Subscribe now

The Story Phase

This passage that I came across while reading The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene led me back to something I’ve been thinking about for a very long time: that a simple board game can mimic real life in a surpassingly accurate way.

In 1865 the Prussian councillor Otto von Bismarck wanted Austria to sign a certain treaty. The treaty was totally in the interests of Prussia and against the interests of Austria, and Bismarck would have to strategize to get the Ausmans to agree to it But the Austrian negotiator, Count Blorne, was an avid cardplayer. His particular game was quinze, and he often said that he could judge a man’s character by the way he played quinze. Bismarck knew of this saying of Blome’s.

This is the first time I’ve come across the game Quinze, so I obviously haven’t played it before. But I immediately mapped this out onto Monopoly, which is a game I’ve played many times.

At first, I took this to mean that the true character of the player is revealed in a game like this, where things get intense in a way that mimics real life. But I realize now that this is too broad a conclusion. What it really seems to reveal is judgment under constraint, especially how people balance expansion and stability, which matches a very similar pattern to how they would make decisions in real life.

In Monopoly, the player who hoards cash and refuses to buy property usually loses. They stay safe, but miss the chance to build any real advantage. The player who buys properties too aggressively and leaves no cash buffer usually loses too, often even faster. They try to expand too quickly, and in return become financially fragile in the long run. The player who tends to do well is usually the one who can live in that uncomfortable middle, where they commit enough to grow while holding back enough to survive.

And in many ways, this mirrors real life.

Seen this way, Monopoly is such an interesting game. Every purchase improves your future dominance in the game while weakening your immediate financial flexibility. The game compresses delayed consequences into something visibly quantifiable. You can watch people overprotect, overextend, hesitate, chase false assumptions, or mistake liquidity for financial power.

Life is not entirely a monopoly, of course. Most of life is not a zero-sum game. But these tradeoffs map onto real life almost perfectly. If you commit nothing, you never build anything. If you commit too much, you eventually lose everything. The real question is how to judge the right balance point.

The Structure Phase

One way to think about this structurally is through the concept of reserve versus commitment.

• Reserve is what you have not yet tied up in anything: time, energy, attention, emotional capacity, credibility, or room to recover.

• Commitment is what you have already built or promised in pursuit of a positive outcome: projects, obligations, relationships, money, and reputation.

• Judgment is knowing how much reserve to trade for commitment without becoming fragile in the long run. In other words, this is the boundary where the best life often lives.

Too much reserve, and nothing meaningful happens. On the other hand, with too much commitment, even a small shock in the system can make all your plans collapse under their own weight.

A person can say yes to too many commitments, where progress starts to look stable only because the corresponding bill has not come due yet. Even relationships follow the same pattern: too much distance, and no meaningful relationship is built; too much unguarded sacrifice, and there is no emotional reserve left.

“Love never dies of starvation,” she wrote, “but often of indigestion”(p. 119)

—48 Laws of Power, Robert Greene

The real mistake is to think that the all-in solution to all these tradeoffs life throws at you is courage, when very often that is just one end of a spectrum, and the best possible outcome lives somewhere in the middle.

The Interface

Seen this way, even a simple board game can illuminate some hard truths about life.

How much of yourself can you safely tie up—in a project, a new venture, a relationship, a risky financial move, or an ambition—before your willingness to sacrifice resilience for growth makes you lose your mark?

Where in life are you mistaking expansion for long-term stability simply because the pressure of a future cost has not arrived yet?

Subscribe now

The Story phase

Blaise Pascal, the 17th-century French mathematician and philosopher, once apologized for the length of a letter with a line that has resonated with writers for centuries: “I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.”

This reverses a very common assumption about writing. We often treat long, elaborate writing as the more serious kind, as if verbal abundance were mere proof of intellectual depth. But Pascal points in the other direction.

The harder thing isn’t expansion. It’s reduction.

This idea was brought home for me when I was reading the book Clear and Simple as the Truth, where the same concept appears in one unforgettable line: “My style will not be at all florid; my expressions will be simple as the truth.”

