Many people seem to have a big blind spot when it comes to reading people. Not just that they can’t do it, but they don’t believe it can be done.

Let’s say two people sit down to play some Texas Hold’em. They decide in advance to play 10,000 hands, because they’re both immortal and don’t need to eat or sleep. The law of large numbers says that over 10,000 hands, pretty much exactly 50% of them will give the better cards to Player A, and the other 50% will give the better cards to Player B. So if “who has the better cards” determines who wins, then the players should come very close to breaking even at the end of the game.

In reality, if one of those people is a professional poker player and the other is not, the pro will absolutely wipe the floor with the amateur.

Why? Does being a professional poker player give you the ability to get dealt better cards from a shuffled deck? Of course not. But the pro will know when his opponent’s hand is better and when his own is, and he’ll bet accordingly. He’ll bait his opponent into bad moves and he’ll maneuver around unbeatable hands. He’ll completely rob the other guy.

And in my experience, at the end of the night, the other guy will say his opponent “got lucky.”

People just absolutely do not like to admit they got tricked, manipulated, or bluffed. They hate the idea of ever losing a battle of wits (probably because we equate being smart with moral worth), to the point where they won’t admit that’s what happened. And as a result, they force themselves to ignore the fact that this is a skill that can be developed.

So the cycle continues. That same person will never be able to read people – or bluff – because they don’t want to acknowledge that other people might already have that skill and be better at it than them.

And I get it. Being tricked, especially outside of a game, feels very bad! And if we acknowledge that we got tricked because of a lack of our own ability to detect the trick in the first place, it’s like taking on the blame, and calling someone else smarter than you. Most people’s egos can’t handle it. Some people won’t even report scams to the police because it hurts their pride too much. If you get robbed at gunpoint, that doesn’t feel as shameful as getting taken in a confidence scheme.

But the only defense against this game is to play it. If you don’t recognize it as real, it’s a huge weak spot. You aren’t immune to it – and if you think you are, you’re even more susceptible. Watch a few poker games, then play a few. It might be frustrating, but it’s a skill worth learning.

Leadership shouldn’t be a bidding war.

Like literally everything in life, there are trade-offs involved in leadership and there’s a price to pay for it that’s simply too high. If you want to lead a team or group, that’s great! But you need to know that at some point, the cost is simply too high.

Here’s what I’ll see: a team forms unofficially in the office. It has maybe eight people. Right away, two or three people decide they want to take charge. And they’ll start this huge pissing contest with each other, trying to one-up and puff chests and whatever else until it’s all chaos. Nobody gets what they want and the team is a disaster. Because all parties treated leading the team like an auction – each one trying to out-bid the other with the currency of their social capital.

Leadership needs to be thought of as having a static price. If I’m on a team and I think I should lead it, I’ll start leading it. I’ll just assume it. But if someone wants it badly enough to try to jockey, I won’t immediately and automatically get into that bidding war. Instead, I’ll assess my price preference. How badly do I want it?

Nine times out of ten, I don’t. So I save my social capital (and my mental energy) for when I do. Knowing when someone is willing to cut their own arm off to outbid you on something is a keen skill to develop, and it’ll save you a lot of headaches. And when you do need to assume command – you will.

There’s a little game I like to play with my kids. I call it “The Wrong Game.”

It’s a game where I’ll deliberately say something incorrect so that my kids will react. They’ll tell me the correct thing, but then I’ll act like I don’t understand and make them explain it to me more thoroughly until I “get it.”

For example, I was reading a book to them that had the word “robot,” and I kept intentionally mispronouncing it as “rowboat,” “rabbit,” or “reboot.” I acted like I didn’t understand the difference until they wrote down all four words and walked me through why they each sounded the way they did.

When you can teach something to someone – with patience and grace – that’s when it really internalizes. We “learn” a lot of things that we actually just memorize. We learn to drive a car by remembering the steps, not by understanding why the rules of the road exist or how an internal combustion engine actually works. But giving people the opportunity to teach, especially in a way that’s different from how they learned it themselves, is a wonderful way to approach true understanding.

I’ve found this same technique, applied in a less silly manner, works wonders with adults as well. If I really want to see if someone has absorbed something they’re trying to learn, I might say: “Okay, pretend I’m the new colleague you’re training next week, so I have no prior knowledge of this process. If I started by doing [this incorrect step], what would you tell me?” And then bam, the gears start turning in a whole new way.

The Wrong Game is often the right one – have fun playing!

May this day be not only a day about freedom, but a day to remember that even if someone following an ideal has lost their way, that does not tarnish the ideal. The yoke of tyranny should fall on no human shoulders, and all human hands should lift them from those who have forgotten.

You can’t fix a traffic problem by improving the roads.

Let’s say that Main Street is very crowded. It’s a single-lane road and a thousand people per hour drive on it, making it a congested mess. People complain about it all the time the general consensus is that “something should be done.” So at great taxpayer expense, the city spends a ton of time and effort widening Main Street to two lanes. Now a thousand people per hour won’t congest it at all, and it would take twice as many people to bring it back to the level of traffic it had before.

