Category: Authors

Categories
Authors Writing

Write Till You Drop

An atmospheric evening scene shows a writer's desk lit by a warm lamp, featuring stacks of paper, books, and an empty coffee cup, while a large metal safe stands open nearby.

Annie Dillard died on Tuesday, September 15, at her home in South Wellfleet, Massachusetts. She was 81.

I have been reading her for years, and I keep returning to her because she makes writing feel both more serious and more alive. She was demanding without turning grim. She reminded you that the work is hard, then made you want to sit down and do it anyway.

Her essay “Write Till You Drop,” published in The New York Times in May 1989 and collected in The Writing Life, contains more useful advice about writing than many books on the subject. The line I remember first is this one: “You were made and set here to give voice to this, your own astonishment.” That seems to me the whole assignment. Pay attention to what stops you. Find the thing you cannot quite explain. Then try to give it a voice.

Dillard tells of a student asking a well-known writer, “Do you think I could be a writer?” The writer asks back, “Well, do you like sentences?” What a perfect answer. Writing begins there—not with wanting to be a writer, but with liking sentences enough to make them, take them apart, and make them again.

I have been blogging since 2001. Over that time I have written thousands of sentences, some better than others. The blog has been a way of noticing what I notice. It has also taught me that the only reliable way to keep writing is to write. Not to wait for a grand subject or a clear runway. Just begin with the thing at hand and see where the sentences lead.

Dillard is especially good on the danger of saving things. “Spend it all, shoot it, play it, lose it, all, right away, every time,” she writes. Do not hold back the best image, the sharpest thought, or the story you think belongs somewhere more important. Use it now. If you lock it away, she warns, you may open the safe later and find ashes.

That lands differently for me now. I recently started keeping a list of words and phrases I love, after reading that Susan Orlean has long done the same. I like the habit. It sharpens attention. But Dillard would probably lean over my shoulder and say: Good. Now spend them. A list is not the work. The words have to leave the safe.

The same is true of the book I am working on about Interstate 280. It is a long project, full of engineering, politics, landscape, memory, and side roads that keep turning into stories of their own. A smaller treatment might be easier. But Dillard has an answer for that, too: “It is no less difficult to write sentences in a recipe than sentences in Moby-Dick. So you might as well write Moby-Dick.”

She says a writer should play the edges of the field, like a tennis player who reaches for the shots that land at the lines. That feels right for the I-280 book. The highway is the center of the court, but much of the life is at the edges: a dam, a billboard that is not there, a ridge preserved from development, an engineer whose name has nearly disappeared. Those are the shots worth chasing.

Dillard closes with Michelangelo’s note to an apprentice: “Draw, Antonio, draw, Antonio, draw and do not waste time.” That is not complicated advice. Neither is her deeper promise: “No manipulation is possible in a work of art, but every miracle is.”

I keep a folder for the I-280 book. It is getting fat: a dam, a billboard that is not there anymore, a ridge somebody fought to preserve, an engineer whose name I have to look up every time. None of it is spent yet. Dillard would want to know what I am waiting for.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models AI: Transformers Authors Podcasts Writing

The Billboard

The fog was still sitting on the hills when I put in my earbuds and headed out.

Sebastian Mallaby was talking about billboards.

Tim Ferriss had asked him the question he asks everyone: if you could put anything up there, for millions of people to see, what would it be? Mallaby has spent years inside the minds of the people who shaped modern finance — the hedge fund managers, the venture capitalists, the builders of things that changed how the world moves money. He has more material than most people accumulate in a lifetime. He could have said anything.

He said: Prepare your mind.

I kept walking. The houses were quiet in the particular way they get when school lets out for summer — no buses, no car doors, no kids at the corner. Somebody’s sprinklers were running.

The phrase comes originally from Louis Pasteur, who understood something that most people don’t: that chance is not democratic. It does not distribute itself evenly among those who wait. It finds the people who are ready. Chance favors the prepared mind. Pasteur said it, and then he proved it, and then the rest of us spent a century and a half learning it was true.

