• Sort Blog:
  • All
  • Book Reviews
  • EA Rotterdam
  • Essays
  • Flotes
  • Goals
  • Links
  • Series
  • Short Stories
  • Uncategorized

Comment Activation Energy

Online comments are but a very small sample of readers/watches of some media.

The comments reflect the extremes, the ones who really liked or disliked something.

The insight from Cortex that I got was that some comments require more or less ‘activation energy’ to make.

This consists of two parts:

  1. How motivated is someone to comment
  2. How easy is the comment to make

“Someone has to feel 4x as intense, to leave a comment on something 2x complicated.”

References

From Cortex #112 at 1:17

More

Our brain is also dialled to focus on the negative comments. This might have been evolutionary good, but bad now.

You are reading comments in your own voice (in your head), and by that also receiving negative comments as direct critique. So read comments out loud (in a neutral voice), do downscale the personal-ness of them.

Calling Bullshit

Calling Bullshit by Carl Bergstrom & Jevin West uses a sceptical, yet fair, perspective to dissect fact from fiction, well reasoned conclusions from bullshit.

This book tries to dissect true scientific claims and bullshit. The focus of the book is on data-driven bullshit. It goes through various forms of (data) bullshit, and offers tools on how we can improve our critical skills.

My notes from the awesome reading group by Joeri

Recommended further reading (more philosophical/technical books)

Bernard Wiliams – Truth & Truthfulness

Stephen Toulmin – Return to Reason

Plato – The Republic

Plato was railing against the bullshit of the sophists, they were not concerned with the truth, just with influence, money, fame.

We are currently being fed bullshit by media, bots, etc. This can be seen as a digital cave (filter bubble) ala Plato’s cave.

Another way of framing the cave is as a rave. It’s a comfortable place to be, doing philosophy is (more) difficult. We like to distract ourselves, not do the hard work.

Parrhesia – the ancient word for talking truth to power.

Instead of social justice warriors, we have to become epistemic justice warriors

Believing is a form of acting -? weighing evidence carefully…

How do we spot (call) bullshit:

  1. Question the source of information
  2. Beware of unfair comparisons
  3. If it seems too good or too bad

Refuting bullshit

  1. Use reductio ad absurdum
  2. Be memorable (and funny)
  3. Find counter-examples
  4. Provide analogies
  5. Redraw figures
  6. Deploy a null model
  7. Be correct
  8. Be charitable
  9. Admit fault
  10. Be clear
  11. Be pertinent

One has to use logic.

Although closely interconnected, doubt and belief are characterized by profoundly different feelings: “Doubt is an uneasy and dissatisfied state from which we struggle to free ourselves and pass into the state of belief; while the latter is a calm and satisfactory state which we do not wish to avoid, or to change to a belief in anything else”

Method of tenacity – which brings comforts and decisiveness but leads to trying to ignore contrary information as if truth is private and not public.

Method of authority – which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutality

The method of the a prior – only use deduction instead of induction

How to refute bullshit

The method of science – There are real things, whose characters are entirely independent of our opinions about them; those realities affect our senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as different as are our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really are; and any man, if he have sufficient experience and reason enough about it, will be led to the one true conclusion. The new conception here involved is that of reality.

(Typical of cynicism is that the collective (especially the informed part) is duly aware of wrong, hegemonic and dominating aspects of society and its power-structures, but has either learned to agree with them, or to see the hegemonic forces as unshakable. This means people know there is the possibility and potential to unmask hegemonies as domination or injustice and to reveal false consciousness (and as such are enlightened), but they see every ideal that is offered in replacement of those hegemonies as wishful thinking or naïve. This is what Sloterdijk came to call ‘enlightened false consciousness’, to which cynicism amounts. Any optimism about the future has thus been replaced by cynicism.)

