Lex Fridman Podcast - #166 – Cal Newport: Deep Work, Focus, Productivity, Email, and Social Media

Episode Date: March 5, 2021

Cal Newport is a computer scientist who also writes about productivity. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free - Linode: https://linode.com/lex to get $100 free credit - Sun Basket: https://sunbasket.com/lex and use code LEX to get $35 off - SimpliSafe: https://simplisafe.com/lex and use code LEX to get a free security camera EPISODE LINKS: A World Without Email (book): https://amzn.to/3blXyjv Deep Work (book): https://amzn.to/3c0npMM Digital Minimalism (book): https://amzn.to/3kJPMmx Cal's Website: https://www.calnewport.com/ Deep Questions (podcast): https://www.calnewport.com/podcast/ PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LexFridmanPage - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) - Introduction (08:24) - Deep work (13:10) - Focus (18:52) - Time blocking (25:47) - Deadlines (35:22) - Do less, do better, know why (38:04) - Clubhouse (52:07) - Burnout (58:34) - Boredom (1:06:19) - Quit social media for 30 days (1:16:13) - Social media (1:41:21) - How email destroyed our productivity at work (1:51:07) - How we fix email (1:58:09) - Over-optimization (2:02:23) - When to use email and when not to (2:10:06) - Podcasting (2:14:42) - Alan Turing proving the impossible (2:18:41) - Fragility of math in the face of randomness (2:27:30) - Neural networks (2:36:16) - What will the P=NP proof look like? (2:39:55) - Is math discovered or invented? (2:44:02) - Book publishing (2:54:09) - Love (2:57:30) - Death (3:00:26) - Meaning of life

The following is a conversation with Cal Newport. He's a friend and someone who's writing like his book Deep Work, for example, has guided how I strive to approach productivity and life in general. He doesn't use social media and in his book Digital Minimalism, he encourages people to find the right amount of social media usage that provides value and joy. He has a new book called TheWorldWithoutEmail, where he argues brilliantly,

I would say, that email is destroying productivity in companies and in our lives. And very importantly, he offers solutions. He is a computer scientist at Georgetown University who practices what he preaches. To do theoretical computer science at the level that he does it, you really have to live a focused life that minimizes distractions and maximizes hours of deep work. Lastly, he's a host of an amazing podcast called Deep Questions that I highly recommend for anyone who wants to improve their productive life. Quick mention of our sponsors. ExpressVPN, Linnode Linux virtual machines, Sunbasket meal delivery service, and simple safe home security. Click the sponsor links to get a discount and to support this podcast. As a side note, let me say that deep work or long periods

of deep focused thinking have been something I've been chasing more and more over the past few years. Deep work is hard, but it's ultimately the thing that makes life so damn amazing. The ability to create things you're passionate about in a flow state, or the distraction of the world just fade away. Social media, yes, reading the comments, yes, I still read the comments, is a source of joy for me in strict moderation. Too much takes away the focus mind and too little, at least I think, takes away all of the fun. We need both. The focus and the fun. If you enjoy this thing, subscribe on YouTube, or review it on Apple Podcasts, follow on

Spotify, support on Patreon, or connect with me on Twitter, at Lex Friedman if you can only figure out how to spell that. As usual, I'll do a few ads now, none in the middle. I try to have fun with them more and more. AKA, I try not to give it down with the sponsors that are actually requesting. I try to only include sponsors I actually use and love. So if they want to drop me, that just means they don't love me back. And any successful relationship requires two-way love, my friends. So please do support the sponsors while they're still here,

because they may not be here for long. They show, sponsored by ExpressVPN. Yes, it's a thing that protects your privacy, and yes, it's a thing with a big red button that I just can't get enough of. But it also lets you watch stuff on Netflix that are geo-restricted in some way. There are thousands of shows that are only available on Netflix outside of the United States. I did not know there are places outside of the United States. I have heard about places like Australia, but other than that, I thought it was just the 50 we got. ExpressVPN lets you

fake your location. Hence how you can get the whole Netflix thing to work. I do think that at the core of what a VPN does, there's a lot of interesting ideas about the future of how human beings that are operating in the physical space are going to function successfully in the digital space. It feels like there should be layers of protection where the person has the control about how much information is revealed. A VPN is a strong layer, but I wonder if we'll be adding more and more layers, which will enforce greater privacy and put more control in the hands of people versus governments and nations and all that kind of stuff.

Anyway, go to expressvpm.com slash Lex pod to get an extra three months free on a one-year package that's expressvpm.com slash Lex pod. This episode is also sponsored by Linode, which are Linux virtual machines. It's an awesome compute infrastructure that lets you develop, deploy and scale whatever applications you build faster and easier. This is both for small personal projects and huge, huge systems. Linode pretty effectively challenges AWS, so I'm really excited about that because competition is always good. I could list a bunch of ways they stand out,

but the one that really jumps to me is the customer service with actual real human beings, 24, 7, 365. I've actually been locked out of Instagram recently. I send my love to the engineers at Instagram and Facebook. I mean, these are just amazing people, but a lot of them have written to me with just a lot of love, which I really appreciate,

but sort of that's like personal stuff that's not customer service. Customer service is creating a pipeline where if shit goes wrong, you can always communicate with somebody and fix it. And okay, you can argue that Instagram is probably not as important as a computer infrastructure and you would be 100% right, which is why it's especially important that Leno provides that customer service.

I could say a lot of other stuff, just the interface, everything is really easy, everything is really nice. I'm a big fan. Hence why they're a sponsor. If it runs on Linux, it runs on Leno. I think that's their superhero catchphrase. Visit Leno.com slash Lex and click on Create Free Account button to get started with 100 bucks in free credit. At slino.com slash Lex. The show is sponsored by Sunbasket. These guys and gals deliver fresh, healthy, delicious meals straight to your door.

As you may know, my diet is pretty minimalist, so it's nice to get some healthy variety into the mix. And by a nice, I mean, it's something that I'm told humans enjoy. I'm not a big fan of fun, the distraction. But if you are a fan of fun and variety, they have delicious, now that I'm a fan of, prepared meals, meal kits, and raw ingredients, like just a nice New York strip steak. And now I'm officially hungry. I think my favorite meal would be just a nice steak

with a sight of vegetables. Sunbasket has a bunch of different varieties of that. And I think on top of that steak and veggies would be just like a good friend. Oh, that's a wine into the mix. Maybe wine at first and then it's a vodka. It's kind of interesting how central food is to social interactions. Anyway, what was I saying?

Oh yes, Sunbasket is offering $35 off your order when you go to sunbasket.com slash Lex and enter a promo code Lex at checkout. Again, that sunbasket.com slash Lex and enter a promo code Lex, check out. Again, that's sunbasket.com slash Lex. Use code Lex, how many times can it say Lex, to get 35 bucks off your order. This show is also sponsored by SimplySafe, a home security company. Protect your home with a simple 30 minutes setup. You can customize the system for your needs on simplysafe.com slash Lex. I have it set up in my apartment and I love it. The ad reads today are

great. So simply safe is the protection and physical space. Express VPN is the initial protection in digital space. How cool would it be if there is not like a hybrid physical digital space. And then we have tools that we can carry from the physical to the digital and back. The protection will come along with us. And of course, if the anarchists have their say, they will be provided by private companies and will compete over their customers

and through that process of capitalism would then create the best product and the most affordable product. That is, if the anarchists have their way. Michael Malice has entered the chat. Anyway, go to simplysafe.com slash Lex to customize your system and get a free security camera. Yes, friends, that's it free.

Again, that's simplysafe.com slash Lex. And now, here's my conversation with Cal Newport. What is deep work? Let's start with a big question. So, I mean, it's my term for when you're focusing without distraction on a cod-related demanding task, which is something we've all done, but we had never really given it a name necessarily that was separate from other type of work. And so, I gave it a name and said,

let's compare that to other types of efforts you might do while you're working and see that the deep work efforts actually have a huge benefit that we might be underestimating. What does it mean to work deeply on something? I had been calling it hard focus in my writing before that. Well, so the context you would understand, I was in the theory group and C-Sail at MIT, right? in my writing before that. Well, so the context you would understand, I was in the theory group in C-Sailat MIT, right?

So I was surrounded at the time when I was coming up with these ideas by these professional theoreticians. And that's like a murderers row of thinkers there, right? I mean, it's like, turn award, turn award, a carthorough turn award. I mean, you know the crew, right? Theoretical computer science. Theoretical computer science, yeah. So I'm in the theory crew, right? Theoretical computer science. Theoretical computer science. Yeah. Yeah. So so I'm in the theory group right?

Doing theoretical computer science and I publish a book so you know I saw I was in this milieu where I was being exposed to people where focus was their tier one skill Like that's what you would talk about right like how how intensely I can focus that was the V key skill It's like you're 440 time or something if you were an athlete, right? So this is something that people are actually, the theory folks are thinking about. Oh yeah. Really? Like they're openly discussing like, how do you focus?

I mean, I don't know if they would, you know, quantify it, but focus was the tier one skill. So you would come in, you would be a typical day. You'd come in, and Eric Domain would be sitting in front of a whiteboard. Yeah, right, with a whole group of visitors who had come to work with them. And maybe they projected like a grid on there, be so working on some graph theory problem. You go to lunch, you go to the gym, you come back, they're sitting there staring at the same whiteboard. Right, like that's the tier one skill. This is a difference between different disciplines.

Like I often feel, for many reasons, like a fraud, but I definitely feel like a fraud when I hang out with like either mathematicians or physicists. It's like it feels like they're doing the legit work because when you talk closer in computer science, you get to programming or like machine learning, like the experimental machine learning or just the engineering version of it.

It feels like you're gone so far away from what's required to solve something fundamental about this universe. It feels like you're just cheating your way into some kind of trick to figure out how to solve a problem in this one particular case. That's how it feels. I'd be interested to hear what you think about that because programming doesn't always feel like you need to think deeply, to work deeply, but sometimes it does. So it's a weird dance. For sure, code does.

Especially if you're coming up with a rigged and all algorithmic designs, I think it's a great example of deep work. I mean, yeah, the hardcore theoreticians, they push it to an extreme. I mean, I think it's like knowing that athletic endeavor is good and then hanging out with Olympic athlete, like, oh, I see that's what it is. Now, for the grad students like me, we're not anywhere near that level, but the faculty, the faculty in that group, these were the cognitive Olympic athletes. But coding, I think, is a classic example of deep work

because I got this problem I wanna solve. I have all of these tools and I have to combine them somehow creatively and on the fly. But so basically, I had been exposed to that. So I was used to this notion when I was in grad school and I was writing my blog, I'd write about hard focus. You know, those are the terms I used. Then I published this book, So Good They Can Ignore You, which came out in 2012.

So, like, right as I began as a professor. And that book had this notion of skill being really important for career satisfaction that it's not just following your passion. You have to actually really get good at something and the new use that skills has leveraged and there's this big follow up question to that book of, okay, well, how do I get really good at this? And then I look back to my grad school experience I was like, huh, there is this focus thing that we used to do. I wonder how generally applicable that is into the knowledge sector. And so as I started thinking about it, it became clear there's this interesting storyline that

emerged that, okay, actually, undistracted concentrations, not just important for esoteric theoreticians, it's important here and important here and important here. And that involved into the deep work hypothesis, which is across the whole knowledge work sector, Focus is very important and we've accidentally created circumstances where we just don't do a lot of it. So focus is the sort of prerequisite for basically, you say knowledge work, but basically any kind of skill acquisition, any kind of major effort in this world. Can we break that apart a little bit?

Yeah, so a key aspect of focus is not just that you're concentrating hard on something, but you do it without distraction. So a big theme of my work is that contact shifting kills the human capacity to think. So if I change what I'm paying attention to, just something different, really, even if it's brief, and then try to bring it back to the main thing I'm doing, that causes a huge cognitive pile up that makes it very hard to think clearly. So even if you think, okay, look, I'm writing this code, I'm writing this essay, and I'm not multitasking and all my windows are closed and I have no notifications on.

But every five or six minutes, you quickly check an inbox or your phone. That initiates a contact shift in your brain, right? We're going to start to suppress some neural networks. We're going to try to amplify some others. It's a pretty complicated process. Actually, there's a sort of neurological cascade that happens. You rip yourself away from that halfway through and go back to what you're doing. And that was trying to switch back to the original thing, even though it's also your brains in the process of switching to these emails and trying to understand those contexts. And as a result, your ability to think clearly just goes really down.

And it's fatiguing too. I mean, you do this long enough as you get midday and you're like, okay, I can't, I can't think anymore. You've exhausted yourself. Is there some kind of perfect number of minutes, would you say? So we're talking about focusing on a particular task for, you know, one minute, five minutes, 10 minutes, thirty minutes. Is it possible to kind of context switch while maintaining deep focus

every twenty minutes or so? So if you're thinking of like this, again, maybe it's a selfish kind of perspective, but if you think about programming, you're focused on a particular design of a little bit, maybe a small scale on a particular function or large scale on a system. And then the shift to focus happens like this, which is like, wait a minute, is there a library that can achieve this little task or something like that? And then you have to look it up. This is the danger zone. You go to the internet. And so you have to, now, it is a kind of context switch, because as opposed to thinking about the particular problem, you don't have switch thinking about like consuming and integrating knowledge that's out there, they can plug into your solution to a particular problem. It definitely feels like a context switch. but is that a really bad thing to do?

So should you be setting it aside always and really trying to as much as possible, go deep and stay there for like a really long period of time? Well, I mean, I think if you're looking up a library that's relevant to what you're doing, that's probably okay. And I don't know that I would count that as a full context shift because the semantic networks involved are relatively similar.

You're thinking about this type of solution, you're thinking about coding, you're thinking about this type of functions. What you're really going to get hit is if you switch your context to something that's different. And if there's unresolved obligation. So really the worst possible thing you could do would be to look at like an email inbox. Because here's 20 emails, I can't answer most of these right now. They're completely different.

Like the context of these emails, like okay, there's a grant funding issue or something like this, is very different than the code you're not doing. And I'm leaving it unresolved. So I was like, someone needs something from me, and I'm gonna try to pull my attention back. The second worst would be something

that's emotionally arousing. So if you're like, let me just glance over at Twitter, I'm sure it's nice and calling peaceful over there, right? Back to be devastating because you're going to expose yourself to something that's emotionally arousing. That's going to completely mess up the cognitive plateau there.

And then when you come back to, okay, let me try to code again, it's really difficult. So there's both the information and the emotion. Yeah, both can be killers if what you're trying to do. So I would recommend at least an hour at a time. Because it could take up to 20 minutes to completely clear out the residue from whatever it was you were thinking about before. So if you're coding for 30 minutes, you might only be getting 10 or 15 minutes of actual sort of peak lacks going on there, right? So an hour at least you get a good 40, 45 minutes plus. I'm partial to 90 minutes as a really good, a really good chunk. We can get a lot done.

But just before you get exhausted, you can sort of pull back a little bit. Yeah. And one of the beautiful, you know, people can read about in your book, Deep Work, but and I know this has been out for a long time and people are probably familiar with many of the concepts, but it's still pretty profound. It has stayed with me for a long time. There's something about adding the terms to it, actually solidifies the concepts, like words matter.

It's pretty cool. And just for me, sort of as a comment, it's a struggle and it's very difficult to maintain focus for prolonged period of time, but the days on which I'm able to accomplish several hours of that kind of work, I'm happy. So forget being productive and all that. I'm just satisfied with my life. I feel I feel fulfilled. It's like joyful and then I can be, I'm less of a dick to other people in my life afterwards. It's a beautiful thing. And I find the opposite when I don't do that kind of thing, I'm

much more irritable. And I feel like I didn't accomplish anything. And there's this stress that then the negative emotion builds up to where you're no longer able to sort of enjoy the whole lot of this amazing life. So, so in that sense, deep work has been a source of a lot of happiness. I'd love to ask you, how do you, again, you cover this in the book, but how do you integrate deep work into your life? What are different scheduling strategies

that you would recommend, just at a high level? Yeah. What are different ideas there? Well, I mean, I'm a big fan of time blocking. Right, so if you're facing your workday Don't allow like your inbox or to do list a sort of drive you don't just come into your day and think what do I want to do next? Yes, I mean, I'm a big plan is saying here's the time here's the time available Let me make a plan for it. Right. So I have a meeting here of an appointment here

Here's what's left. What do I actually want to do with it. So in this half hour, I'm going to work on this. For this 90 minute block, I'm going to work on that. And during this hour, I'm going to try to fit this in. And then actually, I have this half hour gap between two meetings. So why don't I take advantage of that to go run five errands, and I can kind of batch those together. But blocking out in advance, this is what I want

to do with the time available. I mean, I find that's much more effective. Now, once you're doing this, once you're in a discipline of time blocking, it's much easier to actually see this is where I want, for example, to deep work. And I can get a handle on the other things that need to happen and find better places to fit them so I can prioritize this. And you're going to get a lot more of that done than if it's just going through your day and saying, what's next? I schedule every single day kind of thing. So as I could try to in the morning to try to have a plan.

Yeah, so you know, I do a quarterly weekly daily planning. So at the semester or quarterly level, I have a big picture Vision for what I'm trying to get done, you know during the fall. Let's say or during the winter Like I want it. These are there's a deadline coming up for academic papers at the end of the season. Here's what I'm working on I want to have this many chapters done of a book, something like this. Like you have the big picture vision of what you want to get done. Then weekly, you look at that, and then you look at your week,

and you put together a plan for like, okay, what am I going to, what's my week going to look like? What do I need to do? Or how am I going to make progress on these things? Maybe, maybe I need to do an hour every morning, or I see that Monday is my only really empty day. So that's going to be the day

that I really need to nail on writing or something like this. And then every day, you look at your weekly plan and see only block off the actual hours. So you do that three scales, the quarterly, down to weekly, down to daily. And we're talking about actual times of day versus so the alternative is what I end up doing a lot, and I'm not sure if the best way to do it is scheduling the duration of time. This is called the luxury when you don't have any meetings. I'm like religiously don't do meetings. All other academics or jealous of you by the way.

Yeah, I know. No Zoom meetings. I find those are, that's one of the worst strategies, tragedies of the pandemic is both the opportunity to, okay, the positive thing is to have more time with your family, you know, sort of reconnect in many ways and that's really interesting. Be able to remotely sort of not waste time on travel and all those kinds of things. The negative is actually both those things are also sources of the negative. But the negative is like, it seems like people have multiplied the number of meetings because they're so easy to schedule. And there's nothing more draining to me. Intellectually, you philosophically,

just my spirit is destroyed by even a 10 minute zoom meeting. Like, what are we doing here? What's the meaning of lying? Yeah, I have every zoom meeting as I have an existential crisis. So, you're a guard with the internet connection. So what the hell are we talking about? Oh, so when you don't have meetings, there's a luxury to really allow for certain things if they need to, like the important things, like deep work sessions to last way longer than you maybe planned for.

I mean, that's my goal. It's to try to schedule the goals to schedule, to sit and focus for a particular task for an hour, and hope I can keep going. Yeah. And hope I can get lost in it. And do you find that this is at all an okay way to go? And the time blocking is just something you have to do to actually be an adult and not pretty in this real world.

