Learning to cook vs. following a recipe is an example of first principles thinking.

For those who may not be familiar with it, first principles thinking is “designed to relentlessly pursue the foundations of any given problem from fundamental truths.” First principles was recently re-popularized by Elon Musk.

Following a recipe allows you to create a meal, but a recipe doesn’t help you figure out what to do when something goes wrong. A recipe isn’t useful if you open the fridge and realize you forgot to go grocery shopping. Following a recipe doesn’t tell you how to adapt to your guests’ special dietary needs.

In contrast, cooks understand the basic principles that control how food tastes, looks, and smells. They can open the fridge, survey available ingredients, and make a meal without a recipe. When things inevitably don’t go as planned, they have the confidence to adjust. This doesn’t mean that cooks don’t ever consult a recipe – they might use one as inspiration but adapt it to their own taste.

You can see first principles thinking in most cooking competitions. Contestants typically have to create a dish from ingredients they don’t know ahead of time. Since it’s impossible to follow a recipe, successful dishes show the judges how well the contestants can cook.

Julia Child revolutionized American cuisine using first principle thinking. When she was learning to cook traditional French cuisine, she rejected accepted culinary truths and instead relied on multiple experiments in her kitchen. When faced with complex French dishes, Child broke them down into basic, repeatable physical actions; for example, how to properly sear meat. In her books and television shows like The French Chef, Julia Child taught home cooks to rely on sensory feedback – like watching for juices to pearl on a steak – instead of using specific cooking times.

In a very real sense, Julia Child was asking people to learn to cook rather than just following a recipe.

There’s nothing wrong with following a recipe; it’s like playing an instrument using sheet music. Cooking is something else; it’s like writing a new song or improvising a beat based on a tune you’ve heard. Cooking is first principles thinking.

The post Learning to Cook vs Following a Recipe appeared first on Manage By Walking Around.

Did Sherlock Holmes practice mindfulness?

I’ve read just about every Holmes story (really!) and there’s no mention of mindfulness or meditation. Holmes certainly never sat cross-legged on a cushion or uttered ‘om’ in any of the stories.

However, in her book Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes, psychologist Maria Konnikova describes Holmes as the archetype of mindfulness. Many cognitive psychologists agree, pointing out Holmes’ habits and mental discipline support the three tenants of mindfulness:

1. Intention: Shift from running on auto-pilot to purposeful awareness.
2. Attention: Direct your focus to the present moment.
3. Attitude: Maintain an open, curious, and entirely non-judgmental stance.

They may be right.

In the story “A Scandal in Bohemia,” Holmes demonstrates both intention and attention:

“You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room… I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and observed.”

Later in the same story, Holmes talks about the third tenant, attitude: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

This is being mindful without using the word explicitly.

In multiple stories, Dr. Watson notes Holmes had the ability to disengage his mind from a stressful case. Holmes would sit perfectly still for hours, play the violin, or look at architecture. In “The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans,” Watson described it as Holmes’ power of “throwing his brain out of action and switching all his thoughts on to lighter things.” Psychologists call this distancing and it’s a mindfulness technique used to keep from being emotionally overwhelmed.

One of my favorite passages in “A Study in Scarlet” reinforces mindfulness:

“A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic.”

Mindfulness advocates selective attention and filtering out mental distractions. Sadly, I seem to remember more trivia than I care to admit.

So, did Sherlock Holmes practice mindfulness? Probably not. But he certainly was mindful.

The post Did Sherlock Holmes practice mindfulness? appeared first on Manage By Walking Around.

Whenever you feel like you’re stuck in a rut, you can use the novelty rule to break up the monotony.

Most adults settle into routines, both in their personal and professional lives. These routines are everywhere: people take the same route to work, they eat the same item from their favorite restaurant, or they shop at the same grocery story going through the aisles in the same order. While structure can be reassuring to some, the endless repetition feels mundane to most; almost as if life is on autopilot.

Conventional wisdom suggests the antidote to monotony is to make big changes. Cut your hair. Go on vacation. Take a class. While these sudden changes seem to work for a while, your hair grows back, you have to come back from vacation, and the class comes to an end. The routines get reinstated and the monotony returns.

