Just for Fun

  • Lessons From My Son’s Rugby Career …

    As most of you know, my son Zach and I co-write this newsletter.  

    Recently, while talking about articles, Zach opened up about what’s been going on in his life and how it’s affected him. I thought his story would make a great post, so I asked him to share his thoughts. Looking back, it’s easy to relate to where he’s at … Interesting how that happens.  

    Here it is: 

    If you asked me to describe myself, rugby would be one of the first words out of my mouth. Honestly, if you asked me about almost anything, I’d probably find a way to sneak in a rugby reference. More than my time in the gym, my love of books, or my penchant for word games, rugby has always been the anchor of my identity.

    But life has layers. I’m now a 32-year-old husband, three ACL tears deep, working in the family business, and serving as President of the Dallas Harlequins — my rugby club. And while I still lace up, I know my time on the field is running short. Priorities change, bodies break down, and after 17 years of rugby, mine has plenty of miles on it.

    I actually thought I was done at 28. My body wouldn’t bounce back anymore. I’d wake up after practices or games barely able to walk. I had one more big tournament, where I was going to represent the USA, so I decided to fight through the pain, train for the following six months, and let that be my swan song.
     
    Then I bought a Normatec, started drinking a protein shake after practice, and (shocker) started stretching more. Suddenly, I was young again. 
     
    Sure, kids learn to stretch in elementary school, but the Getsons have always been slow learners.
     
    Since then, I’ve only gotten better. I’m running harder, tackling more, and understanding the game at a deeper level. My speed isn’t what it was at 21, and I’m definitely not the indestructible college kid I once thought I was. But I’m playing well, and not only are my coaches and teammates noticing, but even my competition is noticing. This past season, I was team MVP, “man of the tournament” at a 7s event, and earned another shot to represent the USA. My coach (who’s been with me since 2019) called it my best season yet.
     
    Still, the signs are there. Recovery is slower, random injuries creep in (yes, even from sleeping wrong), and I know I’m gambling with my body. I’ve been here before: in 2015, fresh out of college, I tore my ACL for the third time while representing the USA in Chile. I “retired,” and it nearly broke me. I had to rebuild my sense of self without rugby, and by the time I returned in 2019, I thought I’d made peace with the idea of walking away.
     
    But now that the day is actually approaching, it stings again. I lost rugby once — and it feels strange to know I’ll lose it again, this time for good. I’ll still be President, I’ll still have my team, and rugby will always be part of me. But I can feel the shift coming, and I know soon enough, these won’t be moments I’m living, but memories I carry.
     
    Are you ever truly ready?
     
    I have to remind myself that life is a gift, aging is a gift, and so is change. Rugby may be slipping away, but there are plenty of other mountains to climb. I might not compete in the same way, but that doesn’t mean I’ll stop being a competitor.
     
    At the core, rugby wasn’t just about the sport — it was about pushing myself, playing through pain, and trying to outdo the person next to me. I’d love to say my only competition is with myself, but let’s be honest, I’m not that mature.
     
    The truth is, I can still channel that drive anywhere: in the gym, at work, in writing, in my marriage, and in the everyday choices that make up my life. I can still choose to be better every day. 
     
    Hopefully that’s enough! 

    Watching Zach reflect on rugby reminds me that the lessons we learn in one arena often carry over to every part of life. The field may change, but the drive, discipline, and the will to turn possibility into reality remain — and those are the qualities that matter most. May your best thoughts become things.

    Onwards!

  • The Most Common Words In Each Religion …

    The World seems very “Us” versus “Them”…  But are we really that different?

    The six largest religions in the world are Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. 

    If you stripped away doctrine, what patterns might emerge in the world’s great sacred texts?

    Similarity in Diversity.

    We often think about the differences between religions. However, a deep review of their sacred texts shows striking similarities (and may be indications of a more integral “truth”).

