I. Shocking Realisation Hook

Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics.

—David L. Goodstein, States of Matter

With these legendary first lines, Goodstein managed to make even a physics textbook sound like a thrilling page turner.

First lines are vital. They grab the readers’ attention (or not), set the tone and introduce the topic. There are many ways to achieve this. Goodstein’s opening is an example of the Shocking Realisation Hook.

It’s when the first lines deliver a sudden, jarring piece of information in a calm manner. This creates a contrast between a dark subject and a casual delivery. As a bonus, you leave enough to the imagination of your readers so they’re intrigued to read on.

II. POP Writing

POP Writing is a business writing technique proposed by writer David Perrell. David claims:

You can evaluate every piece of writing with three variables: personal, observational, and playful.

The pillars of my POP Writing methodology contrast traditional business writing education. In the office, people think they should use a heap of buzzwords and machine-gun fire of statistics, and dress it all up in an academic tone to make them “sound smart.” But these tricks are hollow. They won’t lead to readers who want to engage with your ideas or share them with friends.

His three “Pillars of POP Writing” are:

Personal: Tell stories. Speak to your emotions. (Like a diary.)

Observational: Fresh look at the world. Bring out the glasses. (Just like Darwin’s notes.)

Playful: Fun and enjoyable. Bring out the kid. (Like a dad joke.)

I do believe Perrell is missing something here, though. Namely, Jerry Seinfeld’s “ball-busting son of a bitch”-editor who reigns in your inner child.

III. Paradox of Originality

Originality in writing is everything. And according to British author C.S. Lewis, it’s best achieved by serendipitously saying what others have said before. I call it the Paradox of Originality.

Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.

—C.S. Lewis

🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. No True Scotsman

Bob: All Scotsmen prefer scotch over gin.
Sara: But my brother is a Scotsman and he likes gin better.
Bob: That just means your brother isn’t a true Scotsman.

A vast generalisation is usually the starting point for the No True Scotsman fallacy, aka an Appeal to Purity. The broader the statement, the easier it is to refute it with a simple counterexample. By invoking her Scottish brother, Sara falsifies Bob’s argument, who then resorts to the Appeal to Purity.

In a last-ditch effort to save his generalisation from falling apart, Bob strips Sara’s brother of his Scottishness for personal gain. He retroactively invokes a vague, rather emotional and subjective criterion of authenticity. Bob deliberately set a bar that Sara’s brother can never pass. In Bob’s eyes, he’ll never be Scottish enough. But let’s be honest: Yer bum’s oot the windae, Bob.

👉 For more informal fallacies, check out my article on 11 Argumentative Errors Worth Avoiding

II. The Merchant and the Fisherman

The Merchant and the Fisherman is a parable about what happens when two very different ways of living collide. Here’s a short version of the story:

A fisherman lay on a sunny beach, pole in the sand, line in the surf. A merchant, walking off his stress, stopped and said, “You won’t catch many fish like that. You should be working!”

The fisherman smiled. “And what would be my reward?”
“You’d get bigger nets, catch more fish.”
“And then?”
“You’d make money, buy a boat.”
“And then?”
“Buy a bigger boat, hire workers!”
“And then?”
“You could build a whole fleet! Sail the world! Become rich!”
“And then?”
“You could retire,” the merchant snapped. “Sit on a beach all day, watching the sunset, without a care!”

The fisherman chuckled, “And what do you think I’m doing right now?”

III. Being Enough

To put our subscriber milestone in perspective, here’s a thought inspired by Jim Carrey’s famous Golden Globe Awards presenter speech.

I am Chris Meyer, a writer with 4,000 subscribers on Substack. You know, when I go to sleep at night, I’m not just a guy going to sleep. I’m a guy with 4,000 subscribers on Substack going to get some well-needed shut eye.

And when I dream, I don’t just dream any old dream. No sir. I dream about being a guy with 5,000 subscribers on Substack.

Because then I would be enough.

🎉 Wow! Over 4,000 subscribers in 116 countries. Thank you all so much for reading my newsletter and all your likes, shares, comments, messages and donations! 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Typology of Problems

One of the most underestimated problems when facing problems is knowing what type of problems you’re facing. There are several Typologies of Problems. Intel person Gregory F. Treverton distinguishes between puzzles, mysteries and complexities, located on a spectrum from solvable to unsolvable:

Puzzles: Answer exists but may not be known

Mystery: Answer contingent, cannot be known, but key variables can, along with the sense of how they combine

Complexity: Many actors responding to changing circumstances, not repeating any established pattern

But there’s a problem. As intel analysis lecturer Charles Vandepeer points out, not everyone will agree on the type of problem they’re facing.

Consequently, we might find ourselves working on a problem we believe to be unsolvable alongside someone who believes that the problem is solvable. In this instance, it is worth clarifying which aspects of the problem each of us believe to be solvable and which we believe to be unsolvable.

II. Tower of Knowledge Problem

Imagine you have a particular set of skills. Specialised knowledge nobody else in your company has. You’re the expert on everything about a certain subsystem of a jet engine, or the only one who knows how the new coffee machine works. It may sound like you’re indispensable, unfireable, and everyone needs your help.

But it creates the Tower of Knowledge Problem. Because you’re indispensable, unfireable, and everyone needs your help. Richard Sheridan described such a case in his book Joy, Inc: How We Built a Workplace People Love. The essential employee in question was never able to take vacations without his laptop and a pager [a thing people had before mobile phones were ubiquitous]. Whenever something broke in his area, he had to be reachable and fix it.

h/t Three Times Wiser

III. Feynman Algorithm

Problem-solving can be so easy. World-renowned physicist and science communicator Richard Feynman had it all figured out. Here’s the Feynman Algorithm, as suggested by author Murray Gell-Mann in a New York Times interview.

