Tag: Life

Score is the Thief of Commerce

JulianLeave a comment

“To win, score the most. To score the most, stop keeping score.”

Last week, after three days in my metaphorical writing cave, I hollered to Partner, “I know I haven’t been doing dishes. I owe you.” I caught it immediately: “Actually, I think keeping score is bad practice. I take it back.” She laughed and continued on with her day.

I like scores. Keeping score is a clear and straightforward way to understand and compare performance. But sometimes, keeping score can be actively harmful.

Macro scoring enables comparison between multiple options. Micro-scoring corrodes as it leads you to optimize the wrong things. As my family motto goes (it’s intentionally too long for comedic effect), “Before you hyper-optimize a process, be sure you’re optimizing for what you actually want and not a correlate.”

The Bad (Reflexive Scoring)

Should I owe Partner dishes? I was heads-down on work because I spent the previous three weeks coordinating medical appointments for Partner and renovation work for our apartment.

As Middle East history teaches: if you dig back far enough, you can find huge grievances on all sides. Without touching on rightness or wrongness (as I do not have a sufficiently long stick with which to touch), this process does not seem to form stability. And stability is something I would like in my partnership.

Simply: if Partner feels I’m not doing dishes enough, she will say so. If I feel I’m not washing dishes enough, I should wash more dishes.

Score-keeping as a way of digging yourself out of a hole will often lead to resentment of the scorekeeping mechanism (or participants, which is even worse).

The Good (Reflective Scoring)

I once heard a successful startup founder describe his romantic check-ins. He and his wife divide his work into four categories: money earner, father, lover, friend. Rating each on a 1–10 scale, so long as his overall score achieves more than 25 points, he passes. For this partnership, this calculation may solve a real problem: it recognizes a person’s contributions despite changes over time.

This scoring process is a feedback instrument, driven by deliberate weighing of details — not a reflex prompted by momentary discomfort.

The Bridge (Incentive Alignment)

Hourly work misaligns incentives. This structure causes less efficiency and innovation: working faster costs the worker money!

I realized this structure with my $16/hr marketing internship after my sophomore year of college. I automated all my work, and all the other interns’ work. My superior said, “Sit tight and read.” I arrived to work early and left late because they paid me hourly. I was always there to do work if they wanted to give me work. (Now, I would take a slightly different tack: raising this lack-of-work to my boss’s boss. But at the time, I thought arriving early and staying late to maximize my dollars was the standard way to play the game.)

Even if your boss is your best friend, the hourly contract puts you in opposition. The score isn’t a personality conflict; it’s a contract feature. No amount of scorekeeping can account for misalignment.

The Ugly (Anti-Commerce)

Some work should be 90%–10%. In my partnership, Partner captains cooking 90% of the time; I captain travel logistics and social plans 90% of the time. I’m sufficiently capable to create edible food. Partner is sufficiently capable to book flights and schedule with friends. We simply enjoy it less (and are less skilled).

Micro tit-for-tat prevents specializing and trading, which is the fundamental lesson of commerce. So long as we both share the common knowledge that we’re both helping the team, the score is anti-helpful.

When partners are aligned on what they’re moving toward, the allocation can skew without it mattering. Some weeks she does more; some weeks I do. The “oxygen mask before helping others” frame applies: feeding yourself, whether literal food or via nurturing work, isn’t a withdrawal from the partnership — it’s a contribution to it, because your effectiveness is shared.

The reflex inside an aligned partnership imports structural-scoring logic into a relationship that thrives on more flexibility than scoring provides.

The score is the thief of commerce.

The Reckoning (Trust)

Would you rather employ someone values-aligned and unskilled, or skilled but misaligned? For piecework, I think skilled but misaligned. For a teammate, values-aligned. (That said, I am historically incompetent at working with unskilled people.) But I guess that’s still better than someone who will sabotage, even if they do it unknowingly.

Alignment produces trust. A scorecard substitutes for trust, poorly.

Last night, Partner asked me to do the dishes.

Consistency, Consistency, Consstncy

JulianLeave a comment

“Every Day” means Every Day! means ¿Every Day? 