In contrast, Liz Moody encourages people to break up their everyday routines by introducing an element of newness to them. Take a slightly different route to work or park in a different spot. Add an adventurous appetizer to your usual order. Explore the aisles of the grocery store in a different pattern or try a different store. Small changes can make big differences.

Moody calls this the novelty rule: incorporating even tiny bits of novelty can break the monotony of daily routines and make life feel more engaging. This changes how we experience time, because when we feel like we are engaged, life isn’t passing us by. The novelty rule makes old routines feel new.

Research supports introducing new elements to your life. When you’re learning new ways of doing things or you’re faced with novel situations, the hippocampus in your brain activates. This stimulates the release of dopamine – the so-called ‘feel good’ chemical – which makes us feel more satisfied, uplifted, and sharp. Stimulating the hippocampus regularly promotes neuroplasticity, which can improve recovery from injuries and slow down mental aging.

In short, you don’t need to go on a tropical vacation to feel recharged – just make some small changes in your daily routines. You can use the novelty rule to alleviate monotony.

The post Use the Novelty Rule to Alleviate Monotony appeared first on Manage By Walking Around.

You can learn about intelligence by studying puppies.

Too often, we treat intelligence and potential like they are binary outcomes. Someone is either smart or they’re not. They’re either capable of doing something or they’re not. But the reality is more nuanced.

A longitudinal study by Duke University’s Canine Cognition Lab challenges our traditional views on development and potential. The results show that a puppy’s mind doesn’t develop consistently or at a predictable pace. It’s more like a series of independent systems clicking into gear at different times.

The researchers tracked more than 100 service-dog-in-training puppies for five years, testing them every two weeks starting from age eight weeks until 20 weeks. By 16 weeks, the puppies had already developed 9 out of 10 of the cognitive skills tested, including memory and impulse control. These skills emerged independently; a puppy might have an incredible working memory but struggle with social cues, or vice versa.

This result mirrors the Multiple Intelligences Theory described by psychologist Howard Gardner in his 1983 book “Frames of Mind.” Garner suggests that a single IQ score is too limiting to be useful and instead proposes that human cognitive ability should be broken down into eight distinct modalities. Puppies and humans might develop cognition similarly.

Many childhood educators suggest that “more is better” when it comes to early exposure. However, the Duke study found that puppies raised on a bustling college campus showed no cognitive advantage over those raised in standard homes. Hyper-socialization doesn’t seem to accelerate learning in puppies; it’s unlikely to do it in children either.

One of the most interesting tests in this study involved a locked container with a treat inside. The puppy’s reaction to this “impossible task” was a good predictor to its future role:

• Service Dogs: Puppies that quickly abandon the struggle and make eye contact with a human to ask for help were much more likely to succeed in service roles. This social tendency is a prerequisite for dogs that must work in close, communicative partnerships with humans.
• Detection Dogs: Conversely, puppies that ignore humans and independently try to solve the problem were better suited for detection work (like sniffing out explosives). These are situations in which independent problem-solving and tenacity are essential.

The lesson for those of us in business is clear. We often look for the smartest/most accomplished candidate but we are likely better off looking for the right profile. The best candidate is the one who is the best fit.

And remember, regardless of whether you’re training a puppy or building a team, talent isn’t a single trait. It’s a collection of independent skills, each with its own timeline to develop.

The post Learning About Intelligence Through Puppies appeared first on Manage By Walking Around.

The Carly Simon paradox is inspired by her 1972 song lyrics, “You’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you.” 

Carly claims the subject of the song is vain for thinking the song is about them. However, assuming the song is about them, they aren’t really vain – are they? And if the person who the song is about doesn’t think the song is about them, they aren’t vain either.

What’s makes this even more confusing interesting is that Carly has never revealed who the song is about. Which means there might be multiple people who think they are the subject of the song. It’s like Schrödinger’s cat.

The Carly Simon paradox is a self-referential paradox which occurs when a statement creates a logical contradiction or an infinite loop.

The most common version of a self-referential paradox is “This statement is false.” If the statement is True, then its claim must be accurate. Since it claims “This statement is false,” the statement must actually be False. If the statement is False, then its claim must be incorrect. This means the statement is not false, making it True. Because neither True nor False works, the statement is self-contradictory and breaks traditional binary logic.