Or is there some magic to the time blocking? Well, I mean, there's magic to the intention. There's magic to it if you have varied responsibilities, right? So I'm often juggling multiple jobs essentially. There's academic stuff, there's teaching stuff, there's book stuff, there's the business surrounding, you know business surrounding my book stuff. But I'm of your same mindset. If a deep work session is going well, yes, rock and roll and let it go on. So like one of the big keys of time block, at least the way I do it. So I even sell this planner to help people time block.

It has many columns because the discipline is, oh, if your initial schedule changes, you just move over one, next time you get a chance you move over one column, and then you just fix it for the time that's remaining. So in other words, there's no bonus for, I made a schedule and I stuck with it. Like there's actually, it's not like you get a prize for it, right?

Like for me, the prize is, I have an intentional plan for my time. And if I have to change that plan, that's fine. Like the state I want to be is basically, at any point in the day, I've thought about what time remains and and gave it some thought for what to do. Because I'll do the same thing. You've know, I have a lot more meetings and other types of things I have to do in my various jobs. And I basically prioritize the deep work and they get yelled at a lot. So that's kind of my strategy is like, just be okay. Just be okay getting yelled at a lot because

I feel if you're rolling. Yeah. Well, that's, that's what like just be okay. Just be okay getting yelled at a lot because I feel if you're rolling Yeah, well, that's that's what it is for me like with riding I think it's riding so hard in a certain way that it's you don't really get on a roll in some sense I guess it's difficult But working on proofs It's very hard To pull yourself away from a proof if you start to get some traction Just you've been at it for a couple hours and you you feel the pins and tumblers starting to click together and progress

is being made. It's really hard to pull away from that. So I'm willing to get yelled at by almost everyone. Of course, there is also a positive effect to pulling yourself out of it when things are going great because then you're kind of excited to resume. Yeah, I'm supposed to stop in a dead end. That's true. That there's a, yeah, there's a, there's an extra force of procrastination that comes with if you stop on a dead end to return to the task. Yeah, or a cold start. Whenever I fit, like I'm in a stage now, I submitted a few papers recently. So now we're sort of starting something up from cold. And it takes way too long to get going because it's very hard to, it's very hard to get the motivation to schedule the time when it's not, yeah, we're in it.

Like here's where we are, we feel like something's about to give you. We're in the very early stages where it's just, I don't know. I'm going to read hard papers and it's going to be hard to understand them. And I'm going to have no idea how to make progress. It's not motivating. What about deadlines? Can we, okay, so this is like a therapy session. It seems like I only get stuff done that has deadlines. And so one of the implied powerful things

about time blocking is there's a kind of deadline or there's artificial or real sense of urgency. Do you think it's possible to get anything done in this world without deadlines? Why did deadlines work so well? Well, I mean, it's a clear motivational signal, but in the short term, you do get an effect like that in time blocking. I think the strong effect you get by saying, this is the exact time I'm going to work on this, is that you don't have the debate with yourself every three minutes about should I take a break now? This is the big issue with just saying, I'm going to go right. I'm going to write for a while and that's it because your mind is saying, well, obviously, we're going to take some breaks. We're not just going to write forever.

And so why not right now? They're like, well, not right now. Let's go a little bit longer. Five minutes. So why don't we take a break now? Like we should probably look at the internet. Now you have to constantly have this battle. On the other hand, if you're in a time block schedule, like I've got these two hours put aside for writing, that's what I'm supposed to be doing.

I have a break scheduled over here. I don't have to fight with myself, right? And maybe at a larger scale, deadlines give you a similar sort of effect. I know this is what I'm supposed to be working on because it's due. Perhaps, but we had described it as much healthier, sort of giving yourself over and you talk about this in the new email book, the process. I mean, generally, you talk about it all over is creating a process and then giving yourself

over to the process. But then you have to be strict with yourself. Yeah. But what are the deadlines you're talking about? It's like with papers. Like what's the main type of deadline work? Also papers, definitely. But publications, like say this podcast, I have to publish this podcast early next week,

one because your book is coming out I'd love to sort of Support this amazing book, but the other is I have to fly to Vegas on Thursday To run 40 miles of David Goggins and so I want this Podcast that this conversation we're doing now to be out of my life Like I don't want to be in the hotel in Vegas, like editing the, like freaking out while Dave Gogg is this yelling an hour, an hour 40,

three of your terror. Exactly. But actually it's possible that they still will be doing that, you know, because it's that's not a heart. That's a softer deadline, right? But those are sort of the life and poses these kinds of deadlines. Yeah. I'm not. So yeah, papers are nice because there's an actual deadline. But I am almost referring to like the pressure that people put on you. Hey, man, you said you're going

to get this done two months ago. Why didn't you gotten the done? I don't see. I don't like that pressure. Yeah. So maybe now, first of all, I think we can, I hate it too. We can agree, by the way, having David Goggins yell at you is probably the top productivity technique. I think we'd all get a lot more done if he was yelling. But see, I don't like that. So I I will try to get things done early. I like, I like having flex. I also don't like the idea of this has to get done today, right? Like it's due at midnight and we've got a lot to do as the night before because then I get in my head about what if I get sick or like what if

You know, what if I I don't get a bad night's sleep and I can't think clearly so I like to have the flex so I'm all process and That's like the philosophical aspect of that book deep work is that there's something very human and deep About just wrangling with the world of ideas. I mean, Aristotle talked about this. If you go back and read the ethics, he's trying to understand the meaning of life and he eventually ends up ultimately at the human capacity to contemplate deeply. It's kind of a teleological argument. It's the things that only humans can do and therefore it must be somehow connected to our

ends. And he said, ultimately, that's where that's where he found his meaning. But, you know, he's touching on some sort of intimation there that's correct. And so what I try to build my life around is regularly thinking hard about stuff that's interesting. Just like if you get a fitness habit going, you feel off when you don't do it. I try to get that cognitive habit. So it's like, I got it, I mean, look, I have my bag here somewhere of my notebook in it because I was thinking on the Uber ride over I was like, you know, I could get some, I'm working have habit. So it's like, I got it. I mean, look, I have my bag here somewhere of my notebook in it because I was thinking

on the Uber ride over, I was like, you know, I could get some, I'm working on this new proof and it just, so you train yourself. You train yourself to appreciate certain things. And then over time, the hope is it creeps. Well, let's talk about some demons because I wonder, look at this, like deep work, which, and the world without email books that

to me symbolize the life I want to live, okay. And then there is, I'm like, despite appearances and adult at this point. And this is the life I actually live. And I, it's, I'm in constant chaos. You said you I mean, constant chaos. You said you don't like that anxiety. I hate it too, but it seems like I'm always in it. It's a giant mess. It's like, it's almost like whenever I establish, whenever I have successful processes for doing deep work,

I'll add stuff on top of it just to introduce the chaos. And like, I don't want to, but you know, it's so, you have to look in the mirror. It's a certain point. And you have to say, like, who the hell am I? Like I keep doing this. Is this something that's fundamental to who I am or do I really need to fix this? What's the chaos right now? Like I've seen your video about like your routine. It seemed very structured and deep at. In fact, I was really invious of it. So like, what's the chaos now that's not in that video? Many of those sessions go way longer.

I don't get enough sleep. And then the main introduction of chaos is it's taken on too many things on the to-do list. Actually, I suppose it's a problem that everybody deals with, was just saying, not saying no. But it's not like I have trouble saying no. It's that there's so much cool shit in my life.

Okay, listen, there's nothing I love more in this world than the Boston Dynamics robots. And they're giving me spot. So there's gonna do, what am I gonna say, no. And so they're giving me spot. And I wanna do some computer vision stuff for the hell of it. Okay, so that's not what to do item and then you go to Texas for a while and there's taxes and everything's happening

They're all the interesting people down there and then there's surprises, right? They're power outage in Texas. There's constant changes to plans and all those kinds of things and you sleep less And then there's personal stuff like just you know people in your life sources of stress all those kinds of things and But it does feel like if I'm just being introspective, that I bring it onto myself. I suppose a lot of people do this kind of thing. Is they flourish under pressure? And I wonder if that's just the hack I've developed as a habit early on in life that needs, you need to let go of, you need to fix.

But it's all interesting things. Yeah, that's interesting. Yeah, because these are all interesting things. Well, one of the things you talked about in deep work, which is like really important is like having an end to the day, like putting it down. Yeah. I don't think I've ever, like putting it down. Yeah. I don't think I've ever done that in my life. Yeah.

Well, see, I started doing that early because I got married early. So, you know, I didn't have a real job. I was a grad student, but my wife had a real job. And so I just figured, I should do my work when she's at work, because, you know, hey, when it works over, she'll be home and I don't want to be, you know, on campus or whatever. And so, really early on, I just got in that habit of,

this is when, you know, this is when you end work. And then when I was a postdoc, which is kind of an easy job, right? I put artificial, I was like, I want to train. I was like, when I'm a professor, it's going to be busier because there's demands that professors have beyond research. And so, as a postdoc, I added artificial, large time consuming things into the middle of my day. I'd basically exercise for two hours in the middle of the day and do all this productive

meditation and stuff like this while still maintaining the nine to five. So it's like, okay, I want to get really good at putting artificial constraints on so that I stay. I didn't want to get flabby when my job was easy, so that when I became a professor, and now all of that's paying off because I have a ton of kids. So now I don't really have a choice. That's what's probably keeping me away from cool things

is I just don't have time to do them. And then after a while people stop bothering. Well, but that's how you have a successful life. Otherwise you're going to, it's too easy to then go into the full hunter as Thompson Yeah, like to wear no nobody Once nobody functional wants to be in your vicinity

Like you're driving you're tracked the people that have a similar Behavior pattern as you yeah, so if you if you live in chaos, you go to a track chaotic people. And then it becomes like this self-fulfilling prophecy. And it feels like I'm not bothered by it, but I guess this is all coming around to exactly what you're saying, which is like, I think one of the big hacks for productive people that I've met is getting married. Yeah. And have kids.

Yeah. Honestly, it's very perhaps counterintuitive. But it gets, it's like the ultimate timetable enforcer. Yeah. It enforces a lot of timetables, though it has a huge productivity hit, though, so you got to weigh it. But here's the complicated thing, though. Like you could think about in your own life,

starting the podcast is one of these just cool opportunities that you put on yourself, right? Like, you know, I could have been talking to it MIT four years ago and like don't do that. Like your research is going well, right? But then everyone who watches you is like, okay, this podcast is, the direction that's taking you is like a couple of years from now,

it's gonna, it'll be something really monumental that you're probably, it's going to probably lead to, right? There'll be some really, it just feels like your life is going somewhere. It's going somewhere. It's interesting. Yeah. I'm expected. Yeah. Yeah.

So how do you balance those two things? And so what I try to throw at it is this, this motto of do less, do better, no why, right? So do do less, do better, no why. It used to be the motto of my website years ago. So do a few things, but like an interesting array, right? So I was doing MIT stuff, but I was also writing, you know, so a couple of things are, you know, they were interesting. Like I have a couple bets placed on a couple different numbers on the

real estate table, but not too many things. And then really try to do those things really well and see where it goes. Like with my writing, I just spent years and years and years, just training. I was like, I want to be a better writer, I want to be a better writer. I started writing student books when I was a student. I really wanted to write hardcover idea books. I started training. I would use like New Yorker articles to train myself.

I'd break them down and then I'd get commissions with much smaller magazines and practice the skills. And I took forever until, you know, but now today today like I actually get a right for the New Yorker, but it took like a decade. So a small number of things tried doing really well, and then the know why is have a connection to some sort of value. Like in general, I think this is worth doing, and then seen where it leads. And so the choice of the few things is grounded in what, like a little flame of passion, like a love for the thing, like a sense that you say you wanted to write, get good at writing.

You had that kind of introspective moment of thinking, this action brings me a lot of joy and fulfillment. Yeah, I mean, it gets complicated because I wrote a whole book about falling your passion being bad advice, which is like the first thing I kind of got infamous for. I wrote that back in 2012. But the argument there is like passion cultivates, right? So what I was pushing back on was to myth that the passion for what you do exists full intensity before you start, and then that's what propels you.

Or actually, the reality is as you get better at something, as you gain more autonomy, more skill and more impact to passion grows along with it. So that when people look back later and say, oh, follow your passion, what they really mean is I'm very passionate about what I do. And that's a worthy goal. But how you actually cultivate that is much more complicated than just introspection

is going to identify, like for sure, you should be a writer or something like this. So I was actually quoting you, I was on a social network last night in Clubhouse. I don't know if you've heard of it. Wait, I have to ask you about this because I was invited to do a clubhouse. I don't know what that means. Tech reporter has invited me to do a clubhouse about my new book. That's awesome.

Well, let me know when because I'll show up with you. But what is it? Okay, so first of all, let me know when because I'll show up. But what is it? Okay, so first of all, let me just mention that I was in a clubhouse room last night and I kept plugging your exactly what exactly you said about Passion so we'll talk about it. It was a room that was focused on burnout. Okay, but first clubhouse is a kind of fascinating place in terms of Clubhouse is a kind of fascinating place in terms of, your mind would be very interesting to analyze this place

because we talk about email, without social networks, but Clubhouse is something very different and I've encountered it in other places, discord, and so on, that's voice-only communication. So there's a bunch of people in a room that are just, the eyes closed, all you hear is their voices. Real time. Real time. Live. It only happens live. You're technically not

allowed to record, but some people still do. And you know, especially one of the big conversations. But the whole point is that they're alive. And there's different structures. Like on Discord, it was so fascinating. I have this Discord server that would have hundreds of people in a room together, right? We're all just little icons that commute and unmute our mics. Okay. And so you're sitting there, so it's just voices, and you're able with hundreds of people to not interrupt each other. Well, first of all,, as a dynamic system,

like, you see icons, just like mics muted or not muted basically. Yeah, so everyone's muted and they unmute and they start, it starts flashing. Yeah. And oh, so you're like, okay, let me get precedence. Yeah. So it's a digital equivalent of when you're in a conversation,

like a faculty meeting and you sort of, like kind of make some noises, like while the other person's finishing and so people realize like, okay, this person wants to talk next, but now it's purely digital. You see a flashing. But in a faculty meeting, which is very interesting, like even as we're talking now, there's a visual element that seems to increase the probability of interruption. When it's just darkness, you actually listen better and you don't interrupt. So like if you create a culture, there's always going to be assholes, but they're actually exceptions.

Everybody adjusts, they kind of evolve to the beat of the room. Okay, that's one fascinating aspect. It's like, okay, that's weird, because it's different than like a zoom call withers video. Yeah, it's just audio You think video ads, but actually seems like it subtracts the second aspect of it That's fascinating is when it's no video just audio There's an intimacy It's feel it's weird because with strangers It you you connect you know in a much more real way. It's very similar to podcasts. But there's a lot of people with a lot of people and new people. And then

they bring, okay, first of all, different voices, like low voices and like high voices. And it's more difficult to judge. In Discord, you couldn't even see the... It was a culture where you do funny profile pictures as opposed to your actual face. You can clubhouse it's your actual face. So you can tell, like, as an older person, younger person, in Discord, you just have to judge based on the voice. But there's something about the listening and the intimacy of being surprised by different strangers. It feels almost like a party with friends and friends of friends you haven't met yet,

but you really like. Now Clubhouse also has an interesting innovation where there's a large crowd that just listens and there's a stage. And you can bring people up on the stage. So only people on stage are talking and you can have like five, six, seven, eight, sometimes twenty, thirty people on stage and then you can also have thousands of people just listening. So there's a, I don't know, a lot of people are being surprised by this. Why is it called a social network? It seems like it doesn't

have, there's not social links, there's not a feed that's trying to harvest attention. It feels like a communication. So the social network aspect is you follow people. And the people you follow, now this is like the first social network that's actually correct use of follow, I think. You're more likely to see the rooms they're in. So there's a, your feed as a bunch of rooms

that are going on right now. And the people you follow are the ones that will increase the likelihood that you'll see the room there in. And so the final result is like there's a list of really interesting rooms. Like I have all these, I've been speaking Russian quite a bit, they're practicing, but also just like talking politics

and philosophy in Russian. I've never done that before, but it allows me to connect with that community. And then there's a community of, like, it's funny, but like I'll go in a community of all African-American people talking about race and I'll be welcomed. Yeah, I've never had, like I've literally never been in a difficult conversation about race and I'll be welcomed. I've never had like I've literally never been in a

difficult conversation about race like with people from all over the place. It's like fascinating. Musicians, jazz musicians. I don't know. You could say that a lot of other places could have created that culture. I suppose Twitter and Facebook all off of that culture, but there's something about Twitter and Facebook all for that culture, but there's something about this network as it stands now because it ain't no Android users It's probably just because it's iPhone people It's their it's respiratory or something. Well, like less listen. I'm an Android person So I got an iPhone just for this network. Yeah, it's funny. Yeah is For now, it's all like there's very few trolls

Yeah, there's very few people that are trying to manipulate the system and so on. So I don't know, it's interesting. Now the downside, the reason you're going to hate it is because it's so intimate, because it pulls you in and pulls in very successful people. Like you just ever, like really successful, productive, very busy people. It's a huge time sync. It's very difficult to pull yourself out. Interesting.

You mean once you're in a room? Well, no, the leaving the room is actually easy. The beautiful thing about a stage with multiple people, there's a literal button that says leave quietly. So culture, no, etiquette wise, it's okay to just leave. Yeah. So you and I in a room, when it's just you and I, it's a little awkward to leave if you're asking questions on the phone. Yeah. But and actually, if you're being interviewed for the book, that's weird because you're now in the event and you're supposed to, but usually the person interviewing would be like, okay, it's time for you to go. It's more normal, but the normal way to use the room is like, you're just opening the app,

and there'll be like, I don't know, Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, I think your Rogan showed up to the app, Bill Gates. I mean, these people on stage, just randomly just plugged in, and then you step up on stage, listen, maybe you won't contribute at all, maybe you'll say something funny, and then you'll just leave. And there's the addicting aspect to it, the reason it's the time sink is you don't wanna leave.

What I've noticed about exceptionally busy people, that they love this. This, I think, might have to do with the pandemic because there's a loneliness, there's a long, long, but also it's really cool people. Yeah. Like, when was the last time you talked to Sam Harris or whoever, like, I think of anybody, Tyler,

like, any faculty, this is like what university strives that create, but it's taken. You don't have to cultural evolution, try to get a lot of interesting smart people together that run into each other. We have really strong faculty in a room together with no scheduling. This is the power of it. It's like you just show up. There's none of that baggage of scheduling and so on.

And there's no pressure to leave. Sorry, no pressure to stay. It's very easy for you to leave. You realize that there's a lot of constraints on meetings and like faculty, there's like even stopping by, you know, before the pandemic, a friend or faculty or colleague and so on, you know, there's a weirdness about leaving.

Yeah. But here, there's not a weirdness about leaving. So they've discovered something interesting, but the final result when you observe it is it's very fulfilling. I think it's very beneficial, but it's very addicting. So you have to make sure you moderate. Yeah, that's interesting.