Seen this way, the whole point of writing starts to make sense, and it applies to any type of communication. It’s a responsibility to show the truth, especially when people would otherwise not notice it, in the clearest, most concise way possible, without drawing attention to the writing itself.

Concision and truth also work together naturally. When a sentence, or any piece of writing, is stripped to its bare bones, the point being made gets clearer and clearer. The writer exposes the reader to the truth with no language in the way.

This is such a fundamental element of communication that it applies to any art form. A good example is Picasso’s famous bull painting. He goes through many iterations, reducing the drawing through successive states until what remains is nearly skeletal. The final painting has almost no muscle, no shading, no ornament, but it’s more legible because that serial reduction was exactly the right choice to bring the point across.

The point isn’t bareness for its own sake, of course. It’s that removal often can make the truth more visible.

But this raises an immediate question: what if what we think is the truth isn’t actually the truth?

What if we’re wrong?

For one thing, it’s still far better to make a clear point—even at the risk of being proven wrong—than to hide uncertainty in language. And more importantly, even when you are proven wrong, that at least provides a data point that moves the world in the right direction.

The Structure phase

A way to visualize this is through the concept of signal and noise, the kind you’d see from a digital instrument.

Here is some data collected from one.

The shaded areas are the noise. The black circles are the real data. The black line is a model fitted to that data. Even though this line doesn’t capture the true shape of the data, you technically can’t rule it out, because the noise covers such a large area that it leaves room for many interpretations, so many possible truths.

But there should only be one.

Now take the same system, measured with a better instrument, one with a much stronger signal-to-noise ratio.

This time, the noise is almost negligible. The truth comes into focus, and the model clearly doesn’t capture the true shape of the data. The noise isn’t there to obscure that anymore.

What a good instrument does, then, is exactly what good writing does: it clears away the distortion so the truth has nowhere to hide, even at the risk of exposing an uncomfortable one.

A good instrument, in this sense, isn’t the one that produces the most activity on a screen. It’s the one that gives the cleanest signal with the least distortion. In practice, that means at least three things.

• Less noise means more recoverable truth: The point isn’t to maximize output but to make the underlying truth easier to see.

• A wrong reading is still informative if it’s clear: When the signal is clean enough, the error can be recognized and corrected. But when noise dominates, almost any interpretation can be made to look plausible.

• More freedom can produce bad interpretations: A noisy dataset can often be fit in many flexible ways, and that freedom can feed into the trap of wishful thinking, producing conclusions that feel sophisticated but have no real truth beneath them.

The interface

This is what purple prose amounts to. It’s just noise. It confuses the reader and makes it hard to see the truth.

In this sense, clarity is less about minimalism and more about accountability on the part of the writer.

Only the language that is precise enough to be wrong is good enough to be useful.

If you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original.
- Sir Ken Robinson

In your work, your relationships, and your everyday life, where does vagueness create the appearance of depth and sophistication while preventing you from seeing the real truth?

Subscribe now

The Story phase

Incidentally, I use the word reader very loosely. Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. — Vladimir Nabokov

For the past six years, I have been reading roughly a book a week. And for most of those six years, I was doing it wrong. But not in any obvious way, so I couldn’t see it until very recently.

My instinct, like most readers’, was to slow down at anything that felt important while I’m reading: underline it, sit with it, and try to extract its meaning on the spot. The logic seemed sound, that the more carefully you read, the more you take away.

But here is the problem I kept running into. I would finish a book and realize that the passages I had treated as important in chapter three meant something entirely different by chapter eleven. Or even worse, some of the things I had moved past without a second thought turned out to be the most load-bearing ideas in the whole argument of the book. I hadn’t missed them because I was careless. I had missed them because I didn’t yet know what the book was really about.

That’s the strange thing about reading a book for the first time. You are inside it. You don’t yet know its shape, its priorities, or what will eventually matter most. So you can’t yet ask the right questions, because the right questions only become visible once you’ve seen the whole thing.