The socratic method – let people reason it out themselves by asking questions

  • You have to have these characteristics:
    1. Ignorance
    2. Curiosity
    3. Courage
    4. Naivety
    5. Patience
    6. Will to delve deep
    7. Make time
    8. Suspend judgement
    9. Open and empty mind
    10. Rational compassion

Other recommended books during the meetup:

  • Buddhism without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening – Stephen Batchelor
  • The Feeling of Value: Moral Realism Grounded in Phenomenal Consciousness – Sharon Rawlette
  • On What Matters, Vol. 2 – Derek Parfit
  • The Myth of Morality (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy) – Richard Joyce

The God Delusion

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is a spirited, fair, rational, engaging, and vigorous explanation of why God is not there. It methodologically tackles various objections, explains historical quarks, and his reasons for writing such a direct/hostile book.

Read: 1x | First: December 2020

As someone who beliefs himself to be a rationalist, this book touched all the right points for me. It goes through various objections and cuts them down without resorting to anything else but reason.

Dawkins has been known to speak his mind, to be a great explainer of science, and one who doesn’t back down in the face of resistance. At the same time, he seems to have developed positive relationships with those from the other side of the argument who are willing to listen, even if they don’t agree on the outcomes.

One may also ask: What good does a book like this do? Does it not speak only to those who are already convinced? Dawkins also dispels this notion and informs us that many religious people (including leaders) have found his arguments compelling and have left the faith.

This book pairs well with Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett.

Introduction for the 10th anniversary edition

Life has come forth through (Darwinian) evolution: cumulative natural selection. But that is hard to believe, is there nothing that makes all of this special? A designer? A grand scheme?

That is what theism claims, that there is a God (or gods) that have caused the universe to exist (and made/controlled it to varying degrees). This book explains that there is no ground for such a claim. We don’t need it to explain evolution, humans, nor morality.

Of those who identify as Christian (in the UK), many are completely unaware of what is written in the bible (why doesn’t the church encourage reading it more?). When asked about why they believed, 18% indicated they believed in its teachings. A much larger 46% said it was because they were christened/baptized into religion (see chapter 9). Or in other words, many who identify as Christian, don’t actively engage in behaviour or belief that match the central tenets of its faith.

See this survey here for a primer on the data.

… you could plausibly argue that the best antidote against all of the three Abrahamic religions is a thorough reading of their holy books. The nasty bits are seldom mentioned in churches or Sunday schools.”

Chapter 1 – A deeply religious non-believer

Dawkins has been described as religious, but a better description would be naturalist (students of the world), atheist (there is no supernatural power, no miracles).

As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.”

A theist is someone who believes in a supernatural intelligence that has created the universe and is actively managing it.

A deist only believes that a supernatural intelligence has set up the laws of the universe.

A pantheist only uses God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature (or Universe). (“Pantheism is sexed up atheism”)

This book will speak/criticize only a supernatural God (i.e. not when using God as a metaphor).

Religion should not be protected, it should not be a reason why you can discriminate (against homosexuals) or get special exemptions (taxes, drugs).

Chapter 2 – The God Hypothesis

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

That is quite the statement to start this chapter, and one that gets often quoted. Later on Dawkins points towards all the place in the Old Testament which justify such a paragraph.

God Hypothesis: “there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

Alternative: “Any creative intelligence of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.

Also see Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (to review) by Daniel Dennett.

America was founded on secular grounds, but alas because religion ‘evolved’ outside the state, it became such a large (and influential) institution on America.

Being an agnostic is not something we can confidently be when talking about the God Hypothesis. It’s not something where there is no evidence or no priors (e.g. the change of intelligence life on other planets).

We are all atheists, when considering the gods Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, etc. Why not go one God further?

One experiment to prove the existence of God was the Great Prayer Experiment. Without bothering with the details, the ones who were prayed for and who know that this was the case – did worse on medical outcomes.

Chapter 3 – Arguments for God’s existence

Chapter 4 – Why there almost certainly is no God

Chapter 5 – The roots of religion

Chapter 6 – The roots of morality: why are we good?

