Clown School Weekend 5.1: Toddler Logic

In which Our Hero discovers a new kind of intelligence.

Yesterday I saw a clown show. The second-year students performed scenes they had been rehearsing, and one moment in particular brought the house down.

Two clowns were locked in a strange duel of one-upmanship using nothing but bananas. The first clown sat down for dinner. The second pulled out a banana. The first summoned a waiter to bring him two bananas on a silver platter. The second peeled his banana with quiet superiority. The first snapped his fingers again and had the waiter grind fresh pepper over his bananas like they were a Michelin dessert.

And then came the pièce de résistance.

The second clown peeled a banana, attached a vacuum hose, and sucked the fruit straight into the machine. He then opened the vacuum’s little plastic compartment—the one where attachments live—and inside was a perfect, ready-to-eat banana. The crowd exploded. It was ridiculous. It was ingenious.

And I sat there thinking:

How can something be this dumb and this smart at the same time?

A friend of mine likes to say, “Clowning logic is toddler logic.”

I’ve mused on this for weeks. Yesterday, it finally clicked. It’s a theory. A remarkably precise one.

It explains why the banana gag was both silly and clever. It wasn’t adult intelligence at work. It was toddler intelligence.

1. Logic That Doesn’t Work (But Feels True)

In clown logic—just like toddler logic—objects don’t always behave according to physics or reason. But they do always have a logic.

A banana is shaped like a gun → so it can be a gun.

A banana is shaped like a phone → so it can ring.

An unpeeled banana enters a vacuum hose → the vacuum outputs peeled bananas.

The logic doesn’t hold, and yet it feels inevitable.

The clown isn’t being stupid. He’s using a different rule set.

2. Infinite Positivity and Grit

Toddlers fail to do the same task twenty times with unwavering optimism. They pick the block up wrong, drop it, pick it up again, grin, try again. They don’t even know someone might be embarrassed or self-conscious.

Clowns do this too. Failure is not a setback; it’s an ingredient. The clown delights in trying again and again. It’s part of the charm. The audience roots for them because they never sour, never collapse, never scold themselves.

A clown can fail joyfully, a kind of emotional intelligence most adults have misplaced. (Is this why we love to watch someone embrace the flop? Perhaps it’s just failing joyfully.)

3. Lack of Control; all is Fate and Luck

A clown sits at home. Someone rings his doorbell. The clown opens the door. He gets pied in the face. The door closes. The clown returns to his chair.

Three seconds later: ding-dong!

The clown opens the doorbell again, just as excited as before.

Clowns operate in this same looping causality. No matter their behavior, they’re going to get pied in the face.

A friend’s baby hates bath time. He will wail and scream, sometimes strategize and connive. But whatever happens, he always ends up in the bath.

4. Repetition With Heightening

Toddlers adore repetition. Say “boo” ten times, and the tenth might get the biggest laugh. Their neurons seem to knit new connections in real time.

Clowns use this too. A repeated joke—with slight heightening each time—lets the audience see the clown’s mind working. Each repetition says: “Look, I’ve learned something!” At some point it might stop being funny. Why knows why? But bring it back up later in an unexpected way? Hilarious.

The game grows because the player grows.

5. Invented Rules That Aren’t True

Toddlers create miniature physics for their world:

“Only mommy can open drawers” (perhaps because mommy said this one time)

“If I hop, you must clap.”

“Dogs are male, and cats are female.”

Clowns do the same. Everything cone-shaped is an ice cream cone. A microphone, a traffic cone, a wizard’s wand: all delicious. Entire scenes arise from treating objects according to invented, toddler-esque rules.

These rules create friction, miscommunication, and comedy because the audience watches the clown operate inside a world only the clown understands.

The Banana Returns

So why did the vacuumed banana land so hard?

Because the clown applied toddler logic with adult-level precision.

He located an absurd rule—”in the vacuum” means “in the vacuum”—and committed to it fully. The magic wasn’t the trick; it was the conviction. The childlike law was obeyed so faithfully that the result felt surprisingly “smart.”

