
One of the reasons I went to law school was because of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. It’s not like a had a conversation with him...obviously. He’s long dead. But his works, ideas, and life are not!

I read [Oliver Wendell Holmes: A Life in War Law and Ideas](https://www.dltn.io/posts/oliver-wendell-holmes-a-life-stephen-budiansky) a while ago, and the passion and zest Holmes had for the law, logical thinking, and clear writing was inspirational to me. I was fascinated with his work, I thought maybe I could *do* what he did. (Be a lawyer, that is.)

I went into school liking the book so much that Holmes felt like my “mentor” or at least a big inspiration for why I was there, and that was special. I held him in high regard.

So I was ecstatic when we were assigned to read an excerpt in Torts from his book, *The Common Law*. I was even more excited when a case he wrote the opinion for was in our torts book. But...then I read the case, and we talked about it in class, and my professor kind of dissed on him. We talked about it afterwards in his office hours, and he said from the opinion, it was clear that Holmes had *never* driven a car—which he probably hadn’t—yet was creating a rule of law that required people who came to a railroad track crossing to get out of their car and look to make sure no train was coming before they crossed in their car. That’s...ridiculous.

After our conversation, I looked in the biography to see what the author said about that opinion, and I now agree. Here’s what the author wrote:

> His zeal to write into the law his draconian views about risk led him to render one of his other most notoriously bad decisions on the Supreme Court...Holmes held that a railroad was not at fault in a fatal grade-crossing accident where the view of the tracks was obstructed to an approaching driver. Showing if nothing else that he had never learned to drive himself, Holmes ruled as a matter of law that it was a driver's duty to stop, get out of his car, and look down the tracks to see if a train was coming.
>
> [...] 
>
> [Louis] Brandeis thought the Court had had no business taking on these cases in the first place and that Holmes had pressed his colleagues to do so mainly because he was "incorrigible when there is an opportunity of curbing the power and province of a jury." 
> 
> [...] 
>  
> While in so many areas of the law Holmes would prove decades ahead of his time, his Darwinian attitudes toward injury cases seemed at times almost a throwback to the nineteenth century—holding firm to a conception of tort law that was rapidly being swept aside by the very kind of nuanced balancing tests and apportionment of responsibility between the parties that he otherwise so zealously advanced.

I thought this was really interesting because it shows:

1. How not-closely I read biographies. I read parts closely but other parts not, but I don’t remember any mention of this case in the book. (But I did apparently think it was ridiculous when I read it because I wrote marginalia that said, “This is ridiculous lol”.) And;\

2. How not everyone we admire from history was “perfect.” I struggle with this. After I read a book about Truman or Lincoln or Adams or Jefferson, I’m enthralled with who they were (or, at least who the book portrayed them to be), that I usually remember all of the good quotes and cool things that they did and forget about the not-so-good things they did decisions they made. I don’t think there’s anything wrong about admiring people from history, but I’m reminded of being a bit more cautious in the people I choose to model my life and career after.

This post didn’t really have a point, but I was excited to see how my love of learning and history that I’ve poured myself into the last three years is finally converging into something useful, I guess? It’s fun to see the people and ideas and history I’ve learned about appear in contexts other than a book I’m reading on my back porch.


Justice Holmes


Jim Collins writes about a [bullet and cannonball analogy](https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts/fire-bullets-then-cannonballs.html) for business. Instead of going all-in on something that may or may not work, he advises shooting bullets—small bets at various things—until one hits the target. When it does, then you shoot a cannonball and go all in.

I like to read the same way.

There are _a lot_ of books I want to read; currently, there are over $2,500 of books in my Amazon cart. With such a wide selection of options for my next read, I’m picky about what I start and finish. If I get bored with a book, I drop it. This works fine, but ideally, I get so good at “judging a book by its cover” that any book I decide to start is so good that I finish it. In this way, I hope to hone my judgment so that the number of books I quit each year will be fewer than the previous year. Not because I “experimented” less but because I did more research on the front end.

Reading with bullets and cannonballs makes this process easier. If I’m not sure I’ll enjoy a book, but the topic looks interesting, I’ll shoot bullets: I’ll read interviews with the author, a few sample chapters on Kindle, or book reviews. Sometimes, I’ll listen to an audiobook chapter. (Spotify having audiobooks makes this a lot easier now.) If either of my “bullets” hooks me, I know I’ll want to read the physical copy.

Sometimes, after shooting bullets, I feel like I got the gist of the book and don’t need to read the whole thing. This often happens with business books because it’s easy to summarize a business book in an hour-long podcast. When that happens, I write up some thoughts and move on to my next book. Other times, the author or topic is so interesting that I want to go deeper and get the nuance. When that’s the case, I shoot my cannonball and buy the book.

This happened this week. After listening to a [podcast with Jared Cohen on Armchair Expert,](https://open.spotify.com/episode/6N1F8NwrIuv2nEj71bLIAC?si=4c8cda73b22a4b7c) I wanted to learn more about his book Life After Power. So I started listening to it on Spotify, and before the introduction was over, I knew I’d want to buy the physical copy.

The downside of all of this is that it takes time. If I had a money tree, I would just buy any book that looks interesting, but I don’t. Though books are cheap, the cost adds up over time, so I only try to buy a book I know I’ll enjoy and learn a lot from. This isn’t the only way to choose what to read, but it works well for me.