I have a motto: Seven days a week means seven days a week. (Except when it means five.) 

I have three categories of “Every day”: 

1. Religious Commitments 

If lightning struck me and I awoke in the emergency room, I would still write every day. 

The commitment is inflexible. The details are wishy-washy. Sometimes “day” stretches into the early morning hours of the next day. Sometimes “writing” means a scribbled sentence onto a post-it note reading “I don’t want to write today.” When I was writing two pages per day for my first book, many days started with writing “I don’t want to write today… I don’t want to write today…” until I got in the groove and shifted to the topic. Most days, I pen and publish a brief essay. 

When I injured my back, I performed a prenatal core workout as my daily 5 minute abs. 

This “every day” works because the requirement is rigid but the goal very easy. 

2. When 7 = 6 

    I lift weights every day. 

    (Except for ~2 days per week.) 

    I tell myself I lift weights every day. Sometimes this approach is honest: Over the last two months, some weeks, I lifted 7/7 days. 

    The issue: Weightlifting relies on unpredictable activities. How well will I sleep? How recovered will I be? Sometimes, I need a rest day to prevent injury. 

    7 days per week therefore becomes 6. But if I aimed for 6, 6 becomes 5… and 5 becomes 4…  and very soon I’m watching cartoons with Dorito dust on my chest

    This “every day” works because the requirement is flexible but the goal very intense. 

    3. The Failure of Flossing 

    Jeff Foxworthy’s dentist asks, “Have you been flossing every day?” 

    “Not every day…” Jeff admits. “The last time I flossed… You did it!” 

    Most people don’t floss. I don’t brush my teeth in the morning. (I only brush at night.) 

    Turns out I brush in the morning every day the way most people floss every day. 

    Default to Yes

    I experience a large mental cost oscillating about action. 

    Writing 5 days per week is somehow more difficult than 7. If I give myself an out, I consider and negotiate. Instead, I commit and know my category. 

    Seven days a week means seven days a week.

    (Except for the contexts where it should mean five.)

    (Or zero.)

    (Or negative one.) 

    Working to Win the Lottery

    JulianLeave a comment

    Sometimes, the safe play is the lottery.

    “I’d rather be working for a paycheck than waiting to win the lottery.”

    —Bright Eyes, “First Day of My Life,” I’m Wide Awake, It’s Morning

    There’s a difference between waiting to win the lottery and working to win the lottery.

    Waiting doesn’t make sense: the lottery is a losing proposition. But working to win the lottery? If you can skew the odds in your favor, you can win.

    Upon graduating from college, I reasoned: “I could get a job at a Big Tech Company that pays $60k/year, this year, or next year, or in ten years.” So I started my own business doing what I wanted to be doing.

    I know of two strategies: working for a paycheck, and working to win the lottery. (By “lottery” I mean asymmetric upside, where one hit pays for many misses.) Most people, Partner included, are wired for the paycheck. I’m wired for the lottery. Both can win.

    Most people think of the lottery as riskier. I disagree.

    Here’s the move that separates my thinking from everyone else’s: the safer path is concentrated. You work for a company; that company goes under, you’re screwed. You find a similar company. But what happens when the whole industry goes under? The skills you’ve built might be useless worldwide.

    The skills I’ve built? Not so much — because I’ve had the ability to choose what skills I build. The employee path is actually a concentrated bet on the need for similar skillsets. My portfolio is which skills to build. That, for me, is diversification.

    The risk actually shows up at the intersection between the operator and the game. For me, this isn’t risky. I have savings discipline, deal flow, and a fitting temperament. For someone without those, it would be. We think of risk as the variance in an activity. On the meta-level, it’s more about being fit for the game and playing enough times to outlast the variance.

    Two Paycheck Jobs

    In my life, I have worked two standard, 9-5, knowledge-work paycheck jobs.

    The first: I interned at a marketing agency in NYC the summer after my sophomore year of college. I automated all of my work, then all of the other interns’ work, then my direct superior’s work. When I asked my superior for more work, he said, “Sit tight and read.” So I played games on my computer, peaking at 120th in the world at a card game I liked.

    The second was at a fintech. $175k cash per year. Predictable.

