Another great one, David, thank you! I appreciate your deep dives with living authors as much as your deep dives on deceased ones. With regards to quitting, I may be misremembering, but I think you make a similar point in chapter 6 of Range right? That before starting something, everyone should enumerate the things that must happen for them to quit? I don't have the book with me so I can't check, but I have that jotted down in my notes. Needless to say, I thought this was fascinating. A question for you: between these author chats and your journalist background, it's really clear you're very skilled and well trained at asking strong questions. As a teacher, I've been reading and thinking quite a bit about question asking as a skill, since it is crucial to ask the right questions to push student thinking and learning. Do you have any advice, thoughts, or principles on how to ask better questions? Asking the right questions is so important in so many walks of life.
Also, is there anything you're ready to share as a little hint as to what this potential book proposal might be? No pressure whatsoever, but I was so curious that I couldn't help but ask.
Matt, nice to see you over in this new venue! I did mention that point — referencing Seth Godin on it specifically. Nothing in near the detail Annie goes into, but it did come up. You're a close reader. ...That's a great question about questions! And I appreciate your compliment. I actually recently picked up the book A More Beautiful Question, by Warren Berger, but I just opened it, so I don't have anything to report yet. I guess I think three things help me with question asking: 1) I'm a curious person, so that definitely helps. I tend to ask the same or similar question repeatedly, in slightly different ways. When I was at SI, I saw a much more experienced colleague (Selena Roberts), do this a lot. Gary Smith, a revered writer there, also did it. And I find sometimes it deepens the conversation, since on first attempt we often get surface level responses. That doesn't really apply usually to interviewing an author about their book, but it often does in other interviewing. But I guess an aspect that translates is that there is something specific I'm curious about, and then I'm asking questions to try to learn more about that idea or topic or event. That might sound trivial, but having been interviewed a lot myself, I realize that there are sort of boilerplate questions that people ask that don't revolve around a specific curiosity, so then the onus is on the interviewee, if that makes sense. So, speaking of specific curiosity... 2) I think working as a magazine journalist especially helped me. In large part, I think the difference between effective and ineffective questioning is whether it elicits specifics. And in a lot of writing, I think a big differentiator is also specificity. Some of this is just the old adage "show, don't tell." Writing that application essay, don't just say that you're a leader, share a story that shows your leadership. Specifics are powerful, and good magazine writing is dense with specifics — details scenes, facts, quotes that hopefully go beyond press conference rhetoric. I started as a temp fact-checker at SI, and I had to go through stories and try to confirm details, and that really made realize how detailed the questions were that these writers were asking. I remember fact checking this story by Lee Jenkins: https://vault.si.com/vault/2009/08/03/miracle-on-the-south-side. ...This was especially amazing because this was essentially a magazine feature on a news event, so Lee had to report and write it in days, at most. Take a look at this story, and think of yourself as a fact-checker. Just to think about verifying everything in the first paragraph. You might quickly realize that Lee probably had to ask a lot of questions to at least two different people to get all those details, because nobody just shares all that reflexively. I started to become attuned to the fact that I'd have to elicit very specific details. And then when I started writing stories, I'd realize I had holes in the level of detail I wanted sometimes, so I'd have to go back and do more interviewing. I remember this story on Sir Roger Bannister: https://vault.si.com/vault/2011/07/04/sir-rogers-run . He'd been interviewed so many times that he sort of had his talking points and rushed me through and I was out the door. Usually he talked only about running the first sub-four mile. I was asking him about his neurology career, and he kept saying "Oh you don't want to know about that." And I left without getting what I needed. I had to steel myself a bit and go back to him the next day saying things like, "No I really do want to know what quinizarin looks like when it touches water." And we started getting somewhere. 3) I tend to do a lot of homework for interviews. Most of it will never show, but it informs my questions. Taking notes as I go, I tend to realize that a lot of the points I think are interesting are orbiting certain themes or ideas. If I'm interviewing someone for book background, and I visit them in person, I can ask a million questions. If it's for a Q&A that can't be too long, I'm looking for more surgical questions that will elicit an answer about those themes or ideas, like an aggregation question or something. Does that make any sense? I'm sort of the opposite of the Larry King model, where he didn't want to know anything about the person he was interviewing. That worked for him. It led him to make gaffes (like when he asked Seinfeld about getting cancelled, which didn't happen), but on the bright side it put him in the position of a curious listener who could represent the audience. I try to find a medium; I do want to have done homework, but stay mostly in the headspace of someone who is new to the topic.
