Why Use Mental Models? (Or, How To Live A Life You Always Enjoy)

Because our brains are wired for the natural world of 10,000 years ago.

Since then, we’ve discovered more effective ways to navigate the world.

Yet, we have to consciously choose to navigate the world in these more effective ways; hence, mental models.

For example.

Most people assume that being themselves and being liked by other people are opposing goals.

Consider integer thinking (-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3).

Western Europeans thought the idea was “absurd” until about 300 years ago.

Now, we use it everywhere.

But that means that it’s not “natural” to think in these terms (our wetware isn’t wired to perceive the world in these ways).

We see this in ratings: we give something a 1 to 10 rating, or 1 to 5 stars.

Consider that a 1-star rating is terrible, no good, wouldn’t visit again, while a 5-star rating is excellent, couldn’t have been better.

Often when we’re young, our brains note this interesting phenomenon: we can be ourselves, or we can “fit a mold” that doesn’t feel like who we are.

Our default model turns it into a star rating for authenticity vs. being fake.

Fitting the mold is 1 star, and being completely ourselves is 5 stars.

Our default model tells us we have to choose being ourself (5 stars), or being liked by others (1 star).

But consider integer thinking as a mental model.

If we use this mental model, it might look like this:

-5: Something everyone else likes and I hate. +5: Something only I like, but nobody else does.

But wait, what does that make zero?

Well, if the integer line represents “positive experience”, then: 0: Something both everyone else likes and I like.

Experientially, we know this. Ella Fitzgerald is considered, almost universally, a good singer. Being fit is considered, almost universally, a physically attractive trait. In every reality, people like pizza. jk.

In this mental model, something that is popular and that you dislike isn’t 1 star, it’s something like -4 stars.

Also in this model, 4 stars might be something I like, and only 100 other people in the world like it, too. While 1 star is something that I like that 80% of people also like.

So if we use our default model, we think we have to choose between pleasing others vs. living authentically ourselves.

If we use the integer model, another reality becomes possible: you can always live a life you enjoy.

How?

By never being in the negative.

If you want to get along with everybody (0), engage in things that everyone likes and you like.

If you want to find your tribe, engage in things that are +3 and +4 stars to you.

If you want to be a true artist and not care what anyone else thinks, go for +5 stars only.

But. You never need to engage in the negative stars.

Because the lowest you’ll go is the overlap between universally enjoyable and enjoyable to you.

Which means, you would live a life you always enjoy.

Comedians and Entrepreneurs (and Pixar too)

Most people think of comedy as a performing art.

But consider the process:

  1. Think up something you think would be funny
  2. Tell the joke to an audience and get feedback
  3. Incorporate feedback to either scrap the joke or make it better.

Contrast this with what Clark Beckham describes as the process of art: having a clear vision, and then building the skills to express it so that you feel what comes out is true to your vision.

An artist would say whatever is in them, even if others don’t think its funny.

A comedian is more like a software developer building features for an audience.

Get feedback, tweak, deliver, tweak again. And once every part is working, ship it as a new product (a new comedy special).

Pixar does the same thing.

Like for Toy Story 3:

  1. First draft of script; shoot, edit, and produce actual animation of it
  2. Screen it (to a small group) and get feedback from the audience
  3. Repeat this process 7 to 8 times, until the final piece gets the reaction they desire.

Comedy (and the Pixar process) isn’t really a performing art. It’s a lot more like performing entrepreneurship.

Three Career Turning Points (or, the Four Stages of Career)

Most beginners think career looks like this:

  • First, find your passion (or your superpowers)
  • Second, find a way to do what you love

Yet 10,000 high school basketball players are NBA hopefuls. 3 of them make it.

Those that don’t? Many still had the height, the athleticism, and the practice routine to get there.

To the recruiters, it just didn’t manifest as good enough skills.

Finding what your good at is still important. It’s just not the start of the career. It’s the zeroeth step, the thing that happens before a career. In other words, talent is assumed. The real process looks something like this:

First, consistent skills. Second, consistent business (including choosing the right projects). Third, consistent people. Fourth, consistent life.

For the NBA hopeful, first you have to be good enough to make it in, then you have to learn the business of the NBA and adjust to that life, then you need to find the team that’s the best fit for you and your goals (both personal trainer, but also which team in the NBA), and then you have to maintain consistency while making sure your life outside of your work doesn’t break down.

That is the full arc of the career, in four stages. Which means three career turning points.

There comes a point in your career where you have complete confidence in your skills. You’re just not sure the market wants to pay for them consistently (a business).

There comes a point in your career where you have complete confidence in your business. You’re just not sure you can get the right people, clients and employees, to collaborate consistently (a team).