    My first month working there, my monthly burn was 3x what it was the month before. I had been earning $100–150k with my own business.

    It wasn’t the money. It was the perceived predictability.

    The three most addictive things in the world are:

    1. Methamphetamine
    2. Nicotine
    3. A steady paycheck

    What can I say: I wanted to try the drug. I just got my fix and got out.

    The Math

    I keep my costs low. I don’t get much more value from the $50 Chinese restaurant over the $5 basement dumplings. Most of life’s joy comes from experiences and removing friction. I therefore spend money on travel and life infrastructure.

    I lived in a van while building my first business.

    The math: ten months of San Francisco rent = one van. After ten months of rent, you have nothing. After ten months of van, you have a van. (Also nice that I bought it for $12,500 and sold it 3 years later for $19,500. Taught me a lot about macroeconomic waves, too: the van market went crazy during COVID.)

    While living in the van, I squirreled money into early-stage tech companies.

    Natural aptitude matters. If none of my bets had paid off, I would have switched plans. But four $25k bets is only $100k. Which, if you’re making $150k per year and spending $30k, is only 1 year of work to find out whether you have a skill (in my case, the skill is betting on people).

    Bet on People Who Will Win

    I once asked Ann Miura-Ko (a Midas List member and board member of Lyft) whether there was more to investing than finding competent and trustworthy CEOs. I had a hunch that was the whole game. She agreed: yes. But she added that doing it well is not trivial.

    Fun for her to confirm my approach.

    So that’s been my approach. I haven’t bet on technology or the future. I’ve bet on individual people.

    My company was a ghostwriting business. I spent a lot of time living in experts’ heads. Bylines included:

    • Justin Kan (founder of Twitch)
    • Sam Altman (then of Y-Combinator)
    • Ellen Pao (CEO of Reddit)

    During this investing, I also dabbled with crypto. I took the advice of friends, but those friends didn’t have control over the asset. They were speculators. With a private company, I’m betting on actual leadership. Leadership controls the outcome. They’re responsible for everything.

    The lesson: bet on people who control the outcome. Or bet on no-one (the index). Don’t bet on people without control.

    In a gambling sense: I’ve placed four bets on startups, where variance is high and likelihood is low:

    • 1 failed
    • 1 is planned to IPO this year
    • 1 is going gangbusters
    • 1 (the one that prompted this musing) just received a term sheet at 2.5x what I bought in

    When Partner learned that my ~$15k investment was now worth ~$37.5k, she told me: “You’re like an odd sort of couch.” Apparently, most people find coins in the couch cushions, not tech company stock that they haven’t thought about in months.

    It’s the same way I play poker: I find a spot where I have an edge, and I hammer it over and over and over again. Eventually, if I bet the same amount into ten different companies, and a successful company will more than 10x my money, I need to be right more than 1/10 times. (And, of course, not run out of money.)

    Most people either don’t have the resolve or aren’t right more than 1/10 times.

    Different Risk Profiles

    Graduating university, Partner was saving 75% of her paycheck. She didn’t know many people didn’t save at all, and most financial experts only recommend around 15%. She thought what she was doing seemed logical.

    We are FIRE sort of people, just with different risk profiles. Partner enjoys working for a paycheck. I work to win the lottery.

    These mutually-balanced approaches are part of what makes us a good team. When we need to invent something out of nothing, I’m usually team captain. When a problem needs debugging, she’s in command.

    After reading a draft of this article, Partner had this to say: 

    “I think this last part might warrant slightly more space. You’re hedged in a way most people don’t get to be. 

    It’s one thing to take big bets when you’re young and have no responsibilities. It’s that people tend to get addicted to the paycheck when they set their lives up in ways where they feel the need to have stability. They may miss out on being able to use those skills in big-bet ways as they don’t want to risk a loss. It’s also hard to have the mental space and discipline to self-hedge.

    I’m your hedge so you can chase the upside.” 

    One day, my ship will come in. And if not, we’re still happy.

    The Hand of My Dreams

    JulianLeave a comment

    If the logic doesn’t follow, keep going. Don’t go back.

