I found myself saying that about a passage in his management textbook...not exactly where I expected to find an encapsulation of my worldview, but that's Herb Simon for you. ...Thanks for reading Michael!
This is a great one thanks, David! I guess I'll have to read Ulysses at some point now. I also appreciate your ability to make me have to look up at least one word per newsletter. This time it was maudlin!
If it's alright, can I ask a more reflective question? I know last week you mentioned that you're starting work on your next book. Now that it's your third book, I'm curious if you've noticed any ways that you feel you changed as a writer since you were writing your first. Does it get easier? Does the success of the first two make it easier?
Haha...if you do decide to start Ulysses, I'll have a few suggestions for resources that will make the experience longer and richer;) And I'm glad you learned a new word! Early on in writing, I had a decidedly subpar vocabulary for a writer. (An editor once told me: "You use all six words you know creatively." We had a great relationship, so this was funny, not nasty.) I don't think that's most important thing, but it was helpful to strengthen that weak link a bit. I often try to use a new word quickly if I can, so it sticks.
Re: your question. Gosh, tough one! To me, my two books were so different. With the first one, I'd never written anything (anything structured for publication, anyway) that was longer than probably 8,000 words or so. Going from 8,000 to 90,000 or whatever it was is a big jump. So that was really a fundamental change in thinking about structure. It was very difficult for me. The first book also required a lot of travel, some of it to remote areas, so that was a challenge. That was less of an issue with the second book. But there the challenge was even defining the boundaries for the book. What's in play, and what isn't, such that it will feel coherent, and not just like a series of magazine articles stapled together. Titrating those boundaries for myself, and then organizing the information was a huge challenge. The boundaries for the first book weren't easy, but they were less amorphous than the second. I also worried about writing about social science with the second book, because it's necessarily less certain. ...I'm not answering your question... It's funny to think I've really only done this twice. Normally, when someone has done something twice, we don't assume they really have it nailed down. And I don't feel like I do! Prior success has probably made some things easier. Sort of. With my first book, since I was at SI, that got me access that would have been difficult otherwise. (Even though, I should say, for a lot of reporting, if you have to count on the brand or a press pass for access, you're probably losing. I can expand on that if you're interested.) With a track record now, I can get access as an independent person and don't need the SI name. Not to say my access is now better (though it is in some areas), but prior work has made up for what a brand name previously gave me. But prior success has also created a lot of pressure in my head. That's one reason why I'm just now starting again. I had to come to terms with the likelihood of regression to the mean, and the fact that I have to just hope for luck again and I can't know quite how fruitful the topic will be until I dive in. Since you read W&P, I think I got into a mindset after Range where I wanted to engineer a perfect topic to ensure a good book, but I don't think I can do it. I was acting like it was some kind of battlefield chess I could perfectly control. So I was spending all this time hunting for a perfect topic, instead of just diving in and learning something — and there is no perfect topic, or at least I can't predict it ahead of time. I came across a Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi quote where he mentioned that if you commit to something (he was actually talking about relationships) then you can stop spending time wondering how to live and start living. That resonated with what I was doing with topic search. So finally I decided to pick and get going, and had to come to terms with the fact that even if things go well, I'll disappoint a bunch of readers, and if things go poorly, I'll disappoint even more readers, and myself, and the publisher, etc. etc. So I had to get over that. ...All that said, prior success also got me a better contract with a larger advance, so I can do away with time spent comparison shopping for flights or whatever else when I go on a reporting trip. That is a very helpful convenience, just not to spend time concerned with that. (The first installment of the advance comes when you sign the contract, the idea being you have it to use for expenses.) Beyond that, I don't have another job now, as I did with my first two books, so prior success has allowed that. ...I think we should revisit this question in a few months, though. Because I definitely implemented some tactics for my second book based on things that were headaches with the first one (like a better system for tracking citations as I go, and my "master thought list"...), and I've noticed I'm doing that again. I hope this means wisdom from prior headaches will make me more efficient this time (it better, as I have a kid now so that takes time and energy!), but I'm not actually sure yet. Have I told you about my "master thought list" thing? That definitely grew out of realizing that information organization was a major challenge in my first book, and would be even bigger in my second. Either way, let's revisit this question soon. If I missed the essence of your question, ask again!