The advice on these two reading approaches—read as quickly as possible and revise carefully, or read really slowly—are balanced almost equally. But the more I read, the more clear it became that finishing the book as quickly as possible and spending more time revising it gave me the biggest returns.

But why is that? Can I rationalize this?

The Structure phase

There is a branch of psychology called Gestalt psychology that holds the answer.

Gestalt psychology describes a threshold in perception, a point at which fragmented parts suddenly resolve into a coherent whole. Before you cross this threshold, the pieces don’t add up, and nothing makes much sense. You can study each one carefully and still miss the pattern, because the pattern only shows itself when that threshold is passed.

In other words, the mind understands things as organized wholes, not just as a collection of separate parts.

It is like solving a jigsaw puzzle.

• Before enough pieces are in place, your attention can mislead you. You start filling gaps with assumptions. A piece looks important because it looks interesting or unusual, not because you actually know where it belongs. Because at this point, you are judging significance from a partial view.

• So instead of looking at the blank spaces and then the hundreds of pieces scattered across the table, starting from one place and building the picture up is the right choice. And at one point, we start to see the picture, and everything becomes clear, and those pieces that we’ve been turning over without putting any effort to place somewhere now automatically go to the right place.

• That is why moving quickly toward the full picture is not superficial. In many cases, it is the most effective way to read. You are not rushing past meaning. You are trying to reach the point where meaning can actually take its shape.

And that is also why the real work begins after the picture comes together, not before. Once the whole is visible, you can go back to the individual pieces and finally see what they are doing. Before that, it’s mostly just guesswork.

The interface

So in this sense, the first read of a book is best used for accumulating enough pieces to cross the gestalt threshold, and almost nothing useful can be extracted before you’ve crossed this mark. For most books, if they are of high quality, this mark comes at the second half of the book, or even at the very end.

This reframes the conventional notion of what the first read is actually for. It is not for the site of understanding. It is the precondition for it. The review phase where the rereads, taking notes, or writing a review happen is not what you do after the real reading. It is the real reading. The first pass is what makes it possible.

This applies to anything else in life, too.

As Dave Chapelle said in his comedy special, Equanimity (2017),

They call this phenomenon “standing too close to an elephant.” The analogy being that if you stand too close to an elephant, you can’t see the elephant. You gotta step back and give it a better look.

So on that spirit, What in your life might make more sense if you stopped pressing harder on the details and gave the whole thing a second look?

Subscribe now

The Story phase

“I know it’s full of evils, full of human injustice, greed, folly, waste. But it is also full of good, of beauty, vitality, achievement. It is what a world should be! It is alive, tremendously alive—alive, despite all its evils, with hope. Is that not true?” (Page 389)

When I first read this quote in The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin, I interpreted it as “The world is okay as it is.” But when I revisited it while writing the book review, I realized it’s much sharper than simple acceptance.

The quotes brings about the idea that a world worth living in can’t be sterilized. If there’s vitality, there’s chaos. If there’s beauty, there’s waste. In fact, good exists only because bad exists. We see the beauty and achievement through the vantage point of waste, greed, and injustice.

We can’t have it both ways. Aliveness has a price.

So here’s the tension: when we feel frustration, disappointment, and pain, can we justify it as inevitable—the price we pay for achieving our goals? Or are these struggles just avoidable costs we’re accepting by default?

The Structure phase

Economists have a blunt name for this: opportunity cost.

It’s not “what something costs.” It’s what you give up when choosing a certain path, the best alternative that becomes impossible because you went the other way.

A more concrete way to see it: every “yes” pays in a different currency. In everyday life, we pay not just in time, attention, and money, but in reputation, energy, and relationships. When we say yes to something, we automatically say no to something else, too.

The bill is often invisible. We see the path we chose but rarely look back to notice the unchosen one.

So all the inevitable struggles we face right now have been free choices until the point where we decided to price the alternative. Greed can be what we get when status is priced higher than belonging, for example. Injustice can be what we get when convenience is priced higher than fairness.

As Thomas Sowell mentions in his book, Basic Economics, there are no solutions, only trade-offs.