How I choose what to read: bullets vs. cannonballs


<img src={https://res.cloudinary.com/dde1q4ekv/image/upload/v1705811584/GEOvQewX0AAzayr_nleo4q.jpg} />

1. “A writer who waits for ideal conditions under which to work will die without putting a word on paper.” – E.B. White
2. “Unless you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” – Carl Jung
3. "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse.” – Albert Einstein
4. “The monotony of a quiet life stimulates the creative mind.” – Albert Einstein
5. "Many of us seek community solely to escape the fear of being alone. Knowing how to be solitary is central to the art of loving. When we can be alone, we can be with others without using them as a means of escape.” – Bell Hooks
6. "Now is the time to get serious about living your ideals. How long can you afford to put off who you really want to be? Your nobler self cannot wait any longer. Put your principles into practice – now. Stop the excuses and the procrastination. This is your life! You aren’t a child anymore. The sooner you set yourself to your spiritual program, the happier you will be. The longer you wait, the more you’ll be vulnerable to mediocrity and feel filled with shame and regret, because you know you are capable of better. From this instant on, vow to stop disappointing yourself. Separate yourself from the mob. Decide to be extraordinary and do what you need to do – now." – Epictetus
7. "It is only through imagination that men become aware of what the world might be; without it, ‘progress’ would become mechanical and trivial.” – Bertrand Russell
8. "Ideas can feel complete. It's only when you try to put them into words that you discover they're not.” – Paul Graham
9. “Write without pay until somebody offers pay; if nobody offers within three years, sawing wood is what you were intended for.” – Mark Twain
10. "A lot of books fail because the writer loses control of the research. You are either a master of the material or it's the master of you.” – Robert Greene
11. "Finish every day and be done with it. For manners and for wise living it is a vice to remember. You have done what you could; some blunders and absurdities no doubt crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day; you shall begin it well and serenely, and with too high a spirit to be cumbered with your old nonsense. This day for all that is good and fair. It is too dear, with its hopes and invitations, to waste a moment on the rotten yesterdays.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
12. “We write for the same reason that we walk, talk, climb mountains or swim the oceans — because we can. We have some impulse within us that makes us want to explain ourselves to other human beings. That’s why we paint, that’s why we dare to love someone- because we have the impulse to explain who we are. Not just how tall we are, or thin… but who we are internally… perhaps even spiritually. There’s something, which impels us to show our inner-souls. The more courageous we are, the more we succeed in explaining what we know.” – Maya Angelou
13. “A day when one has not pushed oneself to the limit seems a damaged, damaging day, a sinful day. Not so! The most valuable thing one can do for the psyche, occasionally, is to let it rest, wander, live in the changing light of a room.” – May Sarton
14. "There is only one way to read, which is to browse in libraries and bookshops, picking up books that attract you, reading only those, dropping them when they bore you, skipping the parts that drag – and never, never reading anything because you feel you ought, or because it is part of a trend or a movement. Remember that the book which bores you when you are twenty or thirty will open doors for you when you are forty or fifty-and vise versa. Don’t read a book out of its right time for you.” – Doris Lessing
15. "To suffer terribly and to know yourself as the cause: that is Hell.” – Jordan Peterson
16. “A scientist is happy, not in resting on his attainments but in the steady acquisition of fresh knowledge.” – Max Planck
17. "Many people are not ready for their lucky break when it comes to them. Develop your skills. Study your craft. Save some money. Build a network before you need it. Lay the ground work. The prepared person is positioned to benefit from unexpected opportunities.” – James Clear
18. "Whales only get harpooned when they surface." and "The tallest blade of grass is first to get cut." (A lot of people said this. I’m not sure who to credit.)
19. "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that” – John Stuart Mill
20. “Books record the deeds of leaders who once dared greatly, as well as those who dared too much, as a warning.” – Henry Kissinger
21. "I have no special talents, I am only passionately curious.” – Albert Einstein
22. “The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours.” – Amos Tversky
23. “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” - Ray Bradbury
24. "You can't use up creativity. The more you use, the more you have.” – Maya Angelou
25. "I write for myself, for my own pleasure. And I want to be left alone to do it.” – J.D. Salinger


25 quotes from my commonplace book


I started reading John Stuart Mill's *Autobiography* this week, and it's terrific. Mill had a unique childhood filled with self-education and, you guessed it–reading! He writes:

> He [his father] not only drew my attention to the insight they afforded into Athenian institutions, and the principles of legislation and government which they often illustrated, but pointed out the skill and art of the orator—how everything important to his purpose was said at the exact moment when he had brought the minds of his audience into the state most fitted to receive it; how he made steal into their minds, gradually and by insinuation, thoughts which, if expressed in a more direct manner, would have roused their opposition. **Most of these reflections were beyond my capacity of full comprehension at the time; but they left seed behind, which germinated in due season** (Emphasis mine).

That's a profound idea. Just because you read something beyond your "capacity of full comprehension" doesn't mean you aren't learning or getting something out of it. Seeds are being deposited, which, in due time, will sprout.

Those seeds won't germinate, though, if they aren't watered, rooted in good soil, and given the proper amount of sunlight. I may be over-extending the analogy here (I don't think I am), but without Mill's continued learning, the seeds he and his father planted at a young age would’ve never germinated. What he learned later in life allowed him to put greater context into what he read when he was younger. Without reading challenging works at a young age, his education may not have been as fruitful and advanced as it was when he was older. Without continuing to read challenging works when he got older, he may have never understood what he read when he was younger. It’s a feedback loop. As you read more, you begin to understand how little you know. As you continue to read more, those blindspots get back-filled, and knowledge begins to compound. You may be studying something for ten years, but nothing clicks until you finally read something that brings it all together in the eleventh. That’s the magic (and the difficulty) with compounding–all the big results are always at the end.

So, keep reading things above your “grade level.” It might not all make sense today, but it will if you keep reading and learning. When that happens, people will wonder how you got so smart. When they ask that, you know your compounding has started paying off. (But don’t let this fool you into thinking you’ve arrived. There’s still a lot you probably don’t know!)


Reading plants seeds

After starting [Foundation](https://twitter.com/dltnio/status/1665743018257793024?s=20) on Apple TV (I’m late, I know), I became interested in Isaac Asimov. I had a vague idea that he was an influential writer, but for what and why, I was ignorant.

Turns out, he’s fascinating.

When I want to learn about something or someone, like any great scholar, I [use Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov).