I didn't ask the question, but am glad someone did (Thanks, Matt!). Enjoyed reading a bit about how someone attacks a new book after two successful journies.
Speaking of vocabulary, you say here that you were titrating your boundaries (while writing your first book). That use for that word gave me great pause. I think it works but if I hadn’t had the privilege of titrating many times in my life I don’t think I would understand the usage. Now I’m smiling with this new way of describing boundary identification.
I probably would've thought twice about it, but in this newsletter I feel a bit more free than other places to try out a word and see how it goes. And I appreciate both sides of your reaction, Katie. Thanks for this note! ...And I'll be counting on you to let me know when an unusual word just falls completely flat;)
Hey David, I was traveling this weekend so I apologize for the slow reply, but this hits the essence of my question and so much more. I was hoping for some bits on how you've approved on the process of writing, but you did that and such an insightful introspection. It's so rare to see such honest reflection and vulnerability from someone who has had so much success. Especially since you're writing this for people on the internet who you've never met. Thank you.
So much of what you said was so interesting. The bit on having to come to terms with regression to the mean was especially eye-opening to read. In your situation, I know your first book did better than you thought, and then your second book was even more successful. If anything, your small sample size would make a lot of people think they'd avoided regression to the mean since #2 did better than #1. Also, I've haven't yet quite understood the cliche that "life is what happens when you're busy making other plans," but the Csikszentmihalyi quote seems to get at that and explain it to me in that never has happened before. So I'll carry that insight with me.
Reading W&P was so great for so many reasons, not least of all the satisfaction of understanding your canny analogy. You haven't told me about your master thought list, and I'd love to hear more. If you don't see this, it will be a future question of mine. (I'd also like to hear more about what you alluded to about needing to rely on brand name meaning you're losing. I'm guessing it has something do to with the importance of personal relationships leading to getting the most out of sources?)
(By the way, I can't help but chuckle at how effortlessly you used the verb 'titrating' -- tell me you have a science background without telling me you have a science background, right? I like to think your witty editor would smile too.)
Lol I put that "titrating" in just for you because I thought you'd appreciate the vocab! (I do use that word regularly, though, so you're totally right. Probably a sign that I found the right profession since I was really bad at actual titrating in a lab but make good use of the word.)
As far as honest introspection on the internet, I have to say, the most pleasant surprise of this whole newsletter business has been the comments section. I had trained myself (with reasonable success) mostly to stay away from comment boards, but this newsletter has convinced me that you can have a sensible comment section that doesn't have any gatekeeping other than the self-selection of participants. Granted, there were a few posts where I wrote about something topical and controversial that brought in some less productive commenting, but even those weren't close to the raging trash fires I'd come to expect from online comments on Twitter and YouTube and other places. So, yeah, the comments and the prompts for introspection have been great for me.
