The most beautiful five sentences

From John Steinbeck’s East of Eden [Kindle].

On the edge of the field stood a little pump house, and a willow tree flourished beside it, fed by the overspill of water. The long skirts of the willow hung down nearly to the ground. Abra parted the switches like a curtain and went into the house of leaves made against the willow trunk by the sweeping branches. You could see out through the leaves, but inside it was sweetly protected and warm and safe. The afternoon sunlight came yellow through the aging leaves.

Paul Saffo’s 6 rules to predict the future

Sometimes you read an article and wish you’d read it much earlier. Kinda like when I visited Japan in 2012 and regretted immediately that it took 28 years to visit.

This is one of those instances. Paul Saffo’s essay is a classic with great examples and insights. Read the original at Harvard Business Review. Below I rephrase his 6 rules to aid my own understanding (a practice that I find helpful).

Rule 1: Don’t predict AN outcome; predict a RANGE of likely outcomes

A good boundary is one made up of elements lying on the ragged edge of plausibility. They are outcomes that might conceivably happen but make one uncomfortable even to contemplate.

Rule 2: Visualize the S Curve – specifically, when you think growth will take off, and when it will slow or come to an end

Consider Columbus’s 1492 voyage. His discovery falls at the inflection point of Western exploration. Columbus was not the first fifteenth-century explorer to go to the New World—he was the first to make it back

Rule 3: Embrace the strange, the outliers. Very often that’s the future

The first Grand Challenge, which offered a $1 million prize, was held in March 2004. Most of the robots died in sight of the starting line, and only one robot got more than seven miles into the course. The Challenge’s ambitious goal looked as remote as the summit of Everest. But just 19 months later, at the second Grand Challenge, five robots completed the course.

Rule 4: Strong opinions, weakly held

In forecasting, as in navigation, lots of interlocking weak information is vastly more trustworthy than a point or two of strong information […] once researchers have gone through the long process of developing a beautiful hypothesis, they have a tendency to ignore any evidence that contradicts their conclusion.

Rule 5: Study the past…then go further

The recent past is rarely a reliable indicator of the future—if it were, one could successfully predict the next 12 months of the Dow or Nasdaq by laying a ruler along the past 12 months and extending the line forward. But the Dow doesn’t behave that way, and neither does any other trend. You must look for the turns, not the straightaways, and thus you must peer far enough into the past to identify patterns.

Rule 6: Forecasts are a tool to be used sparingly and strategically

But the Berlin Wall came crashing down in the fall of 1989, and with it crumbled the certainty of a forecast rooted in the assumption of a world dominated by two superpowers. A comfortably narrow cone dilated to 180 degrees, and at that moment the wise forecaster would have refrained from jumping to conclusions and instead would have quietly looked for indicators of what would emerge from the geopolitical rubble

If you like to think about and study the future, a quick plug for Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock [Amazon]. Published in 1970, its specific conclusions are dated but the questions that he asks and the methods that he uses are not.

Karl Knausgard on memoir and memory

Finally started book 2 of his memoir series, My Struggle [Kindle].

Seeing her grow up also changes my view of my own upbringing, not so much because of the quality but the quantity, the sheer amount of time you spend with your children, which is immense. So many hours, so many days, such an infinite number of situations that crop up and are lived through. From my own childhood I remember only a handful of incidents, all of which I regarded as momentous, but which I now understand were a few events among many, which completely expunges their meaning, for how can I know that those particular episodes that lodged themselves in my mind were decisive, and not all the others of which I remember nothing?

Reminds me of another quote:

Memory is not the opposite of forgetting, it is a form of forgetting – Milan Kundera

Karl Jung’s Shadow

‘It is as evil as we are positive … the more desperately we try to be good and wonderful and perfect, the more the Shadow develops a definite will to be black and evil and destructive.… The fact is that if one tries beyond one’s capacity to be perfect, the Shadow descends to hell and becomes the devil. For it is just as sinful from the standpoint of nature and of truth to be above oneself as to be below oneself.’

…from Murakami’s book 1Q84 [Amazon]. His surrealist writing powers are on full display. I’m halfway through, and the only Murakami book I’ve enjoyed more was Kafka on the Shore.

TED talk notes: Hannah Fry on the mathematics of love (or why couples who last continually try to repair their relationships)

I should be done publishing TED talk notes in the next few weeks. Nowadays I listen to TED talks in podcast format and I’m usually doing something else, like running, and can’t take notes.

Anyhow here’s the complete collection.

This week we have Hannah Fry on the mathematics of love.

* * * * *

Hannah Fry: The Mathematics of Love

  • math is the study of patterns
  • OkCupid was started by mathematicians; they have data for more than a decade
  • how attractive you are doesn’t dictate how popular you are on OkC
  • what matters is the spread of scores: ideally you want some people to LOVE you and some to HATE you
  • also, if everyone thinks another person is attractive, they often won’t try to contact
  • let’s say you start dating at 15 and want to be married at 35, what’s your optimal mate selection strategy?
    • the math tells us we should ONLY date for first-third of that span (about 6-7 years), then pick the next person that comes along who is better than everyone you’ve seen before
    • there are actually wild fish, other animals that follow this strategy
  • 1/2 of American marriages end in divorce
    • the best predictor of divorce: how positive or negative partners were in discussions
    • math could predict divorce at 90% accuracy
    • particularly dangerous are the “spirals of negativity”
    • successful relationships have really LOW negativity threshold (which means, they tend to bring up even little things that bother them, though this finding may be counterintuitive)
    • these low negativity threshhold couples don’t let things slide, they continually try to repair their relationship