    Below is a word cloud for each of those religions based on their primary religious text. A word cloud is a visual map of language where the size and boldness of a word reflect its frequency in the text. In this case, the image spotlights the most frequent words across different religious texts (e.g., Jewish Bible, Christian New Testament, Quran, Hindu Vedas, Buddhist Tripitaka, Sikh Guru Granth Sahib).

    Each panel highlights high-frequency terms like Lord, God, man, people, Israel, Indra, Agni, Allah, fortunate, Guru, etc., with the most frequently used words appearing larger and bolder. A visualization, like this, makes it easy to identify the recurring themes or focal points of each tradition.

    So, here is a closer look at what a word cloud of the world’s religions reveals if we strip away doctrine and focus only on frequency. 

     

    Q04t0id427v61

    teddyterminal via Reddit

    On one level, this post explores both the similarities and limits of religious texts via word clouds.

    As historian Yuval Harari notes, “Humans think in terms of stories, not statistics.” Those word clouds are the beginnings of narratives that go beyond the numbers. For example, shared words don’t mean shared values. The word ‘love’ in one tradition may imply obedience, while in another it means self-transcendence.

    The Power and Pitfalls of Translation

    Likewise, translating sacred texts into English makes them more accessible, but can distort meaning and nuance. As an illustration, if you noticed the name “Keith” at the bottom of the Hinduism word cloud, it’s because that was the translator’s name. You might also have seen the word “car” in the Hinduism cloud, that is not an anachronism or prophecy… it is just another old-fashioned word for “chariot”.

    It’s also worth acknowledging that this word cloud is from the English translations, so some words that may mean slightly different things in other languages can be all translated to one word in English. For example, it’s very common in Biblical Hebrew to see different words translated into the same English word. Examples include Khata, Avon, and Pesha – three different “ways of committing a wrong” that may all be translated to the same English word.

    Distortions like these occur across many texts and cultures. In other words, similarities in word usage do not always reflect shared values. Recognizing this helps us navigate between the boundaries of certainty and uncertainty.

    This brings to mind an ancient parable …

    The Parable of Perspectives – Lessons from the Elephant

    I’ve always loved the parable of the blind men and the elephant. While there are many versions, here’s broadly how it goes:

    A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear. 

    This parable highlights that even when everyone is “blind” to the whole truth, each perspective still holds real insight. Recognizing that partial views are still valuable can drive innovative, integrative thinking.

    The blind men and the elephant parable also reminds us of the limitations of individual perspectives and the value of integrating multiple viewpoints. Interestingly, that integration is one of the things large language models are best at … and helping humans access a perspective of perspectives might be a step towards enlightenment.

    Future societies may see it as obvious that synthesizing perspectives (religious, cultural, strategic) can be done by advanced AI at scale, transforming how we resolve complex disputes.

    Hope that helps.

    Oh, and as a thought experiment … What would the word cloud of your own guiding beliefs look like?

  • Faulty Logic & Logical Fallacies: A Brief Lesson

    I have a poster hanging in my office that says: “Artificial Intelligence is cool … Artificial Stupidity is scary.”

     

    20250810 AI vs Artificial Stupidity
     

    The point is that we like the idea of automation and real-time decision-making, but only if the answers are correct.

    Speed amplifies truth and error. AI makes you smarter faster—or wrong at scale. Sometimes, the systems we build to make better decisions also multiply our mistakes. Several core tensions create that paradox.

    • Velocity vs. Veracity: Pressure to move fast conflicts with the need to verify causal logic, not just correlation.
    • Persuasion vs. Truth-Seeking: Organizations reward confidence and narrative; reality rewards calibration and evidence.
    • Automation vs. Accountability: As decisions become machine-mediated, ownership blurs—who is responsible when logic fails and who is supposed to catch the error?
    • Simplicity vs. Completeness: Leaders want short answers; complex realities resist neat categories and invite fallacies.