What struck me about Mallaby’s answer wasn’t the phrase itself. It was the way he said it had kept appearing in his research, surfacing in different decades and different worlds, like a message the material kept trying to send him.

He told the story of Arthur Patterson at Accel Capital. Before a new technology arrived, Accel would work through the implications — what company needs to be built, what founder fits the moment, what the right pitch looks like. So when an entrepreneur finally walked in, when the situation was live and competitive, they already knew ninety percent of what they were hearing. They could move fast because they had already moved slow.

That’s preparation as institutional practice. But Mallaby found the phrase again in a different register entirely, embedded in a single human moment that has always seemed to me like one of the hinge points of our era.

He was interviewing Ilya Sutskever, asking him why he had seen it so quickly.

In 2017, a paper called Attention Is All You Need appeared online. It described a new architecture for neural networks — the transformer — that would eventually rewrite the terms of what artificial intelligence could do. On the day the paper went up, Sutskever read it. And then he ran. He went down the corridor to find his collaborator Alex Radford and told him to stop what he was doing. Everything. Stop. We are going to build a language model on this architecture.

Not someday. Now.

Mallaby asked him how he had seen it so clearly, so fast. And Sutskever’s answer, in its essence, was the same two words: prepared mind.

He had been thinking about the problem of modeling sequential data since his PhD in Canada. For years he had been carrying a question the field hadn’t answered yet. And when the answer appeared — when the transformer showed up on a website one ordinary day — he didn’t have to reason his way toward it. He recognized it. The solution arrived and found a mind that had been waiting for it, that had already cleared space for it, that was already arranged around the shape of exactly this kind of answer.

This is what preparation actually is. Not the accumulation of facts. Not readiness in the generic sense, the vague self-improvement sense. It is the long, patient cultivation of a specific question, held close and kept alive until the answer has somewhere to land.

Mallaby chose that phrase for his billboard because it kept finding him — in the venture capital world, in the AI world, across decades and disciplines and very different kinds of genius. The prepared mind is not a personality trait. It is a practice. It is the work you do before the work arrives.

The sprinklers had clicked off by the time I turned back toward home. The fog was starting to lift off the hills. I was thinking about what I had been preparing for, whether I even knew.

Categories
Authors Books

More John McPhee

Yesterday I shared a list of John McPhee paperbacks that are in our home library. Using Google Gemini I had it prepare a list of the books from a photo I had taken of the stack of books.

Today as I was on my morning walk listening to an Economist podcast about de Tocqueville in America, it dawned on me that I should come back to Gemini and ask it for a ranked list of McPhee books that I should consider adding to our home library. Here is the prompt I used:

Now give me a list of his books that I don’t own. Rank the list based on recommendations. Include the same info as before.

Here is that list – useful the next time I’m at a used bookstore!

Recommended John McPhee Books (Not in Your Stack)

This curated list ranks the best books by John McPhee that are missing from your current home library. It prioritizes his most historically significant, critically acclaimed, and widely loved masterpieces.

1. Annals of the Former World

Year Published: 1998

Summary: This monumental, 700-page epic is the culmination of twenty years of research and travel alongside geological experts. It traces the deep geological history of the North American continent along the Interstate 80 corridor. The book is actually a compilation of five smaller works (Basin and Range, In Suspect Terrain, Rising from the Plains, Assembling California, and Crossing the Craton), tracking plate tectonics, mountain building, glaciers, and deep time.

How Reviewed: Widely considered McPhee’s magnum opus, it won the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction. Critics universally praised it for taking what is traditionally considered a “dry” science and turning it into a gripping, human, and philosophically profound narrative about the Earth’s violent history.

An Interesting Story: McPhee originally estimated the geology project would take him about one to two years. It ended up consuming two decades of his life. Because geologists make notoriously distracted drivers—constantly swerving across highway lanes to examine exposed rock formations on roadcuts—McPhee had to do most of the driving during their cross-country road trips just to keep them safe.

