Tag: Philosophy

The Frame Is the Game

JulianLeave a comment

You win the game by playing to win. You play to win by reframing the game.

I used to play competitive pickleball. I once won the silver medal at the Hoboken Open. While playing, I hated my opponents. Hated them. They were some of the most deplorable people I had ever met. Then, afterwards, we shook hands and they returned to the dentist and lawyer they had always been. 

Today, Partner and I are in Florida. We don’t want to be here; we’re here for the sort of getting-your-teeth-cleaned-style obligation that you do because it’s important but not desirable nor fun. But while we’re here we might as well make the most of it. So we lie to ourselves. We call it a vacation. We walk along the beach. We eat oysters and shrimp. 

The actions are identica. The flights, the hotel, the ubers, the appointment: none of it changes. What changes is whether we’re playing to win or playing not to lose. 

Big difference. 

Partner does a small version of this every day: I pack water because I know it’ll be nice when I drink it, as opposed to packing water because I’m afraid I won’t have it when I need it. Same bottle, same backpack, different relationship to carrying it. The first is light. The second is a lump of fear dragging you down every step. 

The NYC subway ads have the same problem. Subway surfing kills. Theoretically, nothing is worse than death, so this should be the most motivating message ever written. It isn’t. Teenagers ignore it, so they ride outside the train cars and die. Apparently coolness and thrill are more exciting to move toward than death is to move away from – even though the thing to move away from is LITERAL DEATH. 

This isn’t unique to messaging. It comes up everywhere. Are you eating healthy because you love yourself or because you hate yourself? Are you running a marathon to feel proud crossing the finish line or because you’re scared of being out of shape? 

Reframing is self-deception. Every sinking ship could be a swimming opportunity; every torture chamber could be an abusement park. There are people in genuinely bad situations who are surviving them by calling them vacations, and they’re going to wake up at some point and notice the ship is underwater. I’m not naive about this. (It’s the plot of one of my favorite movies.) It has its own dangers: overwork, misdirected effort, self-hoodwinking. 

But the alternative is paralysis. People who are motivated only by avoiding bad outcomes mostly end up doing less. They don’t send the email because it might be imperfect. They don’t take their pills because they don’t like being reminded they’re sick. They don’t go to Florida because going to Florida means admitting why we’re going to Florida. So they stay home, and they stay safe, and they stay smaller than they have to be.

Some days, you can’t choose what happens.

Some days, the frame is the only thing you can choose. 

Wouldn’t you rather choose a nice, kind, attractive, fun frame?
Every event; every observation; every activity is a fantasy.
Wouldn’t you rather choose yours?

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. 

Return of the Sandwich Shop

JulianLeave a comment

The goal of the game is to make money. You make money by selling sandwiches for more than they cost. 

(Part 2 of the sandwich series. Part 1 is here.)

The previous customer had ordered and left without entering his phone number for loyalty rewards. So I entered mine.

Today’s cashier had panache. Flair. Real excitement about which side was heads and which was tails. When I asked if they were still doing the 50%-off coin flip, he said “of course!” like his job was attitude, not mere cash-register-button-pushing.

The cashier showed us the coin: this side is heads, this side is tails. Partner called it: “sandwich logo.” 

It landed sandwich side down.

She lost.

The cashier rang up 50% off anyway.

I hadn’t considered this until today: when I win the flip, I get 50% off 100% of the time. When I lose, I get… 50% off some percent of the time? The expected value just got better.

Since a sandwich is bread, meat, and veggies, the shop probably still exceeds its cost of goods even at half off. So they’re not exactly losing on the flip. But they could have netted more revenue by simply charging me the appropriate amount. 

In any case, the promotion is working: they pay a small acquisition cost to attract me back. Which they have. I’m here, eating my second sandwich in three days, and they also have my phone number. 

They played me. I played them. And the dinky coin flip is what made it work.

Partner says my odds will increase even further if I’m cuter. I think she says this so I keep bringing her places.

Well played.

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.

The Surgeon Who Quoted Standard Practice

JulianLeave a comment

You win the game by assembling the right team. In medicine, the right team thinks. 

Before my sleep apnea surgery, I interviewed surgeons the way you interview contractors. Notebook in my pocket, questions prepared, specific concerns about specific structures, specific tradeoffs, and speculation about areas outside of the medical literature. 

After ten years of complaining about sleep to at least a half-dozen doctors, I finally met a surgeon who lit up when I pulled out the notebook. We were in a teaching hospital; his students were in the room. He went question-by-question with me. He enjoyed the questions the way an expert juggler enjoys a bowling ball being thrown at his head. I pushed him hard. He juggled the chainsaws. We became friends.

The second surgeon, at a different and widely respected teaching hospital, wore a very nice lab coat and said things like “the standard practice in this scenario is…” She said it several times. When I pressed on specifics, she returned to standard practice. She was pleasant. She was credentialed. She was a pattern-matcher. She wanted me to use a CPAP for the rest of my life. 

Doctors are often pattern-matchers. You go in with symptoms, they recognize the pattern, they prescribe the standard response. Most of the time this works, because most symptoms are common. The pattern holds.