...I don't know if any of that is useful! But I do notice that sometimes people will find my questioning even in my personal life a little odd — not in a bad way. But I'm very curious about peoples' jobs. So if someone tells me about their job, I may ask how they found their way to that work. And they'll say, ya know, "Well I applied and then..." And I'll say, "How did you know this was a thing you could apply for? Did a colleague tell you? Did you see it on Instagram?" And this may go down a road of several more questions because I want to know exactly how this chain of events works, but because people are polite they don't generally jump in with such detailed yarns;) Let me know if any of this makes any sense (or what doesn't!). I'm really thinking with my fingers here, and not sure I'm on target of what you were interested in. Overall, the best interviews for me are more like conversations, but where I'm able to work in specific questions in my head. This is really a prolix response. Maybe I should've just answered with "specific curiosity!"
Wow, David. You've really outdone yourself with this response! Even for your standards, I can't believe the thought and effort you put into it. This is incredibly helpful and on the nose. I think your pieces of advice compound one another in a great way. For example, I've found that doing a lot of homework on someone/something (a) leads to much more specific questions and (b) makes just about anything interesting (I'm stealing from Richard Feynman here with a quote that I very well may have gotten from your book but I can't remember: "Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough."). To me it feels like once you and your interviewee are both interested, the conversation almost can't help but become interesting. Your point on details is so insightful and something I'd never considered. In a meta way, you employed "show don't tell" by linking to those articles and telling what to look for. It's so neat to see a bit of work through a professional's eyes. It felt like walking through an art gallery with an artist, when the artist notes things I don't even know to look for. And props to you for breaking through with Sir Roger Bannister! I imagine for a former runner it must've been quite an experience to get to speak with him. Your specific questioning with your friends may be unconventional, but I also think it would be endearing! Maybe everyone is just a bit surprised at first someone else cares so much. Thanks again.
I'm glad you appreciated it! As you know, I ramble (and make lots of typos) in the comments. And that Feynman quote wasn't from me — first I've heard it — so thanks for sharing that! I really appreciate your questions, even when I occasionally find them daunting, or I'm not sure where to start. So I guess we've come full circle here — I'm praising your questions;) But really, turns out I enjoy talking about process stuff, and since writers typically do their work alone, I almost never talk about it except in these comments, and in other rare cases. (I'm often asked about the publishing process, but not about the research or writing process.) So really a great lesson for me from doing this newsletter is that I enjoy thinking out loud about this process stuff, and you've been a major part of me learning that. So thanks! ....As far as Bannister, ya know, I don't get starstruck. Still, I do get nervous for interviews, just about every single one. But I remember with Bannister, he was a confluence of so many things I was interested in, and such a legend in my sport; I remember holding my finger over the doorbell that said "Bannister," and my hand shaking a bit. I was, for sure, more nervous than usual for that one. Thankfully, he really enjoyed the resulting article, and then would call me randomly from time to time at some odd hour of my morning: "Hello! It's Sir Roger! I have three things to tell you...." and he'd mention some news he read about track, or some update about his son in New York... "..ok, goodbye goodbye!" It was lovely. I wouldn't have thought someone could refer to themself as a "Sir" in a totally unassuming way until I met him. He was a wonderful guy. And an awesome writer. The book he wrote in like weeks after breaking four has some beautiful lines.
Haha I'm glad to hear my questions have been at least a bit interesting. I have a lot of fun thinking of what I'd like to ask and then whittling it down to just one to put into a comment. I think the process work is so interesting in writing especially because the reader is only ever supposed to see the finished product, but there is just as much to be learned in hearing about how it got there as there is in actually reading it. (Once I heard another teacher cheekily point out that we make students show all their work in math but hide all their work in English. I thought it was a great point, especially since I taught English last year and teach math this year.)
How funny about Sir Roger Bannister! I wasn't aware of his scientific work, but I guess it's telling that when I google him, he is listed as an "English neurologist." Talk about range! I had a professor in college Dan Lieberman (maybe you know each other?) who had similarly delightful exchanges with Bannister. I think they even became pen pals for a bit after being seated next to each other at some luncheon.
By the way, I think I already prefer the newsletter on Substack because the default setting is that I get emails when you respond, which wasn't the case with the previous medium. I'm not sure I would've seen this comment otherwise!
Oh man, that is an awesome quote about hiding work in English! I am for sure going to pass that on sometime.
As to the comments alert, I didn't even know that! I think so far it's working the other way for me, I got alerts before, but I'm not know. Haven't hunted through all the settings yet.
Is that anthropologist/evolutionary biologist Dan Lieberman?