1. Write down the problem.

2. Think real hard.

3. Write down the solution.

🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Brand Promise

A brand is a psychological anticipation, says the astutely quotable marketing legend Rory Sutherland. A Brand Promise is the expectation your product sets, whether explicitly or implicitly. If a newsletter is called “3 Ideas in 2 Minutes,” it’s promising a structure. Three items, tight format, predictable rhythm.

Here’s Sutherland on what that means for marketing:

The relief of unease is the consumer’s primary drive, and therefore the proper focus of marketing.

There is no need, as Rory phrases it, for marketers to “ladle on the positives” in their communications. Removal of unease works differently. It creates the expectation that uneasiness can be removed by actions the consumer takes.

Reputation, for example, is a reassurance to customers that they won’t be disappointed, and that promises made can, with some confidence, be expected to be kept.

A strong brand is a special form of such reputational reassurance.

Source: Economics For Business Podcast #159

II. Expectancy Violations Theory

An unnamed marketing professor walks into your lecture hall. Everyone is expecting a monotone introduction about course logistics and deadlines. Instead, he starts by roasting his own field of research and hands out chocolate. The room shifts. People are paying attention. Slightly confused, but far more interested than five seconds ago.

That’s an example of Expectancy Violation. We come into any interaction with a set of assumptions about how the interaction will play out. Based on context, roles and past experience. When those expectations are broken, it creates a moment of cognitive recalibration.

Whether that violation feels positive or negative depends on how we interpret the behaviour…and who’s doing it. But in the right conditions, surprise becomes a powerful tool for grabbing attention. Just like when you see a…

III. Purple Cow

Coined by creativity guru Seth Godin in his eponymous book, the Purple Cow is a marketing concept about being distinctive enough to attract attention and word-of-mouth. It’s also the go-to template that YouTuber Mr Beast uses to go viral.

If you’re driving down the road and you see a cow, who cares? Who cares, it’s a [expletive] cow. But if you’re driving down the road and see a purple cow, like you’ve never seen that before and it’s something you werent expecting, you’re gonna go, “Holy [expletive].” And you’re goinnna tell your friends about it. You’re gonna remember that. You’ll probably think about it randomly for years.

It’s the same thing, just one was a little purple. And you can apply that same thing to ideas.

—Mr Beast reveals the secret to going viral

It’s not as easy to achieve as it sounds. Dining at a [expletive] float-through McDonald’s will probably be a memorable experience. But will you forever remember the day the “3 Ideas in 2 Minutes” newsletter featured a fourth idea?

IV. Logic Trap

It is much easier to be fired for being illogical than it is for being unimaginative. The fatal issue is that logic always gets you to exactly the same place as your competitors.

—Rory Sutherland, Alchemy: The Surprising Power of Ideas That Don't Make Sense

🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Agenda-Setting

Imagine you run a small critical thinking newsletter. Every week, you choose which topics deserve space. Manipulation tactics, fallacies & biases, or the very occasional Alan Watts quote. Even if you never directly tell readers, your decisions still influence what they spend time thinking about. If you repeatedly highlight quotes from Alan Watts, readers may begin to see him as a particularly important voice on spirituality and philosophy.

This power to shape (public) attention by deciding which subjects receive consistent coverage is called Agenda-Setting. In meetings, the person setting the agenda tends to control which problems get discussed and which are quietly ignored. In politics, leaders and parties try to push certain issues into public focus because they know attention shapes debate and voter concerns. Strange as it may sound, even the media can influence us by constantly highlighting specific topics and disregarding others.

Agenda-Setting does not necessarily determine what people think, but it influences what we think about.

👉 Oh, and while you’re here, check out my Alan Watts quote collection

II. Solid Snake Method

—It’s a good newsletter, but for some reason he keeps quoting Alan Watts.

—He keeps quoting Alan Watts?

—Yeah, and he makes those self-referential jokes about it, too. Very disturbing.

If you don’t know what to say or how to respond in a conversation, use the Solid Snake Method. Apparently named after a video game character, it’s a conversation tactic that involves repeating the end of someone’s statement as a question. This has several effects.

Several effects? Yeah, not only can you avoid awkward silences. You also show that you’ve been listening instead of just waiting to talk yourself. Negotiation guru Chris Voss calls this Mirroring. It’s the perfect tool if you want to prompt people to elaborate, thereby getting more details and gaining an information advantage.

III. Hurt-Rescue Principle

Beware!!! Most of what you think you know is quietly shaped by biases, confident-sounding nonsense and people who are very good at being wrong with confidence. And you probably don’t even notice it happening!!!

The Hurt–Rescue Principle describes a persuasion tactic where influence is created by first generating some form of discomfort, tension or “hurt” (a felt problem, need or desire). That tension can be negative (removing something unwanted) or positive (creating desire for something missing). It can be subtle or indirect. Either way, it motivates you to seek relief or resolution.

This is where the “rescue” comes in. The delivery of relief. The release of the tension. The great removal of your discomfort. It can be offered directly, requested or even structured so you feel like you solved it yourself. This increases your buy-in and acceptance of the solution.

Well done finding this newsletter, you absolute legend! It cuts through that noise, exposes the tricks, fallacies and mental shortcuts so you can finally see what’s going on and think for yourself with clarity and control. 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Moving to a New Town

Moving to a New Town is a neat Zen story about the art of being “right” while still being completely wrong, depending on what you bring with you.