That is what happens immediately.

Within the span of a few weeks to a few months, the road is every bit as congested as it ever was. The question is: why?

Well, we have to look at “what is unseen.” In the initial situation, a thousand people per hour drove on Main Street. But ten thousand people per hour made a conscious decision not to. Those other ten thousand people decided that they’d take an alternate route rather than face the traffic, or they’d choose an alternate destination entirely, or they’d stay home, etc. They might not take jobs at the other end of Main Street or eat at different restaurants or whatever else, because the traffic is so bad. The thousand people per hour who do drive on Main Street are those ones who have made the calculation that (even though they obviously don’t like the traffic) all their alternatives are worse.

But that calculation is ongoing, and the ten thousand potential drivers had different levels of commitment to the idea. For some people, the traffic was only just bad enough to make them choose an alternative (maybe the alternative is a road that also has traffic, but slightly less!). For others, the rest of the city would have to fall into the ocean before they’d ever drive on Main Street.

When the new construction is finished and the road is wider, the calculation changes.

Now Main Street has “openings,” let’s say. The next thousand people – the ones on the weakest end of the objection scale – now find that their objections are no longer sufficient to force them to choose alternatives. So they swap from whatever alternatives they had previously been choosing back to Main Street. And Main Street fills right back up.

And as the same amount of traffic congestion can now bring more people up Main Street, there’s further incentive for people to do things like open restaurants on the far end of Main Street and get jobs on that end and so on, so the incentive to go up that way intensifies – enough to counteract the negative response when the traffic starts to worsen again. An equilibrium is always reached, and the equilibrium will always be a lot of traffic.

There’s a lesson here, of course, well beyond just the lesson to civil engineers. The lesson is that whenever you see a problem that’s affecting a group of people, you need to understand that the group of people you see is only part of the overall situation. The problem itself is acting as a barrier to the people you don’t see – the potentials. That can work in your favor, if you want more people – if the congested checkout line at your store is preventing people from buying your stuff, then improving that line can make you more sales, even if the individual wait times don’t change.

But it can also be a danger. If you think that you can reduce the wait time at your free health clinic by adding more doctors, you can’t – because the reduced wait times will entice more people to show up until the wait times reach their previous equilibrium. There’s theoretically a number of doctors – or traffic lanes, or anything else – that can’t be overwhelmed in this way, but in practice that number is so high as to be impossible. You could reduce wait times to zero at your health clinic if there was one doctor for every citizen in your city, but that seems as unlikely as finally making that 40-lane-wide highway that no number of cars can clog.

The trick here is not to try to solve all problems of congestion. It’s to optimize the equilibrium. There is no perfect solution, but you can balance the needs of movement against everything else. Unfortunately, that often means not building more roads – which people tend not to like. But they only don’t like it because they believe (incorrectly) that traffic is a result of there not being enough roads. The reality is that as long as there is something people want, someone will be in line ahead of you to get it.

Optimize your patience, choose your own best alternatives, and live your best life.

We can chase something forever, only to find that it isn’t worth it when we catch it. But the chase itself can still have been worthwhile!

Of course, the chase for some white whales is inherently destructive – after all, the source of that name isn’t a happy tale. But you can set your sights on some unattainable goal whose pursuit actually improves your lot in life.

Imagine yearning your whole life for a perfect picture of a sunset. You can never get it exactly right, but the pursuit takes you all over the world, watching nature’s beauty, and practicing a fun hobby. There are worse things than never attaining a goal like that.

Pick your whales carefully, is all I’m saying. Then pursue them to your heart’s content!

Tonight we had a really terrific storm. The combination of the recent heat wave and the tremendous wind sent up all sorts of strange atmospheric phenomena. For instance, in the moments after the storm had abated, the entire outside was bright, neon yellow-green.

It was fascinating. The entire outside was a radically different color than it normally is. It was like wearing filtered glasses. People were out on the streets marveling at it. It really was something you couldn’t capture in a photo, because people have seen filtered photos before and that’s exactly what it would have looked like. But seeing it with your own eyes was something else.

It occurred to me that the most likely explanation was just that we were seeing the same sort of water-based light fracturing that produces rainbows, but from a different angle. We were inside the rainbow.

It’s a fun reminder that everything you see is a combination of the angles from which you’re seeing it, and the lenses you’re seeing it through. Nothing really looks like anything – it’s all just you, and how you look at it.

If you ask to borrow someone’s tools, you had better return them promptly and in the same condition as when you borrowed them. That applies to just about anything you can borrow, but tools especially. Don’t be useless.

As a general rule, if you find yourself apologizing for something that you’re still doing: don’t apologize, just stop.

If you’re still doing it, then you’re not really apologizing. You’re excusing. You’re making excuses for why it’s still happening so that you can keep doing it.

Do what you’re going to do. But don’t insult me.