Here’s his analysis of the insanity that is being a full-time writer:

> [T]he only thing about myself that I consider to be severe enough to warrant psychoanalytic treatment is my compulsion to write ... That means that my idea of a pleasant time is to go up to my attic, sit at my electric typewriter (as I am doing right now), and bang away, watching the words take shape like magic before my eyes.
> 

In [an interview in 1975](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUz_KkibYAs), after being asked about the sheer absurdity of the fact that Asimov is afraid of airplanes even though he writes about going to the ends of the earth, he drops an incredible line:

> I don't like to travel, it keeps me away from my typewriter.
> 

Earlier in the same interview, he says:

> What it amounts to [being able to write so much], is that I’m not happy except when I’m writing. It’s almost the only way I can think of to spend my time pleasantly, and so I’m naturally drawn to the typewriter at all times. The day is lost in which I don’t type.
> 

His writing style is focused on simplicity, much to the dismay of science-fiction critics:

> I have an informal style, which means I tend to use short words and simple sentence structure, to say nothing of occasional colloquialisms. This grates on people who like things that are poetic, weighty, complex, and, above all, obscure. On the other hand, the informal style pleases people who enjoy the sensation of reading an essay without being aware that they are reading and of feeling that ideas are flowing from the writer's brain into their own without mental friction.
> 

Naturally, people wanted to know how one man was capable of writing over 200 books throughout his lifetime. In 1980, [David Letterman asked](https://youtu.be/365kJOsFd3w), “What kind of schedule do you put in to write that many books?”

> I get up in the morning, sit down and write, when I finish writing, go back to bed.
> 

Asimov not only understood the power of writing; he preached on the benefits of reading too. On March 16, 1971, he sent this letter congratulating the recipients on a new library:

![5692290321_36e10b9b35_o.webp](Isaac%20Asimov%20on%20writing%20and%20reading%20ba64171fc84d4195b08122826b364155/5692290321_36e10b9b35_o.webp)

Isaac Asimov on writing and reading

I don’t think there are any secrets to reading more other than just sitting down to read. 

Though that’s true, it’s not very actionable, and advice that isn’t actionable sucks.

So here are some things that have helped me read (and enjoy reading) a lot of books.

## If you have plenty of time to read but can’t focus, the book you’re reading is probably bad

I’ve heard this from a lot of people: “I want to read more, but I just can’t focus.” If that’s you, know you’re not alone. While I can’t diagnose the issue for sure, something that *might* be causing the problem is that you just don’t like the book. Some books are boring, dry, and not very fun to read. If that’s the case, yeah, it’s going to be hard to focus.

If you’ve ever sat through a movie, you know it’s *******possible******* for you to sit down and do something for an uninterrupted amount of time as long as you’re interested. Therefore, **you most likely don’t have a focus problem, you have a book selection problem.**

Ditch the boring book and pick up a new one! And another new one…and another new one…and another new one…until you find one that makes 60 minutes feel like ten.

## Quit more books

The biggest lie people believe about reading is that they can’t quit books. Hear it from me: you can! It’s perfectly okay to get a few chapters into a book and think, “Meh, this isn’t for me.” I do this all the time.

Life is too short to read boring books.

This is hard to do with books that signal status. It’s not hard to quit, but it’s hard to look at others and think, “Man they finished that book and liked it? I thought it was so boring! Maybe they’re smarter than me…” I know that’s hard to get over, but you have to try.

I tried reading ****************The Power Broker**************** because of how many people raved about it and I just couldn’t get into it. I didn’t give it up completely, just put it back on the shelf for later. That’s hard to admit, but true. I probably quit around then books last year.

## If you have plenty of focus but can’t find the time, you’re probably wasting it somewhere

Something something we all have the same 24 hours in a day something something.

While that saying has become abused by people who #hustle every day, it’s still true.

How many hours a week do you spend watching TV? How many hours do you lose scrolling social media? How many hours dissipate into the ether because you don’t know what to do next?

If you want to spend an hour a day reading, you most likely have to ****quit**** doing something else for an hour. That’s just the way life is. (Or you can wake up earlier/stay up later. That’s okay too.)

### …but what if I’m not wasting time?

If you don’t feel like you’re wasting any time, good! What you need to do then is utilize the “spare change” more effectively.

Like finding [nickels and dimes in your couch](https://austinkleon.com/2013/12/29/something-small-every-day/), you need to find 10 or 15 minutes throughout the day to make progress on your reading goal. Austin Kleon puts it well, “People often ask me, ‘How do you find the time for the work?’ And I answer, ‘I look for it.’ You find time the same place you find spare change: in the nooks and crannies.”

Some people who want to read for an hour a day think they need an uninterrupted hour. While I recommend that (so you can get lost in the book easier), it’s not necessary, especially at first.

Read for the extra 10 minutes before a meeting or for 15 minutes on your lunch break. A good rule to follow is ***********anytime you don’t know what you should do next, read.*********** You might only get through a couple of pages, but that’s how all books are read: page by page.

## Read multiple books at the same time

Another good rule to follow is to always read three or four books at a time. This works because it makes reading for three hours in a row much more enjoyable. Instead of reading one book for three hours, you can read three books for an hour.

This also works because you’re never in the same “reading mood.” Sometimes you want something light and fun just to pass the time. Other times you want to read something long and important. Still others, you just want to read a good novel. So having a book to match each of these moods will help you read more.

If you’re only reading one book at a time and the reading mood you’re in doesn’t match the type of book you have, you won’t read at all.

Most people recommend reading a fiction book, a light non-fiction book, a heavy non-fiction book, and a biography or memoir all at the same time. I think that’s a good outline to follow until you realize what you truly love to read. I used to follow that, but now I just have a couple different biographies I’m reading at once, an instructional or how-to book, and a novel I read before bed or when I’m waiting in line somewhere. Currently I’m reading ******************The Wright Brothers, Genius, In Search of J.D. Salinger, Bird by Bird,****************** and **********************The Catcher in the Rye**********************.

## Make it an experience

Finally, make reading an **********experience**********. Having a book you can’t wait to finish helps (see number one), but it’s not the only thing you can control. What type of music you listen to, where you sit in your house (or at a coffee shop), and what beverage you have to consume are all things that can encourage you to read more.

If you love to have a beer or glass of wine every night to unwind, make a rule for yourself that you can only do so while reading a book. That way you pair something you love (having a beer) with something you want-to-love (reading).

## Sit down and read

While these tips have been helpful for me, remember, there is ********************no secret to reading******************** other than sitting down to read. You probably don’t need to watch a YouTube video teaching you how to read better (you can just start reading) or pay for an online course to learn how to read more (you can just start reading more).