The problem is that pattern-matching is indistinguishable from competence until you’re the edge case. And then it’s catastrophically different.

A real scientist notices when the pattern doesn’t fit. A pattern-matcher doesn’t notice, because noticing would require understanding the mechanics rather than seeing the pattern. The failure is perceptual, not moral. The pattern-matcher isn’t lying and usually isn’t careless — they don’t understand the mechanics of the machine, so they follow the owner’s manual. 

This is why “they didn’t intend to be malicious” is such a weak defense of anyone in a professional role. Nobody intends malice. Bullies don’t intend malice — they perceive attacks where there aren’t any. Cruel people don’t intend cruelty — they mis-observe what cruelty is (often by thinking they’re acting righteously). The failure of perception is the failure. 

Optimism is a specific, dangerous version of this. The optimist sees only what’s going right. If their own work is the problem, they can’t see it — and they can’t hear it when other people raise it, because the pattern in their head is: my work is fine. 

I don’t want a doctor. I want a scientist who practices medicine. Even better: a philosopher who uses science to practice medicine.

A test: can you break your surgeon in conversation? If they can be broken – if your uneducated mind can throw questions that cause them to buckle – are you really going to trust them cutting into your unconscious body? If a surgeon can’t handle intensity well, do you really trust them with your surgery? 

After my first six doctors mis-diagnosed or mis-treated my sleep issue, I now attack the ideas of every doctor who consults on my case. If they can’t hack it, I want a different doctor. I didn’t even go to medical school, and you can’t handle me? 

I may irk some competent doctors who are unwilling to tolerate my approach. I accept this rate of false negatives, since I am happy to travel the country to find a doctor. If I had limited options, I would behave differently. 

It’s lonely to keep searching for a new doctor over and over again. For one recent medical topic, I’m on six consults and counting. 

When it’s not a big deal, I don’t fight this hard. But when it is, I’ll keep attacking your ideas, methodology, and approach until I dismiss you or I trust you. 

Most people fall into the first category. The second category is how I befriended my surgeon. 

Game on.

The Sleeper Agent at Chipotle

JulianLeave a comment

The goal of the game is to notice when you’re being played.

In December of 2008, I unwrapped a burrito-based scheme.

My local Chipotle had a promo: buy a $20 gift card, get a coupon for a free burrito. I asked the cashier what the gift card could be used for. “It’s as good as cash.”

I paid $20. They handed me a $20 gift card and a coupon. I asked for another. I handed them the $20 gift card; they handed me a functionally-identical card and a second coupon. I did this four times. The cashier said she might need to check with her manager. I smiled and said I was done, leaving with my four burritos, $20 gift card, and twenty fewer dollars in my pocket.

Chipotle ran this same promotion every December and May through 2011. I always had a $20 gift card on me, ready to use it to buy another. I ate essentially free burritos for three years. Even as a high schooler, I couldn’t eat them fast enough.

I was very proud of myself.

I hadn’t been to Chipotle in years. Today, they had a two-for-one deal – officially for the start of the Stanley Cup Finals (and coincidentally on the biggest stoner holiday of the year). 

I ordered. And, like a just-activated sleeper agent, the skills came back.

Bowl, not burrito – they fill the bowl more.

Say “extra [item],” then pause. Wait until they finish scooping. Once you give them the next task, they will stop the previous one. Wait until they finish and you’re sure to have extracted the maximum.  Ask for half-and-half meat. They always overshoot; you end up with closer to two-thirds and two-thirds. (Combine this trick with the pause for even more.) 

Sour cream on the side. Guac on the side. The containers hold more than the spoon puts on the bowl.

I watched myself do it. Pause after “extra cheese”. Sour cream on the side. My bowl came out about 30% fuller than Partner’s order of the same item. The skills were still there, fifteen years later, like riding a bike.

Here’s the thing I didn’t see in 2008.

Chipotle ran those gift card promotions for three years. If exploiting them had dented the company, they would have stopped after year one. Instead, the promotion kept running. The fraction of people who figured out the loophole was, presumably, priced in. (Or maybe only my Chipotle failed to stop this loophole. As Partner’s mom says, “It’s better to be lucky than smart.” Unfortunately, I’m usually smart.)

I thought I was beating the system. The system was too big to care. 

Today is even funnier. Chipotle is doing two-for-one on 4/20. Their margins on a 30%-overfilled bowl are fine – the whole promotion exists because they must make more than 50% margins on food sales. The tactics I was proud of – pause-after-extra, half-and-half, sidesies – if everyone did them, Chipotle would be ecstatic. My “exploits” meant I ate at Chipotle when I otherwise wouldn’t have. And as long as I do that, they win. 

It’s like the credit card companies with their 5%-cashback offers. They’ve run the math. They’re making profit. Go ahead and max out the offers: That just means you’re playing the game. 

Being Wise to the game sometimes means: 

  1. Noticing that winning the game means you’re playing; and sometimes playing itself is losing.  
  2. Making games that entice others to play, and where any play is a win for you. In casino parlance, this is being The House. In Chipotle, it means having such high margins that a 50%-off deal plus customers bowlmaxxing still leads to a profit. 

And, fine: sometimes a teenager actually does beat the house. I did. Sorry, Chipotle.

Still, that nostalgia brought me back to Chipotle today, over ten years later.  

On long enough timelines, with large enough groups, The House always wins.

Game on. Or maybe: Got played.

Money is Not Victory Points

JulianLeave a comment

You win the game by maximizing eudaemonia.

Money is a unit. It measures a specific thing — perceived value, mostly — but it’s often treated as the score for the whole game. Stop confusing it for eudaemonia (a vibes-based measurement of how much one is living a satisfying life, derived from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics). Money is only one input, and it’s less weighty than friendship, work, impact, hobbies, and legacy. (Individual weights vary.)

Here are units that I or loved ones have applied to life in the last week.

Joy per calorie. A method of choosing what food to consume. One slice of candied orange brings me more joy than an entire non-dried orange. One slice of sun-dried orange may bring even more.

Attention-efforts. Measuring time not in minutes but in effort required to keep your attention on the task. This is like golf: low score is good. The lower the attention-effort, the more you’ll naturally do it (and, generally, the more you’ll enjoy it). I create the grocery list because it’s low attention-effort for me. Partner buys the groceries because it’s low for her. Both of us hate the other’s activity. Dividing the task into more precise chunks enables better isolating and optimizing. 

Keystrokes. How many discrete small movements it takes to achieve a task. (I presume it comes from a CS context where the number of operations mattered to a program.) My father uses this one — he texts “Y” for yes and “Ack” for “acknowledged.” With practice, by both minimizing and bunching together keystrokes into “chunks”, you’ll need fewer attention-efforts to execute the same program.

BTUs (British Thermal Units). The manner through which to keep Partner happy despite last week’s sweltering early summer here in New York City. A happy partner-hour is worth more BTUs than I’d otherwise run. (I installed an AC last week.)

Team alignment. A Partner addition. A vector with directionality (“for the team vs for the individual”) and magnitude. Use cases: “Are the other person and I aligned?” and “Is this person doing a selfish thing?” Also applicable in situations where your thoughts diverge from your feelings. When the Euclidean distance is too high, investigate. 

Money. Perceived value. Not to be confused with actual value.

A unit I used at 17 and now realize was terrible: Facebook friends. The game rewarded me for playing it. Turns out it wasn’t “social media” — it was an ad platform.

A unit I still use and probably shouldn’t: hourly rate. Old habit from the ghostwriting years, when optimizing it was most of the game. A better version: (joy-per-hour + dollars-per-hour) / attention-efforts-per-hour. More-precise denominator, richer numerator, honest about what I’m actually trying to maximize. 

As you age, you develop more precise units. You improve your own vision and you learn from friends. 

Thanks, Partner.

Who’s the Muppet Now?

JulianLeave a comment

The goal of the game is to play. You play by entering their world. 

Two exes have independently called me a muppet.
Today I meandered through Central Park with a literal muppet.
She didn’t have fur or someone’s hand up her backside.
But she voiced a muppet in the 70s and became one of the most in-demand voice-over artists in the country.

Partner and I met her at a Burning Man-esque immersive theater event. She and Partner exchanged numbers. We met at noon today. She has white hair and takes stairs slowly and always with a handrail. She mentions her sciatica. Thrice over the next 90 minutes, she slips into a character voice. The first: a high-pitched mocking childish sing-song, context-fit for parodying the president. Second: Italian, to correct my poorer accent. Third: I can’t recall. 

We started at the Museum of Natural History. By the time we entered the Shakespeare garden a block or two away, an hour had passed in our minds. In reality, under ten minutes. 

There’s a time dilation that happens with some people. Where they keep saying “Look at those flowers!” so you do. And when you’re looking at the bright purple of a cherry blossom, you lose yourself. Floating away, endlessly, somewhere into an abyss you didn’t recognize existed, let alone could be accessed at any second… where 90 minutes could have been 3 or 4 hours… you move slower, your internal monologue slows, but you don’t mind. The same place you’ve been a half-dozen times, but this time you enter it in a new way.

It’s not new. You’re new. The collective you is new. 

This experience happens more with artists. With creatives and children too. You spend an hour or a day or the rest of your life studying the veining in one perfect leaf. 

Suddenly, she’s apologizing on the phone. “Lunch Saturday? Wasn’t it Sunday? I’ll be right there.” She’s sure they agreed Sunday, but won’t leave her friend alone at the restaurant.

Then you leave and you return to the honking cars and the car exhaust fumes and the hot dog vendors and the rest of the dragnet made out of always-fraying sinew that yanks us all forward. 

You asked how she does the voices. She said, “They just come to me. They always have.” Your father has said you do voices well — but each time he says it, you’ve thought, “I know people far better.” Having gone beat-for-beat with a real character, you know this to be true.

So you return home, where you wonder about what you have to Give. What naturally comes to you the way voices do to her? Then you shake your head because mulling and musing and obsessing and ruminating never got anyone anywhere. So you smile, because you finally met a real-life muppet. 

I’ve been a muppet to others. This is a muppet to me.