When everything clicks.When information moves from one thing to the next without friction.When we are riding the exact same wave length.When you’re sharing the moment with another, make eye contact, and you suddenly realize that you’re both making something special — so special that it can never happen again in the same way no matter how hard any one tries.When words fail.Such was last night’s gig.

Note: I’m not much of a football fan. I read a story today that what contributes to Patrick Mahomes being an ultra-effective quarterback is his ability to pass. That got me interested.American Football evolved from being a tackle game to a game about the pass. Some claim that the disincentive of penalties for hitting defenseless players created a pressure to evolve the game to being one about passes. I don’t know if that’s true. I do know that quarterbacks receive a ton of money and there’s quite a bit of selection pressure to find people who are skilled at executive passes, assessment and decision making, and an ability to run. Let’s focus on the pass.Passing in sports is no different than passing in music is no different than transmission in communication is no different than energy transfer in physics. It is about the efficient movement of a thing between things. And there are many ways to maximize the movement of a thing for optimal transmission. I think about delegating work. For an effective delegation of work, a leader must have situational awareness of the work (and constraints) of the person they intend to delegate to. The delegatee must signal their openness or their constraints so that the delegator knows how/if to execute or move on. If it’s clear that delegation is possible, then the delegator must effectively communicate the task, responsibility for completion, and assert their own accountability for the outcome. My friend, Sean, often says “everything is communication.” And, I continue to believe in that claim. While I may not fully appreciate football, I certainly have a deeper appreciation for quarterbacks and other great communicators.

I am thinking about what it means to be unilateral. Unilateral mainly means “one sided” and the term can be applied in activities related to governance, leadership, and really anything that involves a decision. The opposite of unilateral would be multilateral — a “multi-sided” action. Unilateral actions are efficient and effective at forcing a system to adapt to the decision maker. Multilateral decisions are better when collaboration is required. One is not better than the other if consequences are not considered.Here’s the rub — there are leaders who do not consider the second and third order consequences of their unilateral decisions. And when those decisions impact large and complex systems, then whiplash and other forms of destructive system behavior can occur. It’s my experience that this archetype of leaders typically do not collect inputs from others before making a decision — and there’s the real issue. It would seem that in complex systems, multilateral decision making may be better. Or, a blended approach of collecting decision inputs collaboratively and then making a unilateral decision are optimal. It’s almost if any form of leader must intentionally design a decision making process where it’s easy for people to give inputs, and it’s even easier for people to sound the alarm if a decision could de-rail the system, and then it’s even easier for a leader to make their decision and learn as quickly as possible. That’s why I love music. The system that is music is one where many people make inputs, there are people who are unilaterally responsible for executing certain functions (drummers set time for example), and there are mechanisms for making changes mid-performance and guard-rails to prevent songs from going off the rails. What’s more, these types of systems are typically fun to play in and often show us something about ourselves that other activities can’t. Like most things in life — unilateral is not in and of itself a wrong thing. Application matters.

If you’re in a meeting and another participant is toxic or becomes negative towards you and your work — that’s a free lunch opportunity.You can allow that person’s interactions with you to not become personal. You can choose to see them as valueless to you. You can decided that spending nothing on engaging with that person’s interactions will give you back something much greater — contentment and energy. That suggestion might be hard to implement. I admit, I’m still working on it. What works for me is to find humor in the situation — laugh it off. Humor, for me, is a great mechanism to re-frame life’s challenges while costing me very little and getting a lot back. Like most things, more easily said than done; but with intentional practice, you’ll start seeing gains and peace.

There may be things in your life that if you do them, the amount of happiness received would be so high that any amount of trampling would be impossible.Would it be seeing your favorite artist? Would it be enjoying your favorite food? What is it? And, whatever it is, how big in scale is that thing? My hunch: it’s largely large scale. And if it’s large scale, it’s probably not easily attainable. And if it’s not easily attainable, then is the delay of achievement actually a form of trample? In systems, feedback delays can hamper or improve the performance of a system. And, in the system that is our person, I wonder how many delays to happiness we allow to persist? And if we reduced the delay to happiness, would we really need the large scale happiness things? I realize this post is more question than insight… but that’s what brings me happiness. I will not be trampled.