Chapter 7 – The ‘Good’ Book and the changing moral Zeitgeist

Chapter 8 – What’s wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?

Chapter 9 – Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion

Chapter 10 – A much needed gap?

Afterword by Daniel Dennett

Public Commitment 2020 – Update 4

This year my theme was Upgrade. The goal is to use the things I already know and apply/improve/renew them to build more new things.

As I look back on 2020 I see that in some ways I’ve held true to this theme. I’ve been able to use knowledge I had before and build on that. For instance, I’ve been very consistent in weightlifting, knowing a thing or two about programming. And even using this to be flexible when the gyms are (still) closed.

I think that in other regards I haven’t been focussed enough on my goals/theme. I’ve been doing a lot of things for Blossom (my new company, goal 5) and that has been very rewarding. Yet at the same time, I’ve neglected other things like writing essays or make time to write summaries of books (through which I believe I will be better able to remember them).

I have started working more on knowledge systems like spaced repetition (using Anki – a flashcard app). In the coming year I plan to build this out further. But before we go to 2021, here is my reflection on the goals of 2020.

Goal 1: Write Nova (and possibly other short stories)

As mentioned in the last update, not something that has a priority for me now. I have updated my daily check-in to ask not if I’ve written for 30 minutes, but if I’ve written something original. So diverting it from the original goal of writing fiction to also include anything written here or for Blossom or Queal.

Goal 2: Improve this website

This worked well and I’m happy with how the website looks. I do have plans for some more things (like dark mode and some adjustments to the homepage). Not very high on the priority list, but definitely something to do.

Goal 3: Do something crazy for love

Alas, all my plans were thwarted by the ongoing pandemic. Or I just wasn’t serious enough about completing this goal with the current circumstances.

Goal 4: Write essays about 6 topics

The post about Effective Altruism took a long time, but I’m happy with the result. I do plan on writing more (smaller) posts for the next year.

In the end I’ve written/worked on 4 posts/topics.

Goal 5: Start a new and successful venture

Still going very well in terms of developing my understanding of psychedelics and mapping the territory.

Not going that well in terms of monetization. I also haven’t put in much work to get that going to be honest. But it is something to work on in the coming year. This could either be the coaching I’m planning to do (post-covid?) and the online resources that should be able to make some money.

Public Commitment 2021

This years theme is Serial Tasking.

In 2021 I aim to be better at doing one task at a time. Writing this post, not browsing online to distract myself. Reading a book, not checking my phone every few pages.

Another way of expressing this theme is being indistractable.

If I do want to take a break from one activity, or switch to another task, I should be cognisant of doing that.

I have the following implementation intentions planned to make this theme work:

  • Phone away, especially when reading (or when sleeping)
  • Toggl (time tracking) open on iPad to be more aware of the current task and to make conscious switching even more frictionless
  • Become better at doing nothing when taking a break vs finding something (useless things like YouTube) as a distraction
    • Picking up meditation again to become better at this
    • And when I learn to work better with Affinity Designer (Photoshop-like) I can also see myself doodling more (or just on paper)
  • Manage my environment better by being more proactive in when I can or can’t be bothered (read: WFH life)
  • Do different activities in different places (e.g. reading in chair, break on couch)

One thing I want to achieve with this theme is to continue to learn about and understand the world. The topics below are, somewhat in order, the things want to learn and write about here on this website.