    This actually happened earlier today: 

    The Setup

    Two guys had run out of money in the poker game. One of them – the host – had lost angrily. He was displeased with two other people at the table, and responsible for the other broke-guy’s buyin. The host said, “And if we’re down by $54 and we send $50, what will you do…” 

    Then he told us, “You’ll take it and be grateful and not hound us for the other $4.” 

    A while later – minutes or hours, I don’t know – the final three of us were playing double-handed omaha. 8 cards per person, split into two hands. The board was A99Q. I had AAxx in one hand for the over-full: the second-best possible hand. Even better: my two aces were both spades. 

    The Opponents

    The woman on my left – an Asian girl from my highschool – had KKxx for the kings-over full house. (The board now contained A99QK, with still the final card to be dealt.) In her other hand, she had 99xx for quads, but also definitely did not have quads. 

    The woman on my right – a different Asian girl from my highschool – had 8cTcJc spread across her 8 cards, which went with the 9c, Qc, and Kc on the board to make a straight flush. Fortunately for me, the cards were separated across her hands so she didn’t actually have a straight-flush despite having the cards. 

    The Accounting

    We were already all in. I performed the accounting. The hundred-dollar chips were exhausted, so we used the silver bracelets each valued at $200. 

    The pot totalled around $1500. We hadn’t all contributed equally. I wasn’t concerned since I had so much equity. 

    The Broken Protocol

    We agreed to run the river three times. 

    We clicked my computer mouse to run the first river. It dealt an entire new board. We tried again. Same issue. I suggested we should use the same physical deck we were already playing with to run the river (duh!). 

    The Showdown

    I awoke.

    A Game You Can’t Decline

    JulianLeave a comment

    The goal of the game is to play well. You play well by knowing you’re playing.

    Last night, friends came over. They’d baked cookies. They brought the cookies in a Tupperware container. As they were leaving, Partner went to retrieve the Tupperware and hand it back at the door.

    I winced internally. I should have said something. 

    Here’s the game I saw and Partner didn’t: you don’t return the Tupperware at the door. You keep the Tupperware. Eventually, you need to return it – which means you’ll see them again, which means there’s an open thread between you. The Tupperware is a mild promissory note. Yes, we’ll have you over, or you’ll invite us, or we’ll see you at the thing – because also, here’s your Tupperware.

    Returning the container at the door closes the loop transactionally. Everyone walks away even. But the loop is what builds the relationship. Even is not what you want when starting a relationship if the other person would find you returning the tupperware weird.

    When I mentioned it to Partner afterward, she got it instantly. She’d just never thought of it that way. We also agreed that it isn’t logical. Of course they want their Tupperware back. The whole thing is illogical. Most social dynamics games are.

    I’m reminded of a buddy of mine this past summer. A woman had stayed over at his apartment. Now, she wanted her ring back. He told her to retrieve it from his roommate. No, buddy! She left it so you have to see her again! 

    I once had a 9 AM appointment with a doctor. Due to a series of errors made by his office and lab, my appointment ran until 2:30 PM. Around noon, I mentioned wanting to grab a sandwich. He gave me cash and offered to pay for mine as well.

    Something felt wrong. I bought both sandwiches and gave him the cash back.

    I suspect he didn’t even register the move. But Partner had the same instinct I did when I told her: pay for his sandwich, refuse the cash. The discomfort was real and shared, even if neither of us could immediately articulate why.

    Here’s why: the cash created an obligation flow that didn’t match the relationship. He had spent five and a half hours of my day on his office’s mistakes. The appropriate flow was him owing me. His offer to buy me lunch was a way to pay down his debt of guilt. But not an appropriately-sized one.

    Buying the sandwich, refusing the cash, was the right move. It accepted the kindness implicit in offering food while refusing the implicit power-move. Imperfect, but instinct steered correctly. 

    And as we left his office, he apologized at least 8 times for the delay. By the end, he said, “I’m done apologizing. If I apologize again, hit me.” That’s the appropriate obligation for someone who’s wasted 5 hours of your day. 

    Recently, I made a friend who pocket-vetos any activities that are emotionally intense for him. He only plays the games he wants to play, in the ways he wants to play them.

