean. By 1899, Marconi could send a message over the English channel, and by 1901, he could send a message 225 miles.
Marconi had competition in trying to send a wireless message across the Atlantic, which was 3,000 miles. Nikola Tesla, with the money of J.P. Morgan, was working on a fifty-five ton, 187-foot-tall steel super-antenna. And Marconi didnât have the funding to build something like that.
Marconi won that race across the Atlantic. In one of his publicity stunts, he was able to relay âMarconigrams,â as he called them, from celebrities in London to celebrities at a dinner party in New York. But, that wasnât enough to impress stock traders who relied on wired telegrams â the messages took ten minutes to arrive, with pre-arranged help in expediting them as they traveled to and from coastal locations on wired connections. And radio waves are easier to transmit at night than during business hours, when radiation from the sun interferes with wireless signals.
As the Titanic sank, Marconi roseBut in 1912, the day before Marconi Company investors were to vote on whether to further fund the company, the Titanic sank. Using Marconiâs wireless technology, an ocean liner, the Olympic, fielded a message from the Titanic, over 500 miles away, which included coordinates, and said, âWe have struck an iceberg.â Another ocean liner, the Carpathia, came to the rescue. Thanks to Marconiâs wireless technology, of the Titanicâs 2,223 passengers, 706 survived.
What followed sounds like the third act of a great movie: When Marconi arrived at a lecture that had already been scheduled, there was a crowd overflowing out the building. He received a standing ovation, including from the once-skeptical Thomas Edison. And the vote of Marconi shareholders, on whether to issue another $7 million in stock to build stations for intercontinental telegraphs, was a no-brainer.
David Sarnoff: The early days of an innovatorWorking at Marconi at that time was the young David Sarnoff, who had started at Marconi after being fired for taking the day of Rosh Hashanah off work at Marconiâs rival company, the Commercial. A Russian immigrant, Sarnoffâs father had recently become unable to work, so he had set off to support the family as an office messenger boy, at only fifteen.
Being a telegraph operator was a hot tech job at the time. David Sarnoff bought a used telegraph key, so he could spend his evenings practicing his coding skills â his Morse-coding skills. He worked his way up until he was managing Marconiâs New York office, but then transferred to what seemed like a step down â as an inspector in the engineering department.
Edwin Armstrongâs signal amplifierIt was as chief inspector David Sarnoff met Edwin Armstrong, who demonstrated to him an amazing signal amplifier. From a Marconi station in New Jersey, Armstrongâs amplifier turned signals from an Ireland station from barely audible, to loud and crisp. They were then able to listen in on signals from competitor Poulsen Wireless, as their San Francisco station communicated with their Portland station. They were even able to listen to Poulsenâs Hawaii station, despite the fact Poulsenâs own San Francisco station â the breadth of a continent closer â could barely pick up the signal, amidst a Hawaiian thunderstorm.
Sarnoff thought he had found the key technology that would help Marconi dominate wireless telegraphy, and free it from having to share its revenue with rival cabled networks. Instead, Guglielmo Marconi himself refused to believe the results of the story, and another executive publicly chided Sarnoff within the company for conducting the unauthorized experiments, which he believed merely drove up the prices of inventorsâ patents.
Edwin Armstrong becomes Major ArmstrongArmstrong ended up selling the patent for his amplifier to AT&T. Through the use of that amplifier and other wireless-technology inventions, Edwin Armstrong achieved the rank of Major Armstrong in WWI. During WWI, Britain and Germany cut one anotherâs cables, making wireless communication even more important. The British military took over Marconiâs wireless stations within their empire. Armstrong helped intercept Germanyâs wireless communications.
RCA, born from a patent poolBut during the war, the way wireless technology patents were split up amongst companies became a problem. It was impossible to build useful devices without using a variety of innovations, and thus infringing on other companiesâ patents. The Navy used its wartime powers to allow American manufacturers to use any wireless patents they wanted, without consequence.