That's him! I took his class on evolutionary medicine during my senior year. We even went on a 5 mile run together once! It sounds like you might know him?
I actually finally just realized what I'm good at—never had a word for it before or the right language to explain the framework for evaluating choices at each point with new information and the various odds moving forward: I'm good at quitting!
Ha, that's great Kelly! Not something we praise everyday, but I think Annie makes a great argument that there's so much to be gained if we can get even a little better at quitting. Thanks so much for this delightful comment.
Welcome Elaine! I've also cut down on my social media consumption, while increasing my intake of quality writing, so you're in good company. Thanks for being here, and I hope you enjoy future posts.
I not only like the kill criteria but I have been using it - not aware of a term for it. As an ultralight pilot and motorcyclist, my personal kill criteria are - IF I imagine lying in a hospital bed after an accident and someone asks me - did you think it was a good idea to fly / ride and I can't give an immediate and definitive yes - I should stay home
Mark, this is a great comment. You just reminded me of something I saw Adam Grant discuss once. I can't remember the term, and I would probably ruin the details, but basically it was doing that sort of mental time travel to think about decisions. I'm neither a pilot nor motorcyclist, but I have a problem sometimes with running hard when I'm just coming off a break, which massively increases the risk of injury. It's just silly, because obviously I'm eager to get fit again, but liable to curtail the entire process by going too hard too soon. I'm going to steal your frame here and imagine myself taking time off with shin splints, and answering someone who asks whether it was a good idea to do that interval workout right away off of low mileage.
Devah, I'm so glad to hear that! Thanks so much for reading, and the goal of this newsletter is to expose people (including me) to things they might not have considered, so I take this as the perfect compliment;)
This is incredible. It is timely for me now regarding relationships. I think I am overly influenced by "sunk costs" My brain says quit, but I do not know if I can. In my career I analyze insurance risk. so that adds to the irony.
Jon, this is a great comment, thanks so much for sharing it. And truly, Annie's book had multiple examples of people who literally studied sunk cost, or phenomena related to it, and still struggled with it. So even though it feels ironic given your work, I hope you can go easy on yourself, as you're in very intelligent company! ...I've definitely adopted some of the kill criteria thinking, so hopefully it'll help. In any case, thanks for reading, and so glad you found it thought-provoking.
Absolutely agree. There's a great spot in the book about Daniel Kahneman and his "quitting committee" that he has in order to help with that outside view.
Thanks for this -- definitely struck a chord. It also reminded me of Astro Tellers "passionately dispassionate" at Google X, and how they try to cultivate a mindset open to quitting early:
"#6 Cultivate the ability to be passionately dispassionate.
While we can’t predict the future, we’re trying to invent it efficiently, to maximize the impact of our effort and resources. So it’s absolutely necessary to be intellectually honest and kill things that are pretty good (even if we love them!) so we can move on to even better opportunities." (from https://x.company/blog/posts/tips-for-unleashing-radical-creativity/)
While it's arguably not exactly the same, I see some complementarities and also analogies to what Anne so beautifully describes in the interview. I haven't read the book (yet) so I was wondering if she writes about being "passionately dispassionate" and the example of Google X in it?
Johann, 100%! Both Annie and I are fans of Astro, and we actually discussed him in the full chat, but I edited down a lot for length. In any case, she does indeed write about Google X in the book.
Can staying be quitting? For example, in your article the ER doctor who took the promotion to an administrative position based on her being identified as a good candidate. Could she have a kill criteria established to evaluate staying versus taking a promotion?
Kevin, so sorry to be slow! I think that's a great question. I'm not sure what Annie would say, but I think kill criteria can apply to staying, maybe in two ways. First, if she hasn't met the kill criteria for leaving, maybe that should encourage staying. Or, perhaps when evaluating a new job, we should have kill criteria for that evaluation process. Obviously, our information is limited, but maybe it makes sense to set out some signals that would contradict what you're looking for. Curious to hear your thoughts! What do you think?
I like the idea of a kill criteria for leaving. There is a lot of value placed on promotion and mobility - advancement (in career or sporting pursuit). This thinking may lead us to jump at an opportunity that, on the surface, looks good; however, it may be better, or it may not be the time. We may not be prepared for the jump, or we may give up something from a current position with unrecognized value. The scenario I am thinking of is a dream position (or the position that leads to that dream position) in which you are recruited with offers and perks, plus "we think you would be excellent in this position". These have power in our decision-making. The kill criteria would assign power to our current position to allow us to evaluate the opportunity within our current context. Again, this leaving criteria could be set in advance.