And then, later, the same clown tried to feed cake ingredients into the vacuum and produce a cake from offstage.

This time, the audience didn’t bite.

Why?

Two reasons:

  1. We’re doing bananas, not cakes.

    The world of the scene had already established a rule: we’re playing with bananas. Switching to cake is like arriving to the toddler’s wizarding world as a sci-fi character. You tried, but it’s the wrong game.
  2. The cake came from offstage, not from the vacuum.

    The previous joke worked because in the vacuum means in the vacuum. Pulling a cake from offstage wasn’t “the logic continuing”—it was creating new logic that doesn’t even make sense. (If they had put bananas and a strawberry into a blender, then pulled out a strawberry-banana yogurt from that same blender, that would have worked.)

The banana moment worked because it honored the rules.

The cake moment didn’t because it ignored them.

The Closing Thought

Maybe clowning can appear stupid because adults forget how to use toddler intelligence.

Toddlers aren’t dumb. They’re just operating a different operating system—one built on delight, mischief, repetition, and possibility. And one where the rules of the world aren’t yet solidified.

A clown steps onstage and reactivates that OS.

And for a few minutes, the audience gets a fresh start too.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, my banana is ringing.

Clown School Day 25: Successful Elements

In which Our Hero’s class sets records.

Today, our class succeeded. Five of us earned fives, two earned sixes, and many of the rest pulled in strong marks. Even I received a “not bad” for one of my two performances. (The other got a zero.)

Why did today work so well? 

  • First, we were all pulling for each other. Cheers before and after each performance. We didn’t previously do this. It’s very helpful to your peers. 
  • Second, the exercise was fundamentally fun: embody an element (earth, fire, water, air). Enjoyable to do, and powerful enough to allow for layering the text gently atop. 
  • Third, the exercise was simple. Embody an element. Low stakes.

My first element was fire. One line in, I lost the text. They kicked me off for it: six hours of memorization, gone. The takeaway: start memorizing on Monday. Use sleep cycles for the memorizing. Earlier, lighter memorization beats late, intense memorization. 

My fire received these notes: 

  • “This is not fire. This is fire with petrol.” 
  • “When he starts to speak, we see something. He is sensitive. I think, ‘Ah, something is coming.’”

My second element was snow.

I began with the same image as yesterday. I watched it. I barely moved. I started saying the text (the same text as we used for fire). The teacher yelled: “Shut up!” then “Move!” then “Snow falling down from the sky!”, then repeated these three over and over. (Said one friend: “It seems funny to me that you’re asked to memorize lines but then she doesn’t actually want you to say them”.)

My favorite part was that she said “Shut up” and “You talk too much!” after nearly every sound I made—and several times when I wasn’t speaking. She’s freakishly skilled at spotting when I’m reciting text in my head. This is an impressive superpower. I need a big, strong, vivid image to overpower my love of text. Or maybe to make myself brilliant enough to be dumb: know the text well enough to forget it, but still have it when I need… #writerproblems

A few notes from the day:

  • The exercise that gives you the breakthrough isn’t necessarily the one you should perform. (I possibly should have done Earth, not Snow.)
  • When the rhythm of the lines matches the rhythm of the movement, it becomes boring.
  • What I like doesn’t always matter. The audience tells me what they like.

Head Teacher’s comments on my snow: 

  • “Not bad, but this is not snow.”
  • “You need good humor always. Something funny in your mind.”
  • “Even when you aren’t speaking, we see you speaking text.”
  • “You were sensitive.”

Teacher comments to others (because they’re funny):

  • “This is ‘theater de mi cajones.’ You know what it means? It means theater of my balls.”
  • “It’s a good image but it doesn’t arrive to us because of your shitty voice.”

Memorizing the lines isn’t actually that important. Being able to say the lines is. If you only know the first three, you can still earn great marks if you perform them well (*cough* one of my roommates *cough*).

I over-invested in learning the lines. I under-invested in being able to do the lines while doing the exercise. That’s the part I should have practiced. Or visualized. Or practiced and visualized.

