I love your decision to use headers with numbers, but not include any title. It forces the reader (me) to simply read each section, one after the other, and focus on the actual content, not the summarized title.
I often read headlines and then simply start looking for the stuff in the headline within the body of the document/article/blogpost. This is refreshing.
George, have you read Michael Dean’s stuff on Essay Architecture? That’s what your number headlines made me think of. Idk which item it would be under his rubric, but it’s certainly an impactful rhythm and pacing mechanism.
Wow ! many thanks . Claude gave me a summary, And I am familiar with alexxander work. Very intereting and practical. I shoudl try this , at least understand ... Thanks for the pointer ...
Yeah, it kinda reminds me of Kill Bill (I think that was the movie) where the divisions between parts of the movie are "Chapter X" (big pause) ... and then then next chapter starts.
The white space above and below the numbers almost acts as a cognitive reset.
I noticed the numbering as well. Funny how these things stand out. I hope it’s ok if I borrow this technique. I do a lot of storytelling in my line of work!
I am going to publish a blogpost about this header thing. I had something drafted for a while, but I’ve decided I will post soon because there was reception to my note. Ty fellow substackians for the hearts!
So much of what I read feels like recycled thoughts - this genuinely made me sit up and think afresh and in a way I just would not have done save for this piece. Really fun and thought provoking- thanks so much. I’ll be grateful each morning after this!
Most people stay stuck because they protect their first guess like it is identity. Progress belongs to the ones who treat beliefs as drafts, not possessions.
And education is designed to crush students guessing, making them into compliant worker bees. But the world is changing rapidly, and needs curiosity, guessing and experimentation as a core fundamental skill.
Here’s the challenge I see: 1. Many people don’t like to guess. It’s uncomfortable for them trying to exert mental effort to solve a problem. Some worry they could be wrong, what if they guess wrong and look bad or there are bad consequences. All of these are forms of unhappiness of one sort or another. 2. Many people don’t like to test. They don’t know goes to do it. They might think it’s a waste of time. It takes mental effort to design a test, they might think. What if the test proves inconclusive or points in the wrong direction. These are also forms of unhappiness. 3. Many people don’t like to correct. It means they have to admit they’ve done something wrong. What if the correction didn’t work? More unhappy possibilities. Don’t get me wrong. I love you 3 step system. What I’m saying is it requires engaging unhappiness. There is the possibility, not certainty, of good outcomes emanating from the process, good outcomes that will produce happiness of various sorts. So in my mind this is a classic UH pair situation. People must engage some Us to get to the Hs. This is not of academic interest only. This is why people don’t use the method. They avoid Us at all costs. I believe that intelligent engagement of UHs is a major less traveled path to greater well being and happiness.
Perhaps an addition is needed to determine whether the problem you have identified is real and significant? Many people are trying to solve problems that they have been convinced they have by marketing/society/influencers.
Thales and Francis Bacon are the most easily identifiable 0-> 1 authors of the scientific boom loop. In human biology, it’s Hippocrates, Vesalius, Harvey, Pasteur, and Bernard
(Disclaimer : stream of consciousness) i told myself : This is a great piece of writing. But when I came to the end I wondered : okay, what are we saying here ? That any pb solving start with guessing ? Well a bit obvious right? . So then I'll ask, myself okay, so what does Mack really wanna push forward or meaning here ? . And my guess was Because he's generally talking about agency., Is he implicitly saying that there is more agency these days as There was at the time of Queen Elizabeth ? And to this I answer Ito myself, well, given that There is a bit of more of a free speech
Since enlightenment? Then Possibly.
So given the time compression you refer to in the Arcticle, . are we saying that in fact agency is new? Well it's getting faster but it's not new. So maybe we are switching from a conservative dominant worldview to an innovative dominant worldview at least in the Western tech oriented stuff.
Which mean that This is about diffusion of innovations or faster spread if you prefer . But not only of tech, but mindset spread.
The most important point: Make more guesses. It’s easy to fall into the trap of accepting reality. Then test guesses more. And error correct.