Once the war was over, the military sought to maintain this freedom of innovation, and â as a matter of national security â keep the American radio industry out of foreign hands. They struck a deal to cut off the American portion of the British Marconi company, and pool together patents from AT&T, Westinghouse, G.E., and â interestingly â United Fruit Company, who had patents for communications systems on their Central American banana plantations. The name of this new company: RCA. Its general manager: David Sarnoff.
Sarnoffâs radioSarnoff had pitched to his bosses at Marconi, in 1915, a âRadio Music Box.â Far more complex than moving a piece of metal, voice had first been transmitted over radio waves in 1906, and The Navy had done âradio telephoneâ calls, but nobody had thought of using radio to transmit to a wide audience. His pitch described a box with amplifier tubes, and what he called a âspeaking telephone.â He wrote, âThere should be no difficulty in receiving music perfectly when transmitted within a radius of 25 to 50 miles. Within such a radius there reside hundreds of thousands of families.â Sarnoff had already experimented with the concept by transmitting music, to a boat cruising around Manhattan, from a phonograph in Marconiâs New York office.
Sarnoffâs bosses at Marconi had ignored his radio music box pitch, but once he was in charge at RCA, he was free to pursue the idea. Sarnoff hadnât gotten much support for his ideas at Marconi, but he had learned the value of a well-crafted pseudo-event. The upcoming boxing match between the American, Jack Dempsey, and the Frenchman, Georges Carpentier was the perfect opportunity to show the value of using radio waves to broadcast sound to a large audience.
The pseudo-event that launched radioAs was customary for big events at the time, if you wanted an update, you could gather near a telegraph station, where someone would announce a text-message update of the event. In Paris, a flare was to be released from a plane after the fight: white if Dempsey won, red if Carpentier. But if you truly wanted to know what was happening, you had to be one of the ninety-one thousand people there in the stadium. So, the rich and famous were flocking to New York. 300 rooms were booked at the Plaza, 500 at the Waldorf Astoria, and 800 at the Biltmore. Actress Mary Pickford took her yacht all the way from Hollywood, through the Panama Canal, and some came in the 1921 version of a private jet: a private train car.
But for the first time, people who couldnât be at the fight could get blow-by-blow updates. RCA teamed up with amateur radio operators, who rented out auditoriums and received a voice broadcast from ringside, via âradiophone.â
This helped solve the chicken-and-egg problem of getting mass-audience radio started. You couldnât get people to buy receivers if they hadnât experienced a broadcast â and if there was nothing being broadcast â and it wasnât worth broadcasting if nobody had receivers. By getting a lot of people together for a global event everybody was already talking about, it was worthwhile to do a broadcast, and people got to see the potential of radio.
Radio in its infancyOver the next three years, secretary of commerce Herbert Hoover granted licenses to 600 radio stations â small ones that broadcast across a particular city or county. There were no radio stations or programs in much of rural America. But Sarnoff was pushing the adoption of higher-powered AM transmitters that could broadcast to multi-state regions. This idea was opposed by the smaller stations that didnât want their audiences stolen, and also by AT&T.
AT&Tâs raw deal in radioAT&T believed that since radio involved transmitting the voice, they, as the phone company, should be in charge of it. They also didnât want to lose revenue: For AM radio programs to be syndicated from one station to another, they had to be sent over AT&Tâs phone lines, as they would come out distorted if transmitted wirelessly. Additionally, AT&T felt duped from the negotiations over the RCA patent pool, which Sarnoff had been in charge of. Sarnoff had proposed that AT&T get the rights to sell radio transmitters, while RCA would sell radio receivers. This didnât seem like a bad deal in 1920, before the Dempsey/Carpentier fight, but now it looked like a raw deal, indeed. In 1924, RCAâs AM radio sales were over $50 million, while AT&T had a measly market of 600 radio stations. Most of those stations ignored AT&Tâs patents and built their own transmitters, and AT&T wasnât successful in getting the revenue that was rightfully theirs.
