Author: tworuru

  • Map of the Problematic

    Map of the Problematic

    audio-thumbnail

    Map of the Problematic – The Cynic’s Guide to Self-Improvement Podcast
    0:00

    /1246.02068

    A while back I set up a podcast to listen to while I mowed the lawns. It was ostensibly about weightlifting, by an outfit called Starting Strength, hosted by a bloke called Mark Rippetoe. I’d seen stuff by Starting Strength before – I’d used their YouTube videos to learn how to deadlift and squat when my bad form threatened to mutilate my spine – and when it came to novice lifting programmes they seemed to know what they were talking about. [1] I was looking forward to learning more about strength, and lifting, and sports science in general. I put on my headphones and got to work. [2]

    I was rounding a tricky bit out on the front verge by the fence, one of those bits where the grass grows out long from somewhere the mower can’t quite get to. My frustration at this was compounded by a growing sense of confusion as the Texan drawls on the weight-lifting podcast turned their talk, for some reason, to solar power.

    I wish I had examples of what I heard. Infuriatingly, I can’t find the recording anywhere in my various internet or app histories, which is sad, because it was very funny. The gist was that solar power doesn’t work. This perplexed me, because I have solar panels on my roof, and a battery next to my house. I can watch them work in real-time by turning the lights on. Of course, to give credit to Rippetoe and friends where probably none is due, he was talking about how solar power at scale doesn’t work. Which is also wrong, but for different reasons. This talk inevitably segued into general riffing on climate change, and how it was a myth (feat. manly guffaws). All this was, for reasons that remain mysterious, presented as a metaphor for weightlifting.

    I don’t know a lot about lifting. Nor do I know much about climate change, in the scheme of things; I’m not a climate scientist. But I know a hell of a lot more about climate change than those yahoos. It was howler after canard, bullshit piled on bullshit so deep that it stopped being offensive and became riotous. I had to stop the podcast because muttering “that’s not right,” “well that’s wrong,” and “what the fuck?” under my breath — punctuated with occasional disbelieving yelps of laughter — was starting to attract looks from passers-by.

    Mower parked for the moment, I did a bit more digging into Starting Strength’s online oeuvre. Their “how to lift” videos seemed excellent, and in aggregate, were about twenty minutes long. Time well spent. Their novice lifting programs seemed, to my untrained eye, fine. There’s plenty of stuff like interviews with strength coaches and athletes and the like, which I assume is also fine. The rest was dismaying. It was much less about strength and more a telling meander through the myriad pathologies of the modern American male mind. It’s a grab bag of conspiracist nonsense: there’s both climate denial (a recent episode features professional fossil fuel shill Alex Epstein opining about “the need for increased usage and accessibility of fossil fuels”) and Covid-denial (Naomi Wolf and other cultural dingleberries receive guest spots).

    So yeah. They’re lunatics.

    The implications are troubling. If I can’t trust Starting Strength’s ability to filter fact from fiction in their podcast, what am I meant to make of their fitness program? I don’t expect perfection, or anything close to it, from my sources of information. Nor do I require uniformity of opinion or values. But this stuff was so egregiously wrong it was difficult to look past it. I suppose the real question is: why do people so reliably assume that their expertise in one domain — let’s say, weightlifting — gives them the ability to comment on another, wildly different domain like climate science? [3]

    The easy explanation is that weightlifters are meatheads, but I don’t think that’s it. [4]

    In hindsight, the mug was a clue

    Let’s look at another telling example, someone who cannot be dismissed as a meathead. If you have spent any time at all in the online self-improvement space, you have run into Andrew Huberman. A scientist, a Stanford professor, a weightlifter and runner; chisel-jawed, muscle-bound, blue-eyed; this gleefully earnest podcaster and video-maker boasts subscribers in the millions. Huberman is — or at least appeared to be — one of those cases of nominative determinism so egregious that if he was a character in your draft novel or screenplay you’d get a strongly-worded email from an editor. “So this professor guy, he’s good at everything? And extremely good-looking? Runs marathons, lifts heavy weights? And you put “Uberman” right in his name? Yeah, I’m going to need to get you to revise that draft.” Huberman’s style is simple, and instantly identifiable: his Huberman Lab show consists of really long recordings, sometimes with guests, often without, always with a camera on. He doesn’t talk down to the audience, or at least, he affects not to; you feel like you’re an undergrad in an introductory university science class being enlightened via bewilderment. Huberman endorses free, science-based “protocols” for a wide variety of things — eating, sleeping, exercise, fertility — as well as a dizzying array of supplements, beginning with the podcast staple Athletic Greens and multiplying from there. In addition to the red flags raised by supplement-hucking, recent revelations have both asked and answered questions about Huberman’s character, as well as just how scientific many of his protocols and podcasts really are.

    In short, the “lab” part of “Huberman Lab” is at best a stretch and at worst a fiction; his supplement regimen is spurious, some of his claims are implausible, others are bunk, and he was, until recently — there’s no polite way to put this — boinking five different women. If the boinking had occurred in just one time and place I’d have no other comment apart from praising his stamina, but as it turns out, it was just boring old-fashioned non-consensual cheating. At least one of the women interviewed claims he gave her HPV; another says he was prone to outbursts of rage.