2. Coming into the Country

Year Published: 1977

Summary: An extraordinary three-part portrait of Alaska during a chaotic, pivotal era in the 1970s. The first part covers a dangerous, pristine wilderness canoe trip down the Salmon River in the Brooks Range. The second details the political gridlock of trying to establish a new state capital. The third and longest section is an intimate look at the rugged, eccentric, and fiercely independent settlers of the remote gold-rush town of Eagle near the Yukon border.

How Reviewed: A massive bestseller and critical triumph. It is universally regarded as one of the greatest books ever written about Alaska, capturing both the staggering scale of the wilderness and the complex, headstrong psychology of the people who flee to it.

An Interesting Story: While documenting the remote lives of wilderness settlers, McPhee met a man living in a cabin who had survived a brutal sub-zero winter with almost no food. At one point, the man’s entire remaining winter rations consisted of a single, frozen head of cabbage. McPhee’s meticulous fact-checkers at The New Yorker tracked down the source to verify the exact status and size of the cabbage before they would let him publish the story.

3. The Pine Barrens

Year Published: 1968

Summary: An exploration of a sprawling, million-acre wilderness of pitch pines, cedar swamps, and sandy aquifers hidden in the middle of heavily urbanized New Jersey. McPhee describes the unique ecology of the area and profiles the isolated, self-reliant residents—traditionally called “Pineys”—who lived off the land by gathering cranberries, digging bog iron, and hunting.

How Reviewed: A classic of regional literature and early environmental journalism. It was praised for exposing a secret, beautiful world right in the backyard of the busy East Coast, and it is widely credited with helping to spark the political movement that ultimately federally protected the region.

An Interesting Story: At the time McPhee wrote the book, there were major state plans to pave over the Pine Barrens to build a massive, multi-runway international jetport and a brand new city of 250,000 people. McPhee’s beautifully written, highly sympathetic portrait of the area’s quiet wilderness and historic communities turned public opinion so heavily against the developers that the entire project was permanently scrapped.

4. Levels of the Game

Year Published: 1969

Summary: A masterclass in narrative structure. The book is framed entirely around a single semi-final tennis match played at the 1968 US Open at Forest Hills between Arthur Ashe and Clark Graebner. As the play-by-play of the match unfolds stroke-by-stroke, McPhee weaves in the biographies of the two young men, demonstrating how their family backgrounds, races, and political worldviews directly dictate the way they play tennis.

How Reviewed: Frequently cited by sportswriters as one of the greatest sports books ever written. Critics were mesmerized by how McPhee transformed a simple, brief tennis match into a brilliant, microscopic psychological study of two contrasting Americas in the late 1960s.

An Interesting Story: The book’s structure is incredibly tight—there are no chapters or headers; it reads as one continuous, unbroken volley of text from the first serve to the final match point. Because the manuscript was so structurally dependent on the exact sequence of tennis play, McPhee had to build a massive physical storyboard using index cards on his dining room table to track the score of the match alongside his biographical flashbacks.

5. Encounters with the Archdruid

Year Published: 1971

Summary: A brilliant structural experiment in narrative journalism. The book profiles David Brower, the passionately uncompromising executive director of the Sierra Club (whom his adversaries mockingly called “the Archdruid”). McPhee takes Brower on three separate wilderness expeditions, pairing him on each trip with one of his primary ideological enemies: a mineral engineer in the North Cascades, a resort developer on a pristine Georgia barrier island, and a dam-building commissioner in the depths of the Grand Canyon.

How Reviewed: Highly praised for its absolute neutrality. Instead of taking a side, McPhee steps back and allows both sides of the environmental debate to articulate their values in real-time as they hike, raft, and camp together.