Hi David, what really resonates is the suggestion that the quitting criteria is set in advance. What a great way to not only avoid sunk cost fallacies, but also when combined with a deadline, is a great way to bring choices to a head. Undone and incomplete projects seem to take quite a cognitive load. Really looking forward to reading the book. Thank you for these great newsletter essays.
Roger, so sorry to be slow! Just getting used to Substack comments. In any case, I don't really have anything to add, other than your comment is very well put, and I love the comment about cognitive load. You're reinforcing my determination to use kill criteria more widely.
A really timely book and interview for a lot of us who should be taking an honest measure of our circumstances. The equations that lead to a good quit are a complex calculus. Thanks for the attempt to find a more unifying framework. Will add “Quit” to my future reading list for sure.
Also enjoyed your TED talks as an introduction... so much talent out here in the world it’s hard to keep up with everyone who deserves to be heard. Will keep collecting and focusing on the good shells I find, and realize I can’t comb all life’s beaches!
Welcome to Substack! Excited to have you here - reading Range led to a significant reframing of my patchwork career to date, and now I view my diverse experience with gratitude.
Loved this interview and will check out the book. I quit a job in a toxic org at the end of 2021. Six months in to my new job there was a lot of chaos in the org and leadership was being careless with employees’ time and talent. I surprised myself by quitting and getting out quickly (I tend to be loyal to a fault). I’ve been much happier unemployed and just landed a new role starting in January. What a year!
Jen, thanks for reading, and for the warm welcome! Honestly, working on Range led me to reframe my zig-zaggy career as well, so I'm really gratified to hear you say that. ... I loved reading this phrase: "I surprised myself by quitting." And I'm so glad to hear that it feels like you made the right choice!
Glad to see ya on Substack, David! I always enjoy when you do interviews like this one. I still remember your interview with Fonda — which inspired me to pick up her incredible trilogy. :)
Jeremy, great to see you over here man! And I really appreciate that about the Fonda trilogy, back when apparently you and my sister were my only subscribers haha ...Btw, I'm deep into Ulysses at the moment. Have you read it? I don't think I've seen you write about it, although you read a lot and I don't catch it all;)
Let me know when you do! I've done a lot of outside reading around it — essential. But that's also made it one of those deep reading experiences where I'm thinking about it everyday. Please let me know if you're ever starting! I have a few tips;)
Ben, that's so kind of you to say. I'm in that boat too, so (as is often the case), this interview qualified as "mesearch." Best of luck in your decisions!
I found this helpful. I had already dropped out of two bachelor's degrees, the first time was slow deciding it, but the second time, I took the decision faster. Now I'm a little happier, learning the things I like or need when I need or can. I still struggle to find a job and decide when to decline an application for a job I may not like compared with other job applications where I feel more at ease.
Ulises, thanks so much for sharing this comment. I dropped out of a grad program, and it was a tough decision for me, but definitely the right one. Since I'm self-employed, I'm not looking for jobs in the traditional sense, but as I mentioned regarding a book proposal in the interview above, I'm definitely finding it challenging to determine which projects to go all-in on. I don't think this struggle will go away, at least not for me, so I'm hoping just to get even a little bit better at it.
When faced with difficult decisions I often ask myself - If this wouldn't be the status quo, would I actively pursue it? If the answer is no then its time to quit or change the situation.
I think it was Steven Levitt (freakonomics) who ran an experiment. Indecisive people looking for advice and came to their website, were told either to stay with the status quo or change it. After a while they followed up on the same people and the ones getting the advice to change where significantly happier. So when in doubt opt for change. We don't quit enough apparently ;-)
Oh btw. welcome to the substack family David. :D - Great to have you
It was Levitt! And they used a digital coin flip to randomize who got the advice to stay or change. Such a cool study, and great way to leverage his big following. It seemed to me that one of the morals of that study — at least from the subjects who were thinking about job change — was that if we actually quit at the precise right time, it would probably feel way too early. Sticky problem. ...Anyway, thanks so much for this great comment on my debut post, and for the welcome note!
Another great one, David, thank you! I appreciate your deep dives with living authors as much as your deep dives on deceased ones. With regards to quitting, I may be misremembering, but I think you make a similar point in chapter 6 of Range right? That before starting something, everyone should enumerate the things that must happen for them to quit? I don't have the book with me so I can't check, but I have that jotted down in my notes. Needless to say, I thought this was fascinating. A question for you: between these author chats and your journalist background, it's really clear you're very skilled and well trained at asking strong questions. As a teacher, I've been reading and thinking quite a bit about question asking as a skill, since it is crucial to ask the right questions to push student thinking and learning. Do you have any advice, thoughts, or principles on how to ask better questions? Asking the right questions is so important in so many walks of life.
