When you’re trying to make a new habit or trying to encourage a new behavior in yourself or others, take special notice of the tiny things that can slow down adoption. I’ll call these impediments “micro-frictions.”
For example, it’s common advice for anyone who runs a website to focus on page speed. Why is that? Well, in 2017 Akamai found that a 100 millisecond delay, an almost imperceptible amount of time, results in 7% fewer conversions (sales, clicks, etc.). A 2 second delay increased bounce rates by over 100%!
If it only takes 100ms to cause someone to make a different choice when checking out on a website, imagine how much of a difference it could make for you to have to:
make an extra trip up or down stairs to begin exercising
enter your username and password before recording a transaction for your budget
look for cleaning supplies before tidying up
Those examples are pretty contrived, but hopefully you see what I mean. If you want to get something done, focus in on every tiny point of friction, inefficiency, or delay and try to remove it. Make it super easy and you’ll change faster and be less likely to resist.
Dan Silvestre has also written about this from the opposite side–how to remove vices by increasing friction. Check out his blog post for more.
One thing I’m interested in is how small, seemingly inconsequential, differences can become amplified into large or interesting effects.
An area that’s been fun to see this happen, and more than ever in 2020/2021, is on the cozyweb with text-based messaging. Here’s a breakdown of the different chat software I’ve used and what I’ve noticed about how they affect the conversations that happen on them.
I realize all my complaints are about software I don’t pay a dime for so… ¯\_(?)_/¯
Slack
The key differentiators with Slack are its ease of creating channels, separate conversations around specific topics. Slack also has lots of integrations with other software that makes sharing media easy.
The most evident effect on conversation in Slack for me personally is that since I use it at work all day, I have almost no desire to use it for friend groups after work. Slack feels distinctly like “work.”
The 10k message limit Slack imposes on free users is very annoying for large groups. Frequently I’ll visit a less-used channel (say #books) and find that everything we previously discussed is now lost forever because someone else had a friendly argument in #tv. Dumb.
It’s not all bad with Slack though–the UI is basic but clean and it’s quite intuitive. It’s very easy to start small, ephemeral conversations. Sharing images and videos is nice, until you run out of space, at which point it’s very annoying. In that sense, Slack encourages a large variety of in-depth conversation.
Google Hangouts
Hangouts doesn’t allow you to edit messages, shows up in Gmail alongside your email, and doesn’t do much more. No channels, no media related features.
Side conversations are unintuitive so most of the conversation stays in a single thread. This leads to the feeling that staying on-topic is more of a necessity and it tends to limit participants’ willingness to banter or chat idly. Depending on what you’re going for, this can be good and bad.
Since messages can’t be edited, there’s a some friction around sending messages quickly. Messages tend to be longer and more thought through because of this.
The UI is, in my opinion, awful. It almost seems like Google made a specific effort to make Hangouts break every common software pattern. Resizing the chat window horizontally is impossible, search is almost non-existent. Having multiple conversations open becomes unwieldy very quickly. Everything about Hangouts feels ugly and outdated. There’s no native Mac app. The combined effects of all these anti-patterns on actual conversations are difficult to quantify, but my guess is that they lead to more drive-by conversations rather than (ironically) actual Hangouts.
Discord
Discord is specifically geared for the cozyweb, and more specifically for gamers, but in my experience, it works great for just about any type of group. It has all the features of Slack, plus it makes it easy to stream video, join impromptu video chats, and it doesn’t hide your old messages.
For me, Discord has been the standout winner. Switching between groups and individual chats is easy. Creating impromptu groups and channels is easy.
Introducing a friend from one group to a friend from another is easy since, unlike Slack, you only have one user account on Discord which can be a member of many groups. On Slack to join a new group you basically have to have a new account. One on one cross-group chats in Discord are easy whereas in Slack they’re not impossible, but it’s not easy.
Discord’s ability to stream video is awesome. It’s super easy to share your screen, what you’re watching, the game you’re playing etc. This ease of use promotes all kinds of conversations and hangouts that don’t happen on any other platform.
I think Discord is the best of the group at encouraging a wide ranging conversation about almost any topic. I’m having a hard time finding anything I don’t like about it.
Apple Messages
Only available to Apple users and a first class citizen on iPhone.
Android users are definitely not welcome. This is… disconcerting in a sense. It’s weird to make someone a second class texting citizen because of their phone operating system choice, but I guess not totally unexpected in the age of cyborgs.
Messages conversations are usually phone based since most people either don’t use Macs or don’t have Messages configured properly. Because of this, messages are usually shorter and more surface level. Jokes and gifs abound. Lots of talk about TV. Gossip. Etc. There’s not a lot of philosophizing or deep thinking going on in Messages.
The ease of use and integration with iOS makes Messages a popular “default” chat app. I think it’s a great place to form new chat groups, but that once friendships start to solidify, it’s better to move to Discord.