Two men visit a Zen master. The first man says: “I’m thinking of moving to this town. What’s it like?” The Zen master asks: “What was your old town like?” The first man responds: “It was dreadful. Everyone was hateful. I hated it.”

The Zen master says: “This town is very much the same. I don’t think you should move here.”

The first man leaves and the second man comes in. The second man says: “I’m thinking of moving to this town. What’s it like?” The Zen master asks: “What was your old town like?” The second man responds: “It was wonderful. Everyone was friendly and I was happy. Just interested in a change now.”

The Zen master says: “This town is very much the same. I think you will like it here.”

—Unknown

👉 You’ll find more of this in my article on 5 Zen Stories Worth Contemplating for Years (Or Not at All)

II. Gibson’s Law

For every PhD, there is an equal and opposite PhD.

Are you in public relations or practising law? Then you may have heard of Gibson’s Law. Whether you’re calling expert witnesses to the stand or have found a scientist who’ll support our Ultimate Small Creator Opportunity and Resource Expansion (USCOREA) Act, you’ll be running into the same issue.

The opposing side will have no issue finding a highly credentialed expert who will happily disagree with yours. Especially on complex, uncertain, political high-stakes issues. So what are you going to do? Compare evidence and consensus, not isolated appeals to authorities.

III. Going Wrong

To go wrong in one’s own way is better than to go right in someone else’s.

—Fyodor Dostoevsky

It’s better to think for yourself and get things wrong than to be right just by following others. Because your own mistakes, experienced firsthand, teach you more than blindly outsourcing your brain to someone else’s confidence.

I think that’s why I like Zen stories quite a bit. They don’t tell you what to think. They show you how quickly you start trying to turn experience into a fixed explanation. 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. BATNA

The best negotiation skills are pointless if you don’t know when to accept a deal. That again requires preparation. And determining your BATNA. It’s a key concept that helps you decide when to shake hands or walk away.

BATNA is a term coined by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their 1981 bestseller, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In. It stands for “Best ALTERNATIVE TO a negotiated agreement.” Said another way, it is the best you can do if the other person refuses to negotiate with you — if they tell you to “go jump in a lake!” or “Get lost!” So it is not necessarily your ideal outcome — unless your ideal outcome is something you can get without the cooperation of the other person. It is the best you can do WITHOUT THEM.

—Brad Spangler, Beyond Intractability

Imagine you’re negotiating a salary with a new company while already holding a $85k job offer elsewhere. Your BATNA is to take the $85k offer if the new company suggests you “Go kick rocks.”

II. Beyond BATNA

Negotiation guru Chris Voss sees a crucial downside to BATNA. When it becomes too big a psychological anchor, we tend to gravitate towards it. It quickly turns into our target. So what does he tell his clients?

I tell my clients that as a part of their preparation they should think about the outcome extremes: best and worst. If you’ve got both ends covered, you’ll be ready for anything. So you know what you cannot accept and have an idea about the best-case outcome, but keep in mind since there’s information yet to be acquired from the other side, it’s quite possible that best case might be even better than you know.

Remember, never be so sure of what you want that you wouldn’t take something better. Once you’ve got flexibility in the forefronmt of your mind you come into a negotiation with a winning mindset.

—Chris Voss, Never Split the Difference

Imagine walking into those salary negotiations knowing your worst-case is your $85k fallback offer and your best-case is something a bit above it. To your surprise, $90k is their starting offer. And instead of thinking “Yay, I’ll take it,” you realise the best case you set was just the beginning…

III. A Harsh Negotiation Truth

In business as in life, you don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.

―Chester L. Karrass

…is an often-quoted sentiment from Chester L. Karrass’s classic negotiation Bible. Probably because it’s also the book’s title.

It quietly replaces what Voss calls the subjective and emotional F-bomb (fairness) with something less comforting but more useful: preparation and leverage. It’s all about what you can get someone to agree to without being laughed out of the room. 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Mechanistic Dehumanisation

Everyone I don’t know is an NPC.

…seems to be a common sentiment. NPC (non-player character) is a gaming term for people who seem to lack agency and a complex inner life. Instead, they’re following a script someone else wrote for them.

On the morning train, you’re surrounded by silent strangers running their pre-programmed commute routines. In a government office, the customer service staff feel like they’ve been meticulously coded to repeat the same dialogue tree until you select the correct bureaucratic response. That can trigger Mechanistic Dehumanisation.

It’s when we stop treating people as humans with feelings and start seeing them as tools or obstacles. Writer and stick-figure enthusiast Tim Urban (from Wait But Why) says this happens when our “Primitive Mind” takes over.

When we’re stressed or stuck in our own heads, we stop using our “Higher Mind” to see the nuance in others. We drop down to a lower level where people become flat characters or labels rather than complex individuals.

We treat the world like a solo video game where we, and the people we got to know better, are the only “real” players. It’s a useful heuristic that keeps us from getting overwhelmed. But it’s also how we lose empathy. Even the grumpy commuter or clipboard-wielding bureaucrat has a complex inner life and story we just haven’t “unlocked” yet.

II. False Consensus Effect

Everyone driving slower than you is an idiot and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac.

—George Carlin

Oddly enough, there’s also something called the False Consensus Effect, which is kind of the opposite of the NPC mindset. It’s a cognitive bias in which we assume our own beliefs, habits, and quirks are the “default” for everyone else. It leads us to overestimate how much others actually agree with us.

Take me, for example, as an experienced driver and the benchmark for normal and correct driving behaviour. My cruising speed, braking distance and lane choices aren’t just preferences. They’re the objective gold standard.

I’m not just driving. Oh no! I am the calibrated template that every other player should be following if they want to qualify as a functional member of traffic. Obviously, any reasonable person sees it exactly the same way.