The first radio adThe radio broadcasting industry was experimenting with business models. AT&T ran the first radio ad in 1922. For fifty dollars, a suburban housing development got to broadcast on an AT&T station. Herbert Hoover called advertising-funded radio âthe quickest way to kill broadcasting.â He wanted instead to fund radio broadcasts by placing a surcharge on the sale of each consumer radio receiver. David Sarnoff was on his side, which was odd, since an advertising-funded model would make his radios cheaper to consumers.
Divvying up the radio wavesThere were also fights over who could broadcast on what frequency. The Radio Act of 1912 had been passed, after amateur telegraphersâ messages had interfered with one another while communicating about the Titanic sinking. Hoover tried to regulate the frequencies some stations were broadcasting on, but it turned out the 1912 act had only regulated airwaves at least six-hundred meters long â the technological limit at the time. Some stations protested by deliberately overlapping their broadcasts, resulting in an hour of unpleasant squelches, followed by a message to support the passing of a law to regulate the airwaves. The Federal Radio Commission was formed in 1927, for that purpose. In 1934, it became the FCC, overseeing all types of electronic communications.
How AM held back FMSometimes, an inferior technology dominates, as VHS did over Beta, but sometimes, despite the best efforts of entrenched interests, the better technology prevails, as did eventually FM radio, over AM.
AM radio signals are imprinted sounds on waves that vary according to amplitude, or the height of the waves. Thus âAM,â for âamplitude modulation.â FM radio waves are varied according to the frequency of the waves, or their width. Engineers in the radio industry and academia once thought frequency modulation wouldnât work. A 1922 paper from AT&T claimed to prove mathematically that it âinherently distorts without any compensating advantages whatsoever.â
But Major Armstrong was pushing hard for the FM method. Armstrong once again conducted a demonstration for Sarnoff. His âlittle black boxâ that transmitted an FM signal had vastly superior sound quality than an AM radio. Sarnoff let Armstrong run tests with FM equipment from RCAâs offices atop the Empire State Building â the tallest in the world at the time. The FM signal delivered better sound quality than AM with one twenty-fifth the signal power.
FM threatened existing AM interestsThere was a lot at stake in switching to FM: It could deliver better sound quality, and â since signals could be transmitted on a variety of frequencies â it could add thousands of stations to the dial. But, there were already tens of millions of AM radios, and hundreds of expensive radio station transmitters that would become obsolete. A benefit to RCA, however, would be that with clearer signals, they would no longer have to pay AT&T for use of their phone network for syndicating content.
Y2K of the 1940s: The bogus sun-spot scareIn 1941, the FCC approved a band of FM stations between 42 and 50 MHz. At the start of WWII, Major Armstrong pushed the military to switch to FM, and waived any licensing fees, increasing adoption. After the war, there was a controversy about sunspots: They work in an eleven-year cycle, and in FCC proceedings, one engineer rose a stink about how the next time sunspots came around, they would interfere with stations on the existing FM band. Despite the fact nearly every expert disagreed with that prediction, the FCC moved the FM dial to the current 88 to 108 MHz band. This made $75 million worth of devices soon-to-be worthless, and pissed off hundreds of thousands of FM early adopters. (When the strongest sunspots in two centuries came along, the old FM band worked fine.)
The stifling of FM radio continued. The FCC eventually cut FM broadcasts from a 150 mile radius to a 50-mile radius, which may not sound like much, but translates to a ninety-percent cut in coverage area. Conveniently, this meant FM stations could no longer send programs to neighboring markets through the air, and had to instead pay to use AT&Tâs expensive and low-fidelity telephone wires. AM radio interests had also taken over most FM stations, where they simply rebroadcast their AM programs. There was little incentive to buy an FM set, and by 1946, nine of ten radio manufacturers werenât bothering to make them.
All of this was enough to prompt Major Armstrong to file an antitrust suit against RCA, claiming David Sarnoff was conspiring to stifle the FM radio industry.