Also, is there anything you're ready to share as a little hint as to what this potential book proposal might be? No pressure whatsoever, but I was so curious that I couldn't help but ask.
Matt, nice to see you over in this new venue! I did mention that point — referencing Seth Godin on it specifically. Nothing in near the detail Annie goes into, but it did come up. You're a close reader. ...That's a great question about questions! And I appreciate your compliment. I actually recently picked up the book A More Beautiful Question, by Warren Berger, but I just opened it, so I don't have anything to report yet. I guess I think three things help me with question asking: 1) I'm a curious person, so that definitely helps. I tend to ask the same or similar question repeatedly, in slightly different ways. When I was at SI, I saw a much more experienced colleague (Selena Roberts), do this a lot. Gary Smith, a revered writer there, also did it. And I find sometimes it deepens the conversation, since on first attempt we often get surface level responses. That doesn't really apply usually to interviewing an author about their book, but it often does in other interviewing. But I guess an aspect that translates is that there is something specific I'm curious about, and then I'm asking questions to try to learn more about that idea or topic or event. That might sound trivial, but having been interviewed a lot myself, I realize that there are sort of boilerplate questions that people ask that don't revolve around a specific curiosity, so then the onus is on the interviewee, if that makes sense. So, speaking of specific curiosity... 2) I think working as a magazine journalist especially helped me. In large part, I think the difference between effective and ineffective questioning is whether it elicits specifics. And in a lot of writing, I think a big differentiator is also specificity. Some of this is just the old adage "show, don't tell." Writing that application essay, don't just say that you're a leader, share a story that shows your leadership. Specifics are powerful, and good magazine writing is dense with specifics — details scenes, facts, quotes that hopefully go beyond press conference rhetoric. I started as a temp fact-checker at SI, and I had to go through stories and try to confirm details, and that really made realize how detailed the questions were that these writers were asking. I remember fact checking this story by Lee Jenkins: https://vault.si.com/vault/2009/08/03/miracle-on-the-south-side. ...This was especially amazing because this was essentially a magazine feature on a news event, so Lee had to report and write it in days, at most. Take a look at this story, and think of yourself as a fact-checker. Just to think about verifying everything in the first paragraph. You might quickly realize that Lee probably had to ask a lot of questions to at least two different people to get all those details, because nobody just shares all that reflexively. I started to become attuned to the fact that I'd have to elicit very specific details. And then when I started writing stories, I'd realize I had holes in the level of detail I wanted sometimes, so I'd have to go back and do more interviewing. I remember this story on Sir Roger Bannister: https://vault.si.com/vault/2011/07/04/sir-rogers-run . He'd been interviewed so many times that he sort of had his talking points and rushed me through and I was out the door. Usually he talked only about running the first sub-four mile. I was asking him about his neurology career, and he kept saying "Oh you don't want to know about that." And I left without getting what I needed. I had to steel myself a bit and go back to him the next day saying things like, "No I really do want to know what quinizarin looks like when it touches water." And we started getting somewhere. 3) I tend to do a lot of homework for interviews. Most of it will never show, but it informs my questions. Taking notes as I go, I tend to realize that a lot of the points I think are interesting are orbiting certain themes or ideas. If I'm interviewing someone for book background, and I visit them in person, I can ask a million questions. If it's for a Q&A that can't be too long, I'm looking for more surgical questions that will elicit an answer about those themes or ideas, like an aggregation question or something. Does that make any sense? I'm sort of the opposite of the Larry King model, where he didn't want to know anything about the person he was interviewing. That worked for him. It led him to make gaffes (like when he asked Seinfeld about getting cancelled, which didn't happen), but on the bright side it put him in the position of a curious listener who could represent the audience. I try to find a medium; I do want to have done homework, but stay mostly in the headspace of someone who is new to the topic.
...I don't know if any of that is useful! But I do notice that sometimes people will find my questioning even in my personal life a little odd — not in a bad way. But I'm very curious about peoples' jobs. So if someone tells me about their job, I may ask how they found their way to that work. And they'll say, ya know, "Well I applied and then..." And I'll say, "How did you know this was a thing you could apply for? Did a colleague tell you? Did you see it on Instagram?" And this may go down a road of several more questions because I want to know exactly how this chain of events works, but because people are polite they don't generally jump in with such detailed yarns;) Let me know if any of this makes any sense (or what doesn't!). I'm really thinking with my fingers here, and not sure I'm on target of what you were interested in. Overall, the best interviews for me are more like conversations, but where I'm able to work in specific questions in my head. This is really a prolix response. Maybe I should've just answered with "specific curiosity!"