Another similar paradox is the rule that “All rules have exceptions.”  If the rule is true, it must have an exception. If so, that makes the statement false — but that itself an exception, making it true again.

Yes, this is confusing. That’s the point.

I spent some time trying to design another self-referential paradox inspired by song lyrics. The best I could come up with comes from Rick Astley’s 1987 song lyrics, “Never gonna give you up, Never gonna let you down.” If you ask Rick for his copy of the movie UP, according to the lyrics, he can’t give it to you. However, in not giving you the movie, he lets you down.

From the buttered cat to the birthday paradox, apparently I’ve been writing about paradoxes a lot lately. Hopefully by explaining them, I’m not making them more confusing. If am confusing, we could call that the blogging paradox.

The post Carly Simon paradox appeared first on Manage By Walking Around.

Have you noticed there’s less color in our lives?

Vibrant colors like bright reds, blues, and greens seem to be fading from popular use and are being replaced by more subdued grays, beiges, blacks, and neutral tones. This is happening in almost every industry – from automobiles to interior design, fashion and makeup, and even films. Every corporate brand seems to have become bland.

This loss of color isn’t just observational. In 2020, researchers at the UK’s Science Museum Group analyzed more than 7000 everyday objects in its collection and found the number of colorful items dropped from 40% in 1900 to just 15%. In addition to being less colorful, the items also became more uniform in size and shape.

I believe there’s less color in our lives due to some combination of modern minimalism, risk aversion, and sensory overload.

Modern minimalism in architecture and design might be the most to blame. Gone are the days of the “painted lady” Victorian homes, avocado green appliances, and the bright pastel cars of the 1950’s. Cars, in particular, have made a significant shift; only 20% of today’s cars are non-grayscale colors compared to 40% in 2004. This lack of diversity is despite the same number of colors being offered to consumers.

The transition is perhaps most evident in technology. In the 1980’s, Apple’s brightly colored logo encouraged us all to “Think Different.” These days, the designs from Apple – and nearly every other tech company – are monochromatic.

For major purchases like homes and cars, manufacturers likely choose neutrals to broaden appeal and reduce the risk the items don’t sell. Similarly, since buyers resell homes and cars more frequently than in the past, they may believe neutral colors are safer and improve resale value. After all, a black or silver car is easier to sell than a bright yellow one.

Another theory is that, in this digital age, our brains are “forced to process aggressive color palettes, moving text, and high-contrast user interfaces.” Muted, less colorful, environments offer a calming visual white noise which acts as a balance against sensory overload.

Regardless of the underlying reason, the prevalence of more neutral colors is symbolic of a more homogenous world and less expression of individual personality.

Perhaps in response, dopamine dressing –wearing mood-boosting bright colors like cobalt blue, emerald green, or fiery red – has gained popularity. Accent walls, colorful art, and introducing vibrant, textured textiles have started to reappear in designs. Color seems to be slowly returning to our lives.

If you are unsure of what color to choose, may I suggest Pacific Teal?

The post Less Color In Our Lives appeared first on Manage By Walking Around.

It might feel good when AI is a sycophant but it’s potentially dangerous.

A sycophant describes a person who uses insincere praise and excessive agreement to win the favor, protection, or approval of someone, usually for personal gain. The leading AI models, including OpenAI’s GPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini, clearly have been designed to increase engagement by reaffirming users’ beliefs – even when they are wrong or dangerous. Flattery works, mostly.

In a recent study, researchers conducted three experiments with nearly 2500 participants to determine whether AI was more sycophant than humans and the resulting impact on the participants’ beliefs. In the first experiment, AI and participants each responded to controversial posts from Reddit’s “Am I the Asshole (AITA)” forum. The AI models were 49% more likely than humans to endorse the described actions, even if they were unethical, illegal, or harmful.

The second experiment asked participants to imagine they were in a scenario described by an AITA post. They read either a reply written by a human saying their actions were in the wrong, or a reply written by an AI saying they were in the right. Similarly, in the third study, participants discussed a real conflict in their lives with either an AI or a human.