You’re welcome.

III. NPC Illusion

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal.

―C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

👉 Not long ago, I put together a post with 15+ Hard-Hitting C.S. Lewis Quotes About Life & Human Nature

🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Lying by Omission

A Math Professor Moved To A Cabin In The Woods. Now He’s Serving Time In Prison.

What has the world become? Since when is trying to live a quiet and peaceful life in the wilderness a crime? Shameful. Just Shameful.

Or…this headline is an example of Lying by Omission, which happens when you make a technically true statement but leave out crucial context, so the listener forms a misleading conclusion.

The math professor in question happened to be Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. In between his retreat to the woods and his imprisonment, he went on a 17-year mail-bombing campaign that killed three people. In a biased article, you’d probably find that small detail buried somewhere in a short paragraph that starts with “To be sure…”.

II. Strategic Incrementalism

Another sneaky way to manipulate is Strategic Incrementalism. Game theory YouTuber Christian Rieck explains it in the context of…game theory.

Strategic incrimentalism is simply a method for getting things done in many situations that otherwise would not have been able to get done. […]

This means that they ultimately need a step-by-step method […]: that at each stage of the game that emerges, they repeatedely create a situation of interest that ensures that ultimately many people in this one situation say, “yes, that’s what we want,“ but don’t think further about what the next strategic steps will be. That’s the idea behind strategic incrementalism.

—Prof Dr Christian Rieck, The end of freedom? How the social media ban silently dispossesses you!

Would you read and pay for a newsletter the government made mandatory overnight? Then let’s use Strategic Incrementalism to make it a required reading:

1. Here’s a voluntary critical thinking newsletter for civic enrichment — free of charge, of course.

2. It’s absolutely optional. But it does explain things people keep arguing about.

3. Since most people are reading it anyway, we’ve started publishing important government information in it, too. Exclusively. Purely for convenience.

4. We added a ‘recommended reading’ badge, which everyone seems to treat as mandatory. 🤷‍♂️

5. So anyway, it’s basically required reading now, even though no one remembers deciding that.

6. Guys, this government-mandated critical-thinking newsletter has really blown up. I’m afraid we have to put it behind a paywall. You know, to keep it sharp and relevant for you.

III. Credulity Trap

German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer describes a simple technique to deceive a deceiver: setting a Credulity Trap.

If you have reason to suspect that a person is telling you a lie, look as though you believed every world he said. This will give him courage to go on; he will become vehement in his assertions, and in the end betray himself.

Again, if you perceive that a person is trying to conceal something from you, but with only partial success, look at though you did not believe him, this opposition on you part will provoke him into leading out his reserve of truth and bringing the whole force of it to bear upon your incredulity.

―Arthur Schopenhauer

🐘

Thank you all for reading the newsletter; your likes, shares, comments, messages and donations mean a lot and help keep this newsletter alive and growing.

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Pendulum Bias

Good decision-making depends on mitigating cognitive biases. Luckily for this newsletter, there are many of them. And people keep making up new ones. Like Pendulum Bias, as explained by former intel analyst Michael Morell in the MasterClass course The Art of Intelligence.

Rather than returning to a balanced, evidence-based position, we tend to overcorrect in the opposite direction after a major mistake. Morell explained it in the context of wrong analysis when it came to the war in Iraq:

We actually missed the nuclear weapons program the first time around. It was much further along than we thought. So we didn’t want to make that mistake again, so the pendulum swung too far back.

👉 In case you’re interested, I recently reviewed The Art of Intelligence and tried to look behind the dramatisation and tense background music.

II. Myside Bias

Myside Bias is what happens when your brain quietly switches from trying to figure out what’s true to trying to defend what you already believe. You still feel rational, but you start to favour information that supports your position and instinctively push back on anything that challenges it.

Two people can read the same article. One thinks it’s solid evidence while the other thinks it’s flawed. The difference usually isn’t the data. It’s what they already believed going in. Once you’ve taken a side, your mind starts acting like a lawyer, building a case, rather than a judge weighing both sides evenly.

It’s one of those ideas you’re reading about a lot here. It’s closely related to Confirmation Bias and Motivated Reasoning. A simple solution is to change the perspective and ask yourself, “Do I still see it that way?”

III. Normalcy Bias

In 2022, a man named Derren Brown hypnotised a stranger to assassinate the beloved British actor Stephen Fry on an open stage during a performance. As the shots rang out and Sir Stephen dropped to the ground, the audience reacted…not at all. They didn’t seem to care.

Of course, this was just a stunt performed by Brown, an infamous hypnotist. He wanted to know if you could manipulate someone into committing a violent crime. To be frank, the whole thing looks so surreal that I’m not entirely sure whether the audience had been primed in some way. Still, it serves as a striking illustration of a psychological phenomenon called Normalcy Bias.

Normalcy Bias is our tendency to assume everything is fine, even when it isn’t. When something shocking happens, we often downplay it or reinterpret it as harmless because the brain prefers familiar explanations.

That’s why people ignore fire alarms or fail to act in emergencies. Especially if others stay calm. In the theatre, the audience probably assumed the shooting was part of the show, so they stayed passive. Since no one else reacted, the implicit signal was that there was nothing to worry about. 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Red Sneakers Effect

The Red Sneakers Effect comes from a 2014 Harvard study that noticed something interesting about how we judge people. When you break a norm on purpose, such as wearing red sneakers in a formal setting, observers often interpret it as a signal of confidence, competence or higher status.