Just because the assignment involved memorizing lines does not mean the assignment is to share the lines you memorized. Ain’t clowning great? 

My goal this week was sensitivity/openness/gentleness. Today showed more glimpses (I opened briefly during Fire, and on-and-off during snow). I’ll keep working on this. For now, it’s nice to be landing it more often. 

I received a zero and a “not bad.” The zero came with a comment that I was sensitive and open. Win. The “not bad” came with the same comment. I’m improving at this key trait. 

Intensity: check. Voice: powerful. Game: reliable. Impulse: alive.

Sensitivity/gentleness/openness/giving: getting there, if only Our Hero would shut up.

Clown School Day 24: Snowfall

In which Our Hero melts.

Today I finally heard it:
“You were sensitive.”

Not “You’re being a fascist.”
Not “You’re pushing again.”
But:
You were sensitive. You were open. You were beautiful.

This has been my quest for the last four or five days: trying to soften without collapsing, open without weighing down, give without pushing. So when the assistant teacher said she could tell I’d been trying to be sensitive, something in me loosened. Like the wall I’ve been kicking finally cracked.

They then called “Julian and four others” onto the stage. And somewhere in that transition, I started crying. I don’t remember the moment. The whole experience became one.

The exercise was “snow.”

The teacher gave a confusing description of snow. Something like: “It’s the kind of snow that shuts down a city.”

Which… is just a quantity of snow. That’s not an image; that’s an amount.

So I asked a question that she didn’t answer. And then I started being snow. I grabbed an image that moves me: Lorelai in the first season of Gilmore Girls, stepping outside as the first snow falls. That little gasp, the cup of coffee, the anticipatory thrill, the “I smell snow.”

That image speaks to me. So I used it.

They asked for lighter. I moved lighter.
They asked for less movement. I slowed down.
And then the crying came—like a release of walls I didn’t even know I was holding.

I felt open. Present. Immersed. And I tried to stay there as long as I could. Even after class, I tried to keep it alive. I wandered to a café because it felt like “the present thing to do.” Then I left, because that also felt present. Then I ran into classmates outside the café, so I went back in. Presence, it turns out, has a sense of humor.

Then, I called a friend.
That was hard.

It felt like I came home excited that I’d thrown a baseball for the first time—look, look, I did the thing!—and they said, “Careful not to break a window.”

Not malicious. Just… a mismatch. And when you’ve just cracked open a new emotional door, mismatches hurt more.

After class, one of the teachers said: “You were very sensitive, and very beautiful. You had an intensity—but it wasn’t bad.”

I laughed at that. I’m glad it isn’t bad, because my intensity ain’t going away.

Later, I asked the teacher, “Did I do it? Did I actually finally successfully give?”
She didn’t answer directly. She asked, “Were you sensitive? What did you feel?”

Here’s my experience:
On stage without my glasses, I am legally blind. I couldn’t see anyone.
I didn’t listen to them either. The audience was mere shapes. Just the snow and me. And once in a while, a teacher’s comment.

So if the question is “were you sensitive to the audience?”, the answer is no. I was literally senseless. Ah clown school: you ironic farce.

They don’t mean sensitive. They might mean gentle. One way to arrive at sensitive is to notice that you’re too much for the audience. Another, apparently, is to channel the perfect childhood you never had in idyllic smalltown America.

Sometimes total silence is a good sign, the teacher said. It means the audience is engaged. “A quiet room can be as good as a laughing one. No one doing this [shuffling around, moving in their seat]”.

Yaya, today, I was sensitive. I did it right, entirely without sight. Senseless, yet somehow more sensitive.

Clown school, you rascal.

Earlier in the day, I channeled a storm. They told me I looked “obsessed with the game.”
I laughed. “This was the least obsessed I’ve been in days. I literally set myself the gentle mantra, ‘This is for you[, audience]‘”. Light. Open. Giving.

The feedback wasn’t about my intention; it was about my appearance.
They saw obsessed. I must change that appearance.