I'm in a slight rush, so let's save the master thought list; we won't forget. And it relates to that post I wrote about how film editing influenced my writing. So the question I'll address right now is about relying on brand name. My first semi-stable job in journalism was as the overnight crime reporter at the NY Daily News. And it comes with a press pass that says you should have access to various things, and can get behind some police lines, if I recall. But the reality is indeed that it's completely idiosyncratic and based on your own approach. Maybe there's a W&P point here. You can have your orders from the top, and you can have your badge saying what you're supposed to be allowed to do, but the reality is that if you're trying to get somewhere on some crime scene, and the police officer standing there thinks you shouldn't, everything that happens is up to you two making it up on the ground, and nothing else matters. In most cases, that includes the publication name on the press pass. There are certainly exceptions. At one job, I had a congressional press pass, and it granted a bit of access that I wouldn't have had otherwise. And the SI name definitely helped with certain interview requests. So there's a ton of nuance here, but for the most part, with the kind of reporting I'm doing, success and failure doesn't come down to the brand name. I've written for publications with big names, and I've also twice worked at startups where I would call or email people and have to explain the place I was calling from, and the large majority of outcomes, I think, were more determined by my approach than where I was calling from. I will say, not having an associated brand leads me to do more homework so that when I make an interview request, I can show that I've been doing specific reading of this person's work, or something relevant to them. Citing a passage in someone's journal article, for me, has been a bigger deal most of the time than having a recognized publication URL on my email. ...At the risk of nuancing this to death, I don't think that's always true. A lot of news amounts to reporters breaking stories that are going to be announced anyway. In those cases, publication name is huge. I used to get frustrated when scientific journals would give the New York Times papers first but embargo it for everyone else. That isn't a good practice for anyone, because then the Times can't get as good reaction to the paper, I don't think. But anyway, that kind of breaking-stuff-that-will-be-announced reporting isn't something I'm interested in. ...I think also with podcasts, it probably makes a big difference where someone is calling from, since a lot of podcast material involves the interviewee trying to get exposure, so platform size matters. But again, for most deep reporting, I think it's just what you said, it's more about developing some relationship or just some approach that resonates with someone.
That was a long-winded answer to say: "Yes you're right." One last specific example:
For The Sports Gene, I wanted to interview Cynthia Beall, the only scientist who had studied in-depth all three of the world's high-altitude populations. (The three that had been at altitude for a long time, anyway.) And approaching her from a sports publication did not help! She kept saying that I really wanted to talk to a sports scientist, and even gave me the name of someone she saw at a conference. Her work was extremely relevant to certain sports questions, but that wasn't obvious to her because she wasn't interested in sports. So it took some time to explain my interest to her, and to do so by citing specific parts of her papers. Then it worked. (In retrospect, I've been told that that section of the book was too in the weeds for most readers, but I wasn't thinking about that much, and to me it was important.)
I just went on a run with Gladwell when we were in the same place for a conference, and we both agreed that it's hard to explain to people sometimes why exactly we want to interview them, especially early in a project when some of it is exploration. So sometimes I'm a bit vague — since I have a specific interest but I'm not yet totally sure how it connects to other material — and he said he is too. But again I think this can be overcome by showing you've done a lot of homework, which assures the person that you really do have specific interest. I've had a few experiences where, once a scientist I interview sees the book out, they send a note saying, "Ah, now I get it." That's always fun. ...This just reminded me of when I wrote an article about the science of pain perception for SI, and the head of the lab I visited was also incredulous that his work connected to sports. It seemed extremely relevant to me!
This is so interesting! Your point about the importance of doing your homework on someone to get the best result is great. I've cold emailed people on different things from time to time, and my roommate and I would talk about how helpful it was to have our college email as a signal of you-should-take-me-seriously-and-respond-to-me. But the way you put it makes it seem so much more meaningful to really do the legwork of showing your interest. Also, whether someone is more persuaded to respond by a URL or a journal quote might be a good litmus test about that person's character. It might say something about a person if they are more compelled to respond because of a high-status URL and title than work, research, and relationships. But now I'm just rambling. (And, yes, 'litmus test' was my attempt at a chemistry term.) Either way, maybe I'll start experimenting with that and send a few cold emails.
Love your point about both you and interviewees not quite knowing how their work applies. I don't think I realized you will interview before you have a complete argument, but it's reassuring to hear that the interview drives your argument instead of interviews coming after the fact for some sort of confirmation. And I'm here for any and all references to conversations you had with Gladwell. What it would be like to be a fly on the wall (or flying alongside?) for that one.
I've thought the same thing about your comment section! I wish I could talk to some of these other people over dinner. They seem like they'd be really pleasant and interesting company. For the comment section, I think you deserve a good share of the credit (though I suspect you will refuse it). If it's true what they say that you get what you give, then maybe I shouldn't be surprised seeing as you put so much time and effort and care into your responses.
