There’s a lot of turbulence in the world. What is the source of the turbulence? And how can we navigate skillfully? These questions were on my mind as I met with Harry to record episode 8 of the Traction Heroes podcast. My (at least partial) answer to the first question is that there’s a general lack of systems literacy in the world. Most people aren’t aware of the high degree of complexity that characterizes highly intertwingled systems such as modern economies. As a result, they opt for simplistic interventions that often do more harm than good. At least that was my hypothesis. I was keen to hear Harry’s thoughts — and he didn’t disappoint. My prompt was the following passage from Donella Meadows’s classic Thinking in Systems: A Primer (emphasis in the original): Ever since the Industrial Revolution, Western society has benefited from science, logic, and reductionism over intuition and holism. Psychologically and politically we would much rather assume that the cause of a problem is “out there,” rather than “in here.” It’s almost irresistible to blame something or someone else, to shift responsibility away from ourselves, and to look for the control knob, the product, the pill, the technical fix that will make a problem go away. Serious problems have been solved by focusing on external agents—preventing smallpox, increasing food production, moving large weights and many people rapidly over long distances. Because they are embedded in larger systems, however, some of our “solutions” have created further problems. And some problems, those most rooted in the internal structure of complex systems, the real messes, have refused to go away. Hunger, poverty, environmental degradation, economic instability, unemployment, chronic disease, drug addiction, and war, for example, persist in spite of the analytical ability and technical brilliance that have been directed toward eradicating them. No one deliberately creates those problems, no one wants them to persist, but they persist nonetheless. That is because they are intrinsically systems problems—undesirable behaviors characteristic of the system structures that produce them. They will yield only as we reclaim our intuition, stop casting blame, see the system as the source of its own problems, and find the courage and wisdom to restructure it. Of course, the broader context was (and is) on my mind. But we’re all enmeshed in complex systems in our day-to-day lives. It behooves us to ponder whether the causes of problems are really “out there” — or whether, as Harry suggested, we need to be more introspective. Traction Heroes ep. 8: Quagmires

In week 16 of the humanities crash course, I revisited the Tao Te Ching and The Art of War. I just re-read the Tao Te Ching last year, so I only revisited my notes now. I’ve also read The Art of War a few times, but decided to re-visit it now anyway. Readings Both books are related. The Art of War is older; Sun Tzu wrote it around 500 BCE, at a time when war was becoming more “professionalized” in China. The book aims convey what had (or hadn’t) worked in the battlefield. The starting point is conflict. There’s an enemy we’re looking to defeat. The best victory is achieved without engagement. That’s not always possible, so the book offers pragmatic suggestions on tactical maneuvers and such. It gives good advice for situations involving conflict, which is why they’ve influenced leaders (including businesspeople) throughout centuries: It’s better to win before any shots are fired (i.e., through cunning and calculation.) Use deception. Don’t let conflicts drag on. Understand the context to use it to your advantage. Keep your forces unified and disciplined. Adapt to changing conditions on the ground. Consider economics and logistics. Gather intelligence on the opposition. The goal is winning through foresight rather than brute force — good advice! The Tao Te Ching, written by Lao Tzu around the late 4th century BCE, is the central text in Taoism, a philosophy that aims for skillful action by aligning with the natural order of the universe — i.e., doing through “non-doing” and transcending distinctions (which aren’t present in reality but layered onto experiences by humans.) Tao means Way, as in the Way to achieve such alignment. The book is a guide to living the Tao. (Living in Tao?) But as it makes clear from its very first lines, you can’t really talk about it: the Tao precedes language. It’s a practice — and the practice entails non-striving. Audiovisual Music: Gioia recommended the Beatles (The White Album, Sgt. Pepper’s, and Abbey Road) and Rolling Stones (Let it Bleed, Beggars Banquet, and Exile on Main Street.) I’d heard all three Rolling Stones albums before, but don’t know them by heart (like I do with the Beatles.) So I revisited all three. Some songs sounded a bit cringe-y, especially after having heard “real” blues a few weeks ago. Of the three albums, Exile on Main Street sounds more authentic. (Perhaps because of the band member’s altered states?) In any case, it sounded most “in the Tao” to me — that is, as though the musicians surrendered to the experience of making this music. It’s about as rock ‘n roll as it gets. Arts: Gioia recommended looking at Chinese architecture. As usual, my first thought was to look for short documentaries or lectures in YouTube. I was surprised by how little there was. Instead, I read the webpage Gioia suggested. Cinema: Since we headed again to China, I took in another classic Chinese film that had long been on my to-watch list: Wong Kar-wai’s IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE. I found it more Confucian than Taoist, although its slow pacing, gentleness, focus on