    It’s no surprise this correlates with power and resources. As friends have gotten more powerful, more of them have developed this stance. No explanation, no apology, no negotiation. Generally no answer, not even a “No”. 

    If you’re young and broke and unattractive and awkward, you can’t pull this off. People stop inviting you. Every social interaction has to be navigated, every gift has to be reciprocated, every obligation has to be honored. The poverty of optionality forces you to play every game offered. 

    As you accumulate power and resources, you can decline games without consequence. People still invite you. People still want you around. They accept this trait because you’re still worth it. Like the celebrity who’s notorious for being prickly in interviews, the rudeness becomes a feature: a filter mechanism.

    Three observations: 

    1. Refusing to play is itself a move. 

    • A recurring claim of this blog. It holds here.

    2. Not-playing a game requires winning sufficiently in other games, or people will stop playing games with you entirely. 

    • The friend’s pocket-vetos work because the rest of his social game is in order. He’s not refusing because he doesn’t understand the games; he’s refusing because losing this game doesn’t matter for him anymore. If Warren Buffett never set a schedule, only meeting with people willing to show up at his offices in Omaha, people would still gladly sit in his office for hours, waiting for the possibility to talk with him. 

    3. Winning generally comes from choosing which game is being played and at what level. 

    • Most of us learn how to act in specific spots in specific games. That’s a fine level one, but it misses out on level two (shifting the odds in your favor) and level three (dictating the battlefield). 

    One more thing: the move I should have made about the Tupperware was overruling Partner in real time. I saw the game. I knew the right move. I let her make the suboptimal one because I didn’t want to interrupt.

    That’s a habit of mine – letting people make moves I see as wrong, then discussing afterward if it matters. The discussion-afterward version doesn’t recover the move. It just generates retrospective alignment for next time.

    Sometimes the right move is to interrupt. Saying wait, I’m gonna eat all those in the moment would have been weird. It also would have been the right move. Weirdness is sometimes the price of playing well.

    [It’s late. I’ve read this one too many times to like it. The daily-publishing game is hard tonight. I hope I like this post in the morning. Sigh.]

    Do Fewer

    JulianLeave a comment

    You win by making the right move. You make the right move by waiting for it.

    Before my jaw surgery in 2018, I made too many moves.

    I underwent a sleep study at a facility that allowed me to sleep on my stomach. Obstructive sleep apnea is positional. Bad medical care.

    A dentist prescribed an oral appliance and lied to me about its potential side effects. I wore it. The side effects were bad. 

    A surgeon told me I’d need to fix my deviated septum, so I might as well do it now. Unnecessary surgery. I’d later have maxillomandibular advancement, which would necessitate a septum fix at that point anyway. I had mis-sequenced, again due to bad advice from doctors.

    Six doctors mis-diagnosed or mis-treated me before I found the world’s expert in obstructive sleep apnea. Not himself a surgeon, he sent me to the only surgeon he liked. I had the surgery. It went wonderfully. 

    One quality move would have saved me ten years and six bad doctors, one bad surgery, and one damaging oral appliance.

    I had an insufficient respect for quality.

    A friend has spent the last decade on a large legal case about a contract violation. Ten years, about ten moves. He says most of his days are spent staring at a wall thinking. The hardest part hasn’t been any single move. It’s been the waiting between them — the part where you’re not doing anything visible. 

    It’s easy to get antsy. But the right move at the wrong time is the wrong move. And the wrong move, just to do something is even worse. 

    That’s not laziness. That’s respect for quality.

    Recently, two optometrists told me I should get corneal crosslinking. The pattern-matching said I needed it. Something didn’t smell right. 

    So I went to the actual experts — the ones who’ve seen thousands of patients who look like me over the past thirty years and done seven hundred-plus surgeries on people with my eyes. 

    At the end of this month, I’m flying to France to install permanent contacts. The pattern-matchers were wrong. The real experts were right. The move they suggested would have been unnecessary.

    Refusing a move is also a move. Sometimes it’s the best move.

    When I started freelancing, I asked everyone for client referrals. I had to. I didn’t know who would say yes, what worked, what my rate was, or who my buyer was. This was the explore phase. More information was better.