An Interesting Story: During the Grand Canyon rafting trip, David Brower and his fierce ideological opponent, Floyd Dominy (the commissioner responsible for constructing major western dams), were forced to share a tiny rubber raft through dangerous, churning whitewater rapids. Dominy, a tough-talking Westerner, was terrified of the water. Brower, despite hating Dominy’s dams, quietly guided the raft safely through the rapids, forging a brief, surreal moment of mutual respect between the two bitter enemies.

6. Draft No. 4: On the Writing Process

Year Published: 2017

Summary: A masterclass handbook on the art and craft of nonfiction writing. Pulling from his decades of writing for The New Yorker and his legendary writing seminars at Princeton University, McPhee reveals his highly structured, sometimes eccentric methodology for conducting interviews, organizing mountains of research, drawing structural diagrams, and editing drafts.

How Reviewed: Celebrated as an instant classic for writers, students, and journalists. Reviewers loved the book’s warm, humble, and practical advice, combined with hilarious behind-the-scenes anecdotes of the editing world.

An Interesting Story: McPhee reveals that during his early career, he suffered from such severe writer’s block that he would literally tie himself to his office chair with a bathrobe sash to force himself to stay at his desk and type. He also details his “search-and-replace” editing method: on his fourth draft, he reads his work with a dictionary, finding any word that feels slightly lazy or uninspired, circling it, and listing dozens of synonyms beneath it until he finds the perfect match.

Categories
Authors Books Maintenance

The Maintenance of Everything

I’ve been listening to a conversation between Stewart Brand and Ezra Klein, recorded to accompany Brand’s new book on maintenance. At one point Brand reaches back to 1908, to a contrast so clean it feels almost constructed: the Ford Model T and the Rolls-Royce, both introduced in the same year, representing two entirely different philosophies about what a made thing is supposed to be.

The Rolls-Royce was an argument for resolution. Built to a standard so exacting that the implicit promise was permanence — here is a finished object, complete, requiring nothing further from you except appreciation. The Model T was something else. It was a platform. Incomplete by design. Ford’s bet wasn’t on perfection; it was on adaptability. The car would haul grain or pump water or pull stumps, depending on what you attached to it. It would break. You would fix it. That was the relationship.

I know which car I drove.

In the early seventies I owned a VW Bug, and somewhere in the orbit of the Whole Earth Catalog I found a book called How to Keep Your Volkswagen Alive. It was written by a man named John Muir — not the naturalist, a different one — and it was unlike any repair manual I’d encountered. It spoke to you directly. It assumed you were capable. It had illustrations that looked hand-drawn because they were. It said, in effect: this car will need tending, and you are the person who will tend it, and here is what you need to know.

I learned to do things with that book I had no business doing. I learned because the car kept asking. Every fix revealed the next thing that needed attention. There was no arrival point, no moment when the car was finished. There was only the ongoing conversation between me and the machine — me sitting on the ground back by the engine, the book open on the pavement beside me, both of us getting a little dirty.

Brand’s argument, as I understand it, is that we’ve lost something in our preference for the Rolls-Royce model. We’ve come to see maintenance as the shadow side of ownership — the tax, the obligation, the evidence that the thing wasn’t perfect to begin with. We want objects, relationships, careers, selves that hold their shape without further input from us. We want to arrive.

But the Model T knew something the Rolls-Royce didn’t. The tending is the thing. Not a concession to imperfection. Not an interruption of the good parts. The relationship between the owner and the maintained object is where the real ownership lives — in the calluses, the grease, the Saturday afternoons with the manual open on the ground.

I’ve been thinking about this in a different context lately. A lot of people are now building out personal AI systems — assembling suites of skills and automations that handle what someone recently called the “donkey work” of knowledge labor. The tools involved, Claude Cowork among them, don’t arrive finished. They arrive as platforms. You extend them, adapt them, maintain them. The person who builds out a working suite becomes a different kind of owner than someone who just uses a polished app — they understand the machine because they’ve had their hands in it. Every skill added reveals the next thing that needs attention. The conversation between owner and tool is where the real capability lives.