The interface

The story phase: “the good exists with the bad.”

The structure phase: “everything comes with an opportunity cost.”

The interface: The life we choose to live isn’t judged by whether it contains ugliness or not, but by whether we recognize which ugliness is a tradeoff we’re consciously buying, and which ugliness is just an unpriced habit.

Question: In your real life right now, what “bad” are you tolerating as if it’s unavoidable, that might actually be the hidden opportunity cost of a choice you’ve made without much thought, a choice you still have the opportunity to revisit?

Subscribe now

The Story phase

Candice Millard writes in her book Destiny of the Republic:

“Although there were many deaths in the late nineteenth century that even the most skilled physicians could not prevent, Garfield’s was not one of them. In fact, following his autopsy, it became immediately and painfully apparent that, far from preventing or even delaying the president’s death, his doctors very likely caused it.”

So..the bullet is the headline, but the treatment is what made all the mess.

In stressful moments, we love clean causes. A single villain. A single event. Something you can point to and say, “ That’s what did it. But Garfield’s story is brutal in a really subtle way. The thing that arrived first was survivable. The thing that followed was what led to chaos.

And the most unsettling part is that the doctors were not trying to harm him at all. They were just...responding. They were doing what the moment demanded in public. They were acting inside a system that equated action with competence.

So here is the problem I keep coming back to.

When something hits you fast, how do you tell whether the danger is the event itself or the reaction you are about to set in motion?

The Structure phase

Under pressure, decisions stop being neutral. They become performances. Not because people are evil, but because stress changes what “good” looks like in the room.

A simple model:

• The shock creates a stage. A crisis makes everyone watch. The system starts rewarding speed, certainty, and visible movement.

• The response multiplies touchpoints. More people, more meetings, more hands on the problem. Each hand adds risk, even when intentions are good.

• The second-order effects do the real work. The original event is one input. The response creates the cascade. Then the cascade becomes the outcome.

A small change in how we react to an event can produce a huge change in what actually happens next.

The interface

Garfield’s doctors are escalating intervention ≈ in a stressed system, escalating response.

The implication is not that action is bad or that help is dangerous. It is that outcomes often belong to the reaction chain more than the original trigger, especially when reputation, hierarchy, and time pressure start steering the room.

Interface question: When a problem hits at work or in a relationship, what part of your response is for the problem, and what part is for the audience that you think is watching you?

Subscribe now

The Story

Most of us have seen some version of this comparison…

A normal driver and an F1 driver are both “driving”: same steering wheel, same pedals and the same basic act. And yet the gap in execution is enormous; not just in speed, though that’s the obvious part, but in what counts as skill: reading tire degradation mid-corner, managing brake temperatures, communicating with engineers in real time, and making decisions in fractions of a second that would paralyze most of us.

It’s the same activity, but with a completely different internal standard.

I kept thinking about this when I came across a talk by Ursula Le Guin. She says:

“Right now, I think we need writers who know the difference between production of a market commodity and the practice of an art. The profit motive is often in conflict with the aims of art.”

Because we talk about books the way we talk about driving, as if “reading books” is a single category where quality differences are mostly taste, mostly preference, mostly subjective. One person’s literary fiction is another person’s airport thriller.

But what if some of what we call “a good book” is simply a book that’s fluent at the wrong kind of driving?

If books are commercialized objects, what does it even mean for a book to be “better”? Better by what rules, and whose?

When two books both look like “reading,” how do you tell whether you’re holding a market-optimized product, or a work of art aiming at something the market can’t produce within its profit-driven constraints?

The Structure

One way to understand this is through what you might call counterfeit depth: work that has the shape of serious thought without doing the deeper work underneath it.

Counterfeit depth isn’t fake intelligence. It’s depth-shaped output: writing that activates the reader’s sense of meaning without actually producing it.

A more systematic way to see this:

Depth has cues. Big topics, solemn tone, complex words, named concepts, a confident voice, quotable lines. These give the sense that something important is happening.