Though the key part here is intention. If people believe the nonconformity is accidental (“Look at that silly banana, he doesn’t know the rules.”), it doesn’t create the same positive impression. But when there are shared standards and breaking them looks deliberate, it sends a subtle message: This person knows the norms and feels secure enough to bend them.

Standing out like that doesn’t automatically hurt your credibility. Sometimes it does the exact opposite. But don’t go buy red sneakers yet and blindly imitate the successful.

II. Deviance Regulation Theory

Deviance Regulation Theory explains why we react so strongly when someone breaks a social norm. The idea is that people don’t just try to “fit in” or “stand out” in general. They adjust their behaviour based on what kind of reaction standing out will get.

If a deviation is seen as positive, we’re more likely to lean into it because it brings admiration or status. If it’s likely to be judged negatively, we’ll pull back and conform instead. So it’s less about constant deliberate rebellion and more about a kind of ongoing calibration, depending on which behaviour will create the better impression in that specific situation.

That’s why wearing red sneakers is such a bold move. Once you’ve committed, there’s no calibrating it back. What are you gonna do? Casually downgrade to one shoe?

III. WAIT & WAIST

WOW! He’s droning on about bikeshed designs during our nuclear power plant meeting. What impressive rule breaking!

…is a rather unlikely sentence to hear at your monthly meeting of the “Royal Society for the Astute Advancement of Atomic Affairs & Analytical Assessment (RSAAAAAA)”. Because rambling is typically seen as a negative deviance. It signals low competence and poor social awareness. Not confident nonconformity.

Our hapless rule breaker forgot two simple checks:

• WAIT — Why Am I Talking?

• WAIST — Why Am I Still Talking?

These questions act as a built-in regulator for talkativeness. They also align with Robert Greene’s power law to always say less than necessary.

Bottom line: rule-breaking tends to work when it looks intentional, fits the context and is backed by real competence. Otherwise, you’re just the chatty red-sneakers-guy. 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Strategic Inaction

Strategic Inaction is the principle behind what late investor Charlie Munger called the “Too Hard Pile”:

I have a pile on my desk that solves most of my problems. It’s called the Too Hard Pile. And I just keep shifting things to the Too Hard Pile.

Every once in a while, an easy decision comes along and I make it. That’s my system. Everything goes to the Too Hard Pile — except for a few easy decisions which I make promptly.

It sounds like he was joking, but Munger was completely serious. The strategy is to deliberately avoid overly complex decisions while acting on the few clear, easy opportunities. It’s a focus on high-quality decisions over sheer activity. And maybe, with more skill and experience, the Too Hard Pile one day solves itself.

II. Satisficing

You don’t always get the optimal solution out of a decision. And by “not always”, I mean never. Pretty much. That’s why it’s useful to know about Satisficing.

This is a decision-making strategy that aims for a satisfactory or adequate result, rather than the optimal solution. It’s often used because aiming for the optimal solution may mean the expenditure of time, energy and resources (that sometimes you cannot afford). It can also be the case that the optimal solution is not identifiable — i.e. that finding the absolute best of all possible options is so complex that it can’t be done — or in some cases, it is a means of maintaining group status quo (i.e. finding a solution that everyone can agree to).

—A Simple Handbook for Non-Traditional Red Teaming

Sometimes, the issue is that there are only bad options, as this exchange from the espionage thriller Argo (2012) illustrates. The movie is about the CIA trying to exfiltrate Americans out of Iran in the late 1970s by posing as filmmakers shooting a science fiction movie. This is how they pitch the idea to the director of the CIA:

“There are only bad options. It’s about finding the best one.”

“You don’t have a better bad idea than this?”

“This is the best bad idea we have, sir. By far.”

III. Decision Ownership Principle

When making decisions on someone else’s advice, it pays to remember the Decision Ownership Principle. Variations of this idea have been echoed by thinkers like Richard Feynman, Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Seneca:

You’re under no obligation to base your decisions on the advice of those people who don’t have to deal with the results.

So don’t blindly trust advice from some bloke penning newsletters about decision-making on the other side of the world. He won’t have to live with the consequences.

But hey — please subscribe. :) 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Permission Tunnel

In IT, a Permission Tunnel is like a “Trojan horse” for access rights. Instead of asking for high-level admin power that triggers alarms, an attacker secures tiny, low-risk permissions: “I just need access to that printer folder. No big deal.” Once that “tunnel” is approved and trusted, it’s used as a bridge to sneak through more dangerous commands or harvest sensitive data.

In daily life, you see this in the shape of the Foot-In-The-Door Technique. A colleague might ask to be “just cc’d” on a minor project for “visibility”. No big deal. But they’ve built a legitimate pathway into your workflow. Later, they use that established presence for nefarious purposes. Weigh in on a major decision. Claim credit for it. Expand their influence. Take over your project. Drive you out of the job. Move into your house…

You get the point. But don’t fall for the Deception Dilemma. Not everyone asking to be cc’d in an Email is after your job. I think.

II. Permission Structure

A Permission Structure is a way of allowing people to change their minds without losing face. People often hesitate not because they don’t want something, but because they’re unsure if it’s “okay” to go for it. A permission structure removes that friction by signalling that the behaviour fits the situation.

In practice, it’s a matter of Framing. You give someone a reason that legitimises the action. This could be timing, norms or shared expectations:

Many people in your situation are now buying a second Lamborghini.

I once thought like you. But then I learned that, with all that new tech, you can drive one and have the other drive itself.

Giving people a Permission Structure reduces perceived risk and makes the decision feel natural instead of pushy or awkward. As long as you keep the reasons practical and realistic.