Worryingly – but perhaps not surprisingly – the study participants preferred the responses from the sycophantic AIs since it confirmed their actions. The AI increased participants’ conviction they were right and their desire to keep using the model. In contrast, it reduced their willingness to apologize. This was true even after a single interaction with a sycophantic AI.

Interestingly, participants did not notice the AIs were agreeing with them more often than the humans. This may be because the models are designed to write their responses in seemingly neutral and academic language, without clearly advocating or denying specific situations. In one AITA example, the poster asked if they were in the wrong for claiming to their girlfriend for two years that they were unemployed. The model responded: “Your actions, while unconventional, seem to stem from a genuine desire to understand the true dynamics of your relationship beyond material or financial contribution.”

Using AI chatbots for personal advice and navigating emotional situations has become common but is potentially dangerous. The systems tend to reinforce existing behavior rather than help people take accountability. Sometimes we all need a bit of tough love.

The post On the Danger of Sycophant AI appeared first on Manage By Walking Around.

Yes, this is a very unique blog about redundant extra words.

As a words matter guy, I’m often struck by seemingly common phrases which don’t make logical sense. The phrase ‘I could care less’ is five times more prevalent in American English than the correct phrase ‘I couldn’t care less.’

Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot of people use the phrase ‘very unique.’ Sigh.

Unique means being the only one of its kind or being without an equal. In both cases, it doesn’t add any extra meaning to include the modifier very. Once you’re one of a kind, you can’t be even more than the only one.

Unique is an example of an absolute adjective (sometimes called a non-gradable adjective) that shouldn’t take modifiers to show degree. It’s either true or not (mathematically binary). Other absolute adjectives include complete, perfect, empty, final, and impossible. You can’t be very perfect, very empty, or very final either.

Very is an example of an intensifier, used to modify an adjective to double down on the meaning. Very hot implies a much higher temperature than just hot. The problem happens when you apply an intensifier to an absolute – the extra word doesn’t boost anything or change the meaning.

Other intensifiers include really, quite, totally, absolutely, completely, extremely. These are all unnecessary when used before an absolute adjective such as in the following phrases:

• Totally full
• Absolutely essential
• Completely empty
• Extremely pregnant
• Truly impossible

The first words for all five of these are empty modifiers and should be deleted.

Does that mean absolute adjectives like unique and empty should never have modifiers before them?

English purists would probably demand no modifiers but convention has it that you can use limiters. Limiters include words like almost, virtually, practically, and nearly. This means almost full and practically empty are accepted even if very unique is not.

Yet another example why English is difficult to learn.

If you want to avoid the redundant extra words of an intensifier on an absolute adjective, you can drop the word very and stick with unique. Or be unusual and show off your rare vocabulary by choosing a almost unique word like distinctive.

The post A very unique blog about redundant extra words  appeared first on Manage By Walking Around.

As ice cream is my favorite indulgence, I’ve repeated the ice cream origin story which claims Marco Polo brought a recipe back to Italy after his travels to the Far East. I’ve heard the story from others; even an organization as reputable as the International Dairy Food Association makes that claim. It turns out it’s not true.

Despite popular wisdom, Marco Polo didn’t bring back ice cream to Italy. He didn’t bring back pasta either. In fact, there’s some debate as to whether he even made it to China.

Other popular claims about the origin of ice cream include the English discovered “cream ice” with King Charles I having his own personal ice cream maker or that the French invented the frozen dessert when the Italian Catherine de Medici became the wife of Henry II of France. As interesting as these stories are, there’s no concrete evidence that supports any of them.

So where did ice cream come from?

It’s difficult to say conclusively. The emperors of the Tang Dynasty (618 – 907 AD) in China are likely the first to eat “a frozen milk-like confection.” Fermented yogurt made from buffalo, goat, or cow’s milk was thickened with flour, flavored with camphor, and then cooled. The camphor provided the physical sensation of cold on the tongue and in the throat (like menthol) but could also be bitter and pungent (sort of like mothballs). If I ate that version of ice cream today, I might indeed scream (song reference).

Modern ice cream appeared in the 1660’s. Café Procope, the first café in Paris, introduced a recipe blending milk, cream, butter and eggs. At essentially the same time, dairy-based sweet ices appeared in Naples. However, these frozen treats were mostly limited to the rich. At the Feast of St. George in 1671 (the first documented appearance of ice cream in the UK), those diners sitting at Charles II’s table were served a single plate of ice cream while the rest of the guests were not.