Lastly, I think the W&P reference is a good one, as it usually is (as previously discussed, it contains all of life)
I wonder if Simon is insinuating that automation will limit our ability to employ our skill and problem solving which will, in turn, lead to us being able to love less. Reading his book would probably answer that. If that is so and his theory is true, I wonder if artificial intelligence will do the same, but in a larger scope.
Hey Paul, thanks for this note. From what I've read of Simon on automation, I think he felt automation would result in higher real wages, and that automation, on balance, would lead to fewer rather than more "degrading" jobs. That said, I think he was pretty savvy about needing human-centered design, and wasn't Pollyannish about the possibilities. If I could interview him, my guess is that he would be very optimistic about the potential (some of his predictions have, in fact, come true), but adamant about the need to keep human goals at the center of technological innovation, rather than just assuming all innovation will be put to beneficent use.
It sounds like he had a cautious optimism. As someone who was quite a techno-optimist, I've started reading a variety of pessimistic articles, almost calls-to-arms, against AI, especially in the context of ChatGPT. A lot of it has been encouraging us to go back to nature, a little bit of existentialist self-reliance with some sacrificing of comfort. While this is appealing to me, I also don't want to rule out the possible benefits of AI on humanity. Thanks for pulling me back to a moderate opinion on the topic!
I think I've become more of a techno-optimist than I used to be, but I'm still far from thinking that benefits of technological innovation will automatically outweigh the risks. Maybe I'm reading my own feelings into my guess at Simon's take — cautiously optimistic with an emphasis on explicit human-centered design. But, I must say, I don't have extremely strong positions at the moment. I feel like I'm very much in an active calibration phase!
Happy Valentines Day to you David. I love that you've written about love - if you think of it most novels, songs, poems, have love of some kind, or the knots associated with love, at their core. It's what makes the world go around, as they say. Thanks for your words as always and your wisdom.
The quote from Herbert Simon encapsulates my worldview quite well.
I found myself saying that about a passage in his management textbook...not exactly where I expected to find an encapsulation of my worldview, but that's Herb Simon for you. ...Thanks for reading Michael!
This is a great one thanks, David! I guess I'll have to read Ulysses at some point now. I also appreciate your ability to make me have to look up at least one word per newsletter. This time it was maudlin!
If it's alright, can I ask a more reflective question? I know last week you mentioned that you're starting work on your next book. Now that it's your third book, I'm curious if you've noticed any ways that you feel you changed as a writer since you were writing your first. Does it get easier? Does the success of the first two make it easier?
Haha...if you do decide to start Ulysses, I'll have a few suggestions for resources that will make the experience longer and richer;) And I'm glad you learned a new word! Early on in writing, I had a decidedly subpar vocabulary for a writer. (An editor once told me: "You use all six words you know creatively." We had a great relationship, so this was funny, not nasty.) I don't think that's most important thing, but it was helpful to strengthen that weak link a bit. I often try to use a new word quickly if I can, so it sticks.
