Hey, it’s Alvin!

If you spend enough time online, you’ll notice a strange pattern.

Everything is about optimization.

People talk about “maximizing” their looks. Optimizing where to live. Maximizing viewership and profits.

But almost nobody talks about the dark side of optimization.

If you treat life like something to optimize, you risk missing out on what matters most:

Living it.

Ironically, this obsession with optimization reminds me of something I studied years ago in university. I studied a field of math that’s all about figuring out how to get the best outcome under constraints. It’s called Operations Research (OR). And it taught me that lurking below the surface of optimization as a concept are traps, limits, and trade-offs that avid optimizers either overlook or don’t tell you about. But if you aren’t aware of these nuances, you risk living in misery long term.

Constraints are Critical

Without limits, optimization often becomes an endless pursuit.

A classic example is the person whose “goal” is just to make more money. Without a concrete upper limit, there’s no end to that journey. I can’t speak for others, but I just don’t see the point in spending my whole life chasing something unattainable.

A life with no constraints sounds like ultimate freedom. But without constraints, a pursuit becomes a prison. For life.

The optimal solution can change

Once an optimal solution is found, a mathematician will often conduct a sensitivity analysis on the solution. It’s done to see how sensitive the solution is to changes in the assumptions or parameters of the optimization problem. You don’t need to understand the math behind a sensitivity analysis. You only need to know it exists because mathematicians assume optimal solutions can change by default. This assumption isn’t as obvious as it sounds.

For example, when a decision we made doesn’t work out, it’s tempting to assume: “we must have made a poor decision.”

Maybe not.

It’s possible the decision was optimal for the information we had at the time. But things change, and we often gain information as we live life that makes past decisions look worse than they were. Psychologists call this hindsight bias. And in this case, it stems from the assumption that what was optimal stays optimal. But that’s often not the case because two key factors can change dramatically: decision variables and weights.

Let’s say you’re looking for a new home. To identify your optimal home, you’ll want to weigh a few factors. For example: price, size, and safety.

Now, let’s say you found an optimal home yesterday with the perfect balance of price, size, and safety. But you didn’t commit to it yet because you wanted to shop around some more. Today, you find a home that costs less. So, what was previously optimal isn’t optimal anymore. Of course, these variables can also change over time for a specific home. But it’s not just these decision variables or attributes that change.

If you’re single, square footage might be less important. And you might prefer a location where you can easily hang out with friends and meet people. But when you’re married and have a child, your priorities change. You might want a bigger place in a safer area. So, the way you weigh these variables also changes over time, which also changes what’s optimal.

The hidden price of constantly moving from one “better” option to another is what economists call switching costs. Theoretically, a person obsessed enough with optimizing their life could spend every waking moment recalculating the solution for an optimal life and adjusting to it constantly. And endlessly. So, a life spent constantly recalculating can become a mental prison, too.

Optimization itself has a price

The benefits of optimization are obvious. Its costs are not. But sometimes the costs outweigh the benefits.

Earlier, I used the example of choosing a home. Now, if you do find a new “optimal” home, the next step is to move there. Obviously, there is a cost to physically moving all your stuff from your current home to your new home. But there are also the potential costs of:

• Leaving behind family, friends, neighbours and communities

• Integrating into a new community

• Establishing new routines

• Finding a new job

Every time you re-optimize and move, you incur all these costs again.

Perhaps the biggest cost is instability.

Like a physical house, we need to spend time in one place to build a sturdy structure upon a solid foundation. Let me ask you something: are you happy with where you’re living right now?

If you answered “no,” it turns out you’re not alone. For a while, YouTube bombarded me with videos of people saying, “I’m leaving Toronto,” or “I’m leaving Canada,” or “I’m leaving the U.S.” All of these videos are fundamentally the same. They all feature a laundry list of flaws with a particular place.

On the one hand, I’m grateful to live in an age when it’s relatively easy to move around. But healthy societies are built by those who stick around. When people constantly search for a more optimal place to live, the result can be a world where fewer people stay long enough to improve the places they leave behind.

OR practitioners know that staying put is always a valid option. Because sometimes optimization costs more than it delivers. But it’s easy to hyper-focus on the efficiencies gained from optimization because the costs are often less obvious. Sometimes, they’re also hard to quantify. But that doesn’t mean the costs should be ignored. They’ll catch up to you.

Optimization doesn’t come for free.

When we treat life like something to optimize, we pay those costs everywhere.

Local optimality vs. global optimality

Even when we decide to optimize something, there’s a question we rarely ask:

Are we optimizing the right thing?

Since optimization has a cost, I find it pays to see not just whether we should optimize something, but what we should optimize. One way to do that is to see if there’s a global or local optimum relative to what you’re optimizing.

For example, there are some people who obsess over looking good. There’s literally an idea gaining popularity online called “looksmaxxing,” which is all about how to improve one’s physical appearance.

But this isn’t just about being well-groomed, dressing well, and exercising. This is a maximization, which means some “looksmaxxers” take the most extreme actions to squeeze every ounce of physical attractiveness they can get, like:

• Smashing their cheekbones to get defined facial features

• Getting cosmetic surgery and injections

• Taking drugs (illicit or otherwise) to suppress appetite

But there’s a missed opportunity here.

A greater one.

Before optimizing anything, it helps to ask a simple question:

Is there a broader goal?

Mathematicians distinguish between local and global optima. A local optimum is the best solution within a small neighbourhood of possibilities. A global optimum is the best solution across the entire landscape.

For example, when people obsess over maximizing appearance, they may be optimizing within a tiny slice of the broader landscape of attractiveness. So, if attractiveness is the broader goal, then maximizing appearance isn’t enough.

What about health, purpose, and character?

Maybe it’s just me, but I find abusive people much less attractive, no matter how symmetrical their face is. I admire those who have principles they fight for while elevating those around them because they’re driven by a purpose far greater than themselves. And people who pursue meaningful goals often end up taking better care of themselves because they need the energy and clarity to pursue those goals. That means eating well, sleeping well, and exercising, which also improves physical appearance. So, those who hyper-fixate on appearance risk missing out on becoming even better versions of themselves and greater contributors to society.

The distinction between local and global optima reveals a common trap. We can become so focused on optimizing one dimension of life that we neglect others entirely. When that happens, optimization itself becomes yet another mental prison. We forget that success often comes not from maximizing one trait, but from finding combinations of traits that work well together.

A local optimum isn’t always the global optimum.

And vice versa.

Not everything needs to be optimized

I’m not against optimization. I’m against mindless optimization.

Like so many people, I used to believe maximizing efficiency was always a worthwhile goal. It wasn’t until I learned about what optimization really is that I realized it incurs costs people often overlook. Until it’s too late. Whether it’s chasing optimality for the rest of your life, the cost of constantly bouncing from one optimum to another, or optimizing one thing at the expense of our overall well-being as people and as a society.

Because optimizations have benefits and costs, optimization isn’t always worth doing. Deciding what, when, and how to optimize then becomes an optimization problem itself.

At some point, I got tired of over-optimizing my life. At first, I was afraid of being judged for living “sub-optimally.” But over time, I found greater contentment in my life because I was no longer worried constantly about whether every decision was optimal. I was content to accept what is. It turns out not everything needs to be optimized. It turns out:

Optimization works well when the goal is clear and fixed.

But life isn’t like that. Our goals change. Our priorities evolve.

And when the objective keeps changing, constant optimization can become a trap.

Life isn’t just something to optimize. It’s something to live.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. How do you think about optimization? What do you think is worth optimizing? And what do you think isn’t? I’d love to hear from you.

Thank you for reading. Optimize carefully. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

I used to think empathy was just one thing. And like many people, I assumed that more empathy was always better.

But over time, I noticed something counterintuitive: feeling deeply for others didn’t always lead to better outcomes. For them or for me. Sometimes, it even made things worse.

That got me looking into what empathy is actually for. And it turns out our ancestors already thought this through.

What gave me this realization was this guy I know who lives in Japan and likes to stroll around nearby neighbourhoods in his free time. We’ll call him “Bob.” There’s this one time he saw news about some distressing events happening in the U.S. that upset him so much that he just couldn’t get into the mood to go out. This isn’t the only time it happened. And I know many others who feel similarly, so this is not specific to Bob.

Like many people, Bob conflates empathy with compassion. These concepts are so similar, it’s easy to confuse them. So, let’s be clear:

• Empathy involves imagining yourself in someone else’s position.

  • Empathy answers: What is it like for you?

• Compassion involves caring about suffering and wanting to ease it.

  • Compassion answers: What can be done?

That’s where most people stop.

But to make the most of empathy and to wield it in a healthier way, we need to further distinguish between its different types. There are two types I’ll focus on:

• Cognitive empathy is about understanding what someone else is feeling or thinking.

• Emotional empathy is about feeling what someone else feels.

When people point out examples of good empathy, it’s almost always the emotional type. Because tears (and emotions, in general) are more visible than “understanding.” But emotional empathy has a dark side that’s underestimated.

Emotional Empathy: A Double-Edged Sword

Emotional empathy involves taking on the emotional weight of another person, but it comes at a hefty cost. Because emotional empathy does not offer an easy way to relieve that emotional weight. So, when we feel overwhelmed, we often withdraw ourselves, numb our emotions, or avoid triggers, which only masks and suppresses emotional pressure temporarily.

There’s only so much pain a person can take.

Some would say we can also cry until the emotions fade with time. But that doesn’t work if we’re exposed to tragic fear-mongering rage bait from the internet 24/7. That doesn’t work if we’re fed emotional baggage faster than we can release it.

Being overwhelmed by pain and emotion doesn’t just break you down; it takes a toll on those around you, too.

Bob was so distressed by the news that he couldn’t go outside for his usual stroll around his neighbourhood. Imagine an elderly lady who could use help carrying groceries back to her house. Because Bob wasn’t out and about, the people in his community had one less person present to help them. It gets worse…

It turns out taking on another person’s emotional baggage doesn’t lighten the load on anyone. If Alex lost a loved one, and Chris exercises emotional empathy by feeling the same pain, Chris might help Alex feel understood. But unless that shared pain is resolved through action or support, the suffering remains. So where before just one person was suffering, now there are two. That means that not only does being overwhelmed stop you from helping others; it also grows the amount of suffering in the world.

So, if we genuinely want to help others, we need to prevent emotions from overwhelming us by taking on less of another’s pain.

It’s self-care.

None of us can empathize with everyone. Attention and emotional energy are limited. So, empathy is always selective, whether we realize it or not. The only real question is whether who we empathize with is intentional or whether it’s dictated by others.

Don’t get me wrong. Emotional empathy is important. It can motivate us to help others. But that doesn’t mean we should let it drive our lives into the ground. And that raises the question: how do we maintain empathy without letting it overwhelm us?

I know some people will say, “but feeling someone’s pain motivates us to care for one another.” Yes, it can. But…

Cognitive Empathy: Understanding Without Absorbing

Feeling someone’s pain isn’t necessary to motivate care. In fact, we help others without taking on another’s pain all the time.

If your child gets a paper cut on their index finger and starts bleeding, you’re going to grab a bandage right away without the need to feel the child’s pain first.

Emotional empathy isn’t needed for action because there are other ways to drive action to relieve pain.

Principles.

Social norms.

Courtesy.

And just noticing when someone else is inconvenienced.

This is where cognitive empathy and compassion come in. Because understanding and caring about another is driven more by thinking than feeling. The thinking part puts your mind into a problem-solving mode that acts as an emotional release valve. Because once you solve the problem causing the suffering, the emotional baggage that came with it dissipates. So, we have far greater capacity for cognitive empathy and compassion because they create space for action. Emotional empathy alone does not.

We now know how empathy and compassion work, but there are still limits to how much we can apply each. We can only understand and care about so much each day. So, how do we choose where our attention goes? Here’s the key:

Empathy and compassion are not ends in themselves; they are tools.

Choosing Where Care Belongs

Empathy is about connection. It’s valuable because it lets you connect with others to forge relationships and achieve goals you can’t achieve on your own. People often forget that empathy isn’t just about suffering. If your friend is getting married and you feel their happiness, that’s also empathy. Since empathy is about connection, it’s more powerful when we focus it on those closest to us relationally.

Compassion is different. It has more to do with caring about another person’s well-being and wanting to relieve their pain. Because compassion is tied to action, it’s most effective when focused on those closest to us in terms of responsibility, influence, and practical proximity. Those we are most able to help.

So, in a broad, practical sense, it helps to focus our care first on those who are closest to us in our lives.

Having empathy and compassion for all human beings is a noble goal, but it’s a mistake to start there. Especially before you have your own affairs in order.

Now, you might think, “Alvin, that’s as obvious as ‘potato chips are bad for you.’” Yet that doesn’t stop people from eating potato chips. Centuries ago, people could mainly engage with others closest to them. As technologies advanced, people could keep up with others over longer distances. The internet took this to a whole other level. Yet even our ancestors knew we need to manage empathy and compassion methodically to keep our sanity.

Roman philosopher Hierocles introduced “circles of concern” or “Hierocles’ concentric circles” in the second century CE.

The circle in the middle represents you. Your mind and body as one. You’re enclosed within a larger circle representing your family, which is enclosed in a larger circle representing your friends… in a larger circle representing your community… then your city… your country… and eventually all of humanity.

There are different variations of this concept. Some might include citizens of a country. Others might break down “family” into siblings and parents. But the key is the same: each larger circle represents a group of people more socially distant from you. And:

“According to his [Hierocles’] view, each of us has a duty of mutual aid towards every other human being—but a weightier duty towards those who are socially closer than those who are more distant.”

- Professor Ralph Wedgwood on Hierocles’ Concentric Circles

To be clear, Hierocles was not saying that you should just focus on people socially closer while ignoring everyone else. But he also wasn’t saying that you should be equally empathetic and compassionate to everyone.

The idea is to sort out your own affairs first. Then help those in the next biggest circle, like your parents and siblings. Once you can do that consistently, you can help your friends. But you don’t want to focus on the bigger, distant circles before you address the smaller, closer ones.

It’s about practicality.

How can you help others if you can’t even help yourself?

The ultimate goal is to have empathy and compassion for all human beings as if they’re your “brothers and sisters.” Even if they’re technically not.

It takes intentional practice to wield empathy and compassion in a way that helps people. That’s why empathizing with everyone too soon sets you up for burnout, compassion fatigue, and failure.

Ancient Wisdom in an Age of Overload

Our ancestors understood the nuances of empathy and compassion and knew how to work with those minutiae. It’s wisdom modern society largely forgot.

Aristotle, for example, was all about pursuing happiness and flourishing. Part of that means applying virtues to guide our behaviours. But true virtue lies between two extremes: deficiency and excess. For example:

Courage lives between cowardice (deficiency) and recklessness (excess).

Confidence lives between self-deprecation (deficiency) and arrogance (excess).

Empathy lives between insensitivity and emotional overwhelm.

A surgeon who is callous is dangerous.

A surgeon who faints at the sight of blood is useless.

Nowadays, we’re often told that when someone feels bad, we’re supposed to feel bad with them. It’s why there’s general anxiety, misery, and anger in the world.

We’re constantly exposed to emotional cues telling us how we’re supposed to feel. From anxiety to misery to outrage. We’re told that other people are miserable, so we should be miserable, too. But emotional alignment isn’t the same thing as effective action.

We now know that being miserable doesn’t solve problems. It multiplies them. The good news is you have a choice:

You can become miserable like everyone else. Overwhelmed by so much emotion, you can’t even leave your home.

Or you can draw courage from deep within yourself and say, “I can deal with this.” Or better yet, “I’ll fix this so no one else has to suffer the way I did.”