Other chat software
There are a bunch of other options that I’ve used, but less-so, so I can’t comment on them as much. Signal, Telegram, Keybase, Instagram / Facebook Messenger, etc. Just like the ones listed above, these will all have effects on the actual quality of the conversations that take place.
Conclusion
The takeaway is that you should choose software that will encourage the type of conversation you’re looking for. Seemingly small differences in features or user interface have huge effects on use.
I’ve noticed a cycle where I feel like consuming information voraciously. I find a topic and simply cannot get enough of it. During these periods, the bedside table and bookshelves get more full, and my personal knowledgebase gains lots of notes. Then inevitably I’ll hit a wall where reading seems almost intolerable. As far as I can tell, the dramatic slowdown happens after around 3-5 months of hyper-consumption (I’ll borrow that term even though here I’m not referring to buying stuff).
At first, I’d try to resist. I’d put more focus on my reading goal and try to push through the resistance, or worry that I was losing my edge or slacking off.
Lately though, I’ve realized that it’s part of a cycle.
When I feel resistance to reading or learning, it’s a sign that I need to shift gears from consuming information to letting it become synthesized into my current understanding of the world. The best way I’ve found to do that is to focus on creativity.
I’ll turn to writing, drawing, photography, spending lots more time outside, and meditating. Sometimes I still get the nagging feeling that there’s I’m missing out on something or wasting time. Over the years though, I’ve gained more confidence in the cyclical nature of creating and consuming and I can relax more knowing that inevitably the cycle will return and I’ll return to my bookish ways again soon.
Allowing the cycle to play out has not only resulted in less worry or FOMO, it’s resulted in things like returning to post on this, my much neglected blog. It’s a nice middle way.
A few years ago (2015) I wrote about the sad state of personal knowedgebases (PKBs). This is a quick check in 6 years later to see how we’re doing. First of all though, what is a PKB?
Personal knowledgebase: Software that lets you store all your thoughts, research, bookmarks, etc. in a single organized place. It’s different from a normal notes app in that:
Notes should have a hierarchical relationship to each other. There should be a visual representation of the hierarchy.
Cross-note links, wiki style, should be simple to create and first-class citizens.
Sync should provide access to notes across devices.
Search should be excellent.
That’s the basics anyway. Almost every true contender for a first-class PKB will have lots of other features.
My PKB of choice remains The Brain. I’ve been using it for about 15 years now and haven’t come across anything that wants to make me switch. I love it.
My section on Personal Knowledgebases in The Brain
It’s not for everyone though, and that’s fine. In my last post, I lamented the lack of options. Fortunately since then some new contenders have arisen and competition is heating up.
My favorites are Obsidian and Roam Research. They’re very similar and I’m not particularly qualified to discuss their specific pros and cons. The main difference seems to be that Obsidian is free (at least for personal use with no sync) and Roam is commercial. Both models have their upsides and downsides.
In addition to these, there are some less traditional options like Notion and Zim that, while they don’t satisfy the requirement of having hierarchy visualization, are still close enough to qualify as a PKB.
It’s nice to see renewed interest in what, for me, has been an essential tool. Hopefully competition will continue to spur innovation.
When John Vervaeke shared the ideas that humans are naturally self-transcendent in many ways in episode 31 of his Awakening from the Meaning Crisis series, it gave me goosebumps. I don’t know that I can do the idea justice, but I wanted to write at least a bit about it while it’s fresh in my mind.
This blog post, to be perfectly clear, contains none of my own ideas—they’re all Vervaeke’s. Some of it is directly quoted from his lecture, the rest is, to the the best of my ability, either paraphrased or restated.
He says that “when a system, [a human for example], is self-organizing, there’s no deep distinction between its function and its development. It develops by functioning. By functioning it develops.” So development is both a result of functioning as well as an input to functioning. In a way, it feels to me like it’s our brief but bright stand against the second law of thermodynamics. As long as we’re alive, by definition we’re constantly self-organizing and transcending. Is that not anti-entropic too?
As we’ve evolved, we’ve moved from single cells to becoming a zygotes. Later, some cells began to differentiate—they specialized into organs. They self-organized. This biological complexification gives us emergent abilities. As these abilities emerge, we transcend ourselves as a system. As Vervaeke says, he couldn’t vote when he was a zygote. It’s interesting on a purely biological level, but the implications for our social and spiritual development are even more exciting.
The processes that determine how this development takes place are key to his research. He’s developing a theory of “relevance realization.” I’ll have to write about that in another blog post, but in a nutshell, for something to be relevant in this context is for the thing to be fit for our survival and growth. He theorizes that there is no possible scientific definition for something that’s relevant since relevance is entirely context dependent. He says that what we can determine scientifically is a theory for how we realize something is relevant to fitness. Again, I can’t do justice to it yet, but it’s basically through a sort of functional feedback loop…
The obvious next question is where does this self-transcendence end? As far as I know, there’s no reason to believe that it does end—we should be capable of essentially endless self-transcendence. It’s exciting to think about! What forms can we take through intentional self-complexification? What will happen through evolutionary processes?