Okay, well, so maybe I'll try it. I mean, look, there's no, the things that make me suspicious about other platforms aren't here. So the feed is not full of user-generated content that is going through some sort of algorithmic rating process with all the weird incentives and nudging that does. And you're not producing content that's being harvested

to be monetized by another company. I mean, it seems like it's more ephemeral, right? You're here, you're talking. The feed is just actually just showingeral, right? You're here. You're talking. The feed is just actually just showing you, here's interesting things happening. You're not jockeying in the feed for look on being clever or something, and I'm going to get a light count that goes up, and that's going to influence. And there's more friction. There's more cognitive friction, I guess involved in listening to smart people versus scrolling

through. Yeah, there's something there. So there's no wire people. So I see all these articles that seem, I haven't really read them. Why are reporters negative about this? Competition. The New York Times wrote this article called Unfettered Conversations Happening on Clubhouse is, I'm writing picking up a tone

from even from the headlines that there's some like negative vibes from the press. No, so I can say, let's say, well, I'll tell you what the article was saying, which is, they're having cancelable conversations like the biggest people in the world, almost trolling the press. Right. And the press is death for the poor Channing the press. Yeah, for the day of the press. But by saying that you just, you guys are looking interesting. Clickbait from our genuine human conversations. And so the I think the honestly the press is just like what do we do with this? We can't. Yeah. Um, first of all, it's a lot of work for that. Okay. Uh, it's what Naval says,

which is like, this is skipping the journalist. Like the interview you, if you go on clubhouse, the interview you might do for the book will be with somebody who's like a journalist and interviewing you. That's more traditional. It's a big good introduction for you to try it. But the way to use clubhouse is you just show up. And it's like, again, like me, I'm sorry, like blame. I keep mentioning Sam Harris as if it's like again like me I'm sorry like blame I'm so I can't I keep matching Sam Harris as if it's like the only person I know but like a lot of these major faculty I don't know max tag mark that just just major faculty just sitting there and then you show up and then I'll ask like oh don't you have a book coming out or something and then you'll

talk about the book and then you'll leave five minutes later because you have to go get coffee and go to the bathroom. So like that's the, yeah, it's not the journalistic. You're not going to actually enjoy the interview as much because it'll be like the normal thing. Yeah. Like you're there 40 minutes or an hour and there'll be questions from the audience. Right. Like I'm doing an event next week for the book launch where it's like Jason Frieden-Iard talking about email Yeah, but it's using some more

There'll be like a thousand people who are there to watch virtually, but it's using some sort of traditional webinar Clubhouse would be a situation where that could just happen informally like I jump in like Jason's there And then someone else jumps in and yeah, that's interesting, but for now it's still closed So even though there's a lot of excitement, and there'll be quite famous people just sitting there listening to you. Yeah. But the numbers aren't exactly high.

So you're talking about rooms, like even the huge rooms are like just a few thousand. Right. And this is this is probably so ho in the 50s or something too. Just because of the exponential growth, give it seven more months. And if you let one invite be gets to invites, be gets for advice, be good and pretty soon it'll be everyone. And then the rooms in your feed are going to be whatever marketing performance enhancing

drugs or something like that. But then and a bunch of competitors, there's already like 30 plus competitors sprung up, Twitter spaces, a Twitter is creating a competitor that's going to likely destroy Clubhouse because they just have a much larger user base and they're ready to have a social network. So I would be very cautious, of course, with the addictive element, but it doesn't just like you said, this particular implementation in its early stages

doesn't have the like, the, it doesn't have the context switching problem. Yeah, you'll just switch to a... I'm just gonna have to cast it, and you'll be stuck. Yeah, to keep a context is great. Yeah, yeah. And but then I think the best way I've found to use it is to acknowledge that these things pull you in.

Yeah. So I've used it in the past, like almost, you know, I'll go get a coffee and I'll tune into a conversation as if that's how I use podcasts sometimes. I'll just like play a little bit of a podcast and then, you know, I can just turn it off. The problem with these is it pulls you in. It's really interesting. And then the other problem that you'll experience is like somebody will recognize you. And then they'll be like, oh, Lex, come on up.

Come on, oh, hey, I had a question for you. And then it takes a lot for you to go, like to ignore that. Yeah, yeah. So, and then you pulled in and it's fascinating. And it's really cool people. So it's like a source of a lot of joy, but it is, you have to be very, very careful.

The reason I brought it up is we, there's a room, this entire club actually on burnout. And I brought you up and I brought David Goggins as the process I go through, which is my passion goes up and down. It dips and I don't think I trust my own mind to tell me whether I'm getting close to burnout or exhaustion or not. I kind of go with the David Goggins model of, I mean, he's probably more applying it to running, but when it feels like your mind can't take any more, that you're just 40% at your capacity.

I mean, it's just like an arbitrary level. It's a Navy SEAL thing, right? Then Navy SEAL thing. I mean, you could put that at any percent, but it is remarkable that if you just take it once step at a time, just keep going. It's similar to this idea of a process. If you just trust the process and you just keep following, even if the passion goes up and down and so on then ultimately If you look and aggregate

The passion will increase. Yeah, your self-satisfaction will increase. Yeah. I think and if you have two things This has been a big strategy of mine so that you can what you hope for is off-phase Off-phase alignment like that sometimes is in phase and that's a problem, but off phase alignment's good. So, okay, my research, I'm struggling, my book stuff is going well. And so, when you add those two waves together, we're doing pretty well. And then in other periods, on my writing, I feel like I'm just not getting anywhere, but I've had some good papers, I'm feeling good over there. So, having two things that can counteract each other, and sometimes they fall into sync sync and then it gets rough

Then when you know when everything because everything for me is cyclical, you know good periods bad periods with all this stuff So Typically they don't coincide so it helps compensate when they do coincide You get really high highs like where everything's clicking and then you get these really low lows where like your research is not working Your program is not clicking you feel like you're nowhere with your writing, and then it's a little rougher. Is do you think about the concept of burnout? Because I personally never experienced burnout in the way that folks talk about, which is like it's not just the up and down. It's like you don't

want to do anything ever again. Yeah. It's like, it's for some people, it's like physical, like to the hospital kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah. So I do worry about it. So when I used to do student writing, like writing about students, a student advice, it came up a lot with students at elite schools. And I used to call it deep procrastination, but it's a real, really vivid, very replicable syndrome where they stop being able to do schoolwork.

Yeah, like this is due, the professor gives you an extension and the professor gives you an incomplete and says you got, you, you, you, we're gonna fail the course, you have to hand this in, and they can't do it, right? It's like a, it's a, a complete stop on the ability to actually do work. It's like I used to counsel students, you had that issue.

And often it was a combination of these is my best analysis is you have just the physical and cognitive difficulties of they're usually under a very hard load Right, they're doing too many majors too many extracurriculars just you know really pushing themselves and the motivation is Not sufficiently intrinsic Right, so if you have a motivational center that's not completely on board So a lot of these kids when I'm dealing with MIT kids, they would be, you know, their whole town was shooting off fireworks that they got in.

They were everyone's hope that they were going there and that they're in three majors. They don't want to let people down, but they're not really interested in being a doctor or whatever. So your motivation is not in the right place. The motivational psychologists would say the locus of control was more towards the extrinsic end of the spectrum and you have hardship. and you could just fritz out the whole system And so I would always be very worried about that. So I think about that a lot I do a lot of

Multi-phase or multi-scale seasonality so I'll go hard on something for a while and then for a few weeks go easy I'll have semesters that are hard and semesters that are easier I'll take the summer really low so on multiple scales and in the day I'll go really hard on something, but then have a hard cut off at five. So like every scale, it's all about rest and recovery. Because I really want to avoid that.

And I do burn out. I burnt out pretty recently. I get minor burnt out. It's like I had a couple papers that was trying to work through for a deadline a few weeks ago. And I wasn't sleeping well. And there's some other things going on. And it just knocks out and I get sick usually is how I know I've pushed myself too far. And

so I kind of pull the back. Now I'm doing this book launch. Then after this book launch, I'm pulling it back again. So I like to see the analogy for rest and recover. I think it's crucial. And at every scale, daily, monthly, you know, and then at the annual scale, an easy summer, for example. I think it's like a great idea if that's possible. Okay. You just made me realize that exactly what I do. Because I feel like I'm not even close to burnout

or anything, even though I'm in chaos. Yeah. I feel the right exact way as a seasonality is the, not even the seasonality, but like you always have multiple seasons operating. It's like you said, like because when you have a lot of cool shit going on, you there's always at least one thing that's a source of joy that there's always a reason. I suppose the fundamental thing and I've known people that suffer from depression too, the fundamental problem with the experience of depression and burnout is like, why do life

is meaningless? And I always have an answer of why today could be cool. And you have to contrive it, right? If you don't have it, you have to contrive it. I think it's really important. Like, okay, well, this is going bad. So now is the time to start thinking about, I mean, look, I started a podcast during the pandemic. It's like, this is going pretty bad. But you know what? This could be something really interesting.

Deep questions with Kyle Newport. I do it all in that voice. I love the podcast, by the way, But yeah, I think David Foster Wallace said, the key to life is to be unborrable. I've always kind of taken that to heart, which is like you should be able to maybe artificially generate anything, like find something in your environment, in your surroundings, that's a source of joy. Like everything is fun.

Yeah. Did you read the Pale King? It goes deep on boredom. It means it's like uncomfortable. It's like an uncomfortable meditation on boredom. Like the characters in that are just driven to the extremes of, I just bought three books on boredom the other day.

So now I'm really interested in this topic because I was anxious about my book launch happening this week. So I was like, okay, I need something else. So I have this idea for I might do it as an article first, but as a book, like, okay, I need something cool to be thinking about because I was worried about, like, I don't know if it's going to work, the pandemic, what's going to happen?

I don't know if it's going to get to that. So this is exactly what we're talking about. So I went out and I bought a bunch of books and I'm beginning like a whole sort of intellectual exploration. Well, I think that's one of the profound ideas and deep work that you don't expand on too much is boredom. Yeah, well, so deep work had a superficial idea about boredom, which was, I had this chapter called Embrace boredomom. A very functionalist idea was basically, you have to have some boredom in your regular schedule, or your mind is going to form a patholovian connection between, as soon as I feel boredom, I get stimuli.

And once it forms that connection, it's never going to tolerate deep work. So there's this very pragmatic treatment of boredom of, your mind better be used to the idea that sometimes you don't get stimuli because otherwise you can't write for three hours. Like it's just not gonna tolerate it. But more recently, what I'm really interested in boredom is it as a fundamental human drive, right? Because it's incredibly uncomfortable.

And think about the other things that are incredibly uncomfortable like hunger or thirst. They serve a really important purpose for a species, right?, if something is really distressing, there's a reason. Pain is really uncomfortable because we need to worry about getting injured. Thirst is really uncomfortable because we need water to survive. So what's boredom? Why is that uncomfortable? And I've been interested in this notion that boredom is about driving us towards productive action. Like, as a species, I mean, think about it. Like what got us to actually take advantage of these brains? What got us to

actually work with fire? What got us to start shaping stones and the hand axes and figuring out if we could actually sharpen a stick, sharpen off that we could throw it as a melee weapon or a distance weapon for hunting mammoth, right? Boredom drives us towards action. So now I'm fascinated by this fundamental action instinct because I have this theory that I'm working on that we're out of sync with it. Just like we have this drive for hunger, but then we introduce junk food

and got out of sync with hunger and it makes us really unhealthy. We have this drive towards action, but then we overload ourselves and we have all of these distractions, and then that causes, it's like a cognitive action obesity type thing because it circuits the system that wants us to do things, but we put more things in our plate and we can possibly do, and then we're really frustrated, we can't do them, and we're short-circum over our wires, so it all comes back to this question,

well, what would be the ideal, the ideal sort of amount of stuff to do and type of things to do? Like, if we wanted to look back at our ancestral environment and say, if I could just build from scratch, how much work I do and what I work on to be as in touch with that is like paleo people are trying to get their diets in touch with that. And so now I'm just, let's see, this is, I'm just, it's something I made up. But now I'm going deep on it and one of my podcast listeners, I was talking about on the show and I was like, well, I, I get to learn about animals and boredom and she sent me

this cool article from an animal behaviorist journal about what we know about human boredom versus animal boredom. So trying to figure out that puzzle is the wave that's high. So I can get through the wave that's low of like, I don't know about this pandemic book launch and, you know, and my research, my research is stumbling a little bit because of the the wave that's high, so I can do the wave that's low. I don't know about this pandemic book launch. And my research is stumbling a little bit because of the pandemic. So I needed a nice high.

So there we go, there's a case study. Well, it's both a case study and very interesting set of concepts because I didn't even realize that it's so simple. I'm one of the people that has an interesting push and pull dynamic with hunger, trying to understand the hunger with myself. I probably have a unhealthy relationship with food, I don't know. But there's probably a perfect, that's a nice way to think about diet as action. There's probably an optimal diet response to the experience that our bodies telling us, the signal that our bodies sending, which is hunger.

In that same way, boredom is sending a signal, and most of our intellectual activities in this world, our creative activities, are essentially a response to that signal. Yeah, and think about this analogy that we have this hunger instinct that junk food short circuits. Yes. It's like, oh, we'll satisfy that hyper-palitably and it doesn't end up well.

Now think about modern attention engineered, digitally mediated entertainment. We have this board of instinct. Oh, we can take care of that with a hyper-palatable alternative. Is that going to lead to a similar problem? So I've been fasting a lot lately. Like, I'm doing eating once a day. I've been doing that for over a month. Just eating one meal a day and primarily meat.

But it's very, a fasting has been incredible for me, for focus, for well-being, for a few, I don't know, just for feeling good. Okay, we'll put on a chart what makes me feel good. And that fasting and eating primarily in me based diet makes me feel really good. And so, but that ultimately, what fasting did, I haven't fasted it super long yet, like a seven day diet, which I really would like to do. But even just fasting for a day for 24 hours gets you in touch with your, with this signal.

It's fascinating. Like you get to listen to your, learn to listen to your body that like, you know, it's learn to listen to your body that like, you know, it's okay to be hungry. It's like a little signal that sends you stuff. And then I get to listen to how it responds when I put food in my body. Like, and I get to like, okay, cool. So like food is a thing that pacifies the signal.

Like it sounds ridiculous, okay. No, you can do that with it. You can do different types of food. It feels different. You've learned about what your body wants. Yeah. For some reason, fasting, it's similar to the deep work embrace boredom.

Fasting allowed me to go into mode of listening, of trying to understand the signal, that I could say, have an unhealthy appreciation of fruit. Okay, I love apples and cherries. Like I don't know how to moderate them. So if you take just same amount of calories, I don't know, calories matter, but they say calories. 2,000 calories of cherries versus 2,000 calories of steak.

If I eat 2,000 calories of steak, maybe we'll just a little bit love like green beans or cauliflower, I'm going to feel really good, fulfilled, focused and happy. If I eat cherries, I'm going to wake up behind a dumpster, crying with naked and just fall around with everything. And just bloated, just not and unhappy. And also the mood swings up and down.

I don't know. And I'll be much hungier the next day. Sometimes it takes a couple of days. But when I introduce cars into the system, too many cards, it starts, it's just unhealthy. I go into this roller coaster as opposed to a calm boat ride along the river and the Amazon or something like that. So fasting was the mechanism of for me to start listening to the body.

I wonder if you can do that same kind of, I guess that's what meditation a little bit is. A little bit, but yeah, listen to the board. But so two years ago I had a book out called Digital Minimalism and one of the things I was recommending that people do is basically a 30 day fast, but from digital personal entertainment, social media online videos, anything that captures your attention into spells boredom. And people were thinking like, oh, this is a detox. Like, I just want to teach your body not to need the distraction or this or that, but it really wasn't what I was interested in. I wanted there to be space that you could listen to your boredom.

Like, okay, I can't just dispel it. I can't just look at the screen and revel in it a little bit and start to listen to it and say, what is this really pushing me towards? And you take the new stuff, the new technology off the table and sort of ask, what is this, what am I craving? Like what's the activity equivalent of 2,000 calories of meat with a I craving? Like what's the activity equivalent of 2,000 calories

of meat with a little bit of green beans on the side? And I had 1,700 people go through this experiment, like spend 30 days doing this. And it's hard at first, but then they get used to listening to themselves and sort of seeking out what is this really pushing me towards? And it was pushing people towards connection, it was pushing people towards,

I just wanna go be around other people, it was pushing people towards high quality leisure want to go be around other people. It was pushing people towards high quality leisure activities, like I want to go do something that's complicated, and it took weeks sometimes for them to get in touch with their boredom, but then it completely rewired how they thought about what do I want to do with my time outside of work. And then the idea is when you were done with that, then it was much easier to go back and completely change your digital life because you have alternatives, right? You're not just trying to abstain from things you don't like, but that's basically a listening to boredom experiment.

Like just be there with the boredom and see where it drives you when you don't have, you know, the digital cheesets. Okay, so if I can't do that, where's it gonna drive me? Well, I guess I kind of want to go to the library. Which came up a lot by the way, a lot of people rediscovered the library.

You know, physical books. Physical books, so you can just go borrow them. And like, there's like low pressure and you can explore and you bring them home and then you read them. And you can like sit by the window and read them and it's nice weather outside. Now, you used to do that 20 years ago. They're listening to boredom. So can you maybe elaborate a little bit on the different experiences that people had when they quit social media for 30 days? Like is that if you were to recommend that process, what is ultimately the goal? Yeah. Digital minimalism, that's my philosophy for all this tech. And it's working backwards

from what's important. So you figure out what you're actually all about, like what you want to do, which you want to spend your time doing. And then you can ask, okay, is there a place that tech could amplify or support some of these things? And that's how you decide what tech to use. And so the process is, let's actually get away from everything. Let's be bored for a while. Let's really spend a month getting, really figuring out what do I actually want to do?

What do I want to spend my time doing? What's important to me, what makes me feel good? And then when you're done, you can bring back and tech very strategically to help those things, right? And that was the goal. That turns out to be much more successful than when people take an abstinence only approach. So if you come out your tech life and say, you know, whatever, I look at Instagram too much. Like, I don't like how much on my Instagram. That's a bad thing. I want to reduce this bad thing. So here's my new thing. I'm going to spend less time looking at Instagram,

much less likely to succeed in the long term. So we're much less likely at trying to reduce this sort of amorphous negative because in the moment, yeah, but it's not that bad and we'll be kind of interesting to look at it now. When you're instead controlling behavior because you have a positive that you're aiming towards is very powerful for people.

Like I want my life to be like this. Here's the role that tech plays in that life. The connection to wanting your life to be like that is very, very strong. And then it's much, much easier to say, yeah, like using Instagram is not part of my plan for how I have that life. And I really wanna have that life.

So of course I'm not gonna use Instagram. So it turns out to be a much more sustainable way to tame what's going on. So if you quit social media for 30 days, you kinda have to do the work kind of have to do the work. Yes, I do the work of thinking like, what am I actually, what makes me happy in terms of these tools that I've previously used

and when you tried to integrate them back, how can they integrate them to maximize the thing they actually do? Yeah, or what makes me happy unrelated to technology? Like what do I actually, what do I want my life to be? Like well, maybe what I want to do is be outside of nature two hours a day and spend a lot more time

like helping my community and sacrificing on behalf of my connections and then have some sort of intellectually engaging leisure activity. Like I'm reading or trying to read the great books and having more calm and seeing the sun set. Like you create this picture and then you go back and say, well, I still need my Facebook group because that's how I keep up with my cycling group. But Twitter is just, you know, toxic. It's not helping any of these things. And well, I'm an artist.