    The problem isn’t just with automation. I’ve come to understand that an answer is not always THE answer. Consequently, part of a robust decision-making process is to figure out different ways of coming up with an answer … and then figuring out which of those serves your purposes best.

    That distinction is essential in automation and designing agentic processes, but it’s also important to think about that as we operate on a day-to-day basis.

    That’s the point of today’s post. It’s about some of the common logical errors that prevent us from getting better results.

    Several times this week, I used a simple framework that says if the outcome isn’t right, start by looking at the people,  the process, and the information. Meaning, when troubleshooting outcomes, investigate whether you are using the right resource, the best method, and whether you have enough complete and accurate information to make an informed decision.

    Because AI is an amplifier of existing decision quality, it is also a good practice to add a “precision gate” before automation: meaning, don’t automate a process until you can articulate the decision criteria, known error modes, and the top 3 fallacies likely to occur in that context.
     
    Understanding is often more complicated than it seems.
     
    Richard Feynman, a renowned physicist, was also well known for making complex things simple. He believed that if you couldn’t explain something simply, you didn’t truly understand it yourself. He stressed that it’s crucial to be honest with oneself, as self-deception is a common pitfall that hinders genuine understanding. Feynman said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”
     
    So, before you automate something, state the rule in plain words. Then list the top three ways it could fool you. If you can’t explain the rule, don’t automate it.
     
    Likewise, with ideas and beliefs, ask yourself, “What would prove me wrong?” 

    With that in mind, here is a quick primer on logical fallacies.

    A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. In other words, logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought. As you might suspect, politicians and the media often rely on them. Recently, we discussed the Dunning-Kruger Effect … but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. 

     

    Oxford Learning via InFact with Brian Dunning (Part 2, Part 3)

    It is fun to identify which of these certain people (including yourself) use when arguing, deciding, or otherwise pontificating. To help, here is a short list of TWENTY LOGICAL FALLACIES:

    They fall into three main types: Distraction (10), Ambiguity (5), and Form (5).

    A. Fallacies of Distraction

    1. Ad baculum (Veiled threat): "to the stick":
    DEF.- threatening an opponent if they don’t agree with you; EX.- "If you don’t agree with me you’ll get hurt!"

    2. Ad hominem (Name-calling; Poisoning the well): "to the man":
    DEF.- attacking a person’s habits, personality, morality or character; EX.- "His argument must be false because he swears and has bad breath."

    3. Ad ignorantium (Appeal to ignorance):
    DEF.- arguing that if something hasn’t been proved false, then it must be true; EX.- "U.F.Os must exist, because no one can prove that they don’t."

    4. Ad populum: "To the people; To the masses":
    DEF.- appealing to emotions and/or prejudices; EX.- "Everyone else thinks so, so it must be true."

    5. Bulverism: (C.S. Lewis’ imaginary character, Ezekiel Bulver)
    DEF.- attacking a person’s identity/race/gender/religion; EX.- "You think that because you’re a (man/woman/Black/White/Catholic/Baptist, etc.)"

    6. Chronological Snobbery
    DEF.- appealing to the age of something as proof of its truth or validity; EX.-"Voodoo magic must work because it’s such an old practice;" "Super-Glue must be a good product because it’s so new."

    7. Ipse dixit: "He said it himself":
    DEF.- appealing to an illegitimate authority; EX.- "It must be true, because (so and so) said so."

    8. Red Herring (Changing the subject):
    DEF.- diverting attention; changing the subject to avoid the point of the argument; EX.- "I can’t be guilty of cheating. Look how many people like me!"

    9. Straw Man:
    DEF.- setting up a false image of the opponent's argument; exaggerating or simplifying the argument and refuting that weakened form of the argument; EX.- "Einstein's theory must be false!  It makes everything relative–even truth!" 

    10. Tu quoque: "You also"
    DEF.- defending yourself by attacking the opponent; EX.- "Who are you to condemn me! You do it too!"