Money is much more complex than just being the currency that whatever country you live in issues. It comes in many forms and, with cryptocurrencies and other digital currencies, there are more choices today than ever. This is great, but it also means that there is more risk and a higher learning curve to figuring out your options.
It’s not something you should ignore. Money is the most pure representation of your time and work that exists. Think about that. If you value them, it’s worth thinking about what you use to store their value. Whatever it is, the most important consideration is if it will retain its value over time.
1. Story
The fitness of all money, above all, is based on a shared story. The strength of the story is the most fundamental factor in determining the health of any type of money. The reason everyone accepts US Dollars is that we all believe everyone else will do the same thing and we think there are good enough reasons for that to keep happening. If for any reason we stop believing that, US Dollars become nothing but paper or numbers on a computer screen.
Gold, silver and a few other forms of money have the advantage of having an intrinsic value outside of the story we tell about them. This makes them much less susceptible, but not completely immune, to the story behind their value being undermined. Precious metals have their own problems, but story is certainly their strong point.
2. Stewardship
In addition to story, the stewardship of money, meaning the person or organization that controls its supply, is important. In the case of US Dollars, the US Government and the Federal Reserve are the stewards. They decide when more money is created and to whom and under what terms that new money is distributed.
When a steward decides to create more money, no matter what the reason or how valid it is, it lowers the value of all existing money.
Mmm, cookies
A simple, but illustrative way to understand this is to imagine that there are 10 cookies for sale and 10 friends who’d like a cookie. Unfortunately, there are only 5 cookie coins available and each one is worth 2 cookies. In a stroke of inspiration, you decide to simply make 5 more cookie coins.
At that moment, two things have happened. The first is that each of the original cookie coins are now only worth 1 cookie. They lost value because while there are new coins, there are still the same number of cookies. The second is that there is now more flexibility in the system since there are enough coins for each person to have one. What’s important here though, is how the 5 new cookie coins are distributed.
If 5 friends started with the original 5 coins, and each gets one new cookie coin there’s very little change. They’re all just as rich (and not richer) with 2 cookie coins each than they were with just one. If, however the 5 new coins are given to the 5 friends who had none, they’re now richer while the 5 original cookie coin owners are poorer–before they could afford 2 cookies each, now they can only afford one. You might think “well that sounds equitable” and in a sense, it would be, but it is of course more complicated than that. Say the 5 original cookie coin owners earned their coins by working all morning in the hot sun while the 5 who had no coins sat around the pool telling jokes.
The point of the cookie coin story isn’t about what’s fair. The point is that when the steward of money meddles with the supply there are consequences for everyone in the system. Some will be winners, some will be losers.
The big risk is that if too many people are losers for too long, the all important story behind the money breaks down, and we’ve already discussed what can happen then.
3. Suitability
In addition to the story and stewards of money, we need to consider suitability. Suitability is the technical side of money. It’s:
how easily and cheaply it’s transferred from person to person and place to place within and across borders
how private it is
its ability to be used in interactions with the government, primarily meaning to pay taxes
its liquidity, or how easily and quickly it can be used to purchase the things people want to buy
it’s durability; how easily can it be physically or digitally lost or destroyed
All these are important considerations but be warned not to mistake suitability for being more important than story and stewardship. It doesn’t matter how amazingly perfect and awesome a potential money is if it can’t get popular support or it’s mismanaged.
Conclusion to part 1 and what’s up next
We’ve now seen what kind of considerations come into play when choosing where to store your time and energy. Next we’ll consider what our options for money are and how they compare to each other in light of the above criteria.
After a bit of experimentation, this is the ultra-macro setup that I like best. I should caveat this all by saying that I’ve only been shooting macro for a few months. I’m of course open to suggestions for improving this setup.
A moth at 1x and the same moth at >5x. Also, a typical housefly at >5x.
Lens
Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 Whereas most macro lenses will do 1x magnification, meaning the subject is a 1:1 ratio to the sensor, this lens will do an incredible 5x.
It’s not a particularly easy lens to use—it’s neither auto-focus or manual focus, you focus by moving the camera. Also, once you’re out at 5x, you pretty much have to use flashes—very little light makes it to the sensor.
That even with those downsides though, if you want to get close and avoid extension tubes, this is pretty much the lens to use. I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with extension tubes by the way, just that you have to take them on and off and you don’t get nearly as granular a zoom range as you do with the MP-E 65mm.
