I had to read the description twice to try to suss up where he was finding all this proof, and I did not find it. And it's causation because Grant says it's causation, by jove. Woof.
I heard a line in a You Tube video some time ago along the lines of "oversimplification is a form of deception" and I want to make a neon sign of it.
Because Substack is new and exciting and trendy we don’t think of it as lasting, or potentially lasting, the way we do about, say, a piece of fiction published by a major house and reviewed in the NYT. But people are going to be reading FdB generations from now, long after the contents of book store remainder bins have molded in forgotten landfills. Freddie is the real deal. E.B. White or Mark Twain would be proud to sit next to him on our bookshelves.
Of course, as Briggs so eloquently points out, build a model with many variables and the model is guaranteed to prove what you wish it to prove. But because it is so complex, people think it must be right. (Let's go to the Imperial College COVID death model for starters which was, like all such models, very complex and entirely wrong.) The climate grift models are even worse -- of course they show what the current grantors want to see.
I think Freddie's point is that there is no model -- simple or complex. You just get what you get and take it as it comes -- and that is the beauty of human interactions. Some people I know are quite simple but still delightful...some I will never figure out. The range of human interactions is broad and that's what makes it "fun".
Well that is surely true. And it turns out that complex problems generally require complex solutions. (I just have this antipathy to models...been burned too many times...sorry...)
Part of the issue that Freddie underscores is that many humans do not prefer simplicity...his tic tac toe example is perfect. Most children tire of that at an early age. So we prefer things that cannot be easily (or ever) known/solved. Surely reflects my world...lol. We all long for simplicity, but Jim Jones and his ilk generally show the results of a simplicity-based reductio ad absurdum.
As the saying goes "All models are wrong, but some are useful." Given their ubiquity (and the occasional useful result) I can't bring myself to dismiss all modeling entirely.
"But that’s my favorite sort of person, the kind who isn’t blandly likable and safe to know, but rather extracts a cost to be close to and then repays that cost with rare and complicated gifts of personality."
I know this is from a different article, but my god, what an absolute jewel of a description.
Sorry, this was too long and complicated; didn't read it. I'm assuming it's well written, but I'd probably be annoyed by it because it would make me think. I think I'll wait for one of your shorter pieces where you dunk on the lefties that aren't lefty enough.
Well argued. Any close relationship will always have both intensely positive and intensely negative moments and phases. The tragedy is to discard one of those relationship because of the inevitable negative times.
My last post was about combatting this phenomenon and may be an interesting complement to what you have written.
I can't help but feel that children demand black and white thinking and view the world in simple terms. A culture that endorses perpetual childhood is setting itself up for failure.
It also seems to be related to the rise in utopian ideologies in the last ten or fifteen years. The ideology can't be wrong, so the problem has to be Bad People
Yeah. I also think that a lot of black-and-white beliefs are luxury beliefs. For instance, I’ve sometimes heard people argue for pacifism by saying, essentially, “people should just be nice to each other!” Fine if you’re seven years old, not so much if you’re an adult (who perhaps hasn’t updated their views on the issue since they were 7…).
Of course, there are serious pacifists who’ve really grappled with the issues and bitten some real philosophical bullets — them, I can respect, even if I disagree. But believing it’s “just” that simple is, I think, a luxury belief.
Had to laugh: maybe it helps to be English and subjected to the iniquities of cricket from a tender age. Personally, though, I think cricket could be a fair example of of life’s often pointless and frequently irreducible complexity, perhaps all the more so for a non-aficionado.
Cricket might also illustrate the trend to simplify and infantilise and Freddie is criticising here. By which I mean the shorter forms of the game becoming more prevalent to the detriment of the multi-day game.
That list was like one of those great solo guitar riffs where the chords just go on an on and it gets cooler and deeper and you can’t think the tension would heighten but it does! And then it does again! I friggin loved it. Except Brownian motion. I thought that was simple. Then I wondered if that was the point? Or maybe there’s something I don’t understand about Brownian motion. Just delicious.