Topics

  1. Animal Welfare & Ethics of Eating Meat
    • What is your personal impact?
    • What is the impact on people (who work in the industry, health, pandemics)?
    • Arguments for/against consciousness (level) of animals
  2. Eat for Health & Energy
    • Revisit essay and update habits
  3. Flexible Weightlifter
    • Revisit essay if necessary, already have a plan for this year
  4. Reason and Science
    • Write a page that details my philosophy/summarizes how I see the world
    • Probably will feature many mini posts that could themselves turn into longer posts
  5. Effective Altruist
    • Update my essay/write a new one about how to effectively spread the ideas of EA
    • Or how to do this in the best way for myself (i.e. is that speaking more about it, writing more online (in Dutch), showing my donations, how to measure this all)
  6. Dog Whisperer
    • Teach Max not to bark at the doorbell (be less on guard) and not to eat stuff in the street – I have a plan for both, probably won’t be an essay
  7. Financial Independence
    • Revisit essay, possibly focus more on the time x money aspect
  8. Writing
    • Possibly continue to write fiction again
  9. Stoicism (Philosophy of Life)
    • Explore this in more depth, bring together ideas from several books
  10. Longevity
    • Explore where the research stands this year and what looks promising
  11. Meditation
    • Write down my experiences later in the year
  12. Religion
    • I’ve read quite a bit about religion, but still have to read the primary sources and more direct commentary on this, and then write something from my own perspective
  13. Entrepreneurship/Marketing
    • Learn to better market my own work and make money with it

Next to these ideas for essays/topics, I have some goals I want to achieve in 2021.

Goals

Goal 1: Write something every day

Write a book review, essay, notes from things I’ve learned, and more, every day. The difficulty will be in writing something on the weekend. One step I could take is to plan to write a book review (easy to do) or notes on things I’ve learned (vs writing a large essay or the like).

Goal 2: Promote my work

This applies to both Blossom and Queal. Becoming better at marketing what I’ve made and showing what the value is in it. This also implies that I should spend less time on making the actual work (i.e. getting help with that) and more on the marketing of it. I have the resources (websites/ebooks/books), implementation is key here.

Goal 3: Meditate daily

Using Waking Up for this. It also has great lessons that I might listen to after a meditation session.

Goal 5: Learn 3 songs on the harmonica

I’ve been gifted a harmonica for Christmas (per request) and I would like to play music again. The goal for three songs is arbitrary but I think better than ‘learn to play’ in general.

Goal 6: Add 2 features to this website

The first would be the dark mode, the second I don’t know at this moment.

Goal 7: Improve my learning process

This one is still a bit vague but includes more spaced repetition (Anki), atomic notes (Obsidian), discussions with other smart people.

Goal 8: Move more money towards effective charities

Again a bit vaguer. A possible number could be €100.000 if GeefBeter.nl takes off (a website/tool to help others start birthday fundraisers). I think I should be able to donate €10.000 next year so that would already be great by itself.

Goal 9 (new): Achieve the elusive six-pack

I’ve wanted to do this for years. This year is the year.

And, some more concrete goals for Blossom and Queal

Queal

  1. Increase revenue by 20%

Blossom

  1. Launch/run Blossom Analysis
    1. Weekly updates
    2. Database
    3. Essays (psychedelics and …)
  2. Launch/run Blossom Guides (rename?)
    1. 2 to 3 sessions per week by mid 2021
    2. Possibly together with other coaches
  3. Launch/run smaller projects
    1. PsychedelicsBooks
    2. PsychedelicsCourses
    3. PsychedelicsDirectory
    4. PsychedelicsProtocol
  4. Launch/Kickstart PsychedeliCards
    1. First half of 2021

Finally, some goals that are more for fun/relaxation/habit

  1. Do sports 5 out of every 7 days
    • Same for mobility training
  2. Achieve <12% bodyfat
  3. Play videogames for more than 100 hours (estimate 2020: <10 hours)
  4. Drink fewer alcoholic drinks than last year (estimate/log 2020: sum 559, average 1.5, median 0 (more days no drinks), max 15, 10+ 5 times, ~56.000kcal ~18 days of energy)
  5. Learn to ride a motorcycle

The Half-Life of Facts

The Half-Life of Facts by Samual Arbesman presents an interesting framework for thinking about the updating of our knowledge. He argues there is structure in the time it takes for facts to become outdated. Just like the half-life of uranium, facts become superseded by other facts at a predictable rate.

Read: 1x | First: December 2020

This book got recommended on the Clearer Thinking podcast with Spencer Greenberg. It got introduced as interesting, though not always as sound as presented (i.e. there is more nuance than fitted on the pages).

I enjoyed the book, it helped me think more clearly, and it’s a quick read for those interested in how knowledge develops.

I wrote at the start of the book: “We know 1% of infinity, and that 1% is always getting bigger.

Chapter 1 – The Half-life of Facts

“Facts, in the aggregate, have half-lives: we can measure the amount of time for half of a subject’s knowledge to be overturned.”

Arbesman is using facts in a common-sense way in the book. Things we know to be true (at this moment), as close to ‘ground’ truth as we can currently get.

Mesofacts are facts that change at middle timescale (a few years). Examples are number of chemicals, height of Mount Everest (see chapter 8), height of tallest skyscraper.

Chapter 2 – The Pace of Discovery

We can now measure the speed of discoveries (scientometrics) and in many cases the number of papers published in a field doubles every X years, which showcases exponential (vs linear) growth.

Although, possibly, discoveries are getting harder to make, there are so many more scientists, the speed of discovery is still accelerating.

Chapter 3 – The Asymptote of Truth

Knowledge in a field can also decay exponentially, shrinking by a constant fraction.”

This (and much of this chapter) is based on citations of scientific papers and the decline in that of older papers.

It’s not that when a new theory is brought forth, or an older fact is contradicted, what was previously known is simply a waste, and we must start from scratch. Rather, the accumulation of knowledge can then lead us to a fuller and more accurate picture of the world around us.”

We are currently in the ‘long-tail of discovery’, and by that the author means we may not get block-buster discoveries, but we are ever refining and better understanding and improving them.

Chapter 4 – Moore’s Law of Everything

Processing power grows every year at a constant rate rather than by a constant amount.”

The amount of information we can send to others has grown exponentially, how awesome is that.

This chapter also introduces the idea of several S-curves making up an exponential curve.

Technology, in its broadest sense, is the process by which we modify nature to meet our needs and wants.” and “Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things.”

About life expectancy, this chapter mentions Aubrey de Grey from Ending Aging.

Knowledge grows through cumulating, “as there is more technological or scientific knowledge on which to grow, new technologies increase the speed at which they grow.”

This process closely matches population growth. An interesting idea is how this will develop, as population growth slows/stops. Will our interconnectedness still provide us with enough momentum or will the half-life of facts start to grow larger?

Chapter 5 – The Spread of Facts

Knowledge spread slower than we think/hope. Like the idea that spinach has a lot of iron, which isn’t true (but the story about why also is wrong, and that meme has spread even slower).

Information spreads via social networks (and thus also moves in bubbles), and between different networks (e.g. geographies).

The most important ties are thus medium ties, not strong ones (have the same knowledge) nor weak ones (whom you don’t speak to often).

Sometimes errors spread further and quicker because the story is more compelling than the truth/fact. E.g. a frog in a slowly heated to boiling pot will not jump out (wrong!).

Facts do not spread instantaneously, even with modern technology. They weave their way through social networks in mathematically predictable ways.”

To prevent spreading misinformation, have a certain vigilance about what you hear.

Chapter 6 – Hidden Knowledge

Knowledge can be hidden in one domain, and be useful in another domain. So combining domains and ‘throwing people at the problem’ are valid strategies for unearthing facts.

This also holds true for knowledge in the public domain that is lost over time. So ideas, proposed back in the day, were not ‘ripe’ for that time, but could be tested/used/validated now.

Innocentive is mentioned, a crowdsourcing centre for ideas. With the premise being “a long tail of expertise – everyday people in large numbers – has a greater chance of solving a problem than do the experts.”

A cummulative meta-analysis tries to include all trials (not only the latest ones) as to find statistical significance early on. (see page 109)

Another project mentioned is CoPub Discovery (but doesn’t seem to be active anymore?), a paper search engine that matches based on co-occurrence of (similar) words in papers.

Mendeley is a tool that helps with citing papers and saving references to them. And to find related papers.

DEVONthink might also be a good tool to find hidden connections, Mac/iOS only.

… facts are seldom lost. And as long as knowledge is preserved, we have the raw materials for unearthing hidden knowledge.”

Chapter 7 – Fact Phase Transition

At certain thresholds there can be a state change, think water to ice. The changes might themselves not have accelerated, but the end product is very different than X iterations before.

This type of thinking is usually applied to physics but also applies to facts (e.g. number of exoplanets found). And by using this, you can predict (approximately) when we will have an answer about fact/question X.

We are always on the edge of chaos, always learning new things (at least in dynamic societies) and our knowledge (facts) change all the time. Or in other words, we’re always in a critical state.

Chapter 8 – Mount Everest and the Discovery of Error

The height of Mount Everest is a meso-fact (see above), it changes over time as we were getting better at measuring and still changes as the earth is changing.

Revolutions in science have often been preceded by revolutions in measurement.” – Sinan Aral

We have improved our measurements of many things, and by that also our understanding of the world. As we get better at measurements (e.g. brain scans in real-time at more detail) we will continue to learn more.

Error can be measured in two ways, precision (10x same error) and accuracy (10x error around the centre).

Then the book discussed a topic I want to dive deeper into next year, p-values and statistics. This quote from John Maynerd Smith summarizes what we now do “Statistics is the science that lets you do twenty experiments a year and publish one false result in Nature.”

What is important is the discriminating power of a study, of how much it changes our prior to posterior probability of X being true.

Some factors that help falsehoods become significant results:

  • smaller studies
  • smaller effect size
  • more tested hypotheses
  • flexibility in study design, definitions, outcomes, analytical model
  • financial incentives
  • hotter field

I can confidently say that most of these apply to the study of psychedelics for therapy. And one of the things that should (continue to) happen is replication, to be damn sure that something really work.

Only through replication can science be the truly error-correcting enterprise that it is supposed to be.”

This all being said, Arbesman notes that science is not broken. It isn’t perfect, but still moves forward.

One interesting way of looking at this is to make the distinction between the core and the frontier. The former is relatively stable and fixed, the latter is more fluid and full or error. Slowly facts from the frontier make it into the core.

There is a sifting and filtering process that moves knowledge from the frontier to the relatively compact and tiny core of knowledge. We should enjoy this process, rather than despair.”

Chapter 9 – The Human Side of Facts

There is a human side to updating facts. Dan Ariely of Predictably Irrational is mentioned here.

… shifting baseline syndrome… refers to how we become used to whatever state of affairs is true when we are born, or when we first look at a situation.”

An interesting way of defining technology is as “anything that was invented after you were born” – Alan Kay

As facts change, our understanding of them changes slower. I think this matches with the concept of memes, they are similar to genes in many ways, but one way they are different is that it needs to be both transmitted and then received/processed/saved (and then transmitted again).

The beliefs that we have (currently) can prevent us from updating to a newer and better view of reality. Daniel Kahneman referred to this as theory-induced blindness.

Changes in facts thus also follow the phase change bursts and relatively stable periods. I think this can be true, but don’t know if this applies to all fields and institutions (i.e. if a company has good systems they could possibly have continuous change? Netflix maybe?).

The model proposed by Thomas Kuhn about science progressing one funeral at a time doesn’t seem to hold up. Young scientists are just a likely as older ones to accept/reject new ideas.

One thing that could be useful is to stop remembering facts (as we’ve all done to some degree I think) and retrieve (the latest and updated) facts when we need them.

Paradoxically, by not relying on our memories, we become more likely to be up-to-date in our facts, because the newest knowledge is more likely to be online than in our own heads.”

Chapter 10 – At the Edge of What We Know

Science requires an idea to be refutable. It is not good enough for a concept to seem compelling; it must have the potential for a new fact to come along and render it false.”

Are we in an exponential curve or ‘just’ a logistic curve? Some things point towards ever accelerating (e.g. knowledge spreads faster). Other things point towards a slowdown (e.g. population growth is slowing down dramatically).

Facts don’t change arbitrarily. Even though knowledge changes, the astounding thing is that it changes in a regular manner; facts have a half-life and obey mathematical rules. Once we recognize this, we’ll be ready to live in the rapidly changing world around us.”

Games People Play

Games People Play by Eric Berne is a book that I probably read somewhere around 2010. An interesting blog summary/analysis by Niel Kakker is what prompted me to put up this post, a full review will be done if I ever reread the book.

Notes from the summary:

“Eric Berne, the author of Games People Play, says there are 3 big ones: The Parent, The Adult, and The Child. These ego states are different modes of operation in every person. The Adult is the rational logical self. The Parent is the caring, taking care of someone self. The Child is the playful, creative, easily offended self.”

Sometimes the subtext of something being said is what matters, where one assumes a role to entice the other to take a particular action (to show that they are not the role they are implying they are).

No Rules Rules

No Rules Rules by Reed Hastings and Erin Meyer explores the work culture at Netflix. It explains the culture through three mechanisms: talent, candor (feedback), freedom (remove controls). The three mechanisms are explained at three levels (three feedback loops of more and more talent, candor, and freedom).

The principles do not apply to my current business and will probably not directly impact my work substantially. But, as with similar books, like Rework, I think I can incorporate parts of the lessons in my own work and working together with others on projects.

Here is a quick summary, based on the chapters of the book. Do note that the steps are sequential. And although this is no exact science, I do think that you need the earlier steps to make the latter possible.

  1. First build up talent density – workforce of high performers
    • in creative jobs (Netflix), stunning employees vastly outperform mediocre ones
    • bad employees (jerks, slackers, etc) bring down performance of the rest (let them go quickly)
  2. Then increase candor – encouraging loads of feedback
    • we hate getting it, but love having gotten it
    • giving feedback: aim to assist, actionable
    • receiving feedback: appreciate, accept or discard
    • feedback loop enables high performers to improve
  3. Now begin removing controls – vacation, travel, expense policies
    • no vacation policy = same time taken, more flexible, more satisfied
    • expense: spend money as if it were your own, act in Netflix’s best interest (do audit stuff randomly)
  4. Fortify talent density – paying top of market
    • for creative roles (not operational roles), but most jobs at Netflix are creative
    • bonus system sucks, we can’t predict performance
    • so pay based on the market (and then above)
  5. Pump up candor – organizational transparency
    • share numbers (and other ‘confidential’ data) with employees
  6. Now release more controls – decision-making approvals (out)
    • “don’t seek to please your boss, seek to do what is best for the company”
    • take the boss out of the equation, let the person in the know make the decision
    • for ideas (innovation cycle), 1) farm for dissent/socialize idea, 2) test out (if big idea), 3) make your bet, 4) celebrate or ‘sunshine’ (why it went wrong)
  7. Max up the talent density – Keeper Test
    • We’re a team, not a family”
    • If someone wants to leave, do you fight to keep them (Keeper Test)
    • Be open about why someone is let go (don’t make culture of fear, turnover at Netflix isn’t sky high)
  8. Max up candor – circles of feedback
    • 360 feedback but with names, no ratings, and not connected to pay
    • live 360 dinners
  9. And eliminate most controls – leading with context, not control
    • works only if the company is ‘loosely coupled’ (few interdependencies, e.g. opposite is building airplane)
    • Highly aligned, loosely coupled”
    • The alignment can be seen as a tree (not pyramid), everyone working on smaller and smaller branches of same trunk/goal/north star

Saturday

Saturday by Ian McEwan is another great novel by this most talented writer. I’ve enjoyed a few of his other books and will probably read more of them in the future.

The whole book takes place on a Saturday (as one would expect) and describes it from the perspective of Henry Perowne. The events of the day and memories from the past come together in a masterpiece of storytelling.

Here are some of the sentences that I particularly enjoyed:

  • “… he experiences a superhuman capacity, more like a craving, for work.
  • He’s too experienced to be touched by the varieties of distress he encounters – his obligation is to be useful.
  • (page 17)
  • … or the pleasure he still takes in the relief of the relatives when he comes down from the operating room like a god, an angel with the glad tidings – life, not death.
  • This is what he has to have: possession, belonging, repetition.
  • … endless and beautiful forms of life, such as you see in a common hedgerow, including exalted beings like ourselves, arose from physical laws, from war of nature, famine and death. (Darwin/Dawkins)
  • The luxury of being half asleep, exploring the fringes of psychosis in safety.
  • And it interests him less to have the world reinvented; he wants it explained. (and on the next page) … the supernatural was the recourse of an insufficient imagination, a dereliction of duty, a childish evasion of the difficulties and wonders of the real, of the demanding re-enactment of the plausible. (I should probably quote this somewhere at the start of an essay)
  • (about a protest) … tens of thousands of strangers converging with a single purpose conveying an intimation of revolutionary joy.
  • (about his fancy car) It is, of course, possible, permissible, to love an inanimate object. But this moment was the peak of the affair; since then his feelings have settled into mild, occasional pleasure.
  • (tennis match, describing Flow state) It’s possible in a long rally to become a virtually unconscious being, inhabiting the narrowest slice of the present, merely reacting, taking one shot at a time, existing only to keep going.
  • (and later at work) Even his awareness of his own existence has vanished. He’s been delivered into a pure present, free of the weight of the past or any anxieties about the future. In retrospect, though never at the time, it feels like profound happiness.
  • (visit to dementing mother) It’s like taking flowers to a graveside – the true business is with the past. (and later) ‘She’s waiting for you,’ Jenny says. They both know this to be a neurological impossibility. Even boredom is beyond his mother’s reach.
  • Especially difficult when the first and best unconscious move of a dedicated liar is to persuade himself he’s sincere. And once he’s sincere, all deception vanishes.
  • … a man who believes he has no future and is therefore free of consequences.

Humankind

Humankind by Rutger Bregman is an enlightening book on how we humans are kinder and more cooperative than we believe. The media, bad scientists (read: some of the key studies I studied in intro psychology), and our own distorted perspective has messed us up, let’s repair that.

Btw the book is published in Dutch too, De Meeste Mensen Deugen (but I found the English audiobook first, so yeah).

Here are some key takeaways from the book:

  • The psychology experiments like Stanford Prison were very much forced and can be better seen as theatre than actual humans doing bad things
  • If you don’t make those extreme situations (US prison), you get people just hanging out and being nice (Norway prison)
  • That is also the way to fix things, not by responding in kind (eye for an eye), but by responding with kindness
  • We aren’t that cutthroat, we lend people tools, pass along the salt, help a friend. In that way we are communists (social capitalists, or whatever you want to call it)
  • Kids left alone without supervision will behave like a team, not like Lord of The Flies (book)
  • We believe that we are good right (I hope so), so does everyone else. We may be selfish, but inherently you can say that people aren’t ‘evil’ in the comic-book or D&D way
  • The book presents evidence that counteracts a lot of what Steven Pinker (Enlightenment Now) says about ancient civilizations (less murder and mayhem than commonly believed)
  • Other reviewers do point out that Bregman is putting forth his own thesis in this book, so he might be cherrypicking the evidence too. Anyways, we humans – not that murderous (you know, like the rest of the animal kingdom)
  • Being faced with having to kill someone, most people chicken out. Soldiers don’t shoot. But the bad thing is that ‘the system’ finds ways to get around this (drones, decimation, etc)
  • Some cool examples include that of a ‘vrije school’ and medical company in The Netherlands, but I haven’t looked them up yet