    By my third set of clients, the machine started carrying itself. My hourly rate was higher than many lawyers’. Inbound exceeded what I wanted.

    The shift on calls was exponential. I had good pre-call materials. I had good post-call follow-ups. The call itself was mostly listening and repeating back what the client had said.

    One call, I was sitting at a kitchen table on mute, pulling funny faces while my then-partner pointed at the phone whisper-yelling, “Pay attention! Focus!” The client stopped talking. I unmuted. I said five words. I re-muted. The client said, “Wow, you really get it!” Then-partner was floored.

    I would tell early-Julian to keep investing in the process. And not to abandon it when he got tired of it — to keep investing, just in a new way. The work shifts from doing more to doing fewer, better. Respect the elegance. 

    Flailing is not testing.

    When I hired my contractor, I went for volume — got fifteen quotes, narrowed them down. The cost of each one coming by was low — just some of my time — so I figured why not. But I wasn’t systematic. A bit more research upfront — learning how the process works, what the categories of contractor are, what the right questions to ask are — would have produced a faster result with fewer visits. 

    Getting a lot of information systematically is a research strategy. Getting a lot of information randomly is flailing. The two feel similar from inside. They aren’t.

    Closing on this apartment took eight months. The required topics ranged from negotiation to financing to weird legal processes to printing documents at 11 PM in rural France. About ten major moves in total.

    Once the incentives were aligned — me, my broker, the seller’s broker — the rest clicked pretty smoothly. The eight months were spent making the right moves slowly, not many moves quickly. And about half of the key moves were me saying no to other people’s requests. At least two of those would have ruined the deal. 

    It’s not about doing less. It’s about doing fewer, where each one is more elegant. Build the system that reduces the steps. Invest in infrastructure. Make the right move when the right move presents itself.

    If “fewer” ever becomes zero, that’s a different problem. This approach won’t fix that one. But it does need fixing.

    Life is full of games. Games require moves. Don’t do less. Do fewer. 

    Top-Secret Games: Trader Joe’s

    JulianLeave a comment

    The goal of the game is to win the games. The hard part is noticing they exist.

    I was in the Trader Joe’s in Santa Cruz, California, standing between two checkout lines. Both stations had a cashier. Neither line had people waiting. I was deliberately ambiguous about which line I was in.

    A shopper arrived behind me. She asked which line I’d chosen. I answered slowly: whichever one finishes first.

    She found this unacceptable. She appealed to the Trader Joe’s gods — that is, the cashier. The cashier ruled against me. You have to pick a line. I hemmed and hawed to buy myself time and picked. 

    About two years later, I was shopping with a friend at that same Trader Joe’s. My friend performed the exact same hedge. A person asked which line we were in. My friend answered the same as I had. Once again The Gods smote us. So I stood in one line and she in the other. Whichever line finished first: our group re-combined there. 

    It’s like the old saying: “Everyone is playing a game that you know nothing about.” 

    Here are my Trader Joe’s games: 

    The dual-line straddle. If you stand at the right angle between two lines, you can commit to whichever one moves faster. This is optimal play — it’s an option you should always exercise when the structure permits it. It’s also widely considered rude, for reasons that truly make no sense to me. I’m there first; I deserve to be served first. This is a queueing theory problem: one line is more fair, BUT people also feel more annoyed that they’re in a longer line. (And here’s the thing: the person directly behind me isn’t actually the one harmed by my slowness. The person farther back is — the one whose checkout would have opened up if I’d committed earlier. We’re all glaring at the wrong people.)

    The tag-team shop. Often, I stand in line while Partner grabs more items. The line moves; I advance; she rejoins. We’ve doubled our throughput. In the US, this is fine. In France, it’s a violation — my sister once spoke to me in a bakery line outside Paris and the woman behind us made it clear: this is a faux pas. Different country, different rules. (And yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to permit joining, or to restrict joining, or to permit joining but without an item, or to permit a direct substitution of equal numbers of people for equal numbers of people / equal items for equal items. If you can think of it, I can justify it.) 