Brand would recognize the lineage. The Whole Earth Catalog was an early attempt to give people the tools and knowledge to build their own platforms — to opt out of the Rolls-Royce consumer relationship and into something more generative and self-reliant. There’s a strange digital echo of that impulse in what people are building now, fifty years later, with entirely different materials and the same underlying instinct.

I don’t still have the book. I wish I did. But I’m still the kind of person who’d rather sit on the ground with a manual than just ride in the back.

Categories
Authors Books Business

The Whetstone of the Box

Give a team an unlimited budget and no deadline, and you almost guarantee their project will never ship. We spend our careers fighting for more runway, more resources, and a completely clear calendar, convinced that absolute freedom is the prerequisite for great work. Yet, when the walls finally fall away, we usually just freeze.

David Epstein’s upcoming book, Inside the Box, circles this exact paradox. His premise, arriving in early May, is that constraints do not diminish our capabilities; they forge them. We spend so much of our lives trying to escape boundaries, failing to recognize that those very boundaries are what give our efforts shape.

I think about the early days of writing code. We were working with severe memory limits—kilobytes, not gigabytes. Every line had to justify its existence. There was no room for bloat, no excess capacity to mask sloppy logic. It felt restrictive at the time, like trying to build a ship inside a bottle.

But that unforgiving physical boundary forced a ruthless elegance. You had to understand exactly what you were trying to accomplish. The constraint wasn’t an obstacle to the work; it was the whetstone that sharpened the blade.

We see this everywhere, once we learn to look for it. A photographer framing a shot with a fixed prime lens cannot rely on a zoom ring to find the picture; they have to physically move their feet. The limitation forces engagement with the physical world. Without the walls of a canyon, a river is just a swamp. It is the restriction that creates the momentum.

Epstein’s focus on how constraints make us better feels like a necessary corrective right now. We live in an era of infinite leverage and boundless digital canvases. The friction has been removed from almost everything we do.

But friction is where the traction lives. When we strip away all our limits, we don’t gain wings; we just lose our footing. We need the edges of the box to know exactly where we stand.

Categories
Authors

Tracy Kidder and the Human Code

Tracy Kidder died yesterday, March 24th, of lung cancer. He was 80.

I’ve been sitting with that quiet, heavy fact for a few hours now, staring at the screen, thinking about what his work meant to me—and specifically, about the enduring legacy of The Soul of a New Machine.

On its surface, the book is a chronicle of a team of engineers and coders at Data General Corporation, racing against the clock in the early 1980s to build a 32-bit minicomputer. If you haven’t read it, that description likely sounds like the synopsis for a dry technical manual. It is, gloriously, anything but.

What Kidder did—what hit me with such force when I first turned those pages—was capture the raw, unvarnished pulse of human obsession. He didn’t just document the architecture of a machine; he mapped the architecture of the minds building it. He translated the late-night pizza runs, the bloodshot eyes, the tribal hierarchies of the engineering floor, and the strange, almost religious fervor that overtakes people when they are creating something they profoundly believe in.

He called it:

“An adventure story, a kind of cultural anthropology.”

That is exactly right.

He ventured into a world most journalists would have fumbled or fundamentally misunderstood.

The early computer industry was hyper-technical, fiercely insular, full of impenetrable jargon, and populated by brilliant minds who regarded outsiders with a polite, if dismissive, suspicion.

But Kidder didn’t blink. He embedded himself. His deep reporting and novelistic prose illuminated the basement labs of tech just as deftly as he later illuminated home construction and global disease prevention. He held a fundamental trust that the human drama playing out inside the sterile machine room was worth finding. And he found it.

Reading Soul as someone who has spent years orbiting technology, I continually find myself marveling at a different kind of engineering: how does a writer actually do this? How do you make the arcane feel intimate?

As one reviewer aptly noted at the time, “Kidder makes the telling seem absolutely effortless.” Which is, of course, the ultimate tell. Effortless prose is always the product of staggering effort.