Re: your question. Gosh, tough one! To me, my two books were so different. With the first one, I'd never written anything (anything structured for publication, anyway) that was longer than probably 8,000 words or so. Going from 8,000 to 90,000 or whatever it was is a big jump. So that was really a fundamental change in thinking about structure. It was very difficult for me. The first book also required a lot of travel, some of it to remote areas, so that was a challenge. That was less of an issue with the second book. But there the challenge was even defining the boundaries for the book. What's in play, and what isn't, such that it will feel coherent, and not just like a series of magazine articles stapled together. Titrating those boundaries for myself, and then organizing the information was a huge challenge. The boundaries for the first book weren't easy, but they were less amorphous than the second. I also worried about writing about social science with the second book, because it's necessarily less certain. ...I'm not answering your question... It's funny to think I've really only done this twice. Normally, when someone has done something twice, we don't assume they really have it nailed down. And I don't feel like I do! Prior success has probably made some things easier. Sort of. With my first book, since I was at SI, that got me access that would have been difficult otherwise. (Even though, I should say, for a lot of reporting, if you have to count on the brand or a press pass for access, you're probably losing. I can expand on that if you're interested.) With a track record now, I can get access as an independent person and don't need the SI name. Not to say my access is now better (though it is in some areas), but prior work has made up for what a brand name previously gave me. But prior success has also created a lot of pressure in my head. That's one reason why I'm just now starting again. I had to come to terms with the likelihood of regression to the mean, and the fact that I have to just hope for luck again and I can't know quite how fruitful the topic will be until I dive in. Since you read W&P, I think I got into a mindset after Range where I wanted to engineer a perfect topic to ensure a good book, but I don't think I can do it. I was acting like it was some kind of battlefield chess I could perfectly control. So I was spending all this time hunting for a perfect topic, instead of just diving in and learning something — and there is no perfect topic, or at least I can't predict it ahead of time. I came across a Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi quote where he mentioned that if you commit to something (he was actually talking about relationships) then you can stop spending time wondering how to live and start living. That resonated with what I was doing with topic search. So finally I decided to pick and get going, and had to come to terms with the fact that even if things go well, I'll disappoint a bunch of readers, and if things go poorly, I'll disappoint even more readers, and myself, and the publisher, etc. etc. So I had to get over that. ...All that said, prior success also got me a better contract with a larger advance, so I can do away with time spent comparison shopping for flights or whatever else when I go on a reporting trip. That is a very helpful convenience, just not to spend time concerned with that. (The first installment of the advance comes when you sign the contract, the idea being you have it to use for expenses.) Beyond that, I don't have another job now, as I did with my first two books, so prior success has allowed that. ...I think we should revisit this question in a few months, though. Because I definitely implemented some tactics for my second book based on things that were headaches with the first one (like a better system for tracking citations as I go, and my "master thought list"...), and I've noticed I'm doing that again. I hope this means wisdom from prior headaches will make me more efficient this time (it better, as I have a kid now so that takes time and energy!), but I'm not actually sure yet. Have I told you about my "master thought list" thing? That definitely grew out of realizing that information organization was a major challenge in my first book, and would be even bigger in my second. Either way, let's revisit this question soon. If I missed the essence of your question, ask again!
I didn't ask the question, but am glad someone did (Thanks, Matt!). Enjoyed reading a bit about how someone attacks a new book after two successful journies.
My pleasure, Kevin! I'm glad you enjoyed his response as much as I did.
Fun to see two readers interacting!
Speaking of vocabulary, you say here that you were titrating your boundaries (while writing your first book). That use for that word gave me great pause. I think it works but if I hadn’t had the privilege of titrating many times in my life I don’t think I would understand the usage. Now I’m smiling with this new way of describing boundary identification.
I probably would've thought twice about it, but in this newsletter I feel a bit more free than other places to try out a word and see how it goes. And I appreciate both sides of your reaction, Katie. Thanks for this note! ...And I'll be counting on you to let me know when an unusual word just falls completely flat;)
Hey David, I was traveling this weekend so I apologize for the slow reply, but this hits the essence of my question and so much more. I was hoping for some bits on how you've approved on the process of writing, but you did that and such an insightful introspection. It's so rare to see such honest reflection and vulnerability from someone who has had so much success. Especially since you're writing this for people on the internet who you've never met. Thank you.
So much of what you said was so interesting. The bit on having to come to terms with regression to the mean was especially eye-opening to read. In your situation, I know your first book did better than you thought, and then your second book was even more successful. If anything, your small sample size would make a lot of people think they'd avoided regression to the mean since #2 did better than #1. Also, I've haven't yet quite understood the cliche that "life is what happens when you're busy making other plans," but the Csikszentmihalyi quote seems to get at that and explain it to me in that never has happened before. So I'll carry that insight with me.
Reading W&P was so great for so many reasons, not least of all the satisfaction of understanding your canny analogy. You haven't told me about your master thought list, and I'd love to hear more. If you don't see this, it will be a future question of mine. (I'd also like to hear more about what you alluded to about needing to rely on brand name meaning you're losing. I'm guessing it has something do to with the importance of personal relationships leading to getting the most out of sources?)