Start with a physical magazine article (I like *************The Atlantic)************* or a poem if you have trouble committing to something as long as a book. There are also dozens of speeches and articles that contain unique insights and are less cumbersome to get through.

I hope these help. Happy reading.

PS If you’re looking for recommendations, I just finished *****************Novelist as a Vocation***************** by Haruki Murakami and loved it. (You can read my notes here.) ****Splendid and the Vile**** is good too. I have more [recommendations here](https://www.dltn.io/notes). You can visit [my company’s site for more](https://fs.blog/category/books/book-recommendations/) too.

How to read more (if you have trouble reading)

Here are three lessons I learned from reading *The Devil in the White City,* a book on the construction of the Chicago World’s Fair (juxtaposed with a suave, murderous criminal), on human psychology and project management.

## 1. You will always be compared to what came before

Four short years before the Chicago World’s Fair, the French had their turn. At the Paris exhibition of 1889, they unveiled the Eiffel Tower–a majestic display of creativity and ingenuity.

America’s pride was hurt. Everyone in America thought they were the most creative and ingenious country. To be outshone by the French was an embarrassment. Chicago would help reignite its spirits.

But trying to “out Eiffel the Eiffel,” as the goal came be to known, would not be easy.

Chicago had to either beat the extravagance of the tower or be humiliated, bringing disgrace and shame upon America.

An interview in the *Chicago Tribune* captures the consensus at the time:

> The most marvelous exhibit of modern times or ancient times has now just closed successfully at Paris. Whatever you do is to be compared with that. If you equal it you have made a success. If you surpass it you have made a triumph.

If you fall below it you will be help responsibly by the whole America people for having assumed what you are not equal to.
>

**Lesson:** **If you try to imitate something that people have already experienced, you can’t just “build a taller tower.”** Your product, your offering, your service, has to be as new and unique as anything that came before, lest it just be compared to just trying to build a taller tower in a race to “out Eiffel the Eiffel.”

Chicago’s big unveiling was the Ferris Wheel. It was something so different and new that it captured people’s imagination in a unique way. The Eiffel Tower, though it was still an amazing feat of architecture, didn’t spin 2,000 people around in a circle. Chicago had successfully out Eiffled the Eiffel.

## 2. Simple and done well is better than extravagant and rushed

Rain was a menace to the fair. It would wash away the wet paint on buildings and ornate plants of the landscape that were already in the ground.

Frederick Olmstead, the chief architect of the fair, gave sound advice to his crew:

> Do not lay out to do anything in the way of decorative planting that you shall not be quite certain that you will have ample time and means to perfect of its kind. There be can little fault found with simple, neat turf. Do not be afraid of undecorated, smooth surfaces.
>

**Lesson: When a deadline is looming, do the best you can with the time you have, and don't overcommit.** There's nothing wrong with simple.

A good plan done well is better than a great plan done poorly.

## 3. When creating a scene or display, every detail matters

Olmstead, the landscape architect, insisted on not having steamboats on the fair’s waterways, even though they would be more efficient.

He wrote:

> Put in the waters unbecoming boats and the effect would be utterly disgusting, destroying the value of what would otherwise be the most valuable original feature of this Exposition.
>

**Lesson: Small details have a big impact. When they're done right, they create an extravagant scene. When ignored, they ruin it.**

Sometimes, you have to bite the bullet and spend more, or take the less efficient route, to create a great atmosphere or product.

Compliment this with my [book notes from ***********Devil in the White City](https://www.dltn.io/posts/devil-in-the-white-city)* or the founding President of Stanford’s [thoughts on education, politics, and life](https://www.dltn.io/posts/david-starr-jordan-on-life-education-and-politics).


3 Lessons on Human Psychology and Project Management

“If someone can just tell me how to catch up [to the Soviets in the space race],” John F. Kennedy thundered to a room full of space advisors. “Let’s find somebody–anybody. I don’t care if it’s the janitor over there, if he knows.”

The tense meeting came after the Russian cosmonaut, [Yuri Gagarin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin), became the first person in history to orbit Earth. This latest accolade for the Soviet Union was another blow to America’s trepidatious attitude towards the space program. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the worst thing to happen that week. Five days later, the [disastrous Bay of Pigs](https://www.thenewsherald.com/2021/04/18/bay-of-pigs-was-jfks-responsibility/#:~:text=U.S.%20involvement%20in%20the%20Bay,Pigs%20and%20took%20complete%20blame) invasion kicked off. Though Eisenhower planned it, he was no longer in office and the nation needed someone to blame. Kennedy became that someone.

For Kennedy, the answer for America’s next greatest feat had always been to go up. Space was the end all be all of the Cold War. Whoever could get the furthest in space, the quickest, Kennedy believed, would win the Cold War.

After Gagarin became the first man to orbit earth, Kennedy and his administration changed their approach to conquering the eternal sky. No longer could America entertain a tit-for-tat pattern with the Soviet Union. Instead, as Kennedy wrote to a Princeton student, America needed to Leapfrog the Soviet Union. And leapfrog they would.

Spaceflight in America was still young at the time. Before the Second World War broke out, [Robert Goddard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard) became the first real rocketeer in America. His experiments with liquid-fueled rockets proved they were the way forward. Unfortunately, Goddard was one of many who passed on before they could witness their innovations come true.

Goddard’s research, however, influenced a young engineer in Germany who used Goddard’s work as a foundation to build the [V-2 rocket](https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/missile-surface-surface-v-2-4/nasm_A19600342000#:~:text=The%20V%2D2%20rocket%2C%20developed,fuel%20rockets%20and%20launch%20vehicles): the deadliest weapon used in WW2 against Britain. Unbeknownst to the engineer, Werner von Braun, his design for the V-2 would lay the groundwork for the eventual Saturn V, the rocket that landed two young astronauts on the moon in 1969.

Von Braun and a host of other brilliant German scientists and engineers were brought to America through [Operation Paperclip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip), a covert plan to bring the most intelligent German minds to America at the end of WW2. The operation, originally called Operation Overcast, changed its monicker to Operation Paperclip after a security breach. The name was derived from the paperclips military officers would fasten to the folders of the Nazi experts they chose to hire.