Perhaps I need extra lightness to counterbalance my baseline intensity.
Some people need more power or voice. I might need 10x the gentleness.

After class, a fellow student said to me:
“Good on you for staying up there. You could have sat down.”

My brow furrowed.
Sat down?
Why would I sit down? That made zero sense.

This is bottom of the ninth and I’m pitching a no hitter.
I will remain here until you drag me off this mound.

It’s funny what other people reveal about themselves when they comment on you.

Somehow, after I left the stage, the right person knew I needed a hug. He gave me one. And, lo and behold, it was good.

All afternoon I kept trying to hold the feeling: café, walk home, phone calls. I wanted to stay cracked open. Even though it’s uncomfortable? Especially because it’s uncomfortable.

I did my first cartwheel today. I went up as the guinea pig because I wanted more than anything not to.

Somewhere in all of this, I realized:
This experience with snow is a metaphor of the friction I’ve been having with the social life of clown school.
Pushing instead of being sensitive.
Wanting to give but not meeting others where they are.
The effort to be open met with a congratulations about remaining on stage or a warning about windows.

What next?
Maybe the answer is simply: more on-stage openness.
Maybe I’ll find some new challenge.

But today, for a moment, I did it. I gave what they’ve been telling me to give.
I didn’t perform emotion.
Nor pretend.
Nor simulate.
Nor mimic.

I was open.
Light.
Warm.
Gentle.
Like the first snow
And it’s You.

Because this snow.
This tiny, infinitesimal flake of snow.
If you do it enough.
Could cover the world.

Clown School Day 21: Enter Neutral Mask

In which Our Hero proves that knowing is not the same as doing.

Yesterday, I wrote a taxonomy of clown-school terms.

Today, I flopped.

Intellectual knowing is not the same as embodied knowing.

We say “those who can’t do, teach,” but that’s too glib. Some teachers are former doers; some are doers making rent; and some—well, maybe they can’t do, but they sure can see.

My ability to coach clowning probably exceeds my ability to be a clown.

Partly because I’m a better theoretician than performer writ large.

Partly because certain psychological or emotional doors in me are still locked.

Today in class, our Head Teacher said it was obvious that I was still saying the text—in my head. Which is an insane read. She’s right, though: I was silently saying the words instead of placing them gently atop the game.

That’s fucking wild. How can someone see that? And what does that even have to do with clowning?

Maybe everything. Maybe the moment you’re “thinking” instead of being, you’ve already left the game.


Today we began Neutral Mask.

You wear a mask so we can’t see your face. You imitate water: you see a beautiful lake, feel yourself becoming water, then add text on top of the game.

Here’s what hit me:

Clown school is really fucking tough.

Denser than any Yale course I ever took.

Four weeks of relentless concepts, barely time to digest one before the next arrives.

It’s like going to art school and having one day on each primary color, one day on mixing, one day on three-point perspective, and then being told to paint the Sistine Chapel.

And when you mess up, they just tell you how you failed.

But it’s a brilliant method for a school that wants to produce a thousand different clowns.

The system that made Emma Thompson, Roberto Benigni, Sacha Baron Cohen (who all on his own has a host of diverse characters, including Borat, Bruno, and Ali G) isn’t designed to give you one formula. It’s designed to force you to find your own.


So now I shall learn the Neutral Mask.

Tomorrow, we become fire. Or air. Or despair.

And maybe one of my small discoveries from Le Jeu holds:

I love doing impressions, especially voices.

Maybe that’s part of my clown.

Maybe that’s mine to remember.

Because it’s all mine to choose. And all mine to learn.

🤡

Clown School Weekend 4.2: Clowning is Serious Taxonomical Business

In which Our Hero undertakes a herculean task (probably the one about shoveling poop)

I’ve spent the past few weeks trying to reverse-engineer the game we’ve been playing at clown school.

If we think of clowning as a game, what are the rules of that game?

I’ve started building a taxonomy — a kind of manual of play — mapping what seems to make pleasure multiply on stage: impulses, generosity, major/minor dynamics, how to avoid destroying your play, and so on.