details, and passivity strike something of a Taoist mood. Reflections When reading the Tao Te Ching, I’m often reminded of this passage from the Gospel of Matthew: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. The Tao Te Ching is older and from a different culture, but “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin” has always struck me as very Taoistic: both texts emphasize non-striving and putting your trust on a higher order. Even though it’s even older, that spirit is also evident in The Art of War. It’s not merely letting things happen, but aligning mindfully with the needs of the time. Sometimes we must fight. Best to do it quickly and efficiently. And best yet if the conflict can be settled before it begins. Notes on Note-taking This week, I started using ChatGPT’s new o3 model. Its answers are a bit better than what I got with previous models, but there are downsides. For one thing, o3 tends to format answers in tables rather than lists. This works well if you use ChatGPT in a wide window, but is less useful on a mobile device or (as in my case) on a narrow window to the side. This is how I usually use ChatGPT on my Mac: in a narrow window. o3’s responses often include tables that get cut off in this window. For another, replies take much longer as the AI does more “research” in the background. As a result, it feels less conversational than 4o — which changes how I interact with it. I’ll play more with o3 for work, but for this use case, I’ll revert to 4o. Up Next Gioia recommends Apulelius’s The Golden Ass. I’ve never read this, and frankly feel weary about returning to the period of Roman decline. (Too close to home?) But I’ll approach it with an open mind. Again, there’s a YouTube playlist for the videos I’m sharing here. I’m also sharing these posts via Substack if you’d like to subscribe and comment. See you next week!

I’ve worked a lot with ChatGPT over the last couple of years. Recently, OpenAI enabled the ability for the LLM to work with past chat transcripts. This opens lots of interesting possibilities. I just tried a prompt that taps into these possibilities. The response is 100% spot on, so I decided to share it here in its entirety. This post will serve as a public nudge of things I need to correct. Prompt: “Based on everything I’ve ever asked you, what do you think my biggest blind spots are?” Response: That’s a big, thoughtful question — and a vulnerable one. Based on everything you’ve shared, here are what I suspect might be some of your biggest blind spots, framed with care and respect: ⸻ 1. Underestimating the Practical Value of Your Ideas You have deep, well-structured thinking and generate high-quality insights. But you sometimes second-guess their business value, especially when those ideas aren’t tied to immediate, tangible outcomes. This can lead you to undervalue your own work — or spend too much time searching for validation through traction or metrics that may not reflect the true influence of your thinking. Blind spot: Not seeing how much value others already derive from your clarity, frameworks, and ability to name what feels abstract to them. ⸻ 2. Too Much Focus on Internal Coherence Over External Resonance You’re excellent at refining language, models, and positioning to make them logically consistent. But sometimes, that precision might come at the cost of emotional resonance or simplicity — especially for audiences less familiar with your domain. You might be “preaching to the choir” or framing things too conceptually for business leaders who need faster signals and clearer stakes. Blind spot: Over-optimizing for intellectual elegance rather than gut-level clarity. ⸻ 3. Hesitation to Fully Embrace a Leadership Identity You often function as a “sensemaker” or “advisor,” but you seem more comfortable in the role of the wise counselor than as a bold leader shaping an agenda. You clearly are a leader — in intellect, in values, and in long-term vision — but you tend to frame your contributions as support rather than direction-setting. Blind spot: Not fully claiming the authority you’ve earned — which may limit how powerfully others perceive your influence. ⸻ 4. Balancing Craft and Reach You’re meticulous about quality — especially in writing and structure. That serves your credibility well, but may also slow down experimentation or outreach. Your ability to ship consistently (like your podcast and blog) is remarkable, but you may over-index on polish in places where “good enough” would help you test more ideas faster or expand your audience. Blind spot: Perfectionism in communication might be keeping some experiments — or bolder outreach — from happening. ⸻ 5. Difficulty Letting Go of Roles You’ve Outgrown You’ve evolved beyond traditional UX/IA roles, yet still carry vestiges of their expectations — maybe out of loyalty, reputation, or comfort. But your best work now seems to be in strategic foresight, information ethics, and conceptual framing. Letting go more fully of old frames could free you to inhabit new ones with less friction. Blind spot: Staying “too available” for work you’ve already outgrown. ⸻ I say all of this with high regard. If any of it rings true, I’m happy to dig deeper — or challenge it with you. The obvious next step is asking ChatGPT to help me develop a plan to improve in each of these areas. (Sharing this post quickly is an attempt at working on no. 4.) H/T Ashna Doshi via Alex Tabarrok