Werner von Braun and John F. Kennedy became two backbone figures of the Space Race. Their journey, along with all the drama and political woes of the early 1960s is chronicled in *[American Moonshot: John F. Kennedy and The Great Space Race](https://www.amazon.com/American-Moonshot-Kennedy-Great-Space/dp/006265506X)* by Douglas Brinkley. In the words of a *Kirkus* review of the book:

> [This book is a] look back at the days when American presidents and politicians believed in and promoted science—days when there was a world to win, along with the heavens.
>

The first part of the book is a mini-biography of John F. Kennedy. Brinkley writes about JFK’s childhood, his family life, and his time spent in the Navy. Kennedy’s character is slowly transformed from a party boy to a diplomatic statesman (though the parties never stopped). Paralleled with Kennedy’s life is a brief account of the history of rockets and Werner von Braun’s journey from Nazi engineer to the head of a rocket lab in Huntsville, Alabama.

Once Kennedy gets elected, Brinkley does a magnificent job pulling conversations, reports, scientific facts, and the general consensus at the time all together to paint a full picture of what was going on in America and around the world.

It’s unclear if Kennedy would have put such emphasis on a literal moonshot were it not for the times. Kennedy loved space, yes, and he was enamored with it. But asking for $40 billion from the American people wasn’t something that happened often. Would he have been as brave as to do so without the pressure of the Cold War? Brinkley doesn’t state the answer explicitly, but it can be implied. He cared less about space and more about winning the Cold War and proving to the world that America was the best. This doesn’t diminish his efforts one bit but casts them in an interesting light.

There was one conversation with James Webb, the NASA administrator, that gives a peak behind Kennedy’s motives. In September of 1963, Kennedy and Webb had a private conversation in the White House and you can hear the trepidation and regret in Kennedy’s voice about making “the moonshot” his grand plan.

**Kennedy:** “Do you think the lunar, the manned landing on the moon, is a good idea?”

**Webb:** “Yes, sir, I do.”

…

**Kennedy:** “If I get reelected, I’m not–we’re not– go[ing] to the moon in my–in our period are we?”

**Webb:** “No.”

**Kennedy** (Brinkley notes that his voice is slightly sulky): “We’re not going…yeah.”

…

**Kennedy:** “Why should one spend that kind of dough to put a man on the moon?”

**Kennedy** (Answering his own question): But it seems to me…we’ve got to wrap around in this country, a military use for what we’re doing and spending in space. If we don’t it does look like a stunt.”

Though some in America saw Kennedy’s ambitions for space as a waste of money and time, such as the former president Dwight D. Eisenhower, who Brinkley wrote, “continued to snipe that ‘anybody who would spend $40 billion in a race to the moon for national prestige is nuts,” the majority were inspired by the grand ambition, even though everyone knew money would be required in hefty amounts. A phrase repeated throughout the book is “No bucks, no Buck Rogers.”

But aside from the Eisenhower administration's plans for incremental innovation and a small company named NASA that wasn’t quite sure who to listen to, Kennedy didn’t have much to go on when he took office. His presidency would be a continuous act of spinning plates between Kruschev and the Cold War, working with Lyndon B. Johnson to lobby congress for an ever-increasing pool of funds, and deciding just how ambitious America should be in trying to win the space race. The rewards were high, sure, but so were the risks, and no one let Kennedy forget that. Brinkley writes about the warning Eisenhower’s former science advisor spooked Kennedy with by saying “NASA wasn’t ready for manned space, and that if a Mercury astronaut were prematurely launched on a Redstone rocket, the attempted suborbital flight would be ‘the most expensive funeral man has ever had.’”

Thankfully, the warning didn’t deter Kennedy and the rest of America. JFK, his administration, NASA, James Webb, the Navy, and countless private companies worked together throughout a heyday of technical innovation, budgetary restrictions, and threats of war, to eventually put a man on the moon.

If you’re hoping to read a detailed account of the scientific and technical breakthroughs NASA achieved for the moonshot, this book is not the one. Though the beginning had interesting anecdotes about rockets, the majority of the book is about the political side of the space race and John F. Kennedy. Though interesting and I’m glad I read it, it lacks the technical bravado I was hoping for. That said, it’s a masterclass on power, influence, and Cold War politics.


Not Long Ago in a Galaxy Not Very Far

User [TurnTrout](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2GxhAyn9aHqukap2S/looking-back-on-my-alignment-phd) posted their reflection on attaining a PhD in the *LessWrong* community recently. I've been debating going back to school for a Masters and PhD but can't determine the fundamental benefits other than a structured learning environment, peer group, and a bit of a social flex. I don't think those are the right reasons to go back to school, but maybe they are?

The post was brilliant and well-written. [I implore you to read the whole thing](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2GxhAyn9aHqukap2S/looking-back-on-my-alignment-phd). The most concrete advice was towards the end, where they outlined habits they had wished to practice more regularly. I thought the habits were practical even outside of academia and, if practiced more regularly by more people, would make for better conversations.

### Distinguish between observation and inference

TurnTrout says:

> When people speak to you, mark their arguments as _observations_ or as _inferences_. Keep the types _separate_. I've gained _so much_ from this simple practice.

I like the idea here, but I'd change "inference" to "opinion."

This echoes something I tweeted about last week about the importance of Twitter and other "thinking" out loud" tools being seen as a laboratory for testing conjectures and not a battleground for opinions. When an influential person tweets, inevitably they don't account for all of the nuance. It's impossible to do so with 280 characters.  Also inevitably, everyone starts attacking the user for not mentioning their specific, niche life story that this tweet wouldn't apply to. It's annoying.

It would do well for people online to differentiate between an observation made about the world and an inference into how that world actually works.

This would be good for dinner conversations with family, especially those with opposing political views. I ask risky questions to people with protected opinions all the time because I want to understand what they think and how they see the world. I love running thought experiments. With the topic of abortion being front and center now, instead of arguing over whether the government should be involved or this view vs. that view, I'll pitch a thought experiment outlining a situation and then request we go through the experiment as if abortion were legal and if abortion weren't legal.  What's the right thing to do? How would someone be feeling in that situation?

