Imagine the saddest piece of literature, film, or music you’ve experienced. What made it sad? And, to what degree were you able to not make that sadness about yourself?Think of a time when a person came to you and relayed a sad story. What made it sad? To what degree did you feel sad? To what degree did you see yourself in that story?Cognitive psychology tells us that you are more likely to prefer the sadness experienced in art versus the non-art relayed by another person (excerpt of study below). The hypothesis, that appears supported in research, is that you are more likely to appropriate the art for yourself — making the experience about you and not about the artist. “Existing research suggests that people show greater liking for expressions of sadness when those expressions are framed as works of art. The present studies investigated two possible explanations of this effect. One natural hypothesis is that the effect arises because people tend to see works of art as fictional; i.e., because when expressions of sadness are framed as works of art, they belong to a world removed from the real world, and therefore carry no practical implications. A second, very different hypothesis is that the effect arises because describing something as a work of art leads to greater appropriation, i.e., a greater tendency to experience it as an expression of one’s own emotions.” - Sad Art Gives Voice to Our Own Sadness. Authors: Tara Venkatesan, Mario Attie-Picker, George Newman, and Joshua Knobe That research implies that great sad art is crafted in a way where it makes you the centerpiece — there’s little-to-no appropriation friction. That idea of appropriation is like an idea I wrote about a few years ago. When an audience responds, it means they felt something so powerful that they needed to express their feeling outward. This expression takes energy and vulnerability. Also, the audience will likely share the experience with friends; they want their friends to feel what they feel. When that happens, others will come to know about your work and want to see you. When that happens, you’ll create an epidemic. You’ll thrive.That idea is not novel. It’s possible the knowledge upon which that idea is built is tacit knowledge. That said, it appears that sad art requires a response.

Yesterday I wrote about the difficulty in answering can and should questions. I wrote about AI-driven hotels, atom bombs, and ordering pizza. I claimed that it was a matter of personal worldview as to whether doing or not doing something was right or wrong.What if we solve for tradeoffs versus morality? What if instead of determining if something should be done, we examine the tradeoffs of doing or not doing something. We start by looking at the immediate effects and systematically expand to second and third order effects. We consider the impacts on others. We consider the impacts on ourselves. And we ask ourselves — can we live with the outcome.I have a moral compass. And the more and more I reflect on it, the more and more I believe that my compass is not about being right, but it’s about tolerance threshold. I end up assessing if the impact of a decision is below or above my thresholds of tolerance immediately after the decision, a year later, and 5 years later. I find that in the context of tolerance, I feel more contentment. Well what of right v wrong… could I do something that I could tolerate that may be wrong? Well I argue what standard is used for determining wrong. There are so many ways to look and moralize the world that I don’t believe any one way can truly bring us peace. Certainly a person without a belief in something greater is just as capable of doing something just and loving as the person who recites the Nicene creed. For that reason, I abandon that type of moral view and prefer the framework of tolerance. The fun and difficult part of my framework is deciding what I can and what I will tolerate — the tradeoffs I will make to achieve a sense of contentment and equanimity. I find that there’s much more that I can tolerate about life and others, and I find that I am able to give myself more grace.

I’m tossing and turning with the questions of can and should. A hotel is planned for construction in Las Vegas. The hotel will be managed by AI. AI will scrape the Internet for data about its guests and personalize the experience based on its learnings. Just because we can ultra-personalize, does that mean we should?A long time ago, a group of scientists got together and learned how to split the atom. Engineers came in and learned how to take that science and create a bomb. They could make the bomb, and they later dropped it on two places in Japan. Should they have? The answer as to if we should seems to emerge from a study of history. But careful, even that is up for debate. It’s just as easy to write that dropping a bomb on Nagasaki was a bad idea because of the terror it created as it is to say it was the only way to stop a deadly war. I argue it’s impossible to assess right from wrong in that scenario because it comes down to the framework you use for seeing the world.So because I can order the pizza, should I?

I enjoy delaying my decision making to the last possible moment. I enjoy making decisions, but I enjoy making smart decisions.A smart decision, as I define it, considers the emergent complexity of life. Nothing is exactly as it seems at first glance, and sometimes at the second glance. Once life gets ahead of us, we start to see the full picture — the emergent complexity.In order to experience and observe the complexity, I must enjoy the observing the emergent complexity. And in order to enjoy, I must still myself long enough and allow myself to “be.” And “being” me is fun. You might have a similar experience if you give delaying your decisions a try.