The bold bets Sarnoff made in TVDavid Sarnoff was very focused on making television work around that time. He made some bold bets that helped NBC, a spin-off from RCA, be the first on the air. Searching for office space during the Great Depression, Sarnoff had decided to move RCA and NBC into the expensive 30 Rockefeller Plaza, aka â30 Rock.â He pissed off shareholders by building elaborate radio studios. He had special wires installed in NBCâs studios â for transmitting TV signals around the building â that werenât used for another twenty years. He had a giant studio built, with rotating stage, to work with television cameras that didnât even exist. Overall, he spent $50 million on television research over the course of twenty-five years, and it took a long time to pay off.
Battles over TV airwavesThe FCCâs poor decisions continued in the proliferation of television. Despite warnings from engineers such as Major Armstrong, they allocated VHF channels so poorly, only one or two stations worked in most cities. They had to learn from their mistakes and start over with UHF stations. But UHF wavelengths were so short, the lower the channel number a station had, the further and more clearly their signal could travel. So, stations fought over the smaller-numbered of the sixty-eight channels.
The television satelliteDavid Sarnoff was there, once again, innovating in television. There was a battle over the color standard, and Sarnoff and RCAâs NSTC standard was finally adopted by the FCC in 1953. âRelay-1â was the first American communications satellite, launched in 1962. It helped bypass AT&Tâs cables for syndicating programs, thus doubling RCAâs revenue. Some events had previously been broadcast via airplane to expand coverage area. Relay-1âs first trans-Pacific broadcast was supposed to carry to Japan an address from President Kennedy. Instead, it carried coverage of his assassination, and footage of the new president, Lyndon B. Johnson.
Thereâs your The Network summaryAs you can see, The Network covers a lot of the early history of wireless communications. It also does it with an engaging narrative style. There is of course much more. Read it to find out:
Why thereâs no channel one. How Lyndon B. Johnsonâs wife Lady Bird built her media empire with some suspiciously favorable treatment from the FCC. The visions that Sarnoff had late in life for fiber optics, the internet, and e-books. Whether Major Armstrongâs suicide at 63 had anything to do with his legal battles against David Sarnoff and RCA.If youâve enjoyed this summary, youâll no doubt enjoy The Network.
Thank you for having me on your podcasts!Thank you for having me on your podcasts. Thank you to David Elikwu at The Knowledge.
As always, you can find interviews of me on my interviews page.
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/the-network-scott-woolley/
-
A creative project is like a halfpipe. The depth of the halfpipe from which you must ascend to finish a project is equal to the height of the optimism that prompted you to begin. But thereâs a way to build your project halfpipe so the project itself keeps you moving forward.
The gravity of optimism pulls you into a projectWhen you begin a project, you are optimistic. Why else would you start? Youâre interested in the subject matter, and you expect to succeed. This optimism serves as the gravity that pulls you into the project halfpipe.
Without experience, you canât maintain the momentum to finishThe momentum you build from this drop into the halfpipe may get you through much of the project, but will eventually run out. By the time you get to the other side of the halfpipe â the end of the project â youâve forgotten the optimism you once had, and the friction of reality has sapped your energy. The project isnât as fun as it once was, and it hasnât been as easy as you had expected. You face a steep incline, and donât have the momentum to ascend.
Experienced skateboarders know how to tweak their momentum, so they have enough energy to ascend the other side of a halfpipe. Like kicking their legs while riding a swing, theyâre able to climb higher and higher, as they go back and forth.
Experienced creators know how to tweak their motivation, too, to ascend the other side of the halfpipe. Theyâve finished enough projects, they know how to harness their momentum to make the most of their efforts, and coast through the tough parts. But the need for this experience is a catch-22: You donât know how to tweak your motivation to follow through if you havenât finished projects, and if you havenât finished projects you donât know how to tweak your motivation.
A halfpipe is a closed systemA halfpipe, with nothing but a skateboard rolling back and forth, is a closed system. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The energy from the descent into the halfpipe is not enough to get to the other side of the halfpipe, because much of it is wasted on friction.
When you put a person on the skateboard, that adds a new energy source to the system. The skateboarder can move their body in ways that overcome the loss of energy from friction, thus maintaining enough momentum to get out of the halfpipe. But the skateboarder is a closed system, too. They require energy to move.
