It's not difficult to develop an incorrect theory. Ice cream and spaghetti have more letters than tofu and celery, so therefore, foods with long names are more fattening than those with short ones. If you start moving forward with this theory, you'll ...
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

Confusion about causation

It’s not difficult to develop an incorrect theory. Ice cream and spaghetti have more letters than tofu and celery, so therefore, foods with long names are more fattening than those with short ones.

If you start moving forward with this theory, you’ll soon find outliers. Sugar only has five letters, and watercress has ten. If we want to stick with our theory, we’ll have to come up with more and more complex reasons why we ignore some of the data and embrace the rest.

Of course, this is absurd.

And yet we do it all the time. Ornate explanations about the stock market, SEO or politics. Charts and graphs where we spend most of our time fitting a plot to a few dots, or amplifying the obscure to justify the theory.

A simple theory that matches the data is much more likely to accurately explain causation. It might not be a comfortable theory, or one that matches our trajectory, but it’s a better theory.

It turns out that the number of letters is completely irrelevant to how fattening a food is. I’m sorry you spent all this time on research, but you’re on the wrong path.

If you want to know why your marketing, your investments or your arguments are floundering, it might pay to reconsider the theory, not look for more data to justify the current one.

      

Have your AI call my AI

Sharp lawyers have often used the fine print to win an advantage in a contract. It’s called the fine print for a reason–you’re not supposed to read it. But you should.

Now, armed with AI, it’s significantly easier to bury arcane, unfair or unanticipated clauses in agreements, even (and especially) if we don’t expect it.

You shouldn’t sign anything until you’ve had your AI read it. And if it’s important, have your lawyer and her AI read it too.

The next step seems reasonable to me: You and I describe our agreement in plain English and then our mutual AI’s work out a written agreement that actually captures what we’ve agreed on. And for the avoidance of doubt, append each AI’s interpretation to the contract itself.

It shouldn’t be confrontational or adversarial. After all, it’s an agreement.

      

Ten minutes a day

You can’t become fluent in a foreign language in ten minutes a day, even if you try for months.

On the other hand, here are a dozen things many of us can do (or do better) if we stick with it:

Three-ball juggling
Touch typing
Rubik’s Cube
Drawing
Mental math
Memorizing a deck of cards or people’s names
Meditating
History or geography
Finding joy in small things
Typography
Ukulele
Italic handwriting
Morse code
Excel and HTML

There are two hard parts:

  1. The seven minutes after minute three
  2. Doing it again tomorrow

“I can’t do that,” might often be more honestly reported as, “I haven’t chosen to be able to do that.”

      

ShopPurple

Launching today: a collection of hundreds of stores that are worth detouring past Amazon to get to.

The stores were nominated by you, the readers of this blog, and are only lightly curated. There’s no business model for the site, just a collective sharing. Click and explore.

There are three ways to visit the site:

The HOTLIST creates a grid of the stores. The odd numbered entries are random, the even ones are sorted by the number of clicks they’ve received. Every time the page is loaded, these re-sort based on popularity.

The CATEGORY view shows you all the listings in a reasonably coherent directory.

And the RANDOM view is just what you’d imagine.

I hope it gives small businesses a bit of a boost.

Also, we’ve reached the last few weeks for the holiday bundle of three of my books and a handful of spindices. Sold only by the friendly folks at Porchlight.

[If you missed the original form for nominations, I’ll open it again for one more batch. I can’t promise to include everything, but I’m thrilled at the creativity and care that these merchants and creators have brought to their work.]

Bonus: a lovely post by Ari about Purple Cow and the magic of being hard to explain.

      

Learning from rejection

If you’re doing something creative, something important or something new, you’re certain to be rejected along the way.

It’s a signal. It might be proof that you offered it to the wrong person, or that the right person saw something about your work that didn’t serve their needs. Without learning from this signal, we’re doomed to experience it again and again.

What do we know for sure?

It was rejected.

What else?

Nothing. The reasons listed in the rejection letter are almost certainly made up. Perhaps they’re insulating themselves from being re-sold (“you said you didn’t like the color, but we have other colors!”) or perhaps they’re protecting your feelings. It could be that they aren’t telling themselves the truth, or don’t want to be hassled for telling you the truth.

Few people explain their rejection with, “I’m afraid,” or “I wanted to do it but my boss won’t let me,” or “you have bad breath and I don’t like you.”

Being rejected hurts, and we’re likely to marinate in the pain. We imagine that the person who rejected us understands everything about what we offered, is a rational actor and cares as much as we do. While we’re at it, we personalize, amplify and multiply the rejection.

But all we really know is that this person, on this day, in this situation, hearing the story the way we told it, said no.

Years ago, I self-published a booklet for political activists. My timing was good, and I had a chance to sell the books from an organizer’s booth at a march on the very topic my book was about. It was a beautiful April day, and I stood on the side of route as the march went by. More than 400,000 passed my table, and I sold four books.

That’s 399,996 rejections. Maybe more.

Was it the price? Halfway through the march, I lowered it from $10 to $1, just to have a good story to blog a few decades later.

Sales did not increase. Perhaps it was the color of the jacket, the page count or the typo on page 32? None of those things.

What did I learn? That people at a march are at the march to march, not to shop.

Watch what people do, not what they say. And if you really want to learn something, change the situation and see what happens the next time.

Learning from rejection begins with understanding the lesson that’s being offered.

      

More Recent Articles

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.

Safely Unsubscribe • Archives • Preferences • Contact • Subscribe • Privacy