There comes a point in your career where you have complete confidence in your team. You’re just not sure if it will all come crashing down, or if you get too old to do it, or if you waited too long for everything else (a life).

The hard turnings are from skills -> business, from business -> people, and from people -> life.

For example:

  • In working with beginners (n > 10,000), they don’t get out of stage even understanding what they’re good at. If you’re naturally 1 in 1000 (top 0.1%) without trying, then you’ve found something you’re good at.
  • In working with talented people (n > 100), they can’t build consistent skills. You know you are consistently skilled when you feel like your skills match your talent: you’re not limited in executing what your mind and body are capable of.
  • In working with consistently skilled people (n > 30), they can’t build consistent businesses. A business (including a day job) is where you are not limited by how much money you want to make executing your skill. You make as much money as you want with your skill.
  • In working with consistent business people (n is approx. 10), they can’t build consistent teams of people. A consistent team of people are those that increase your success, and aren’t a hindrance to it. This includes in your personal life (think Will Smith and Jada).
  • A consistent life means you’re not the 50 year-old CEO who gets divorced and his kids hate him. I’ve worked with n = 3 people that get there, and they have all built billion-dollar empires.

Notice that these turnings flip back and forth from micro to macro.

Stage 1 is micro, your ability to focus within yourself to develop skills.

Stage 2 is macro, building a career/business that can house the ability for you to execute on your skills.

Stage 3 is micro, your ability to focus within people what actually matters, and build an internal (within your business) support system.

Stage 4 is macro, building a life that can house your business.

We all stumble because we’re naturally inclined towards one of these, and not the other.

The key to a great career life is being able to navigate all of them.

Asympathy

A word to describe a common experience of high level entrepreneurs (n > 200).

There is a kind of taking that is not greed and not even envy in the usual sense. People who have never had to protect a high-output life do not know what that life is made of. They experience their requests as ordinary: talk about my thing, sit in this mood, solve this tangle, be available in the way everyone else is. They do not see that an afternoon of being pulled off the work is not “an afternoon.” It is a break in the chain that produces books, businesses, championships, capital. It is cost-blind.

I call it asympathy.

It sounds like (a)sympathy, or being without sympathy.

But it’s actualy (asym)pathy, or asymmetric pathos.

Asympathy is the relational stance in which one person treats attention, access, and emotional labor as interchangeable across a large gap in operating cost. It is feeling and relating to another human being as if the costs (high, lows, and demands) are symmetric, when they are not. Which means the damage is disproportional to the intention.

Sometimes, we think that there may be solidarity in other “successful too” peer groups.

But consider Will and Jada Smith.

One could say that Jada, among other things, demonstrates asympathy towards Will.

“Just get a better peer group” doesn’t alleviate it.

The deciding factor is whether someone is a boon or a drain in the presence of someone else’s altitude.

What is AI's taste like?

The other day, I gave AI (grok) an excerpt from John Steinbeck.

It rated it a 6 out of 10 in terms of writing.

Steinbeck is a Nobel Prize, Pulitzer Prize, and National Book Award winner.

Initially, the AI thought that I had submitted my own writing.

But that’s besides the point.

(Even after, this it said 6 out of 10 is what you would expect from a high school level student).

Taste is subjective.

It’s okay that AI gave Nobel/Pulitzer/National Award-level writing a 6 out of 10.

Just realize, it may not have the same taste as you do.

The Art of Writing Dialogue

One of the sub-arts of fiction writing is dialogue.

The art of dialogue is often confused with the art of character (what happens between the quotations).

I mean, specifically, how as an author you artfully frame the dialogue.

A few examples:

  1. Naked: “Let’s go to the movies.” “Yes.”
  2. Saidism: “Let’s go to the movies,” he said. “Yes,” she said.
  3. Adjectival comments: “Let’s go to the movies,” he offered. “Yes,” she sighed.
  4. Tom Swifties: “Let’s go to to the movies,” he said insightfully. “Yes,” she said affirmatively.
  5. Action tags: Tom stopped walking and turned to her. “Let’s go to the movies.” She almost bumped into him out of surprise. “Yes.”
  6. Body language: Tom’s hands trembled. “Let’s go to the movies.” Marie looked down, pulled her hair back behind her ear, and looked up. “Yes.”
  7. Microexpressions: A smile pulled at Tom’s lips. “Let’s go to the movies.” Marie raised her eyebrows. “Yes.”
  8. Eyes: Tom couldn’t stop blinking. “Let’s go to the movies.” Marie’s eyes widened. “Yes.”

I like action tags and body language.

Some people like saidism, or plain naked dialogue.

There’s no right answer. That’s what makes it art.

