Posts

Most of us experience life through the lens of social expectations—the generally accepted norms and implicit guidelines about appropriate behavior in various contexts. They shape what we show, what we hide, and how much of ourselves feels safe to reveal. Most people want to be real, but that gets complicated fast in places where polish gets rewarded. Professional networking platforms make that obvious: career pressure pushes people to highlight their wins and smooth out the parts that don’t fit the story.

Humans have accomplished remarkable things throughout our history. Yet today, despite these achievements, we appear to be backsliding while the world burns. We face enormous challenges with little evidence of meaningful progress beyond political and corporate greenwashing campaigns designed to keep consumption—“business as usual”—humming along. Van Gogh’s Starry Night

When examining human behavior, you can usually answer the “why?” behind most phenomena by analyzing incentives. This principle applies universally—from economics to politics, where elected officials often prioritize certain interests over broader constituent needs. There’s a reason the phrase “follow the money” has become ubiquitous. Many people skip the step of examining incentive structures, then express confusion when others act in ways that seem counterintuitive. Yet once you look at the underlying incentives, motivations typically become clear. Most of the dysfunction we see in modern capitalism can be traced to poorly designed incentive systems.

I’m learning to get better at being bored. There have been times when I actively avoided boredom, in particular in my childhood I thought of boredom as a bad thing. I still tend to fill free time with “activities” more than I should. My go-to boredom fillers include reading, writing, taking walks, watching TV or movies (as much as I hate to admit it), and occasionally a video game (which, unlike TV, requires some degree of active participation).

In the Linux kernel project, Linus Torvalds has made over 70,000 commits since 19911. That’s an average of over 2,000 commits per year, or about 6 commits per day, every day, for 30 years. Meanwhile, the average contributor makes fewer than 10 commits total. This isn’t an anomaly—it’s a pattern we see across the entire software industry.

I’ve never liked the word “invention”; instead, I prefer the term discovery. Nobody has ever truly invented anything—rather, we come upon discoveries, and some people are fortunate enough to figure out how to monetize them. Every time I think I’ve had a brilliant, original insight, a quick internet search reveals dozens of people who’ve already explored the same concept, often more thoroughly than I have. It’s a humbling experience that repeats itself with remarkable consistency.

We often must judge others, such as when hiring, choosing who to work with, or selecting friends and partners. I find that there are two attributes most desirable in people I associate with: authenticity and intelligence. I’ve ended up relying on two rough tells. Detecting Inauthentic People # Inauthentic people are surprisingly easy to detect because they have a very difficult time using the phrase “I don’t know.” They always have answers, even when they shouldn’t.

The most challenging relationships I’ve experienced, both personal and professional, have involved highly neurotic individuals. By neuroticism, I mean a tendency toward emotional instability—characterized by inconsistency, excessive anxiety, disproportionate reactions to minor issues, and sometimes aggressive responses to everyday stressors. Understanding Neuroticism # Neuroticism exists on a spectrum. A moderate level of concern about potential problems can be productive—it helps us prepare and plan. But when these feelings become overwhelming or trigger reactions that damage relationships, they cross into problematic territory.

Survivorship bias often gets discussed as a cautionary tale. For example, someone might point out a person’s or company’s success, and another will retort with, “But that’s just survivorship bias!” What’s less discussed is what to do with survivorship bias once you take it seriously. If you know that most success stories (whether in business, investing, dating, or even the actual lottery) are primarily the result of luck rather than skill, how can you use this information to your advantage?

In Daniel Kahneman’s influential book Thinking, Fast and Slow, he argues that we have two distinct systems for thinking. System 1 operates automatically, quickly, with little effort and no sense of voluntary control. System 2 allocates attention to effortful mental activities, including complex computations and deliberate choice-making. While Kahneman’s work became wildly popular in the early 2010s, I still find myself coming back to it whenever I make a decision too fast and then have to invent a story about why it was “obvious.” If you haven’t read it, Wikipedia offers a solid overview, but I’d still recommend the full book for anyone interested in understanding why we think the way we do.