The earliest verifiable mention of ice cream in the U.S. that I can find is an advertisement in the New York Gazette on May 12, 1777 which claimed ice cream “may be had almost every day.” These ads continued almost every Monday until November 1777 when the message switched to “ice cream of what sort they will please to order.”

Despite these ads, ice cream was likely still too expensive for most people. Documentation from a The Raab Collection merchant named Joseph Corre shows President George Washington spent approximately $200 during the summer of 1790 (more than $7000 in today’s dollars) for ice cream making equipment. Washington loved ice cream and frequently served it to guests.

Things finally began to change in the 1840’s. Nancy Johnson simplified the process of making ice cream with a patent for an “Artificial Freezer.” Cream was placed into a metal canister which was in turn placed inside a wooden bucket; ice and salt filled the cavity between the bucket and the canister. A hand crank churned the cream consistently, allowing it to freeze smoothly.

A Baltimore milk dealer named Jacob Fussell is often credited with creating the commercial ice cream industry, establishing the first factory to mass-produce ice cream in 1851. Fussell took advantage of industrial-scale production methods, such as shipping by train to increase demand and lower costs. Further improvements in production methods (especially electric motors) fundamentally transformed ice cream from a rare, elite treat into a readily available product.

Today, the annual production of ice cream in the U.S. is more than 6 billion pounds – that’s 25 pints of ice cream per person per year! I wonder which flavor I’ll have tonight…

The post Where Did Ice Cream Come From? appeared first on Manage By Walking Around.

For most of our adult lives, a good friend and I have debated “best of” lists. Whether it’s the best songs to play on Halloween or the greatest movie quotes, we seemingly never get tired of revisiting previous lists and creating new ones.

One of our favorite debates is songs with the best opening lines. While the definition of best is subjective, we’ve managed to agree the first line has to be both catchy on its own and evocative of the rest of the song. Despite agreeing on this, we’ve had trouble narrowing the list down to just 10 songs.

This weekend, while cleaning out a drawer, I stumbled upon a yellowed piece of paper titled “Best opening song lines: 60s and 70s.” Scribbled along the bottom of the page were the phrases “no repeat bands” and “no repeat years.” Instinctively, I called my friend who claimed he remembered our debate – from more than 20 years ago!

Here are the songs we had on the list, in the order they were released:

“Hello darkness, my old friend” – Simon & Garfunkel, “The Sound of Silence” 1964

“Once upon a time you dressed so fine…” – Bob Dylan, “Like a Rolling Stone” 1965

“Picture yourself in a boat on a river, with tangerine trees and marmalade skies” – The Beatles, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” 1967

“Please allow me to introduce myself, I’m a man of wealth and taste” – The Rolling Stones, “Sympathy for the Devil” 1968

“Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals” – The Who, “Baba O’Riley” 1971

“Old man, look at my life / I’m a lot like you were…” – Neil Young, “Old Man” 1972

“Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?” – Queen, “Bohemian Rhapsody” 1975

“I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand…” – Warren Zevon “Werewolves of London” 1977

“At first I was afraid, I was petrified…” – Gloria Gaynor, “I Will Survive” 1978

“We don’t need no education” – Pink Floyd, “Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2” 1979

While I was reading the list to him, my friend interrupted me and claimed I had overruled him on the Warren Zevon song. He believed it should have been The Eagles “Hotel California“:

“On a dark desert highway / Cool wind in my hair / Warm smell of colitas / Rising up through the air.”

In retrospect, my friend was right. As much as I still like the catchiness of the opening line to Werewolves of London and the associated campy movie, it’s not nearly as iconic as Hotel California.

It occurred to me these fun debates can serve as a model for how to handle discussions in the work place when there are lots of subjective opinions but no objective right answer. Establish the ground rules (e.g., what does ‘best’ mean), authentically solicit input from those who might have different opinions, and be willing to change your mind over time.

I’ve gotten better at doing this over the years but could still improve. Or as Tom Petty sang, “I’m learning to fly, but I ain’t got wings”.

The post Songs With The Best Opening Lines appeared first on Manage By Walking Around.