    B. Fallacies of Ambiguity

    1. Accent:
    DEF.- confusing the argument by changing the emphasis in the sentence; EX.- "YOU shouldn’t steal" (but it’s okay if SOMEONE ELSE does); "You shouldn’t STEAL" (but it’s okay to LIE once in a while); "You SHOULDN’T steal (but sometimes you HAVE TO) ."

    2. Amphiboly: [Greek: "to throw both ways"]
    DEF.- confusing an argument by the grammar of the sentence; EX.- "Croesus, you will destroy a great kingdom!" (your own!)

    3. Composition:
    DEF.- assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole; EX.- "Chlorine is a poison; sodium is a poison; so NaCl must be a poison too;" "Micro-evolution is true [change within species]; so macro-evolution must be true too [change between species]."

    4. Division:
    DEF.- assuming that what is true of whole must be true of the parts; EX.- "The Lakers are a great team, so every player must be great too."

    5. Equivocation:
    DEF.- confusing the argument by using words with more than one definition; EX.- "You are really hot on the computer, so you’d better go cool off."

    C. Fallacies of Form

    1. Apriorism (Hasty generalization):
    DEF.- leaping from one experience to a general conclusion; EX.- "Willy was rude to me. Boys are so mean!"

    2. Complex question (Loaded question):
    DEF.- framing the question so as to force a single answer; EX.- "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

    3. Either/or (False dilemma):
    DEF.- limiting the possible answers to only two; oversimplification; EX.- "If you think that, you must be either stupid or half-asleep."

    4. Petitio principii (Begging the question; Circular reasoning):
    DEF.- assuming what must be proven; EX.- "Rock music is better than classical music because classical music is not as good."

    5. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False cause): "after this, therefore because of this;"
    DEF.- assuming that a temporal sequence proves a causal relationship; EX.- "I saw a great movie before my test; that must be why I did so well."

     

    I like reading lists like that … but how can you use the insights? Here is an idea: pair each fallacy with a “counter-check” question. For example, for Red Herring: “Did we change the topic because the original claim was uncomfortable, or because new data was material?”

    For more on that, here is a fun and informative infographic by The School of Thought.

     

    Logical Fallacies-1via School of Thought

    We must use logic as a spam filter: Fallacies are the junk mail of thought—fast, flashy, and costly when clicked.

    Hope that helps.

  • Understanding the Shapes of Stories

    Seemingly complex things are often simpler when understood.

    This applies to many things.

    For example, great writing is diverse and nuanced … but its underlying structure often isn't.

    Kurt Vonnegut wrote several "Classics", including Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse-Five, and The Sirens of Titan.

    Despite his great writing and its complexities, he was able to simplify his stories into a few basic narrative shapes.

    Here is a graphic that explains the concept.

    201227 Kurt-Vonnegut-The-Shapes-of-Stories

    Here is a 17-minute video of Vonnegut discussing his theory of the Shape of Stories. You can grasp the basic concepts within the first 7 minutes, but he is witty, and the whole video is worth watching. 

     

    You can explore a bit more elaborate version of his "Shapes of Stories" idea in Vonnegut's rejected Master's thesis from the University of Chicago.

    Researchers recently extended Vonnegut's idea by using AI to extract the emotional trajectories of 1,327 stories and discover six core emotional arcs. In case you are curious, here they are.

    • Rags to riches (a rise)
    • Tragedy (a fall)
    • Man in a hole (fall, then a rise)
    • Icarus (rise, then a fall)
    • Cinderella (rise, then a fall, then a rise)
    • Oedipus (fall, then a rise, then a fall)

     For more on writing from Kurt Vonnegut:

    My friend, John Raymonds, also has a substack. He just released a great article on the power of storytelling. It dives deep into the nature of stories and narrative transportation. Check it out. 

    Have a nice week.

  • Digesting a Bigger Future

    We live in a world where technology changes quickly and often, while human nature remains relatively unchanged.