So I kind of need Instagram to get inspiration. But if I know that's why I'm using Instagram, I don't need it on my phone. It's just on my computer. And I just follow 10 artists and check it once a week. Like you really can start deploying. And it was the number one thing that differentiated in that experiment. The people who ended up sustainably making changes and getting through the 30 days and those who did it was to people who did the experimentation and the reflection. Like, let me try to figure out what's positive. They were much more successful than the people that just said, I'm sick of using my phone so much. So I'm just going to wipe and knuckle it. Just 30 days will be good for me. I just got to get

away from it or something. It doesn't last. So you're doing your social media currently. Yeah. Do you find that a lot of people going through this process will, will seek to basically arrive at a similar place to not use social media primarily about half. Right. So, so about half when they went through this exercise and these aren't quantified numbers, you know, this is just they sent me reports and yeah. That's pretty good though. So 17 on it. Yeah. Yeah. So roughly half probably got rid of social media altogether. Once they did this exercise, they realized these things I care about, I don't social media is not the tools that's really helping. The other half kept some, there are some things in their life where some social media was useful.

But the key thing is, if they knew why they were deploying social media, they could put fences around it. So for example, of those half that kept some social media, almost none of them kept it on their phone. Oh, interesting. I can't optimize if you don't know what it is, the function you're trying to optimize. So it's like this huge hack.

Like once you know this is why I'm using Twitter, then you can have a lot of rules about how you use Twitter. And suddenly you take this cost benefit ratio and it goes way from the company's advantage and then way over to your advantage. It's kind of fascinating because I've been torn with social media, but I did this kind of process. I haven't actually done it for 30 days, which I probably should. I'll do it for like a week at a time and regularly and thinking what kind of approach the Twitter

works for me. What I'm distinctly aware of the fact that I really enjoy posting once or twice a day and at that time, checking from the previous post, it makes me feel, even when there's negative comments, they go right past me. And when there's positive comments, makes you smile, I feel like love and connection with people, especially with people I know, but even just in general, it makes me feel like the world is full of awesome people.

Okay, when you increase that from checking from two to, I don't know what the threshold is for me, but probably like five or six per day, it starts going to anxiety world. Like where negative comments will actually stick to me might mentally, and positive comments will feel more shallow. Yeah, yeah. It's kind of fascinating. So I, shallow. Yeah, yeah. It's kind of fascinating. So I, I've been trying to, there's been long stretches of time, I think, December and January where I did just post and check, post and check. That was, that makes me really happy. And most of 2020 I did that, maybe really happy. Recently, I started, like, I'll go, you know,

you go right back in, like a drug addict, will you check it like, I don't know what that number is, but that number is high. Not good. You don't come out happy. No one comes out of a day full of Twitter, celebrating humanity. And it's not even, because I'm very fortunate

to have a lot of just positivity in my Twitter, but I, there's just a general anxiety. I wouldn't even say, I wouldn't even say it's probably the thing that you're talking about with the context, which is, it's almost like an exhaustion. I wouldn't even say it's like a negative feeling, it's almost just an exhaustion

to where I'm not creating anything beautiful in my life, just exhausted to existential exhaustion. Existential exhaustion, existential exhaustion. But I wonder, do you think it's possible to use from the people you've seen, from yourself to use social media in the way I'm described being moderation, or is it always going to become? When people do this exercise, you get lots of configurations. So for people that have a public presence, for example, like what you're doing is not that not that unusual. Okay, I post one thing a day and my audience

likes it and that's kind of it, which you thought through like, okay, this supports something I value, which is like having a sort of informal connection with my audience and being exposed to some sort of positive randomness. Okay, that's my goal, what's the right way to do it? Well, I don't need to be on Twitter on my phone all day. Maybe what I do is every day at five, I do my post and check on the day. So I have a writer friend, Ryan Holiday,

who writes about the Stoic's a lot. And he has this similar strategy. He posts one quote every day from, usually from a famous stoic, and sometimes from a contemporary figure. And that's just what he does. He just post it and it's a very positive thing. Like his readers really love it

because it's just like a dose of inspiration. He doesn't spend time, he's never interacting with anyone on social media, right? But that's an example of, I figured out what's important to me, what's the best way to use tools to amplify it, and then you get advantages out of the tools. So I like what you're doing. I looked up your Twitter feed before I came over here

I was curious, you're not on there a lot. No, I don't see you yelling at people. Now, do you think social media as a medium changed the cultural standards? And I mean it, have you read Neil Postman at all? Have you read like a museum ourselves to death? He was a social critic, technology critic, and wrote a lot about sort of technological determinism. So the ways, which is a really influential idea to a lot of my work, which is actually a little

lot of fashion right now in academia, but the ways that the properties and presence of technologies change things about humans in a way that's not really intended or planned by the humans themselves. And the book is all about how different communication medium, like fundamentally, just changed away the human brain understands and operates. And so he sort of gets into the what happened when the printed word was widespread and how television changed it. And this was all pre-social media. But this one of these ideas I'm having is like, the degree to which I get into it sometimes on my show again to a little bit, like the degree to which like Twitter in particular just changed the way that people

conceptualized what for example debate and discussion was like it introduced a rhetorical dump culture or a sort of more about tribes not giving ground to other tribes and and it's like it's a complete there's different places and times when that type of discussion with thought of differently, right? Well, yeah, absolutely, but I tend to believe, I don't know what you think, that there's the technological solutions, like there's literally different features and Twitter that could completely reverse that. There's so much power in the different choices that are made and that it could still be highly

engaging and have very different effects, perhaps more negative, or hopefully more positive. Yeah, so I'm trying to pull these two things apart. So there's these two-way social media, let's say, could change the experience of reading a major newspaper today. One could be a little bit more economic, right? So the internet made it cheaper to get news. The newspapers had to retreat to a paywall model because it was the only way they were going to survive. But once you're in a paywall model, then what you really want to do is make your tribe,

which is within the paywall very, very happy with you, so you want to work to them. But then there's the sort of the terminus point of view, which is the properties of Twitter, which were arbitrary. Jack and Evan, just whatever, let's just do it this way. Influenced a very way that people now understand and think about the world. So the one influenced the other, I think.

Yeah. They kind of started adjusting together. I did this thing. I mean, I'm trying to understand this. Part of the, I've been playing with the entrepreneurial idea. This is a very particular dream I've had of a startup that this is a longer term thing that has to do with artificial intelligence.

But more and more, it seems like there's a some trajectory through creating social media type of technologies, very different than what people are thinking I'm doing. But it's a kind of challenge to the way the Twitter is done. But it's not obvious what the best mechanisms are to still make an exception to the engaging platform. My clubhouse is very engaging and not having any other negative effects. For example, there's Chrome extensions that allow you to turn off all likes and dislikes

and all of that from Twitter. So all you're seeing is just the content. On Twitter, that to me, that's not a compelling experience at all. Because I still need, I would argue I still need the likes to know what's a tweet worth reading. Because I don't only have a limited amount of time,

so I need to know what's valuable. It's a great, a lot of reviews on tweets or something. Yeah exactly. But I've turned off on, for example, on my account, on YouTube, I've turned, I wrote a Chrome extension that turns off all likes and dislikes and just views. I don't know how many views the video gets. So yeah, unless it's on my phone. Do you take off their recommendations? many views, video gets, and so unless it's on my phone. Do you take off the recommendations? No, no.

As I YouTube, some people, distraction for YouTube is a big one. For people, yeah. No, I'm not worried about the distraction because I'm able to control myself on YouTube. You don't rabbit hole. No, I don't rabbit hole. So you have to know your demons, your addictions,

whatever, on YouTube, I'm okay. I don't have, I don't keep clicking. The negative feelings come from seeing the views on stuff you've created. So you don't want to see your views. Yeah. So like I'm just like speaking to the things that I'm aware of of myself that it are helpful and things that are not helpful emotionally. And I feel like there should be, we need to create actually tooling for ourselves that's not me with JavaScript, but anybody's able to create, sort of control the experience

they that they have. Yeah. Well, so my big unified theory on social media is I'm very, I'm very bearish on the big platforms having a long future. You are. I think the moment of three or four major platforms is not gonna last, right? So I don't know, okay, this is just perspective, right? So you can start shorting these stocks. I'm on my, don't do it. It's not financial. Yeah, don't do it Robin Hood.

So here's, I think the big mistake the major platforms made as when they took out the network effect advantage. Right? So, the original pitch, especially if something like Facebook or Instagram, was the people you know are on here. Right? So, like what you use this for, you can connect to people that you already know.

This is what makes the network useful. So therefore, the value of our network grows quadratically with the number of users. And therefore, it's such a head start that there's no way that someone else can catch up. So therefore the value of our network grows quadratically with the number of users. And therefore it's such a head start that there's no way that someone else can catch up. But when they shifted and when Facebook took the lead of say we're going to shift towards a newsfeed model, they basically said we're going to try to, in the moment, get more data and get more likes. Like what we're going to go towards is actually just seeing interesting stuff, like seeing

different information. So people took this social internet impulse to connect to people digitally to other tools, like group text messages and WhatsApp and stuff like this, right? So you don't think about these tools as, oh, this is where I connect with people. Once it's just a feed that's kind of interesting, now you're competing with everything else that can produce interesting content that's diverting. And I think that is a

much fiercer competition because now, for example, you're going up against podcast, right? I mean, like, okay, I guess, you know, the Twitter feed is interesting right now, but also a podcast is interesting or something else could be interesting too. I think it's a much fiercer competition when there's no more network effects, right?

And so my sense is we're gonna see a fragmentation into what I call long-pale social media, where if I don't need everyone I know to be on a platform, then why not have three or four B-Spoke platforms I use, where it's a thousand people, and it's all we're all interested in, you know, whatever. AI or comedy, and we've perfected this interface

and maybe it's like Clubhouse is audio or something, and when we all pay two dollars, so we don't have to worry about attention harvesting and that's going to be wildly more entertaining. Like I'm thinking about comedians on Twitter. It's not the best internet possible format for them expressing themselves and being interesting. You have all these comedians that are trying to like, well, I can do like little clips and little whatever. Like I don't know if there was a long tail social media.

It's really, this is where the comedians. And this podcast and the comedians around podcasts. Now, so this is my thought, is that there's really no, there's really no strong advantage to having one large platform that everyone is on. If all you're getting from it is I now have different options for diversion and like uplifting, aspirational or whatever types of entertainment, that whole think of fragment.

And I think the glue that was holding together was network effects. I don't think they realized that when network effects have been destabilized, they don't have the centrifugal force anymore. And they're spinning faster and faster, but is a Twitter feed really that much more interesting than all these streaming services?

Is it really that much more interesting than Clubhouse? Is it that much more interesting than podcast? I feel like they don't realize how unstable their ground actually is. Yeah, that's fascinating. But the thing that makes Twitter and Facebook work, I mean, the newsfeed, you're exactly right. You can just duplicate the news. Like, if it's not the social network and it's the newsfeed, then why not have multiple

different feeds that are more, that are better at satisfying you. There's a dopamine gamification that they've figured out. And so you have to, whatever you create, you have to at least provide some pleasure in that same gamification kind of way. It doesn't have to have to do with scale of large social networks, but I mean, I guess you're implying that you should be able to design that kind of mechanism in other forms.

Or people are turning on that gamification. I mean, so people are getting wise to it and are getting uncomfortable about it, right? So if I'm offering something, there are these exist out sugar. People realize sugar is bad, sugar is great. Yeah, drinking a lot's great too, but it also after all you realize there's there's problems So some of the long tail social media networks that are out there that I've looked at they offer usually like a deeper sense of connection Like it's usually interesting people that you share some affinity and you have these carefully cultivated I wrote this New Yorker piece a couple years ago about the indie social media movement that really got into some of these different

Technologies, but I think the technologies are a distraction. We focus too much on, you know, Macedon versus, you know, whatever, like, forget or discord. Like actually, let's forget the protocols right now. It's the idea of, okay, and there's a lot of these long tail social media groups. What people are getting out of it, which I think can outweigh the dopamine gamification is strong connection and motivation. Like you're in a group with other guys that are all trying to be, you know, better dads or something like this.

And, and you talk to them on a regular basis and you're sharing your stories and there's interesting talks. And that's a powerful thing too. One interesting thing about scale of Twitter is you have these viral spread of information. So sort of Twitter has become a newsmaker in itself. Yeah, that's the problem. Well, yes, but I don't want to what replaces that because because then you immediately... Reporting?

Yes, I think so. ...for reports, but I have to do some work again. No, the problem with reporters and journalism is that they're intermediary. They have control. I mean, this is the problem in Russia currently is that you have it creates a shield between the people and the news. The interesting thing and the powerful thing about Twitter is that the news originates from the individual that's creating the news. Like you have the president of the former president of the United States on Twitter creating news. You have Elon Musk creating news.

You have people announcing stuff on Twitter as opposed to talking to a journalist. And that feels much more genuine and it feels very powerful, but actually coming to realize it doesn't need the social network. You can just put that announcement on a YouTube type thing. This is what I'm thinking. This is my point about that because that's right. The democratizing power of the internet is fantastic. I'm an old school internet nerd, a guy that was, you know, telemedicine in the servers

and goferine before the worldwide web was around. So I'm a huge internet booster and that's one of its big power. But when you put everything on Twitter, I think the fact that you've taken, you have homogenized everything, right? So everything looks the same, moves with the same low friction. It's very difficult. You have no what I call distributed curation, right? The only curation that really happens, I was a little bit with likes and also the algorithm. But if you look back to pre Web 2.0 or early Web 2.0, when a lot of this was happening, let's say, on blogs where people own their own servers and you had your different blogs, there was this distributed

curation that happened where in order for your blog to get on people's radar, and this had nothing to do with any gatekeepers or legacy media, it was over time you got more links and people respected you and you would hear about this blog over here. And there's this whole distributed curation and filtering going on. So if you think like the 2004 presidential election, most of the information people are getting from the internet was one of the first big internet news driven elections was from, you know, you had like the daily costs and and drugs. But there was like blogs that were out there.

And this is back as we're climbing was just running a blog out of his, you know, a dorm room at this point, right? And you would in a distributed fashion gain credibility because, okay, I people have paid it. It's very hard to get people to pay attention. I get linked to this kid Ezra or whatever. It seems to be really sharp. And now people are noticing it. And now you have a distributed curation that solves a lot of the problems we see when you have a completely homogenized low friction environment like friction We're I mean Twitter where any random conspiracy theory or whatever that people like can just shoot through and spread Whereas if you're starting a blog to try to push QAnon or something like that

It's probably gonna be a really weird looking blog and you're gonna have a hard time like it's just never gonna show up on people's radar Right, I mean that yeah, so everything you've said up until the very last statement, I would agree with. This is the topic I don't know what ton about, I guess. So, there's, I think, forget QAnon. Yeah, no, but QAnon is, QAnon could be that. I also don't know, I should know more.

I apologize, I don't know more. I mean, that's a power and the downside. You can have, I mean, Hitler could have a blog today. Yeah. And he would have potentially a very large following if he's charismatic, if he's, you know, it's good with words, it's able to express the ideas, whatever maybe he's able to channel, the frustration, the anger that people have about a certain thing. And so I think that's the power of blogs, but it's also the limitation, but that doesn't,

we're not trying to solve that. You can't solve that. The fundamental problem you're saying is not the problem. Your thesis is that there's nothing special about large-scale social networks that guarantees that they will keep existing. And it's important to remember for a lot of the older generation of internet activists, the people who are very pro-internet in the early days. They were completely flabbergasted by the rise of these platforms.

Say, why would you take the internet and then build your own version of the internet where you own all the servers? We built this whole distributed whole thing. We had open protocols everyone anywhere in the world use the same protocols your machine can talk to any other machine is the most democratic communication system that's ever been built and then these companies came along and said we're going to build our own this own all the servers and put them in buildings that we own and the internet will just be the first mile this gets you into our private internet where we own the whole thing it would win completely against the entire

this gets you into our private internet where we owned a whole thing. It would completely against the entire motivation of the internet was like, yes, it's not going to be one person owns all the servers and you pay to access them. It's any one server that they own can talk to anyone else's server because we all agree on a standard set of protocols. And so the the old guard of pro internet people never understood this move towards let's build private versions of the internet. We'll build three or four private internet, and that's what we'll all use. It was the opposite, basically. Well, it's funny enough.

I don't know if you follow, but Jack Dorsey's also is a proponent and is helping to fund create fully distributed versions of Twitter, essentially, if they could, would potentially destroy Twitter. Yeah. fully distributed versus the Twitter, essentially, if they could, would potentially destroy Twitter. But I think there might be financial, like business cases to be made there, I'm not sure. But that seems to be another alternative as opposed to creating a bunch of, like the long tail,

creating like the ultimate long tail of like fully distributed. Yeah, which is what the internet is actually. But that's sort of why I'm thinking about long tail social media, distributed. Yeah, which is what the internet is. But that's that's sort of why long, when I'm thinking about long tail social media, I'm thinking it's like the text, not so important. Like there's groups out there, right? I know where the tech they use to actually implement their digital only social group, whatever, they might use Slack, they might use some combinations,

zoom or it doesn't matter. I think in the tech world, we want to build the beautiful protocol that, okay, everyone's going to use as this Federated server protocol and which we've worked out xy and z and no one understands it because then the engineers needed all to make I get it because I'm a nerd like this like okay every standard has to fit with everything else and no one understands what's going on Meanwhile, you know, you have this group of bike enthusiasts that are like yeah, we'll just jump on a zoom and have some slack and put up a blog It detect doesn't really matter like we built the world with our own curation, our

own rules, our own sort of social ecosystem that's generating a lot of value. I don't know if it'll happen. There's a lot of money at stake with obviously these large, but I just think they're more, they're so I mean, look how quickly Americans left Facebook, right? I mean, Facebook was savvy to buy other properties and the diversify, right? But how quick did that take for just standard Facebook news? Oh, yeah. Everyone under the age of something we're using it and no one under a certain age is using it.

And now it took like four years. I mean, this stuff is, I believe people can leave Facebook overnight. Yeah. I think Facebook hasn't actually messed up like enough to... there's two things. They haven't messed up enough for people to really leave aggressively and there's no good alternative for them to leave. I think if good alternatives pop up, it'll just immediately happen. The stuff is a lot more culturally fragile, I think. I mean, Twitter's having a moment because it was feeding a certain type of... I mean, there's a lot of anxieties that was in the sort of political sphere anyways that Twitter was working with.

But it's moment could go too as well. I mean, it's a really arbitrary thing, short little things. And I read a wired article about this earlier in the pandemic, like this is crazy that the way that we're trying to communicate information about the pandemic is in all these weird arbitrary rules where people are screen-shodding pictures of articles that are part of a tweet thread where you say one slash in under it. We have the technology guys. So like really clearly convey and for long form information to people.

Why do we have these? And I know it's because it's the gamified dopamine hits, but what a weird medium. There's no reason for us to have to have these threads that you have to find and pin with your screenshot I mean we have technology to communicate better using the internet I mean why are epidemiologists having to do tweet threads? Because there's mechanisms of publishing that make it easier on Twitter I mean we're evolving as a species and the internet is a very fresh thing. Yeah, and so It's kind of interesting to think

that as opposed to Twitter, this is what Jack also complains about is Twitter is not innovating fast enough. And so it's almost like the people are innovating and thinking about their productive life faster than the platforms in which they operate can catch up. And so at the point, the gap grows sufficiently.