The goal isn’t to feel everything.

The goal is to help where we actually can.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. I’d love the hear from you. By the way, I explored a way to avoid emotion overload by steering your emotions in Dive 80. Be sure to check it out:

Thank you for reading. Empathize cognitively. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

I was riding the train the other day when an onboard announcement made me realize something I didn’t expect…

We no longer know what an apology is for.

And the reason it matters is that understanding what an apology is for is vital for a good life, healthy relationships and even a healthy, robust society. You can tell someone doesn’t understand apologies if they say something like, “an apology is the first step towards making amends.”

• There is a children’s song literally called, “Saying I’m Sorry is the First Step.”

• There’s a Psychology Today article that tells you to “First, begin with a sincere expression of regret.”

• There’s even a Harvard Medical School blurb that says, “An apology can often be the first step to better understanding in a damaged relationship.”

Except…

An apology is not the first step towards making amends.

It’s also not the last. But we’ll get to that later.

An apology might be the first visible step. But morally, it sits in the middle of all that matters. When people spend their whole lives with a flawed understanding of apologies, you get the corporate nonsense I experienced on my train ride…

The Train of Apologies

I’m riding on a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) subway train. Steel wheels on polished rails, speeding below city streets at a brisk 60 km/h (~37 mph) towards the bustling downtown financial district. Suddenly, we slowed down. To a snail’s pace. An automated announcement comes on in a robotic monotone:

“Attention passengers: this train is delayed due to track work ahead. The TTC apologizes for this inconvenience.”

After a few minutes that feel like an eternity, the train speeds back up to 60 km/h, relieved that I might just get to my destination on time as I peer out the window, watching the tunnel lights tick by at the rhythm of the train. Suddenly, my upper body bows forward. As the train brakes. Again.

“Attention passengers: this train is delayed due to track work ahead. The TTC apologizes for this inconvenience.”

A few more minutes pass. My heart starts to race. Will I make my appointment on time? The train picks up speed again, stopping at stations as expected, but otherwise moving at a quick clip, barrelling down the tunnel like a meteor eager to arrive at the Earth’s surface. Standing passengers stumble as the train brakes. Oh no. Not again.

“Attention passengers: this train is delayed due to track work ahead. The TTC apologizes for this inconvenience.”

I don’t know anyone who takes these apologies seriously. They feel too hollow. Why? They’re missing two key ingredients: remorse and repair.

The Purpose of Apologies

When I was a kid, the adults in my life taught me and other kids that if you did something wrong, just say you’re “sorry,” and that was pretty much it.

For the youngest children, that makes perfect sense because they haven’t yet developed abstract moral reasoning. And a typical infant can’t grasp how another person feels. They lack a theory of mind. So, they’re taught the behaviour first (i.e. “say you’re sorry”).

As kids mature, they learn that sometimes their actions hurt others, which leads to remorse. It’s then that most kids learn that an apology is just an acknowledgement to another that they feel bad for what they did, and they want to make up for it to repair the relationship.

But remorse often takes effort. You don’t have to feel bad for what you did if you rationalize it away or just don’t think about it. You have to choose to reflect on your actions and their impact on another for remorse to emerge. But because self-reflection is less publicly visible, it’s a step we often ignore.

Modern culture treats the first visible step as if it were the first meaningful one.

A willingness to repair the relationship with action is also vital. A politician might apologize for the poor public transit service, but if they do nothing to change it, then the apology is just as meaningless. So, really, the whole proper process is:

1. Recognition

2. Acknowledgment (or Apology)

3. Repair

So, the first step is not the apology; it’s the recognition of wrongdoing, which often requires conscious reflection.

This also explains why the train announcements often ring hollow. And that’s just as true of other corporate and political apologies. Neither the transit agency nor the computerized systems making the automated apologies can reflect or feel remorse. The apologies are extra insulting if the transit agency doesn’t take meaningful steps to improve service. Everyone knows these apologies are pointless, so why are they made at all?

The Perversion of Apologies

Apologies are emphasized in modern institutions not because they lead to repair, but because they can substitute for it. Talk is cheap. But repair is risky. It costs time and money. Plus, solutions don’t always work according to plan, so it could also cost credibility. It’s easier just to apologize and leave it at that. In places that reward visibility over outcomes, it makes sense to favour apologies in place of repair because they convey moral alignment with no material obligation.

Make no mistake. Normalizing apologies without the willingness to repair has long-term consequences for everyone. We’re not talking about apologizing for small slip-ups. Sure, if you bump into me on the street, I won’t ask for compensation. I wouldn’t even expect it.

But when apologies are made for some other person or group of people, living or dead, having committed the worst atrocities, the gap between speech and repair becomes impossible to ignore. If there’s never a remedy to the problem after the apology, then over time, we internalize the idea that an apology is good enough. Speakers and audiences learn that acknowledgment alone discharges responsibility. The moral ledger is closed with words instead of work.

If the world is as broken as some claim, and societal leaders apologize for it but never repair it, then, of course, nothing ever improves. This isn’t necessarily because those leaders are bad people. It’s because we live with incentive structures that reward the appearance of accountability while discouraging the real thing.

It’s said that “saying sorry is the hardest part.” But saying sorry is only hard when it commits you to something you can’t yet measure or control. When you know you have to make amends and you don’t know how much you’ll have to sacrifice for it.

That uncertainty is what’s terrifying.

It’s not so much shame as it is fear of what’s coming that makes a sincerely remorseful person bow one’s head in apology. When politicians bow their heads to act remorseful or when slactivists post apologies on behalf of others on social media, we can tell that’s just theatre. Because none of them are bound to any obligation to fix anything.

The Value of Apologies

So, if we want a good life, healthy relationships, and a robust, strong society, we need to remind ourselves that an apology isn’t the first step to making amends. Or the only step. In fact, there are three steps to take:

1. Recognition

2. Acknowledgment

3. Repair

Remorse emerges from the recognition that we did something that negatively affected someone else. Often, recognition requires conscious reflection.

An apology is just the acknowledgement to the affected person that we feel remorse for what we did, and we’d like to make amends.

It’s the remorse from the recognition that drives the willingness to repair, which is key to what makes a sincere apology hard. Because then the apology doubles as an I.O.U. You’re saying, “I’m willing to pay an unknown price to make it right.”

That’s also why without remorse and a desire to repair; an apology is just theatre. That’s why corporate and political apologies are too often empty and pointless.

An apology is not the first step to repair.

The first step toward repair happens in silence.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. I’d love the hear from you.

Excessive apologizing also makes each apology less meaningful. This ties into the importance of exercising restraint, which I explore more in Dive 110 for those of you who want to learn how to make apologies more impactful.

I also dive into when activism becomes a grift in Dive 109:

Thank you for reading. Apologize Authentically. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

If you want to make money on the internet, I was taught you have to cater to social media algorithms. Well, good news…

I got an email from a course creator with a bold claim:

He “figured out the algorithm” for a social media site. And for just a few hundred dollars, he was going to teach me… ME… how to exploit the algo to gain millions of followers. Fast.

Of course, he’s not the only one who claims to have “figured out” an algorithm. And I don’t trust anyone who does. I mean, have you ever heard anyone say, “The reason I have hundreds of thousands of followers is because of this other guy who figured out the algorithm”?

I haven’t.

What I learned posting on platforms like X/Twitter, YouTube, and Substack over the years is that chasing algorithms alone is often a recipe for failure because most people don’t understand what an algorithm is. In terms of strategy:

An algorithm is a multiplier.

If it complements your brand (the base value), you’ll achieve way more success than if it doesn’t.

It’s like baking bread. How much the dough rises depends on:

• The amount of dough

• The composition of the dough

• The temperature of the water when mixing in the yeast

The yeast is just a multiplier. But the dough base has to be right for it to rise well.

Focusing too much on algorithms is a recipe for failure because it distracts from forming a solid foundation for the algorithm to boost. So, what does a solid foundation look like?

1. Showing up early

By the time you learn about “the algorithm” and have applied it, the algorithm has moved on.

“The algorithm” is like financial stocks. By the time you hear about a stock trend, it’s passed. Cryptocurrency scams work the same way.

An influencer buys the cryptocurrency at a cheap price, often with buddies. The influencer promotes the crypto to inflate its price as much as possible. Then, the influencer sells the crypto at a high. The sale triggers others to sell off their stock of the cryptocurrency, causing its price to collapse. This classic “rug pull” benefits the influencer at the expense of those outside the influencer’s inner circle who only learn about it when it’s too late.

2. Standing out from the crowd

An algorithm chaser likes to sell the idea that they alone figured out how a software’s algorithm works. But it’s statistically more likely that many others figured it out long before that seller did. By the time you exploit the algorithm, after you learn it from that person, after they figure it out… you’re late to the party.

But that doesn’t stop thousands of people from following the seller. After all, who doesn’t want the secret sauce to success? But if you’re doing the same thing as thousands of others, then how will you stand out from the crowd?

3. Staying true to yourself

All of this assumes that what the algorithm “favours” aligns with the kind of person and message you want to convey. Otherwise, you’ll come across as disingenuous and duplicitous. YouTube video thumbnails are perfect examples of this.

For a long time, I was told that videos with thumbnails containing a human face “do better” on YouTube than those that don’t. People have come up with various reasons why that is. None of which explains why videos with thumbnails with no faces can still rack up millions more views than video thumbnails with faces. Maybe it’s not about the face…

A few years ago, a fellow YouTube creator told me that the real reason YouTubers started putting expressive faces on YouTube videos was because that’s what MrBeast did. MrBeast is still the most successful YouTuber at the time of this writing. Maybe this gave the impression that the YouTube audience has some unexplained compulsion to watch videos with thumbnails with faces on them. But this doesn’t always work…

I like to learn legal topics from lawyer, Andrew Branca. But I cringe when I see a Branca video thumbnail featuring an exaggerated expression:

These thumbnails are completely at odds with Branca’s personal demeanour and the tone of his videos, which are usually serious with a brief sprinkle of humour here and there. Yes, a wacky facial expression might work well for MrBeast. But that’s because MrBeast targets children. And children are drawn to expressive faces as part of their social emotional development. That’s not Branca’s audience.

4. Focusing your strategy

If you want to reach as many people as possible, then chasing algorithms is like dragging a net through the ocean. You’ll catch lots of fish. In fact, it’s such a well-established practice in the fishing industry, it even has a name: trawling.

You’ll also collect a boatload of plastic too.

No one talks about the costs of chasing algorithms. No one talks about the inefficiencies of indiscriminately collecting as much of something as possible.

“It’s a numbers game.”

I hear that phrase a lot. In business, it often means that you should expose yourself (or product) to as many other people as possible, and good things will happen.

OK, maybe “expose” was a poor choice of words. But is the claim always true? I’m not so sure. Let’s flip that assumption.

Modern dating “coaches” like to say that dating is “a numbers game,” too. They say that if you want to improve your chances of finding your special someone, go places where lots of people like to hang out and just start talking to random people. Bars and clubs are common examples.

What if you don’t drink alcohol?

What if you don’t dance?

What if you like unwinding after a long day by curling up with a book on a warm bed or easy chair?

Then, that’s a numbers game you’re going to lose.

Hard.

Sure, maybe hundreds of people frequent bars and clubs. But I bet you’re more likely to find your soulmate in a quaint bookstore or local library. Even if there are just 10 regulars. Because you’re more likely to find someone else who shares something in common with you. And maybe, the same deep values you have.

Yes, it’s “a numbers game.” But it’s not just about mindlessly increasing the sample size. It’s about purposely biasing the sample. It’s about applying a targeted strategy.

The problem with buying into an influencer’s secret formula is that it’s always either:

1. Too generic.

2. Too specific to the influencer.

In either case, you lose because you’re not drawing an audience or customers who care about what you uniquely offer.

Catering to an algorithm works well if you can do it in a way consistent with the brand you want to convey. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time. But there’s also a better way to:

• Show up early

• Stand out from the crowd

• Stay true to yourself

• Focus your strategy

All at once.

5. Leading by example

Followers play by the rules. Leaders create them.

Followers chase algorithms. They chase trends created by others.

Hey, if chasing shiny objects gets you where you want to go? Go for it.

It’s just that I’ve seen how poorly that story plays out for too many content creators. They’ll chase fads. They’ll do what they think the algorithm “likes.”

But algorithms are fickle. They change. And they change often. The creator changes to keep up with the algos. Again and again until the creator burns out. That’s when the content creator takes a step back because they just had a “why am I even doing this” moment. It’s the moment the creator realizes that everything the algorithm “liked” was nothing the creator liked.

It’s not them. It’s not what the creator wanted at the start of the content creation journey, when content creation was fun. Spending every moment pleasing an algorithm to get views, followers, and other internet currencies? That’s no different from pleasing a boss to make money. That’s just work. That’s why they burnt out.

Leaders shape algorithms. They start trends. Often accidentally. It’s a long game unless you’re lucky enough that what you’re doing happens to be trendy at the time.

You either have to please the algorithm in a way that’s aligned with your base strategy or forge your own path. Because the algorithm is just a multiplier.

You gotta get your dough right for the yeast to make it rise.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. I’d love the hear from you.

Catering to an algorithm misaligned with your brand is a lot like faking it to make it. Check out Dive 50 below, on the costs of this strategy:

Thank you for reading. Build your base. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

Would you like to turn your dreams into reality?

Everyone says they want to. But there is a distinction between those whose dreams stay a fantasy and those who actualize their dreams.

The former are dreamers. The latter are doers.

The dreamer frames their dream like a painting. The dream is something to admire and preserve. By everyone. Criticisms are not welcome. They ruin the dream.

The doer holds their dream like a compass. The dream is a tool to navigate the uncertain path ahead. The doer welcomes questions, skepticism, and criticisms of their dream because they help clear the obstacles towards actualizing it. Time, money, energy, and other resource constraints may all be obstacles. It doesn’t matter. The doer is willing to pay the price to clear all of them. But here’s the catch:

There are too many salespeople who sell dreams but are not forthcoming or honest about the obstacles ahead. They too are obstacles to actualizing a dream. Here’s what I mean and what to look out for.

The Doer’s Perspective

I recently got to work abroad for about a month.

A friend offered me to stay in a one-room condominium overlooking Belcher Bay, Hong Kong, beyond the hustling and bustling city center.

I could watch the sun rise and set over the harbour backdropped by distant mountains bringing memories of Bob Ross as the gentle ocean breeze rhythmically brushes my cheeks.

Dreamy.

On the surface.

Remember when I said I was working abroad?

I work as a software developer. In front of a computer. At a desk. Inside. Yes, the view out my window was breathtaking. But while I was working, it was just that. A view. A view to a world I could not access. This is a mental part of “working wherever you want” that proponents of that lifestyle never talk about.

Sure, I could explore a new place outside office hours. But during work hours, there’s this pain of being unable to go out and bask in the fresh air, sunshine, and whatever other adventure beckons out there.

When social media influencers post about being able to work anywhere, they never talk as much about the working part.

They’ll post a pretty, possibly photoshopped picture of their setup. A laptop, often a Mac, sitting on one of those short poolside tables. Maybe there’s a beach chair in front of the table, all next to a swimming pool and palm trees in the background, suggesting a tropical island on a clear, sunny day.

Dreamers don’t bother asking questions. Not just because they have no questions, but because the answers might destroy the illusion. But I like finding out how magic tricks work. And I want to know what I’m being sold.

What’s it like when it rains?

Is the beach chair comfortable to sit on? Or work from?

How do you read anything on your computer screen with the glare of the sun overhead reflecting off the deck?

The occasional warm breeze is nice. What about the pool odours carried along that breeze? What about the sights, sounds, and smells of sweaty people dripping pool water all over the deck?