    For most of us, human nature is the key variable.

    I suspect Henry Ford focused on that when he said, "Whether you think you can or you think you can't. You're right."

    Henry Ford Quote - Whether You Think You Can

    Processing the possibilities of tomorrow is often difficult for humans. Part of the problem is that we're wired to think locally and linearly. It's a monumental task for us to comprehend exponential growth, let alone its implications. For example, consider what happened to seemingly smart and forward-looking companies like Kodak, Blockbuster, and RadioShack. 

     

    The world changes quickly.

    Change is constant. The wheels of innovation and commerce spin ever-faster (whether you're ready for it or not). 

    As a practical matter, it means that you get to choose between the shorter-term pain of trying to keep up … or the longer-term pain of being left behind. Said another way, you have to choose between chaos and nothing. 

    It's hard to keep up – and even harder to stay ahead.

    Personally, I went from being one of the youngest and most tech-savvy people in the room to a not-so-young person close to losing their early-adopter beanie. Sometimes it almost seems like my kids expect me to ask them to set my VCR so it stops flashing 12:00 AM all day.

    Def5094d723b4c099755173bc6b580ad

    My company may not be doing "rocket science", but it's pretty close. We utilize exponential technologies, such as high-performance computing, AI, and machine learning, to amplify intelligence and make data-driven, evidence-based decisions in real-time, all the time. 

    But, as we get "techier," I get less so … and my role gets less technical, over time, too.

    Due to my age, experience, and tendency to be a pioneer, I've been battling technology for decades. 

    Don't get me wrong, technology has always been my friend, and I still love it. But my relationship with it is different now.

    I recognize that there are things that change and things that stay the same. And for me, the things that "stay the same" tend to be more important.

    Paradoxically, the part of me that stays the same can still change and grow – that is how you become more (and a more evolved version) of that thing.

     

    The Bigger Picture

    My father said that not worrying about all the little details helped him see the bigger picture and focus on what was possible.

    You don't have to focus on the technological details to predict its progress. Anticipating what people will need is a great predictor of what will get built.   That means predicting "what" is often easier than predicting 'how'.

    Why is that often the case? Because technology that solves a problem is more profitable and popular than technology searching for a problem to solve.

    Here's a video from 1974 of Arthur C. Clarke making some remarkably accurate predictions about the future of technology. 

     

    via Australian Broadcasting Corporation

    Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing, augmented reality, neuro-interfaces, and a host of exponential technologies are going to change the face and nature of our lives (and perhaps life itself). Some of these technologies have become inevitabilities … but what they enable is virtually limitless.

    Where do you see this going?

    Onwards.

  • When Worlds Collide: Timeless Wisdom & Evolutionary Technology in Trading with Matthew Piepenburg

    Back in 2020, I had a Zoom meeting with Matthew Piepenburg of Signals Matter. Of course, being the height of the Pandemic, it was over Zoom. Even though it was a private discussion, there was so much value in our discussion that we decided to share parts of it here. 

    While Matt's understanding of markets is based on Macro/Value investing, we use advanced AI and quantitative methods for our approach. 

    As you might expect, there are a lot of differences in how we view the world, decision-making, and the current market environment. Nonetheless, we share a lot of common beliefs as well.   

    Our talk explores several interesting areas and concepts. I encourage you to watch it below. 

     

    Via YouTube.

    To summarize a couple of the key points, markets are not the economy, and normal market dynamics have been out the window for a long time. In addition, part of why you're seeing increased volatility and noise is that there are so many interventions and artificial inputs to our market system.

    While Matt and I may approach the world with very different lenses, we both believe in "timeless wisdom". 

    Ask yourself, What was true yesterday, today, and will stay true tomorrow? 

    That is part of the reason we focus on emerging technologies and constant innovation … they remain relevant. 

    Something we can both agree on is that if you don't know what your edge is … you don't have one. 