I heard Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, say something that stuck with me:“Normally there’s no such thing as a free lunch, but actually, there are a bunch of free lunches. A lot of people waste resources in ways they don’t have to. If they just changed what they’re doing, they’d have a better life without giving anything else up. If you’re sitting in a bad movie, just get up and walk out—that’s a free lunch. You get your time back and avoid watching something you don’t even like.“Caplan’s point reminds me of system dynamics—one of the most powerful ways to improve a system is by changing the relationship between different elements. He’s saying something similar: if you want to improve your life, change your relationship with things that don’t bring you value.Of course, you could criticize this. Isn’t it fickle to keep changing course? Doesn’t it mean you’re wrong a lot? But Caplan flips the script: the person who learns fast and pivots becomes effective faster than the person who stubbornly tolerates what isn’t working. In the startup world, they call this failing fast.I thought about areas outside of business where this applies. Here are a few:Quitting alcohol. Why waste time and money battling gout, hangovers, and second-order health consequences? The easier path is to cut out the problem entirely.Leaving books unfinished. If a book isn’t delivering value, why keep reading? The sunk cost fallacy tricks people into wasting even more time.Ending bad relationships. Some cultures push couples to stay together at all costs. But forcing an unhappy relationship can lead to depression, resentment, and even betrayal. It’s better to recognize the mistake and move toward something healthier.Quitting toxic jobs. If your boss drains you, your work feels like a grind, and dread sets in every Sunday night, your time and talents are being wasted. Walking away is a free lunch—but, admittedly, one that not everyone can afford.Eating smarter. Same as quitting alcohol, but for food. If something is harming you, why maintain the relationship?Some of these are easier said than done. There are feedback loops, pressures, and obligations that make quitting harder than just flipping a switch. But that’s the point—these choices are free lunches only if you can see them clearly.If you want to apply Caplan’s lens to your own life, the trick is not just to copy his examples but to look at your system as it is, not as others say it should be.Personalization required.

If you are wondering about the attention economy, and,If you are getting sick of all of this talk from academics about the attention economy, and,If you think you are immune from click bait and these click traps, then….Click here.We’re more programmable than we think.

I had this beautiful post written about the absurdity of waking up at 4am to reserve pool chairs and how people engage in West Side Story like resort warfare with each other just to reserve pool chairs…But….. I didn’t save my work. I’m reflecting on that — because I didn’t save my work you didn’t get my thoughts… the idea I had as I wrote to you are no longer with me… the moment passed. The ideas as they were at that time can never come return. Sure, I could re-imagine it, but it won’t be the same. As I muse about — everything natural ends, therefore enjoy each moment.

Of the things I learn at work, the lesson that sticks with me most is: “Always be MECE.” MECE (pronounced ‘Mee-See’) stands for Mutually Exclusive and Comprehensively Exhaustive. It means that every option is covered without overlap—nothing is missing, and nothing fits in two places at once. Here’s an example: Select the answer that best describes your desire for pizza.Yes, Pizza!No, Pizza!OtherYes and No can’t exist at the same time. And it’s possible that you may be “Sure, but not right now” which would go in “Other.” I recently got a CT Scan. At the hospital I filled out a form asking if I had allergies. The form asked me to select “Yes” or “No”. I believe that’s wrong, and it’s certainly not MECE. I don’t know if I have allergies—so how can I confidently say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’?. I wrote in a checkbox and titled it “Unknown.”The nurse, upon reading my form, sighed and said, “Mr. Brady, please, do you have allergies?” I responded, “I don’t know if I do. And without knowing what I might be allergic to, how could I confidently answer yes or no? And I will not claim that I have or don’t have something when I can’t support that claim with any evidence. That’s how conspiracies start.” I’m not a difficult patient. That said, the more I learn about what knowledge is and how it’s acquired and how we use knowledge as inputs in a system, the more I want to be careful about claiming what I have or don’t have knowledge of. We prefer certainty over ambiguity. And unchecked certainty could give rise to hubris. What’s better: Humility > hubris.