Wow, David. You've really outdone yourself with this response! Even for your standards, I can't believe the thought and effort you put into it. This is incredibly helpful and on the nose. I think your pieces of advice compound one another in a great way. For example, I've found that doing a lot of homework on someone/something (a) leads to much more specific questions and (b) makes just about anything interesting (I'm stealing from Richard Feynman here with a quote that I very well may have gotten from your book but I can't remember: "Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough."). To me it feels like once you and your interviewee are both interested, the conversation almost can't help but become interesting. Your point on details is so insightful and something I'd never considered. In a meta way, you employed "show don't tell" by linking to those articles and telling what to look for. It's so neat to see a bit of work through a professional's eyes. It felt like walking through an art gallery with an artist, when the artist notes things I don't even know to look for. And props to you for breaking through with Sir Roger Bannister! I imagine for a former runner it must've been quite an experience to get to speak with him. Your specific questioning with your friends may be unconventional, but I also think it would be endearing! Maybe everyone is just a bit surprised at first someone else cares so much. Thanks again.
I'm glad you appreciated it! As you know, I ramble (and make lots of typos) in the comments. And that Feynman quote wasn't from me — first I've heard it — so thanks for sharing that! I really appreciate your questions, even when I occasionally find them daunting, or I'm not sure where to start. So I guess we've come full circle here — I'm praising your questions;) But really, turns out I enjoy talking about process stuff, and since writers typically do their work alone, I almost never talk about it except in these comments, and in other rare cases. (I'm often asked about the publishing process, but not about the research or writing process.) So really a great lesson for me from doing this newsletter is that I enjoy thinking out loud about this process stuff, and you've been a major part of me learning that. So thanks! ....As far as Bannister, ya know, I don't get starstruck. Still, I do get nervous for interviews, just about every single one. But I remember with Bannister, he was a confluence of so many things I was interested in, and such a legend in my sport; I remember holding my finger over the doorbell that said "Bannister," and my hand shaking a bit. I was, for sure, more nervous than usual for that one. Thankfully, he really enjoyed the resulting article, and then would call me randomly from time to time at some odd hour of my morning: "Hello! It's Sir Roger! I have three things to tell you...." and he'd mention some news he read about track, or some update about his son in New York... "..ok, goodbye goodbye!" It was lovely. I wouldn't have thought someone could refer to themself as a "Sir" in a totally unassuming way until I met him. He was a wonderful guy. And an awesome writer. The book he wrote in like weeks after breaking four has some beautiful lines.
Haha I'm glad to hear my questions have been at least a bit interesting. I have a lot of fun thinking of what I'd like to ask and then whittling it down to just one to put into a comment. I think the process work is so interesting in writing especially because the reader is only ever supposed to see the finished product, but there is just as much to be learned in hearing about how it got there as there is in actually reading it. (Once I heard another teacher cheekily point out that we make students show all their work in math but hide all their work in English. I thought it was a great point, especially since I taught English last year and teach math this year.)
How funny about Sir Roger Bannister! I wasn't aware of his scientific work, but I guess it's telling that when I google him, he is listed as an "English neurologist." Talk about range! I had a professor in college Dan Lieberman (maybe you know each other?) who had similarly delightful exchanges with Bannister. I think they even became pen pals for a bit after being seated next to each other at some luncheon.
By the way, I think I already prefer the newsletter on Substack because the default setting is that I get emails when you respond, which wasn't the case with the previous medium. I'm not sure I would've seen this comment otherwise!
Oh man, that is an awesome quote about hiding work in English! I am for sure going to pass that on sometime.
As to the comments alert, I didn't even know that! I think so far it's working the other way for me, I got alerts before, but I'm not know. Haven't hunted through all the settings yet.
Is that anthropologist/evolutionary biologist Dan Lieberman?
I'm so glad you like the quote! Here's my source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU -- the whole video is very short and gives me goosebumps every time I watch.
That's him! I took his class on evolutionary medicine during my senior year. We even went on a 5 mile run together once! It sounds like you might know him?
I actually finally just realized what I'm good at—never had a word for it before or the right language to explain the framework for evaluating choices at each point with new information and the various odds moving forward: I'm good at quitting!
Ha, that's great Kelly! Not something we praise everyday, but I think Annie makes a great argument that there's so much to be gained if we can get even a little better at quitting. Thanks so much for this delightful comment.