Markets learn the cues. When “serious” sells, production systems get good at producing seriousness-shaped things, because cues are faster and easier to manufacture than actual value.

But real art has different aims. It may refuse the easy cue, choose precision over decoration, let ambiguity stand unresolved, or trade immediate payoff for something that needs a second read to fully grasp, which isn’t something a writer or publisher wants to allow if their primary aim is to earn money.

So the difference between an exceptional book and a mediocre one isn’t just writing talent. It’s often the difference between practice and production: one is trying to unconditionally improve other peoples lives, the other is trying to move through the market efficiently, even at the cost of saying something wrong.

Le Guin’s line is, in this context, a warning for readers and writers alike. You can buy something that looks like depth but leaves you no different than when you started. And you can write something that looks like depth for the same reason.

The Interface

The commercialization problem isn’t that market books are worthless. It’s that a market can get extremely good at producing the surface features of “a serious book,” making the mediocrity harder to spot because it wears the right uniform.

Interface question: Think of a book that felt important while you were reading it, one that left you nodding, underlining, feeling like you were finally getting it .

Did it change how you actually see or do anything, or did it mostly confirm what you already believed in more satisfying language?

Subscribe now

The Story Phase

This week, I’ve been meddling with the concept of ikigai. In its most traditional sense, ikigai is what makes life worth living; not atomically, not for a quick moment, but something you can pursue for a lifetime. In that sense, it’s usually subtle, ordinary, and undramatic.

The problem is that finding your ikigai can be genuinely hard. Because ikigai isn’t something you think your way into.

Part of the difficulty is the timeframe. Ikigai stretches out toward “forever.” It’s the thing you could return to for decades, not just something that feels good on a random Tuesday.

But there’s a silver lining: if something really is “for you” in that deep way, it usually isn’t arbitrary. It tends to be lodged into your temperament, so engraved into your personality that you’re pulled toward it again and again, even when there’s no external reward.

So the question becomes: what tool can you use to detect that pull, while you’re still stuck inside a normal week?

Luckily, there is a tool for this. People call it flow.

I always come back to a quote from Jack London’s Call of the Wild that explains it perfectly:

“There is an ecstasy that marks the summit of life, and beyond which life cannot rise. And such is the paradox of living, this ecstasy comes when one is most alive, and it comes as a complete forgetfulness that one is alive.”

Flow, compared to ikigai, is different in scale. Flow is local and temporary: a few minutes where your attention locks in, time slips, and the narrator in your head goes silent. Ikigai, on the other hand, is global and long-term: the shape of a life, or at least the part of a life that keeps feeling worth living.

But that’s exactly why flow is useful. It’s not ikigai, but it’s concrete evidence for ikigai.

The Structure Phase

This can be better understood through a simple model: attention as currency.

‘Attention as currency’ carries an uncomfortable truth: you don’t “have” attention the way you have opinions. You just spend it. And like any scarce currency, it shows value in a way your self-description won’t.

Here’s how the model works:

• Attention is the real budget. Clocks track the time; attention is what you actually spend.

• Spending patterns are far more accurate than stated preferences. What you repeatedly give attention to is a more reliable signal to ‘what you really like‘ than what you say matters to you.

• Flow is a high-denomination spend. When you’re in flow, you’re not making a small purchase. You’re practically emptying the wallet, giving full allocation to whatever you’re doing, with minimal self-monitoring.

This is why flow is such a useful tool. It’s hard to fake sustained, voluntary attention. You can force yourself through tasks, you can rationalize choices, and you can adopt the right language. But you can’t easily counterfeit that clean, absorbed “yes” where attention stays without being dragged.

And that’s exactly how ikigai often looks in real life: as a pattern of spending. When you’ve found it, it gives steady returns. You give time to what you love, and that love stacks up over a lifetime.

Not a bad deal!

The Interface

Putting the two together: in Story, “complete forgetfulness that one is alive” is, in Structure, a full unselfconscious spend of attention.

Your attention is already voting for something. Flow is what it looks like when the vote is unanimous. Find what that is, and you’ve found something you’ll love doing for a lifetime, and that is, your ikigai.