I read an article in the New York Times about how the rate of clergy sexual abuse of children in the Philippines is part of a broader systemic issue that persists. If you are a Catholic, my views may offend you — consider yourself warned.I took an interest in the subject because I am interested in systems and I obsess how people make decisions. I found a study by Julie Hanlon Rubio and Paul J. Schutz called “Beyond ‘Bad Apples’: Understanding Clergy Perpetrated Sexual Abuse as a Structural Problem & Cultivating Strategies for Change.” The researchers claim that clericalism — a structure of power that isolates clergy and gives them excessive authority while reducing agency of the lay, toxic masculinity (among other personal factors), and a culture of silence and repression that inhibits victim or institutional whistleblowers from coming forward. To support their claims, the authors surveyed religious, lay, and clergy. I don’t put a ton of weight on anecdotes (anecdotes aren’t data), but the authors did their best to methodically categorize and tag data for analysis. Their conclusions are that the system is to blame and not the person.I asked myself, how many different systems are at play here? And what enables these systems to persist? I identified two from the research, and there are probably more.Church as a social institution. The norm is the belief that the church is nearly infallible. We tell ourselves stories that reinforce that belief — “listen to the priest”, “respect the priest”, “don’t make us that family that makes noise, keep your head down and your mouth shut.” There are feedback loops that make it possible for clergy to offend with impunity — “I’m a priest, I can leverage God to enforce compliance or silence.” Or at an system-administrator level, “If we expose our offending priests, we may lose credibility with congregants.”Social stratification as a systemNorms that enforce power dynamics such as patriarchy and/or female submissiveness. Norms that enforce power, such as clericalism, reinforce the belief that a priest’s association with the divine inherently positions the lay beneath them.I then thought, how do we change systems? Let’s go to physics — The church as an institution has mass and is in motion. Over time, its mass grows, making it more resistant to change. Newton’s principles tell us that to alter its trajectory, an external force must be greater than the force keeping it in motion.Let’s go to systems — systems dynamics tells us that the most powerful way to intervene in a system is to change the relationship between nodes. To change the relationship between clergy and lay or between the institution and itself is much easier to write than to implement. It would require fundamentally changing how we see ourselves and how we see an institution — an ancient belief reinforced through generations! Let’s go to behavioral economics — oversimplified, humans prefer to make change when they have high degrees of certainty and they believe the gain is greater than the loss. To change the nature of relationship between a person and a deep-set institution and belief system requires the person to believe with high certainty that what they gain from giving up a prior belief is greater than giving up a belief they may have held since childhood. How does that happen easily? My final thought on this paperPhysics, sociology, systems, and economics tells us that to change the system may require us to change the nature of our relationship with the system. And, if you’ve ever tried to change the nature of your relationship with anything you deeply love you know the challenge. Perhaps a solution to system-wide change is to start small — through nudges. System administrators—any person or group accountable for a system’s goals, behaviors, and outputs—can introduce nudges that gradually weaken deep-set beliefs and slowly reveal something new. The tradeoff is that if the negative side effects of the system are allowed to persist, the thing that you’re most trying to protect may erode away sooner than its natural death.For those who engage with the system as participants or end users, find ways to communicate and transparently report push back and feedback to system administrators. Consider a vote with the wallet — stop financially supporting the system. Consider financially supporting or publicly advocating for a competing cause. At the level of the person these changes don’t seem meaningful, but at scale, they can be powerful voice-of-user feedback. Three principles then for thinking about changing your relationship with anything large:If you want to make a big change, change your relationship with the thing you want to change.Make that large change sooner than later. Have systems in place to support you as you make that change. Accept that nothing changes overnight, the only way to eat a gigantic steak is one bite at a time, and you’re only human. Consider applying it to something you could give up — examples include ice cream, pizza, (for singers) the need to back phrase, or BTS.