     

    If You Don't Know What Your Edge Is You Don't Have One _GapingVoid

    Hope you enjoyed the video.

    Let me know what other topics you'd like to hear more about. 

    Onwards!

  • The Benner Cycle: How Not To Predict Markets

    When I first became interested in trading, I would often consult many traditional sources and old-school market wisdom.  I particularly liked the Stock Trader's Almanac. 

    While there is real wisdom in some of those sources, most might as well be horoscopes or Nostradamus-level predictions.  Throw enough darts, and one of them might hit the bullseye. 

    Still, it seems better than using astrology to trade. 

    Want something easy to predict?  Traders love patterns … from the simple head-and-shoulders to Fibonacci sequences and the Elliot Wave Theory.

    Here's an example from Samuel Benner, an Ohio farmer, in 1875.  That year, he released a book titled "Benners Prophecies: Future Ups and Downs in Prices," and in it, he shared a now relatively famous chart called the Benner Cycle.  Some claim that it's been accurately predicting the ups and downs of the market for over 100 years.  Let's check it out. 

     

     

    Here's what it does get right … markets go up, and then they go down … and that cycle continues.  Consequently, if you want to make money, you should buy low and sell high … It's hard to call that a competitive advantage.

    Mostly, you're looking at vague predictions with +/- 2-year error bars on a 10-year cycle. 

    However, it was close to the dot-com bust and the 2008 crash, so even if you sold a little early, you'd have been reasonably happy with your decision to follow the cycle.

    The truth is that we use cycle analysis in our live trading models.  However, it is a lot more rigorous and scientific than the Benner Cycle.  The trick is figuring out what to focus on—and what to ignore. 

    Just as humans are good at seeing patterns where there are none … they tend to see cycles that aren't anything but coincidences. 

    This is a reminder that just because an AI chat service recommends something, it doesn't make it a good recommendation.  Those models do some things well.  Making scientific or mathematically rigorous market predictions probably isn't the area to trust ChatGPT or one of its rivals … yet. 

    We're seeing bots improve at running businesses and writing code, but off-the-shelf tools like ChatGPT are still known for generating hallucinations and overconfidence. 

    Be careful out there.

  • How Long You Have Left

    We only have a limited time on this earth … and a lot of it is spent on frivolous activities. 

    How much time do you think the average millennial spends on their phones … or a baby-boomer sits in front of the TV?

    The answer is a lot.

    Although this chart hasn't been updated recently, it still provides a helpful glimpse of the bigger picture. 

     

    How-much-time-we-have-infographic (1)via Anna Vital

    Nine years in front of entertainment devices – another 10.5 years spent working. You get the idea.

    If you have goals you want to accomplish, places you want to go, and lifestyle aspirations to experience, this puts the idea of finding and living your passion into perspective. 

    Do you have the time to waste it?

    VisualCapitalist put together a chart projecting longevity based on 2020 mortality rates.

     

    OC_Life-Expectancy-by-Age_1600px_Oct31

    via visualcapitalist
     

    According to this calculator, since I'm over 60, I only have about 20 years left.   I expect more!

    There are some interesting statistical facts in this; for example, an average American baby boy can expect to live until 74 … but if that boy turns 21, his life expectancy jumps to over 75. 

    While these numbers appear high, there are two key considerations. First, COVID-19 heavily reduced these numbers because mortality rates increased. 

    Also, remember that these numbers are based on 2020 averages, which may differ from your own (specifically considering your race, income, location, etc.). These numbers also don't take into account expected medical and technology advances, etc. 

    Ultimately, I believe Purpose is one of the most significant catalysts of longevity. People often die when they retire … not because they're done working, but because they're done striving. 

    If you're not growing, you're dying!

  • My Best Investment …

    My kids are getting older. In fact, not only are they both adults, but they're both married. Father's Day looks a little different than it used to. 

     

    Fathersdayfb

     

    As I look back, I realize that there was an investment I made that paid off in a big way, and I want to share it with you.