Lens Accessories
Raynox DCR-250 2.5x Super Macro Lens This is a clip-on magnifier that increases the magnification even further. I’m still not 100% sure that it doesn’t reduce the sharpness, but as far as I can tell, it doesn’t.
The biggest downside is that with 5x magnification plus the 2.5x of the Raynox, the depth of field you’re left with even at f11 or higher is ridiculously small. To give you an idea, if you were focusing on a coin, say a penny, top down it’d be tough to get it in focus because the depth of field at f8 is less than depth the relief on the penny’s face. I also find that I have to turn my flashes all the way up to 1/1 (the highest setting) to get enough light. Even then, I’m usually shooting at ISO 1000 or higher.
But, if you want to get even closer, this will do it.
Fotodiox E.F.-Sony(E) Fusion Small AF Adapter Since I’m using a Canon lens on a Sony body, I need an adapter. This one works just fine. It enables the camera to control aperture—lesser adapters have no electronic contacts. The MP-E 65mm has no focus, but for other lenses, the Fotodiox will also allow a Sony body to focus a Canon lens. The adapter also allows the camera to record the EXIF data from the lens.
Camera
I use a Sony A9. This is not the best camera for macro photography, but it’s not bad. The downside is that it’s “only” 24mp. The upside is that it’s an ISO champion. If I had an unlimited budget I’d get a Sony A1 which is, from what I understand, the best of both worlds. With 50mp, you effectively get even more zoom since cropping at 1:1 will magnify the subject more.
Note that the A1 would be the best all-around + macro Sony camera for me. That’s because I usually am a bird photographer. If you only planned on doing macro photography, you’d probably want to go for the highest resolution camera you could find.
Other Accessories
Sirui K-40X Ball Head When you’re shooting ultra macro you need your tripod setup to be extremely stable. You will also want a tripod head that holds a lot of weight. I spent way too much time with small tripod heads that drifted all over the place before I finally upgraded to the ~$120 K-40x. This ball head is rock solid and doesn’t break the bank.
3 Legged Thing Brian CF This is not the best tripod for macro since it’s not super heavy, but it’s a pretty good compromise. It lets you flip the center post so you can shoot straight down. It’s carbon fiber so it’s relatively light and stable. It’s also cool looking and well priced.
Bolt VM-1020S Speedlights / Flash This isn’t the brightest flash ever made, but it’s a really nice set. It supports TTL for Sony and comes with a lot of nice accessories. Notably, you can clip the flashes to a ring on the end of the lens and rotate them around the lens. In practice, this isn’t always the best since the light from very close, unmodified flashes is pretty harsh, but in a pinch it’s quick and effective.
For setups where you have more time and space, you can easily use the flashes as you would any other speedlights and the kit includes table stands, gels, and a few other nice-to-haves.
Dual arm flash hot shoe bracket This is a bracket that screws on to the bottom of your camera and has two flexible arms with flash mounts on them. Search for it on Amazon, Ebay, or Ali Express. It seems to be a generic product manufactured in China that you can pick up for under $20. It’s a nice way to get a more flexible flash setup.
Macro focusing rail slider Another generic product that you can pick up for ~25. I’m not so sure that the one I have is the best, but it works okay. Since that’s all I know about it, I’ll leave it at that.
Using the MP-E 65mm to photograph a moth. Normally I’d have a paper towel between the flashes and the lens to diffuse the light.
General thoughts about ultra-macro
Ultra-macro is fun on a technical level and reveals surprising details about everyday objects. Aside from technical challenges, the biggest difficulty I’ve found is making beautiful photos. Many of my photos turn out to be geometrically interesting or maybe even scientifically useful, but they don’t necessarily elicit much emotion, at least not for me.
I don’t say that to be discouraging, I’m still trying to figure it out. I like the challenge and I know it’s possible to make compelling ultra-macro photos because I’ve seen others take truly beautiful pictures of everything from snowflakes to grains of sand. Personally though, I’m still in the phase of working through the technical aspects.
This is another post inspired by John Vervaeke’s lectures on the Meaning Crisis. Halfway through the 50 lecture series he switches from focusing on how humans have made and found meaning throughout history to looking at how cognitive science can help us address the loss of meaning we face in a post-religious world.
Vervaeke introduces the section on cognitive science by framing it as a broad discipline that encompasses several levels of thinking about thinking:
Cognition level
Academic discipline
Culture
Anthropology
Language
Linguistics
Behavior
Psychology
Information Processing
Artificial Intelligence – AGI
The Brain
Neuroscience
He then argues that the best way to advance our understanding of cognition it to, rather than approach each academic discipline as a discrete field that sometimes gleans from other cognitive fields, take a more integrated, more philosophical, approach.
For example a linguist might ask herself “what can I see in psychology through the lens of linguistics?”
This description barely touches the surface of his thoughts. The first 15 or 20 minutes of this video are well worth watching and don’t necessarily require the full context of the first 25 lectures:
