David Epstein On Why Constraints Drive Creativity, The Myth Of Productive Freedom, & How Limits Make Us Better

This episode is brought to you by Freaks of Nature. If you're like me, active outdoors a lot, prone to sweating tons, and into clean personal care products, then you probably have had a few experiences testing some of these products only to discover they're great in theory, but underwhelming when it comes to actually working. But I gotta say, this stuff is great. It gets the job done. And then some, all without trade-offs when it comes to clean ingredients. I've been using their deodorant and their mineral broad spectrum SPF 50 Sun Stick. Both of these have earned a permanent place in my routine. The deodorant is aluminum and baking soda free, of course, but somehow still holds up through long training days, which frankly surprised me. And their Sun Stick really does go on incredibly smooth, leaves no white cast and makes it ridiculously easy to protect your skin when you're outside for hours. Their Sun Stick sold out last summer and their deodorant sold out within one month of launching. But good news, everything is back in stock right now. I'm all in. I suggest you will be too. And right now is the time because when you go to freaksofnature.com, which is what you're gonna do right now, and you use the code richroll, you're gonna save 20% when you order now before it sells out again. So do it. Eating well. Sounds good. Sounds simple. Until you're staring into the fridge wondering what on earth you're gonna cook. That is exactly why we created the Plant Power Meal Planner. It's a personalized plant-based meal planning app that matches you with custom designed recipes based on your tastes, your dietary needs, your cooking skills, and importantly, the time you actually have to cook. Then even if you're not a cook, you actually have to cook. Then even helps you generate a grocery list that seamlessly integrates with ingredients delivery. For listeners of the show, we're offering $20 off an annual subscription. Go to meals.richroll.com, take the quick personalization quiz, and enter the promo code PlantPower20 at checkout. Because everything's competing for your attention now, if you're not structuring your attention, then algorithms are going to structure it for you. David Epstein is a New York Times bestselling author. Examining the factors that enable people to excel in sports, the arts, business science, his TED Talks and performance science have been viewed more than 11 million times. You're somebody who thinks a lot about how we can be better. I have now almost 20 years of experience in vetting studies. If I think there's some misperception out there, I'm kind of obsessive about wanting to change the narrative. You may think that your brain is made for thinking, but it's actually made for preventing you from having to think whenever possible. We spend the most time and energy on the least important decisions because we're having trouble telling the difference between the options. What we often need to do is clarify our priorities. For our productivity, for our sense of well-being, we have to have constraints and boundaries. And that's hard, but more important in this kind of information overload, infinite choice world that we're living in now. David, so great to see you. So excited to have you back on the show. It's been a handful of years. You're on the precipice of releasing this fantastic new book. Congratulations. Thank you. And I wanted to start with kind of how I think of you. I think of you as an athlete, of course, this track and field athlete, this lifelong runner, a writer, a scientist, a thought leader, very much in the tradition of other authors like Malcolm Gladwell, perhaps Adam Grant, Daniel Pink. And you come up with these positions that put you at odds with modern productivity culture, the most famous of which is you upending the 10,000 hour rule that pitted you mono a mono against Malcolm Gladwell, this sort of match quality grit versus fit thing that kind of made you an antagonist, Angela Duckworth. How do you think about your work? And when somebody asks you at a cocktail party, like what do you do? Like how do you answer that question? I usually start asking them about what they do instead because I'm more curious about that than telling them what I do. But I think about it as I obsess over mistranslations or misperception of data and scientific research and then work to try to either correct or temper the repercussions of those misconceptions basically. So when I see something, I follow a ton of research, I transitioned from training to be a scientist to being a writer and I'm like a dog with a bone when I get onto some research that I see as becoming very popular and as being completely misinterpreted. And I should say that happened with both Angela and Malcolm, but they are like two of the most wonderful people in my life now. So these were very generative relationships based on disagreement. Yeah, so you had this very famous kind of debate with Malcolm where you guys were pitted against each other on this 10,000 hour rule idea. But the TLDR of that is that in the aftermath of that, you guys became friends and running buddies. And if there's one thing about Malcolm is like, he's fine with being wrong. Like he's like, it's cool, like ideas change and you evolve and he's not really hung up on that. No, not at all. The first time we ever met was for this debate at MIT and they brought us back five years later. And at the end, we were talking about how our minds had changed since our first meeting and he said, oh, you convinced me. Because I was arguing about that the science actually shows early specialization is not the typical path to becoming a lead the 10,000 hours. And usually it's early sampling. We would gain these broader toolbox and learn where you fit and things like that. And he said, you convinced me, I think I made this error of conflation where with the idea that it takes a lot of practice to become great, which is true, but I conflated that with the idea that implies necessary early hyper specialization, which I now think is false. So we ended up kind of on the same ground. And I think he actually set a great model for me. After some years of us, so we ran together the first time the day after our debate because he kind of said, when we were coming off stage, you got me with some of that data. Like why don't we go run together and we'll talk about this. And several years later, I said, now we're good friends. You could have just crushed me. I just didn't have the professional capital at that point. And he said, yeah, but I have the luxury of learning from my critics. And that set like such a beacon for me to think about when you have earnest critics, not just someone like ranting at you on the internet, but earnest critics is what can I learn from them to be better? And he became kind of a, even though we still have disagreements about plenty of things, but he became a role model for me in that sense. There's something very high integrity about that. And somewhat obvious also, like if we can just hold our ideas a little more loosely and be open to being proven wrong and when we're proven wrong, like kind of embrace that with curiosity, that engenders trust over time. And yet when you kind of canvas culture, like people don't generally do that. They're doubling down, even in the face of, incontrovertible evidence that suggests that they're wrong. And there is this idea that if you change your mind or if you're proven wrong, that like there's something bad about that, that erodes trust, but in fact, it's quite the opposite. And I'd say Malcolm's like the embodiment of that phrase, strong ideas loosely held. Like you will put something forth as if it's like, absolutely he's positive, but then if you bring something that contradicts it, he'll change, right? And then he'll be like, yeah, oh yeah, I was wrong about that. Next moving on, you know? And that like all this research I've written about, people who have good judgment and make good forecasts, you know, about things in the future, one of the absolute common characteristics of them is many small updates. Like they're constantly flip-flopping and changing, but it seems like sometimes in the public sphere, you get punished for flip-flopping, even though it is one of the hallmarks of people with good judgment. Somebody, I don't know if it's you, but somebody who kind of writes books like you do should write a book about this. Yeah, there is. Because it is a real cultural problem. Yeah, I mean, I wrote a chapter about it in range about this good judgment and also Philip Tetlock, the psychologist has written about some of this, but I think what remains to be done is putting it in this context of kind of the information environment today where it feels like you'll really be punished and people become so reactionary that they double down. Because that's so easy to do, right? Like somebody, if you put something out in the public, somebody on the internet is going to attack you in a horrible way. Like in a way where prior to the internet, you maybe would have been attacked twice in your life and now you might get it 10 times a week. And I think that just makes people really, really reactionary and difficult to kind of change, right? They just wanna punch back. Like they feel hurt and they wanna hurt somebody back instead of actually looking for the right idea. Yeah, and what are the long-term implications of that? You know, human psychology and just culture, politics, et cetera, when we're in that fear stance. Like nobody wants to say anything because they don't wanna be criticized because of the nature of social media and just having a voice in the public square. I mean, again, to go to Malcolm, one amazing thing was, I was attacking his most famous idea and he was still willing to change on it where there was a British author who wrote kind of a version of the same thing in the UK that was very popular. And when I was on British radio with him, he just absolutely came after me. Like there was no, maybe you have some points here. It was, you're wrong and even if you were right, it would be the wrong message to send, right? So I kind of got to see these two different avenues where one person, because he had published this and become famous for it, was just like holding onto it with a death grip, you know? So in other words, not only is he holding onto being right, he's also saying at the same time, like even if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter because it's like better if this was true. And I think that's really presumptuous because my take is always what kind of differences between people are important for outcomes we care about, not just folklore, but which are real, which matter for outcomes we care about and then how do we use those things to get the best outcomes for all people. And sometimes that might involve information that people don't necessarily like, but I still think it's important to do. And in terms of science writing generally, I mean, right, I have a new book coming out and something in there, I mean, I have a chapter in there about how much scientific research is wrong, right? And I learned some of this because when I was a grad student, I did some inappropriate statistical analysis and I had an independent, I fact-checked it, I hired independent fact-checkers and yet something in there will not be right. Whether it's because I made a mistake, I framed something wrong, it's just science that doesn't replicate. I did tons of vetting, I had scientists read it, I had my fact-checker read it. I have now almost 20 years of experience in vetting studies, but if you're going to write about a lot of science, I think you have to go in knowing something here is not gonna hold up the way that I thought it would. I just don't know what it is yet and then be ready to correct that when you write it. Yeah, in the new book, you use the example of this Cornell nutrition researcher and you kind of canvas the problematic nature of developing the hypothesis in advance and in retrospect. Maybe it's worth kind of like discussing that right now. Yeah, so this was a Cornell researcher's name was Brian Wansink who was arguably the most famous nutrition researcher in the world at one time. He did these really fascinating studies, the most famous one being the so-called bottomless bowl study where people were told to eat as much soup as they wanted, but some people had a, there was a hidden tube under one of the bowls that was refilling it and the finding was that those people ate much more. The idea being like, we don't know when we're actually full. Fast forward a few years and basically his whole life's work was retracted more or less, retracted or at least corrected. And what happened was he was doing what's called harking, which it stands for hypothesizing after the results are known, meaning he would have some hypothesis for what he wanted to test. You know, like that people will eat more if their snacks come in a larger bowl or something like that or if they're watching an action movie versus a romance. And maybe that wouldn't work out. And he'd say, bummer, like my hypothesis didn't work out, but then he had all this data. So, well, let's go look through the data to actually see some correlations that do hold up. Maybe it's a, well, if you are watching the action movie and your snacks are in a big bowl after 9 p.m., then you eat more, right? It add all these qualifiers. It's like when you watch an NFL game and you hear, you know, the chiefs are undefeated at home when Taylor Swift is in the audience and they're wearing their alternate jerseys or something. You can be sure that somebody first looked for a simpler stat. It didn't hold up. And then they went data dredging basically to look for associations. The problem is when you do that, you're almost ensuring that you're gonna find false positives because you're essentially doing an infinite number of tests, just looking for something that'll work. So that you can reverse engineer almost to, you know, confirmation of your bias towards a certain hypothesis. And you may not even know that you're doing it, right? So what you have to do is set your hypothesis ahead of time and stick to it, right? This is the problem is what's called researcher degrees of freedom, having too much freedom to retroactively fit a hypothesis to the data. And this has led to some kind of a sadly funny story that some scientists call the everything in your fridge causes and prevents cancer study. This study that looked at all, all of the research done on various foods and showed that almost everything has been found both to cause and prevent cancer, except bacon, which sadly was only found to cause cancer. So yeah, this is, you know, in a macro sense, when you kind of think about that in the context of our eroded, you know, trust in experts and institutions is truly problematic. And just because I'm steeped in the kind of like health and nutrition space, I'm not a scientist, but anybody who is interested in that and is scrolling on social media will find any number of like influencers who are cherry picking whatever study to say whatever. And it just creates mass confusion and paralysis because essentially to your point, like everything's toxic, everything's gonna kill you. And there's always some PubMed thing that somebody can point to to say, this is bad or this is good. And it's very reductive. And you can't help but think like, what was the hypothesis going into this? You know, what were the variables that were controlled for? And, you know, what were the biases of the researchers, et cetera, that are driving these results? And it just creates this morass of confusion. Absolutely. I think there are a few good things though. One is this problem, which is akin, the analogy I use is like a sharpshooter who shoots at a wall and then goes and draws a bullseye around some of the bullets that are grouped. And then people come in later and say, wow, what a good shooter, but the person was just firing randomly and then drawing the bullseye around it. That's like what's happening with some of this science and especially in nutrition science. The good thing is it's scientists themselves who raised these concerns sometimes about their own work. Because I did this in one occasion as a grad student, not realizing it was a problem. I had access to a very powerful statistical program, I had a ton of data, go find me some correlations, right? It didn't occur to me, it's kind of counterintuitive that looking backward would make you almost assuredly finding false positives. But the scientific community raised this and now things are better, which is why, in the book I lead one chapter with this crazy study that makes it look like in the lead up to the year 2000 to the millennium, all these dietary supplement and medication studies are producing all these miracles. And then in 2000, bang, everything stops working. It's like, what happened? Was there a millennium bug or something that caused this to stop working? It's no, it's that the funding agency said, you have to register your hypothesis beforehand now. So we know what it is. And that caused almost all of these studies to stop working. So science is working better because of it. So I think working better than ever, so I hope trust can be rebuilt. But the influencer point, it's tough to do anything about that, but I think there's some basics that people should be equipped with. Like small interventions almost never cause huge changes. So when you see studies that are promising some tiny change that leads to some big effect, very unlikely to hold up in the long run. Big effects usually require large or sustained interventions. And also when they're very particular, like there was a sauna study that I was criticizing at some point where it was like some cognitive effect, but you had to do sauna between nine and 12 times, for at least like certain years during your life. And when you start to see these very particular requirements for it, that means somebody almost certainly was like looking how they could divide the subject groups in the study to get a positive result. It wasn't there in the first place. Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of it is over indexing on weak data sets to draw conclusions that aren't necessarily supported by the data. Like that's sort of the general kind of like route of a lot of these conclusions around outcomes. Like small sample sizes, very minimal positive outcome, but an over emphasis on the connection between these two things to create a video and like make everybody engage in a habit change that isn't really moving the needle. And all of these things are like 1% cherry on top of the Sunday stuff. That's like a whole, I'm glad you said that, because that I feel like is a whole ethos or movement that, and I understand why people get attracted to this 1% stuff. Let's say it's exciting. Yeah, but while ignoring these fundamentals that account for all of the other stuff, right? Because it's like, usually it involves a capsule or some kind of like fun new behavior as opposed to the drudgery of like, well, go to bed early and eat real food and move your body. That's right. And I mean, I'm for stuff that motivates people to change, right? But it's like the fundamentals are the fundamentals for a reason. If you want to be a good runner, you have to run a lot. I see this all the time with runners. It's like, which of these shoes with the new foam should I get? And trying these little things and these dietary supplements. The 4x4 Norwegian method is going to unlock unlimited potential all of a sudden, and this is all you have to do. But it's like, first of all, you have to run consistently and stay injury-free and recover, like you have to run and recover. And so it's like jumping ahead to getting the new equipment or the latest fad where you kind of haven't gone through the basics. It's sort of a dopamine-inducing activity that is confused with actually doing something that's moving you forward. It's a form of analysis paralysis. Yeah. And I think it's tough to get away from too. I mean, even knowing, I don't know about you, but even knowing everything I know, I still sometimes, if I get fed some influencer thing that's giving me some kind of 1% thing and claiming it's going to change my life, still sometimes I'm like a little bit curious. And I look, even knowing what I know, because it's everywhere. And I'll try these things. I love it too. I'm not going to the source material and rifling through it to see its effectiveness. But as a lifelong athlete, swimmer, whatever, like I know that it's just really about the basics. And yeah, there's always improvements and iterations on training science, et cetera. But it's all marginal in comparison to what we know works. But then what gets trafficked on the internet is just a, is this productive version of that that gets delivered to the average person who doesn't have the kind of background that you have in athletics or science. That's right. I mean, the good thing about some of the science, sort of good, and I made sure to put in a little bit about this because I was writing in this chapter about how much scientific research is not true, is that there are studies showing people are reasonably good at guessing what science isn't going to replicate. So if a study is described to them and then they're asked, do you think this replicated or not? People actually get it right a majority of the time. Like it just doesn't sound right. So I think if you can slow down a little and say, does this sound likely? Is this a small intervention that promises a huge effect? It's not likely to be true. Meanwhile, I think the less sexy thing, and maybe I would say this having, because I've just been thinking about constraints for the last few years is structuring your life in a way that makes the basics easier and more repeatable. It's like putting structures in place that get you just to do the fundamental things instead of looking for these kind of marginal gains that often, at the elite level, often people are focusing on the marginal gains and that's what you hear about. They can really take advantage of that 1%, but for the average person, this is a distraction more than it is. They've already gone through that other 99% that you haven't really seen. So that's why they're focused on those little margins. Well, good thing we have Steve Magnus to police the internet. He's got more energy for policing than I do. Yeah, he has... He must have very thick skin. Yeah. Oh, you know how... I don't know if I've told you... Steve and I first met years ago when he was a source of mine, when I was at ProPublica, when I was investigating the... I knew that. Yeah. Okay, that's how we first met. And so... You're the one who broke the Nike Oregon Project story, and he was your inside man. He was one of the inside men, yeah. And he went through some... I mean, that is a tough position to be in. I was getting stacks of paper from lawyers, and I had an organization behind me. Explain for the audience who might not know what we're talking about. The Nike Oregon Project was the most famous track group in the world for years, was funded by Nike, highly funded. It was meant to create Americans who could win medals in distance running. The head coach was Alberto Salazar, the most famous American distance runner and one of the greatest. And Steve Magnus, who we're talking about, who's a physiologist and performance writer and coach to some elite runners, was an assistant coach there and started to be asked to do things that he thought were unethical, like to test an illegal method of using a supplement for training He saw some documents that suggested athletes were using banned substances and things like that, and he decided to speak out about it. And when I was at ProPublica working with the BBC, we did an investigation of the team. Long story short, it led to the team being disbanded and the coach being suspended. And Steve was the first person to be willing to put his name and face on camera. We were doing a documentary for the BBC behind these allegations, which then led other people to come out. But he was kind of on an island against a very famous organization that didn't like what he was saying. And so I kind of feel like he's been through it. He's battle tested. He was a Jeffrey Wigan character. When I think of him, this will sound silly, but there's an anime that I really like called One Piece that's really famous. And there's a part where one guy is trying to encourage another guy to have bravery. And so he has him... This is silly. I can't believe I just said publicly that I watched this thing. But anyway, there's a fight between these two guys that can turn into dragons at one point and one is way overmatched. And the guy who's trying to encourage him, his mentor says, bite him, bite him. And he's like, what? And he bites him. He says, you just bit the strongest guy in the world. Can anything frighten you now? And I feel like that's kind of where Steve was. It's like, he just bit the strongest guy in the world. Like, can anything frighten him now? And I don't think so. Yeah, that's wild. Steve has told that story on the show. He's been on a couple of times. I've had Mary Canaan. I've had Kara Goucher on. So if you're watching or listening and you want to learn more... And I think we talked about it when you were on the show the first time. So long time ago, I can't remember. Yes. Let's talk about constraints. I mean, the last time you were on, we talked mostly about range, which is essentially you making the case for why being a generalist is better than honing in on a specific skill early in life. And you have all these case studies that kind of dispel this idea that whether it's Tiger Woods or name your kind of superstar in their respective discipline, you're kind of upending this idea that you have to specify early and just commit yourself maniacally to a certain thing. And the new book is really kind of the inverse of that. You're saying yes to generalism, which is basically like kind of expanding the scope of your life experience to this new book, which is about like, okay, how do you focus and kind of implement constraints to drive productivity, creativity, and essentially like your hottest take is that constraints are like a necessary component of having a happy life. Yeah. And I mean, first of all, you've obviously tapped into something clear, which is it seems on the face of it, like it's in conflict with this book inside the box with my last book range. And first of all, if someone's going to argue with me, it's going to be me. Like I'm always kind of looking to challenge my own ideas, but also I view it as a kind of an obvious next question in some ways. Like some of the most common questions I got after range were things like, okay, I have this broad toolbox, I have these broad experiences, what now? And at some point, you have to focus that into achievement of some sort. And there's a hefty dose of me search in this book, right, where I have this wide range in curiosity, I have this zigzagging career, and I have struggled to channel that. There's a reason why I have a book out every six years is because it's really hard for me to draw boundaries around my projects. And so I wanted to get better at this. And I did. So I don't think it would take me six years again. So if AI doesn't obviate books, then I think I'll be writing them more often. So you've benefited from going on this exploration? I mean, that was a major impetus for the exploration in the first place is that readers were asking me the same question I had for myself, which is how can I draw boundaries around my projects to contain them and kind of focus my energy in a productive way. And along the way, as I got interested in learning about constraints, I realized also that we are always attracted to more freedom, but more freedom isn't actually always good for our creativity, for our well-being, especially, and I think this is especially true now in the AI age where there is infinite capacity to start things and be overwhelmed by things and to do more and more and more and more. And there are all these kind of productivity hacks that I think are really illusions. And what we often need to do is clarify our priorities and grapple with the fact that we have limited time and energy and clarify. So one of the most useful things I did, as I learned about constraints, was that I now recommend everyone is make all of my current commitments visible. Like I took Post-it notes. I write about a genomics lab in the book that did this, but put them on Post-it notes, put them on the wall and immediately the thing that I saw was I couldn't finish all this stuff ever. And that's just what I have going now. And so immediately you start to say, what are the priorities here and what are the things that I can move to later? And so I think it's for our productivity, for our sense of well-being. We have to have constraints and boundaries. And that's hard, but more important in this kind of information overload, infinite choice world that we're living in now. It's not dissimilar from the idea that we need to welcome discomfort into our lives. Like discomfort, this Susan David idea of like discomfort is a price of admission for a meaningful life. And our lives are so lined with convenience these days and this cultural priority around luxury and relaxation, etc. That we actually have to go out of our way to seek out uncomfortable experiences, to stress ourselves, to feel alive. And this is a sort of creativity, productivity version of that. Like we have to seek out constraints because things like AI or technological tools or the infinite scroll or just an unlimited number of movies that we can watch on Netflix, we sort of delude ourselves into thinking that this is good when in fact it's limiting. And it makes people unhappy. There are these international surveys that show that people have been becoming more bored since infinite scrolling came into existence. More bored, that's very counterintuitive. The fact that you can choose from all these entertainment options and find the best thing and yet you get more bored. But it's the wrong kind of boredom, because we want boredom, rumination, or like just our ability to engage our imagination as a function of boredom. But this is a boredom, it's almost like more like an enemy. It's not that kind of boredom, it's kind of like a depressed boredom. I mean, enemy is a keyword in the, late in the book, this word that means basically rulelessness. And a popularizer of it was Emile Durkheim, who was widely regarded as the founder of modern sociology, French sociologist, in the late 19th century, when governments started keeping statistics about all sorts of things, he looked at suicide statistics in a systematic way for the first time ever. And at the time, suicide was considered an individual psychological problem. Like something's wrong with that person. What he showed was that's absolutely not the case, that it rises and falls the prevalence of suicide with social conditions. And that it's a movement in many ways, not individual psychological problems. He saw that when the economic fate of a country plummets, that suicide goes up. But surprisingly, he saw that when it rises too fast, it also goes up. Like anything that unmoors people from the things that ground them in their identity and that in some sense of habit and repetition causes people to feel desperate. And I feel like we have so much of that today, where so much of virtual life, as Jonathan Haidt told me when I was interviewing him for that chapter, is this endless cycle of micro dramas with a cast of changing characters, people who just come in and