    Like many parents, I wanted to teach my children that, to a large extent, they control what happens to them. One of the first ways I did that was to set up a "compensation system" for them to earn video games.

    Some parents try to limit the amount of time their kids spend watching TV or playing video games. I tried something different. Instead, my kids earned their games by reading books. Here is a photo from way back then.

    BZandH_edited

    Paid With Play.

    Here's how it worked. When they were younger, 10 books were enough to earn a small game. When they finished a book, it was their right, and my obligation, to take them to the bookstore for us to pick up the next book together. Likewise, when they finished the requisite number of books, it was their right, and my obligation, to take them to the computer store or game store for them to choose any game they wanted.

    When they finished a hundred books, they got a bonus of earning the next game system. That meant if they had a Nintendo, they could now also get a PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360.

    How Can You Encourage a Jump to the Next Level?

    There came a point when I wanted one of my sons to start reading grown-up books. He was comfortable reading a certain type of book, and didn't want to read the kind of books that I read. So, I created a bonus system that counted a particular book as three books. I didn't force him; I just let the easier path to a reward "whisper" in his ear what to read. Once he finished that, he never went back to teen fiction.

    It Is a Great Way to Learn About Your Kids.

    I also used the bookstore visits to gauge how the boys were doing. For example, I might say, "I notice that you read five books in that series, maybe you'd like this book". Or, "That sure is a lot of science fiction; what was the last biography you read?"  For the most part, though, I didn't care what they read. The key was to get them to want to choose certain books for their own reasons. Ultimately, their preference meant they were learning to love reading.

    It Puts Them In Control of Their Destiny and Rewards.

    My younger son likes competition. He also broke or misplaced many things. So, to earn back the Game Boy unit he lost, I challenged him to read five books in five days. These weren't easy books either. It was designed to stretch him, and also to teach him that he could read a book a night. The bet was that he either finished all the books in the allocated time, or none of them counted towards games or Game Boys. On the other hand, if he read a book a night for two weeks, not only would he get his Game Boy back, but the books would also count towards a game. It worked like a charm, and we were both happy.

    So, Who Got the Better Bargain?

    As they started to get into their teenage years, I needed to up the ante a little. So, 500 books meant they got a laptop of their choice. Both boys cashed in, and probably felt like they were taking advantage of their dad.

    I got what I wanted, though; both my boys love reading, and know that they can accomplish anything they put their minds to … one step at a time.

    Here is a recent picture of us.   All of us love reading … and none of us needs diapers.

     

    39C25ED2-732A-4E0D-B301-1A698E0E50E7

    Speaking of diapers, I've leveled up to become a grandfather. Watching my oldest become a father is the ultimate dividend.

    I still remember my father joking with me to be careful of what I said about him, because I would have kids who would do the same to me.

    Watching my granddaughter grow, explore, and enjoy the world is an incredible blessing. 

    Plus, I know Karma is a Bitch. … wait till she starts using everything she's learned against him.

    It is part of the cycle of life … just like diapers.

  • Trying to Understand Happiness …

    I am often amazed at how little human nature has changed throughout recorded history.

    Despite the exponential progress we’ve made in health, wealth, society, tools, and understanding … we still struggle to find meaning, purpose, and happiness in our lives and our existence.

    Last month, I shared an article on Global Happiness Levels in 2025. Here are a few bullets that summarize the findings: 

    • We underestimate others’ kindness, but it’s more common than we think.
    • Community boosts happiness—eating and living with others matter.
    • Despair is falling globally, except in isolated, low-trust places like the U.S.
    • Hope remains—trust and happiness can rebound with connection and a sense of purpose.

    Upon reflection, that post didn’t attempt to define happiness. This post will focus on how to do that.

    While it seems like a simple concept, happiness is complex. We know many things that contribute to and detract from it; we know humans strive for it, but it is still surprisingly challenging to put a uniform definition on it. 