(By the way, I can't help but chuckle at how effortlessly you used the verb 'titrating' -- tell me you have a science background without telling me you have a science background, right? I like to think your witty editor would smile too.)
Lol I put that "titrating" in just for you because I thought you'd appreciate the vocab! (I do use that word regularly, though, so you're totally right. Probably a sign that I found the right profession since I was really bad at actual titrating in a lab but make good use of the word.)
As far as honest introspection on the internet, I have to say, the most pleasant surprise of this whole newsletter business has been the comments section. I had trained myself (with reasonable success) mostly to stay away from comment boards, but this newsletter has convinced me that you can have a sensible comment section that doesn't have any gatekeeping other than the self-selection of participants. Granted, there were a few posts where I wrote about something topical and controversial that brought in some less productive commenting, but even those weren't close to the raging trash fires I'd come to expect from online comments on Twitter and YouTube and other places. So, yeah, the comments and the prompts for introspection have been great for me.
I'm in a slight rush, so let's save the master thought list; we won't forget. And it relates to that post I wrote about how film editing influenced my writing. So the question I'll address right now is about relying on brand name. My first semi-stable job in journalism was as the overnight crime reporter at the NY Daily News. And it comes with a press pass that says you should have access to various things, and can get behind some police lines, if I recall. But the reality is indeed that it's completely idiosyncratic and based on your own approach. Maybe there's a W&P point here. You can have your orders from the top, and you can have your badge saying what you're supposed to be allowed to do, but the reality is that if you're trying to get somewhere on some crime scene, and the police officer standing there thinks you shouldn't, everything that happens is up to you two making it up on the ground, and nothing else matters. In most cases, that includes the publication name on the press pass. There are certainly exceptions. At one job, I had a congressional press pass, and it granted a bit of access that I wouldn't have had otherwise. And the SI name definitely helped with certain interview requests. So there's a ton of nuance here, but for the most part, with the kind of reporting I'm doing, success and failure doesn't come down to the brand name. I've written for publications with big names, and I've also twice worked at startups where I would call or email people and have to explain the place I was calling from, and the large majority of outcomes, I think, were more determined by my approach than where I was calling from. I will say, not having an associated brand leads me to do more homework so that when I make an interview request, I can show that I've been doing specific reading of this person's work, or something relevant to them. Citing a passage in someone's journal article, for me, has been a bigger deal most of the time than having a recognized publication URL on my email. ...At the risk of nuancing this to death, I don't think that's always true. A lot of news amounts to reporters breaking stories that are going to be announced anyway. In those cases, publication name is huge. I used to get frustrated when scientific journals would give the New York Times papers first but embargo it for everyone else. That isn't a good practice for anyone, because then the Times can't get as good reaction to the paper, I don't think. But anyway, that kind of breaking-stuff-that-will-be-announced reporting isn't something I'm interested in. ...I think also with podcasts, it probably makes a big difference where someone is calling from, since a lot of podcast material involves the interviewee trying to get exposure, so platform size matters. But again, for most deep reporting, I think it's just what you said, it's more about developing some relationship or just some approach that resonates with someone.
That was a long-winded answer to say: "Yes you're right." One last specific example:
For The Sports Gene, I wanted to interview Cynthia Beall, the only scientist who had studied in-depth all three of the world's high-altitude populations. (The three that had been at altitude for a long time, anyway.) And approaching her from a sports publication did not help! She kept saying that I really wanted to talk to a sports scientist, and even gave me the name of someone she saw at a conference. Her work was extremely relevant to certain sports questions, but that wasn't obvious to her because she wasn't interested in sports. So it took some time to explain my interest to her, and to do so by citing specific parts of her papers. Then it worked. (In retrospect, I've been told that that section of the book was too in the weeds for most readers, but I wasn't thinking about that much, and to me it was important.)