    The end-of-line dash. Partner’s specialty. As we approach the register, Partner likes to make a mad dash for one final item. Discussing this game, she was the most beamingly radiant I’ve seen her in a while. It has all the traits of a good game: clearly-defined, time-pressured, skill-based, some luck to keep you on your toes, low-stakes if you lose. Sometimes she meets me after the checkout emptyhanded. Sometimes she brings the stracciatella we don’t actually need but ends up being delicious with a little honey and salt. That’s not the point. The point was the game.

    Here’s the secret: Trader Joe’s is also playing a game.

    Their queueing system isn’t optimized for throughput. There isn’t always a central queue, no take-a-number system, no signal from the register that they’re almost ready for the next customer (so the next customer can start walking). When I asked where the bathroom was, the employee walked me halfway across the store rather than pointing. They’ve decided their game is warm experience, not minutes per customer.

    Which means the friction I keep running into at Trader Joe’s isn’t accidental. It’s the residue of a different optimization. They’re playing for one thing; I’m playing for another; the shopper behind me is playing for a third (presumably their personal, egotistical perception of fairness powered by a deontological backing of the inefficient rules of Trader Joe’s (because it sure as hell ain’t actual fairness; actual fairness means the first arrival gets to checkout first)). All three of us are right, given our games. We’re just not playing the same one.

    Most disagreements about etiquette aren’t moral disagreements. They’re disagreements about which game everyone thinks they’re playing. 

    In serious situations, I’ve heard people say, “I’m not here to play games.” 

    Perhaps it’s no coincidence that they always say that angrily. 

    What If It Were Easy?

    JulianLeave a comment

    The goal of the game is to do. You do by removing friction. 

    A few years ago, a shaman watched me explain something I was struggling with. Then he asked, “What if it were easy?”

    The friend with me said, before I could answer: “Julian associates difficulty with value.” 

    He wasn’t wrong. I think most people do. We assume that if something is hard, it must matter; if it’s easy, it can’t be the real thing. Cultures everywhere reinforce this: no pain, no gain; if it burns, it’s working. 

    But sometimes a thing is hard because it’s valuable, and sometimes it’s hard because of friction. Both feel difficult. They’re worlds apart. 

    I notice the difference most clearly with games.

    When I’m playing a game I love, three things happen: 

    1. I pay attention without effort. 
    2. I want to improve. 
    3. When it ends, I want more. 

    This feeling – total absorption, no friction between me and the activity – is rare and precious. Most activities require me to push myself to do them. Games don’t. They grab me by my noggin and suddenly I’m along for the ride. 

    A movie buff once told me he loves movies for the immersion. I experience immersion with movies sometimes. With books and theater, sometimes. With games, almost always. That’s information about me, not about games. Games are my art form.

    This week I made a list of things in my day I find unenjoyable. Except for the entries about physical pain, every entry was a type of friction: either current or future. Some friction is necessary as a means to an end (waiting on hold with a doctor’s office). But some of it is inherited assumptions about how a life is supposed to feel.

    If the shaman asked me again today, I’d answer: I think more of it is supposed to be easy. Not all of it. But more than I’ve been letting it be.

    I’m game. 

    The $10.125 Sandwich

    JulianLeave a comment

    The goal of the game is selling sandwiches. You sell sandwiches by making it fun. You make it fun by taking fun seriously. 

    I bought a sandwich today. The sandwich shop offers a cute promotion: from 3 to 6 pm, if you call a coin flip correctly, you pay half price. 

    It’s fun, it’s attractive, and they net 75% of the normal retail price. 

    But the experience is broken. 

    First, you don’t pay until after the flip. So I, who sees loopholes without trying, am instantly aware that I could order the sandwich, flip the coin, and walk if it lands the wrong way. How would they even develop a process to stop me? I pay full price and then the flip determines my refund?

    Second, the coin. It’s some B.S. commemorative coin — one side is the restaurant name, the other the logo — where neither side is obviously heads or tails. So the cashier has to tell me, and presumably every patron between 3 and 6pm, “this side is heads.”

    Third, the flip. Less a flip than a half-spin. He calls it whichever way it lands in his hand. Not even the catches-it-and-slaps-it-onto-the-back-of-his-other-hand move that’s standard on any schoolyard.