A friend once said of his process:

“Tracy throws up on the page and cleans up afterward. He was absolutely indefatigable in the writing.”

That immense labor shows—not as the sweat of a struggling author, but as the pure clarity of a master.

What the book quietly teaches, if you’re paying attention, is a profound lesson about the nature of craft itself.

Those Data General engineers weren’t just building a minicomputer. They were building an identity, a tribe, a shared sense of purpose. They were transferring a piece of themselves into the silicon and wire. Kidder understood this alchemy. He highlighted people who had mastered their realms, elevating them into characters whose struggles rang true because they were anchored by staggering amounts of research. He believed—and subsequently proved to the world—that ordinary people doing terribly difficult things in obscure rooms were worthy of the full weight of literary attention.

That was his extraordinary gift. And it is far rarer than it sounds.

The honors and brisk sales from the book vaulted Kidder into the top ranks of American nonfiction writers. But his true legacy lives in the narrative talents he inspired. I suspect a vast number of people who went on to write serious, empathetic nonfiction about technology read Soul at some formative moment and thought: This is how it should be done. I know I was one of them.

He will be deeply missed. But the book remains, waiting on the shelf. If you haven’t read it, today feels like exactly the right day to start.

Categories
Authors Storytelling Writing

The Architecture of Resonance

There’s a particular kind of madness that strikes writers late at night, or in the stagnant hours of mid-afternoon, when you find yourself staring at a single sentence for twenty minutes.

You’re weighing a semicolon against an em dash. You’re wondering if “murmur” is too soft or if “whisper” is too cliché. All of this while knowing, with complete certainty, that no reader will ever stop to appreciate this specific choice. They’ll just read the sentence and move on.

So why do we do it?

In Draft No. 4, John McPhee — the legendary literary journalist who spent decades at The New Yorker — shares a principle he still writes on the blackboard at Princeton. It’s actually a quote from Cary Grant: “A Thousand Details Add Up to One Impression.” The implication, McPhee explains, is that almost no individual detail is essential, while the details as a whole are absolutely essential.

I find this idea endlessly useful. And a little reassuring.

Think about walking into a beautifully designed home. You don’t notice the precise angle of the crown molding or the specific undertones of the paint. You don’t walk in and say, “Ah yes, Alabaster White.” You just feel warmth, or elegance, or comfort. The impression is singular — but it’s entirely built from a thousand invisible decisions someone made before you arrived.

Writing works the same way. The rhythm of your sentences, the specificity of your verbs, the way a paragraph ends — these are the details. Individually, they’re expendable. Swap “murmur” for “whisper” and the piece survives. Delete the semicolon and the world keeps turning.

But collectively, they are the piece.

Start compromising — reach for the easy cliché, let a clunky transition slide, settle for vague where you could be specific — and the foundation slowly rots. The reader won’t be able to name the moment they lost interest. They’ll just close the tab. The impression shifts from resonant to flat, without anyone quite knowing why.

Writing, then, is an act of quiet faith. It asks you to labor over things no one will applaud. Nobody claps for an em dash. But the work isn’t really for applause — it’s out of respect for the whole.

We curate a thousand invisible things so the reader can feel one visible truth.

So the next time you’re agonizing over a single word at midnight, remember: you’re not just picking a word. You’re placing a tile in a mosaic. Cary Grant understood it. McPhee put it on a blackboard. You might as well make it count.

Categories
Authors Books History

The Devil’s Rope

We often mistake simplicity for innocence. When we look at a technological innovation, we tend to judge its weight by its complexity—the microchip, the steam engine, the nuclear reactor. But sometimes, history turns on the axis of something far more rudimentary. Sometimes, the world changes not with a bang, but with a sharp, metallic scratch.

I was recently reading Cattle Kingdom by Christopher Knowlton, and I stopped cold at a passage regarding the invention of barbed wire. It’s an object we pass by on highways or stumble over in overgrown fields without a second thought. Yet, Knowlton writes:

“None was more significant than the creation of barbed wire, which literally reshaped the landscape and set the stage for the era’s eventual destruction—at great personal cost to so many of its key players.”