1. Guess-Test-Correct was not obvious. It's extremely simple -- but it was hiding in plain sight for 99.9% of human history.
2. Humans having agency over their environment is pretty new. Even the concept of the United Kingdom, my home country, is a product of agency. Without central heating in cold winters or the clothes on my back, I'd die in a matter of hours.
3. Great rabbit hole is David Deutsch's Beginning of Infinity. He explains that guessing has *no limit* to the problems we can solve, unless it defies the laws of physics. So this extremely simple but non-obvious formula can solve *every* problem.
Thanks for the Deutsch pointer — I didn't know it, and it sent me down a fascinating rabbit hole with Claude.
---
2.
( war story.)
As a young coach and therapist, I had several patients I could not help.
That stayed with me ( worrying and saddening me -> helplessness)
I later read that the brain treats its mental model as identity. Challenging the model triggers the same neurological response as a physical threat — cognitive dissonance (1) isn't just discomfort, it's a defence mechanism. It operates mostly below awareness, pre-cognitive, so the patient isn't consciously resisting. They simply close, like an oyster.
---
3.
My point about the Bloom wheel (in previous post) is this: what blocks most people isn't capability — it's disposition. They are not stupid. They are proud. In a psychological sense : Identity Preservation (2) .
Queen Elizabeth is a perfect illustration. One could read her as failing to error-correct. I'd reframe it as identity preservation. Revising the model meant revising who she was — The Queen.
Authority. Power. Unquestionable.
The doom loop wasn't stupidity. It was the cost of remaining herself.
---
4.
What creates the opening?
The pause itself.
That gap between stimulus and response — before the oyster closes — is where curiosity can enter. Neurologically, curiosity activates what the so- called SEEKING system (3): a state genuinely incompatible with defensive processing. The uncertain result becomes attractive rather than threatening. This is what gamifies the guess. And dopamine fires on the anticipation of discovery, not the reward itself — which means the opening, not the answer, is where the energy lives.
---
5.
It's easy to fall into treating reality as fixed (4) — fate, destiny, authority, the way things are. Unquestionable.
Take the rain. ( UK, isnt it ?)
There is nothing I can do about the weather. But I can wear a raincoat and carry an umbrella. That's agency turned into habit.
The Stoics understood this "structurally", not just philosophically (5):
- Accept what cannot be changed — the rain, the environment
- Change what cannot be accepted— its effect on me: raincoat, umbrella, choice
- Have the wisdom to distinguish between the two
That distinction is the pause. And in that pause lives what the Stoics called prohairesis — the power of choice that no external event can reach.
Agency lies between the stimulus and my answer to it. (6)
---
(1) Festinger's cognitive dissonance
(2) Hawkins' Map of Consciousness / AGFLAP: Pride sits below Courage on the calibration scale — structurally involutive, unable to self-correct without an external disruption. Likely to activate Psychological Games (Karpman's triangle, etc.)
(3) Panksepp's SEEKING system. Berridge showed that dopamine fires on anticipation of discovery, not reward itself
(4) Carol Dweck: Fixed vs. Growth mindset
(5) Marcus Aurelius → Serenity Prayer (AA)
(6) Rollo May → Covey's paraphrase → attributed to Frankl :
"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."
I love your decision to use headers with numbers, but not include any title. It forces the reader (me) to simply read each section, one after the other, and focus on the actual content, not the summarized title.
I often read headlines and then simply start looking for the stuff in the headline within the body of the document/article/blogpost. This is refreshing.
(Also enjoying the content as I am reading still)
Ahh thank you Adam. I had this realisation myself too.
It has a very rhythmic pacing feel to it, feels like things are stacking and building vs them sitting next to each other.
Thanks for the feedback.
George, have you read Michael Dean’s stuff on Essay Architecture? That’s what your number headlines made me think of. Idk which item it would be under his rubric, but it’s certainly an impactful rhythm and pacing mechanism.
Wow ! many thanks . Claude gave me a summary, And I am familiar with alexxander work. Very intereting and practical. I shoudl try this , at least understand ... Thanks for the pointer ...
https://claude.ai/share/6d7b1933-bd57-4a54-afd8-510c3c45dd21
Yeah, it kinda reminds me of Kill Bill (I think that was the movie) where the divisions between parts of the movie are "Chapter X" (big pause) ... and then then next chapter starts.
The white space above and below the numbers almost acts as a cognitive reset.
I noticed the numbering as well. Funny how these things stand out. I hope it’s ok if I borrow this technique. I do a lot of storytelling in my line of work!
I am going to publish a blogpost about this header thing. I had something drafted for a while, but I’ve decided I will post soon because there was reception to my note. Ty fellow substackians for the hearts!
Yes I agree!
So much of what I read feels like recycled thoughts - this genuinely made me sit up and think afresh and in a way I just would not have done save for this piece. Really fun and thought provoking- thanks so much. I’ll be grateful each morning after this!
Thanks Varsha. I think LLM's have made this problem a lot worse.
Yes gratitude about “obvious” things is an underrated talent. One of of basic for happiness , IMHO (with peace , / acceptance) IMHO
Most people stay stuck because they protect their first guess like it is identity. Progress belongs to the ones who treat beliefs as drafts, not possessions.
🎯
Very entertaining and useful. Optimists probably do this unconsciously anyway while pessimists prefer their doom loops.
And education is designed to crush students guessing, making them into compliant worker bees. But the world is changing rapidly, and needs curiosity, guessing and experimentation as a core fundamental skill.
Here’s the challenge I see: 1. Many people don’t like to guess. It’s uncomfortable for them trying to exert mental effort to solve a problem. Some worry they could be wrong, what if they guess wrong and look bad or there are bad consequences. All of these are forms of unhappiness of one sort or another. 2. Many people don’t like to test. They don’t know goes to do it. They might think it’s a waste of time. It takes mental effort to design a test, they might think. What if the test proves inconclusive or points in the wrong direction. These are also forms of unhappiness. 3. Many people don’t like to correct. It means they have to admit they’ve done something wrong. What if the correction didn’t work? More unhappy possibilities. Don’t get me wrong. I love you 3 step system. What I’m saying is it requires engaging unhappiness. There is the possibility, not certainty, of good outcomes emanating from the process, good outcomes that will produce happiness of various sorts. So in my mind this is a classic UH pair situation. People must engage some Us to get to the Hs. This is not of academic interest only. This is why people don’t use the method. They avoid Us at all costs. I believe that intelligent engagement of UHs is a major less traveled path to greater well being and happiness.
Perhaps an addition is needed to determine whether the problem you have identified is real and significant? Many people are trying to solve problems that they have been convinced they have by marketing/society/influencers.
I love this perspective. Thanks for a super fresh POV and such interesting writing!
This was brilliant! Iteration is leverage :)
Thales and Francis Bacon are the most easily identifiable 0-> 1 authors of the scientific boom loop. In human biology, it’s Hippocrates, Vesalius, Harvey, Pasteur, and Bernard
Good stuff!
Always worth reading, thanks, George 🫡
absolute beast of a writeup!
Have you assumed this method may be also wrong? Sounds ridiculous, but may be scientific methods don't actually work in practice as much as we would like them to: https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/reassessing-the-scientific-method
Vers nice , @mack ! I used the PDCA for 20 y and this is such a nice sell !
I would love to have had it then !
Are you implying that « agency » is « new » or just « on the rise « ?
Or did I misread you ?
Can you explain more?
(Disclaimer : stream of consciousness) i told myself : This is a great piece of writing. But when I came to the end I wondered : okay, what are we saying here ? That any pb solving start with guessing ? Well a bit obvious right? . So then I'll ask, myself okay, so what does Mack really wanna push forward or meaning here ? . And my guess was Because he's generally talking about agency., Is he implicitly saying that there is more agency these days as There was at the time of Queen Elizabeth ? And to this I answer Ito myself, well, given that There is a bit of more of a free speech
Since enlightenment? Then Possibly.
So given the time compression you refer to in the Arcticle, . are we saying that in fact agency is new? Well it's getting faster but it's not new. So maybe we are switching from a conservative dominant worldview to an innovative dominant worldview at least in the Western tech oriented stuff.
Which mean that This is about diffusion of innovations or faster spread if you prefer . But not only of tech, but mindset spread.
Am still speaking confusingly ?
Oh ok.
The most important point: Make more guesses. It’s easy to fall into the trap of accepting reality. Then test guesses more. And error correct.
1. Guess-Test-Correct was not obvious. It's extremely simple -- but it was hiding in plain sight for 99.9% of human history.
2. Humans having agency over their environment is pretty new. Even the concept of the United Kingdom, my home country, is a product of agency. Without central heating in cold winters or the clothes on my back, I'd die in a matter of hours.
3. Great rabbit hole is David Deutsch's Beginning of Infinity. He explains that guessing has *no limit* to the problems we can solve, unless it defies the laws of physics. So this extremely simple but non-obvious formula can solve *every* problem.
1.
Thanks for the Deutsch pointer — I didn't know it, and it sent me down a fascinating rabbit hole with Claude.
---
2.
( war story.)
As a young coach and therapist, I had several patients I could not help.
That stayed with me ( worrying and saddening me -> helplessness)
I later read that the brain treats its mental model as identity. Challenging the model triggers the same neurological response as a physical threat — cognitive dissonance (1) isn't just discomfort, it's a defence mechanism. It operates mostly below awareness, pre-cognitive, so the patient isn't consciously resisting. They simply close, like an oyster.
---
3.
My point about the Bloom wheel (in previous post) is this: what blocks most people isn't capability — it's disposition. They are not stupid. They are proud. In a psychological sense : Identity Preservation (2) .
Queen Elizabeth is a perfect illustration. One could read her as failing to error-correct. I'd reframe it as identity preservation. Revising the model meant revising who she was — The Queen.
Authority. Power. Unquestionable.
The doom loop wasn't stupidity. It was the cost of remaining herself.
---
4.
What creates the opening?
The pause itself.
That gap between stimulus and response — before the oyster closes — is where curiosity can enter. Neurologically, curiosity activates what the so- called SEEKING system (3): a state genuinely incompatible with defensive processing. The uncertain result becomes attractive rather than threatening. This is what gamifies the guess. And dopamine fires on the anticipation of discovery, not the reward itself — which means the opening, not the answer, is where the energy lives.
---
5.
It's easy to fall into treating reality as fixed (4) — fate, destiny, authority, the way things are. Unquestionable.
Take the rain. ( UK, isnt it ?)
There is nothing I can do about the weather. But I can wear a raincoat and carry an umbrella. That's agency turned into habit.
The Stoics understood this "structurally", not just philosophically (5):
- Accept what cannot be changed — the rain, the environment
- Change what cannot be accepted— its effect on me: raincoat, umbrella, choice
- Have the wisdom to distinguish between the two
That distinction is the pause. And in that pause lives what the Stoics called prohairesis — the power of choice that no external event can reach.
Agency lies between the stimulus and my answer to it. (6)
---
(1) Festinger's cognitive dissonance
(2) Hawkins' Map of Consciousness / AGFLAP: Pride sits below Courage on the calibration scale — structurally involutive, unable to self-correct without an external disruption. Likely to activate Psychological Games (Karpman's triangle, etc.)
(3) Panksepp's SEEKING system. Berridge showed that dopamine fires on anticipation of discovery, not reward itself
(4) Carol Dweck: Fixed vs. Growth mindset
(5) Marcus Aurelius → Serenity Prayer (AA)
(6) Rollo May → Covey's paraphrase → attributed to Frankl :
"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."
I connect it to Rumi :
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
Very insightful!
Something to mull over my stroll...