III. Forgiveness/Permission Principle

It’s often easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

—Grace Hopper

I’m sure you’ve run into this idea attributed to computer programming pioneer Grace Hopper. Whether at work or in everyday life, instead of waiting around for approval, you take action and deal with the consequences if they come. It’s less about being reckless and more about not getting stuck in endless hesitation.

Why does it work? Asking for permission creates friction. People default to caution, delay, or outright “no”. But once something is already done (especially if it works), others are much more likely to accept it or go along with it. Had you asked first and got a “no”, this opportunity would have been gone.

Of course, this only makes sense when the downside is limited. If the cost of being wrong is small and reversible, acting first can save a lot of time. But when the stakes are high, irreversible and could damage trust, asking first is probably the smarter move. 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Contagion Heuristic

Consider the following experiment. You’re asked to take a sip from a glass of juice/water. So far, so refreshing. But now the researcher asks you:

I have here in this container some sterilized cockroaches. We bought some cockroaches from a laboratory supply company [show box and label]. The roaches were raised in a clean environment. But just to be certain, we sterilized the roach again in an autoclave, which heats everything so hot that no germs can survive. I’m going to dip this cockroach into the juice/water, like this. Now, would you take a sip of the juice/water?

Probably not, and the reason is the Contagion Heuristic working in your brain. It follows the Law of Contagion and goes something like this:

Once two things come into contact, they are believed to transfer some essence to each other — even after the contact is over.

Despite being told that the roach is sterilised and the juice is perfectly safe, the mind treats the contact as permanently tainting it. The reaction is driven by disgust, not by beliefs about actual physical danger. Logical reassurance doesn’t remove the feeling. The same mental rule easily extends beyond food to people and ideas.

II. Moral Contagion

Moral Contagion is the intuitive feeling that once two people or things have been in contact, some kind of invisible connection sticks around. It’s not about biology or germs. It’s a gut-level sense that something has picked up an “essence” from what it touched. This idea shows up a lot in everyday judgments, especially when we’re dealing with things we find morally questionable.

Research in moral psychology suggests that we treat moral and ideological views a bit like pathogens. Ideas can start to feel “tainted” just because of where they came from or who they’re associated with. So instead of evaluating a statement on its own merits, people often react to its perceived origin.

You’d probably feel uneasy wearing a sweater owned by a criminal or engaging with ideas associated with people you despise the most. In each case, the mind treats contact as transferring an invisible moral or symbolic contamination, not just a physical one.

III. Contagion of Virtue

Good behaviour can be contagious, too. Just like a yawn or a laugh spreads through a group, acts of kindness, cooperation or generosity can ripple through social networks. When someone does something virtuous, it can subtly influence friends, family and strangers to act in the same way.

This is called the Contagion of Virtue. It’s the idea that moral qualities, not just moods, can spread from person to person. Seeing someone help, share or stand up for what’s right can trigger a similar response in others.

The exciting part is that virtue doesn’t stay confined to one person. Every small act of goodness has the potential to multiply, inspiring a chain reaction of positive behaviour. So go ahead! Shake hands with your enemies and offer them a refreshing glass of your finest juice/water.

Source: The Social Contagion of Virtue

🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Is-a-Has-a-Error

In complex systems, a common thinking mistake is the Is-a-Has-a Error. “Is-a” defines what something fundamentally is (a dog is an animal), while “has-a” describes something it merely contains or uses (a dog has a collar). That distinction sounds trivial. But when designers blur it, systems can end up assigning authority to the wrong component.

Take aviation. An aircraft has an autopilot, but it is not an autopilot. The autopilot is just one optional control system. When software is designed as if the aircraft is basically an autopilot system, control logic flips. Automation may still be treated as authoritative even when it’s disengaged, while manual pilot inputs are partially ignored.

Occasionally, you may even want to remind yourself that you are not your job. You merely have one, meaning it’s one part of your life and not your entire identity.

II. Reification

Reification is what happens when we start treating an abstract idea like it’s a concrete thing you could point to or put on a table. Our brains naturally like to think in terms of “things”, so we often turn processes or relationships into objects without noticing. It’s a shortcut that makes complex reality easier to talk about.

An everyday example is when someone says, “Stress is attacking me lately.” Stress isn’t actually a physical force doing something. It’s a word for a pattern of bodily and psychological responses. But talking about it like an external thing with its own agency makes it feel more tangible and easier to communicate.

Once you notice the habit of Reification, you start seeing it everywhere…

III. Ultimate Attribution Error

The Ultimate Attribution Error is your mind’s built-in PR team working overtime. [See what I did there?] We attribute negative actions of out-group members to their character while attributing their positive actions to situational factors (and vice versa for our-group members).

Let’s say someone on your side does something good. Your brain immediately writes a glowing character reference: “See? Bob is smart, kind and competent. Bob’s a legend.” But when the same person messes up, the story changes instantly: “That’s just because of all the stress that’s been attacking Bob lately.”

However, if someone we dislike does something admirable, we suddenly become master minimisers: “Well, Ben was just lucky,” or “Anyone could’ve done that”. But when Ben screws up? That was no accident. Now it’s treated as a window into his deep, flawed soul. One mistake becomes proof of “what Ben’s really like”.

What makes this error especially sneaky is how natural it seems. It doesn’t feel like Confirmation Bias, it feels like common sense. In reality, you’re running two completely different explanation systems at the same time. A generous, context-sensitive one for “us”. And a harsh, personality-based one for “them”. So don’t let your internal PR team go rogue. It’s supposed to serve you, not take over. 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Strategic Ignorance

Sometimes it’s better not to know. Or to play dumb. It’s not about being uninformed by accident. It’s Strategic Ignorance, choosing to stay clueless about something to avoid stress, responsibility or distractions so you can stay focused on what matters to you.