out. And it just doesn't feel very grounded in reality. And so I think the convenience you mentioned, convenience is a problem. Everything has gotten so convenient that we don't have the friction that adds meaning, that causes learning. I was just writing about these brand new studies that look at people writing essays with AI and they don't learn anything from their own essay because they're just relying on the tool. So you want these what psychologists call desirable difficulties, these things that slow you down, that make learning more frustrating, but they actually make it much better in the long term. So in some ways, I agree, the book is very much about things that feel inconvenient, but that actually make you better and have a greater sense of meaning. There's something tragic about the fact that we have to go out of our way to find these things. It wasn't that long ago where life would just present us with this naturally, and this was just part of living and growing up. And now we're insulated from these things that actually make us feel alive because we were under the misapprehension that they were making us unhappy when in fact the contrary is the case. Yeah, no, I totally agree. I think it's counterintuitive. It's deeply counterintuitive. The idea that having more options and all these things won't just be better and bring us to better decisions and make us happier, but what the research shows again and again and again is that people are making decisions in the interest of preserving optionality. You hear that phrase all the time, keeping your options open. And that becomes an end to itself, and that's actually a really bad way to make decisions basically. People in studies express a preference for reversible decisions, for example, because they want to keep their options open, but tend to be much happier with irreversible decisions. And so I think it seemed attractive. I remember when Mark Zuckerberg talked about making the metaverse, and he had this kind of video that he made, and he said, it's going to be amazing. Everyone can live in a universe that's tailored just to them. And I'm now looking at this through the lens of the constraints research that I did for this book. I said, that is the worst thing a man... That's literally sounds like the underworld that you go to if you're bad. And so I think some of the things that sound like they might be good just turn out... Our brains aren't meant to have access to everything everywhere all the time. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. May is Mental Health Awareness Month. Honestly, my opinion every month should be focused on our mental health, but it is a good reminder, kind of a call to action that whatever you're carrying, you don't have to carry it alone. For whatever reason, we feel like we have to keep quiet about what it is that we're going through, and everybody is going through something all the time. But suffering in silence is nonsense. Whatever shame prevents you from raising your hand, I promise you that shame can't survive the light. Meaning that when you summon the courage to ask for help, you're already on your way to resolving what troubles you. Do what I started doing 30 years ago and still do to this day, and get yourself some therapy. You can start today with BetterHelp, which will connect you with fully licensed therapists who work according to a strict code of conduct. They match you with someone based on what you're looking for, and if it's not the right fit, you can switch anytime, no problem, with over 30,000 therapists and millions of people served. It's a way to have support when you need it. Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com slash Rich Roll. That's better. H-E-L-P.com slash Rich Roll. I've spent a lot of time talking about my Rivian, driving my Rivian, obsessively sharing photos of my Rivian on Instagram. But the best is when I hand the key fob over to someone who's never driven one. And there's always this moment, that instant where they feel the acceleration, silent, immediate, and they just start laughing because it doesn't feel like any car they've ever driven before. And it reminds me, this is one of those things you really have to experience. It's not just fast, it's smooth, it's quiet, it's focused. It's the kind of movement that makes everything else feel a little outdated. And Rivian makes it easy to try for yourself. You can book a demo drive online, pick a time, show up, and just get out on the road, no pressure. So if you've ever been curious, don't just take my word for it. Go to rivian.com and feel it for yourself. If you pay attention at all, you know that constraints drive unique creative solutions. And yet, there still is this intractable notion that the path to creativity is freedom. Like, oh, when you're free, then you can just create. So state the thesis. And I want to understand this journey that you've gone on to really understand the relationship between constraints and kind of transcending productivity into breakthroughs and interesting results. When you look at all these case studies, what have you discovered? Yeah, and you're right that it feels that. So in this group of psychologists did an international survey recently about creativity myths and things that we know are not true from research. And they found the most popular myth was that people are most creative when they are most free. Where in fact, it's the opposite. So as the cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham says, you may think that your brain is made for thinking, but it's actually made for preventing you from having to think whenever possible because thinking is energetically costly. And so if you have total freedom, you just go down what cognitive psychologists call the path of least resistance, meaning you will reach for solutions that you have seen before that you have done before. It's almost impossible to do anything creative unless that path is blocked, the path of least resistance, using what's often called a preclude constraint. You preclude the solution that you're used to. And so now one psychologist calls this impact of blocking familiar solutions on creativity. It's like the fastest way to spur creativity is to say, what's the thing I usually do? I'm not allowed to do that this next time. Whether that's art or I'm going into a client meeting, what if I couldn't propose the usual thing? What would I do? This one psychologist calls it the Green Eggs and Ham Effect, which is named for the fact that Dr. Seuss wrote Green Eggs and Ham on a bet that he couldn't write a children's book using only 50 words. And so it forced him to experiment with rhythm because he couldn't experiment with vocabulary. Even before that, he had a bet that he couldn't do one with 200 words from a vocabulary list. First, he looks at the list, starts carping to his wife, says, there's no adjectives. What am I supposed to do? Then he said, in fine Seussian form, he compared it to making a strudel with no strudels. So I think he was in his personal life, who he was in his public life. And then he decides, you know what? I'm just going to take the first two rhyming words on the list and make a book. And the first two rhyming words are cat and hat and changes children's literature forever. But this shows up again and again and again when people are often it's not by choice. That I think is an important thing in the book that whether you self-impose constraints or whether they're imposed on you, if you view them instead of limitations as opportunities to clarify priorities and to launch into productive experimentation, it can be the most powerful tool you have. So there are things like, we were talking a little bit about NASA before this. And NASA had a mission. When I gave this book to this guy named Ed Hoffman, who was what's called NASA's first chief knowledge officer. It's kind of like the head psychologist at NASA. He goes, oh man, I'm really thinking about this mission called LCROSS where the team ended up with half the time and budget that they wanted. So first they complained. And then they said, if we were going to get this done, how would we do it? And they end up having to borrow tech. They take imaging equipment from army tanks and engine temperature sensors from straight out of NASCAR. They build a probe that finds confirms water on the moon. And so it's this always that blocking of what you would have done otherwise that is the thing that launches us into creative exploration. A lot of artistic innovators, whether it's Picasso or Bach, they will self-impose these constraints. It's as if they have some, I guess it's like great practitioners always. They're like way ahead of the science. They do this stuff intuitively. And then decades later, science catches up and says, this is why it works. So a lot of the serial innovators kind of self-impose constraints that block their own solutions. The musician who says, these chords are off the table. You have the Cohn concert example of the kind of mistuned broken piano kind of creating this legendary concert experience. Miles Davis did that for kind of blue where he limited probably the greatest jazz album of all time. This is where your work kind of intersects with Tom Sacks, who's just on my brain because he was recently on the podcast and I was with him at South by Southwest just the other week. And his whole idea of ISRU in situ resource utilization. This is a guy who decided he wanted to have a space program. And he was going to erect this space program with basically plywood and whatever you could find at the scrap yard. And this turns into like this really magical kind of gigantic art installation that leads him into a relationship with JPL and NASA. By him kind of imagining, I'm going to do this, working with the constraints and kind of leveraging his sculptural talents actually turns into this long-standing relationship where he's like the in-house art director to JPL with their Mars mission. It's insane, right? So it's like this visionary aspect that's also grounded in practicality and driven entirely by very limited resources and constraints. I mean, that whole in situ resource utilization, right? Because it's NASA, it sounds like because they make acronyms for everything, right? Basically, it means use what you got. Yeah, basically, what is around here that we can use and how can we repurpose all this stuff, right? Yeah, in the same way that Robert Rodriguez made, El Mariachi. Totally. These incredible projects are entirely on a very foundational level, like expressions that emerge from constraints. Constraints are the very essence of what gives birth to these timeless works. Absolutely. And yet culturally, we think, well, okay, you did that, but now you have the big budget and you're going to make the movie and then you make some giant movie and it's terrible. Yeah. I think that testifies to the fact that we kind of can't do this kind of thinking unless we're forced. We can force ourselves, right? We can self-impose constraints, but without them, we do the path of least resistance thing. We don't think about how we could use all the different materials around us and use other things unless we're forced to. Right. Life is hard. And for most people, these constraints are imposed upon us. You can take the case of an author with a publishing deadline, but in the context of a person with their everyday job, they're constantly being told what they can't do and there's guardrails everywhere. That's the average person daily experience. But if you look at an artist or just even a musician who has a keyboard, like today, there's just an infinite number of sounds that that thing could make, right? And that essentially is paralyzing. And so you have to volunteer in the same way that you have to sign up for a marathon or go out of your way to do something that's difficult. The onus is on the individual to take responsibility for imposing those constraints. And that's difficult. It's very difficult. And to your point about the typical person's everyday experience, I should say, I wrote a book about how constraints can be useful and why we undervalue them. But it is also clear in creativity research that if you prescribe what someone has to do and basically how they have to do it, that that can be stifling. If you're telling them, agency within that. If you put constraints in place and the person says, I can't possibly surprise myself, that means they're in a bad spot. There needs to be enough room for them to do something surprising, basically. But you're right. I think in a lot of life right now, it's incumbent upon us to impose useful constraints because everything is so open and there's so much choice and so much optionality and all this kind of stuff. So make the use case for the average person. I'm not an artist. I'm not a musician. I'm not a sculptor. Why is this relevant to me? And how is it of practical use in my daily life? I go to my job and my life's already harried and insane. I'm just trying to level up a little bit here. How does this actually work? So when I think about constraints that I've applied to myself, I think of this acronym BCS in my head, which is B is batching your work. So doing work in blocks so that you're monotasking in specific blocks instead of multitasking. C is commitments visible. Make all of your current commitments visible, post-it notes, and then you'll probably realize you're over-committed and look for things that maybe you can take away. And S, satisfying. Setting good enough rules for your decision that once they're reached, you make the decision and don't look back. So first, batch some of your work if you can. Because everything's competing for your attention now, if you're not structuring your attention, then algorithms are going to structure it for you basically. And so if you can batch some of your work where you're doing, you're monotasking for blocks during the day. So I write a lot about the research of this woman named Gloria Mark who studies attention span and focus at work. And it's been getting worse. Like 20 years ago, when she started, people would spend about three minutes on a task before flipping. Now it's about 45 seconds basically. Yeah. I mean, say that again. The average person in their job is shifting their attention every 45 seconds. Yeah. Switching what's on their screen every 45 seconds basically. And checking email about 77 times a day on average. And what she found is that the number of switches you make predicts poorer productivity at the end of the day. But also, she was starting measuring heart rate variability and it predicts stress also at the end of the day. There's now some budding evidence showing that it impacts immune function if you're toggling a lot. Like it's a stressful thing to do, but I don't think people realize that. So if you can batch, you can check all those emails. But can you check them in one block or two blocks so you're not toggling between things? Like if you took all the stuff you have to do for the day, could you try to organize it into these blocks where that's the only thing you're doing? And it should be better for your productivity and your stress level and your attention. Some of her research was, I think, some of the scariest stuff when I was doing the book because one of the things she found was that our attention spans get trained. So if you're interrupted by notifications or other people or whatever all day long, you become accustomed to a certain level of cadence of interruption. And so then if you say, now I have to focus and you remove the phone or whatever it is, you will self-interrupt at the cadence to which you've become accustomed with intrusive thoughts. In order to maintain that cadence of interruption. I've noticed that in my own brain. That's scary. Yeah, I will like, okay, I've locked the phone away and now I'm ready to work on the book. And then I'm just, I'm so acclimated to