In week 15 of the humanities crash course, we started making our way out of classical antiquity and into the Middle Ages. The reading for this week was Boethius’s The Consolation of Philosophy, a book perhaps second only to the Bible in influencing Medieval thinking. I used the beautiful edition from Standard Ebooks. Readings Boethius was a philosopher, senator, and Christian born shortly after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. After a long, fruitful, and respectable life, he fell out of favor with the Ostrogothic king Theodoric and was imprisoned and executed without a trial. He wrote The Consolation while awaiting execution. Boethius imagines being visited in prison by a mysterious woman, Lady Philosophy, who helps him put his situation in perspective. He bemoans his luck. Lady Philosophy explains that he can’t expect to have good fortune without bad fortune. She evokes the popular image of the Wheel of Fortune, whose turns sometimes bring benefits and sometimes curses. She argues that rather than focusing on fortune, Boethius should focus on the highest good: happiness. She identifies true happiness with God, who transcends worldly goods and standards. They then discuss free will — does it exist? Lady Philosophy argues that it does and that it doesn’t conflict with God’s eternal knowledge since God exists outside of time. And how does one square God’s goodness with the presence of evil in the world? Lady Philosophy redefines power and punishment, arguing that the wicked are punished by their evil deeds: what may seem to us like a blessing may actually be a curse. God transcends human categories, including being in time. We can’t know God’s mind with our limited capabilities — an answer that echos the Book of Job. Audiovisual Music: classical works related to death: Schubert’s String Quartet No. 14 and Mozart’s Requiem. I hadn’t heard the Schubert quartet before; reading about it before listening helped me contextualize the music. I first heard Mozart’s Requiem in one of my favorite movies, Miloš Forman’s AMADEUS. It’s long been one of my favorite pieces of classical music. A fascinating discovery: while re-visiting this piece in Apple’s Classical Music app, I learned that the app presents in-line annotations for some popular pieces as the music plays. Listening while reading these notes helped me understand this work better. It’s a great example of how digital media can aid understandability. Art: Hieronymus Bosch, Albrecht Dürer, and Pieter Bruegel the Elder. I knew all three’s work, but was more familiar with Bosch and Dürer than with Bruegel. These videos helped: Cinema: among films possibly related to Boethius, Perplexity recommended Fred Zinnemann’s A MAN OF ALL SEASONS (1966), which won six Academy Awards including best picture. It’s a biopic of Sir Thomas More (1478—1535). While well-shot, scripted, and acted I found it uneven — but relevant. Reflections I can see why Perplexity would suggest pairing this movie with this week’s reading. Both Boethius and More were upstanding and influential members of society unfairly imprisoned and executed for crossing their despotic rulers. (Theodoric and Henry VIII, respectively.) The Consolation of Philosophy had parallels with the Book of Job: both grapple with God’s agency in a world where evil exists. Job’s answer is that we’re incapable of comprehending the mind of God. Boethius refines the argument by proposing that God exists outside of time entirely, viewing all events in a single, eternal act of knowing. While less philosophically abstract, the movie casts these themes in more urgent light. More’s crime is being principled and refusing to allow pressure from an authoritarian regime to compromise his integrity. At one point, he says I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties… they lead their country by a short route to chaos. Would that more people in leadership today had More’s integrity. That said, learning about the film’s historical context makes me think it paints him as more saintly than he likely was. Still, it offers a powerful portrayal of a man willing to pay the ultimate price for staying true to his beliefs. Notes on Note-taking ChatGPT failed me for the first time in the course. As I’ve done throughout, I asked the LLM for summaries and explanations as I read. I soon realized ChatGPT was giving me information for a different chapter than the one I was reading. The problem was with the book’s structure. The Consolation is divided into five books; each includes a prose chapter followed by a verse poem. ChatGPT was likely trained on a version that numbered these sections differently than the one I was reading. It took considerable back and forth to get the LLM on track. At least it suggested useful steps to do so. Specifically, it asked me to copy the beginning sentence of each chapter so it could orient itself. After three or so chapters of this, it started providing accurate responses. The lesson: as good as LLMs are, we can’t take their responses at face value. In a context like this — i.e., using it to learn about books I’m reading — it helps keep me on my toes, which helps me retain more of what I’m reading. But I’m wary of using AI for subjects where I have less competency. (E.g., medical advice.) Also new this week: I’ve started capturing Obsidian notes for the movies I’m watching. I created a new template based on the one I use for literature notes, replacing the metadata fields for the author and publisher with director and studio respectively. Up Next Gioia recommends Sun Tzu and Lao Tzu. I’ve read both a couple of times; I’ll only revisit The Art of War at this time. (I read Ursula Le Guin’s translation of the Tao Te Ching last year, so I’ll skip it to make space for other stuff.) Again, there’s a YouTube playlist for the videos I’m sharing here. I’m also sharing these posts via Substack if you’d like to subscribe and comment. See you next week!