They'll jump a few people, few native folks will just create an alternative. And perhaps distributed, perhaps just many little silos. And then people will jump. And then we'll just continue this kind of way. Yeah. So I think like, sub-stack, for example, what they're going to pull out of Twitter,

among other things, is the audience that was let's say like slightly left of center, but the slightest of center don't like Trump uncomfortable with like postmodern critical theories made into political action, right? And they're like yeah, Twitter. There was a people on there talking about this and it made me feel sort of heard because I was feeling a little bit like a nerd about it. But honestly, I probably rather subscribe to the four subs. You know, I'm going to have like berries and Andrew Sullivan's. I have like a Jesse signals, like I have a few sub stacks I can subscribe to. And honestly, that's, I'm a knowledge worker who's 32 anyways, probably that's an email all day.

And so like, there's an innovation that's going to that group, you know, it's going to suck them off. Which is actually a very large group. Yeah, that's a lot of, that's a lot of energy. And then once Trump's gone, I guess a very large group. Yeah, that's a lot of energy. And then once Trump's gone, I guess, that's probably going to drive, that drove a lot of more Trump people off Twitter. Like the stuff is fragile.

So I think, but the fascinating thing to me, because I've hung out on parlor for a short amount enough to know that the interface matters. It's so fascinating like that, that it's not just about ideas. It's about creating like, self-stack too, creating a pleasant experience, addicting experience. Now you're right about that. And it's hard. And it's why the end, this is one of the conclusions from that indie social media article is it's just the ugliness

matters. And I don't mean even just aesthetically, but just the clonkiness of the interface is the, the ugliness matters. And I don't mean even just aesthetically, but just the clonkiness of the interface is the, and I don't know, it's the some degree the social media company has spent a lot of money on this, and the some degree it's a survivorship bias. Yeah, right. I think Twitter, every time I hear Jack talks about this, it seems like he's as surprised as anyone else, the way Twitter is being used. I mean, it's basically the way, you know, they had it years ago, and then, you know, it was a great, it'll be statuses, right? Yeah.

This is what I'm doing, you know, and my friends can follow me and see it. And without really changing anything, it just happened to hit everything right to support this other type of interaction. Well, there's also the JavaScript model, which Bernd and I talked about. He just implemented JavaScript, like the crappy version of JavaScript in 10 days throughout there and just changed it really quickly. Yeah. Evolved it really quickly and now has become according to Stack Exchange the most popular programming language in the world.

Yeah. It drives like most of the internet and even the back end and now mobile. Yeah. And so that's an argument for the kind of thing you're talking about where like the bike club people could literally create the thing that would run most of the internet 10 years from now. Yeah. So there's something to that, like as opposed to trying to get lucky or trying to think through stuff is just to solve a particular problem.

Do stuff. Yeah. And then do stuff. Do stuff. Like keep tinkering until you love it. Yeah. And of course, the sad thing is timing and luck matter, and that you can't really control.

That's the problem. But you can't go back to 2007. But that's like the number one thing you could do to have a lot of success with a new platform is go back in time 14 years. So the thing you have to think about is what is like what's the totally new thing that 10 years from now would seem obvious. I mean,

some people say clubhouse is that there's been a lot of stuff like clubhouse before, but it hit the right kind of thing. Similar to Tesla actually, What Clubhouse did is it got a lot of relatively famous people on there quickly. And then the other effect is like, it's invite only. So like, oh, all the famous people are on there. I wonder what's the FOMO? Like, fear that you're missing something really profound. There's exciting happening there. So those social effects. And

then once you actually show up, I'm a huge fan of this. It's the JavaScript model. It's like, Clubhouse is so dumb. It's so simple in this interface. You literally can't do anything except mute a mute. There's a mute button. And there's a leave quietly button. That's it. Yeah. And it's kind of, I love single use technology, that sense. Yeah. There's no like, there's no, it's just like trivial. And Twitter kind of started like that, Facebook started like that, but they've evolved quickly to add all these features and so on.

And I do hope Clubhouse stays that way. Yeah. It's gonna be interesting. Or there's alternatives. I mean, even with Clubhouse though, the, so one of the issues with a lot of these platforms, I think is bits are cheap enough now that we don't really need a unicorn investor model.

I mean, the investors need that model. There's really not really an imperative of we need something that can scale to 100 million plus a year revenue. So because it was going to require this much seed and angel investment and you're not going to get this much seed angel investment unless you can have a potential exit this wide because you have to be part of a portfolio that depends on one out of 10 exiting here. If you don't actually need that, and you don't need to satisfy that investor model, which I think is basically the case. I mean, bits are so cheap.

Everything is so cheap. You don't necessarily, so even like with clubhouse, it's, it's investor backed, right? So it's noteworthy. This needs to be a major platform. But the bike club doesn't necessarily need a major platform. That's where I'm interested. I mean, I don't know. There's so much money. That's the only problem that bets against me is that you can concentrate a lot of capital if you do these things, right? I mean, so Facebook was like a fantastic capital concentration machine.

It's crazy how much, where it even found that capital in the world, it could concentrate and ossify in the stock price that a very small number of people have access to, right? That's incredibly powerful. So when there is a possibility to consolidate and gather a huge amount of capital, that's a huge imperative that's very hard for the bike club to go up again. So.

But there's a lot of money in the bike club, and you should see what the Wall Street bets. Yeah. And that's one of a bunch of people get together. I mean, it doesn't have to be a bike, it could be a bunch of different bike clubs, just kind of team up to overtake. So what we're doing now, yeah.

Or we're gonna repurpose off the shelf stuff. That's not, yeah, we're gonna repurpose whatever it was for office productivity or something. And like the clubs using Slack, just to build out these, yeah, yeah. Let's talk about email. Yeah, that's right. I wrote a book. You're you're out yet another amazing book, a world without email. Maybe one way to enter this discussion

is to ask what is the hyperactive hive mind, which is the concept you open the book with? Yeah, and the devil. It's the scourge of hundreds of millions. So I think, so I called this book a world without email. The real title should be a world without the hyperactive, high-mind workflow, but my publisher didn't like that. So we had to get a little bit more pithy. I was trying to answer the question after deep work. Why is it so hard to do this?

If this is so valuable, if we can produce much higher, if people are much happier, why do we check email a day? Why are we on Slack all day? And so I started working on this book immediately after deep work. And so my initial interviews were done in 2016. So it took five years to pull the threads together. I was trying to understand why is it so hard for most people to actually find any time to do this stuff and actually move the needle. And the story was, and I thought this was, I hadn't heard this report anywhere

else. This way I took me so long to pull together, is email arrives on the scene, email spreads, I trace it. It really picks up steam in the early 1990s between like 1990 and 1995. It makes its move, right? And it does so for very pragmatic reasons. It was replacing existing communication technologies that it was better than it was so for very pragmatic reasons. It was replacing existing communication technologies that it was better than it was mainly the fax machine voice mail and memos. So this was just better. So it was a killer app because it was useful. In its wake came a new way of collaborating. And that's the hyperactive hive mind. So it's the virus that follows the rats that went through Western Europe for the black pig as email spread through organizations in its way came the hyperactive hive mind workflow, which says, okay guys, here's the way we're going to collaborate.

We'll just work things out on the fly with unscheduled back and forth messages just, let's go back and forth. Hey, what that followed email, it completely took over office work. And the need to keep up with all of these asynchronous, back and forth, unscheduled messages, as those got more and more and more and more, we had more of those to service, the need to service those required us to check more and more and more and more. And so by the time, and I go through the numbers, but by the time you get to today, now the average knowledge worker has to check one of these channels once every six minutes. Because every single thing you do in your organization,

how you talk to your colleagues, how you talk to your vendors, how you talk to your clients, how you talk to the HR department, it's all this asynchronous unscheduled back-and-forth messaging, and you have to service the conversations. And it spiraled out of control, and it has sort of devolved a lot of work in the office now to all I do is constantly tend Communication channels

So it's fascinating. We are describing is Nobody ever paused in this whole Evolution to try to create a system that actually works that it was Kind of like a huge fan of cellular automata. So it just kind of started a very simple mechanism, just like cellular automata, and just kind of grew to overtake all the fundamental communication of how we do business and also personal life. Yeah, and that's one of the big ideas is that the unintentionality. Yeah, right. So this goes back to technological determinism. I mean, this is a weird business book because I go deep on philosophy, I go deep on,

for some reason we get in the paleoanthropology for a while. We do a lot of neuroscience. It's kind of a weird book, but I got real into this technological determinism, right? This notion that just the presence of a technology can change how people act. That's my big argument about what happened with the hive mind. And I can document specific examples, right?

So I document this example in IBM 1987, maybe 85, but it doesn't like to medulate 80s, IBM, our Monk headquarters, we're gonna put in internal email, right, because it's convenient. And so they ran a whole study, and so I talked to the engineer who ran this study, Adrian Stundling, we're gonna run this study to figure out how much do we communicate

because it was still an era where it's expensive, right? So you have to provision a mainframe so you can't over-provision, like we want to know how much communication actually happens. So they wouldn't figure it out. How many memos, how many calls, how many notes? Great. We'll provision a mainframe to handle email that can handle all of that. So if all of our communication moves to email, the mainframe will still be fine. In three days, they had melted it down. People were communicating six times more than that estimate. So just in three days, the presence of a low friction digital communication tool drastically changed how everyone collaborated.

So that's not enough time for an all hands meeting. Guys, we figured it out. You know, we need to communicate a lot more is what's going to make us more productive. We need more emails. It's a margin. Isn't that just an appositive and amazing to you? Like, isn't email amazing? Like it knows the early days. Like just a frictionalist communication. I mean, email is awesome. Like, people say that there's a lot of problems with emails. Just like people say a lot of problems with Twitter and so on, it's kind of cool that you can just send a little note. It was a miracle.

Right. So I wrote a, originally it was a New Yorker piece from a year or two ago called Was Email a Mistake and then it's in the book too. But I go into the history of email, like why did it come along and it saw the huge problem. So it was the problem of fast asynchronous communication. And it was a problem that did not exist until we got large offices. We got large offices synchronous communication,

like let's get on the phone at the same time. There's too much overhead to it. There's too many people you might have to talk to. Asynchronous communication, like let me send you a memo when I'm ready and you can read it when you're ready, took too long. And so it was like a huge problem. So one of the things I talked about

is the way that when they built the CIA headquarters, there was such a need for fast asynchronous communication that they built a pneumatic powered email system. They had these pneumatic tubes all throughout the headquarters with electromagnetic routers. So you would put your message in a Plexiglass tube and you would turn these brass dials about the location,

you would stick it in these things and pneumatic tubes and it would shoot and sort and work its way through these tubes to show up in just a minute or something at the floor and at the general office suite where you wanted to go. At my point, the fact that they spent so much money to make that work show how important fast asynchronous communication was large offices. So when email came along, it was a productivity silver bullet. It was a miracle. I talked to the researchers who were working on computer support and collaboration in the late 80s, trying to figure out how are we going to use computer

networks to be more productive and they were building all these systems and tools. Email showed up. It just wiped all that research off the map. There's no need to build these custom internet applications. There's no need to build these communication platforms. Email could just do everything. Right. So it was a miracle application, which is why it spread everywhere. That's one of these things where, okay, unintended consequences, right? You had this miracle productivity silver bullet, it spread everywhere, but it was so effective. It just, you know, I don't know, like a drug. I'm sure there's some pandemic metaphor here. Analogy here of a drug that is so effective at treating this that it also blows up your whole immune system

and then everyone gets sick. Well, ultimately, it probably significantly increased the productivity of the world, but there's a kind of hump that it now is plateaued. And then the further the question you're asking is like, okay, how do we take the next, how do we keep increasing the productivity session? Yeah, I think it brought it down.

So my, my, I think so. My contention and, so again, there's a little bit in the book that I have a more recent wire article that put some newer numbers to this. I subscribe to the hypothesis that the hyperactive hive mind was so detrimental.

So yeah, it helped productivity at first, right, when you could do fast-acencers communication, but very quickly there was a sort of exponential rise in communication amounts. Once we got to the point where the hive mind meant you had to constantly check your email, I think that made us so unproductive that it actually was pulling down on industrial productivity. And I think the only reason why, so certainly has not been going up. That metric's been stagnating for a long time now, while all this was going on I think the only reason why it hasn't fallen is that we added these extra shifts off the books

I'm gonna work for three hours in the morning. I'm gonna work for three hours at night and only that I think has allowed us to basically Maintained a stagnated non-industrial growth. It we should have been shooting up the charts. I mean this is Miraculous innovations computer networks and then we built out these hundred billion dollar ubiquitous worldwide, high speed wireless internet infrastructure with supercomputers in our pockets where we could talk to anyone at any time. Like, why did our productivity not shoot off the charts because our brain can't context switch once every six minutes? So it's fundamentally back to the context switching. It's the context switching is poison. In context switching is poison. It's the what is it about email that forces context switching? Is it both our psychology that drags us in?

Yeah, no expectation. Yeah, right, right, because it's not, I think we've seen this through a personal, a personal will or failure lens recently. Like, oh, my addicted to email. Yes. I have bad etiquette about my email. No, it's the underlying workflow. So the tool itself, I will exonerate. I think I would rather use pop three than a fax protocol.

I think it's easier. The issue is the hyperactive hive mind workflow. So if I am now collaborating with 20 or 30 different people with back and forth unscheduled messaging, I have to tend those conversations. It's like you have 30 metaphorical ping pong tables, and when the balls come back across, you have to pretty soon hit it back,

or stuff actually grinds to a halt. So it's to workflow, that's the problem. It's not the tools, the fact that we use it to do all of our collaboration. Let's just send messages back and forth, which means you can't be far from checking that, because if you take a break, if you batch, if you try to have better habits, it's going to slow things down.

So my whole villain is this hyperactive hive mind workflow. The tool is fine. I don't want the tool to go away, but I want to replace the hyperactive hive my workflow. I think this is going to be one of the biggest value generating productivity revolutions of the 21st century. I quote an anonymous CEO, is pretty well known, who says this is gonna be the moonshot of the 21st century is gonna be of that importance.

There's so much latent productivity that's being suppressed because we just figure things out on the fly and email that as we figure that out, I think it's gonna be hundreds of billions of dollars. Here, so absolutely right. The question is, what is a world without email look like? How do we fix email? So, what happens is, at least in my vision, you identify, well, actually, there's these

different processes that make up my work day. Like, these are things that I do repeatedly, often in collaboration with other people that do useful things for my company or whatever. Right now most of these processes are implicitly implemented with the hyperactive hive mind. How do we do this thing? Answering client questions to shoot messages back and forth. How do we do this thing? Posting podcast episodes will just figure it out on the fly. My main argument is we actually have to do like they did in the industrial sector.

Take each of these processes and say is there a better way to do this? And by better, I mean a way that's going to minimize the need to have unscheduled back and forth messaging. So we actually have to do process engineering. This created a massive growth and productivity in the industrial sector during the 20th century. We have to do it in knowledge work. We can't just rock and roll an inbox,

is we actually have to say, how do we deal with client questions? Well, let's put in place a process that doesn't require us to send messages back and forth. How do we post podcast episodes? Let's automate this to a degree where I don't have to just send you a message on the fly. And you do this process by process and the pressure on that inbox is released. And now you don't have to check it every six minutes. You still have email. I mean, like I need to send you a file, sure, I'll use email, but we're not

coordinating or collaborating over email or Slack, which is just a faster way of doing the hive mind. I mean, it just Slack doesn't solve anything there. You have better structured bespoke processes. I think that's what's going to unleash this massive productivity bespoke. So the interesting thing is like, for example, you and I, she has some emails. So obviously I, uh, for, let's just say my particular case, I scheduled podcasts, there's a bunch of different tasks, fascinating enough, that I do that could be converted into processes. Is it up to me to create that process? Or do you think we also need to build tools just like email was a protocol for helping us create process for the different tasks?

I mean, I think ultimately the whole organization, the whole team has to be involved. I think ultimately there's certainly a lot of investor money being spent right now to try to figure out those tools. Right. So I think Silicon Valley has figured this out in the past couple of years. This is the difference between when I was talking to people after deep work and now five years later is this sentence in the air, right, because there's so much latent productivity. So yes, there are going to be new tools, which I think could help.

There are already tools that exist. I mean, the different groups I profiled use things like Trello or Basecamp or Asana or Flow and you know, our schedule wants and acuity. Like there's a lot of tools out there. The key is not to think about it in terms of what tool do I replace email with. Instead, you think about it with, I have a, we're trying to come with a process that reduces back and forth messages, oh, what tool might help us, might help us do that? Yeah, and I would push, it's not about necessarily efficiency. In fact, some of these things are gonna take more time. So writing a letter to someone

is like a high value activity. It's probably worth doing. The thing that's killer is the back and forth because now I have to key to checking, right? So we scheduled this together because I've knew you from before. But most of the interviews I was scheduling for this, actually, I have a process with my publicist where we use

a shared document and she put stuff in there and then I check it twice a week. And there's scheduling options. I say, here's what I want to do. This one will this will work for this one or whatever. And it takes more time in the moment than just, but it means that we have almost no back-and-forth messaging for podcast scheduling, which without this. So like with my UK publisher,

I didn't put this process in the place because we're not doing as many interviews, but it's all the time. And I'm like, oh, and I can really feel the difference, right? It's the back-and-forth that's killer. I suppose it is up to the individual people involved. Like you said, knowledge workers, like they have to carry the responsibility of creating processes, like how always asking the first principal's question, how couldn't this be

converted into a process? Yeah, so you can start by doing this yourself, like just with what you can control. I think ultimately once the teams are doing that, I think that's probably the right scale. If you try to do this at the organizational scale, you're gonna get bureaucracy, right? So if Elon Musk is gonna dictate down to everyone at Tesla or something like this, that's too much remove and you get bureaucracy.

But if it's we're a team of six that's working together on whatever power train software, then we can figure out on our own, what are our processes, how do we want to do this? So it's ultimately also creating a culture, we're saying like an email, sending an email, just for the hell of it, it should be taboo. So you're being destructive to the productivity of the team by sending this email, as opposed to helping develop a process and so on that that will ultimately automate this.

That's why I'm trying to spread this message of the context switches as poising I get so much into the science of it. I think we underestimate how much it kills us. You have to rinse away our context, look at a message and come back. And so once you have the mindset of it's a huge thing to ask of someone to have to take their attention off something and look back at this. And if they have to do that for three or four times, like we're just gonna figure this out on the fly,

and every message is gonna require five checks of the inbox while you wait for it. Well, now you've created whatever it is at this point, 25 or 30 contact shifts. Like you've just done a huge disservice to someone's day. This would be like, if I had a professional athlete, it's like, hey, do me a favor. I need you to go do this press interview,

but to get there, you're gonna have to carry this sandbag and sprint up this hill, like completely exhaust your muscles and then you have to go play a game. Like, of course, I'm not gonna ask an athlete to do like an incredibly physically demanding thing right before a game, but something as easy as thoughts, question mark,

or like, hey, do you wanna jump on a call and it's gonna be six back and forth messages to figure it out? It's kind of the cognitive equivalent, right? You're taking the wind out of someone. Yeah. And by the way, for people who are listening, because I recently posted a few job openings for us, I want to help with this thing. One of the things that people are surprised when they work with me is how many spreadsheets and processes are involved. It's like Claude Shannon, right? I talked about communication theory or information theory.