those minute constant interruptions. It's like we have some internal distraction barometer that gets set. The good news is you can start to make a difference in a few days of blocking work so that you're not toggling as much. And also doing what's called cognitive outsourcing, which means just keep a pad next to you. And when that intrusive thought comes in, just write it down so it's not stuck in your head. So the BCS, the three main tips, C, it was commitments visible. Like I said, make all of your current commitments visible. So we have a hardwired bias humans do called subtractive neglect bias. We overlook solutions that involve taking stuff away. Maybe this is because for most of our evolutionary history, we didn't have to worry about having too much. We had to worry about having too little. But so we always reach for additive solutions. And so if you can make all of your commitments visible, you'll probably see that you're oversubscribed and can say, which are the ones I really need to focus on now and put the other ones later. So stop starting and start finishing. Like don't start a new one until you've finished one. So get the post-it notes out and write these things down and put them on your wall and have a, you know, kind of come to Jesus moment. That's right. That's right. And then the S in the BCS is for satisfying rules. So satisfying is a term coined by a Herbert Simon, I think was one of the most brilliant people who ever lived. Political scientists trained by training, did the first AI demonstration. So he won the highest award in computer science, won the highest award in psychology, was one of the founders of cognitive psychology, then won the Nobel Prize in economics for good measure. And he coined this term satisfying, which means instead of trying to optimize, it's like the antithesis of optimizing. He said humans can try to optimize, but they can't because we have finite brains, we can't evaluate all the options, we don't know all the repercussions. So we have to come up with shortcuts. And in fact, we should do that proactively, because then you save cognitive bandwidth for decisions and you end up happier. So coming from his work, researchers developed a satisficer maximizer scale. Maximizer means you're always trying to optimize. We'd probably call it an optimizer now. And it turns out it's almost always a bad thing to be less happy with their decisions. Maximizers are less happy with their lives. They're more prone to regret. Even when they make a good decision, they don't feel as good about it. And there's evidence that it's on the rise as a quality, maybe because you can infinitely compare your choices now to so many things. Whereas satisficers will set good enough criteria for a decision ahead of time saying, here are the three things that need to be met by this decision. Once those are met, I go with it instead of endlessly evaluating options. So I think in this world of infinite choice, where consumer choice has multiplied 100 million fold compared to before the industrial revolution, that's setting these kind of rules for good enough and saying once I surpass that, maybe that'll go to outstanding, but once I surpass good enough, done with that decision. Otherwise, you'll constantly fall prey to something called Fredkin's Paradox, which is we spend the most time and energy on the least important decisions because we're having trouble telling the difference between the options, which means it probably doesn't matter if we spend more energy because we can't tell the difference, but that's where we end up spending the most time and energy and agonizing because the options are similar, which also means we could probably just choose and it wouldn't make much difference. The distillation of that idea is essentially that perfectionism is toxic, whether you call it optimization or just this really unhealthy relationship with holding yourself to a certain standard that's unachievable. It's a personal violence and this idea of good enough being the ultimate life hack. Yeah. And that runs contrary to this whole kind of self-optimization culture. And it sounds bad because when I think about anything I'm doing, am I aiming for good enough? No, I'm not aiming for good enough. Aiming for great. Well, that's actually not true. I started a newsletter a few years ago and that has actually turned out to be, and I started doing some like a form of dancing class where I was a total beginner. And one of the reasons, these have been very important good enough exercises in my life. So when I'm writing a book, if I say it, this has to be like a nine or 10 on the effort level, a newsletter, if I hit six and a half, ready to send. And that's been a really important exercise for me in satisfying and saying some things can be good enough. And that means sometimes they'll go to great, like it'll come out that way. But once I hit good enough and it goes out and then the sun rises again tomorrow, and I think it's helped dilute some of my own maximizing tendencies. So it kind of goes against my natural proclivities. Like I think I'm more naturally a maximizer, but have become much more proactive in setting out criteria for good enough and saying, look, when that's met, I'm okay to move to the next thing. That's similar to the Seth Godin kind of idea of like, you have to ship your work, right? These books are coming out all the time with him and he writes a blog post every day and he just moves on. But he's so focused on the shipping part. And whether it's a book or somebody who's writing a song or trying to come up with a comedy routine, we just get in our own way and we don't want to put it up on its feet until it's perfect. And we then never end up shipping anything as a result of that kind of self-upbraiding of the quality of our work product. I got that paralysis kind of after range because it ended up being more successful than I expected. And I had left my normal day job to finish it because I was a traditional investigative reporter at the time and I was just not able to get both things done at the same time. And so suddenly I didn't have this place where I was writing constantly and had this one bigger work that I was associated with. And I kind of felt like, oh gosh, anything short of that means I'm going backward. And I did have a little bit of paralysis for a little while. And that's when I started the newsletter where good enough is good enough. And I think that was really, really helpful for me. How can you get off the dime, lower the stakes and give yourself permission? Right. Huge fan of low stakes practice. In thinking about the new book, this is such a trivial example. But I think you've seen, like I've been posting these sort of daily morning gym, just holding myself accountable by being in my home gym in the morning. I love them. Every time it's like 424. And I keep saying, I wish I could sleep in more. Anyway, I'm just up at that hour. So I might as well get in the gym. But how can I turn this into a creative, fun thing of sharing this through a unique lens as a creative exercise? Not for any other reason than that, honestly. Almost like going on an artist's date out of Julia Cameron's, like the artist's way book. Like this is my artist's date. Yes, I'm in the gym, but like, let me make this a fun, creative thing with photography. One of the rules that I set for myself is like, I'm going to take a picture of this LED clock, no matter what time it says. But I want that photo to be different every time. Like how can I get it, you know, a different angle on it or whatever, and keep it interesting within the constraints of this shipping container, you know, kind of situation. So there's guardrails and walls, like there's only so many things I can do, the clock is there. How can I play with that and find new and interesting ways to photograph it? And that's been really fun. That's not a silly example at all. I mean, that's basically like what Picasso was often doing, where he would do a whole bunch of versions of the same idea and say, this is the idea. Now I'm going to look at all these little tweaks that I can do on it. And in fact, that tinkering with something that you have already, instead of like creating something totally new, was synonymous with creativity for most of human history until the Romantic period, basically in the late 18th century, where there was this sort of rebellion against enlightenment thinking. And that's when this idea of like the pure flashes of originality and genius and the so-called cult of the hero rose up. But that's not the real story of creativity. It's much more often taking something and tweaking it. And what can you do with all that? I mean, I write about Shakespeare's work in the book, all copied. Like everything he was, Romeo and Juliet, he adapted from this guy, Arthur Brooks, epic poem, which was adapted from a bunch of other people. He almost took some exact lines, actually, Shakespeare did. And with King Lear, like he probably even acted in a different King Lear. He like changed one of the daughter's names from Cordella to Cordelia. And he changed the ending and he made it his own. But it's like one of the most creative minds in history. And he was always taking something that was there and seeing, how can I make this my own? And so I think when we're thinking about creativity, the idea that it's these like free creations of the mind with no limits is like a historic. It's much more often building on something that's already there. And so I think that's how people should think of it. And by the way, I was telling you before, I think your morning posts have been important to me personally in a different way. I don't know if we can get into that. But I'm like, I don't know why anyone care about this. But anyway, yeah, a couple of things in what you just shared. First of all, like upending the genius myth. This is just total fabrication. Like anytime you see some great man theory, there's legions of people who supported that and probably a lot of other people who were dancing around the same idea at the same time and this person got all the credit. But beneath the surface at the same time, like all great artists steal. But the interesting kind of ripple that you offer on the book is this notion of taking the new idea but contextualizing it in something familiar. And you use like MLK and how he kind of was borrowing from white preachers, sermons, and making them his own so that there is something familiar, like in the way that Shakespeare would borrow and create this capsule that was relatable for an audience but then doing your own unique thing within that. That's right. Yeah, this chapter is sort of about the tension between creativity and originality. If you want people to come along with a new idea, the best way to do it is to ground it in something that's really familiar to them. If it's too original, it kind of doesn't work for people. You can see this all over the place in product design, by the way. It's like why early electric vehicles had the charging port where the non-existent gas tank is with a thing that looks like a gas hose. It's to convey to people what the function is compared to something they're used to. Or when Edison first electrified New York City, he kept the bulbs at a certain dimness so it would look like gas and kept lampshades even though he didn't need them so it feels still like the gas light people are used to or folders on your computer. They're not really folders but that tells you what they do. With MLK, he was trying to get people to come along with a really radical idea, which is he was trying to get white Protestants to accept the black demand for equality, which was a radical idea and to get involved in helping it along. So he borrowed what he was used to coming up from the gospel preaching tradition where originality was seen as suspect, basically. You were supposed to preach to the choir. Like sometimes people use that phrase preaching to the choir is a negative thing. You wanted to preach to the choir. They expected a version of the hits. And so he would give them a version of the hits. He would borrow but he would put his own spin on it. So even the Let Freedom Ring repetition from his most famous speech was borrowed from a speech by his friend Archibald Carey who borrowed that from a speech by the activist and investigative journalist Ida B. Wells. It was this culture of repurposing things people were familiar with and then kind of shoehorning your unique message into it. So what MLK would do, something called typology, where he would find a story throughout history, start with something that the audience could not disagree with. The story of Moses as a liberator. You can't disagree with that, foundational story. And then he'd move to Abraham Lincoln, liberator like Moses. And then he'd move to Gandhi, liberator from colonialism. And then he'd move to now it's your turn. So he tells these stories that everyone totally agrees with. And then he would say, and by the way, here's how it's going on right now and what you can participate in. And by that point, this uncomfortable idea looks like it's just a lineage from Moses to Abraham Lincoln to Gandhi to like this, the Supreme Court. And so he smuggled these really radical ideas by grounding them in incredibly familiar material, sometimes so familiar that like some analogies he used to it get voted that they shouldn't be used anymore because they've been so overused and things like that. But that's kind of the real history of getting people to accept creative ideas is grounding them in something really familiar. Yeah, you get buy-in by sharing the familiar and your engendering trust before you kind of hit them with the novel idea within that kind of like nutshell that people are already comfortable with. Totally. And whatever it is, grounding it, like the visions for change are more compelling. I think this is Adam Grant said it this way once that resonated with me, visions for change are more compelling when they're when they include visions of continuity. I think that's really true. From a persuasiveness perspective, there's obvious takeaways, but again, like, okay, somebody's listening to this, how does this operate in their life? How are they taking some of that wisdom in a practical sense and implementing it? Yeah, I think it depends what they're trying to do. If they're trying to, let's say they're trying to build something or they're trying to change people, maybe those people are people in their personal life, people in their professional life, whatever it is, that's starting in places that those people already understand and agree with and showing them how this connects to the continuum they're familiar with is really important. And I think that's important even for yourself. So I would say in the past, because I'm very much kind of a relentless self-experimenter, I would say. And often in the past, that's been, today I'm going to do this, I'm going to be a totally new person starting tomorrow. I went through this phase where once I decided I was like missing lunch, I decided I was only going to eat like raw kale stocks for lunch. And it's like, man, you really have to chew those things. So it's like going from zero to 60 just instantly. And it has never worked well. You fall prey to this thing in psychology called the what the hell effect, where you then you mess up once and you're like, ah, what the hell? And you just throw the whole thing out. And so I think even for personal self-improvement, looking at where have you been and you want to aim for this change, but what's sort of a continuous through line where you can do that? Like building on things that already work for you, whether that's your sense of motivation, your sense of structure, your sense of obsessiveness, whatever it is, what can you take from that to get to this new place instead of just saying, I'm going to be like a totally new person tomorrow. As