In its performative form, it shows up as the Columbo Method, named after the TV detective Columbo. His shtick was to act awkward and clueless around suspects. Once they lowered their guard, he would ask a seemingly naive but precise Gretchen Question that pushed them to reveal too much.

In its clumsy form, Strategic Ignorance is easy to spot. Even when faced with clear evidence, someone keeps pretending not to understand or denies awareness. Instead of protecting them, this usually backfires. They lose credibility because the ignorance no longer looks strategic, just dishonest.

What they need is…

II. Plausible Deniability

Plausible Deniability is the ability to say “I didn’t know” and have it sound believable. It usually works because there’s no clear evidence that you did know, even if you were involved somehow. Unlike simple ignorance, this is often prearranged. People keep a certain distance from information so they can deny responsibility later if needed.

You’ll often see this in politics (of all places). A politician might avoid being directly informed about questionable decisions, so if things go wrong, they can honestly claim they weren’t aware. The key is that the denial has to be plausible. There needs to be just enough separation between the person and the action to make the claim believable.

In small doses, it can be a practical way to manage risk. But overused, it erodes trust. Plus, what does it say about a leader if he or she doesn’t know what’s going on under his or her leadership? If people sense that someone is trying not to know, the whole thing starts to fall apart. It no longer sounds plausible, just convenient.

III. Sanity Through Ignorance

Ignorance can also be clarity and even sanity, as British rascal extraordinaire Alan Watts explains:

We also speak of attention as noticing. To notice is to select, to regard some bits of perception, or some features of the world, as more noteworthy, more significant, than others. To these we attend, and the rest we ignore — for which reason conscious attention is at the same time ignore-ance (i.e., ignorance) despite the fact that it gives us a vividly clear picture of whatever we choose to notice.

—Alan Watts

🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Fortune Cookie Fallacy

A pleasant surprise is waiting for you.

The Fortune Cookie Fallacy is when a statement feels very personal and insightful, but is actually so vague that it could apply to anyone. Such as the line above. It sounds specific, so your brain automatically connects it to your own life and fills in the details. You could be lost on a hike, starving to death in a cave somewhere in the mountains. But hey, that last ray of sunshine before you go to sleep. What a pleasant surprise!

This ties directly to the Barnum (or Forer) Effect, which is a psychological tendency where people rate general, broad personality descriptions as highly accurate for themselves. In a famous experiment, people were given the exact same personality profile. Most thought it was uniquely tailored to them. The trick works because the statements are mostly positive, flexible and hard to disprove.

It reminded me of the Narrative Fallacy and an unpleasant surprise that’s supposedly awaiting a dog…

II. Scheinriese

The Scheinriese (“apparent giant”) is an idea from Jim Button and Luke the Engine Driver, a German children’s novel by Michael Ende. The supposed giant is a figure who looks terrifyingly huge from far away. But the closer you get, the smaller and more ordinary he becomes. His size is an illusion created by distance, not reality.

It’s a metaphor, of course, but for what? The Scheinriese represents problems, fears or authority figures that appear overwhelming when they are abstract or distant. As long as you observe them from afar. Perhaps through rumour or vivid imagination. Direct engagement collapses the illusion and reveals a manageable reality.

Have you ever applied for a new job, wondering if you could live up to the professionalism and competence at your new workplace? Once you’re in the company, you realise most of your colleagues just put on their pants the same way as you. And some even backwards. You start to see that the Scheinriese isn’t defeated by force or insight, only by approaching him. Distance amplifies fear, proximity reduces it.

III. Placebo Buttons

Sometimes the feeling of control is more satisfying than actual control.

That’s why we have Placebo Buttons. Placebo Buttons are those satisfying little controls that look like they do something important. But actually don’t. A classic example is the “close door” button in many elevators. You press it with determination, expecting instant results, when in reality it’s often disconnected or overridden by automatic timing.

They exist because humans don’t like feeling powerless, especially when waiting. People seem to feel calmer and less frustrated when they think they can influence a system. So instead of removing the button entirely (which would annoy people more), designers sometimes leave it there as a psychological pressure valve.

In a way, Placebo Buttons are like the physical cousin of the fortune cookie. They don’t change reality, but they change how you feel about it. You press, you wait, you feel proactive. And the door still closes at its own convenience.

Now, remember the pleasant surprise awaiting you? Here are some buttons that actually do something. 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Time Inconsistency

The problem with unexpected guests is that they arrive unexpectedly. And then you realise you have nothing to offer them. The Horror! So you go to the supermarket to buy a box of chocolate to store away for the occasion. That’s the plan. And it falls apart as soon as you get home. The reason is time-inconsistent decision-making.

Time Inconsistency is when a plan that feels like the best choice today no longer feels like the best choice as soon as it’s set in motion. Your preferences shift over time. You might sincerely intend to do one thing for the future, but when the future becomes the present, you end up wanting something different. Usually, something more immediately rewarding. Like wolfing down that box of chocolate yourself.

Nothing external has changed, except your priorities. It’s why introducing…say… pervasive surveillance laws with the justification that they would only be used against criminals is a Slippery Slope.

Source: Prof. Dr. Christian Rieck, The tricks of politicians (with Strategem 16)

II. Thought-Terminating Clichés

This is Berlin.

…is my favourite example of a Thought-Terminating Cliché. Chronic filth and graffiti in public places? This is Berlin. Normalised rudeness and hostility? This is Berlin. Sidewalks doubling as dog toilets? This is Berlin, mate.

The underlying message is to encourage you to stop complaining and “get all the way off my back” about this. In other words, to normalise things that would be unacceptable elsewhere.