It takes time to come up with a clever code. On the front, you spend more time up front figuring out those spreadsheets and trying to get people on board with it. But then your communication going forward is all much more efficient. So over time, you're using much less bandwidth, right? So you do pain up front. It's quicker just right now to send an email. But if I spend a half day to do this over

the next six months, I've saved myself 600 emails. Now, here's a tough question for, you know, from the computer science perspective, we often over optimize. So you create processes and you, okay, just like you're saying, it's so pleasurable to increase in the long-term productivity that sometimes you just enjoy that process in itself, but just creating processes. And you actually never, like, it has a negative effect on productivity, long-term, because you're too obsessed with the processes. Is that a nice problem to have essentially? It's a problem. Let's look at the one sector that does do this, which is developers.

Right. Agile methodologies like Scrum or Conbon are basically workflow methodologies that are much better than the hyperactive hive mind. But man, some of those programmers get pretty obsessive. I don't know if you've ever talked to a whatever level three scrum master. They get really obsessive about like, it has to happen exactly this way. And it's probably seven times more complex than it needs to be. I'm hoping that's just because nerds like me, you know, like to do that, but it's a,

it's a broadly probably an issue, right? We have to be careful because you can just go down that, that fiddlingiddling path. So it needs to be, here's how we do it. Let's reduce the messages and let's roll, you know. You can't save yourself through, if you can get the process just right, right? So I wrote this article kind of recently called the Rise and Fall and Getting Things Done, and I profiled this productivity guru named Merlin Mann. And I talked about this movement called Productivity Pron as a like elite speak term. In the early 2000s, where people just became convinced

that if they could combine their productivity systems with software, and they could find just the right software, just the right configuration where they could offload most of the difficulty of work what happened with the machines. So when you kind of figure that for, and then they could just sort of crank widgets and the whole thing fell apart because it's work is hard

and it's hard to do and making decisions about what the work on is hard and no system can really do that for you. So you have to have this sort of balance between context switches are poisoned. So we got to get rid of the context, which is once like something's working good enough to get rid of the context switches,

then get after it. Yeah, which is once like something's working good enough to get rid of the context, which is then Get after it. Yeah, there's a psychological process there for me and the OCD nature like I've literally Embarrassing enough have lost my shit before when So in in many of the processes then involve Python scripts the rule is To not use spaces. There's like rules for like how you format stuff. And like I should not lose my shit when somebody had a space and maybe capital letters. Like it's okay to have a space. Because there's this feeling like something is not perfect.

And as opposed to in the Python script allowing some flexibility around that you create this programmatic way that's flawless and whenever things working perfectly, it's perfect, but actually if you strive for perfection, it has the same to escape with the context switching. Because you're almost stressing about errors. Like when the process is functioning, you're, there's always this anxiety of like, I wonder if it's gonna succeed. Yeah, I wonder if it's gonna succeed. Yeah, no, no, I think some of that's just you and I probably. I mean, it's just our mindset, right? We're in, we do computer science.

Right, so chicken and egg. Yeah. And a lot of the processes in have working here are much rougher. It's like, okay, instead of letting clients just email me all the time, we have a weekly call and then we send them a breakdown of everything we committed to, right? That's a process that works. Okay. I get asked a lot of questions because I'm the JavaScript guy in the company.

Instead of doing that by email, I have office hours. Yes. This is what base camp does. All right. So you come to my office hours that cuts down a lot of back and forth. All right, we're going to, instead of emailing about this project, we'll have a Trello board and we'll do a weekly, really structure status meeting real quick. What's going on? Who needs what? Let's go.

And now everything's on there. And on our inboxes, we don't have to send this many messages. So like that rough level of granularity, that gets you most of the way there. So the parts that you can't automate and turn into a process. So how many parts like that do you think should remain in a perfect world? And for those parts where email is still useful, what do you recommend those emails look like? How should you write emails? When should you send them? Yeah, I think email is good for delivering information.

Right, so I think of it like a fax machine or something, you know, it's a really good fax machine. So if I need to send you something and you just send you a file, I need to broadcast a new policy or something, like email is a great way to do it. It's bad for collaboration. So if you're having a conversation. Like we're trying to reach a decision on something, I'm trying to learn about something, I'm trying to clarify what something, what what this is that it's more than just like a one answer type question

than I think that you shouldn't be doing an email. But see, here's the thing. Like you and I don't talk often. And so we have a kind of new interaction. It's not so sure. Yeah, you have a book coming out. So there's a process and so on. But let's say there, don't you think there's a lot of novel interactive experiences? Yeah. It's fine. So you get just for every novel experience, it's okay to have a little bit of exchange. It's fine. Like I think it's fine. If stuff comes in over the transom or it's you hear from someone you haven't heard from in a while, they call that's fine. I mean, that email at its best,

where it starts to kill us is where all of our collaboration is happening with the back and forth. So when you've moved the bulk of that out of your inbox, now you're back in that Meg Ryan movie, like you got mail, where it's like, all right, load this up and you wait for the modem, you're like, oh, we got a message. Yeah, and it's like,

Lexit me a message, this is interesting, right? You're back to the AOL days. So you're talking about the bulk of the business world where like email has replaced the actual communication. All the communication protocols are required to accomplish anything. Everything is just happening with messages. So if you now get most stuff done, repeatable collaborations with other processes

that don't require you to check these inboxes, then the inbox can serve like an inbox, which includes hearing from interesting people, or sending something, hey, I don't know if you saw this, I thought you might like it. It's great for that. There's probably a bunch of people listening to this. They're like, yeah, but I work on a team and they're all these as email. How do you start the revolution from the ground up? Yeah, we'll do asymmetric optimization first. So identify all your processes

and then change what you can change and be socially very careful about it. So don't necessarily say, okay, this is a new process we all have to do. You're just, hey, we gotta get this report ready. Here's what I think we should do. I'll get a draft until our Dropbox folder by noon on Monday, grab it. I won't touch it again until Tuesday morning. Then I'll

look at your changes. I have this office hours, always scheduled Tuesday afternoon. If there's anything that catches your attention, grab me then. But I've told the designer who's CSEED on this that by COB Tuesday, the final version will be ready for them to take and polish it, whatever. The person in the other end is like, great, I'm glad, you know, Cal is a plan. So I just, what do I need to do? I need to edit this tomorrow, whatever, right? But you've actually pulled them into a process. It means we're going to get this report together without having to just go back and forth. You just asymmetrically optimize these things.

And then you can begin the conversation. And maybe that's where my book comes in place. You just sort of slide it. Slide it across the desk. So by the book sort of slide it. Slide it across the deck. So by the book, just leave it. Get it, get it, get it, everybody on your team. Okay, so we solved the bulk of the problem with this. Is there a case we made that even for like a communication

between you and I, we should move away from email? For example, there's a guy, every single thing, I don't know if you know comedians, but there's a guy named Joey Diaz that I've had an interaction with recently. And that guy, first of all, the's a guy, every single, I don't know if you know, comedians, but there's a guy named Joey Diaz that I've had an interaction with recently. And that guy, first of all, the sweetest human, despite what his comedy sounds like, is the sweetest human being. And he's a big proponent of just pick up the phone and call. And it makes me so uncomfortable when people call me.

It's like, I don't know what to do with this thing. But it kind of gets everything done quicker, I think, if I don't move the anxiety from that. Is there a case to be made for that, or is the email could still be the most efficient way to do this? No, look, if you have to interact with someone, there's a lot of efficiency and synchrony.

Right, and this is something from the distributed system theory where you know if you go from synchronous to asynchronous networks, there's a huge amount of overhead to the asynchronous. So actually, the protocols required to solve things in asynchronous networks are significantly more complicated and fragile than synchronous protocols. So if we can just do real time, it's usually better than also from an interaction like social connection standpoint, there's a lot more information in the human voice in the

back and forth. Yeah, if you just call stuff very generational, right? Like, our generational will be comfortable talking on the phone in a way that like a younger generation isn't, but an older generation is more comfortable with, well, you just call people. Whereas we, so there's a happy medium, but most of my good friends, we just talk,

we have regular phone calls. Okay, yeah. It's not, I don't just call them, we schedule it. We schedule it, yeah. Just on text, like, yeah, you wanna talk sometimes I don't just call up. We schedule it. Yeah, just on text like, hey, you want to talk? Sometimes you Do you do you ever have a process that are on friends? Not really No, I feel like I should I feel like when you have like a lot of interesting friend possibilities

You have like an interesting problem, right? Like really interesting people you can talk to well That's that's one problem and the other one is the introversion, where I'm just afraid of people and get really stressed, like, I freak out. And so you picked a good line of work. Yeah. Yeah. Now, perhaps it's the Gogans thing. It's like facing your fears or whatever.

But it's almost like there's a, it has to do with the timetables thing and the deep work that the nice thing about the processes is it not only automates sort of automates away the context switching. It ensures you do the important things too. It's like prioritized. So the thing is with email because everything is done over email, you can be lasing the same way with social networks and do the easy things first that are not that important. So the process also enforces that you do the important things, and for me the important

things is like, okay, it sounds weird, but like social connection. No, that's one of the most important things in all of human existence. And doing it, the paradoxical thing, like I got into this for digital minimalism, the more you sacrifice on behalf of the connection, the stronger the connection feels. Sacrificing non-trivial time and attention on behalf of someone is what tells your brain that this is a serious relationship, which is why social media had this paradoxical effect of making people feel less social. Because it took the friction out of it. And so the brain just doesn't like, yeah, you've been

commenting on this person's whatever, you've been retweeting them or sending them some text. You haven't, it's not hard enough. And then the perceived strength of that social connection diminishes, where if you talk to them or go spend time with them or whatever, you're going to feel better about it. So the friction is good. I have a thing with some of my friends where at the end of each call, we take a couple minutes to schedule the next.

Then you never have to, it's like I do with haircuts or something, right? Like if I don't schedule it then, I'm never gonna get my haircut, right? And so it's like, okay, when do you wanna talk next? You know? Yeah, that's a really good idea. I just don't call friends and like every 10 years

I do something dramatic for them so that we maintain the friendship. I'd get get murder somebody that they really don't like I just careful man. Joey's good. Joey might ask you Yeah, that's why I this one my favorite Lex I need to come down to Jersey. Well, it's exactly what we're gonna do I wrote about dog of yours We're gonna go down to Jersey. This is special human. I love the comedian world. They've been shaking up.

I don't know if you listen to Joe Rogan, all those folks. They kind of are doing something interesting for MIT and academia. They're shaking up this world a little bit, like podcasting because comedians are paving the way for podcasting. And so you have like Andrew Huberman, who's a neuroscientist at Stanford,

in front of mine now. Yeah, I know. He's like into podcasting now, and you're into podcasting. Of course, you're not necessarily podcasting on computer science currently, right? But that, it feels like you could have a lot of the free spirit of the comedians

implemented by the people who are academically trained. Who actually have a niche specialty? Yeah, and then that results, I mean, who knows what the experiment looks like. Yeah. But that results me being able to talk about robotics with your ideas when he says, you know, drops of bombs every other sentence. And I, the world is, like, I've seen actually a shift within colleagues and friends within MIT where they're becoming much more accepting of that kind of thing.

It's very interesting. That's interesting. So you're seeing, because I, okay, because they're seeing how popular it is. They're like, well, you're doing it. You're doing it. I don't know how they think about it at Georgetown, for example. I don't know. It's interesting, but I think what happens is the popularity of it combined with just good conversations with people they respect. It's like, oh, wait, this is the thing. And this is more fun to listen to than a shitty Zoom lecture

about their work. Yeah. It's like, there's something here. There's something interesting. And nobody actually knows what that is, just like with like clubhouse or something, nobody's figured out like, where is this medium take? Is this a legitimate medium of education?

Yeah. Or is this just like a fun... Well, that's your innovation, I think, was we can bring on professors. Yeah. And I know Joe Rogan did some of that too, but, but, you know, but your professors in your field, like, bring on all these MIT guys. So I remember, you know, well, that's been the big challenge for me is, I don't, is I feel, I would, I would ask big, like philosophical questions of, I mean, I would ask big philosophical questions of people like yourself,

they're like really well, this is for example, you have a lot of excellent papers on, you know, that has a lot of theory in it, right? And there is some temptation to just go through papers. And I think this is possible to actually do that. I haven't done that much, but I think it's possible. It just requires a lot of preparation. And I can probably only do that with things that I'm actually in the field I'm aware of.

But there's a dance that I would love to be able to try to hit right where it's actually getting to the core of some interesting ideas as opposed to just talking about philosophy. At the same time, there's a large audience of people that just want to be inspired by disciplines where they don't necessarily know the details. But there's a lot of people that are like, I'm really curious, I've been thinking about pivoting careers into software engineering.

They would love to hear from people like you about computer science, even if it's like theory. Yeah, but just like the idea that you can have big ideas, you push them through and it's interesting, you fight for it. Well, there's some, there's what is the computer file and number file, these YouTube channels, there's channels I watch, I on like chess, exceptionally popular, where I don't, I don't understand maybe 80% of the time what the hell they're talking about, because they're talking about like why this move is better than this move, but I love the passion

and the genius of those people just over hearing it. Yeah. I don't know why that's so exciting. Or do you look at like Scott Aaron's blog at all? Yeah, settled off to my eyes. Yeah, it's like hardcore complexity theory, but it's just an enthusiasm or like Terry Towers blog. I'm a little bit of humor. Yeah. Terry Towers blog. He used to. Yeah, he was. And it would just be, I'm going all in on, you know, here's a new affine group with which you can do whatever. I mean, it's just equations. Well, in the case of Scott Aaron, he's good. He's able to turn on like the inner troll and comedian and so on. He keeps the fun, which is the best of kind.

He's a philosophical guy. He wrote the terms of the cost. Yeah. Yeah, so, you know, we're exploring these different ways of communicating science and exciting the world. Speaking of which, I gotta ask you about computer science. That's right. I do some of that. So I mean, a lot of your work is what inspired this deep thinking about part activity from all the different angles, because some of the most rigorous work is

mathematical work and a computer science, a theoretical computer science. Let me ask the Scott Ernst's question of like, is there something to you that stands out in particular that's beautiful or inspiring, or just really insightful about computer science, or maybe mathematics? I mean, I like theory, and in particular what I've always liked in theory is the notion of impossibilities.

That's kind of my specialty. So within the context of distributed algorithms, my specialty is impossibility results. The idea that you can argue nothing exists that solves this or nothing exists that can solve this faster than this. And that's, I think that's really interesting. And that goes all the way back to Turin.

His original paper, on computable numbers numbers with their connection to that it's in German, the Iceland-Dung problem, but basically the German name that Hilbert called the decision problem. This was pre-computers, but he was, you know, he's English, so it's written in English, so it's a very accessible paper. And it's, it lays to foundation for all of theoretical computer science. He just has this insight. He's like, well, if we think about like an algorithm, he figures out like all effective procedures or turn machines, or basically

algorithms, we could really describe a turn machine with a number, which we can now imagine with like computer code. You could just take a source file and just treat the binary version of the file as like a really long number, right? But it's like every program is just a finite number. It's a natural number. And then he realized like one way to think about a problem is you have, and this is like kind of the mic sips approach, but you have a sort of, it's a language. So of an infinite number of strings, some of them are in the language and some of them aren't,

but basically you can imagine a problem is represented as an infinite binary string. Where in every position like a one means that string is in the language, and as zero means it isn't. And then he applied canter from the 19th century and said, okay, the natural numbers are countable. So it's countably infinite.

And infinite binary strings, you can use a diagonalization argument to show they're uncountable. So there's just vastly more problems than there are algorithms. So basically anything you can come up with for the most part, almost certainly is not solvable by a computer.

And then he was like, let me give a particular example and he figured out the very first computer ability proof. And he said, let's just walk through with a little bit of simple logic to halting problem campus hall by an algorithm. And that kicked off the whole enterprise of some things campus hall by algorithms, some things campus hall by computers.

And we've just been doing theory on that since the, that was the 30s, you wrote that. So proving that something is impossible is sort of a more restrictive version of that, is it like proving bounds on, on the performance of different algorithms? Yes, those are, yeah, so bounds are upper bounds, right? So you say, this algorithm does at least this well and no worse than this, but you're looking at a particular algorithm. And possibility proofs say no algorithm ever Could ever solve this problem. So no algorithm could ever solve the halting problem

This problem-centric is it's it's making something different making a conclusive statement about the problem Yes, and that's somehow satisfying because it's um just philosophically interesting. Yeah It I mean, it all goes back to, you get back to Plato, it's all reducto ad absurdum. So all these arguments have to start the only way to do it, because there's an infinite number of solutions you can't go through them. You say, let's assume for the sake of contradiction

that there existed something that solves this problem. And then you turn to crencal logic until you blow up the universe. And then you go back and say, okay, original assumption that this solution exists can't be true. I just think philosophically, it's like a really exciting kind of beautiful thing. It's what I specialize in with distributed algorithms is more like a time bound and possibility results. Like no, no algorithm can solve this problem faster than this in this setting of all the infinite number of ways you might ever do it.

So you have many papers, but the one that caught my eyes smooth analysis of dynamic networks. In which you write a problem with the worst case perspective is that it often leads to extremely strong lower bounds. These strong results motivated key question is this bond robust in a sense that it captures the fundamental difficulty introduced by dynamism. mental difficulty introduced by dynamism, or is the bond fragile in the sense that the poor performance it describes depends on an exact sequence of adversarial changes. Frageal lower bounds leave open the possibility of algorithms that might still perform well in practice. That's a, in the sense of the impossible and the balance discussion presents the interesting question. I just like the idea of robust and fragile bonds, but what do you make about this kind of tension between what's probably like what bonds you can prove that are like robust and

something that's a bit more fragile. And also, by way of answering that for this particular paper, can you say what the hell are dynamic networks? What a distributed algorithm. You don't know this. Come on now. And I have no idea. And what is smooth analysis? Yeah. Well, okay. So smooth analysis, it's, so wasn't my idea. So, it's spielman and tang came up with this in the context of sequential algorithms. So just like the normal world of an algorithm that runs on a computer.

And they were looking at, there's a well-known algorithm called the Simplex algorithm, but basically you're trying to find a whole around a group of points. And there was an algorithm that worked really well in practice. But when you analyze it, you would say, you know, I can't guarantee it's going to work well in practice because you have just the right inputs. This thing could run really long, right? But in practice, it seemed to be really fast. So smooth analysis is they came in and they said, let's assume that a bad guy chooses the

inputs. It could be anything like really bad ones. And all we're going to do is, because in Simplex, they're numbers, we're going to just randomly put a little bit of noise on each of the numbers. And they said, if you put a little bit of noise on the numbers, suddenly Simplex algorithm goes really fast. Like, oh, that explains this lower bound, this idea that it could sometimes run really long was a fragile bound because it could only run a really long time if you had exactly the

worst pathological input. So then my collaborators and I brought this over to the world to distribute it algorithms. We brought them over to the general lower bounds, right? So in the world of dynamic networks, so distributed algorithms is a bunch of algorithms on different machines talking to each other, trying to solve a problem. Sometimes they're in a network, so you imagine them connected with network links. And a dynamic network, those can change. So I was talking to you, but now I can't talk to you anymore, and I'm connected to a person

over here. It's a really hard environment, mathematically speaking, and there's a lot of really strong lower bounds, which you could imagine. If the network can change all the time, and a bad guy is doing it, it's like hard to do things well. So there's an algorithm running on every single node in the network. And then you try to say something of any kind that makes any kind of definitive sense about the performance of that algorithm.