I encounter claims every day. I hear them, make them, read them, and challenge them. I decided to do a bit of research into what is a claim.I understand a claim to be a statement that asserts a thing as true or presents a point of view. The funny thing about truth is that there can be multiple versions of the truth. So perhaps I’ll re-update my working definition: A claim is a statement, view, or perceived truth about a thing. And given that definition, I therefore believe that robust claims persist through cross-examination. Perhaps claims worth adopting are claims that persist through time and critique. There are plenty of people making plenty of claims in the world. And, I believe I should be skeptical of the claims I encounter. It’s my experience that being a laggard adopter of an idea serves me better than being early. And, it’s my experience that any time I allow myself to operate just a bit slower than life, the tradeoff is more contentment.

I took a two week holiday break. Mid week through my first full week back, here are my thoughts.As the amount of refreshment increases due to break, a parallel amount of habit formation is lost. After two weeks, I’m re-learning how to “do” my week.After one week of break, I become eager to work on something meaningful. It doesn’t need to be “work”, it can be another form of work. I need to be constructive.After two weeks, I want to spend a bit more time making jalan jalan (Filipino slang for “hanging out”) with the team I lead versus the hard work.I’m struggling to re-integrate my habits.That’s my stream of consciousness. Now time to do something with it.Acknowledgment is the first step.Welcome back.

I spent a lot of time thinking about what to write you today. My idea is advocacy. Advocacy comes in lots of forms. To be an advocate for self, someone, a cause, or an idea is to be a supporter. The other day I advocated for myself with a cardiologist. The test result we discussed showed that I do not have solid calcium in my arteries — that’s a good thing. However, it showed another interesting find. The machine that performed the calcium test is not calibrated to look at much beyond calcium; however it did and that output got reported on.I asked the cardiologist about that finding and was told, “it’s probably nothing.” I responded that if it’s nothing, and if the machine is not calibrated for that type of output, then did it make a mistake? Did a radiologist make a mistake in highlighting that output on their report? Why make a claim on data that’s not calibrated for making that claim in the first place? If I annoyed the cardiologist, they were nice enough not to show it. I said the hard part out loud for them, “if we’re making decisions based on the data before us, and if that data is not calibrated properly, I don’t see how we can make effective decisions.” The story ends with the cardiologist and I hypothesizing the likely nothing burger and we have a method for disproving that hypothesis through test. I’m happy. I also don’t believe I’m difficult. And while I don’t always accept or participate readily in norms for communicating with authority, I genuinely care about working with people to find the most correct answer — the truth, however it may be defined. For me, being the advocate for the cause that is me involved defying the norm and demanding a more rigorous decision process. I got a solid output. For you, if you could advocate more for yourself, consider it.

Yes, that likely means your recipe, your song, and your work. And, it’s probably best if you are speculative about how impactful your work will be.No, don’t doubt yourself… a doubt is a claim about the future.Instead, lean into life with three questions.What am I trying to do and why?What, of what I am about to do now, might work?How will I learn from what didn’t work?Then, make Bayesian updates…”Given how things unfolded, what do I believe now…”All of those words appeared in past posts. All of the words are words I told myself today. It made 100% a huge difference in how I handled a difficult situation.Words worth repeating.

HT to Tyler Cowen for sharing these rules with his readers. They are dubbed “Cowen’s Three Laws.”There is something wrong with everything.There is literature on everything.All propositions about real interests rates are wrong.#1 and #2 are intuitive, but what about #3?I read #3 as it’s easy to make claims about the future or that which is not certain; those claims are often wrong. Best to treat claims about what hasn’t happened with skepticism. All three are useful reminders. Hope they help you too.

It’s nice to greet people as they walk in to your store.If your head is down, you are not paying attention to that person, and you don’t make eye contact… are you achieving the effect of a greeting?In the United States/Americas, the greeting has evolved. From Indigenous rituals from first nations, to “how do you do” by European colonizers, to “hi” and “hello” in the 1800s. Different regions of the United States have different greetings — “howdy” for instance. I’m imagining we maintain these norms for social cohesion, etiquette, cultural expectations, respect for others, and perhaps to help reinforce a customer’s belief that they will extra value from their purchasing experience. Regarding eye contact — direct eye contact for too long is not considered a norm, and it’s not an absolute requirement in our culture. That said, it shows respect, demonstrates attentiveness, and establishes a connection. The greeting impacts our wallet now. Greetings are commercialized — greeting cards, digital greetings, and personalization reduce the formality and perhaps the meaning of the greeting itself. As consumers, perhaps we no longer expect being truly welcomed, but we expect the superficial act of welcoming.The paradox between engaging in a ritual to establish connection and demonstrate cultural etiquette yet remain distant and inattentive.Such is my experience at Starbucks.