There can be a right time for almost anything. Only we can add up our filters/perspectives to make the best decision for us
I found you thru Barking Up t by e Wrong Tree and when Eric mentioned your "Substack" I had to Google the word having no idea what it meant.
I don't use Twitter, linked in or Instagram and I rarely look at FB but I enjoy reading good content that is well written. So I'll be back. Thank you.
Welcome Elaine! I've also cut down on my social media consumption, while increasing my intake of quality writing, so you're in good company. Thanks for being here, and I hope you enjoy future posts.
I not only like the kill criteria but I have been using it - not aware of a term for it. As an ultralight pilot and motorcyclist, my personal kill criteria are - IF I imagine lying in a hospital bed after an accident and someone asks me - did you think it was a good idea to fly / ride and I can't give an immediate and definitive yes - I should stay home
Mark, this is a great comment. You just reminded me of something I saw Adam Grant discuss once. I can't remember the term, and I would probably ruin the details, but basically it was doing that sort of mental time travel to think about decisions. I'm neither a pilot nor motorcyclist, but I have a problem sometimes with running hard when I'm just coming off a break, which massively increases the risk of injury. It's just silly, because obviously I'm eager to get fit again, but liable to curtail the entire process by going too hard too soon. I'm going to steal your frame here and imagine myself taking time off with shin splints, and answering someone who asks whether it was a good idea to do that interval workout right away off of low mileage.
This is fascinating! I would not have seen it except for your blog. Thank you!!
Devah, I'm so glad to hear that! Thanks so much for reading, and the goal of this newsletter is to expose people (including me) to things they might not have considered, so I take this as the perfect compliment;)
This is incredible. It is timely for me now regarding relationships. I think I am overly influenced by "sunk costs" My brain says quit, but I do not know if I can. In my career I analyze insurance risk. so that adds to the irony.
Jon, this is a great comment, thanks so much for sharing it. And truly, Annie's book had multiple examples of people who literally studied sunk cost, or phenomena related to it, and still struggled with it. So even though it feels ironic given your work, I hope you can go easy on yourself, as you're in very intelligent company! ...I've definitely adopted some of the kill criteria thinking, so hopefully it'll help. In any case, thanks for reading, and so glad you found it thought-provoking.
I agree overall, but would add - just having an outsider give their input without getting sucked into the emotions or "sunk costs" would be helpful
Absolutely agree. There's a great spot in the book about Daniel Kahneman and his "quitting committee" that he has in order to help with that outside view.
Thanks for this -- definitely struck a chord. It also reminded me of Astro Tellers "passionately dispassionate" at Google X, and how they try to cultivate a mindset open to quitting early:
"#6 Cultivate the ability to be passionately dispassionate.
While we can’t predict the future, we’re trying to invent it efficiently, to maximize the impact of our effort and resources. So it’s absolutely necessary to be intellectually honest and kill things that are pretty good (even if we love them!) so we can move on to even better opportunities." (from https://x.company/blog/posts/tips-for-unleashing-radical-creativity/)
While it's arguably not exactly the same, I see some complementarities and also analogies to what Anne so beautifully describes in the interview. I haven't read the book (yet) so I was wondering if she writes about being "passionately dispassionate" and the example of Google X in it?
Johann, 100%! Both Annie and I are fans of Astro, and we actually discussed him in the full chat, but I edited down a lot for length. In any case, she does indeed write about Google X in the book.
Can staying be quitting? For example, in your article the ER doctor who took the promotion to an administrative position based on her being identified as a good candidate. Could she have a kill criteria established to evaluate staying versus taking a promotion?
Kevin, so sorry to be slow! I think that's a great question. I'm not sure what Annie would say, but I think kill criteria can apply to staying, maybe in two ways. First, if she hasn't met the kill criteria for leaving, maybe that should encourage staying. Or, perhaps when evaluating a new job, we should have kill criteria for that evaluation process. Obviously, our information is limited, but maybe it makes sense to set out some signals that would contradict what you're looking for. Curious to hear your thoughts! What do you think?
I like the idea of a kill criteria for leaving. There is a lot of value placed on promotion and mobility - advancement (in career or sporting pursuit). This thinking may lead us to jump at an opportunity that, on the surface, looks good; however, it may be better, or it may not be the time. We may not be prepared for the jump, or we may give up something from a current position with unrecognized value. The scenario I am thinking of is a dream position (or the position that leads to that dream position) in which you are recruited with offers and perks, plus "we think you would be excellent in this position". These have power in our decision-making. The kill criteria would assign power to our current position to allow us to evaluate the opportunity within our current context. Again, this leaving criteria could be set in advance.