A question worth sitting with: Even with so many things fighting for your attention, what’s the one small thing, even for just five minutes, where you find yourself completely absorbed, where time slips by without you even noticing?

Subscribe now

The Story phase

I noticed that the font used by Claude and ChatGPT are fundamentally different. One is serif and the other is sans-serif.

That sounds like a minor interface detail, but it isn’t. Typeface is one of the first decisions a system makes on your behalf. Before the product explains itself, before you judge the answers, before any feature has had time to matter, the typography has already told you what kind of presence this is supposed to be.

And the interesting part is that this is not mainly about readability. It is about personality.

A font can make a system feel restrained or familiar, editorial or conversational, tool-like or companion-like. The words may be doing one thing, but the type is doing another: shaping the social meaning of the exchange. It decides whether the text arrives dressed for discussion, analysis, intimacy, formality, or some mix of all four.

That is why the difference stands out. Two AI systems may live in the same category, answer similar prompts, and sit on the same screen. But if their typography feels fundamentally different, then maybe the deeper difference is not visual taste at all. Maybe the typeface is revealing what each system thinks it is for.

So the real question is: if typography is not just styling, what exactly is it signaling about the role the system wants to play?

The Structure phase

One useful way to see this is as a dress code for thought.

Dress codes do not change the underlying person, but they do shape expectation. They tell you what kind of behavior belongs in the room, what tone feels natural, and what kind of relationship is being proposed before anyone speaks.

Typography does something similar for language:

• It frames the social setting. A warmer or more characterful typeface can make a system feel more like a conversation. A cleaner, more restrained one can make it feel more like a document, instrument, or workspace.

• It changes how the same sentence lands. The wording may be identical, but typography alters whether it feels like guidance, analysis, company, or authority.

• It sets the emotional temperature. Some typefaces lower distance. Others preserve it. That distance is not neutral; it helps define the product’s primary goal.

Seen this way, font choice is less like decoration and more like role assignment. It tells you whether the system wants to be encountered as a thinking partner, a polished editor, a neutral utility, or something closer to a host.

That is why typography matters so much in software. It is one of the quietest ways a product establishes the terms of interaction. Not by arguing for a personality, but by clothing the language in one.

The interface

In Story, the AI’s typeface personality ≈ in Structure, a dress code that pre-sets the social meaning of the exchange.

The implication is that the font is not merely making the system look a certain way; it is helping define what kind of relationship the product expects you to have with it.

In your own life, where have you mistaken a difference in substance for what was really a difference in presentation, tone, or social dress?

There are two types of readers when it comes to quitting a book before it ends.

There’s the completionist reader who says, “We must finish what we started.” And on the other end, there’s the selective reader who says, “life is too short to finish a bad book.”

I’ve been both of these types in the past.

When I’m reading a book, if the first part was interesting but the second half gives me nothing, I still used to push myself to the end.

I was stuck in the sunk cost fallacy.

But I’ve been on the opposite end, too. When I couldn’t connect with a book, I’d quit instantly, without even questioning why, just because I “didn’t feel like it.”

It took me a while to realize neither of these approaches actually solves the real problem, that is, how to read more books?

Because quitting a book doesn’t guarantee the next one will magically be better.

It just wastes time you could’ve spent reading a better book.

This actually led me to read less. The number of books I read per year kept getting low.

And this isn’t just me. Gallup’s 2021 report shows that Americans are reading fewer books than ever before. So the struggle to stay engaged with a book is a widespread reading pattern.

After some time, I realized what the missing piece of this puzzle was: I never asked why I didn’t like the book in the first place.

Once I started doing this, everything made sense.

Picking up a book you won’t like is inevitable—it happens more often than we’d like it to happen. So quitting isn’t a failure; it’s just a part of the process.

But understanding why I had to quit a certain book reduces the odds that I’ll quit the next one.

Eventually, I can choose books with a high chance that I’ll actually finish them.

This is how you read more books by quitting more—by quitting deliberately.

Read the full post here.