some of you know, I am in a very different season of training than I've ever been in before. I'm rebuilding slowly, intentionally after this spinal fusion surgery that I underwent this past May. And I'm learning what it means to be patient with my fitness and how to prioritize sustainability over intensity. And I got to say that whoops, specifically my new whoop 4.0 wearable has been this just enormously helpful companion in this process. It's a screenless wearable health and fitness coach that gives me personalized insights into my sleep, into my recovery, my strain, and my overall health, helping me to really understand what my body is actually ready for on any given day. And that awareness is what is helping me really stay focused and consistent, which is essentially everything right now. I do have some meaningful goals ahead. I am very intentional about getting back to pain free running and hopefully lining up for the New York City Marathon to celebrate my 60th birthday in the fall. And whoop is helping me make the best decisions that are moving me the most expeditiously forward toward those moments with greater results and intention. So I would suggest that you check it out. Go to join.whoop.com slash roll for one month free of whoop. So I've been sleeping on a Birch mattress for better part of about five years at this point. And one thing I would say is that having a great mattress is one of those things you don't really fully appreciate until you experience the difference night after night. Yes, it has enhanced my sleep quality, courtesy of the quality of its responsibly sourced materials, things like organic cotton and natural latex fabricated to be solid, but comfortable, and it's a very good thing to do. So you can sleep well to support the body without being overly soft and so you can sleep cool. Also, and you may not know this, most conventional mattresses are made with all manner of synthetics that create chemical offgassing. This is not good, which is another reason why Birch is so good. Sleep quality plus the quality of the product that you actually spend a third of your life on. These things really matter to me. They matter to Birch and they really should matter to you too. So you get all of it plus the setup is simple. It shows up in your door, rolls out easily, and you get 120 nights to really see how your body responds. Go to BirchLiving.com slash RichRoll for 27% off site-wide. That's BirchLiving.com slash RichRoll. You get 27% off site-wide. We were talking earlier about how scientists sort of go into an experiment with a certain hypothesis, how that can become problem- problematical. In the case of this book and this adventure that you went on to kind of get to the bottom of these ideas, is there anything that surprised you or that you ended up changing your mind on from your operating hypothesis? Is this going into it? I would say the first, the most obvious work, and when I even mentioned that I was doing a book on this, people said, oh, you have to read the paradox of choice research, which some of the most famous research involved people. This clever experiment where people were exposed to a different number of jelly at a store that they could buy. When the choice set reached a certain size, they would be paralyzed and just wouldn't buy anything at all. That probably became the most famous work in this. It's the most common thing people tell me about. By the way, I love the researcher that's the most associated with this. I cite some of his other work, but that work, it didn't give me great confidence that it would hold up. When I was looking around there, I think there are signs that it hasn't held up that well. The first thing that I thought I was going to write about, I turned out not to write about at all, I think there are other problems with too much choice. We can see, and I cite some of this research in the book, that when healthcare choices or investment choice sets become too large and complex, people actually do make worse decisions or will just not do it at all. But some of the more famous paradox of choice stuff turned out. I just couldn't convince myself that the research would hold up basically. I basically left it out. That definitely went against what I wrote in my book proposal because I thought maybe I would lead the book with this kind of stuff. That whole idea. Just reflecting on that example of you're at the grocery store and there's 50 different brands of peanut butter. If I want peanut butter, I'm still buying peanut butter. I'll make a choice. But I can see it, for example, in the supplement context. There's a million supplements that are all making these great promises and you're like, well, this is all nonsense and then you don't buy any of them. When I looked at the bigger body of research, it looks like it has more to do with choice set complexity. So peanut butter is not that complex, but 401k options may be pretty complex. And so as they get this, the options grow larger, people are more likely to just be like, I don't know and not do anything. But that study, that jelly study and one other... So the two most famous studies in the area that I was counting on going into the book, I ended up not writing about. The other one was this famous playground study where when I would talk to psychologists, they'd say, oh, this is like the study where kindergartners were taken to a playground, one with no fence and one with a fence, and in the one with no fence, they all huddled around the teacher. In the one with a fence, they went crazy and explored. And the idea was that these boundaries give them the safety to explore. This is great. Like maybe I lead the book with this. And I could not track down... I saw this study being cited all the time in other studies, but I could not find the primary study. And so finally, I track it down. The best source I can find is to... And all these citations in books are citing each other. So I'm just going around in a circle. Finally, I track it down to a student project that won some award. The guy is now a professor. So I reach out to him and say, this thing's really famous. Do you know is... What did you base this on? And he says, I took the word of some child psychologist and I could never find a primary study. I'm really sorry. I prefer to be a primary study. I regretted this. And so I think it got famous because it gets at something that we kind of know is true. That you explore more within boundaries. But again, it was like the other most famous study that everyone told me about when I said I'm writing about constraints turned out to not even exist. Yeah, there's no there, there. It's like this Ouroboros. It lowers my confidence in the scientific canon. Like if that could become so famous and so accepted without there actually being a root source for the idea, what else is out there that... Yeah, I mean, you start to realize how sloppy some of the stuff is. That said, again, I think the scientific community is what, compared to the rest of the world, is wonderfully self-correcting in some ways. And a lot of the problems they're having is because they have criticized, scientists have criticized scientists. But that finding is sexy. It's interesting. I could have seen opening a book with it where it's like this picture of kindergartners in one area where they're huddled around the teacher and then the other area where they're exploring in wild. And this is like a metaphor for life. But sadly for me, it turned out the study doesn't exist. If you ran the experiment, it would probably be true. It may be. It actually didn't get run. It didn't get run. And so I'm not going to open a book with it if it didn't actually happen. But what I take from that is the doggedness in your reporting. You are truly a science-minded investigative journalist. And I reached out to Brad Stolberg to say, hey, Dave's coming in. What in your experience would be good to talk to him about? Or what might I not know that would be cool? And he said, David is a guy who will literally get on a plane and fly across the country to have a one-hour conversation with somebody when it could have easily been on Zoom. And I think that speaks to the depth of your commitment to really, to veracity and getting to the truth and really being deeply connected to the ideas that you're exploring. What is that about? And maybe a follow-up to that is, you know, how are you thinking about the current state of investigative journalism in 2026? Good question. I'm really flattered to hear that, by the way. I thought you were going to say his favorite work of mine was some reporting I did about drug cartels, as I was doing that for a year. But for this book, I think maybe one of the things he's thinking of is I did this whole road trip through rural Mississippi while I was following up on a sort of legend about a famous musician for the book. And I basically ended up road tripping through rural Mississippi so that I could sit in an abandoned graveyard for an hour at midnight and experience something that I wanted to write about. So as a, I even, I broke the windshield on the rental car driving down like a famous crossroads where musicians make deals with the devil. So it was like this long trip where I broke a rental car, hadn't gotten the insurance just so that I could sit in a certain graveyard at midnight. And I think Brad was like Robert Johnson, who was supposedly famously sold his soul to the devil to become the greatest guitar player in the world. But in fact, what he just did was went and found some solitude and a teacher, basically. And I remember Brad was like, what are you doing there? But when I get curious about something, I just am very motivated to, I just, I can't drop it. When I, for example, with that playground study, when I started to feel like maybe it's not real, I just can't drop it. I find that very interesting to follow up on. And like I told you at the beginning of this, how I describe my job is I obsess over misperceptions of research. And so if I think there's some misperception out there, I'm kind of obsessive about wanting to change the narrative. It's your question about how investigative reporting is now. It's challenged, I think, for a lot of reasons, one of which is it's slow. It's an inherently slow form. When I was at ProPublica, which is an all investigative operation, so much time was spent going down dead ends. I don't know what the story is yet. I'm just in exploratory mode. And that happens for my books too. I do a lot of interviews where I'm just in exploratory mode. And it's really hard to have that luxury now when people are forced to produce so much where you may not have the luxury of going down a dead end because something has to be made every two seconds. So ProPublica had, like when I came in, they said, we do have rules. The rules are you have to take on something that is of a certain level of importance and they would help you evaluate that. And it has to be something that's not done already and those sorts of things. But you did have the luxury of failing. And I just think that is such a luxury now. Investigative journalism is expensive. You have to have the opportunity to fail that there are just not many people who are being afforded the ability to fail in their work in a way that would allow them to do that. And you might get sued, right? So it's expensive in that way too. I think one of my friends, my closest friend from Sports Illustrated, a guy named Pablo Torre, has been doing some incredible investigative reporting. And it's kind of made a new format. He has a podcast now. And I don't know if you heard about this stuff with the LA Clippers kind of circumventing the salary cap by like funneling some money through a sort of, what turned out to be a fraudulent environmental company. He's been doing that work. And he saw unboxing videos on YouTube where like a kid will open a toy and you share in the joy of their excitement. And he's doing that with journalism where he's got his documents and he'll bring a few people into the studio and he'll say, turn over page one and they'll unbox the journalism together. And I think that format is really innovative. And so maybe it'll open up people to seeing how we can do investigative work. Because one of the things he and I talked about was when we were at SI, it would have been very hard to do stories like that because of the kind of traditional format. But he found this other format that works in a different medium. And so I hope we'll start to see some of these where you can keep going back to it too, right? He doesn't have to encompass everything in one story. It's been like nine episodes or something. Because once he does one, people leak him stuff and then he does another. That's interesting. Just making it visually dynamic. And using the affordances of the medium. And so I think investigative journalism is in trouble. It's very easy to attack investigative journalists also. And so I used to always be white-knuckling it through investigative stories. Some of my colleagues at ProPublica would almost gain energy from being in a public controversy. I was not like that. If I felt like something was important to do, I'd do it. But I was like, when will this be over? And everybody stopped being mad at me. And I think even knowing that the internet people are going to criticize you, it's still hard to put something out to the investigative in nature and just have this army of people or maybe bots or who knows, tearing you down all the time. So I think there's the social aspect. There's the economic conditions of journalism. But I'm hopeful when I see stuff like Pablo, because I've now started pitching him investigative ideas that I don't think I could have gotten into traditional magazines. So I'm hopeful that we'll see some kind of rebirth, but it's under pressure for sure because people just don't have the ability to fail. Yeah. I mean, that idea of creating a visually arresting version of investigative reporting via this unboxing conceit is an example of leveraging constraints to make something to reinvent the form, which I think is really cool. But in reflecting on investigative journalism writ large, this is necessary to a healthy society. And when I think about it, I think about two different aspects. The incentive structure, which is broken really right now, there is no viable business model to support reporting that takes months and months and months and months. And I would argue there never was. It was just piggybacking on the other stuff that made money. It was subsidized by advertising in magazines that had wide distribution. I mean, at SI, when I would do investigative stories and some of the criticism would always be, you guys are just trying to sell magazines. I'm like, nobody will advertise in an investigative story. We're not doing this because it's selling magazines. So it was always piggybacking on the other stuff. Yeah. The second pillar is an appreciation for the truth. And we're in this post-truth world, like, do people care about the truth? Do they? You know what I mean? That's the heart that has to pump the whole thing right now as well. I mean, and that's kind of a scary thing. Like, when I was thinking about this, I would say the most unusual chapter in the new book is chapter 10, which is about, based on the work of this economist named Douglas North, who won the Nobel Prize for showing the importance of institutions for the long-run flourishing of countries. And by institutions, he didn't mean hospitals or colleges. He meant what he called the rules of the game in a society, or as he put it, the constraints on human behavior that come from social norms or political and economic structures. And what he showed was that these are the foundation of shared prosperity, that for most of human history, people only did business with their kinship network or their religious network. But then when constraints came in that