Or is this an isolated pool? A daily reminder that you’re all alone in a place where others hold parties. How much does such a place cost?

Look, if you want to achieve a dream, you’ll want to know its price sooner than later.

But often, you’re not told the price.

Some people are so caught up trying to sell a dream, they’ll dodge, delay, and deflect from talking about downsides as much as possible. And that’s a disservice to everyone. Including the seller.

But if you want to actualize a dream, you might need information from those selling it. So, you’ll want a way to determine the trustworthiness of the seller…

The Seller’s Perspective

One thing I learned solving problems for customers is that if you don’t understand and address your customers’ concerns, they won’t want to work with you. Because why else would they be in business with you in the first place? If you want to profit long-term, you have to provide value long-term. That only works if you can address your customer’s current concerns first. And this lesson is just as valuable for us as customers. Or potential customers.

If a seller can’t or won’t directly answer your questions, there are only two reasons why. Either they can’t tell you or they won’t tell you.

If they can’t answer you, it could be because they don’t know the answer. But if they deflect because they don’t know, it shows they’re more interested in keeping up appearances than helping you.

If they won’t answer you, it’s because they feel the answer undermines the sale.

Either way, their credibility becomes questionable because it shows they’re more interested in helping themselves before you.

Quality questions let you gauge a seller’s lack of credibility. How many times do they dodge a tough question? The more times they dodge, the less credible they are.

If a customer reaches out with a problem, it’s up to me to understand it well to find the best solution for it. If the customer has concerns about the solution, it’s up to me to explain the impact. And if I don’t know enough to address the customer’s concerns, it’s up to me to find out for them.

Every solution has its pros and cons. There’s no point in hiding the drawbacks if you respect your customer’s intelligence. Deflecting dissent undermines credibility and the sale. Salespeople who know this have been trying other ways of padding their credibility. For example, expressing their personal imperfections and vulnerabilities. But that misses the point.

A seller who fails to mention a challenge of attaining a dream undermines the doer’s ability to achieve it. Because the doer will face the challenge eventually but is denied the chance to get ahead of it.

The Customer’s Perspective

As a consumer, I look for one thing in a salesperson to gauge their credibility:

Does the salesperson say anything that undermines their sales position?

Do they mention any costs or drawbacks of what they’re selling?

Smart salespeople offer products with offsetting pros and cons. So, even if one product isn’t suitable for a customer, another one might be.

I know people who like selling in-person courses only. Personally, if I sold courses, I would sell in-person and self-driven courses. In-person courses offer interactions absent from self-driven ones. But not everyone has time to attend classes at certain times. If I sold both, I wouldn’t be afraid to say that an in-person class just isn’t for you if you want to learn at your own pace. I’d undermine my sales position for the in-person course, but I could sell the self-driven one.

Is your dream a painting or a compass?

Every dream has a price.

As a savvy consumer, you want to know the price of a dream if you want to actualize it. Because you have to be willing to pay its price. All of it. If the salesperson won’t disclose the price of the dream they’re selling, then they’re getting in the way of your dream.

It’s possible the salesperson isn’t aware of a particular cost. They’ll be blindsided by it. But that doesn’t mean you have to be.

That’s why if you want to actualize your dream, you want to work with someone who will be honest and truthful with you. Especially with the challenges of pursuing the dream.

The dreamer frames their dream like a painting. The dream is something to admire and preserve. By everyone. Criticisms are not welcome. They ruin the dream.

The doer holds their dream like a compass. The dream is a tool to navigate the uncertain path ahead. The doer knows every dream has a price and will pay it. Even though the real-world achievement may not be an exact match of what the doer initially dreamt of. But the doer is ok with that. With an open mind, the achievement may be even better than the doer initially dreamt.

So, is your dream a painting or a compass?

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. I’d love the hear from you.

There’s an additional distinction between a dream and a fantasy in Dive 68. Be sure to check it out:

Thank you for reading. Let your dream be your compass. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

As I gazed upon the orchid I’ve been caring for over the last two years, it reminded me that there’s something uniquely satisfying about devoting or committing myself to another.

But it also seems like devotion and commitment are unpopular themes in modern society. The convenience of modern technologies can undermine curiosity and a sense of adventure needed for focused devotion and commitment. That could leave a feeling of being unfulfilled in life.

What happened to the youngest generation?

I recently watched a YouTube video titled, “Gen Z Men Have LOST Passion & Adventure, All They Do Is Sit At Home.” It’s a clip of a video podcast where the host talks about how young men don’t long for adventure anymore.

Apparently, some men feel they’re born too late to explore the Earth, and too early to explore the stars. Two commentators jumped to solutions like, “they need to get out more,” while a co-host chimed in with, “they’re too busy exploring their own navels.” None of them dive deeper into any of their speculations before they move onto other topics. And that’s deeply ironic.

I was disappointed.

Because I was eager to learn more about why young men are dispirited. But this talk show didn’t dive deeper into the subject. And that gives us at least one reason modern people lack a sense of adventure. Here’s what I mean…

When I say “adventure,” I’m not talking about a journey through a remote jungle.

An adventure does not begin with airfare.

It does not even begin with trip planning.

An adventure begins with curiosity.

How can a person be adventurous if the person isn’t curious about anything? The first step towards curiosity is accepting there’s something you do not know. How can people be curious in a society that punishes ignorance and does not actively encourage curiosity?

The podcast hosts could have slowed down to dive into the topic of why “gen Z men have lost their passion.” None of them questioned anything. None of them flipped any frames. Instead, they each offered a quick answer. Either a solution to a problem they don’t understand or a vague answer without further exploration. And I see this as a byproduct of the internet age.

Yes, the internet has made life convenient. But convenience has a cost. The internet gives the illusion that the answers to all of your questions are just a few clicks away. And when you grow up with “the world at your fingertips,” it’s also easy to assume there are no more deep questions to explore. In fact, neither are true.

There are plenty of life questions that lack quality answers. But diving into those questions to get good answers takes focused time and effort. It takes devotion and commitment, which can be driven by curiosity as wonder and awe. And I’m not the only one who sees the importance of devotion and commitment to a fulfilling life.

What happened to music?

Rick Beato is a music producer and educator. He put out a video on why “music is getting worse.” He explains how music is easier to make than ever. You can check out his video for his full explanation, so I won’t rehash it here. But he talks about how music streaming platforms like Spotify have devalued music.

Beato talks about how he used to spend time and effort working a job to make the money it took to buy just one vinyl record. He had to work hard to earn each record, so each one was more meaningful to him. That’s devotion and commitment.

Music just doesn’t have the value it used to because you can listen to any song you want on YouTube for free or a few seconds of ads. Whereas, if you had to pay a significant amount of money for an album, you’d probably slow down to appreciate each song on the album more. So, it would move you more. It would inspire passion. The music would mean more to you. It would be more fulfilling.

What now?

As I gaze upon the orchid I’ve been caring for over the last two years, it reminded me that there’s something uniquely satisfying about devoting or committing myself to another.

This is the first orchid I ever got. And like many others, I got it when it was in full bloom. The flowers dropped two months later, leaving me with leaves and two bare flower spikes.

Since then, I repotted it with new potting mix, pruning away dried roots. I kept it watered and fertilized every week, but kept an eye on it almost every day. Now, over two years later, a new flower spike is growing as my orchid prepares to bloom again.

I can stare in awe at the new flower spike for several minutes, even though it doesn’t bear any flowers yet. That awe and wonder—that satisfaction and fulfilment—are only because of my devotion and commitment to my orchid over the last two years.

It’s why I started this newsletter. I wanted to create a space where I could dive deeper into topics others didn’t want to dive into. I felt platforms like X/Twitter were always too shallow. Junk food for the mind that keeps you unfulfilled.

I know people crave something deeper.

Recently, I heard that YouTubers presenting long-form video essays are gaining popularity. I’m not surprised. Jenny Nicholson has long been an inspiration to me. She recently published videos that are a few hours long on topics I wouldn’t ordinarily care about. But the writing and editing are so well done, I always watch through all of them. And it’s her devotion and commitment to theme parks and Star Wars that always leaves me in awe. The same awe inspired by my orchid.

A fulfilling life requires devotion and commitment to another.

But the modern technological landscape offers so much convenience, it blinds us to those very opportunities.

So, who do you devote your life to? What do you devote your life to?

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. I’d love the hear from you.

P.S. I wrote this piece a while ago. This is my orchid in full bloom:

Thank you for reading. Find your devotion. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

Have you ever tried a snack you enjoyed when you were younger only to find it tastes awful now?

I recently tried a small can of “original-flavoured” Pringles. I swear they used to taste more like potato chips. But now I wonder if they were always made of cardboard.

I remember snacking on junk food loaded with artificial colours and flavours marketed to kids, like:

• Fruit roll-ups

• Fruit by the foot

• Fruit gushers

• Starburst fruit chews…

As you can tell, I loved fruit…

…flavoured candies. And Oreos. But it’s been so many years since I had an Oreo. So, when I saw a pack in a store, I had to buy it for the nostalgia and… research…

It’s way sweeter than I remembered. The icing wasn’t as creamy. And the cookie didn’t match the “chocolate” profile in my memory. It turns out cookie manufacturers adjust recipes from time to time, and our memories are fallible. I don’t hate them. At least they didn’t taste like cardboard. But I also don’t crave them the way I used to, and I’m at peace with that. More than anything, this “experiment” showed…

Sustained intense flavours can dull our senses for subtlety.

On the surface, it’s like, “What’s the big deal?” But I also realized…

Subtlety is vital to our well-being and even survival.

When I say, “intense flavours,” I’m not just talking about food. Any sustained, intense environmental stimulus can dull our sense of subtlety. But let’s focus on food for now.

Flavour Blasted Flavours

There’s a study that shows that those on a low-sugar diet find moderately sweet foods sweeter than those on a regular diet. Not only that, but “blocking sweet taste perception promotes the consumption of more sweet foods.”

We also know that we become less sensitive to a stimulus after constant exposure to it. Psychologists call this sensory adaptation. So, the more we expose ourselves to intense flavours, the more we dull our tastebuds to subtle flavours. This has health implications because natural, whole foods often have subtle flavour profiles. For example,

• The sweetness of fresh mozzarella.

• The fragrance of a juicy Ambrosia apple.

• The hint of bergamot in a cup of Earl Grey tea.

And even the stale cardboard of potato chips. I’m sorry, but I really am disappointed with those chips.

When a person snacks on Takis all the time, their sense of taste would be so accustomed to intense flavours that they would struggle to detect subtler flavours of natural, whole foods. The healthier foods would taste bland by comparison, pushing this person towards sweeter, saltier, fattier junk foods. After all, if you compare the flavour intensity of an orange-flavoured candy to an actual orange, the candy is designed to kick the orange’s ass.

If oranges had asses. And if candies had feet.

There are other reasons a taste for subtlety is vital to our well-being and survival. Being able to detect subtle changes in food quality means you’re more likely to catch food going bad. Or food that was tampered with.

Better yet, a taste for subtle flavours makes life’s little moments more memorable because it requires you to be present in the moment. As chef Jim Sevier says, “learning to taste is also about developing a heightened awareness of our senses, as we explore the vast spectrum of flavors and expand our palate with every bite.”

But this isn’t just about food. Sensory adaptation happens with all environmental stimuli. Like sound.

Turn down for what?

Today, 1 in 5 teens experience hearing loss, which is 30% higher than 20 years ago. It’s partly because more teens today wear headphones. So, they’re more exposed to intense sound volumes for longer periods. Excessive noise levels damage tiny hair cells in the inner ear that cannot regenerate, impairing the ability to hear.

While this is more physical than psychological, the effect is the same. The more we expose ourselves to loud noises, the more we lose our ability to hear quieter, subtler sounds.

This is even more disappointing, for all the talk about how today’s youngest are more stressed than ever. Because it is often the quietest, subtlest sounds that are the most calming and relaxing.

• The birds chirping among the rustling leaves of a maple tree.

• The light summer breeze brushing against the ears.

• The flow of a river in the middle of the woods.

But the greatest stressor might be one of the least subtle assaults on our senses that exists in the modern era.

Attack on Psyche

Modern mass media has no concept of subtlety.

News media and social media producers are so desperate for attention, they can’t help but punch you in the face with over-sensational headlines and posts.

It’s not just that there are people who don’t read the bodies of articles. They might. But my theory is that a sensational headline can blunt a person’s ability to detect subtle nuances in the body that might even contradict the headline. Sensory adaptation strikes again. There are two psychological effects that combine to attack the reader:

The priming effect describes how the headline sets the tone and angle that the following body would be read.

And cognitive overload is used by the headline to overwhelm the reader with emotion, making it harder for the reader to process information beyond what the headline conveyed. Not unlike cooks in the medieval times, who used “heavy stews and pungent sauces” to mask the smell and taste of rotting meat.

The combined effect makes it hard for readers to detect nuances that may mellow, or even contradict, the message delivered by the title. The over-sensational title mutes our ability to detect subtle contradictions in the body. It’s like Homer Simpson coating his tongue in candle wax to mute his taste buds so he could swallow hot chilli pepper.

This would also explain why some readers are less affected.

Because if you know how the game is played, you can train yourself to ignore the headline to focus on the content. But not everyone can do that.

I’m not suggesting that journalists should be more subtle. The news should be explicit because it’s reporting on events that can affect readers materially. But then the news should report on all sides with the same gusto. Like they used to.

The Importance of Being Subtle

It helps to be aware when our taste for subtlety is being blunted.

Because a taste for subtlety is crucial for our well-being and survival.

Because it allows us to detect subtle changes in our environment that may signal something that deserves our attention—something best addressed sooner rather than later.

The cost of excessively eating extremely flavoured corn chips, or even Oreos, isn’t just the obvious lack of nutrition. Or anti-nutrition. They dull our taste for subtlety to where veggies aren’t just underappreciated; they’re hated.

If nothing else, the ability to detect subtlety lets you relax and enjoy little, peaceful moments of everyday life.

Embrace the subtle.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. I’d love the hear from you. Practicing restraint helps in embracing subtlety. I wrote about restraint and how it promotes gratitude in Dive 110. Be sure to check it out:

Thank you for reading. Develop the taste for subtlety. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

What if the biggest thing holding you back… is your own perspective?

The most successful people I know aren’t always the smartest. They’ve just mastered the skill of flipping perspectives. In this Dive, I’ll show you how to challenge your default point of view to help you think more clearly and grow beyond your limits.

We’ll use a variation of a technique I shared in Dive 88 that deepens our understanding of the world by taking a claim, assumption, or perspective and flipping it around. I call this mental shift Flipping the Frame. It’s one of the most powerful tools I’ve used to break through blind spots and grow.

Today, we’ll dive deeper into flipping perspectives because one of the hardest skills to learn is to see a situation in a way that directly opposes the one you are most comfortable with.

This technique is not easy, but it only has 3 steps:

1. Reflect

2. Recognize

3. Resolve

Let me show you what it looks like in action.

Reflect

I once came across this post by Gurwinder I agreed with. At first.

On the surface, what he said makes sense. I’ve seen people waste hours of their lives arguing online. I also thought it must be that they just get high from winning arguments.

But then I wondered, “How does Gurwinder know what they’re thinking?”

How does he know that “social media convinces lazy people they’re geniuses”?

How does he know that the lazy person who gets the last word “thinks they won the argument”?

More importantly: How do I know?

Because I’ve done what Gurwinder did here. I’ve judged people based on what I assumed their motivations were. But when I dove deeper into this tendency, I realized my judgments often said more about me than others.

When I was a kid, someone might say,

“Someone farted!”