The benefit of this is that it allows you to run through some fringe scenario that would probably never happen. Since the problem is exaggerated, the solutions are exaggerated. Often, it illuminates one path as better than another because of how it plays out in the exaggerated situation.

To get to that point, though, one must be comfortable entertaining observations and questions. The group must understand that these scenarios aren't opinions, they're just questions to be explored. If we want to progress intellectually with hot-button issues, we must be able to set aside opinions and explore observations and questions. The first step to doing so is being able to differentiate the two in the first place.

### Be concrete

TurnTrout says:

> -   If a friend comes to me for advice and says "I'm terrible at dating, I just feel so shy!", I _could_ say "You're really fun to be around, you're probably just in your head too much", and then _they_ could say "Agh, maybe, but it's just so frustrating." Wouldn't that just be such a useful conversation for them? That'll _definitely_ solve their awkwardness!
    -   Alternatively, if I _ask for an example_, we can both analyze an event which _actually happened_. Perhaps they say, "I met a girl named Alice at the party, but I somehow ran out of things to say, and it got quiet, and we found excuses to part ways." Then I can help my friend introspect and figure out why they didn't have anything to say, which _is in fact a question with a real answer_.

Vague scenarios and questions help no one. I see/hear this a lot when someone is uncomfortable asking for advice on the specific scenario they're dealing with. So instead, they ask a vague question that doesn't make complete sense. This isn't helpful–for either the advice-giver or the advice-asker.

The more you can think through a scenario that *actually happened*, the better your thought processes and learning patterns will be from those situations.

Be concrete.


2 Habits for a Better Intellectual Life

The world changed in 1436.

Thanks to the brilliance of a German engineer, the long-held belief that knowledge was reserved for the upper echelon of society was shattered thanks to the printing press. Knowledge now belonged to the common man. Entertainment was available to the miner's wife, the corn farmer, and just about everyone else.

The world changed in the 1920s.

Combining magnets and wires in an unusual way, people discovered they could send voices and music across the plains. Radio shows became something people looked forward to. The sound of banjoes and twang reverberated through the South, saxophones, and trumpets in the North. The news was available almost instantaneously. Radio was born.

The world changed again in the 1950s.

Sound was now accompanied by moving pictures on a little box. The news was delivered even faster. People started to fall in love with actors.

Again the world changed during the 1990s with the adoption of the internet and yet again in the 2000s with social media.

It's changing still today with artificial intelligence and virtual reality. But with all these changes, did things actually get better? Did we become smarter? Are we able to solve problems more intelligently? Probably. But what have we lost in all of this? 

Under the conditions of 24/7 news cycles, dopamine-inducing videos, and an infinite amount of information available at the end of your fingertips, reading a complex book and engaging with it intelligently is now an act of defiance. People are amazed when they hear that I buy two or three books per week but seem to think it's normal to binge entire seasons of Grey's Anatomy in a single day.

The technical revolution has inhibited us from maintaining deep literacy.

Deep literacy, as defined by Adam Garfinkle is '[engaging with] an extended piece of writing in such a way as to anticipate an author's direction and meaning.' Henry Kissinger, writing about the attributes of deep literacy in *Leadership,* puts it best when he writes:

> To the politically concerned, deep literacy supplies the quality Max Weber called 'proportion,' or 'the ability to allow realities to impinge on you while maintaining an inner calm and composure. Intense reading can help leaders cultivate the mental distance from external stimuli and personalities that sustains a sense of proportion. When combined with reflection and the training of memory, it also provides a storehouse of detailed and granular knowledge from which leaders can reason analogically...**Books record the deeds of leaders who once dared greatly, as well as those who dared too much, as a warning.**

When you read about the tragedies experienced during the World Wars, your daily problems are put into perspective. Having a delay at the subway doesn't seem to be the end of the world when in the 1900s there were people your age being shipped off to sea to fight for freedom or starving and freezing in concentration camps. Taking a vaccine or having to take a sick day doesn't seem to be quite the inconvenience when you know hundreds of thousands of people--sometimes even whole towns--were killed off due to the epidemic of different cases of the flu.

When you read philosophy written in AD 150 that seems to resonate just as accurate now as it did then, you understand your problems aren't as unique as you might think. People have been struggling to get out of a warm bed for 2000 years (and probably even longer than that). Humans have always struggled with maintaining their composure under stress, regulating their emotions when they want to strike revenge, or dealing with heartbreak from jealousy or death. When you read, your eyes are opened to the truth that there really is *nothing* new under the sun.

Or at least, that's why I read.

I read because nowhere else can you learn the inner workings of the human psyche quite like reading a great novel. I read because nowhere else are the thoughts of the UK Prime Minister during World War 2 recalled than in his six-volume set of memoirs.

**I read because it connects me with someone who once lived before teaching me how to live now.**

Why do you read?

Why I Read

Book Review and Summary: Revolt of the Public

I chose to read a 500+ page biography on a strange renaissance artist because, [much like Einstein](https://www.daltonmabery.com/essays/albert-einstein), I was fascinated with how he approached the world through curiosity. I read Isaacson's biography of [Einstein](https://www.daltonmabery.com/book-notes/einstein-his-life-and-universe) first, and he made comments about how da Vinci's life was filled with even more wonder and curiosity than Einstein's, and I wanted to know how, what that was like, and how I can do the same.

It turns out it's simple: Never complete what you say you're going to and spend years perfecting every intricate detail of your work. Easy, right?

Joke aside, da Vinci was infamous for not completing most of his commissions (more on that later) and was also known for spending hours perfecting the stroke of a tiny rock in the background that the normal layman would probably never see. But this isn't what made him so intelligent and wise in a broad array of fields. Oh no. That, he can thank his "relentless curiosity" for. His goal in life, above being an amazing painter, war machine architect, or city designer, was to know "everything there was to know about the world." Although he didn't quite get there, it wasn't for a lack of trying.