made strangers more predictable to one another, they started doing business across these boundaries, and that led to shared prosperity. What some of his work and the people that then did work after him showed that these rules of the game in society, when they're sort of more equitable and people can see that, they trust strangers more, they collaborate more, and that that has an effect long after those institutions are gone. So these natural experiments I write about where like a border was drawn between some towns, some of them have good equitable institutions and some don't, and a century after those institutions disappear, it still affects how the grandchildren in that area will trust and collaborate with strangers. The implication of that, I think, is that we've now been seeing almost open public corruption in many cases, clear cases of rules don't apply to some people that are basically flaunted. And based on this research, that should have a really bad effect in the long run on people's willingness to trust strangers. And I just saw the Pew just released a survey showing that America is now the only country where a majority of adults say other people have bad morals, which is exactly what you'd expect if we're kind of proactively tearing down these agreed upon social norms institutions. So I think even if we turned it around tomorrow, we'd have some lasting damage, but we have to kind of find some way back and to have some agreed upon social norms for behavior. So it's not just a free for all all the time. The degree of norm violation these days is unlike anything I've ever seen. And I often am reflecting on like, what are the long-term implications of this? Even if we were to reverse course and try to find our way back, like, what is the full extent of the damage that has been done? And you see it played out in the psyche of the average person and the way they conduct themselves on social media, if that is kind of a reliable proxy for kind of where people are at. Just the anger and the vitriol and the division and the acrimony is is really at a level that is unprecedented, at least in my life. I actually think at this point, I used to want to sometimes online kind of correct people if I thought they were saying something wrong. And then I had a no fighting on Twitter policy that I implemented. But now I think it's also just getting older that I wouldn't fight on Twitter anyway and more mature. But I almost think that having a certain temperature and tone when you're in the public discourse is like a radical act of like staying moderate and not turning the temperature up. A lot of people are turning the temperature up for profit. But I'm almost less concerned with people saying something wrong now than if they're tone than if they are conflict entrepreneurs. If that's what they're thriving off of building conflict. So even if someone's wrong, but I think they have an earnest and civil tone, I'm like, I think you're contributing to the good side, even if I think your idea is wrong. But the presumption that people are operating in good faith when you engage with them, in my experience is quickly becoming eroded. Now I'm beginning to assume that people are, I'm going to assume first that they're not operating in good faith. Like that's been flipped. And that's like a terrible flip to have. I mean, ultimately, I think we're a hyper-social species that survives by collaborating in huge groups. And I think in the long term, that could really undermine it. But on the topic of institutions, norms, and trust, I'm reminded, what you shared reminded me of Yuval Noah Harari's perspective on this, which is essentially that human beings have built societies based upon stories. And whether it's a border or a corporation or a government institution, it's essentially an imagined story that we all buy into and that engenders trust and allows us to function as a society. And when you erode these norms and you degrade the trust, these stories start to become porous and they degrade and with it are trust. And how does a society move forward and cohere when we can't all agree upon some shared story of reality? Yeah. I mean, the foundational stories are like, to your point about Harari, that's what allows human collective action. That's one of the reasons why we're special, right? Symbolic language, we can have stories that are agreed upon, shared abstract ideas that allow us to all move in a direction together. I think if we don't have that, then we won't all move together, basically. Then you don't have collective action. So I'm hoping we can find a way to kind of rewrite some of our shared stories. I hope out of some of this crisis, there'll be an opportunity to do some of that. Because if we don't have some agreed upon social norms, again, going to Douglas North's work, just the long run fate of the nation just looks a lot worse, period. And a norm, I suppose, on some level is a constraint. Absolutely. I mean, that's what Douglas North called it. And that's what he won the Nobel Prize for in showing that these norms preceded rather than followed technological innovation, where social norms would come up, that gave people freedom within a framework, ability to collaborate because they understood how other people would work. And that led to, that was one of his great paradigm shifts, was showing that these changes of norms preceded rather than followed technological innovation and enabled it. The core of your work always comes back to this idea of how we can be a little bit better. At work, at home, in our relationships, with respect to whatever goal that we're working towards, or a thing that we're trying to realize in our life. And I'm curious, because I've been thinking a lot about change, like how you think about change, what really drives change and what differentiates someone who could read a book like yours and go, got it? I'm putting it into action. And wow, my life's already getting better versus the person who might read your book and still get, still be stuck and unable to actually translate self-awareness or information into positive action. That is such an interesting question. And so I'll speak from my own experience of a lot of books that have changed me and what's made the difference, I think, and maybe this will go to the medium, being the message of constraints is picking something small to start with and picking one thing. Even I haven't implemented everything that my book implies one should be doing. But there are some things that I implemented. But you got to get back to the dance videos. To the dance. Do you know how I got interested in that kind of dancing, by the way? It was during the research process, I saw a documentary about shuffle dancing. And it's created in crowded clubs in Melbourne when people had limited space and wanted to be able to change direction quickly with limited space. That's why it ended up being good for Instagram, because people have to change direction in really small space. So I was like, oh, this is right up my alley. Let me do this. It was a courageous act to learn how to dance and make videos and put those on social media. Well, when I first did it, I had like 100 followers who were my friends. Now I'm starting to make other videos. And so now I'm getting more self-conscious about it. So think I should go back and delete them or actually do more. I don't know what the answer is. But I think just picking off one thing that seems like a reasonable personal experiment, because I don't want people with my book or any other book to feel that what the hell effect, where you have to change everything tomorrow and then you don't do it and you say, well, forget it, throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you do that thing of like putting all your current commitments up on the wall, say if I had to cut out one thing in the next 90 days, what would it be? And maybe try that. Maybe try one week where you don't look at email first thing in the morning and you do some of your other important work. So it's not, so you don't fall prey to this thing called the Zagarnik effect, where open things that you haven't answered occupy your brains, you can't do other stuff. Take just one thing and implement that instead of worrying about doing all of this stuff, because I just think that can feel so overwhelming. It's like if I only did these 20 things, everything would be perfect. Like one experiment at a time, one experiment at a time. It's one thing to say constraints drive creativity. Another thing to say constraints drive productivity. This is kind of like a Cal Newport idea, deep work, like put your phone in a lock box and only check your email twice a day, etc. He's my neighbor. I've taken a few tips from him that I did implement in my life. Yeah, that's an interesting brain trust. And Dan Pink, it's like we're all like in the... That's very cool. I'm imagining these salons of you sitting around exchanging high-minded ideas over a whiskey or something. You might be disappointed about the high-mindedness of the ideas, but it's another thing altogether to tie this idea of constraints to happiness. So I want to spend some time around how you kind of arrived on that and what the support for that notion is. Yeah, there are a few different things where I think about constraints and happiness. One, we talked about a little, which is setting these satisfying rules, which is not falling prey to maximizing and trying to optimize all of your decisions and setting those good enough rules and just sticking to them. It shows that people are happier, that they're happier with their lives, they're happier with their decisions, not agonizing after you make the decision. Herbert Simon, who came up with satisfying, he was very much like that. And he simplified his own life in many ways. He said, you only need three pairs of clothes, one in the wash, one in the closet, one on your body. And he kind of simplified everything he possibly could to save his bandwidth for things that were more important. Minimalism as a lifestyle constraint. And at least in the places where it's not a big deal, right? If there's some places you want to agonize more, okay, but you don't have to do it in everything. And again, there are these surveys showing the rise of this kind of maximization of everything. Even there's interesting study that looked at as consumer options have exploded, people start to see the things they buy more of as an expression of their identity. And so they start to feel this greater weight for every decision they made. So just setting good enough criteria for some of these decisions. Satisficers are happier by almost every metric than our maximizers. And again, what I'm wary of is that it sounds like have low standards. Satisficers don't necessarily have low standards, but they have standards at all other than best imaginable. And so they have the possibility of being happy with their decisions. I think the other type of it, and this is like the last chapter of the book is where I get sort of more personal and philosophical about kind of this more conceptual constraints in life, some of which have to do with grounding yourself in the real world. And I think of Robert Putnam, the political scientist who wrote the book Bowling Alone, which looks incredibly prescient in retrospect, where he talked about the decline of civic engagement and the impacts it would have on health and longevity. And this was around 2000 when he was writing it and saying, you know, people are retreating into their own world with TV, so they're not going to the bowling club anymore and having civic engagement. And he famously said, joining a club, joining one club cuts your risk of dying in the next year and a half. That's kind of a rule of thumb. Wow. But now this analysis of about 150 studies with over 300,000 subjects pretty much backed him up, that that kind of social integration has a greater impact on survival than does quitting smoking for cardiac patients. Like grounding yourself in something real, it requires you to give up some scheduling autonomy. So like when I started going to dance classes, I wasn't having any embodied experience with strangers, I realized. And I wanted some of that. And so I started going to these meetups or classes. And it's a note, as an independent writer, I could have the absolute ultimate cocoon lifestyle. There was, I was invited to a writer's retreat some years ago after range. And I was, we all had to answer a question, what are you optimizing for this year? And I said autonomy. I thought what I always wanted as a writer was to spend every minute in a way of my own choosing. Fast forward two years, I realized there's such a thing as too much autonomy. Like I ended up in this individualized schedule or I wasn't synced with anybody else. So started getting back in activities, I joined a club, I started going to these dance things where it's annoying, I may have to go somewhere, the time may not fit my schedule, but it actually started to give me back some sense of syncing with other people and some sense of meaning. And I started reading about like the Soviet Union had desynced everybody to keep factories going where they gave everybody a four day work week and a one day weekend. And it was a social disaster because everyone had individualized schedules. So they weren't synced up with other people. And so I think sacrificing some of your own scheduling autonomy to sync up with other people is a really important thing. So join something, join anything. This is where the new book dovetails with range because essentially what you're saying is we have this notion like let's say, okay, you're a writer, you've gotten epiphany for a new book. The first thing that comes to mind is wouldn't it be great if I could just go to this cabin in the woods without a phone or anything and nobody could bother me and I would just write an absolute masterpiece because I wouldn't be distracted. But ultimately that is not in service to your best work. You're better off being at home or you're interacting with friends and going to a dance class and having people kind of impede upon your schedule in ways you probably prefer they didn't. But ultimately that's going to end up not only making you happy, but also the book that it might take longer for the book, but when the book comes out, it's probably going to be a better book. I don't know if it does take longer also. I'll say this book was a new experience for me. There was one cabin in the woods thing I did because I wanted to put constraints on myself because I've had my first- There's different kinds of constraints. The cabin in the woods is a constraint as it's a different kind of constraint. And my first two books, I wrote 150% of a book to get one book because I had not drawn a good boundary around the project. Then I became a dad and said, I cut a trip to Arctic Sweden from my first book, right? To Brad's point, I went to Arctic Sweden for something that didn't end up in the book. I'm like, I can't be doing this now that I have a kid. And I need my workday to end at a certain point. And so I did a few things. But also that contrasting that with the idea that, well, this kid is very inconvenient to my writing lifestyle. It's incredibly inconvenient. Incredibly. It adds all this meaning to my life, but super inconvenient. And so this time I did, I have this thing I call a master thought list. It's all my ideas. It's arranged in a certain way. I printed it out. I went to a hermitage in the Garden of Franciscan monastery for two days, but didn't talk to anybody, no internet, nothing. Read through it, said, it's well longer than the book. Whichever ideas are stuck in my head now, I'm doing a one page outline for this book. It's not on that page. It's not in the book. And this is the first time, the book is 20% shorter. It's the first time I didn't overwrite it. I turned it in early. And this is the first time