It’s still a work-in-progress (I’m sharing it with classmates to stress-test it before publishing the full version).

But the process of writing it has already clarified a few things for me:

  • The clown’s “goal” isn’t to win — it’s to maximize total pleasure (without harm).
  • Pleasure is contagious; it’s the currency of play.
  • When you’re failing, contribute to the game and share your pleasure (don’t try to be funny or clever)

I’ll publish the full taxonomy soon. For now, there’s a little taste of what’s coming — and a reminder that even codifying play is, itself, a kind of game.

P.S. If you’ve ever tried to articulate something that resists articulation, you’ll understand how funny this exercise becomes.

Or, put another way: sometimes people ask me, “What is the point of your Yale philosophy degree?” Now I can say: “I made you a taxonomy of Clowning!”

Clown School Weekend 4.1: The Present of Presence

In which Our Hero hypothesizes a virtuous cycle.

Maybe when I’m present, open, and giving to others, I acquire fewer regrets.

That would be a powerful feedback loop: the more I give of myself, the lighter I feel; the lighter I feel, the more I give.

At clown school, le jeu is about play — but it’s also about generosity. Not for applause, but because shared pleasure multiplies. Maybe that’s what being funny is. Or at least what being kind is.

(I’m working on a larger analysis that’s still half-baked. Please enjoy this musing while that cogitation continues to cook.)

Clown School Day 20: Le Jeu (Game) Over

In which Our Hero becomes Our Zero

“When Julian enter, was he with [scene partner] or was he alone?”

Audience: “Alone.”

At least I’m consistent.

(That’s a crap joke, but I’m keeping it.)

I’ve now attended two classes here.

Both had a final presentation.

In both final presentations, I received a mark of zero.

Zero is a bad mark.

It means:

  • You were boring.
  • You weren’t even interesting enough to get specific notes.
  • We could not see your pleasure.
  • You were not beautiful.
  • We do not love you.
  • Goodbye.

The Week

Monday: We received our assignments. I chose a partner I liked — skilled, smart, fun.

Tuesday: We rehearsed and found a stupid little game we loved.

Wednesday: We showed it to a trial audience. They couldn’t see the game. So we added another on top.

Thursday: We played again. We had fun.

Friday: We talked through our plan. Then, right before going onstage, my partner suggested a new one:

“Milk the opening if it works. Only go to the game if we need to.”

The drumbeats sounded. Our turn.

We entered.

The audience laughed once.

I thought, Aha! They’re laughing at me!

(Still kinda true: I set up something he executed.)

I did it again. No dice.

My partner panicked:

“We need to do the game!”

And before we even played the game, we were kicked off.


The Problem

I loved rehearsing with him. Genuinely. It was a highlight of my week.

But when I entered the stage, I didn’t open myself. I didn’t share with the audience enough pleasure of being on stage.

And so: I wasn’t lovable.

I’ve only opened myself once on stage. People found me beautiful.

How do I get back there?

Is this lack of openness also a problem in my relationships?

Am I in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing?

Is this biomedical?

Will clown school eventually teach me to play well with others?

Right now, I feel like a lonely, isolated lump of clay.

An ugly one.

It’s not fun to feel like an ugly lump of clay.

Maybe if I did therapy for an hour every day, I’d get better at opening myself. Then I just do that on stage, but lighter.

If the hypothesis is that success comes from being open and light and generous, then at least the openness part is something I can train on my own.

Once my father leaves on Tuesday, I’ll try that.

I’m not leaving yet. The clay’s still on the wheel.

It’s really. Not fun. To be clay.

💩

Also, two students told me they thought Head Teacher was unfair — that I’d actually been beautiful. I trust the opinions of the expert few over the uninformed many. Still, something relaxed in me when I heard that. This must be why people commiserate.


Comments About Me

“Who do we like? We like [my scene partner].”

“You are not beautiful.”

“Do we love him? Not at all.”

“When Julian enter, was he with [Scene Partner] or was he alone?” Audience: “Alone.”

“Zero, zero, zero.”