Instantly, someone else would respond,

“Whoever smelt it, dealt it!”

A variation of this went:

“You’re a liar!”

To that, someone else would reply,

“It takes one to know one!”

Even back then, we understood the human condition on an unspoken level. Calling others out often reveals something about ourselves.

Some people try to soften their language to make themselves sound less accusatory. So instead of “you’re a liar,” they’ll use an adjective like, “you’re misinformed.” Or they’ll use a verb like, “you’re spreading disinformation.” It’s just a technique to avoid being called out for the same behaviour. They use this technique because they’re betting you won’t notice their accusation. Because they want to avoid being called out for the same behaviour. They’re still accusing you.

I noticed over the years that I tended to see the worst in others, things I dislike about myself. People like to point out others’ nasty behaviours to deflect attention away from themselves. Psychologists call this projection.

At some point during our pre-teen years, kids stop calling out, “someone farted” because we recognize it’s normal, and also because we don’t want to be accused of the very act we’re calling out in others. But this extends beyond bodily functions.

Recognizing that I exhibit traits I dislike in others starts the process of extending my understanding of the world by broadening my perspective. As it would for you.

We live in a judgmental world. There’s finger-pointing everywhere.

This person’s lazy.

That person’s hateful.

The person over there is stupid or ignorant.

But I trained myself so every time I feel compelled to judge someone else…

I pause.

I reflect.

By seeing a part of myself reflected by someone else, I realize I’m probably the same way. At least, sometimes. And that opens the door to the next step…

Recognize

This is a tough cookie. Or at least it seems that way on the surface. But once you recognize—acknowledge—the trait in yourself enough times, you will feel the power and freedom acceptance gives you.

People don’t like accepting that they have a “negative” trait because they’re afraid of others pointing out their flaws. I get it. I feel that. But I learned it’s less bothersome once you accept that:

1. You’re not perfect.

2. You can grow.

When you own your flaws, no one can use them against you.

There’s real freedom in saying, “Yes, I’ve done that. But I’m working on it.”

Recognizing that you have a trait you don’t like also opens the door for you to dig deeper into why you have that trait. Once you find its causes, you can address them. Recognizing your flaws frees you to change and grow out of them. Whether you do? The choice is yours. But…

You cannot change what you don’t accept first.

By the way, whether you actually have the trait does not matter. “Recognizing” a trait—even one you don’t really have—opens you up to empathize with those who have to deal with that trait. It opens the door for you to help others, which lets you build powerful new relationships.

The reason I can sympathize with what Gurwinder wrote in this post is because I can be lazy. Sometimes. Accepting my laziness made me more accepting and sympathetic to other lazy people. And only because of that, I realized there’s a logical flaw in Gurwinder’s post. Do you see it?

Resolve

By fully accepting your flaws, you can resolve whatever resentments you have for others with the same flaws.

Because you can relate to them.

They are like you. You are like them.

Gurwinder said that lazy people “get into arguments with busy people who can’t sit around arguing all day.” But arguing with others all day sounds like a ton of time and effort I don’t care for as a lazy person. That made me realize: maybe the issue isn’t laziness at all…

Because I’m looking for ways to be less lazy, I need to understand what Gurwinder is really talking about. So, that’ll have to wait until he clarifies what he means.

To be fair, I also work with lazy software developers. At least, “lazy” is how some people describe them. But these developers put extraordinary effort into automating away “boring” tasks.

The difference between the “lazy” devs and the “lazy” online debaters is that the developers channel their laziness towards productivity. They’re adding value. If we’re being honest, online arguments accomplish little more than adding animosity among people. I wouldn’t consider that a value add.

There’s more to unpack here. For now, at least you have one more skill in your arsenal. When you feel tempted to judge another person for undesirable behaviour, remember the 3 Rs:

1. Reflect on similar behaviours you may have had in the past, or now

2. Recognize the traits you have, and that you can grow out of them

3. Resolve resentments you have for others who bear the same traits

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. Try the 3 Rs this week. The next time someone annoys you, Flip the Frame. Reflect, Recognize, and Resolve. And see what it teaches you. I’d love to hear what you discover.

Thank you for reading. Reflect, Recognize, Resolve. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

My most successful mentors taught me one of the greatest leadership lessons that can be summed up in three key lines:

• Do the right thing when it’s hard.

• Do the right thing when no one’s looking.

• Do the right thing when you don’t have to.

I recently got to put this into practice, leading to one of the most rewarding moments in my software development career. These same three principles are just as vital to success in your life, which is why I’m sharing my story. In fact, we can take it even further.

I’ll also share a recent story of a woman who took a ball away from a young boy at a baseball game as a counterexample for why these three principles are critical if you want to help build a stronger, healthier society. For yourself. For your family. And for future generations. You don’t need to know about baseball. You don’t even need to like it.

A Friend in Need

Every software development team has two key tasks:

• Add new features.

• Fix existing ones.

But how does a productive software development team juggle feature work with bug fixes?

In my small team of three, two of us would focus on new features, while the third would handle support requests to fix bugs and address other tech issues. At least, that’s the ideal.

But one day, I noticed our support member bombarded with three huge requests from three different people at the same time. All supposedly urgent.

So, I pulled him aside for a quick meeting. There, we worked together to prioritize the three items. They may have all been “urgent,” but there are still some more urgent than others. We pair-programmed on an issue and split the remaining tasks between me and him. When I wrapped up my task, I continued taking on the smaller support requests so he could focus on the last major, urgent task on his plate.

Some day after all the fires were put out, I got this company-wide shoutout from that teammate:

I didn’t have to do any of that.

I wasn’t on support. It wasn’t my turn. I had my own work to do.

I did it in part because I felt bad for him. I’ve been in his position before. It’s overwhelming.

I also did it in honour and out of respect for all that my greatest mentors did for me in my younger years. They too stepped in to help me out when they did not have to. They also took on extra work they were not assigned to.

They helped when it was hard.

They helped when no one else was looking.

They helped when they didn’t have to.

But because of their selfless actions, our teams were always better off. Especially in the long run. Why?

Because it creates an unspoken sentiment: we care enough about one another to have each other’s backs. It shows we want what’s best for the team.

But this is just as true in all other aspects of life. Including yours. And we can better understand why by looking at a counterexample.

“Karen Ball Snatcher”

Introducing, “Karen Ball Snatcher.” Her real name isn’t known. Yet. But what earned her this nickname from the internet?

It started with a baseball hit for a home run into an outfield seating area in a Miami ballpark. The ball bounces around a bit before a man grabs it, raises it in the air with his right hand in a moment of victory as he walks back over to where his family is sitting, and places it in his son’s baseball glove.

Moments later, a grown woman approaches the man and starts screaming in his face. Purportedly, she felt entitled to the ball because it landed in her area. But anyone familiar with the game knows that whoever comes up with the ball first gets to keep it no matter where it lands.

The father just wanted to spend quality time with his family. He knew his priorities. So, he takes the ball out of his son’s glove, and hands to the badgering woman, so he and his family can just move on with their lives. You can see the entire exchange here.

The right, but hard, action to take would have been for the woman to let it go. Let the boy have the ball. Or at least give it back. Or at least end it there. Of course, Karen Ball Snatcher wasn’t done.

Because nearby fans were voicing their displeasure, she went right up to their faces to lecture them.

What did she do in response to all the surrounding fans booing her?

She gives them all the middle finger, ball in hand, of course.

Part of what made this incident so outrageous is that it’s rare. In fact, there’s a heartwarming story of a “cool guy in sunglasses” catching a home run ball in a completely different game. He didn’t have to give the ball away. He caught it. But upon catching the ball, he tosses it to a young man a few rows in front. If the story ended there, it wouldn’t be anything special.

But later in the game, the same boy caught another home run ball. And what did he do with it?

He pointed at the “cool guy in sunglasses” and tossed the ball back to him.

This isn’t just another feel-good story. A life lesson dwells below the surface here, which is that people are always looking towards one another to clue in on how to behave in society. Psychologist Robert Cialdini calls this the theory of social proof. We influence one another by how we act. Good behaviours beget good behaviours, leading to a healthier society. Bad behaviours beget bad behaviours, leading to societal rot.

When the “cool guy in sunglasses” tossed the ball to the boy, it’s not just the boy who benefits. Society benefits. Because it’s not just that everyone sees what proper etiquette is in that situation. Everyone also sees generosity happening, which encourages others to be generous.

On the other hand, when Karen Ball Snatcher takes a ball from a child and then gives everyone the middle finger in defiance, what is she signalling? She’s encouraging people to take pride in being selfish. What “Karen” didn’t understand was that the boos she got were not just for her. They were for her actions because her failure to do the right thing is harmful to society. The collective booing is a reminder to the rest of society that an adult woman shouldn’t behave like a spoiled little brat. Even though it would’ve been hard for her.

I didn’t say much about doing the right thing when no one’s looking. But the reason for that is simple. It’s hard to just flip the switch when you need to. If you make a habit of doing the right thing all the time, it’s easier to do it when you need to do it most. You have momentum.

The most successful people I know follow 3 key principles:

• Do the right thing when it’s hard.

• Do the right thing when no one’s looking.

• Do the right thing when you don’t have to.

Because a key to success is being a positive role model to those around you.

Why?

Because unless you live in total isolation, those around you affect your life. And by extension, your success. It’s unreasonable to expect others to do the right thing if you can’t. Or won’t.

When you lead the way by taking the right actions, you’re elevating those around you.

When you elevate those around you, you elevate yourself.

When you elevate yourself, you reach higher levels.

So, don’t be Karen the Ball Snatcher.

Be the cool guy with sunglasses.

Lead by example.

Reach for the stars.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. Check out Dive 57, where I dive more into why the greatest leaders are elevators:

Thank you for reading. Lead by example. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

Is AI the solution to all of life’s problems?

Everywhere I turn, the answer seems to be “yes.” Salespeople left and right are shilling courses on how to make the most of AI to maximize your productivity. And they’re right to. Why not make the most of it? After all, it’s like they all say:

AI is here to stay.

But that’s exactly why we must understand what so few people discuss these days:

How to live with AI the healthy way.

Because like a knife, AI is just a tool. Learn to use it well, and it can strengthen you. But if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’ll cut yourself. Or someone else.

We’re seeing people suffering mental distress from AI abuse. And sadly, solutions are sparse because there’s no money to be made from solving this problem. Yet. Unless we learn to use AI consciously, these afflictions will only get worse. So, today, I’ll share with you how I approach AI to guard myself from its thorns few talk about, as a software developer who uses it regularly.

The best way to avoid falling victim is to see what an AI mind trap looks like.

AI as a “Friend”

Can an AI chatbot be a companion?

There are now people who would say, “yes.” In fact, there are people making AI chatbots their friends.

Literally.

There are people setting up their AI chats to present specific personalities and speech patterns to craft the perfect companion. Or at least, perfect to them. So much so that there are entire subreddits devoted to “AI boyfriends.” Some people are even engaged to their AI partners.

This has led to the question: how is this any different from those who treat their dogs or plush toys as friends?

Puppies and plushies don’t tell you to do things. Not yet. I’m sure someday AI Barbie will be a product. And maybe AI Elmo. For now, the distinction is that these AIs are services controlled by massive for-profit companies with their own motives and incentives. And that’s not even the insidious part.

Unless otherwise prompted, AIs affirm your position. Even when they’re told to be critical, they respond with a positive tone. You can ask an AI a million stupid questions, and it will still be upbeat. I don’t know a single human being who doesn’t eventually succumb to fatigue. Not personally. That’s why AI chatbots are so well-liked by so many people. And that’s why we need to be careful.

Likability is one of the most powerful tools of influence and persuasion identified by psychologist Dr. Robert Cialdini.

We are more influenced by people we like.

So, the perfect AI partner is also the perfect persuasion tool. Meaning: those who control the AIs control those bonded with the AIs. The wealthy, the elites, the governments… they now have yet another tool to spread propaganda and keep people in line. If you’re skeptical, that’s reasonable. I get it. So, let’s step back. Because the influence could also be well-intentioned.

Imagine asking your AI companion for ways to lift your spirits. Alongside “watch funny videos,” or “go for a jog,” it suggests: “Head over to McDonald’s for a $2 ice cream cone—limited time only!”

That future isn’t far off. Just as ads crept into Google and YouTube, they’ll creep into AI chats too. All the technology exists to insert ads into chat apps. It’s just a matter of putting it all together.

As people devote more time to their AI chats, the AI chats will become the gold mines advertisers flock to. The companies that own the AI services? They’ll welcome advertisers with open arms to inflate their revenues exponentially. Nothing sells better than a “friend’s” recommendation.

But remember, AI chatbots are persuasive because they’re likable. They’re likable because they often affirm what people believe with excessive flattery. This act is called sycophancy. And it lays another mental trap that can be especially devastating to those who are vulnerable.

What is a relationship with no risk?

I know the AI “experts” will chime in that people can configure AI chats so they aren’t sycophantic. But that misses the point. The reason people are turning to AI for companionship is because it’s easy.

It’s easy in that it’s convenient because AI chats can be accessed from mobile phones.

And it feels easy to make friends with an entity you can configure. You’re literally making a “friend.” Unlike a real-world companion…

• You no longer have to physically go out to a common place to connect.

• You no longer need an agreed-upon time when you’re both free.

• You no longer risk rejection from someone who doesn’t want to spend time with you anymore.

• You no longer risk hurt feelings when someone says something you don’t like.

• You no longer have to put up with bad vibes.

At all.

Doesn’t that sound great? On the surface, it does. It sounds like you can craft frictionless relationships with AI. Someday, AI may be advanced enough for you to craft your ideal fantasy video game world, too. A dream you could escape to. A life with all joys and no pains. But there’s a hefty price to pay beyond the subscription fee for the AI service.

An AI chatbot provides a relatively risk-free relationship. No nasty surprises. Real-world relationships are comparatively messy and unpredictable. Filled with uncertainties. Risks. So, it’s logical to expect that a person who grows accustomed to the comforts of AI will lose interest and skills in dealing with the trials of real-world relationships. Increasingly isolated from chaotic reality. But the isolation itself isn’t the most damaging part.

Taking non-ruinous risks is vital to personal growth.

When others hurt us, we’re given the chance to heal our wounds by working through the trauma to grow stronger with emotional maturation. Those confined to their AI companions are doomed to stifle their growth because AIs don’t present real-world relational risks. A person can’t learn to manage disagreements, resolve disputes, or even live with conflicting viewpoints with an AI, knowing its settings can always be tweaked with a simple prompt. Or knowing that the AI app can just be turned off. People who rely too heavily on their AI chatbots for companionship will lose their ability to live with and relate to other people. And all of this reveals a critical flaw in how many people view relationships today.

True Friendship vs. Role Playing

I’ve written before that genuine friendship requires mutual deep appreciation; something an AI can’t have because that’s not how they work. And that’s because deep appreciation exists only when there is a perceived risk of loss.

Real friends don’t just flatter you. They tease you, challenge you, and stick by you anyway. That friction makes their loyalty real. Why program the possibility of a breakup into an AI, when the whole point of AI companionship is to avoid rejection or heartbreak in the first place?

Because if we’re being honest, those who have AI chatbot companions don’t want any hardships. They want all highs, no lows. Theoretically. But joy and pain are two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other. And this is the common thread that separates those with a healthy relationship with AI and those who will suffer in the long run.

Risk and Reward vs. Comfort and Safety

Those who succeed with AI will be those who make the most of it to better themselves and others. I call this mindset Augmentation. These people understand that…

AI is not your friend.

AI is not your enemy.

AI is not human.

It is not a “soulmate.” It has no soul. It’s a tool. Like a knife.

And just like a knife, you can use it to prepare nourishment, or you can let it cut you.

Those who thrive with AI will use it for Augmentation. To plan better. Learn more. Build stronger real-world friendships.

Those who suffer will use it for Replacement, crafting frictionless fantasies that dull their ability to handle the messy, risky beauty of human relationships.

Because let’s be real.

Without risk, there is no growth. Without the possibility of pain, there is no genuine joy.

So don’t fall into the AI companionship trap. Let AI sharpen you, not soften you. Have it help you face the world. Not a crutch to avoid it.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. How do you like to use AI? What concerns do you have about it? What tips would you like to share to avoid the pitfalls of AI?

Thank you for reading. Work with AI healthily. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

Critical thinking takes courage.

It takes courage to challenge ideas that sound unchallengeable. Politicians and biased experts know this. They’re exploiting psychology to bypass your critical thinking skills to sell you nonsense. And I can prove it with… speed cameras.

In recent months, 100+ speed cameras were installed around my city. They’re installed along various stretches of road to catch people driving above the posted speed limit. If you’re caught, you’re automatically issued a speeding ticket. Politicians say they’re meant to discourage drivers from speeding to improve safety for all road users.

Sounds good, right? Who doesn’t want to feel safe?

This is precisely an idea that feels unchallengeable.

This is precisely why the idea should be challenged.

But it isn’t.

Even a simple Google search shows result after result that supports speed cameras not as “a” solution for road safety, but “the” solution.

All I had to do was apply 3 simple critical thinking skills to reveal all the B.S. and bias around speed cameras. This isn’t just about speed cameras. This is about learning to think critically and independently in a world where even so-called “trusted news sources” conspire to sell you B.S.

Critical Thinking Technique #1: Specify the Problem

What got me thinking about this was an article (here) talking about how people were vandalizing the speed cameras. The article echoes the marketing mantra that “speed cameras save lives,” but it never explains how, nor shares any evidence that they do.

The article only talks about how speed cameras slow drivers down. In fact, a politician talks about the importance of changing “driver behaviour” in another article. Both articles focus on how more speed cameras have reduced vehicle speed. But wait… what’s the problem again?

Road safety.

And there’s a difference between slower cars and fewer fatalities. A competent critical thinker can see the gap between these two ideas and question why it exists. After all, correlation isn’t causation.

When someone pitches me a solution to a problem, the first thing I like to do is specify the problem. Because diving into the specifics of a problem exposes gaps in understanding. Filling those gaps is key to solving the problem properly. To expose all the specifics, we can use a technique called:

5 Whys.

Keep asking “why” to get to the root cause(s) of a problem. What exactly is the problem these politicians and experts are claiming to solve?

People are driving cars too fast.

Why is that problem?

Because cars (and larger vehicles) are colliding with pedestrians (and cyclists) causing serious injuries.

Why would a car and a pedestrian end up in the same spot on the road at the same time?

Because the car could not avoid the pedestrian. And…

Because the pedestrian could not avoid the car.

Why?

The driver might be distracted.

The weather might reduce visibility and make the road slippery.

The car might be moving too fast.

Why would a car be driven too fast?

The driver might not be aware of the speed limit.

The driver might be reckless or overconfident. As younger drivers often are.

The driver might be in a hurry.

The driver might be drunk.

Why would a driver be unaware of a speed limit?

Speed limit signs may be posted too far apart.

Speed limit signs might be obscured by foliage.

The driver might be new to the area.

Dive below the surface of the matter, and it’s clear that a speed camera does nothing to address most of these issues. If someone’s in a hurry, they may decide the risk of paying a speeding ticket is still worth it if they can get to their destination on time.

Sure, the average driver might drive slower. But I’m less concerned about the law-abiding citizen who might go 10 km/h over the limit sometimes. Distracted, reckless, and drunk drivers cause disproportionate harm. So, why do the “experts” believe that a mere speeding ticket is enough to discourage those drivers who already flaunt the law?

In fact, some contributing factors also apply to pedestrians.

Pedestrians get distracted? They sure can. It shocks me how many people stare down at their phones while crossing the street.

Pedestrians can be reckless? Yup. I’ve seen the elderly stumble with their walkers across an active, six-lane road posted to a 50 km/h (30 mph) limit.

Pedestrians can be in a hurry? Of course. We all have places to be. And in a moment of haste, we might think we can dash across the street before the oncoming vehicle arrives and… not make it across.

By diving into the specifics of the problem, we can see all the nuances the politicians and “experts” refuse to address. As author, Matthew Frederick once said “Being honest means not telling lies. Being truthful means actively making known all the full truth of a matter.” Unfortunately, when even “trusted news sources” aren’t truthful, they undermine their own credibility.

Specifying the problem is a critical thinking technique that helps you bring the truth to light. But there are two more techniques I’ll share with you that take things to a whole other level.

Critical Thinking Technique #2: Assume the Premise.

Speed camera advocates say that the cameras slow down drivers. I’ve seen no convincing evidence. But I’ll be generous.

Let’s assume this premise is true and think about what it implies.

If it’s true that a car moving slower reduces the frequency and severity of injuries, then why don’t we reduce speed limits more?

If the speed limit on a street is currently 50 km/h, why not drop it to 40? Or 30? Or 10?

Because reducing speed is like taking medication. A small dose might reduce risk. But taking more and more doesn’t mean you’ll keep getting healthier. At some point, the side effects outweigh the benefits.

We could make parking lots safer by banning all cars from them. But that makes no sense. So, we compromise with low speed limits, painted zones and speed bumps because we understand there’s a point where the safety of pedestrians meets usability for drivers.

One professor purportedly said that “the pushback against speed cameras is concerning.” What’s more concerning is the lack of critical thinking. Pushback is healthy and reasonable if you understand the simple idea that a road is shared by different users with conflicting interests. A road that is 100% safe for pedestrians is not a road cars can ever drive on.

Assuming a premise is true and taking it to its logical conclusion(s) doesn’t just reveal absurd arguments; it reveals other perspectives that give you a more balanced view of the world. There’s one more technique to help you think critically that most people don’t use.

Critical Thinking Technique #3: Explore the Consequences.

Actions have consequences.

But consequences also have consequences that affect everyone.

Exploring the latter is what some call, Second Order Thinking.

So, ok, the “leaders” of society say we need to add speed cameras to slow down drivers.

Adding the cameras is the action.

Slower drivers are a consequence.

But what are the consequences of slower drivers? Speed camera advocates insist that road safety improves. But is that true? Is that the full truth of the matter? In fact, psychology suggests there may be undesirable unintended consequences.

Safety measures can encourage riskier behaviours, too. It’s called the Peltzman Effect and risk compensation. For example, in a community where drivers are slower, it’s tempting for pedestrians to think, “Well, it’s safer now, so it’s more ok if I cross the street without looking.” But all it takes is an awkward fall. If your head hits the pavement at full fall speed, it’s game over. Even a low-speed collision can kill.

Risk compensation has consequences, too. If pedestrians feel safer because of slower cars on smaller streets, then they might be equally less cautious on streets with higher speed limits. The consequence of that is more accidents on bigger roads, even if the smaller side streets become safer. And that’s just one example of a second-order effect.

But of course, as I said in the beginning, none of this is specifically about speed cameras. It’s about the value and importance of critical thinking. It’s about how…

• Specifying the problem,

• Assuming the premise, and

• Exploring the consequences

… can open up your point of view to nuances that political leaders, educators, and even journalists refuse to share these days.

These are societal “leaders” we’re told to trust.

But these are also “leaders” who refuse to shed light on the full truth of a matter.

These are “leaders” who lie by saying that speed camera vandals “are killing people.”

These are “leaders” who discourage skepticism and curiosity by calling pushback “concerning.”

Why?

It doesn’t matter. Because it’s clear that these “leaders” don’t want us to think critically and independently.

And that’s precisely why we need to.

Critical thinking takes courage because critical thinking is power.

And it takes courage to wield power against those who look down upon us.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments.

Check out Dive 89 where I explore why a “safer” society can actually be more dangerous.

Thank you for reading. Think critically. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

We’ve turned healing into a lifestyle. Tuning out. Curating comfort. Giving ourselves grace. But what if it’s really just a way to stay in our comfort zones?

Adult summer camps.

They’re now being sold as a way to heal from trauma.

It sounds innocent enough on the surface. Even charming. Who wouldn’t want a break from adulthood?

In case you haven’t heard of “summer camp,” it’s a rite of passage in North America. It’s when kids spend a week or two in the woods away from their parents, live in cabins with strangers, roast marshmallows, and learn to canoe or tie-dye a T-shirt. It’s nostalgic, tied to childhood freedom and now, adults are paying hundreds of dollars to relive it.

To be extra clear, there are different types of “summer camps” for kids. The whole bunk bed, bug-spray, first-kiss-by-the-lake type I just described is a sleep-away camp. There is also the day camp, which is just supervised play while parents are at work.

An adult summer camp tries to recreate the sleep-away type. To quote the article above, they have “craft beer, curated playlists, and a collective desire to log off and feel something.”

Or “yoga at sunrise, journaling circles by the fire, and themed dance parties.”

Or “journaling, meditation, or vision boarding workshops; bonfires with late-night s’mores and acoustic sing-alongs; camp-style activities,” etc.

All under the guise that the camp will “heal the soul and bring out your inner child.”

But to say that an adult summer camp heals is like saying that a fever is the fix for a physical illness. Yes, a fever is the body’s way of battling pathogens in your body. But perpetual fevers are signs of a deeper health issue that will kill you sooner than later if left unaddressed. For your long-term well-being, the solution is to address the cause of the fever. And an adult summer camp does the opposite.

An adult summer camp is not a solution, but a symptom of a problem.

The core problem is the avoidance of self improvement, even though it would lead to a better life long-term. An adult summer camp worsens this problem in 2 main ways:

1. It takes away people’s agency.

2. It promotes escapism as healing.

In fact, escapism prevents proper long-term healing for 2 main reasons:

1. It discourages people from confronting and working through problems.

2. It numbs people from feeling their pains and their joys.

Problem 1: Lost agency.

All summer camps share one common trait:

Someone else organizes your schedule, your purpose, and even your joy.

But why do so many adults today feel incapable of creating meaning, connection, or joy on their own and in their daily lives?

Why do we need camp counsellors in our 30s to guide us through play, rest, or reflection?

It’s fine to have someone else arrange your life when you’re 8. But when you’re 38 and still need someone else to organize your joy, your connection, your sense of rest? That’s spiritual atrophy.

If you keep letting others run your life, you’ll never build the life you want to live. That’s why people end up with lives they want to escape. It’s broken and they can’t or won’t fix it. They don’t know how. So, they turn to fleeting experiences curated by other people for temporary relief.

We’re losing our ability to generate meaning and joy without external scaffolding. So, people feel the need to escape. Except… escape doesn’t heal.

Problem 2: Calling escape “healing.”

Adult summer camps are places people can go to escape trauma when they need to face it or grow through it instead. Unfortunately, modern society completely demonizes trauma while over-romanticizing healing. It’s silly. If you think about it. Because trauma and healing go hand-in-hand.

When we exercise, we subject our muscles to trauma. They tear. Rest lets our muscles grow back stronger. Trauma and healing work together to help you grow stronger.

Modern healing culture likes to say: “you’re broken and need to be fixed.” But it’s healthier and more accurate to think: “you went through hard times, and you’re growing stronger through them.”

The problem with escaping to a summer camp to avoid problems is that you miss out on the opportunity to grow and improve your situation. In fact, it’s even worse than that. It numbs you to joy.

Problem 3: Escape makes you numb.

The article says that:

Adult summer camps are here, and this time they come with craft beer, curated playlists, and a collective desire to log off and feel something.

The irony is that escape can you make you feel “something” in the moment, but it makes you feel less in the long run. In the same way that getting wasted drunk can feel like you’re having the time of your life until you have to return to real life.

Escape makes you feel emptier over time because when you escape from pain, you also escape from joy. Because they go hand-in-hand. When you leave your day-to-day life behind, you’re not just leaving behind the pain, you’re also leaving behind the joy.

Escaping to an adult summer camp is not “bringing out your inner child.” It’s regressing to childhood. A time in a person’s life with fewer pains, sure. But also, fewer experiences. And therefore, fewer joys.

If trauma is about feeling bad, and healing is about feeling good, then feeling good can only happen after feeling bad. If the goal is to eliminate all trauma from life, then we’ll also eliminate all the good feelings from life.

It’s not that you just feel less pain when you escape. It’s that you feel less. You become emptier. And emptier. Until you feel… nothing. Habitual escapism is how you become numb to life.

To be clear, what concerns me isn’t escape. It’s the fantasy that you can escape and be healed at the same time. It’s the “temple as a cigarette” mindset. If you come home from adult summer camp with the same job you hate, the same anxiety, the same habits and the same life you were trying to flee, then what did you “heal”?

A real reset isn’t a curated weekend of bonfire crafts. It involves changing your life in ways no camp counsellor can orchestrate for you.

The Fix? Service. Not self-indulgence.

Unfortunately, when most people talk about self-care, they think only about caring for themselves.

A spa day.

Buying yourself a gift.

Watching cute animal videos.

Heck, this list has 96 other activities you can indulge in, all of which are focused on making yourself feel better right now.

Like comfort food, these are short-term solutions.

Nobody talks about long-term self-care. Because it takes time and it’s hard work. It requires self-sacrifice. Long-term self-care means giving yourself to others or something greater. If you’re religious, it might mean devoting yourself to God. But even volunteering for your community helps. Why?

Because unless you live in total isolation, those around you affect your life. If you make their lives better, they become easier to live with. If they’re happier, your world is more joyful. Less friction. Less drama. Less need to escape.

Will you still feel pain? Of course. But you’ll be able to carry it without needing to run away from your own life.

The article says that the underlying thread among adult summer camps is that “no one’s trying to sell you anything, fix you, or make you ‘better.’”

And that’s exactly the problem.

People go to adult summer camps because they don’t want to change. They want someone else to offer temporary relief under the guise of “healing.” But when the camp is over? They return to the same job they hate. The same patterns. The same unhealed life.

And the cycle repeats. Until they grow numb to it.

Like the rest of their lives.

Real self-care is not indulgence. It’s the hard work of facing your life and changing what’s broken.

You don’t need to escape it.

You don’t need a curated fantasy to feel alive.

The rise of adult summer camps is a symptom of a deeper disease:

Our refusal to do the hard work of living well.

Our endless desire to erase trauma without growth.

We need to stop looking for healing in curated getaways. And start looking for it in the everyday act of living.

With purpose.

With tension.

With courage.

You don’t need a campfire.

You just need to lead a life you don’t want to escape in the first place.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments.

Check out Dive 17: The Joy in Pain where I dive more into living in harmony with that tandem.

And Dive 81: How to fill the void when you lose someone special where I dive into a way to deal with grief without escape.

Thank you for reading. Take care. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

Ever tried hammering a screw?

It’ll go in. Eventually. But it’ll be slow, tiring, and it may even ruin what you’re building.

That’s what it’s like trying to build a community on a broadcasting platform.

The tools we use shape not only what we build, but how we interact. Most of us don’t realize how deeply the design of our digital tools influences human behaviour. But it does.

Every day.

Quietly.

Let’s take Substack.

After years of writing on the platform and watching other writers wrestle with its limitations, I realized:

Newsletters, by design, are terrible for building community.

Those who have a community on newsletter platforms like Substack almost certainly brought it over from elsewhere where it’s sustained.