I had a workday that ended. In the past, I said, my competitive advantage will be that I will let this swallow my life and then I'll recover afterward. This time, I borrowed from one of the characters in the book, Isabella Ende, one of the greatest living writers. I got to follow her through sort of her writing routine and one piece of it. She starts her books on the same day every year, but one piece of it was she lights a candle to start every workday, turns it off, blows it out, closes the door to end the workday. And that's shut down. I took that ritual. I use electric candles. She's braver than I, and I have paper in my office. But Cal does that too, actually. He says like system shutting down at the end of his day. And so for the first time, I said, I have a time when my workday is going to end. And I turned my book in early. I sat around for two weeks saying I'm early. I can't possibly turn it in. I have to keep tinkering. I never would have thought like my plan is to turn it in at 5 p.m. on the day it's due in the contract. But I think I'd forgotten what I knew from athletic training, which was you're better when recovery is part of the program when you program in the recovery instead of just letting it swallow everything. And so I think I was both better and faster. Listening to that story, I'm hearing you, the scientist, and I'm hearing Cal, the computer scientist, people who are trying to decode how to function in the world in an optimal way, or a good enough way, I suppose. But then I hear, but what is so funny about this story that you just shared is you use the example of Ayaende and this beautiful practice of her lighting a candle. And what's missing in you and Cal's analysis of that is her treating that as a ritual, like a sacred ritual. It has a certain energy to it that is beckoning and demanding a level of reverence that maybe gets missed in the ones and zeros of the Cal Newport brain. No question. I see you're very diplomatically and eloquently calling us robotic and wonderful, which is true. But everything about writing still has a spiritual mystique to me. I still see books as these magical little puzzle boxes that are more mysterious to me than any technology really is. So I do have a feeling, and I have a library in my office and I look at the books that I admire and still wonder how people got these things done. I look at some of my own books and wonder how I got them done. I'm not all the way on the end of the Isabella Ayaende spectrum where she puts a book of Pablo Neruda poetry under her computer just in case beauty by osmosis is a thing that we'll get into her writing. But I do feel that ritual gets me in a sort of state of sort of a sacred space, I guess, for doing what I want to do that I rarely inhabit in other times. Maybe sometimes when I'm floating on a forest trail or something like that, I feel that way. But the ritual for writing does make me feel that way. I mean, it really is the doing that brings me back. I'm glad I'm forced to produce a book because otherwise I'd probably do it and never put it out there. This takes us back to Tom Sacks and this idea that he has called nolling. He used to be a furniture designer for noll and noll has all of these rules about how you should organize your workspace. When you're facing a creative block, his sort of practice is always be nolling. Okay, so that's fine. All right, well then, clean your workspace or whatever. There's something sacred about that. It's cheeky like this idea that he has, but the idea is you have to acclimate yourself into the creative kind of headspace in order to do your thing. Whether it's lighting a candle or organizing your pens or whatever, what feels like procrastination or maybe trivial or frivolous is actually essential to lulling yourself into the headspace where you can do your best work. It's interesting that we think of creative people as just this free flowing, they're wandering around undersea plants, wherever the wave takes them and then being hit by inspiration. But when I was reading tons of work about the habits and rituals of creators working on this book, and it's pretty remarkable how structured they are. They all have these regularities and rituals. I think it's really what liberates them to perform within that, gets them in that performance mindset just like someone before shooting a free throw or doing whatever, the figure skating routine has that routine that gets them in the mindset. I think it does create that space, but it can seem surprisingly rigid from the outside when you're thinking about people doing creative work, but I think it's actually that structure that gets people in the space. I implemented other stuff like, I like to borrow anywhere you see good ideas. Hemingway would end in the middle of a sentence so that he automatically knew where he was going to pick up the next day. That's very helpful to me too. Totally. If I don't know where I'm picking up the next day, then I'll just wander around and do nothing. That's right. You did there for a while. If not, so I like to do that because then I come back and I'm positive of something that I can do right now that's important where I start and it's not opening my email. It's starting with this thing. So lots of those structures and rituals. On the subject of having your feet planted firmly on the ground while also reaching for the stars, there's you and Cal and then there's Yende. I'm curious around how you think about goals. You have some interesting ideas around goal setting and working towards goals. I've kind of evolved my thinking on this. Certainly, goals have been crucial in my life and have kind of helped me go from where I was to where I am in many stages of my life. There's a practicality to that and a functionality to that. It's like arithmetic. Like you said it, you calendar it, there's a way to do it and when it works, it's great. It engenders self-esteem and it progresses your life in positive directions. But as I reflect on my life now and identify the most meaningful experiences that I've had and really how I went from where I was to where I am right now, it really has nothing to do with goals. And so I'm thinking about goals as something to almost transcend on some level. So I'm curious around your thoughts on this. I mean, I'd be interested to hear you say more about that, about what you think did do it for you. But I kind of agree with that. I mean, I've always, I would say when I was teenager, early 20s, I was incredibly long-term goal-driven. I knew all the things I was going to do, exactly I was going to do them and they were going to be like, I was going to go to the Air Force Academy, I was going to become a test pilot, I was going to become an astronaut, of course, I didn't do any of those things. And all of the most important projects in my life have been opportunistic pivots. Sometimes from personal tragedies or devastations, other times from something that just popped up and interested me that I, for whatever random reason, got some keyhole view into. And so I think goals can be useful, but I think if they're preventing you from opportunistic pivots, that's really a bad thing. And so I think having a, instead of asking who's younger than me and has more than me saying, comparing yourself to yourself yesterday because you're not really sure where you're going anyway and being open to opportunistic pivots is really, really important. And at this point, again, I did so much, there's so much me-search in this latest project that now I feel like putting these kind of structures and rituals in place and trusting that I'm going to kind of thrive and do interesting things within them is sort of more important to me than the goal because the goal often doesn't give me anything actionable to do. I think about this when I was an 800 meter runner where I would have these time goals and then I'd cross the finish line and get a glance at the clock and either I'd be happy or sad and usually sad because they would usually stretch goals. So most of the time it just makes you annoying and annoyed. And it didn't, but it didn't give me anything to do. Whereas if I had certain experiments that were like make a move with 300 meters to go, oh, that's something that I can try in practice and then try in a race. And so a lot of goals, I think just, they're like an aspiration, but they're not actually giving you the thing to do today where I think these kind of structures and experiments can actually give you something to do today. But I'd be interested to hear you say more about what you think did work for your time goals. Well, I think from a constraints perspective, when you set a goal, you're layering your life with constraints. Like, because you're working towards this goal, it means you're going to have to say no to these things so that you can say yes to these things and it provides structure to your life. And I think that that is fantastic and probably more people than less can benefit from a little bit more goal setting. Like knowing what to say no to. Yeah, so that it drives a decision tree and really focuses your attention. The flip side of that is what you talk about, like this, developing this proclivity to quit things. Like if you're so attached to a certain goal, then those blinders that you have on are going to prevent you from pivoting. Or if all the evidence, while you're working towards this goal is trying to tug you in a certain direction, you're going to ignore that when maybe that is the true direction that you should be leading your life. And so you can go off course, ultimately, if you look at it in a long term, from a long term perspective. So it's a yes and situation. I think you should have goals and work towards them, but you need to be open to experiences from that kind of curiosity and experimentation kind of spirit. Like let's just say like, oh, the first book I wrote or this podcast or like being in this studio, like none of these are a function of having whiteboarded them. Like they are an outgrowth of like investing in my curiosity and being like, oh, this is cool. I'm going to do this and like, oh, that looks interesting. I'm going to move over here. And that doesn't mean that I'm like a ping-ponging around, like doing it from a place of intentionality and kind of trusting my gut. And there are guardrails and structures around like how I make those decisions. But it's not because I set a goal. And so I'm trying to make sense of like how these two things live together. That's like, I mean, it sounds like you're describing this kind of freedom within some decision-making framework. And I was just in Angela Duckworth's class, actually, so we were talking about her earlier. And she invited me to class just for one of her sessions. And in the class, she was talking about what she now calls the Paramecium Principle. Have you heard of this already? Okay. So obviously she's most famous for grit, passion and perseverance. And what she was telling her students was, she was basically saying, if I could redo grit a little bit, I think I'd put a little bit more on the passion side emphasis, because I think we've actually often taught young people to persevere, but then they persevere at something and put their head up 10 years later and like, I actually don't like this thing. And so the Paramecium Principle, it's Paramecium Single Celled Organism. And all it really has is detectors that detect food nourishment or warmth. And it'll detect a little and it will move in that direction. If it detects more, it goes in that direction again. If it doesn't, it tries a different direction. And so it's making this constant series of pivots. And what she was explaining to her students was, that's engagement or interest is the thing that you should be pivoting to. And she was saying, not happiness, that's a different thing, but interest or engagement and pivot toward it. And to me, this is like a total reconception of her work in a way that I think is really interesting and productive, where don't feel like you're a failure because you didn't persist in this goal that might not be the right goal for you, because how could you have, how could you know if it's the right... One of my favorite phrases from range was, we learn who we are in practice, not in theory, that you can't conceptualize what's right for you in the future because you change and the world changes. You actually have to do stuff and then reflect on it to understand. You have to act and then think, not the reverse. And so I was pretty psyched to see her promoting this Paramecium Principle, where it's like, yeah, you want to persevere when something matters, but you want to be constantly titrating your path so that you're reacting to your level of interest. So again, everything that's been important to me in my life has been an opportunistic pivot and that requires kind of letting go of the direction that I thought I was going in. So when you think of yourself as this successful author, was that a goal that you set for yourself or was that more kind of a maturation of your curiosities and your obsessions? No, I mean, I did like disclaimer, there's a little bit of a sad origin to the story, more than a little bit, but when I became a writer, so I was in grad school, I was training to be a scientist. I lived in the Arctic studying the carbon cycle and stuff. And I had a training partner when I was a runner who dropped dead at the end of a race, a few steps after a mile race. First guy in his family of Jamaican immigrants, who was making it, and he was like one of the top ranked guys in the country in his age group. And I was devastated. I still remember the day our coach, I wasn't there when it happened, called and said, oh, Kevin died at the track today. You say died when somebody ties up at the end of a race. I'm like, well, what happens to the best of us? No, no, he died. And that's what launched me into writing because all our newspaper said he had a heart attack. What does that even mean for a guy at this age, this level of health? I ended up getting his family to sign a waiver along me to gather up his medical records and investigate. Turned out he had this misdiagnosed textbook case of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and enlargement of a certain part of the heart that's usually the cause of a young athlete dropping dead with no prior symptoms. That's what got me interested in genetics eventually led to my first book of sports gene. And that's when I said, I want to write about this because I think we can save some people for a public audience, not people like me who are buying a science magazine with their disposable income, but people who read, say, Sports Illustrated. And that's when I decided to go in that path and try to become the science writer at Sports Illustrated. So it was very much a pivot from something that felt meaningful to me at that moment and totally changed my trajectory from going into the sciences to becoming a writer. But it does illustrate this idea of, this career emerged from you investing in your curiosity and what was lighting you up. Yeah, for sure. I mean, I will say one other thing that I learned when I was in grad school for sciences was I started, my work started getting so narrow and I started asking myself, am I the type of person who wants to spend my whole life learning one or two things new to the world or much shorter spans of time learning things new to me and synthesizing them and translating them. And I was learning that I was the latter type of personality. And I just couldn't have known that before I tried it. What is it that hamstrings you the most from the subject matter in the new book? Like, what is it that trips you up or you still struggle with? You mean in terms of the implications of things that I would implement say? Yeah, or your refusal or recalcitrance around like putting up constraints when, you know, after writing this book, you know you should. I still struggle with satisfacing because I think my, even I know how much of the optimization stuff online is nonsense and praying on our intentions, but I still have that reflex to want to maximize a lot of my decisions and look for the best. So that's a struggle for sure. The amount of autonomy that I have the luxury to have in my schedule giving some of that up has been a struggle, but I've done, I mean, when I realized that it was bad for my well-being, that I had optimized for something that is bad for me, I joined the board of a nonprofit in my community. I joined a dinner and discussion club. I started doing all these things to have a grounding in the real world again. And sometimes that's an annoyance from a scheduling standpoint. And so I still struggle with that sometimes, but it has undoubtedly been better for my well-being. And there's some advice that an important figure in the book, Tony Fidel, gave me that Tony Fidel was the, he led the team that created the iPod and he co-founded Nest, the smart thermostat company. He now mentors entrepreneurs and he says the most important advice he gives them is write the press release first because he says that will give your bounding box. Like on one page, assume this thing is done and write the press release as it would look because that will show you what the priorities are. And if it's not there, maybe it's not as much of a priority. And he was like, you got to do this for your book and any project you do. And I struggle with that because early on I kind of say, well, I can't do that. I need to be more exploratory, but I think it actually is a good exercise because it's not that you can't change it, but it at least gives you some direction to start moving in. And there is good work showing that I write about that specific curiosity boosts creativity. Like if you can find a sort of a narrow lens to dive in at first, that will actually help your curiosity flourish. And I've been so used to in the past being so wide-ranging that it's good advice, but it's been hard for me to take. Another example of that or a similar parallel is screenwriting, which other than poetry is the most constrained form of writing. It has all these rules and you can't say too much. And it's very restrictive, but fundamental to it is this art and science of crafting the log line, like almost in advance of even writing the script, that really distills everything down to literally one sentence and everything stems from that. So that constraint drives the creative process of telling this story. Yeah, that reminds me when you say that of Hayao Miyazaki's work, he did Spirit of the Way and Princess Mononoke and all those great movies, where the first thing he would do would be to, he'd go away and he'd draw one picture, like one image, and then he would show it to the whole team and say, this is like the tenor of what this movie's going to be. Everyone has to work to the tenor of this image, which is like that log line. Here's the core thing. Or in advertising industry, they have a famous saying, give me the freedom of a tight brief. Give me really specifically what we're doing here. And then that liberates you to create inside of it. I think the blank page is often people's enemy. I mean, what Isabella Ende told me is she'll start with historical research and that gives her the stage for her theater basically, because if it's just too open, it's difficult to start. Or Ryan Holiday's note card routine, where he's never not working on a book, because he's always reading and he's making these note cards. Slotting in the note cards. There's always a process. I was in the bookstore and I accidentally elbowed over a stack of one of the note cards. I was absolutely horrifying, but luckily they slid and fanned out so they were still in order. He was very stoic about it, as you might imagine, but I kind of put them in the palm of my hand. I'm taking a wide berth around that table from now on. We read these narratives of people who have transformed their lives and it seems so dramatic. And it's always portrayed as one fell swoop when the reality is it's a million micro behaviors and tiny decisions over a very extended period of time that really is the engine of transformation every single time. And so the question that I have for you is, does the hair ever beat the tortoise? Does the hair ever beat the tortoise? Because I'm a tortoise guy. I'm always playing the long game and I'm a late bloomer and everything that I've been able to actualize in my life essentially was a decade in gestation. Yeah. I think there are a million ways to get anything done. So I don't want to say the hair doesn't ever beat the tortoise, but I kind of think one of the themes underlying a whole bunch of my work is that optimizing for the short term will often undermine longer term development. And so that head starts are overrated and that if you want to do something sustainable in the long term, it's going to be slow and it's going to be many small changes, layering of constraints and structures and things like that. But I think there are exceptions. There was this research about entrepreneurs a few years back looking at the average age of founders of fast growing startups. Do you want to guess what the average age of... I think it was top 1 in 10,000 rate of growth, average age of a founder on the day of founding. Do you want to guess? 42. 45. Good guess. Because I think we usually associate it with people who are younger. 32. Yeah, 35. Or Mark Zuckerberg, a famous drop-sut, famously dropped out of college and he said young people are just smarter. He said that when he was 22, right? Don't hear him saying that anymore, surprisingly. But some of those young entrepreneurs absolutely succeed by going fast and being early, but it's the exception. It's not the norm. And so I think the norm is this much slower gestation that requires pivots and requires learning things that you just couldn't have known without experience. And it's more sustainable, too. You said optimizing for the... What did you say again? What was the quote? Optimizing for the short term? I think we'll often undermine long-term development. Yeah. When you say that, the first person that comes to mind is Brian Johnson. Are you familiar with Brian Johnson and his quest to live forever? Yeah, I was going to say, isn't he trying to optimize for eternity? He's optimizing in the short term as a means to optimize for the ultimate long-term, right? It's a conundrum on some level. And he's a very curious figure. On the one hand, talk about his experimentation. He's just experimenting all the time and he's sharing transparently what he's doing, what's working, what's not working. And is he not the ultimate human guinea pig for self-imposed constraints? Because he has constrained his lifestyle to such a degree, and yet he seems happier than he was before. And I'm just curious if you've followed this trajectory at all or if you have any insights on this or what we can take away from what he's doing. I see him only sparingly, so I don't know the details of his behaviors, but I see when it pops up sometimes, if something he does goes viral. And sometimes I think there's some nonsense in some of the things that he's talking about. Other times where he's doing clearly healthy things, he's exercising. And I also think to your point about putting all these constraints on himself, I think he's clearly doing something that has given his life meaning. He's found this project and this structure that he's sort of all in on, like his own little sports team kind of. So good for him. I think when he's sharing some of these things about his biological age and some of that stuff is pretty suspect, it used to be based on telomeres. For a rigorous scientist. Yeah. Yeah. So there are some measures of those that I think are... I always, when you see somebody giving their biological age to two decimal points, you're like, no, this is just fake accuracy about some of this kind of stuff. So without knowing all the details of the stuff he's doing, I think he's doing something providing structures to give his life meaning. He's obviously doing some things that are very healthy, eating healthier, exercising. All right, we talked about... But it's probably he's getting attention for these marginal gains attempts, where most of the gain is probably coming from these very foundational things that he's doing. Sleep, nutrition, things like that. Absolutely. I don't think that he's giving those short shrift. Yeah. But yeah, there's a lot of bells and whistles and fancy stuff. And he's a brilliant marketer and he clearly understands how to operate on the internet to garner attention. And I promise you he is going to die short of some kind of AI breakthrough that's going to... We can't float his consciousness or something. But I don't think any amount of supplements or putting a helmet on your head or whatever is going to make him live forever. But there's a cheekiness to it that makes it kind of fun to follow what he's doing. And he's just... He's a provocateur. Yeah. And I think personal experimentation is interesting. I think where it gets troublesome is passing off some of these marginal gain things, first of all, as if they're the whole secret, or passing off things that are not gains at all, which is classic in a lot of the supplement industry basically, where something doesn't work basically and you're passing it off as a miracle cure or it works a very little and you're passing it off as having a huge effect. Again, I don't know the extent to which he's doing that because I'm familiar with him, but I don't know the specifics of his routine. To the extent that he is almost subliminally conveying this message of self-imposed constraints, actually make your life better and happier, it's consistent with your message. That I don't think is true. And I think boundaries and guardrails and rituals and things give people a feeling of meaning and happiness and structure and of bounds in a world that can feel very overwhelming. But again, to the extent that he is making people have FOMO about these little optimizations that they should be doing, I don't think that's great. I don't know. I'd be careful not to speak to him because I don't know exactly what he's doing. The downside is the neurosis that accompanies our inability to live up to some optimization standard. And this stuff like this looks maxing stuff now. Yeah, the whole head to the side on this. Oh, that's right. It's insane. And you guys were talking about that. I can't remember the name of the... Adam Skolnik. The... Clevicular. Good, that guy. That's the guy that you guys were talking about him. And that's not helpful for people, I think. That again is a space where I think we have to have a good enough feeling. Maybe this is a weird thing to relate it to. But when I was thinking about writing my third book, I was actually... I had so much freedom that I started bouncing around all these ideas. I was like, I find the book so consuming that I'm not going to go until I find the perfect idea. So I ended up just bouncing around a million ideas and never diving in. And then I read this passage from Mihai Chicks and Mihai, the psychologist who coined the term flow for the feeling of immersion in activity. He was actually talking about marriage, but it doesn't matter. You could apply what he was saying to anything where he said, the great thing is once you're committed, by your own choice, if you're committed, you can stop... You can start living and stop wondering how to live. Instead of spending all this energy on wondering what else you should be doing, you can start just living. And I immediately read that and said, I'm spending all this time wondering what topic to take on, why should you pick something that interests me and just dive in? And I was like, immediately that day decided I'm writing a proposal on constraints. And I think that applies more broadly to life, whereas you want to decide on something that's good enough and dive in on it and give it some of yourself instead of thinking, how are all the other ways that I could be optimizing this thing? And so I bristle a little bit against some of the optimization culture, even though I'm very much like a self-improver, just because I think I can give people a feeling of never finding some stability. There's always some other things they could and should be doing that would make it better, if only. But you're never going to clear the decks and have that moment where now is the time when I'm going to start the thing I really want to do. So you just have to start it in this imperfect, messy way and not worry about what the internet is telling you about optimization. A lot of it is an ill-fated attempt to fill some spiritual void on some level that will give your life a sense of meaning and purpose. But on the point that you just made, I'm reminded of Ellen Langer, her whole thing about stop worrying if you're making the right decision, just make the decision right. Yeah, make the decision right. There's a difference between decisiveness and optimization, I guess. When you're decisive and you make a decision and then you just take the next little action and you start to string these actions together, that's how everything works. I too, like I'm writing a book right now, I've written a book in a really long time and I couldn't figure out what it was that would get me excited enough to write about. And then finally, I was just sort of cajoled into committing to a certain idea, not knowing if I was capable of actually being able to see it through, but just, okay, well, here's one idea like today and that's not very good, but it's been two years. It's taken me a long time, but I'm like, oh, I can see it now. It's starting to come together when I couldn't at the beginning. So this notion that you have to have it all fully actualized in your mind before you can start keeps people stuck in the starting gate and never doing anything. And I think that's a good prompt. You mentioned, you couldn't see how maybe this book was going to be at the beginning. When I do a book project, since I don't do them that often, I want to take on a project that at the start, I don't have the skills required to finish it. Because I can't find any other way to voluntarily force myself to learn with the ferocity that I do when I have a book project. And so I actually think that's a really good thing. It's scary, right? Because you don't know everything about what you're going to have to find. But I think that's a great forcing function for improvement is starting a project where you don't have everything you need to be able to finish it. Well, you're embracing the discomfort of it. And discomfort is the gris for growth. I mean, desirable difficulties. Final thoughts. What is it that you want people to take away from this notion of constraints make us better if you had to distill it down into kind of a final call to action? I'd say a mindset shift from viewing limits as oppressing you to viewing them as opportunities to clarify your priorities and launch into productive experimentation. Instead of bristling against them, what can I do with this? Amazing. Inside the box, how constraints make us better available everywhere. And thanks for coming on the show, man. This is great. I can talk to you about anything. You should come back all the time. I would love to come back more often. And I hope you'll keep posting your morning routines, because as I've converted myself into a morning person, I find them very inspiring. Like no matter when I wake up, I see your digital clock. And so you've just also been a personal inspiration for me and the way you approach things with a very human kind of truth seeking, right? Like I think you could pedal a lot of nonsense if you wanted to and you don't. I appreciate that. Thanks, man. Pleasure. To be continued. Cheers, peace.