One piece of (maybe outdated) research into talk therapy is that it is effectiveness is unrelated to the credentials or training of the therapist. Talk therapy actually can help people, but talking to a highly trained psychoanalyst versus a social worker versus just some non-judgmental layperson doesn’t really have an impact on the benefit. So talking to your cat might in fact have some benefit.
Anyway, that’s what I gleaned from “House of Cards” (a book, not the Kevin Spacey series) which sorts through the research on psychotherapy versus clinical practice. (Might have been from the book “Rational Choice in an Uncertain World” by the same author, Robyn Dawes, who is a research psychologist).
I’ve done quite a bit of therapy, and I have an inkling of why this might be.
The vast majority of us are not perfectly self aware. The most valuable insights I’ve gained in therapy are actually extremely obvious in hindsight. Issues with a high emotional valence can cloud the judgement of an otherwise mature, self aware person; the therapist’s role is to be the relatively rational impartial observer.
Another way to think about it is that a good therapist acts like a mirror,; they hold up a reflection of yourself that you can view, thus allowing you to see the mental equivalent of that piece of spinach you have stuck between your teeth.
I had to read the description twice to try to suss up where he was finding all this proof, and I did not find it. And it's causation because Grant says it's causation, by jove. Woof.
I heard a line in a You Tube video some time ago along the lines of "oversimplification is a form of deception" and I want to make a neon sign of it.
This is one of the best pieces you've ever written. Poor Grant!
Because Substack is new and exciting and trendy we don’t think of it as lasting, or potentially lasting, the way we do about, say, a piece of fiction published by a major house and reviewed in the NYT. But people are going to be reading FdB generations from now, long after the contents of book store remainder bins have molded in forgotten landfills. Freddie is the real deal. E.B. White or Mark Twain would be proud to sit next to him on our bookshelves.
Build a model. Use just one or two variables. See how well it works/how long you get to keep your job.
Of course, as Briggs so eloquently points out, build a model with many variables and the model is guaranteed to prove what you wish it to prove. But because it is so complex, people think it must be right. (Let's go to the Imperial College COVID death model for starters which was, like all such models, very complex and entirely wrong.) The climate grift models are even worse -- of course they show what the current grantors want to see.
I think Freddie's point is that there is no model -- simple or complex. You just get what you get and take it as it comes -- and that is the beauty of human interactions. Some people I know are quite simple but still delightful...some I will never figure out. The range of human interactions is broad and that's what makes it "fun".
I was thinking more in terms of a demonstration that the world is complicated, regardless of human preferences.
Well that is surely true. And it turns out that complex problems generally require complex solutions. (I just have this antipathy to models...been burned too many times...sorry...)
Part of the issue that Freddie underscores is that many humans do not prefer simplicity...his tic tac toe example is perfect. Most children tire of that at an early age. So we prefer things that cannot be easily (or ever) known/solved. Surely reflects my world...lol. We all long for simplicity, but Jim Jones and his ilk generally show the results of a simplicity-based reductio ad absurdum.
As the saying goes "All models are wrong, but some are useful." Given their ubiquity (and the occasional useful result) I can't bring myself to dismiss all modeling entirely.
“Simplicity” is one of the hallmarks of cult thinking - the binary - you’re either with us or against us - it’s this or that - Us and Them.
Great article!
"But that’s my favorite sort of person, the kind who isn’t blandly likable and safe to know, but rather extracts a cost to be close to and then repays that cost with rare and complicated gifts of personality."
I know this is from a different article, but my god, what an absolute jewel of a description.
Sorry, this was too long and complicated; didn't read it. I'm assuming it's well written, but I'd probably be annoyed by it because it would make me think. I think I'll wait for one of your shorter pieces where you dunk on the lefties that aren't lefty enough.
You read it. I think.
Antifragile
Well argued. Any close relationship will always have both intensely positive and intensely negative moments and phases. The tragedy is to discard one of those relationship because of the inevitable negative times.
My last post was about combatting this phenomenon and may be an interesting complement to what you have written.
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/the-peak-end-rule
I can't help but feel that children demand black and white thinking and view the world in simple terms. A culture that endorses perpetual childhood is setting itself up for failure.
It also seems to be related to the rise in utopian ideologies in the last ten or fifteen years. The ideology can't be wrong, so the problem has to be Bad People
I noticed that about 1990s rap. Themes of escape to some magical place.
Astute and accurate.
I hated the era of the inner child. Are you old enough to remember that? It seemed like it was an endorsement of self-centeredness.
Yeah. I also think that a lot of black-and-white beliefs are luxury beliefs. For instance, I’ve sometimes heard people argue for pacifism by saying, essentially, “people should just be nice to each other!” Fine if you’re seven years old, not so much if you’re an adult (who perhaps hasn’t updated their views on the issue since they were 7…).
Of course, there are serious pacifists who’ve really grappled with the issues and bitten some real philosophical bullets — them, I can respect, even if I disagree. But believing it’s “just” that simple is, I think, a luxury belief.
Incredible piece.
You had me at Microsoft Excel, but lost me at cricket, a game I've never understood.
So I'm ambivalent about this piece.
Suggest the Bollywood epic "Lagaan" to get caught up on cricket.
Had to laugh: maybe it helps to be English and subjected to the iniquities of cricket from a tender age. Personally, though, I think cricket could be a fair example of of life’s often pointless and frequently irreducible complexity, perhaps all the more so for a non-aficionado.
Cricket might also illustrate the trend to simplify and infantilise and Freddie is criticising here. By which I mean the shorter forms of the game becoming more prevalent to the detriment of the multi-day game.
That list was like one of those great solo guitar riffs where the chords just go on an on and it gets cooler and deeper and you can’t think the tension would heighten but it does! And then it does again! I friggin loved it. Except Brownian motion. I thought that was simple. Then I wondered if that was the point? Or maybe there’s something I don’t understand about Brownian motion. Just delicious.
The totalizing discourse demands simple answers!
That last paragraph = chef’s kiss
If everything is so simple, why do we need therapy to unpack it?
Because people don't like saying true things out loud. Saying true things out loud means accepting that you are not a good person.
So pretty much any cat could be a therapist, since we aren't worried about pissing humans off?
The therapist's job is to find a way for the human to pretend to themselves that they are a good person, so no. Cats would be terrible at that.
Sounds kinda complicated.
Yes, because therapists are a mirror with a little friction built in, and so are cats.
One piece of (maybe outdated) research into talk therapy is that it is effectiveness is unrelated to the credentials or training of the therapist. Talk therapy actually can help people, but talking to a highly trained psychoanalyst versus a social worker versus just some non-judgmental layperson doesn’t really have an impact on the benefit. So talking to your cat might in fact have some benefit.
Anyway, that’s what I gleaned from “House of Cards” (a book, not the Kevin Spacey series) which sorts through the research on psychotherapy versus clinical practice. (Might have been from the book “Rational Choice in an Uncertain World” by the same author, Robyn Dawes, who is a research psychologist).
I’ve done quite a bit of therapy, and I have an inkling of why this might be.
The vast majority of us are not perfectly self aware. The most valuable insights I’ve gained in therapy are actually extremely obvious in hindsight. Issues with a high emotional valence can cloud the judgement of an otherwise mature, self aware person; the therapist’s role is to be the relatively rational impartial observer.
Another way to think about it is that a good therapist acts like a mirror,; they hold up a reflection of yourself that you can view, thus allowing you to see the mental equivalent of that piece of spinach you have stuck between your teeth.
While we're at it, if everything is so simple, why do we need the PMC to lead us? Why can't humans figure things out for themselves?
After I read this article I said I hope Freddie writes about it. As usual you are spot on. Thanks !