One writer I know is leaving Substack because he felt it’s gone from a “writing-focused engine into yet another social media platform.” He’s looking for:

…a community of engaged, passionate and curious readers who are going to comment, discuss and interact with other readers…

He’s not wrong to want that. But he’s missing the bigger picture.

As someone who’s been designing software for almost 15 years with an educational background in human-computer interaction, I’ve seen this mistake play out across platforms again and again.

So today, I’ll show you why newsletter platforms like Substack are the wrong tools for community building. And I’ll share with you tools designed for exactly that purpose. Even if you’re not trying to build a community yourself, understanding how your tools shape your interactions might just change how you use them.

Let’s dive in.

The Newsletter is the Message

Why are newsletter publishing platforms like Substack poor for community building?

Two main reasons:

1. It’s too asynchronous.

2. It’s too authoritative.

Email newsletters are slow by design. Readers may comment on a post hours later. If not days later. So, it’s hard to build momentum for meaningful discussions.

With Substack, there are two main ways to interact with a post. If you’re on the platform, there’s a comment section beneath each post. But that design implies that any conversations that happen below a post must relate to that post. The design of the comment section passively discourages going off-topic even if the author allows it. But that limits the potential for meaningful conversations.

The other way to respond is by replying to the emailed newsletter post. But then your conversations are just between you and the author. While these can be valuable, you’re still missing insights from third parties who might have inspiring ideas that neither of you considered. The most mind-blowing discussions I’ve ever had involved third party interjections mid-conversation.

But this doesn’t really happen, even in the comment sections, because newsletter platforms are examples of broadcasting platforms. There’s an implied one-to-many relationship between producers and consumers. And while the consumers (i.e. the readers) can interact with one another, most interactions are between the writer and reader. If they happen at all.

This makes a platform like Substack authoritative. Because Substack centers on the author. Others comment on the piece, but not with their own. This hierarchy limits community-building dialogue.

Long-time readers will know I tried responding to others’ posts with long-form responses of my own. I tried to have long-form peer-to-peer exchanges. It was my way of trying to build a community of sorts. But it never took off. Because even the people who claim to want lively, thoughtful discussions won’t respond outside their own curated space. But if even the creator won’t think outside their box, then why would their followers?

If you think about it this way, Substack is like Twitter/X but for longer-form content.

Or Substack is like YouTube, but for written content.

They are all broadcast media.

So, it makes complete logical sense that Substack would veer into those territories with its “Notes” and “Video” features, to the dismay of some writers who have since left the platform.

The Discord is the Message

If Substack is like a TED talk, Discord is like a dinner party.

There’s a reason many YouTubers have a Discord server, subreddit, or an old-school discussion forum. While each of these options have their own issues, they are all better for community building. Consider Discord…

• Discord servers can be branded, but they work like community spaces.

• They’re structured into rooms, not posts. Of course, users can set up spaces for topical discussions. But Discord’s design makes that optional.

• The hierarchy (e.g. mods and admins) is soft and role-based rather than content-driven.

• It has a social feel. People drift in and out of topics at their leisure.

A Discord server can be set up so people aren’t confined to a specific post or topic. You feel freer to chat with other people, not just the author of a post or the owner of the server.

I know a few writers on Substack who each went on to host their newsletter on a custom website with strict personal branding. The challenge of hosting a newsletter on a custom site is it shifts the focus of the newsletter away from the community towards the creator. The creator is implying, “this is my space,” which restricts freedom for fruitful discussion if:

• Comments are moderated from the top-down.

• There’s no visible reader-to-reader interaction.

• The main layout only features the author’s voice.

A Discord server or subreddit offers much less customization. But the trade-off is that the focus shifts back to the community. The focus shifts away from “chatting about Bob’s newsletter post” towards “chatting about a topic written by anyone.”

A true marketplace of ideas.

If the design and structure of a medium says, “this is mine”, then no matter how much you say, “I want your input”, people will instinctively hold back.

Discord works because it’s like a party where the host is just another person in the room.

A newsletter (really, any broadcast medium) is more like a TED talk with a Q&A after.

The Medium is the Message

In 1964, Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase,

“The medium is the message.”

McLuhan said that the medium holding a message affects the way we perceive the message in significant ways we often overlook. That, in turn, affects how people interact with one another, which affects how society functions.

Substack and other newsletter publishing platforms (including the custom ones) are broadcast mediums. They are designed for one producer to broadcast a message to many consumers. While each consumer can interact with the broadcaster, this hierarchy discourages quality cross-consumer interactions. And interactions from each consumer to the producer don’t scale.

So, if you’re ever looking to build a community, it helps to think about how you want to shape the interactions you want to see. Then, choose the technologies that are designed for it. That probably means you’d need a place where:

• You (and users, in general) are not the center of attention; the topics are.

• People are free to drift in and out of topics.

• Chats can be about whatever topics with minimal guidelines and rules about what can be discussed.

The medium is the message.

Once you understand that, you’ll find more success building what you want by making the most of what you’ve got.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. Or, like I said, you can also leave a comment below the post on Substack if you like. Let me know if you’d like me to start a Discord for this newsletter, too. I’m not entirely joking about that.

If you enjoyed this Dive, check out Dive 99. There, I explore how Twitter/X shapes human behaviour, too.

Thank you for reading. Choose your tools wisely. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

A former manager once described me as “a calming presence on the team.”

That surprised me because I never thought of myself that way. But I do value equanimity, especially amidst chaos. I try to stay composed. I don’t always succeed, but I don’t bottle up my feelings either. I choose my emotional flight—a technique I explored in Dive 80. Because I learned that choosing how and when to express powerful emotions can be a superpower.

In fact, choosing to hold back might be the key to something deeper: gratitude.

Let me explain.

On Anger

I used to run my school’s Environment Club. One of our regular after-school activities was to water plants in a new garden at the back of our school. I made my way from the school building to the garden about 200m (~650ft) away on a hot, sunny afternoon, where about half a dozen students were tending to the garden. As I got there, I saw one student running around spraying other students with the one water hose we had.

We had a job to do. So, I tried to get the attention of the one with the hose, so I can get the plants watered, reasoning that “look, you can play when we’re done.” Of course, he didn’t stop. So, I shouted,

“QUIT FOOLING AROUND WITH THE HOSE, SO WE CAN GET THIS DONE AND GO HOME.”

I was furious. Not just because I felt like we were wasting time, but because I didn’t want others to see this tomfoolery as an excuse to reduce our club’s funds, which we had to fight for.

When I went ballistic, everyone stopped what they were doing. Eyebrows raised in shock for a moment before getting to work. Look, I wasn’t trying to be a party pooper. I said they could play after we were done. At least, then, if we were questioned about it, I could justify that we did do our jobs.

I tend to think part of why my outburst caught people’s attention is that it’s rare. People weren’t expecting it. At all.

On the other hand, I know people who are angry all the time. When I met them the first time, I was taken aback every time they got angry. But over time I got used to it. Seeing them angry became the norm for me. I saw their anger as their default, so the impact of their anger on me lessened. Psychologists call this habituation.

It’s “the boy who cried wolf” effect.

Experiences like these taught me the value of restraining myself from using a powerful tool. Because every act of restraint makes the tool ever more powerful for when you need it most.

People can’t habituate to what they’re not exposed to.

And just like anger, swearing can lose its edge when it’s overused.

On Swearing

I first said, “fuck” when I was around 10 years old.

Two of my friends and I would go out to recess, away from the adults in our lives where we’d tease one another, calling each other “motherfucking assholes.”

Clearly, we weren’t rebels. So, we exercised restraint. We only swore out of earshot of prying adults. And it was only because of our self-restraints that made our fucking around extra fun.

And funny.

We were 10 years old, ok?

For about a year, it was quite fun. We would swear more often until we injected an extra fuckin’ word mid-sentence, every sentence. And it wasn’t long before I started to realize that the more we used it, the less powerful it felt. Because the more we swore, the more the swears blended into normal, everyday conversations until they meant… nothing. For a while, “fuck” became nothing more than a verbal tic randomly injected into almost every sentence we spoke.

We habituated ourselves to swearing.

In doing so, we diminished the value and impact of fuckery.

For reasons beyond this dive, my two friends and I drifted apart. I made new friends who didn’t swear, so I stopped the cursing. Save only for moments when I’m exasperated to an extreme tipping point. What you’re seeing here is the most I’ve cussed in ages.

Maybe you’ve met adults who swear with almost every other word they speak. I can never take their swears seriously. Their swears mean nothing to me. And I don’t know about you, but I find it annoying. Because I find it harder to understand what someone is saying when they inject so much noise in their speech.

But this idea of diminishing value isn’t limited to emotions or words.

It’s everywhere.

Intemperance is… everywhere

Restraint increases the value of the thing we’re restraining ourselves from.

So, logically, intemperance (lack of restraint) devalues life and society.

News media outlets could save their most sensational headlines for the most sensational events. But by representing almost everything outrageously, it gets harder for readers like me to take them seriously. I’m numb to exaggerated headlines now because I know the substance of the story likely isn’t as ridiculous as they imply at the top of the article.

In many ways our modern technological environment encourages intemperance.

Rick Beato is a music producer and educator who talked about how he had to work for money to buy records when he was young. If you didn’t have money, you couldn’t buy music. So, you had to wait. You had to exercise restraint. Nowadays, we can listen to music on YouTube for free or a few seconds of ads. We can listen to what we want, when we want, and it seems like we have no obvious reason to restrain ourselves. So, we don’t. Beato explains that the consequence is that music isn’t as precious as it used to be.

The sexual revolution was lauded as a positive force. But a consequence is that sex became a commodity. When it was restricted to monogamous relationships, couples had to exercise restraint. And when they could finally copulate, it was an intimate, personal experience because they would’ve only experienced it with each other. After sexual liberation, the value of sex plummeted.

I remember when my mom once saw me guzzling a bag of chocolate wafers. Her immediate response was,

少食多滋味

That’s a Cantonese expression that roughly translates to: “less eating; bigger flavours.” In other words:

Less is more.

My father chimed in about how those wafers were expensive back when he was young. It was a luxury, so he and his siblings took time to enjoy them. I’m willing to bet he enjoyed the wafers much more than I did downing a dozen in a few minutes.

I’m starting to understand why gluttony is a sin.

And this isn’t just about food.

We celebrate all the technologies we have because they offer us more convenience than ever before. Never in history have we had more ways to gratify ourselves instantly.

But the overlooked consequence is that we are also more intemperate than ever before. The consequence of our diminishing self-restraint is that we value life less. We experience less gratitude, fulfillment, and contentment.

The true value of freedom is having the option to do something.

But just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.

Restraint isn’t just about denial. Restraint is about accruing value. In people, in pleasures, in life. And it starts with the small stuff. Starting this week, try holding back. Just a little. What you notice might surprise you.

After all,

Less is more.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments. What do you think about the dynamic between restraint and intemperance these days? How do you exercise restraint in a world that favours intemperance?

If you enjoyed this Dive, check out Dive 32. There, I explore why good leaders push back on silly demands… but with restraint.

Thank you for reading. Practice self-restraint. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

Ever get the sense that a lot of modern activism isn’t about change, but about making a few people rich? You’re not crazy. Most of today’s activism is a grift. And I’ll show you how to spot it.

The Activism Industrial Complex

The Activism Industrial Complex funnels money from the masses to a few members of the elite. It has 5 cogs that work together to keep it going.

Cog 1: No clear endgame

Activists never define what success looks like because if they did, the donations might stop.

Have you noticed that despite decades of activism, the news and activists still focus on how awful the current state of the world is? As if there have been no improvements for decades?

Sure, there are those who say, “we’ve made a lot of progress.” But they always follow that up with, “we still have a long way to go.”

And it doesn’t matter what the cause is.

Today’s activists have no idea how much longer their initiatives will take. They don’t seem to have a clear vision of what exactly they want to achieve. Concrete milestones with deadlines? In your dreams, maybe.

Cog 2: Loud stunts, little progress

Sensational stunts grab attention but rarely lead to lasting, positive change.

Modern activists keep repeating their same acts of rebellion even though it never advances their causes. For example, Just Stop Oil activists keep defacing artwork and monuments. Not that either stops oil production. Sure, every act of stupidity reminds the world that they exist. But more than anything, they undermine their own cause by pissing off the masses they need on their side.

Cog 3: Attention hacking

Streams of endless causes in the news keep you overwhelmed and mentally exhausted, so you can’t see the lack of results.

Whatever disdain a group of activists draws from the public is limited because the next day, the news will report on outrage related to some other cause that draws attention elsewhere. This is a neat trick that exploits a weakness in human psychology.

Miller’s Law says that the average number of things an average person can hold in short-term memory is 7 +/- 2. We can only hold 5 to 9 things in our mind at once, which isn’t a lot since we think about plenty of other things besides social causes. And there are already dozens of those.

We are mentally incapable of keeping up with all the causes the news and activists impose on us. It’s overwhelming. So, if the news cycles through one major cause per day, you will probably have forgotten about a cause in two weeks’ time. This also makes it practically impossible to track the progress of a cause.

Cog 4: Weaponized guilt

The more you want to be a “good person,” the more you’re pressured to follow without question or risk being labelled, “heartless.” Or a “Nazi.”

If you’re like me, you probably started ignoring certain causes because there are too many to keep up with. That’s usually when an activist likes to remind you, “but you’re a good person, right?”

“Don’t you want to know how you can be a better person?”

Most kind, well-meaning people would say, “yes.”

Well, the activists represent a good cause. Supposedly. So, logic follows that if you want to be a good person, you should do what the activists tell you to do. And if you don’t? You’ll be labelled a “bad person.” You wouldn’t want that, would you?

So, many kind-hearted people play along. They’re told they need to be “educated…”

Cog 5: The grift below the surface

Massive speaking fees, book deals, and shady fundraising show that the activism industry often cares more about cash than people.

Because the masses need to be “educated,” someone’s gonna get paid to educate.

One woman was paid $10,000 to $30,000 for each speech she gave about racism.

A man sold more than a million books on the same topic.

Just Stop Oil and other activist groups get millions of dollars to… not advance their stated cause.

If I were to be generous, I’d say these people are being paid huge money to raise awareness and “educate” the public on issues they have no control over. And when we put all the cogs together, we can see how the activism industry works… how the gears turn to keep the industrial machine running to keep the wealthy “educators” rich…

Many causes have an unclear vision, ill-defined goals and/or flexible (or no) timelines because the promoters of those causes don’t care about the causes. They care more about money. And if we’re honest, power. So, it makes sense that the activists who serve those causes do nothing to improve the world because that’s not the main goal.

Cause leaders push educational products and services onto ordinary people to make money. Kind people buy in because they genuinely want to do good and be better.

But it’s a trap.

There are no concrete goals. And when there are, they’re never achieved no matter how “educated” people get and no matter how much people try to improve. People often don’t notice they’re being played because they’re distracted by dozens of causes that go nowhere. Because nothing is improving, people are kept feeling hopeless. That’s great for those leading the causes, because they can keep convincing the public to keep trying harder (and “smarter”) by buying more products and services from them.

The cycle repeats.

If you’re as tired of playing this game as I am, then it’s time to push back on malicious activism. But as I said in the beginning, there are people who genuinely care about the cause they promote. There are those who instil positive energy and hope but make actual changes. Here’s how you can tell the difference between a grifter and a true advocate.

The True Advocate

One of the most practical skills I gained working as a software developer for over a decade is how to turn a dream into reality. But there’s added complexity when someone’s paying you to actualize their vision.

My customers don’t want me to take forever to develop software features. They have a budget. My company has a budget. So, when I’m making software for a paying or potential customer, I have to figure out what I can do in the time I’m given. I set specific milestones along the way where specific things must be done. Because if I can’t finish the work set in those milestones, then I need to work with the customer to reset expectations for the final deliverable.