It is a profound observation. We tend to romanticize the American West as a geography of endless horizons—a place defined by what it didn’t have: fences, borders, limits. It was the Open Range. But that openness was fragile. It existed only as long as the technology to close it was absent.

When Joseph Glidden and others patented their variations of “The Devil’s Rope” in the 1870s, they weren’t just selling steel fencing; they were selling a new concept of ownership. Before wire, a man owned what he could patrol. After wire, a man owned what he could enclose.

The quote strikes a melancholic chord because it highlights a paradox of human progress: the tool created to maximize the land ended up destroying the culture that relied on it. The cowboys, the cattle barons, and the drifters who defined the era were undone by the very efficiency they sought. The wire made the cattle industry profitable on a massive scale, but it also ended the cowboy’s way of life. It stopped the long drives. It turned the cowboy from a navigator of the plains into a gatekeeper.

And, as Knowlton notes, the “personal cost” was staggering. This reshaping of the landscape wasn’t just aesthetic; it was violent. The wire cut off migration routes for bison and the Indigenous tribes who followed them. It sparked the fence-cutting wars, neighbor turning against neighbor in the dark of night, snapping tension wires that represented their livelihood or their imprisonment, depending on which side of the post they stood.

There is a lesson here for us today, far removed from the dusty plains. We are constantly inventing our own versions of barbed wire—digital boundaries, algorithmic silos, tools designed to corral information or efficiency. We build these structures to create order, to claim our stake, and to protect what is ours. But every time we draw a line, we must ask: what era are we destroying? What open range are we closing off forever?

The landscape is always being reshaped. The question is whether we are building fences that protect us, or cages that trap us in.

Categories
Authors Business Living

The Terror of the Empty Chair

It is comforting to believe that when the world breaks—when housing markets collapse, when “unicorn” startups vaporize, or when seasoned scouts overlook generational talent—it is because of a miscalculation. We want to believe the math was wrong, the data was bad, or the algorithm was flawed. We want to believe it was a glitch in the intellect.

I heard a commentator recently mention that Michael Lewis, the chronicler of our most expensive delusions in his best selling books, has suggested something far more unsettling. In looking at the connective tissue between The Big Short, Moneyball, and Going Infinite, he identifies a different culprit. He notes that the “glue” holding these irrational systems together isn’t incompetence. It is FOMO: The Fear Of Missing Out.

“They are more afraid of being left behind than they are of being wrong.”

This observation completely reframes the narrative of catastrophic failure. It explains why high-IQ individuals—people paid millions to be rational—consistently make decisions that look insane in retrospect. The banker, the VC, and the scout aren’t necessarily blinded by greed, though greed is certainly a passenger in the car. They are blinded by the terror of the empty chair.

Lewis points out that for the social animal, the pain of being left behind is acute and immediate, whereas the pain of being wrong is often abstract and distant. If you sit out a bubble and the bubble keeps inflating, you look like a fool today. You are isolated. You are the cynic at the party who refuses to dance. If you join the bubble and it bursts, well, you have company. As the old financial adage goes, “It is better to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.”

There is a profound, empathetic tragedy in this. It suggests that our systems don’t fail because we aren’t smart enough; they fail because we are too human. We are wired for the herd. The biological imperative to stay with the group—originally a survival mechanism against predators—has been warped into a financial suicide pact.

When we look at the irrational exuberance of a market, we aren’t seeing a mathematical error. We are seeing a materialized anxiety. We are seeing a collective hallucination held together not by logic, but by the sticky, desperate glue of not wanting to be the only one who didn’t buy the ticket.

The antidote, then, isn’t just better data or faster computers. It is the emotional discipline to be lonely. It is the willingness to stand apart from the warmth of the herd and accept the short-term social cost of being “out” for the long-term reward of being right.