✓

How did da Vinci's life start?
------------------------------

Being born out of wedlock in 1400s Italy didn't leave a lot of options for the son of a multi-generation notary. It was custom in that day for the sons of tradesmen to acquire the skills of the father, but da Vinci didn't have that luxury since he was illegitimate. That fact also made it very difficult to engage in proper schooling, which da Vinci lacked. Most people would attempt to use this as a crutch against him later in life. But to him, it was a strength. What he did didn't require *words* but *experience*, which he learned early on how to become an apprentice of. Da Vinci, going against the typical image of the "Renaissance Man" that loved acquiring knowledge and wisdom from lost work, once wrote:

> He who has access to the fountain does not go to the water jar.

As he matured though, it became clear that knowledge is neither all experience or past wisdom, but a combination of both.

Though da Vinci lacked education in the traditional sense, he did attend an abacus school to learn useful skills in math and commerce. It was here that he learned the value of thinking about subjects through analogies and patterns, which became "for him a rudimentary method of theorizing."

It was after, where he got an apprenticeship in [Verrocchio's workshop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_del_Verrocchio), that his true genius began to shine.

On da Vinci's art
-----------------

One critique I have with the book is that Isaacson doesn't go into much detail about how da Vinci got into the different paths of life. Nevertheless we know da Vinci became an apprentice of Andrea del Verrocchio (1435 - 1488) at about 14 years old, but it seems he was mostly a natural.

The first painting da Vinci worked on with Verrocchio was *[The Baptism of Christ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baptism_of_Christ_%28Verrocchio_and_Leonardo%29)*. It's believed he worked on the leftmost angel because of its soft facial features, which the other subjects in the painting are not graced with.

Being a disciple of experience, da Vinci noticed when he looked at something in real life, it wasn't obvious where one object ended and another began, like it is so often painted in pictures. It's hard to describe what he saw, but he didn't think there should be a harsh boundary between different objects in paintings. This lead him to embrace a painting technique called *[sfumato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sfumato)*. The word, derived from the Italian word for smoke, *fumo*, can be roughly translated to "soft, vague, or blurred." It makes the painting look very airy and kind of smashed together.

This was just one example of da Vinci's acute observational skills represented in his paintings. He wrote in a notebook:

> If you wish to have a sound knowledge of the forms of objects, begin with the details of them, and do not go on to the second step until you have the first well fixed in memory.

The genius of Da Vinci isn't realized in his incredible observational skills about how the world works though. Instead, it was realized in his ability to make those observations appear on a canvas. This was the true genius.

When he had an idea for a new painting, he would think about what type of social setting and emotion the piece should illustrate. When he got his answer, he would go to the places that held that type of emotion and observe how people behave, how their bodies are positioned, and what their faces look like. Then, "he noted it in a little book which he was always carrying on his belt." But da Vinci didn't just recreate that scene on a canvas. He used that as a starting point in reality and would add imagination and fantasy to make the painting truly come alive. Isaacson notes:

> Leonardo wove an argument that was integral to understanding his genius: that true creativity involves the ability to combine observation with imagination, thereby blurring the border between reality and fantasy

Leonardo's artistic genius is undoubted, but his business suave could have been a bit better. He seemed to get by okay, but was never truly rich because he couldn't finish most of the pieces he was commissioned to do. There's no *real* reason why this happened, but there are some hypothesis.

One hypothesis is that *what could be* excited Leonardo much more than *what was*. He got so excited about an idea when he thought of it that he abandoned everything else he was working on. This cycle just continued. Isaacson wrote, "he was a genius undisciplined by diligence."

Another example could be that da Vinci wasn't about "the grind." He preferred to work very little and follow his curiosity about the world instead. This was found in one of his notebooks:

> Men of loft genius sometimes accomplish the most when they work the least, for their minds are occupied with their ideas and the perfection of their conceptions, to which they afterwards give form.

Another reason he may have not been able to finish paintings, was because his ideas were so close to reality, they could never be pulled off to the degree of perfection Leonardo expected of himself. So, he got as far as he could on some paintings and then just stopped. He didn't like to finish pieces because he would inevitably learn a new technique or fact about how a body should be positioned that he could use to make the piece better. To him, nothing was more beautiful than representing Nature like it ought to be represented:

> Though human ingenuity may make various inventions it will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple, more direct than does Nature; because in her inventions nothing is lacking and nothing is superfluous.

An example of this relentless perfectionism can be seen by examining *St. Jerome in the Wilderness.* This painting was done in two phases: the first being in 1480 when he started the painting and the second being in 1510. Under infrared analysis of the painting, one can see there were dual neck muscles and other parts added in 1510 that were not part of the original drawing. The muscles and parts added seem to align with the anatomical discoveries da Vinci was making through his autopsies (coming soon). This implied he started the painting in 1480, but then changed it *30 years later* to add small neck muscles that he didn't know existed before. His perfectionism was a virtue, but it was also his vice.

So back to the autopsies. Da Vinci was so much a disciple of experience that he dissected some 300+ bodies throughout his lifetime. This wasn't some crazy fantasy for him though, he wanted to understand the layout of the human body so he knew which muscles moved which body parts. He also did a detailed analysis of the skull and brain.

He made very, very detailed drawings of his work and debated with himself about writing a treatise on the anatomy of the human body. He discovered things about how the body works centuries before someone would make the "real" discovery. But because Leonardo didn't have the organizational skills, drive, or desire to publish many of his writings or drawings, he didn't get credit for them until they were discovered.

Lesson: Be more curious
-----------------------

Da Vinci never intended to be a famous painter and artist, he simply went about his life as he thought he should and had some lucky breaks along the way. So even though he didn't intend for his life to come under a microscope 500 years later, there is one thing we can learn when we do so: **to observe and be curious about the little things in life more often**.

Isaacson writes:

> I did learn from Leonardo how a desire to marvel about the world that we encounter each day can make each moment of our lives richer.

He continued:

> Yes, he was a genius: wildly imaginative, passionately curious, and creative across multiple disciplines. His genius was based on skills we can aspire to improve in ourselves, such as curiosity and intense observation.

If we look at Leonardo for a thesis on how to approach life, he might say to do so "with a sense of curiosity and an appreciation for its infinite wonders."

That, Mr. da Vinci, I will strive to do.