Innovations of Jazz (the enjoyable, rhythmic remixing of things that feel like home)

Jazz was, once upon a time, 4 things:

  1. Improvisation (the creation)
  2. The Blues (the content)
  3. Swing Rhythm (the pulse)
  4. Joy (the feeling)

Innovating jazz expanded one of those scopes.

No improvisation? That’s just classic swing (Frank Sinatra, Big Bands).

I different sort of Blues? Other base music with deep comfort, familiarity, and meaning? That’s world jazz (Hiromi Uehara, Jorge Luis Pacheco, Tigran Hamasayan).

No swing rhythm? That’s Rockabilly and Rock n' Roll, R&B and Modern Gospel.

Swapping out the feeling of joy? That’s cool jazz, modal jazz, smooth jazz, hard bop and free jazz.

Jazz isn’t only what you make it. But most modern forms of music have, at least, a little jazz in them.

Innovations of Jazz (or, Jazz throughout the ages)

Jazz was, once upon a time, 4 things:

  1. Improvisation (the creation)
  2. The Blues (the content)
  3. Swing Rhythm (the pulse)
  4. Joy (the feeling)

Innovating jazz expanded one of those scopes.

No improvisation? That’s just classic swing (Frank Sinatra, Big Bands).

I different sort of Blues? Other base music with deep comfort, familiarity, and meaning? That’s world jazz (Hiromi Uehara, Jorge Luis Pacheco, Tigran Hamasayan).

No swing rhythm? That’s Rockabilly and Rock n' Roll, R&B and Modern Gospel.

Swapping out the feeling of joy? That’s cool jazz, modal jazz, smooth jazz, hard bop and free jazz.

Jazz isn’t only what you make it. But most modern forms of music have, at least, a little jazz in them.

A Technical Definition of Jazz

“You want a technical definition? Improvisation is in it, the Blues is in it, swingin' is in it.” — Wynton Marsalis

Lots of musicians improvise (shredding on the guitar). Improv doesn’t make it jazz.

Blues has some great improvising singers. Blues + improv doesn’t make it jazz.

Big bands can swing. But it can just be a performance. Without improvisation, its not jazz.

Spontaneous creation. Blues vocabulary. A swing rhythm. Anywhere all three are present, you’ve got jazz.

The 4Cs of Success Redux (or, how to define the success you really want)

You can figure out what sort of success you’re seeking by asking two questions.

Question 1: Do you want to be accepted by a tribe, or create a tribe?

Question 2: Do you care more about success now, or after you’re gone?

If you want to be accepted by a tribe, you’re looking at either credentialed success (acceptance by the governing body) or critical success (acceptance by the cool kids in your industry).

If you want to create a tribe, that’s either commercial success (lots of customers) or commercial success (lots of fans).

If you care more about success right now, that’s either credentialed success or commercial success. Nobody remembers a random marine biology Ph.D. from 20 years ago, and if Coca-Cola disappeared tomorrow, very few people would genuinely miss it.

If you care more about success after you’re gone, that’s either critical success or cultural success. Win an academy award, and you are enshrined in a long line of award winners, never forgotten. Make Rocky Horror Picture Show, and 50 years later people will still be playing dress-up to your film.

Of course, its possible to have different types of success in different areas.

C.S. Lewis received an Honorary Doctorate in Divinity (critical success), as well as creating enduring fiction with the Chronicles of Narnia (cultural success).

And of course, these are not mutually exclusive. You can experience success both now and after you’re gone.

But if you want to be a writer, you’d know:

  1. Credentialed = get a Creative Writing MFA
  2. Critical = win a Pulitzer Prize
  3. Commercial = write sleazy romance novels (they make the most money)
  4. Cultural = create the next Lord of the Rings

And that the skills and pathways to each of those types of success look very, very different.

Finding Flow Like Jazz Musicians

Jazz improvisation is not a monolith.

If you want to improvise, you have multiple methodologies. A few:

  • Call-and-response
  • Guide-tone method
  • Goal-tone method
  • Vertical improvisation
  • Horizontal improvisation
  • Motivic development
  • Licks, riffs, quotes
  • Patterns
  • Bebop

I think that which method you gravitate towards tells you something about yourself.

That would mean the contrapositive is true, too.

Do you like using what you already know? You might like vertical or horizontal improvisation (scales and arpeggios, the stuff you already practice every day.)

Do you like to repeat the same idea over and over, with variation? You might like patterns (pentatonic), or perhaps even motivic development.

Do you know where you want to end your lines and phrases? Perhaps try the guide-tone or goal-tone methods.

Do you like to compose and polish small bits of brilliance, then show it off? You might like licks, riffs, and quotes.

Do you like the feeling and flow of poetry, or moment-by-moment decision-making? You might like call-and-response, or bebop.

An idea for finding flow: figure out which you can practice, for hours on end, that brings you joy.