Yeah, so like I just submitted a new paper on this a couple of weeks ago. And we were looking at a very simple problem. There's some messages in the network. We want everyone to get them. If the network doesn't change, you can do this pretty well. You can pipeline them. There's some algorithms that work,

basic algorithms that work really well. If the network can change every round, there's these lower bounds that says, it takes a really long time. There's a way that like no matter what algorithm you come up with, there's a way the network can change in such a way that just really slows down your progress basically, right? So smooth analysis there says, yeah, but that seems like a really, you know, really bad luck. If your network was changing like exactly in the right way that you needed to screw your algorithm. So we said, what if we randomly just add or remove a couple edges in every round?

The adversaries trying to choose the worst possible network, we're just tweaking it a little bit. And in that case, this is a new paper. I mean, it's a blinded submission, so maybe I should. It's not whatever. We basically showed, and then Nana was a friend of yours, submitted a paper. Nana's friend of mine, yeah, whose paper should be accepted. So that even just adding like one random edge per round, you, the the, and here's a cool thing about the simplest possible solution to this problem blows away that lower bound. It does really well. So that's like a very fragile lower bound because we're like it's,

it's almost impossible to actually keep things slow. I wonder how many lower bounds you can smash open with this kind of analysis and show that they're fragile. This is my interest, yeah. Because in distributed algorithms, there's a ton of really famous strong lower bounds, but things have to go wrong, really, really wrong, for these lower bound arguments to work. And so I like this approach.

So this whole notion of fragile versus robustness, I was like, well, let's go in and just throw a little noise in there. And if it becomes solvable, then maybe that lower bound wasn't really something we should worry about. You know, that's going to embarrass. That's really uncomfortable. That's really embarrassing to a lot of people. It's, okay, this is the OCD thing with the spaces, is it feels really good when you can prove a nice bond.

And if you say that that bond is fragile, that's like, there's gonna be a sad kid that walks like with their lunch box back home, like, my lower bond doesn't matter. I don't think they care. It's all, I don't know, it feels like to me a lot of this theory is just math, much easement.

It's like whatever, this was a hard bound to prove. What do you think about that? So if you show that something is fragile, that's really important in practice, right? So do you think kind of theoretical computer science is living its own world just like mathematics and their main effort, which I think is very valuable, is to develop ideas. It's not necessarily interesting, whether it's applicable in the real world.

Yeah, we don't care about the applicability. We kind of do, but not really. And we're terrible with computers. You can't do anything useful with computers, and we don't know how to code. And we're not productive members of technological society, but I do think things percolate. Exactly.

You percolate from the world of theory and to the world of algorithm design, where we'll pull on the theory and now suddenly it's useful. And then the algorithm design gets pulled into the world of practice where they say, well, actually we can make this algorithm a lot better because in practice, really these servers do x, y, z

and now we can make this super efficient. And so I do think, I mean, I tell my, I teach theory to the PhD students at Georgetown, I show them the sort of funnel of like, okay, we're over here doing theory, but it eventually, some of this stuff will percolate down in effect at the very end, you know, a phone. But it's a long, it's a long tunnel. But the very question you're asking at the highest philosophical level is fascinating. Like if you take a system, a distributed system, or a network, and introduce a little bit of noise into it, like how many problems of that nature

are fundamentally changed by that little introduction of noise? Yeah, because it's all, especially in distributed algorithms, the model is everything. The way we work is we're incredibly precise about, here's exactly, it's mathematical, here's exactly how the network works and it's a state machine, algorithms are state machines, there's rounds and schedulers, we're super precise, we can prove lower bounds.

But yeah, often those possibility results really get at the hard edges of exactly how that model works. So we'll see if we publish the paper on this, that paper you mentioned, they kind of introduced the idea to distribute algorithms world. And I think that's got some traction and there's been some follow-up. So we've just submitted our next. I honestly, the issue with the next

is that like the result fell out so easily. And this shows the mathematical machismo problem in these fields. There's a good chance the paper won't be accepted because there wasn't enough mathematical self-legile. So that's a nice finding. So even just showing that very few, just very little bit of noise, gonna have a dramatic, make a dramatic statement about the foods that are big surprised to us.

But once we figure out how to show it, it's not too hard. And these are venues that for theoretical, yeah, for theoretical. Okay, so the fascinating tension that exists in other disciplines, like one of them is machine learning, which despite the power of machine learning and deep learning and all like the impact of it in the real world, the main conferences I'm actually learning are still resistant to application papers. Yeah. I'm not, uh, sort of, and application papers broadly defined, meaning like finding almost like you would, like Darwin did by like, uh,

going around collecting some information and saying, huh, isn't this interesting? Yeah. Uh, like those are some of the most popular huh, isn't this interesting? Yeah. Like, those are some of the most popular blogs, and yet as the paper is not really accepted. I wonder what you think about this whole world of deep learning from a perspective of theory. What do you make of this whole discipline, of the success of neural networks,

of how to do science on them? Are you excited by the possibilities of what we might discover about neural networks? Do you think it's fundamental in engineering discipline? Or is there something theoretical that we might crack open one of these days in understanding something deep about how system optimization when how systems learn? I am convinced by, is it TechMark and MIT? Yeah, TechMark and MIT? Who's? TechMark?

Yeah, TechMark, right? So his notion has always been convincing to me that the fact that some of these models are inscrutable is not fundamental to them. And that we can, we're going to get better and better. Because in the end, the reason why practicing computer scientists, often who are doing AI, or working at AI on industry aren't worried about so much existential threats, is because they see the reality is they're

multiplying matrices with numpy or something like that. And tweaking constants and hoping that the classifier fitness forgot say before the submission deadline actually gets above some, it feels like it's linear algebra and TDM, right? But anyways, I'm really convinced with his idea that once we understand better and better what's going on from a theory perspective, it's going to make it into an engineering discipline. So my mind where we're going to end up is, okay, forget these metaphors of neurons, these things are going to be put down into these mathematical kind of elegant equations, differentiable equations that just kind of work well.

And then it's going to be, when I need a little bit of AI in this thing, plumbing. Let's get a little bit of a pattern recognizer with a noise module and let's connect. I mean, you know this feels better than me. So I don't know if this is a reasonable prediction, but it's going to become less inscrutable. And then it's going to become more engineerable. and then it's going to become more engineerable

and then we're going to have AI and more things. Because we're going to have a little bit more control over how we piece together these different classification black boxes. So one of the problems, and there might be some interesting parallels that you might provide intuition on is, you know neural networks are very large

and they have a lot of, you know, we were talking about dynamic networks and distributed algorithms. One of the problems with the analysis of neural networks is you know, you have a lot of nodes and you level a lot of edges to be able to interpret and to control different things is very difficult. There's There's fields and trying to figure out, like, mathematically, how you form clean representations that, like, one node contains all the information about a particular thing and all other nodes is correlated to it. So, like, it has unique knowledge. But that ultimately boils down to trying to simplify this thing into, that goes against this very nature, which is deeply connected and dynamic and just hundreds of millions, billions

of nodes. And in a distributed sense, when you zoom out, the thing has a representation, an understanding of something, but the individual knows are just doing their little exchange ending. And it's the same thing with Stephen Wolfram, when you talk about cellular tomat, it's very difficult to do math when you have a huge collection of distributed things

each acting on their own. And it's almost like, it feels like it's almost impossible to do any kind of theoretical work in the traditional sense. It almost becomes completely like a biology, you become a biologist as opposed to a theoretician, you just study it experimentally. Yeah, so I think that's a big question, I guess, right? Yeah, so is the large size and interconnectness of the like a deep learning network, fundamental to that task,

or we just not very good at it yet because we're using the wrong metaphor. I mean, the human brain learns with much fewer examples and with much less tuning of whatever, whatever, whatever, probably that requires to get those like deep mind networks up and running. But yeah, so I don't really know, but the one thing I have observed is that there's a, the mundane nature of some of the working with these models tends to lead people to

think that, to do it, like, it could be SkyNet or it could be like a lot of pain to get, you know, the thermostat to do what we wanted to do. And there's a lot of open questions in between there. And then of course, the distributed network of humans that use these systems. So you can have the system itself, then you know, in that work. But you can also have little algorithms controlling the behavior of humans, which is what you have

a social networks. It's possible that a very, what is a toast or whatever, the opposite of humans, which is what you have a social networks. It's possible that a very, what is a toaster, whatever, the opposite of SkyNet, when taking a scale, while used by individual humans and controlling their behavior, can actually have the SkyNet effect. Yeah, so the scale there... We might have that now. We might have that now, we just don't know. Yeah, like, as it's happening. It's Twitter creating a little miniskine net. I mean, because what happens, it twirls out ramifications in the world. And is it really that much different if it's a robot with tentacles or a bunch of servers that?

Yeah. And the destructive effects could be, I mean, it could be political, but it could also be like, you know, you could probably make an interesting case that the virus, the coronavirus spread on Twitter too in the minds of people, like the fear and the misinformation in some very interesting ways mixed up.

And maybe this pandemic wasn't sufficiently dangerous to where that could have created a weird like instability, but maybe other things might create instability. Like somebody got forbid detonates a nuclear weapon, so where. And then maybe the destructive aspect of that would not as much be the military actions, but the way those news are spread on Twitter and the panic that creates. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that's a great case study, right?

Like, what happened? Not, but I'm not suggesting that, like you go, let off the nuclear bomb, I meant the coronavirus, but, okay. But yeah, I think that's a really interesting case study. I'm interested in the counterfactual of 1995. Like do the same virus in 1995. So first of all, it would have been, I get to hear whatever, the nightly news,

we'll talk about it and then there'll be my local health news, we'll talk about it. And then they'll be by local health board. We'll talk about it that meant mitigation decisions would probably necessarily be very sort of localized. Okay, our communities are trying to figure out what are we going to do? What's going to happen? Like we see this with schools, like where I grew up in New Jersey, there's very localized school districts. So even though they had sort of really bad viral numbers there, my school I grew up and has been open since the fall because it's very localized. It's like these teachers and these parents, what do we want to do? What are we comfortable with? I live in a school district right now in Montgomery County that's a billion dollar a year budget,

150,000-kid school district. It's closed because it's too, so I'm interested in that counterfactual. Yes, you have all this information moving around. And then you have the the the effects on discourse. So we were talking about earlier that the the the Neil Postman style effects of Twitter, which shifts people into a sort of a dunk culture mindset of don't give a inch to the other team. And we're used to this and was fired up by politics and the unique attributes of Twitter now throw in the coronavirus. And suddenly we see decades of public health knowledge, a lot of which was honed during the HIV epidemic, was thrown out the window because a lot of this was happening on Twitter, and suddenly, we had public health officials using a don't-give-and-inch to the other team mindset of like, well, if we say this,

that might validate something that was wrong over here, and we need to, if we say this, and maybe like that'll stop them from doing this, that's like very Twittery. In a way that in 1995, it's probably not the way public health officials would be thinking. Or now it's like, well, this is, if we said this about mass, but the other team said that about mask, we can't give an inch. So we got to be careful. And like we can't tell people it's okay after they're vaccinated because that might, we're giving them an inch on this and that's very Twitter-y in my mind, right? That is the impact of Twitter on the way we think about this course, which is a dunking culture of don't give any answer to the other team and it's all about slam dunkes where you're completely right and they're completely wrong. It's as a rhetorical strategy is incredibly simplistic,

but it's also the way that we think right now about how we do debate. It combined terribly with a election year pandemic combined terribly with election year pandemic. Yeah, election year pandemic. I wonder if we could do some smooth analysis. Let's run the simulation over a few times. The noise. Yeah, see if it can dramatically change the behavior of the system. Yeah. Okay, we talked about your love for proving that something is impossible. So there's quite a few still open problems and complexity of algorithms. So let me ask, does P equal NP? Probably not. Probably not. If P equals NP, what kind of, you know, and you'll be really surprised, somebody proves that, yeah, what would that proof look like,

and why would that even be? What would that mean? What would that proof look like and why would that even be what would that mean what would that proof look like and what possibly the universe could be equals NP is there something that's exactly you can say there it could it could be true I mean I'm not a complexity theorist but every complexity theorist I know is convinced they're not equal and are basically not working on anymore I mean there is a million dollars at stake if you can solve the proof. It's one of the millennium prizes. Okay, so here's how I think the P0 equals MP proof is gonna eventually happen.

I think it's gonna fall out and it's gonna be not super simple, but not as hard as people think because my theory about a lot of theoretical computer science based on just some results I've done. So this is a huge extrapolation is that a lot of what we're doing is just off you skating deeper mathematics. Mm-hmm.

So like this happens to me a lot, not a lot, but it's happened to me a few times in my work where we off you skate it because we say, well, there's an algorithm and has this much memory and they're connected on a network and okay, here's our setup and now we're trying to see how fast I can solve a problem. And people do bounds about it. And then the end it turns out that like we were just off you skating some underlying, you know, mathematical thing that already existed.

Right, so this has happened to me, I had this Pay Pro's quite fond of a while ago. It was looking at this problem called contention resolution where you put an unknown set of people on a share channel and they're trying to break symmetry. So it's like an ethernet, whatever. Only one person can use it at a time. You try to break symmetry.

There's all these bounds people have proven over the years about how long it takes to do this, right? And like I discovered at some point, there's this one combinatorial result from the early 1990s. All of these lower bound proofs all come from this. And in fact, it improved a lot of them and simplified a lot. You could put it all in one paper.

And it's like, are we really, and then, OK, so this new paper that I submitted a couple of weeks ago, I found you could take some of these same lower bound proofs for this contention resolution problem. You could re-prove them using Shannon source code theorem. But actually, when you're breaking contention, what you're really doing is building a code over, you know, if you have a distribution on the network sizes as a code over that source, and

if you plug in a high entropy information source and plug in from 1948, the source code theorem that says on a noiseless channel, you can't send things at a faster rate than the entropy allows, the exact same lower bounds fall back out again, right? So like this type of thing happens, there's some famous lower bounds and distributed algorithms that turned out to all be algebraic topology underneath the covers and they won the girdle prize for working on that. So my sense is what's going to happen is at some point, someone really smart, to be very exciting, is going to realize there's some sort of other representation of what's going

on with these turn machines's some sort of other representation of what's going on with these turn machines trying to sort of efficiently. It will actually fall a lot of that. And there will be an existing mathematical result that applies to something, I guess. It could be a, I, a theorem-proofers kind of thing. It could, but yeah, I mean, not a, well, yeah. I mean, there's theorem-proofers, like, what that means now, which is not fun. It's just a bunch of very carefully formulated postulates that, but I take your point.

Yeah. Yeah. So, okay. You know, on a small tangent on it, and then you're kind of implying the mathematics. It almost feels like a kind of weird evolutionary tree that ultimately leads back to some kind of ancestral, few fundamental ideas that all are just like, they're all somehow connected. In that sense, do you think math is fundamental to our universe, and we're just like slowly

trying to understand these patterns, or is it discovered? Or is it just a little game that we play? Amongst ourselves to try to fit little patterns to the world. Yeah, that's the question right that's the physicist's question I mean, I'm probably I'm in the discovered camp, but I don't do theoretical physics, so I know they have a They feel like they have a stronger claim to the answer in that question. But everything comes back to it. Everything comes back to it. I mean, all the physics come, the fact that the universe is, well, okay, it's a complicated question. So how often do you think how deeply does this result describe the fundamental reality of nature? does this result describe the fundamental reality of nature?

So the reason I hesitated, because there's something I'm I thought the seminar ended a little work on what are called biological algorithms. So there's this notion of... So physicists used mathematics to explain to the universe, right? And it was unreasonable that mathematics works so well. You know, all these differential equations, why does that explain all we need to know about thermodynamics and gravity and all these type of things? Well, there's this movement within the intersection of computer science and biology. It's kind of Wolframi in my guess, really. Yeah. That algorithms can be very explanatory, right? Like if you're trying to explain personaneously something about like an ant colony

or something like this, you're not going to, ultimately it's not gonna be explained as a equation, like a physics equation, it's gonna be explained by an algorithm. So like this algorithm run, distributedly is going to explain the behavior. So that's mathematical, but not quite mathematical But it is if you think about an algorithm like a lambda calculus, which brings you back to the world of mathematics

I'm thinking out loud here, but basically Abstract math is sort of like unreasonably effective at Explaining a lot of things and that's just what I feel like I glimps. I'm not a Not like a super well-known theoretician. I don't have really famous results. So even as a sort of mid-lean, you know, career theoretician, I keep encountering this where we think we're solving some problem about computers and algorithms and it's some much deeper underlying math. It's Shannon, but Shannon is entropy, but entropy was really, you know,

goes all the way back to whatever it was boil or all the way back to looking at the early physics. It's, to me, I think it's amazing. Yeah, but it could be the flip side of that, it could be just our brains draw so much pleasure from the deriving generalized theories and simplifying the universe that would just naturally see that kind of simplicity and everything. Yeah, so that's the whole, you know, Newton dead Einstein. Right. So you can say this must be right because it's so predictive.

Well, it's not quite predictive because Mercury wobbles a little bit, but I think we have it set and then you turn out now Einstein. And then, and then you get more like, no, not Einstein. It's actually statistical. And yeah, so that would say so. It's hard to also know where a smooth analysis fits into all that where a little bit of know it, like you can say something very clean about a system and then a little bit of noise,

like the average case is actually very different. And so, I mean, that's where the quantum mechanics comes in. It's like, why does it have to be randomness in this? Yeah, I would have to do this complex statistics. Yeah. Yeah. So to be determined, that'll be my next book. I'll be ambitious.

The fundamental core of reality, comma, and some advice for being more productive at work. Can I ask you just if it's possible to do an overview and just some brief comments of wisdom on the process of publishing a book. What's that process into? What are the different options and what's your recommendation for somebody that wants to write a book like yours, a nonfiction book that discovers something interesting about this world. So what I usually advise is follow the process as is, don't try to reinvent.

I think that happens a lot where you'll try to reinvent the way the publishing industry should work. Like, this is kind of not like in a business model ways, but just like, this is what I want to do. I want to write a thousand words a day and I want to do this and then I'm going to put on the internet and the publishing industry is very specific about how it works. And so like when I got started writing books, which was at a very young age, so you know, I sold my first book at the age of 21. The way I did that is I found the family friend that was an agent.

And I said, I'm not trying to make you be my agent. Just explain to me how this works. Not just how the world works, but give me the hard truth about how would a 21-year-old, under what conditions could a 21-year-old sell a book and what would that look like? And she just explained it to me. You know, you have to do this and have to be a subject that it made sense for you to write. And you would have to do this type of writing for the publications, the validated and blah,

blah, blah. And you have to get the agent first. And I learned a whole game plan. And then I executed. And so the rough game plan is with nonfiction, you get the agent first. And the agent's going to sell it to the publishers. So like you're never sending something directly to the publishers. And nonfiction, you're not writing the book first.