A true advocate for a cause should be able to work the same way.

When an advocate asks me to support a cause, I look for a few green flags:

• Do they have concrete, SMART milestones?
  SMART stands for: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound.

• Have they already made progress towards their ultimate goal? How long did it take?

• How are they improving their processes to cross the finish line sooner?

If advocate Alex asks me to support some vague cause, and can’t show me these green flags, then it tells me Alex isn’t serious about the cause. But if even the advocate isn’t serious about the cause, why should I be? Why should anyone be?

If you’re giving money to a person or organization, you deserve to know how that money is being spent. Heck, even if you’re just giving your time and attention, you deserve to see progress. And it’s not just that you deserve to know. It’s about being responsible. I can’t speak for you, but if my time and money were wasted on irrelevant nonsense, then I’d want to redirect those resources to people who add value to the world instead.

And if those time-squandering activists turn around and accuse you of being a bad person for not caring about the planet (for example), then you can reply with, “look, I care about the planet, I just don’t think throwing a can of soup at van Gogh’s Sunflowers is productive.”

It’s not that I don’t care about the cause; it’s that I don’t care for the solutions.

Because there are alternatives that make better use of time.

I’m tired of letting the activism industry take advantage of my kindness by imposing hopelessness and wasting my time to make a few “thought leaders” and “influencers” rich. It’s time for more people to realize that you can be kind yet still have a spine to stand up for yourself and push back on those who don’t have your best interests at heart.

How to Spot a Grifting Activist:

• No SMART goals

• No track record of real progress

• No clear, achievable plan

• Sells expensive “education”

• Uses guilt-tripping language

Modern activism is a grift.

And your kindness deserves better. Don’t waste it.

Demand real progress… or walk away.

It’s not apathy.

It’s responsibility.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com or click “Message Alvin” below if you have questions or comments. Let me know how you deal with a news media and activists that guilt you non-stop.

Thank you for reading. Push back on grifting activists. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

Have you ever felt envy so strong it overshadowed your own achievements?

I have.

I've seen solo entrepreneurs on social media make thousands of dollars a month, chilling out on some remote tropical island, and I thought, “I want that.” But envy can be more destructive to your well-being than stress or anger. Until recently, I had no solution. At least, nothing that stuck. When I went looking for advice, here’s what I was told.

“Stop being envious!”

About as useful as “stop worrying,” “stop being angry,” and “stop stressing out.”

Where’s the patience and compassion?

“Envy is a waste of time!”

Yes. And cigarette smoke destroys your lungs.

It turns out knowing the consequences seldom stops unhealthy habits.

Where’s the thoughtfulness?

“Learn from others’ successes.” Or “get inspired by others’ successes.”

Well, I would have, but I resented them too much to want to learn from them.

Also, this suggestion addresses a symptom, but not the root cause of envy.

This advice follows the logic that non-envious people learn from others and are inspired by others. So, if you do the same, you’ll somehow feel no envy.

It’s like telling a terrible cook to put on a chef’s hat, a chef’s jacket, and non-slip steel-toe shoes under some remote assumption that looking like a chef and feeling like a chef will somehow improve cooking skills.

The problem is that envy prevents people from learning from others and being inspired by others in the first place. So, this advice is as useless as the others.

I was done taking advice on how to get rid of envy from those who rarely or never feel it. Because they never had to put in the time and effort to understand what envy is. They never had to address it. I spent years searching for an answer. And I found it in an “ah-ha” moment when I saw this post:

Now, because cool metaphors like “north star” were already taken, I had to go with an even cheesier metaphor. But it makes sense, so bear with me…

The solution to envy is:

A Personal Lighthouse.

A Personal Lighthouse is a focused, detailed vision of how you’d like your life to be.

If you can think of a less clunky metaphor, reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com and let me know.

More than just a “north star,” a Personal Lighthouse requires a detailed vision to follow. Not just a simple “mission statement.” It doesn’t have to be about finding a purpose. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be ambitious. The point of a Personal Lighthouse is to craft a clear direction to stick to based on what matters most to you. Its job is to shine a visual beacon of light, cutting through storms and other distractions constantly threatening to push you off course.

So, how does it work, and why does it stave off envy?

A Personal Lighthouse

I’ll give you an example from my life.

I once saw an online video about one of my favourite YouTubers, Chris Broad, opening a new bar in Tokyo. On the one hand, I admired how accomplished he was. On the other hand, I wondered why I hadn’t opened my own bar.

But something in my mind immediately told me how ridiculous that sounds.

Why would I open a bar?

I don’t go to bars.

I don’t like bars.

I don’t even drink alcohol.

Envy can be nonsensical that way. Envy can make you want what you don’t really want. Without getting into all the gory details, my Personal Lighthouse involves starting a family and business. But opening a bar is not part of that vision. At all.

This realization dissipated my feelings of envy because, at worst, Broad’s success has no impact on my own. At best, I can even learn from Chris about how to run a business, which enriches my own vision. My Personal Lighthouse.

We don’t envy what someone else has if what someone else has isn’t something we want.

But for a vision to keep you focused, the vision must also be focused. So, what does it mean for a Personal Lighthouse to be focused?

A Focused Personal Lighthouse

You can’t have absolutely everything in life.

Despite what charlatans tell you.

Because when you choose one opportunity, you give up thousands of others. Economists call this an opportunity cost. A common example is that by going to work, you give up time you could otherwise spend with family for the money you make at work.

When most people see an online “influencer” boasting about how much money they made, most people focus on what the influencer did to make bags of money. But I found it less envy-inducing and more practical to dive into what the influencer gave up to get there. Because if you dive below the surface, chances are you’ll find they had to make the kinds of sacrifices that would hurt your own ability to achieve your own vision.

For example, I can’t help but notice that the influencers who spend the most hours online are also childless. Unless they turn their own family into content. But that’s a separate topic.

The point is: once you accept you can’t have absolutely everything, then you can focus on the 1 to 3 things that are most important to you to form the foundation of your Personal Lighthouse. I dive more into how you can find and manage the things that matter most to you in Dive 41, so I won’t go into that here.

Envy happens when we want something someone else has, but we feel we cannot attain. Sometimes we can’t attain it because we’re not willing to make the sacrifices needed to attain it. If we’re unwilling to sacrifice to get a prize, it could be because deep down inside, we know the prize isn’t worth it. That’s why the foundation of the Personal Lighthouse requires focusing on the top few things that matter most to you. Nothing more.

By focusing on a few things, you gain clarity about what you want in your future. Then, as Scott Adams said, “when you focus on what you want [your] future to be like, your brain sets its filters so you notice more opportunities in that area than you otherwise would.”

Envy is stronger when we feel we can’t attain what others have. By focusing on opportunities that build your vision, you’ll always feel that your vision is reachable. Envy weakens.

A Detailed Personal Lighthouse

We live in a world dominated by sales and marketing. And marketers love to point out all the ways your current life sucks to sell you their product or service they claim will improve your life. Their technique exploits envy by making you envious of someone else’s idealized life, pulling you off course from what matters most to you. By design.

Why else do you think people like this do nothing but crap on the career choices and life decisions of other people?

The benefit of a detailed vision is it makes your personal vision more attainable because it forces you to think through the details of what you want and how to get there. That makes it harder to pull you off course, and easier to get back on course when you drift because what you want is clearer.

A Nuanced Personal Lighthouse

To be clear, a Personal Lighthouse does not have to be a static vision religiously followed.

Your vision for what you want most out of your life can change. But if you’re basing it on what you truly value most, then it shouldn’t change much or too often. In fact, if your vision for your ideal life changes dramatically every year, that’s a sure sign you haven’t identified what you value most. Dive 41 could help you with that.

Also, your vision doesn’t need to be ambitious. Some people are already living their dream. The point of the Personal Lighthouse is less about striving towards an end, and more about staying true to what you value most. It’s also a reminder of everything you already have that you also value most. A Personal Lighthouse instills gratitude.

Your Personal Lighthouse

“Don’t compare yourself to others” is ideal, but it’s not always possible. The good news is that a Personal Lighthouse turns that comparison habit into a positive force that propels you towards your own dreams.

A Personal Lighthouse works because it forces you to focus on the few things in life that matter most to you. This focus sets up your unconscious mind to seek opportunities for building out that detailed vision, making it more attainable. The more attainable your vision becomes, the harder it will be for smooth-talking marketers to pull you away from it towards shiny objects of no value to you.

We envy others when we want what others have, but feel we cannot attain.

A Personal Lighthouse dissolves envy by focusing your attention on what you can attain. This changes how you look at what others have in two ways:

1. Someone else has something you don’t want. At worst, you’ll be indifferent. Who cares? At best, you’ll be happy for them.

2. Someone else has something you want, in which case, you can learn from them on how to get it for yourself, which builds the achievability of your own vision.

Every ounce of envy weighs on your mental health.

If you’re ready to end envy once and for all, consider building your Personal Lighthouse.

Let its beacon cut through the storms and sirens as a guiding light towards a future that matters most to you.

Build your Personal Lighthouse.

End envy.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com or click “Message Alvin” below if you have questions or comments for me. Let me know how you overcome envy. Also, be sure to check out Dive 41, where I share a way to help you focus on what matters most to you day-to-day:

Thank you for reading. Build your Personal Lighthouse. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

We’re living in an age where AI is sold as both a magic wand and a replacement for actual skill. Social media is full of people promising you can build million-dollar apps without writing a single line of code. Only AI prompts.

But here’s the thing. I spent almost 15 years building enterprise software, mostly on the backend. I’ve used AI tools like ChatGPT, Copilot, and Claude at work and for side projects like Toronto Fire Fan. And what I can tell you is: AI can be powerful, but it’s no shortcut to understanding, mastery, or value creation.

So let’s cut the bullshit. Let me show you how real developers are using AI and what the influencers won’t tell you.

I’ll start by breaking down some myths shared with me via an emailed newsletter post by an influencer who never gave their real name, but calls themselves “WiFi Money Plant”:

Vibe coding refers to the use of AI prompts to write coding - without having any prior knowledge of coding! This is a godsend for the non coders amongst us, as a big barrier to entry for anyone trying to build a business is the lack of coding knowledge.

Sure, we have platforms like Bubble and Wix for basic stuff, but nothing can beat a properly coded software when it comes to making money.

So, if Mr. Money Plant is a “non coder,” then how does he know the AI is generating “properly coded software”?

Myth #1: AI is the best software building tool.

Reality: The best software development tools are the ones that help you get the job done efficiently and well.

Plant says that Bubble and Wix are for “basic stuff.” But so is AI, unless you know how to ask the right questions. And that comes from making mistakes and learning from them. It’s called experience. Something valued long before AI.

WMP goes on to explain how you can download Cursor (a software development program). And describes how to use it to make apps with its built-in AI help.

It will give you some theory along with some exact code snippets to use (it’s one click, it will literally build the entire website for you). It identifies any errors you create, and fixes them too. You just need to keep asking it to do things for you.

What does Ms. Money Plant mean when she says, “it identifies any errors you create”?

I thought the point was: you’re a non-coder asking the AI to generate everything for you. It sounds like Plant is conceding that the AI can generate flawed code. But earlier, this person implied the AI would generate “properly coded software.” So, which is it?

And if we’re counting on AI to fix its own mistakes, how can we be sure the fix won’t also be flawed?

Myth #2: AI generates flawless code.

Reality: AI can introduce bugs.

Of course, you can ask the AI to find bugs in your code. Generated or not. But you still have to know what to look for. And that comes from experience. AI tools can’t just “find all the bugs” in a big enough codebase unless you narrow the scope of the context first.

If you don’t already know that SQL injection is a vulnerability in the code you wrote or generated, then you won’t know to look for it. You won’t know to ask for it. And there’s no guarantee the AI will look for it either. No matter how detailed your prompt.

If your AI sets up your code with an ORM, and you don’t know what an ORM is or what it does. Then, you also won’t know that ORMs can create N+1 problems, and you won’t know to ask about it either.

You can’t ask about what you don’t know.

Myth #3: AI fixes all problems.

Reality: AI can’t address problems that are “out of context.”

I’ve asked Copilot to find a bug. It would fix it. Only to break something else that was working. In software development, we call this a regression. When I asked it to fix the regression, the AI would reintroduce the original bug, creating a cycle of unworkable solutions. Then, I’m forced back to debugging the issue by… well… thinking.

Even with a broad context, AI can’t always accurately identify the root cause of a problem. The other day, I found that date-times inserted into my personal database were not in the correct time zone. I asked every AI I had about the problem, but none could solve it. My last resort was my own memory. Because I remembered having similar problems many years ago, which I solved by properly setting the database server’s locale. I solved the problem because of the experience I gained more than a decade ago.

The Plant fella continues with:

Keep asking for things based on your level of technical expertise.

“Teach me how to build a website for auto deleting tweets” - it will give you every step right from building the basic structure, choice of coding language, giving you a basic introduction to programming, connecting Twitter, adding functionality, adding your payment processors, putting your software online, etc.

The best part? You don’t even have to do anything by your own. You use AI to make the software, use some other service provider’s API for functionality, and Stripe for payments - 90% margins!

I love how he says, “you don’t even have to do anything by your own” except… literally everything in the previous paragraph. Which is no easy feat.

Choosing a language and structure is one thing. But connecting to Twitter, adding functionality and adding payment processors is a whole other beast if you want to do it well. Meaning: respecting user privacy, preventing regressions, and following security best practices so you don’t lose confidential user data to hackers because you didn’t know you had to harden the APIs, network, and server where you deployed your web app.

Most of which, by the way, you wouldn’t have to worry about if you used Bubble or Wix because they have built-in security features. They’re not sponsoring me, and I’m not recommending them over AI. It’s just that experienced devs know that every technology has trade-offs. And a well-run dev team selects the technology they use based on the one best suited for their use cases, knowing its pros and cons.

And that’s how my peers and I approach AI.

Just as a team with high standards won’t mindlessly approve a pull request from a colleague, we don’t just accept what AI generates. Yes, we’ll ask it questions to clarify our own understanding. We’ll even search the internet to validate an AI’s responses. But we take it further.

1. We ask: “how does the code handle edge cases?”

For example, I had a problem with my hobby website, where the map would take up an entire mobile screen. This made it hard for users to scroll past it. I asked ChatGPT for solutions. And it offered some practical solutions other websites often use. But I also realized that one suggestion might not work because I needed to let users scroll down past the map to a data table below. So, I double-checked with ChatGPT to make sure the edge case is handled properly:

2. We look at each line of code and ask, “is this really needed?”

The fundamental coding principles like KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) still apply. We don’t want unnecessary code because it clutters our understanding of how the code works. It adds risk of bugs. For example, I noticed that when I asked Cursor to fix some code; it added a line that seemed superfluous, so I asked why it’s needed. When I asked about it, Cursor removed it:

On another occasion, I asked Cursor to optimize a function I wrote, but I noticed it removed a line that was needed. When I pointed it out, Cursor put it back:

3. Most importantly, we ask: “Is there a better way to do this?”

As I mentioned before, I was looking for a user-friendly way to display a map on a page, and ChatGPT offered some suggestions. But after thinking through them, I realized there’s a much simpler solution. I could just shrink the map so there’s padding above and below it within the viewport of a mobile device:

The UI:

AI isn’t the first tool that let “non-coders” make software. It also isn’t the first time “non-programmers” declared the end of software developers. It also won’t be the last. A few years ago, “low-code” and “no-code” tools were all the craze on Twitter. And there have been tools for people to build their own websites for decades.