In general, the purpose of Thought-Terminating Clichés is to shut down critical thinking by offering a socially acceptable phrase that ends discussion without resolving the underlying issue. But what can you do? It is what it is.

III. Interpretative Dominance

It doesn’t matter if you’re right; what matters is who gets to interpret reality their way. This is the essence of Interpretative Dominance (or as the Germans call it: Soziale Deutungshoheit).

In society, certain people or groups get to define how events, behaviours or situations are interpreted. It’s not just about who says something first. It’s about whose version of reality becomes accepted as the “official” or dominant one. Think of it as a kind of influence over what counts as “the truth” in social discussions.

Say you’ve gotten into an argument at work. You may have objectively just criticised your colleague. But now the office engages in a game called Russell Conjugation. You say you “criticised”, your colleague says you “insulted”, HR says you “denigrated”. It doesn’t matter if you’re right; what matters is whose version will become the generally accepted reality.

The good news is that it doesn’t have to be permanent. If enough people challenge the dominant interpretation and offer a compelling alternative, the social narrative can shift. 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

I. Halo Effect

Alan: intelligent — industrious — impulsive — critical — stubborn — envious

Ben: envious — stubborn — critical — impulsive — industrious — intelligent

Who would you consider more likable? Alan or Ben? As this example by famous psychologist Solomon Asch demonstrates, our judgments often depend on the traits we initially associate with someone.

This is due to the Halo Effect, which causes our initial impression to shape how all other traits are perceived. Daniel Kahneman, the author of Thinking, Fast and Slow, refers to it as exaggerated emotional coherence. An initial positive opinion about one characteristic may lead us to also judge the same person positively in a different area:

The stubborness of an intelligent person is seen as likely to be justified and may actually evoke respect, but intelligence in an envious and stubborn person makes him more dangerous.

—Daniel Kahneman

That’s why Alan seems so easy to get along with. Not like that envious prick Ben, who has all the same traits, just in reverse.

II. Horn Effect

Ben is also judged by his colleagues through a Horn Effect lens, because negative impressions do the same in the opposite direction. A single notable negative trait can taint our opinion about someone entirely. One visible failure, let’s say Ben making negative remarks about Peter’s promotion, is treated as diagnostic of his character.

An awkward first interaction causes someone to be judged as unintelligent, unreliable or unpleasant in general. Subsequent neutral or positive behaviour is discounted or reinterpreted to fit the negative frame.

The Horn Effect is especially devastating in hierarchical systems. Once a negative label is attached, scrutiny increases, errors are remembered and successes are minimised. Ben’s trapped in a self-reinforcing loop that is difficult to escape.

III. Contrast Effect

Ben’s perceived character can also be influenced by the Contrast Effect. This occurs when our judgment of someone is shaped by comparing them to others, rather than by their traits alone. Ben might seem worse or better depending on who we evaluate him against.

For example, if Ben is introduced immediately after a highly competent and friendly colleague, his envious or critical traits may appear even more pronounced. Conversely, if he follows someone rude or careless, the same behaviour may seem less negative, or even relatively acceptable. Truth be told, that never happens to poor Ben.

The contrast effect highlights that our impressions are not formed in isolation. Perception depends on context. Ben’s reputation can shift dramatically simply based on who else is present at the time. 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com

P.S.: Ben has since landed a high-paying job at a behavioural research lab specialising in bias and decision-making. He’s admired by everyone and lives a quiet life with his wife and three kids on a vineyard in Southern France.

I. Belief Perseverance

Early in the flight, your pilot is convinced that a minor instrument anomaly is harmless. As the flight continues, readings that appear normal are taken as confirmation. Any warnings are explained away as glitches or turbulence. Even when several indicators begin to diverge, the initial assumption stays the same: “It’ll be fine.”

This is Belief Perseverance. Once a conclusion is formed, incoming information is interpreted in ways that preserve it. Data that aligns with the belief is weighted heavily. Data that conflicts with it is discounted, reclassified or ignored. The belief becomes the reference point against which evidence is judged.

But how was this initial conviction formed to begin with? According to Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt, it’s mostly just a feeling. The good news is your plane landed safely because aviation procedures are designed to catch and correct such flawed thinking.

II. Misapplied Trial and Error

Don’t give up already! You haven’t even tried!

In many contexts, that’s an understandable reaction to someone refusing to use the Trial & Error Heuristic as a problem-solving strategy. I guess that’s why it drives me up the wall when people misapply it. Misapplied Trial and Error happens when someone insists on “learning by doing” in a situation where the outcome is already predictable.

Why treat a multi-million dollar flight deck like a broken vending machine when pushing random buttons during an aircraft emergency will likely get you crashed faster than doing nothing at all? What’s the point of trying to back up into a 5-foot parking space when you already know your 6-foot truck won’t fit?

Trial & Error is valuable unless the result is foreseeable, or the consequences of failure are irreversible or too severe.

III. Finding the Edge

That doesn’t keep us from arguing a lost cause while others try to reason us out of it. Philosopher Alan Watts had a way of explaining why argument fails against conviction.

People can’t be talked out of illusions. If a person believes that the earth is flat, you can’t talk him out of that, he knows that it’s flat. He’ll go down to the window and see that its obvious, it looks flat. So the only way to convince him that it isn’t is to say, “Well let’s go and find the edge”.

—Alan Watts

Conviction does not tend to collapse under argument, only under experience that reaches the belief’s own boundary conditions. Sometimes you just have to squeeze your 6-foot truck into that 5-foot parking space to come back to sanity. 🐘

Share

Subscribe now

Have a great week,

Chris
themindcollection.com