    What happened to the good ol’ quarter?
    Why are we making this more complicated than it needs to be?
    Why can’t the customer flip the coin onto the counter, where it would be easily visible?
    Why not call the sides “name” and “logo” instead of heads and tails? 

    The sandwich was good. It satisfied my basic need – fuel after the gym so I’m not grumpy. It wasn’t $13.50 good. It’s definitely $6.75 good. It’s probably also $10.125 good (the expected cost). 

    Here’s what bugs me. The promotion could have been theater. A customer walks in, gets drawn into a small moment of drama, calls it in the air, wins or loses, laughs either way, tells their friends. Instead it’s a transaction with a dice roll bolted on. The cashier is phoning it in. The coin is wrong. The flip is wrong. The ritual isn’t a ritual.

    The fun version costs them nothing. Same margin, same coin-flip odds, same sandwich. Just a real coin, a real flip, and a cashier who understands he’s running a tiny game show for thirty seconds a day. 

    And sure, if there are people in line behind me, by all means do the quick version. But the main reason they’re doing this promotion at all is because they don’t have many patrons between 3 and 6pm. 

    If they fixed it, I’d come back. If they fixed it, I’d bring people. The half-time half-price is nice; the experience could also have value. 

    Also, I called heads and it landed tails. 

    Content is what you know. Method is how you think. 

    JulianLeave a comment

    To play well, you must find the method. To find the method… well, that’s part of the method. 

    Today I met a cabinet rep who knew, off the top of his head, that the tambour door came in 24, 28, 32, and 36 inches. That’s the content, and, as one data point, it’s not yet impressive. But the fact he can rattle off seemingly every dimensional trait for multiple different cabinet styles and product lines across multiple brands? That’s beautiful. It’s like showing a chess master the opening few moves of a historical game and seeing him place it precisely. 

    But content you can find in a book. Trivia is by its nature trivial. What you can’t find in a book: method. 

    Repeatedly, he heard our proposals and improved them. He looked at a 79-inch space, listened to what I’d planned (two 36-inch cabinets, side by side), and proposed: a 30 and two 24s. Total: 78 inches. Gives you 6 more inches of cabinets. 

    After he did this a few times, I isolated his method: 1) Map the dimensions of the space. 2) Subtract standard sizes from total length. 3) Find the combination that leaves the minimum remainder.

    The content — knowing the sizes — is the raw material. The methods — including “subtract to find the minimum remainder” — is what makes him good at it.

    A chess-master friend of mine thrives in certainty but buckles when he arrives at probabilities. Since I grew up playing poker, I rarely see certainty but am comfortable making positive-expected value bets. These games teach different skills. For him, it’s the detailed, factual, calculation-heavy process of walking a specific position to its end. (It’s no coincidence he’s now in law). For me, it’s staying afloat until I see a spot with an edge; then pouncing on it. 

    Having spent many years ghostwriting for top Silicon Valley founders, executives, and investors. I’ve enjoyed living in brilliant minds. One thing I’ve noticed: 

    Experts can usually describe their content in detail, but most can’t articulate their method. A surgeon could tell you every action in her procedure. But she might not know that she’s left-handed and therefore angles every screw slightly off from where a right-handed surgeon would. That left-leaning screw is just something she does, and she might even recognize it as hers. But ultimately she knows more than she can say. 

    Most people hire for content. What do you know? What’s on your resume?
    Some hire for good method, assuming you’ll acquire content fast.

    The worst are the ones who confuse content for method. They’ve memorized the right answers for the common cases. But they can’t handle a new scenario. 

    Yesterday’s post in fewer words: 

    • Pattern-matchers have content without method.
    • Scientists have method that generates content. 
    • When I’m hiring a doctor, I want a scientist. 

    The cabinet rep impressed me with his content. But we also shouldn’t ignore some of the other points of his method. “You sure you don’t want a panel on the side of the fridge? You’re gonna want to look at the wires and the side of fridge every time you enter your kitchen for the rest of your life?” 

    The honest answer? Yeah, I’m game.