Right. You're going to get an advance from the publisher once sold. And then you're going to do the primary writing of the book. In fact, it will, in most circumstances, hurt you if you've already written. You already written. Yeah. So you're trying to, well, I guess the agent first

you saw it to the agent and the agent tells it to the publishers. Yeah, it's much easier to get an agent than a book deal. So the thought is, if you can't get an agent, then why would you? So you start with, and agent, then why would you? So you start with the, and also the way this works with a good agent is they know all the editors and they have lunch with the editors and they're always just like, okay, what projects do you have coming? What are you looking for?

Here's one of my authors. That's the way all these deals happen. It's not, you're not emailing a manuscript to a slush pile. Yeah. And so, so first of all, the agent takes a percentage and then the publishers, this is where the process comes in. They take also a cut that's probably ridiculous. So if you try to reinvent the system, you'll probably be frustrated by the percentage

that everyone takes relative to how much bureaucracy and efficiency of ridiculousness there is in the system. Your recommendation is like you're just one aunt. Stop trying to build your own aunt colony. Well, or if you create your own process for how it should work, the book's not gonna get published. So there's the separate question, the economic question, like should I create my own

like self-publish it or do something like that? But putting that aside, there's a lot of people I encounter that wanna publish a book with a main publisher, but they invent their own rules for how that works. So then the alternative of those, self-publishing in the, this is the downside, there's a lot of downsides. It's like, it's almost like publishing an opinion piece in the New York Times versus writing on blog.

There's no reason why writing a blog post on medium can't get way more attention and legitimacy and long lasting prestige than in New York Times article, but nevertheless, for most people, writing in a prestigious newspaper, quote unquote, prestigious is just easier. And, well, and depends on your goal. So, you know, like, I push you towards a big publisher because I think your goal is huge ideas you want impact.

You're gonna have more impact. Even though actually, so there's different ways to measure impact. A world of ideas. In the world of ideas. And also, yeah, in the world of ideas, it's kind of like the clubhouse thing now, even if the audience is not large, that people in the audience are very interesting. It's like, the conversation feels like there has long lasting impact among the people

who in different, in disparate industries that are also then starting their own conversations and all that kind of stuff. Because you have other, so like self publishing a book, the goals that would solve, you have much better ways of getting to those goals might be part of it, right? So if there's the financial aspect of well, you have much better ways of getting to those goals, might be part of it, right? So if there's the financial aspect of well, you get to keep more of it. I mean, the podcast is probably going to crush

what the book's going to do anyways, right? Yeah. If it's I want to get directly to certain audiences or crowds, it might be harder through traditional publisher. There's better ways to talk to those crowds. It could be on clubhouse with all these new technologies. Self-published books not going to be the most effective way to find a way to a new crowd. But if the idea is like, I want to have a leave a dent in the world of ideas, then they have a vulnerable old publisher, you know, put out your book in a nice hard cover and do the things they do. That goes a long way.

And they do do a lot. I mean, it's very difficult actually. There's so much involved in putting together a book. They get books into bookstores and all that kind along way. And they do do a lot. I mean, it's very difficult actually. There's so much involved in putting together a book. They get books into bookstores and all that kind of stuff. All this. And from an efficiency standpoint, I mean, just a time involved in trying to do this yourself is, they know process.

Like you said, they have a process. They've got a process. I mean, I know like Jocco did this recently. He started his own in print and I have a couple of other, but it's a huge overhead. I mean, if you've like, if you run a business and you, so like, Jaco's a good case study, right? So he got, you know, fed up with Simon and Schuster, uh, dragging their feet and said,

I'm going to start my own imprint in. If you're not going to publish my kids book. Um, but he, what does he do? He runs businesses, right? Yeah. So I think in his world, like, I already run, I'm a, I'm a partner in whatever an origin and I have this and that. And so it's like, yeah, we can run businesses.

That's what we know how to do. That's what I do. I run businesses. I have people, but for like you or I, we don't run businesses. It'd be terrible. Yeah. Well, especially these kinds of businesses, right?

So I do want to launch a business with a very different technology business. It's very different. Very different. Very different. Yeah. I mean, just as like, okay, any copy editors and graph book binders, and I need to contract with the printer,

but all the printer doesn't have slots. And so now I have to try to, I mean, it's, I get so, this is, I need to shut this off in my room. I get so frustrated when the system could clearly be improved. It's the thing that you're mentioning. Yeah. It's like, this is so inefficient. Every time I go to the DMV or something like that, you think like, ah, this could be done so much better. But you know, and the same thing is the worry with an editor, which I guess would come from the publisher, the who would, who would, how much supervision on your book did you receive like, hey, do you think this is too long or do you think the title, like title, how much choice do you have in the title, in the cover, in the presentation,

and the branding and all that kind of stuff? Yeah, I mean, all of it depends, right? So when it comes on the relationship with the editor on the writing, it depends on the editor and it depends on you. It's like, at this point, I'm on my seventh book and I write for a lot of major publications. And at this point, I have what I feel like is a voice that I'm in a level of craft that I'm very comfortable with, right? So my editor is not going to be, she kind of is going to trust me.

And it's going to be more big picture. Like I'm losing the thread here or this seems like it could be longer. Whereas the first book I wrote when I was 21, I had notes such as, you start a lot of sentences with so, you don't use any contractions, because I've been doing scientific writing, we can use contractions. You should probably use contractions.

It really was way more, I had to go back and realize the whole thing. But ultimately the recommendation, I mean, we talked offline, sort of I was thinking loosely, not really sure, but I was thinking writing a book and there's a kind of desire to go self-publishing not for financial reasons and the money can be good by the way, right? I mean It's very it's very power law type just distributed, right? So so the money on a hard cover is somewhere between one or two dollars a book So the thing is I personally don't, but do you give up 15% of the agent? So I personally don't

care about money as I've mentioned before, but I for some reason really don't like spending money on things that are not worth it. Like, I don't care if I get money, I just don't like spending money on like feeding a system that's inefficient. It's like I'm contributing to the problem. That's my biggest problem. So you think that you're worried about the inefficiencies of the property? Yeah, the fact that it's over has a number of people involved or the overhead, the emails again, the fact that they have this way of speaking, which I'm allergic to, many people like that's very marketing speak. like you could tell they've been having

Zoom meetings all day. It's like as opposed to a sort of creative collaborators that are like also a little bit crazy. And I suppose some of that is finding the right people. I find the right people. That's what I would say. I say there's definitely, and maybe it's just good fortune. Good fortune in terms of like my agents and editors I've worked with, there's really good people who they see the vision or smart or incredibly literally.

Yeah, and like obviously. Yeah, I had a great editor when I was first moving into the hardcover books, for example. It was my first, you know, big book advance and my first sort of big deal. And he was like a senior editor and it was very useful. We had a lot of long talks, right? I was, this was my fourth book, so I could ignore you as my first big hardcover idea book. We had a lot of talks like even before I started writing it. Let's talk about books and his philosophy. He had been in the business for a long time. It was the head of the imprint. It was useful.

Yeah, but I mean, the other first thing is how long the whole thing takes. Right. It's a long time. Yeah, I suppose that's, he just had to accept that. Well, I handed in this manuscript for the book to comes out now. Like, when I handed it in, I mean, over the summer, like during the pandemic. So it's not, it's not terrible, right? And we were editing during the pandemic and I finished it in over the summer, like during the pandemic. So it's not terrible, right? And we were editing during the pandemic and I finished it in the spring.

We've talked most of today, except for a little bit computer science, most of today about a productive life. How does love friendship and family fit into that? Is there, do you find that there is a tension? Is it possible for relationships to energize the whole process to benefit? Or is it ultimately a trade-off, but because life is short and, uh, ultimately, we see happiness, not productivity, that we have to accept that tension. Yeah. I mean, I think relationships is the, that's the whole deal.

Like I thought about this the other day, I don't think context was I was thinking about if I was going to give like an advice speech, like a commencement address or like to give an advice to young people. And like the big question I have for young people is if they haven't already bad things are going to happen that you don't control. So what's the plan? Right? Like let's start, let's start figuring that out now because it's not all going to, you know, some people get

off better than others, but eventually stuff happens, right? You get sick, something falls apart, the economy craters, the someone, you know, dies. All sorts of bad stuff is going to happen. How are we going to do this? How do we live life and life is hard? And in ways that is unfair and unpredictable, the relationships, that's the buffer for all of that. Because we're wired for it. I went down this rabbit hole with digital minimalism.

I went down this huge rabbit hole about the human brain and sociality. It's all were wired. It's like all of our brain is for this. Like everything, all of our mechanisms, everything is made to service social connections, because it's what kept you alive. You know, I mean, you had the, your tribal connections is how you didn't starve during a famine,

people to share food, et cetera. And so you can't neglect that. And it's like everything. And people feel it, right? Like there's no, our social networks are hooked up to the pain center. It's why it feels so terrible when you miss someone or like someone dies or something, right?

That's like how seriously we take it. There's a pretty accepted theory that the default mode network, like a lot of what the default mode network is doing. So the sort of the default state our brain goes into when we're not doing something in particular, is practicing sociality, it's practicing interactions,

because it's so crucial to what we do. It's like at the core of human thriving. So I've more recently, the way I think about it is relationships first. Okay, given that foundation of putting, and I don't think we put nearly enough time into it, I worry that social media is reducing relationships, strong relationships, strong relationships where you're sacrificing non-trivial time and attention and resources, whatever, on behalf

of other people. That's the net that is going to allow you to get through anything. Then, all right, now what do we want to do with the surplus to remain? It's maybe I want to build some fire, build some tools. So put relationships first. I like the worst case analysis from the computer science perspective. Put relationships first. Yeah, because everything else is just assuming average case.

Assuming things kind of keep going as they were going. And you're neglecting the fundamental human drive. Like we have this, we talked about the board of instinct. We want to build things. We want toom instinct. We want to build things. We want to have impact. We want to do productivity. That's not nearly as clear cut of a drive of we need people. But if we look at the real worst case analysis here, is one day, you're pretty young now,

but that's not going to last very long. You're going to die one day. Is that something you think about? Little bit. Are you afraid of death? Well, I'm up the mindset of, let's make that a productivity hack. I'm in the mindset of, um, we need to confront that soon. Yeah. So let's do it. We can now so that when we really confront and think about it,

we're more likely to feel better about it. So in other words, like, let's, let's focus now on living and doing things in such a way that we're more likely to feel better about it. So in other words, let's focus now on living and doing things in such a way that we're proud of so that when it really comes time to confront that, we're more likely to say, okay, I feel kind of good about the situation. So when you're laying in your deathbed or looking back, what would make you think like,

oh, I did a, I did okay, I'm proud of that. I optimized the hell out of that. That's a good, I mean, it's a good question that the, the go backwards on. I mean, this, this is like David Brooks's eulogy virtues versus resume virtues. Right. So his argument is that, and that's another interesting DC area person. I keep thinking of interesting DC area people. All right. David Brooks is. Yeah. His argument, he thinks eulogy virtues is, so what we eulogize is different than what we promote on the resume. That's his whole thing now, right? His second mountain, the road to character, both these books, or yes, this whole premise of there's like this professional phase and there's a phase of giving of yourself and sacrificing on behalf of other people.

I don't know. Maybe it's all mixed together, right? You wanna, I think living by a code is important, right? I mean, this is something that's not emphasized enough. I always think of advice that my undergrad should be given, that they're not given, especially at a place like Georgetown that has this deep history of trying to promote human flour or steam because of the Jezeway connection. There's such resiliency and pride

that comes out of living well, even when it's hard, like living according to a code, living a cord to which, you know, I think religion used to structure this for people. But in its absence, you need some sort of replacement. But this, even when things where it soldiers get this a lot, right, it experiences a lot. Even when things were tough, I was able to persist in living this way that I knew was right, even though it wasn't the easiest thing Even when things were at soldiers get this a lot, right? The experience is a lot. Even when things were tough, I was able to persist in living this way that I knew was right, even though it wasn't the easiest thing to do in the moment. Like fewer things gave humans more resilience.

He's like, having done that, your relationships were strong, right? Many people come into your funeral as a standard. Like a lot of people are going to come to your funeral. Like, I mean, you matter to a lot of people. Yeah. And then maybe having done to the extent of whatever capabilities you are happened to be granted, you know, and they're different for different people and some people can sprint real fast and some people can do math problems,

try to actually do something of impact. I'll just promise to give gift cards to anybody shows up to the funeral. You're gonna hack it. I'm gonna hack even the funeral. There's gonna be a lottery wheel you spend when you come in and someone goes away with $10,000. The problem is with all the living by principles, living a principle life, focusing on relationships, and thinking of this life as a perfect thing, forgets the notion that none of it makes any sense. You know makes any sense right like the

Like it it kind of implies that this is like a video game and you want to get a high score As opposed to none of this even makes sense like why would he like what that? Like you like what does it even mean to die? It's gonna be over. It's like everything I do, all of these productivity hacks, all this life, all these efforts, all this creative efforts, kind of a sum is gonna go on forever. There's a kind of sense of immortality, and I don't even know how to intellectually make sense that it ends.

Of course, gotta ask you in that context, what do you think is the meaning of it all, especially for computer scientists? I mean, there's gotta be some mathematical. Yeah, 27 or what's the, what's the duckling pattern? Yeah, or 20, 22, okay. 27 is a better number.

I should read more sci-fi. I year on to something with a 27. I don't wanna give away too much, but just trust me, 27 is visible. So, I mean, I don't know, obviously, right? I mean, I'm a hoping wood. Yeah, I don me 27. It's visible. Yeah. So, I mean, I don't know, obviously, right? I mean, I'm hoping it would. Yeah. I don't know.

But going back to what you're saying about the sort of the existentialist or the sort of the more nihilist style approach, the one thing that there is are intimations, right? So that there's these intimations that human have of somehow this feels right and this feels wrong, this feels right and this feels wrong, this feels good, this feels like I'm doing, I'm aligned with something, you know, when I'm acting with courage to save whatever, right? It's not these intimations are a grounding against arbitraryness. Like one of the ideas I'm really interested in is that when you look at religion, right?

So I'm interested in world religions for my grandfather was like a theologian that's studying and wrote all these books. And I'm very interested in this type of stuff. And there's this great book that's not specific to a particular religion, but it's current Armstrong wrote this great book called The Case for God. She's very interesting. She was a Catholic nun who sort of left that religion.

But one of the smartest thinkers in terms of like accessible theological thinking that's not tied to any particular religion. Her whole argument is that the way to understand religion, you first of all have to go way back pre-enlightenment where all this was formed. We got messed up thinking about religion, post-enlightenment, right? And these were operating systems for making sense of intimations. The one thing we had were these different intimations of this feel like awe and mystical experience and this feels some there's something you feel when you act in a certain way and don't act in this other way and it was like the scientists who were trying to study and understand the model of the atom by

just looking at experiments and trying to understand what's going on They're like the great religions of the world were basically figuring out How do we make sense of these intimations and live in alignment with them and build a life of meaning around that? What were the tools they were using they were using rich will they were using belief they were using action But all of it was like an OS it was like a liturgical model of the atom that That's hard-coded in. So it did through the evolutionary process some of the things that you had.

I mean, they wanted to have called it that back then, or, yeah, I mean, whether they said they didn't have that as pre-enlightenment, they just said this is here, and the directive is to try to live an alignment with that. Well, then I want to ask who wrote the original code. Yeah, so a question. Yeah, so Armstrong lays out this good argument.

Where it gets really interesting is that she emphasizes that all of this was considered an effortable. The whole notion, and this is rich and Jewish tradition, in particular, and also an Islamic tradition, we can't comprehend and understand what's going on here. The best we can do to approximate understanding and living alignment is we like act as if this is true Do these rituals have these actions or whatever post enlightenment a lot of that got Once we've learned about enlightenment We grew these suspicions around religion that are very much of the modern era, right?

so like the the Karen Armstrong like a Sam Harris's critique or religion makes no sense Right the critiques based on well This is you're making the ascent to propositions that you think are true for which you do not have evidence that they are true. So that's an enlightenment thing, right? This is not the context, and the religion is the Rutherford model of the atom. It's not actually maybe what is underneath happening, but this model explains why your chemical equations work. And so this is like the way religion was.

There's a god, we'll call it this, this is how it works. We do this ritual. We act in this way. It aligns with it just like the model of the atom predicted why, you know, NA and CL is going to become salt. This predicts that you're going to feel and live in alignment. Right. It's like this beautiful sophisticated theory, which actually matches how a lot of great theologians have, you know, thought about it. But then when you come forward in time, yeah, maybe it's evolution. I mean, I, this is like what Peterson hints at, right? Like he's basically, he's not, he doesn't like to get super pinned down on this, but it kind of seems where he's almost searching for the words. He focuses more like Jung and other people, but I mean, I know he's

very Jungian, but that same type of analysis, I think, roughly speaking. Armstrong is sort of a, it's kind of like a Peter Sony analysis, but she's looking more at the deep history of religion. But yeah, he throws in an evolutionary. Yeah. And I wonder what Comet finds. I wonder what the new home is if religion dissipates, what the new home for these kinds of natural inclinations are. Yeah. And if it's evolution, I mean, this is Francis Collins's book also is like well That's a religious that could be a very religious notion. I don't I think this stuff is interesting I'm not a very religious person, but I'm

I'm thinking it's not a bad idea. I mean maybe maybe what replaces honestly like maybe what replaces religion is a return to Religion, but in this sort of more sophisticated. I mean, if you went back, yeah, I mean, it's the issue with like a lot of the recent critiques, I think, is it's a, it's a strongman critique in a complicated way, right? Because the whole way, the way this works, I mean, the theologians, if you're reading Paul Tillic, if you're readingeschel, if you're reading these people, they're thinking very sophisticatedly about religion in terms of this. It's an effable and we're just these things and it's deep, it connects us to these things in a way that puts life in the line mail. We can't really explain what's going on because our brains can't handle it, right? For the average person, though, this notion of live as if is kind of how religions work. Is live as if this is true.

It's like an OS for getting an alignment with because through cultural evolution, like you behave in this way, do these which a live as if this is true gives you the goal you're looking for. But that's a complicated thing, live as if this is true because if you, especially if you're not a theologian to say, yeah, this is not true in an enlightenment sense, but I'm living as if it kind of takes the heat out of it. But of course, it's what people are doing because highly religious people still do bad things where if you really were, you know, there's absolutely a hell and I'm definitely going

to go to it if I do this bad thing. You would never have, you know, no one would ever murder anyone if they were even jolical Christian, right? So it's like, what, this is kind of a tangent that I'm, I'm on shaky ground here, but it's something I've been interested often on a lot. Well, it's, it's fast, I mean, I think we're in some sense searching for, because it is, it does make for a good operating

system. We're searching for a good, live as if X is true, and we're searching for a new X. Yeah. And maybe artificial intelligence will be the very, the new gods that were so desperately looking for. Or it'll just spit out 42. I thought it was 27. Yeah, this is, as you know, I've been a huge fan.

So our huge number of people that I've spoken with, so they can tell me I absolutely have to talk to you. This is a huge honor. This was really fun. Thanks for wasting all this time with me. Yeah, no, likewise, man. I've been a long time fan. So this was a great lot of fun.

Yeah, thanks, man. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Cal Newport. And thank you to our sponsors, ExpressVPN, Linode Linux Virtual Machines, Sunbasket Meal Delivery Service, and Simply Save Home Security. Click the sponsor links to get a discount and to support this podcast. And now let me leave you some words from Cal himself. Clarity about what matters provides clarity about what does not.

Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time. you