Book Review: da Vinci

From [Joel Chan](https://oasislab.pubpub.org/user/joel-chan), this process for synthesizing notes is the best I've seen. It's a bit academic in nature, but with a careful read can be easily understood and you could have a new process for note-taking. I know I do.

### The process goes like this

1. Begin with a set of question notes and papers
	- Every paper or source is read with these questions in mind.
2. Create observation notes
	- Observation notes have the potential to inform one or more questions that you started with.
	- Each observation note is grounded in at least one quote or context from a source and then directly linked to a question note.
3. Develop synthesis
	- What does the literature have to say about the questions of interest?
	2. Synthesis notes also get explicitly linked to relevant question note.
4. Compose and combine synthesis notes and questions of interest into arguments and theories. 
	- If done well, this process will reveal even more questions. That's okay. Go back to the question phase.

### Example images
![Screen Shot 2022-04-19 at 8.00.34 PM](//images.ctfassets.net/nk2hkdvz2uym/2nV6nLutnSSWXP96mdir7M/cd971a904ffe8df6ea464e5953468815/Screen_Shot_2022-04-19_at_8.00.34_PM.png)

![Screen Shot 2022-04-19 at 8.00.53 PM](//images.ctfassets.net/nk2hkdvz2uym/5QAMRJ9q04QPwe2eBbRyYK/11ee69b4e4ee736d3b169f8e2c447c0f/Screen_Shot_2022-04-19_at_8.00.53_PM.png)

I reccomend you read the entire article. [Do so here](https://oasislab.pubpub.org/pub/54t0y9mk/release/3).

The best system I've read for synthesizing knowledge

Tyler Cowen has easily risen to to the top of my "thinkers I like" list. There's probably no one else I know of today that I look at and think, "I want to be exactly like them when I grow up" other than Tyler Cowen. His curisoity and breadth of knowledge is amazing.

Part of that knowledge stems from reading. And reading a lot. Here's some advice:

- > People don’t read enough, and I think as a society we’re under-investing in reading. People feel compelled to finish books they’ve started – that’s just a tax on your reading. Why would you do that to yourself? Imagine a world where any restaurant you tried you had to keep on going there for days or weeks, you’d hardly ever go out to eat.

- > So I advocate reading books in cluster – the author can be the clustering factor, it can be the topic, it can be the historical period – but you really get into a person’s mind if you re-read everything they’ve done within the span of a few weeks or months, and then watch them on YouTube, and just try to think about and write out notes, “What am I going to ask them?” One of the very best ways to read is to have your own podcasy.

- > So the way you read well is just by reading a lot, and by reading a lot your whole life. And then when you go to read actual books you’re like “I know that, I know that, I know that,” and you keep on going, and you read much more quickly. And that’s really the way to read a lot. There are these compounding returns to being obsessed with reading, and starting young, and never stopping.

Read more [reading advice from Tyler Cowen here.](https://www.driverlesscrocodile.com/books-and-recommendations/tyler-cowen-on-reading-fast-reading-well-and-reading-widely/#:~:text=The%20important%20thing%20is%20to,that%20no%2Done%20reads%20quickly.)

Reading advice from Tyler Cowen

Key Insights
------------

### Books allow you to enter an invisible world

"When you first open a book, you enter a liminal space. You are neither in this world, the world wherein you hold a book, nor in that world (the metaphysical space the words point toward). To some extent this polydimensionality describes the feeling of reading in general--one is in many places at once."

### Not all books can be read the same way

"If books were like roads, some would be made for driving quickly--details are scant, and what details are there appear drab--but the velocity and torque of the narrative is exhilarating. Some books, if seen as roads, would be made for walking--the trajectory of the road mattering far less that the vistas these roads might afford."

This description of books really hit home for me. I think it helps me solidify the fact that not every books can be read the same way, and that's okay! Some books need time to read and absorb the information. Others, you can zip right through without having to think twice about it.

### The Eye-Voice Span

The distance between where ones eyes are looking on a page and where , on the page, one's inner voice is reading.

### Reading is not a series of sequential "nows"

"Past, present, and future are interwoven in each conscious moment--and in the performative reading moment as well. Each fluid interval comprises an admixture of: the memory of things read (past), the experience of consciousness "now" (present), and the anticipation of things to be read (future).

This is evident in how we picture fictional characters. Some books open with the description of characters, like *Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood*. But most of the time, we learn a little about a character at a time and add that to a "picasso-esque" image in our minds of what we think the character looks like, updating it with each bit of information.

### All good books are mysteries

"At heart, all good books are mysteries. Authors withhold information. This information may be revealed over time. This is one reason we bother to turn a book's pages. A book my be a literal mystery, like *Murder on the Orient Express*, or a metaphysical mystery, like *Moby Dick*, or a mystery of purely architectonic kind--a chronoptic mystery, like *The Odyssey*.

### A description can be a rank or purpose (in a book and in life)

If you're reading a mystery novel and a character is introduced with a mustache, as a reader, you draw assumptions about that characters role in the book. Descriptions, therefore, can be a rank and a purpose.

"[Descriptions] tell the readers whether they are dealing with a pawn, a rook or a bishop."

This happens in life too. We draw assumptions about co-workers, strangers, and friends based on their appearance until we get to know them for who they actually are. People who are obsessed with playing "the game of life" will treat bishops and rooks much different than they do pawns, to their [the person who treats people differently based on their assumed "status"] detriment of course.

### A great author is able to 'bear witness' of reality well

"When we remark that a novel is 'finely observed,' we are praising the writer's ability to bear witness. This bearing witness is composed of two acts: the author's initial observation in the real world, and then the translation of that observation into prose. The more 'finely observed' the text, the better we readers recognize the thing or event in question."

### Readers perform their books

"We perform a book--we perform a reading of a book. We perform a book, and we attend the performance. As readers, we are both the conductor of the orchestra, as well as the audience."

### On Imagination

"Imagination is a turning-away from the mind-independent world. Imagination, you could say, is like an "inward eye."

### Words work like keys, unlocking something special in the reader

"Words are effective not because of what they carry in them, but for their latent potential to unlock the accumulated experience of the reader. Words 'contain' meaning, but, more important, words potentiate (increase the power or likelihood of) meaning..."