    A few years ago, a hobbyist philosopher analyzed 93 philosophy books, spanning from 570 BC to 1588, in an attempt to find a universal definition of Happiness. Here are those findings.

     

    Ktn23nkt45n81

    via Reddit.

    It starts with a simple list of definitions from various philosophers. It does a meta-analysis to create some meaningful categories of definition. Then it presents the admittingly subjective conclusion that:

     

    Happiness is to accept and find harmony with reason. 

     

    My son, Zach, pointed out that while “happiness” is a conscious choice, paradoxically, the “pursuit of happiness” often results in unhappiness. Why? Because happiness is a result of acceptance. However, when happiness is the goal, you often focus on what you’re lacking instead of what you already have. You start to live in the ‘Gap’ instead of the ‘Gain’. 

    So, it got me thinking – and that got me to play around with search and AI, a little, to broaden my data sources and perspectives. If you would like to view the raw data, here are the notes I compiled (along with the AI-generated version of what this article could have been, had it been left to AI, rather than me and Zach).

    Across centuries, philosophers have wrestled with a deceptively simple question: What does it mean to live a good life?
     
    As entrepreneurs, investors, and leaders, we often chase performance, innovation, or edge — but underneath it all, there’s a quieter inquiry: Am I living well?
     
    Happiness aside, across 93 influential philosophical texts spanning two millennia, one word consistently reappears: Eudaimonia. This is not happiness in the modern sense of pleasure, but a richer concept of human flourishing — a life filled with purpose, virtue, and meaning.
     
    • Ancient thinkers saw happiness not as a mood, but as a life aligned with purpose and virtue.
    • Some prioritized inner character; others emphasized harmony with the divine or nature.
    • Debate endures over the role of external goods — wealth, luck, friends.
    • During the Renaissance, the conversation shifted toward subjective experience.
    • Across eras, the thread remains: Happiness is cultivated, not consumed.

     

    Contradictions and Tensions

    Thoughts on happiness contain paradoxes, contradictions, and tensions. Examining the boundaries between what you are certain of and what you are uncertain of is where insights occur. Here are a few to get you started.
     
    • Virtue vs. External Goods: Aristotle acknowledges external goods (wealth, friends) as necessary for complete happiness, while Stoics claim virtue alone suffices. This tension challenges the simplicity of virtue-based happiness, suggesting a nuanced balance between inner character and outer circumstances.
    • Subjective vs. Objective Happiness: Ancient philosophers often defined happiness as an objective state (living virtuously or intellectually flourishing), whereas modern definitions more often emphasize the subjective satisfaction varying by individual. This tension probes whether happiness is a universal or personal experience.
    • Happiness as Pleasure vs. Happiness as Duty/Struggle: Epicureanism equates happiness with pleasure (absence of pain), but Cynics and Stoics emphasize enduring hardship and discipline as the path to happiness, which presents a paradox between comfort and resilience.

     

    Three Metaphors To Help You Think About Happiness

    Metaphors help make abstract ideas more concrete, memorable, and easier to grasp. Here are three to consider.
     

    The Ship Captain (Stoicism)

    • Metaphor: You can’t control the ocean (external events), but you can steer your ship (your mind). 
    • Clarification: Highlights control over internal states despite external chaos.

    The Team Soul (Plato’s Tripartite Soul)

    • Metaphor: The soul is a team where reason is the coach, spirit is the player, and appetite is the goalie. Happiness is achieved when the coach directs the players well. 
    • Clarification: Demonstrates the importance of internal harmony and self-governance.

    The Garden (Aristotle’s Life Cultivation)

    • Metaphor: Happiness is like tending a garden over time — it requires continuous effort, nurturing virtues (soil quality), and sometimes external help (sunlight, rain). 
    • Clarification: This shows happiness as a process, not a momentary state.

    Reach out – I’m curious to hear what you think!