I just went on a run with Gladwell when we were in the same place for a conference, and we both agreed that it's hard to explain to people sometimes why exactly we want to interview them, especially early in a project when some of it is exploration. So sometimes I'm a bit vague — since I have a specific interest but I'm not yet totally sure how it connects to other material — and he said he is too. But again I think this can be overcome by showing you've done a lot of homework, which assures the person that you really do have specific interest. I've had a few experiences where, once a scientist I interview sees the book out, they send a note saying, "Ah, now I get it." That's always fun. ...This just reminded me of when I wrote an article about the science of pain perception for SI, and the head of the lab I visited was also incredulous that his work connected to sports. It seemed extremely relevant to me!
This is so interesting! Your point about the importance of doing your homework on someone to get the best result is great. I've cold emailed people on different things from time to time, and my roommate and I would talk about how helpful it was to have our college email as a signal of you-should-take-me-seriously-and-respond-to-me. But the way you put it makes it seem so much more meaningful to really do the legwork of showing your interest. Also, whether someone is more persuaded to respond by a URL or a journal quote might be a good litmus test about that person's character. It might say something about a person if they are more compelled to respond because of a high-status URL and title than work, research, and relationships. But now I'm just rambling. (And, yes, 'litmus test' was my attempt at a chemistry term.) Either way, maybe I'll start experimenting with that and send a few cold emails.
Love your point about both you and interviewees not quite knowing how their work applies. I don't think I realized you will interview before you have a complete argument, but it's reassuring to hear that the interview drives your argument instead of interviews coming after the fact for some sort of confirmation. And I'm here for any and all references to conversations you had with Gladwell. What it would be like to be a fly on the wall (or flying alongside?) for that one.
I've thought the same thing about your comment section! I wish I could talk to some of these other people over dinner. They seem like they'd be really pleasant and interesting company. For the comment section, I think you deserve a good share of the credit (though I suspect you will refuse it). If it's true what they say that you get what you give, then maybe I shouldn't be surprised seeing as you put so much time and effort and care into your responses.
Lastly, I think the W&P reference is a good one, as it usually is (as previously discussed, it contains all of life)
I wonder if Simon is insinuating that automation will limit our ability to employ our skill and problem solving which will, in turn, lead to us being able to love less. Reading his book would probably answer that. If that is so and his theory is true, I wonder if artificial intelligence will do the same, but in a larger scope.
Hey Paul, thanks for this note. From what I've read of Simon on automation, I think he felt automation would result in higher real wages, and that automation, on balance, would lead to fewer rather than more "degrading" jobs. That said, I think he was pretty savvy about needing human-centered design, and wasn't Pollyannish about the possibilities. If I could interview him, my guess is that he would be very optimistic about the potential (some of his predictions have, in fact, come true), but adamant about the need to keep human goals at the center of technological innovation, rather than just assuming all innovation will be put to beneficent use.
It sounds like he had a cautious optimism. As someone who was quite a techno-optimist, I've started reading a variety of pessimistic articles, almost calls-to-arms, against AI, especially in the context of ChatGPT. A lot of it has been encouraging us to go back to nature, a little bit of existentialist self-reliance with some sacrificing of comfort. While this is appealing to me, I also don't want to rule out the possible benefits of AI on humanity. Thanks for pulling me back to a moderate opinion on the topic!
I think I've become more of a techno-optimist than I used to be, but I'm still far from thinking that benefits of technological innovation will automatically outweigh the risks. Maybe I'm reading my own feelings into my guess at Simon's take — cautiously optimistic with an emphasis on explicit human-centered design. But, I must say, I don't have extremely strong positions at the moment. I feel like I'm very much in an active calibration phase!
Happy Valentines Day to you David. I love that you've written about love - if you think of it most novels, songs, poems, have love of some kind, or the knots associated with love, at their core. It's what makes the world go around, as they say. Thanks for your words as always and your wisdom.
Love, Margit
Hey Margit! Happy Valentine's Day, and nice to see you here. I like that phrase, "the knots associated with love," and I agree.
“Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness.”--Freud
Richard, thanks so much for this one. If I'd known it, I'm sure it would've been in this newsletter;)