Learnings

  • Start with the fun part.
  • Stick to the plan. You made it for a reason. (Definitely don’t abandon the plan shortly before going on stage.)
  • Learn that it’s pleasant to be open.

My French classmate learned this. Others have too.

So why the hell is it so hard for me?

I even had a potentially fruitful relationship recently undermined because of this non-openness.

Do I like this? Am I choosing contexts that reinforce it?

After class, one of my peers said:

“I feel joy when I open myself on stage.”

He meant it kindly. I appreciated it.

I just don’t fucking know how.

This isn’t about wanting to. It’s a skill gap.

And it’s funny — my teacher said I’m best when I’m subtle and open, not when I’m pushing.

And now all I want to do is push.

So maybe I should just… give up?

That can’t be right.

Fuck if I know.

A friend who knows me very well commented on these last three lines: “fuck off. Don’t you play better when you’re down 2 and 0? Congrats, you’re now down 2 and 0.”

This must be why people share their emotions.

Clown School Day 19: Joy Qua Joy

In which Our Hero sees two people restored to their original shine.

“Raise your hand if you haven’t yet felt the sort of pleasure on stage that we’ve been talking about since Le Jeu began,” said the teacher at the end of class.

Two people raised their hands. Then a third, more tentatively.

The teacher sent the first to stage—a friendly but unassuming British man.
“Who in this class do you find attractive?”

He chose two women from the front row. It’s a testament to the oddness of this school that this no longer phases me.

“Go backstage,” the teacher told them. “When you enter, you’ll walk center stage and tell us about your three weeks here—while these two beautiful women kiss you.”

While the Brit was backstage, the teacher whispered to the rest of us:
“When he enters, we’ll stand and cheer.”

When he came out, our cheering lit him up.
Then the women appeared.

If you’ve never seen a reserved British man caressed by two beautiful women, I recommend it.

Every time they kissed his cheek, he said “thank you.”
But the thank-you was a shield—a polite dismissal of feeling.

“Stop commenting,” said the teacher. “Stand still and speak directly to us.”

The more pleasure he allowed himself, the more beautiful he became.
The more he shared his pleasure, the more fun we had.

Why can’t we live like this all the time?

The Catholic Church doesn’t benefit from people being happy.
Nor does the Israeli military.
Nor the American economy.
Pick an institution; few thrive on pure joy.
We don’t want people too sad, but not too happy either.
Even parents—who want the best for their children—don’t usually mean pleasure qua pleasure.

That’s what makes clown special.
Clown is the direct transference of joy.
You practice finding joy and sharing it.
You learn to see the stupid.
See the stupid—and become stupid.

Because joy for its own sake is stupid.
Doesn’t a happy idiot chuckling in the corner grow smelly from lack of bathing, then die from lack of food?
Yes. This is joy qua joy.

But if you’re a closed-off British man who says “thank you” out of duty, not feeling—
or a muscle-bound weightlifter who loves film but hates actors for being too touchy-feely—
maybe you need some joy qua joy.


Both students left the stage with a new understanding: that pleasure shared openly is rewarded instantly.

Maybe a teacher shamed you for holding hands with your girlfriend in eighth grade.
Maybe a friend mocked you for calling them beautiful.
Maybe a parent slapped you for slurping your soup.

Whatever the reason—come to École Philippe Gaulier.
We’ll teach you to open, to feel, to share joy.
We’ll celebrate you for it.

And then you can return home—one more candle of joy.

Maybe it’s burning in an ocean of darkness.
I hadn’t noticed.
I was too busy laughing about the time a beautiful woman kissed me.

Am I funny yet?

Clown School Day 17: The LeBron of Tic Tac Toe

In which Our Hero learns that leadership means getting the simple things right.

THE SETUP

The game is simple: tic-tac-toe.

The complication: teammates.

Two teams of 11 players, across a ten-foot-by-ten-foot tic-tac-toe board. Each team has three handkerchiefs of their team color. At the sound of the drum, the first player sprints to a spot on the board, drops their handkerchief, and sprints back to tag the next player.

When all three of your handkerchiefs are placed, your move is to move one of your handkerchiefs instead of placing a new one.

At three in a row, you win the point.

THE ESCALATION

How is this so hard?

First, foot faults. Were both of your feet inside the square where you dropped the kerchief? If not, your placement doesn’t count. (More than one clown kicked the game board itself, forcing a complete game stop and reset.)

Second, speed. Your next teammate goes when your previous teammate tags them. If you dawdle, the opponents may get two moves to your team’s one: a death knell in tic tac toe.

Third, skill errors. Can you picture the board as it currently is, and how you would like it to be after your play? Can you balance both your team’s desire for three in a row with the importance of blocking the other team?

Fourth, panic. If you’re not sure where to place the handkerchief, you may find yourself overwhelmed by the twenty clowns yelling at you.

THE CHAOS

If this sounds intense, that’s because it is. It’s the most competitive I’ve seen clowns in four weeks of class. One clown classmate commented to me: “Usually you and I are the only two trying to win. In this game, everyone is.”

And the best part: it’s tic tac toe.

You know, the game that even a monkey can play.

When I played this same game in the summer course, I was dubbed “the LeBron of tic tac toe” by a Boston-accented TikTok star who’d gained school-wide notoriety for roasting himself in a Trump impression.

This time, my team came out to a strong start. 2-0 in the lead.

Their team called a time out.

From across the board, I could see one member of their team — a former death row attorney now turned stand up comedian — giving an impassioned speech.

Members of my team jeered at him. I thought of strategic elements I wanted to share — if unsure, play the middle or corners, not the sides; run back quickly to tag your teammate — but kept them to myself, unsure how to make them land. I didn’t want to come off as the pushy, out-for-victory teammate.

The game restarted. Their team came out on a tear. They won three of the next four points, and ultimately took the match 11-9.

All game I mused to myself: What had he said? They started to coordinate so well. What strategies did he share? How did he inspire them to listen to his suggestions without coming off as pushy?

THE REVELATION

At lunch, I asked him. I complimented him on his success, then I asked what he had said.

“Oh, that? Some of our team didn’t understand the game. I just explained the rules.”

There’s a Polish expression I enjoy that translates to “Not my circus, not my monkeys”.

Unfortunately, this is my circus.

And unfortunately, it is not populated with monkeys.

Clown School Weekend 3.2: This Place is Run by Clowns

In which Our Hero concludes that brilliance is no match for a red nose.

About once every other day, someone at clown school does something spectacularly disorganized. I sigh and say, “This place is run by clowns.”

And it is.

Clowns are not, by their nature, particularly intelligent.

It’s not that they’re stupid.

It’s that intelligence and clowning live on different axes.

An intelligent person may learn the craft faster. But the desire to clown, the joy of it, might even be anti-correlated with intelligence.

Smart people tend to want control. Clowns surrender it.

Smart people tend to want power. Clowns seek to be laughed at.

And yet, in my March course, three of the 30 Americans were Yale graduates.

Plus a single from Stanford.

Just enough prestige to make the chaos feel ironic.

Of course, it helps to be rich enough to spend a year falling on your face.

Still, it’s a funny sight I observed in Thursday’s class:

eight clowns silently arranging themselves in order of intelligence.

The clown they insisted should be at the bottom later thought this was hilarious as he has a master’s degree.

Clowning is a craft.

Most work is a craft.

Hell, even medicine is a craft.

And mastery in a craft depends less on general intelligence than on dedication

and on cultivating the right skills: openness, affability, lightness.

This is the first social hierarchy I’ve been in where people organize by skill in a single, very specific craft.

In college, you could be successful at any number of things — academics, theater, sports, journalism.

In elementary school, the options were fewer but still broad: maybe good at math, worse at English, class clown, or owned the good video games.

Here, clowns arrange by everyday charisma.

And charisma in life is decently correlated with charisma on stage.

Add to that: we’re learning charisma.

And the social life becomes pretty interesting.

It’s like a schoolyard where the only question is: how fun are you at play?