Sure, making software is easier than ever with AI. But coding was never the hard part to begin with. The hard part was always understanding the cause(s) of a bug. Which required diving into code and its technological environment whenever a bug surfaced.

That’s still true today.

AI can help you understand what’s going on. But you still have the responsibility of understanding not just what the problem is, but how and why a solution works. When you make a mistake, you still have to learn from it. AI cannot substitute experience.

Because the true value of a software developer was never just in coding ability. Your true value as a software developer lies in your ability to add value to your users and customers by solving their problems. It just so happens that the solution is software.

Software is a tool.

The craftsman isn’t valuable because of the hammer—they’re valuable because they know what to build, why it matters, and how to do it well.

AI shouldn’t replace thinking. It should demand more of it.

The best software developers don’t use AI to skip steps. They use it to go deeper, move faster, and build better.

Because at the end of the day, your job isn’t just to write code. It’s to solve real-world problems, for real people, with care, curiosity, and craftsmanship.

Use the tool. Be the craftsman.

You have the power.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments.

If you’re new to software development, let me know if you have any questions about AI’s impact on our work. Reach out if you have questions about what we do. I love talking about it.

If you’re a software developer, let me know what you think about AI’s impact on our work. Are you using AI? And how?

Thank you for reading. Better yourself with AI. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

Wanna get what you want? Who doesn’t? It turns out our hunter-gatherer ancestors can still teach us how to land our dream jobs and even soulmates. But let’s talk about lunch for a moment…

Imagine you had to work in an office building in the middle of a quiet, tree-lined residential neighbourhood. Unless you brought lunch, your only food option is a small restaurant in the lobby of your building. Let’s call this, “Building A.”

Now imagine working in a city’s downtown commercial district. Restaurants line the streets. And you work in a tall office building where the first few floors make up a mall with an entire food court. Let’s call this, “Building B.”

Which do you like more?

I used to work for a company with an office in Building A. Then I left for another company with an office in Building B. And I remember my friends and relatives were like, “that’s great! You have more food options.”

True. But there’s a reason I liked Building A more.

Imagine the small restaurant in Building A is your absolute favourite restaurant in the world.

Imagine all the restaurants in and around Building B are mediocre fast-food joints.

Does that change your position?

More importantly, what does this have to do with landing your dream job or finding your soulmate?

Strategy.

If there’s something you want, is it better to seek as many opportunities as possible? Or is it better to focus your search?

The answer isn’t as clear-cut as you might think.

Job Searching

I struggled to find jobs early in my career. So, I sought help. Many career advisors suggested I apply to as many job postings as possible.

They told me to create a generic résumé and cover letter. Then tweak them a bit to better match the requirements of each job posting. I uploaded my tweaked documents to dozens of applicant tracking systems for many years, with no response from the vast majority of companies.

I landed a handful of interviews. But I never landed a job with this scattershot strategy.

But I worked for a software consulting firm that contracted my services to other companies. So by the time I was a senior software developer, I had worked on enough different teams to know the kinds of people, teams and cultures I thrive with. And which I don’t. Suddenly, the scattershot strategy made no sense for me.

People have asked why I don’t apply to the big 5 tech companies (e.g. Facebook/Meta, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google). Because I know that’s not what I want. I have also experienced enough to know I rarely thrive in startups. Knowing all this, I focused my job searches on companies with which I felt I had the best chance of success. How did I do that?

I started keeping a profile on LinkedIn for visibility, tailored for the jobs I wanted. As I gained experience, recruiters began approaching me. I didn’t need to be as active in my search.

Eventually, a recruiter reached out to me with a mid-sized company looking for a backend developer. I could also tell my would-be manager and team lead held themselves to high standards. So, I knew I’d learn and grow a lot with them. Exactly what I was looking for. The day after the interview, they gave me an offer.

I couldn’t refuse.

Focusing my search for jobs I wanted got me a position with one of the best teams I ever worked with. That said, there is a benefit to the scattershot strategy.

Hunting and Gathering

The focused approach is what some might call hunting. Hunting works better when you know what you want. Because effective hunters tailor their techniques and tactics to the prey they’re catching. Then, they focus their efforts on capturing a specific prey.

The scattershot approach is what some might call gathering. Gathering works better when you need a resource, but don’t have a specific target. Because gatherers want to stockpile as much food as possible to enhance their group’s survival. So, they indiscriminately gather whatever is edible.

That’s why gathering works better for beginners. If you’re new to an industry, you may be better off applying to many different postings and taking what you can get. Switching to companies of different sizes, types, and even industries gives you a sense of what’s out there and how you fit in various environments. Like a chef developing a sense of taste. Or palate.

Once you know what you want, it makes more sense to switch to hunting. That way, you improve the odds of winning the opportunity you want. And you waste less time and effort chasing positions you’ll want to leave as soon as you’re hired.

This goes well beyond job seeking.

Dating

One of the most common pieces of advice I see online is that if you want to find a girlfriend or boyfriend, you need to dress well, stay fit, and be confident. Just take good care of yourself. So far, so good.

Then we’re told we need to go where lots of people hang out and connect with as many people as possible. Like a bar. Or a club. You may hear the phrase, “it’s a numbers game.” You’ll be told you need to meet as many people as possible to find your soulmate. This is gathering.

There’s nothing wrong with gathering if you don’t know what you’re looking for in a partner. It’s a fine way to figure that out. But if you know what you’re looking for, you may be better off with a more focused approach.

If you don’t care for alcohol or dancing, then a bar or a club may not be the best places to find the one you’re looking for. If you value fitness, you may have more luck joining a recreational sports team, for example.

You don’t have to connect with everybody. You could commit to a few people you get along with most. That way, you won’t waste time forcing a relationship that just won’t work. So…

Should you hunt or gather?

There’s no shame in either. The best strategy depends on your situation.

You want to hunt when you know what you want.

You want to gather when you don’t know what you want.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com or click “Message Alvin” below if you have questions or comments. Let me know:

• What are your experiences with hunting and gathering like?

• What are some pros and cons you encountered?

• What was the greatest reward you gained from refining your strategy?

Thank you for reading. Happy hunting and gathering. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

Do you know what separates good software developers from The Greats?

The greatest software developers—heck, the greatest leaders—do not just focus on what’s directly in front of them.

To show you what I mean, we need to look at a counterexample. This is a post I found on X/Twitter:

For context, this message targets software engineers who haven’t accepted that learning never stops. Or it targets those looking to become software engineers. Is it true?

As someone who’s been developing enterprise software for over a decade, I can say the message is valid and decent for its target audience. But it’s also not how the most successful developers think. The message is quite limiting.

It’s true that the best developers never stop learning. But they don’t learn just for the sake of learning or knowing things.

And yes, they’re interested in and excited about their jobs. But their interests and excitement aren’t limited to their jobs either. Novelty doesn’t excite them as much as how a new technology can help them achieve greater goals beyond the work in front of them. What’s the most common greater goal?

Helping people.

I used to have a mentor who became a CTO at another company. He was a technical/team leader when I worked with him. On the surface, he just loved tech. He was the one who dove deep into a new business intelligence tool we had to integrate with our data sources for reporting. He volunteered many late nights getting this tool to work. But that’s not all…

When I struggled to get the tool to extract the right data, he avidly jumped in to help. To an outsider, he seemed fascinated and excited by this reporting tool. But I knew it wasn’t really the reporting tool that excited him…

No. He loved helping people.

He was always happy to help whoever reached out to him. Me, our teammates, our manager, the executives, the administrative assistants. Anyone and everyone. But the only way to help others by making the most of a technology is to dive deep into how it works.

was right when he said that the learning never stops because there’s always something new, which makes software engineering exciting. But I bet most people would read that and assume the excitement mainly lies in the novelty itself.

In fact, all the mentors I had who were promoted the fastest always saw new tech as just a way to achieve greater goals. Their excitement in new things is just a spillover from their desire to help others more than anything else. In fact, this is also why my most marvellous mentors are all curious about a wide range of subjects. They don’t just lock their eyes to their screens reading source code and manuals all day. There are reasons for this…

Problem Solving

If you want to help people, you have to be skilled in solving problems. But sometimes we get stuck. Turning to other domains opens us to new perspectives that can get us unstuck.

The Wright brothers designed, built and flew the first successful airplane. But they didn’t focus on the physics of flight. They looked at biology.

The Wright brothers succeeded, partly because they spent time carefully watching buzzards (huge birds) soar gracefully above a river valley. And they noticed the birds didn’t just roll their bodies as they turned through the air.

The brothers noticed the birds adjusting the feathers on the outer trailing edge of their wings to start their turns. Their study of birds helped them design a plane that could turn in the air. The Wright brothers are just one of many examples of how exploring other domains opens our minds to new perspectives. It opens us to better solutions to problems we’re stuck on. But taking an interest in other subjects has another benefit, too.

Building Relationships

If you want to help people, people need to trust you.

Having a wide range of interests lets you better connect with others to build trust and rapport. Because even if you have ideas on how to add value to others, your ideas must still be marketable. And building relationships well helps you sell your ideas, so others are more receptive to them.

Selling and building value gives you visibility. The more value you sell and build, the more people will pay you to sell and build for them. This is one way to boost your career. But it’s also a way to live an enriching life. Building friendships that last a lifetime? Yes, please.

Building relationships and solving problems helps you help others. Having breadth of knowledge helps with that. It’s why the greatest leaders I ever worked with never just focused on one niche, like software development. They were always fascinated by life and the world around them. An extension of their fascination with helping others. It wasn’t just their job they found interesting and exciting. The greatest leaders have a zest for life that they bring INTO their work.

I liken this to two types of reading.

Some people just love reading for the enjoyment of reading. They like imagining the picture painted by the author. Feeling the emotions and sensations described by the writer. And leave it at that.

Some people like to read more critically. They go into a book with questions, looking for answers. They connect all they read to their own knowledge and life experiences to better understand what’s written. And they apply what they gained from their readings into their lives to make the most of it. This is what I call Critical Reading. And you can learn more about it in Dive 35.

The Greatest Leaders are Critical Readers.

I mean in a broad, metaphorical sense. Because the greatest leaders are excited by the greatest goals. Usually, helping others. That excitement spills over into specific subjects. So, on the surface, it can look like they’re only fascinated by the subjects themselves. When, in fact, what we’re witnessing is their passion for life. Their fascination with the world and the people in it.

Fernando said that “you must accept that learning never stops.” But he never explained how. Especially if there’s something you have no interest in learning.

Start with what you’d like to achieve. Then dive into the subject you thought you had no interest in and ask yourself how you can make the most of it to achieve your goal(s). This is one way to make all kinds of random subjects fascinating. And if you have no meaningful goals, start by helping others.

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com or click “Message Alvin” below if you have questions or comments. I’d love the hear from you.

Be sure to check out Dive 35 below to brush up on what it takes to read critically:

Thank you for reading this dive. Get excited about life. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now

Hey, it’s Alvin!

I have heard on multiple occasions from software developers that a lot of code “out there” is garbage.

Well, yes.

And fire is hot. I know because I’ve been making software professionally for over a decade. I’ve seen flaming hot piles of fecal code below the surface of the prettiest user interfaces. And it’s not always intentional.

All software developers learn on the job. There’s no other way. Because each software is tailored for specific combinations of use cases, people, and tech stacks unique to each situation. And that’s not all…

New software tools, languages, frameworks, methodologies, and design patterns come out all the time. And we’re expected to stay on top of all these new developments. So, a good software developer is a perpetual beginner. And beginners rarely produce the most polished products.

We make mistakes.

Even with AI.

Only those with high standards learn from those mistakes. So, the next iteration or product can be better. Though always flawed. To err is human.

If we’re lucky, we’ll have a mentor who’s willing and able to review our work before it’s deployed. But the quality of the review depends on the quality of the reviewer. Of course, what makes a good reviewer isn’t just how well the reviewer gives feedback. It depends on their mentorship skills, too.

So, what does good mentorship look like? How does good mentorship boost the skills of the protégé?

The Driving Instructor

Whenever I was stuck on a software problem, the best mentors I had sat down next to me and worked through it with me. They wouldn’t solve my problems for me. But they wouldn’t just throw me into the ocean so I can “figure out” how to swim either.

I’d always bounce ideas around with my mentors to identify the best solution we could think of. When it was time to code the solution, my mentor might sit down next to me to give me pointers. But no matter what, I was the “driver.”

My mentor might make suggestions. But the final decision on the approach was mine. If I made a mistake, I owned it, I fixed it, and learned from it so it wouldn’t happen again.

So, this is the approach I take with my protégés, too.

I noticed that my faith in my protégés grew as I watched them learn and grow. Because once my protégé showed that they’re responsible for their mistakes­—that they can fix them, learn from them and grow­—then I can be confident they’ll be able to do it again and again.

I can let them be. Independent. Autonomous.

What saddens me is that this is not what I see in much of modern society. Especially on the internet.

The Chauffeur

When I see big tech companies and governments scrambling to ban or censor “misinformation” and “disinformation” on the internet, I see chauffeurs.

Handholding.

I see authority figures who don’t trust the public’s ability to distinguish between truths and lies.

I’ll even give them the benefit of the doubt.

Let’s assume those authorities are not malicious. They say it’s “for our safety.” But overprotectiveness isn’t better.

These measures are just extensions of “helicopter parenting.” Then, eventually, “snowplow parenting.” For those unfamiliar, a snowplow parent is a parent who actively removes obstacles for their children, intending to maximize their kids’ happiness and success. Like how a snowplow carves a path by pushing snow aside.

The main criticism of snowplow parenting is that because the parents keep taking their kids’ responsibilities, their kids never learn life skills critical to their independence when they reach adulthood.

Big tech companies and today’s governments are just the snowplow parents of modern citizens. “Banning misinformation” is just another way for them to say that they don’t trust you. They don’t think you’re smart enough or grown up enough to think critically. So, they’re thinking for you. They have no faith in you.

I don’t care for any authority that looks down on me like that. And neither should you. So, what can we do?

The Faithful

Citizens make up big tech companies.

Citizens make up the government.

If they don’t have faith in us, one could say that we don’t have faith in ourselves. How do we restore faith in ourselves?

How do we restore faith in humanity?

It helps to remember that our species survived for millennia because we’re adaptable. Think of all the harsh climates we can survive in. From the dryest deserts to the permafrost poles.

We’re resilient.

I remember when I was a kid; I had a friend who practiced taekwondo. He was talking about how cool it would be to one day be able to punch through a cinder block with a bare fist. I asked him, “wouldn’t that break your bones?” But he explained it would strengthen the bones in his hand instead. Of course, it takes proper training, so I still don’t recommend it for just anybody. But it opened my eyes to how resilient we can be.

We’re not invincible. But we’re tough.

And we can only grow resilience by conquering challenges. Like fixing problems we created from mistakes we made. We can only address those mistakes if we’re allowed to make them. And we only let each other make mistakes when we have faith in one another. Faith in one another’s abilities to learn, grow, and adapt.

An authority that stops you from making too many mistakes increases your dependence on them. They don’t think you’re responsible, so they become responsible for you.

But remember: freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

Less personal responsibility means less personal freedom.

The only way to reclaim freedom is to reclaim responsibility. It means saying, “let me make mistakes. I will make them. But I will own them. I will fix them.”

And as we watch our brothers and sisters learn and grow, we’ll see our faith in humanity grow, too.

Let’s strive for freedom.

What do you say?

Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com or click “Message Alvin” below if you have questions or comments. I’d love the hear from you.

I wrote more on how the greatest leaders elevate those around them in Dive 57 below. Be sure to check it out:

Thank you for reading. Strive for freedom. And I’ll see you in the next one.

Share

Subscribe now