Shiny object syndrome sets in when projects get toughShiny object syndrome often sets in toward the end of a project. There are other halfpipes all around. The excitement of dropping into one and once again experiencing effortless momentum is a lot more fun than putting forth effort to get out of the current halfpipe. So, you switch projects â you switch halfpipes.
Some creators, after dropping into enough halfpipes, figure out how to tweak their motivation to get through one â whether due to luck or experimentation. More often, they get frustrated with the endless cycle of shiny object syndrome, and burn out. They stop âskatingâ altogether.
You learn to maintain momentum by finishing projectsBut, you can turn the closed system of a halfpipe into an open system that maintains your momentum, propelling you to the finish. If you use this method to finish more projects, youâll gain experience tweaking your motivation. Maybe you need an accountability partner â or maybe you hate obligation. Maybe you gain momentum by building prototypes â or maybe you prefer to develop a detailed plan. Maybe you like to talk about ideas with friends â or maybe you discover it causes you to lose your momentum.
Do smaller projects, finish more projectsIf you arenât finishing projects, you canât learn what works for you. A great way to finish more projects is simply do smaller projects. When you do smaller projects, two things happen: One, you make the halfpipe shorter, and less shallow, so you donât run out of momentum so fast, and you can more easily find the internal motivation to get out of the halfpipe. Two, you can more easily get momentum from the project itself, in the form of feedback loops.
For example, when Iâm working on a new book, I donât just sit down and write a book. Thatâs too long and deep a halfpipe. I might be excited going in, but Iâll soon lose momentum, and Iâll forget why I began in the first place.
Instead, I break the process of writing into tiny projects, which feed into progressively larger projects. I write and share an idea on Twitter. If it does well on Twitter, I expand it into a newsletter. If it does well as a newsletter, I expand it into an article and podcast episode.
After I complete this process enough times, I have a large collection of ideas I can share in my book. Thereâs still a lot of work to be done: I need to weave the ideas together into a cohesive whole, not to mention edit the book, lay it out, design the cover, and market it.
But that bigger halfpipe of writing the book is much easier to get through when fueled by the momentum of the smaller halfpipes of tweets, newsletters, and articles. In fact, through these smaller projects with feedback loops, my halfpipe is no longer a closed system. The projects themselves are providing the momentum.
Big projects are like halfpipes: You lose momentum and get stuck. Small projects are like waves: Feedback loops keep you moving forward.
Turn halfpipes into wavesWhen you surf a wave, gravity is still pulling you down the face of the wave, but the wave itself is moving, too. This is why you sometimes hear the expression of âriding a wave,â in business. The success of an industry or trend becomes an outside force that keeps you moving, multiplying your efforts. The success of a project itself can become a wave, too.
As blogger Tynan has pointed out, one reason itâs hard to finish projects is that in the middle of the project, youâve experienced all the downsides of working on the project, but none of the upsides of succeeding. Youâre stuck in the halfpipe. But if you design the project so you get some of that feedback throughout the process, you get to experience some upsides that keep you moving.
This works for a lot of creative projects. You canât count the number of stand-up comedians who go to one open mic after another, testing out jokes, then take those jokes on the road to polish them, then weave it all together into a one-hour special, then repeat the process over again. Even War and Peace, written when publishing wasnât so rapid and didnât have such immediate feedback, was published serially, with a different name, and wasnât even intended to be a novel. It wasnât until later that Tolstoy wove it together, and re-wrote it.
The next time you find yourself stuck in a project halfpipe, or switching to new projects each time a previous project gets tough, see if you can turn that halfpipe into a wave. Complete smaller projects that give you immediate feedback. Youâll finish more projects, and learn to tweak your motivation well enough to soar out of larger and larger halfpipes.
Thank you for having me on your podcasts!Thank you for having me on your podcasts. Thank you to Ivan Farber at the Conversations About Conversations podcast.
As always, you can find interviews of me on my interviews page.
About Your Host, David KadavyDavid Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative.
Follow David on:
Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on PatreonPut your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »
Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/project-halfpipe/
- Laat meer zien