Hi David, what really resonates is the suggestion that the quitting criteria is set in advance. What a great way to not only avoid sunk cost fallacies, but also when combined with a deadline, is a great way to bring choices to a head. Undone and incomplete projects seem to take quite a cognitive load. Really looking forward to reading the book. Thank you for these great newsletter essays.
Roger, so sorry to be slow! Just getting used to Substack comments. In any case, I don't really have anything to add, other than your comment is very well put, and I love the comment about cognitive load. You're reinforcing my determination to use kill criteria more widely.
A really timely book and interview for a lot of us who should be taking an honest measure of our circumstances. The equations that lead to a good quit are a complex calculus. Thanks for the attempt to find a more unifying framework. Will add “Quit” to my future reading list for sure.
Also enjoyed your TED talks as an introduction... so much talent out here in the world it’s hard to keep up with everyone who deserves to be heard. Will keep collecting and focusing on the good shells I find, and realize I can’t comb all life’s beaches!
Ryan, I don't have anything to add, I just want to say "thanks" for this apt (and eloquent) comment.
Welcome to Substack! Excited to have you here - reading Range led to a significant reframing of my patchwork career to date, and now I view my diverse experience with gratitude.
Loved this interview and will check out the book. I quit a job in a toxic org at the end of 2021. Six months in to my new job there was a lot of chaos in the org and leadership was being careless with employees’ time and talent. I surprised myself by quitting and getting out quickly (I tend to be loyal to a fault). I’ve been much happier unemployed and just landed a new role starting in January. What a year!
Jen, thanks for reading, and for the warm welcome! Honestly, working on Range led me to reframe my zig-zaggy career as well, so I'm really gratified to hear you say that. ... I loved reading this phrase: "I surprised myself by quitting." And I'm so glad to hear that it feels like you made the right choice!
Glad to see ya on Substack, David! I always enjoy when you do interviews like this one. I still remember your interview with Fonda — which inspired me to pick up her incredible trilogy. :)
Jeremy, great to see you over here man! And I really appreciate that about the Fonda trilogy, back when apparently you and my sister were my only subscribers haha ...Btw, I'm deep into Ulysses at the moment. Have you read it? I don't think I've seen you write about it, although you read a lot and I don't catch it all;)
I haven't read Ulysses! I've definitely just been too intimidated to dive in...someday though. :)
Let me know when you do! I've done a lot of outside reading around it — essential. But that's also made it one of those deep reading experiences where I'm thinking about it everyday. Please let me know if you're ever starting! I have a few tips;)
A terrific read and as someone who's got some big decisions to make in the months ahead, this was just what I needed to read. Thank you.
Ben, that's so kind of you to say. I'm in that boat too, so (as is often the case), this interview qualified as "mesearch." Best of luck in your decisions!
Love the term „mesearch“, never came across that one before. ☺️☺️
I found this helpful. I had already dropped out of two bachelor's degrees, the first time was slow deciding it, but the second time, I took the decision faster. Now I'm a little happier, learning the things I like or need when I need or can. I still struggle to find a job and decide when to decline an application for a job I may not like compared with other job applications where I feel more at ease.
Ulises, thanks so much for sharing this comment. I dropped out of a grad program, and it was a tough decision for me, but definitely the right one. Since I'm self-employed, I'm not looking for jobs in the traditional sense, but as I mentioned regarding a book proposal in the interview above, I'm definitely finding it challenging to determine which projects to go all-in on. I don't think this struggle will go away, at least not for me, so I'm hoping just to get even a little bit better at it.
Great post! Thank you so much.
When faced with difficult decisions I often ask myself - If this wouldn't be the status quo, would I actively pursue it? If the answer is no then its time to quit or change the situation.
I think it was Steven Levitt (freakonomics) who ran an experiment. Indecisive people looking for advice and came to their website, were told either to stay with the status quo or change it. After a while they followed up on the same people and the ones getting the advice to change where significantly happier. So when in doubt opt for change. We don't quit enough apparently ;-)
Oh btw. welcome to the substack family David. :D - Great to have you
It was Levitt! And they used a digital coin flip to randomize who got the advice to stay or change. Such a cool study, and great way to leverage his big following. It seemed to me that one of the morals of that study — at least from the subjects who were thinking about job change — was that if we actually quit at the precise right time, it would probably feel way too early. Sticky problem. ...Anyway, thanks so much for this great comment on my debut post, and for the welcome note!