    None of these things speak well of Huberman’s character, and they’re opposite to his image as a very cool and together guy, but I’m almost equally bothered by the revelations that he strayed almost as far out of his lane as the Starting Strength guys. It doesn’t take much to start seeing this pattern repeat everywhere: well-meaning people begin opining on their area of expertise, which quickly grows to encompass everything. As well as sounding endless klaxons in my own head – I am swimming in the same sea with my little self-improvement newsletter – I’m struck by how difficult it is not just to produce accurate information but to consume it. How can we know what’s true or helpful?

    This is where I risk going wildly wrong myself, but here’s how I try to manage it. As is eternally the case, your mileage may vary.

    No gods, no heroes, no gurus

    If you’re looking for information, and a high-profile person is providing both helpful and unhelpful content, this is easier to parse if you haven’t been worshipping at the altar of a cult of personality. Hopefully, you can take whatever useful stuff they’ve produced without feeling that you must either publicly defend or defenestrate them. The same applies for me, in the unlikely event that anyone feels like putting me on a pedestal. I often worry that my occasional ability to make England word good will result in people taking me too seriously. Try not to. This will not do wonders for my following or reputation as a producer of “content,” as everyone in the space seems to thrive on delivering every word with the same total sense of self-assurance, but I think it very important that you take what I say with a nutritionally correct amount of salt. I try my best to get things right but I’m inevitably going to get stuff wrong. When I do, I’ll try to correct it after the fact.

    Domain expertise only

    This might the most helpful way to map around the problematic. Here is an example: Is it 1976, and is Richard Dawkins talking about evolutionary biology? Then you should probably listen. Is he talking about trans people on Twitter in the 2020s? Good news, he’s so far out of his domain that he may as well be a fish on the Moon. You can safely ignore his pronouncements on trans folk, and much else besides. Hooray!

    It doesn’t follow that expertise in one area can’t apply to others. And there are methods of inquiry that can throw up insights across multiple domains. Done properly, journalism is one of them. (If it wasn’t, I should probably stop writing this newsletter.) But if someone is being a dingbat in public then you’ve got a heuristic to hand: are they being a dingbat about their domain, or about something else? By way of example: Andrew Huberman is an ophthalmologist and a neuroscientist. In the event I find myself very interested in optic nerves, I will listen to him with reverence. The Starting Strength guys are very good at lifting weights. I’m happy to take their advice on my squat form, but I can safely leave their opinions on climate change in the trash where they belong.

    Don’t be Rick

    I’m an sometime fan of the show Rick and Morty, which is a reluctant admission because have you looked at that show’s fanbase? The premise, for anyone unfamiliar, is a kind of warped, multiversal Back to the Future in which Morty is a mostly inept teenage kid (and a bit of a piece of shit) and Rick is a autodidactic genius (and a complete piece of shit). The problem, as I see it, is that fans have not only taken “how to behave in real life” lessons from a cartoon, always a bad idea[5], but also that they’ve settled on being a know-it-all-asshole as a prerequisite to being an autodidactic genius. Needless to say, it’s not — or, at least, it doesn’t work that way around. There have been plenty of geniuses who were complete dicks in their personal lives, but their lesson should be that being an asshole is completely optional. Of course, being an asshole it doesn’t necessarily diminish domain expertise. I’ll happily accept drumming lessons from Ginger Baker or painting tips from Picasso, but I’m not going to take life advice from either.

    How much information do you really need?

    When you get interested in something, in self-improvement or any other field, it’s natural to want more information. But how much of it is necessary to what you want to achieve? I’m not telling any budding neurosurgeons to throw out their textbooks, please don’t do that, but in the self-improvement field a lot of information boils down to “do something quite simple very consistently for a long time.” Starting Strength teaches you how to squat, deadlift, bench, and press. If you are most people, this is much of what you need to know for the first stages of your lifting journey. Yes, one size doesn’t fit all, and I’m sure there are more optimal programs, but the fact remains that if someone who doesn’t lift starts to do so regularly and safely they’ll get stronger. [6] And that’s all the information a beginner needs!

    One might quibble this attitude when it comes to Andrew Huberman. His entire thing is providing the research and background that (sometimes!) backs up his protocols, and surely that’s enough reason to listen. But let’s look a little closer at the protocols themselves. They are often very simple, which is no bad thing. In fact, routines.club — a truly hideous website that appears to be almost entirely an artefact of AI built to SEO-huck the same supplements as Huberman — has conveniently summarised Huberman’s daily routines, illustrated with physiologically implausible AI illustrations.

    AI Huberman needs to start skipping leg day

    I’ll go one step further and deconstruct AI Huberman’s routine down to a bulleted list:

    • Wake up at 6 am
    • Drink 2 glasses of water + huck a supplement, also at 6 am
    • Yoga Nidra meditation, also somehow at 6 am
    • 6:45 am: sun exposure. I’m going to call this “going outside”
    • 7 am: “cold exposure.”
    • 7:30 am: workout
    • 10 am: coffee
    • 1 pm: breakfast(!)
    • 3 pm: more Yoga Nidra
    • 6:30 pm: cardio
    • 7 pm: food
    • 9:30 pm: dims lights for quiet time
    • 10:00 pm: reading
    • 10:30 pm: zzzz

    Apart from the intermittent fasting, there’s nothing particularly controversial there. It’s a well-ordered day, if a highly idealistic one (anyone with children, chores, or a normal job will be able to spot this instantly.) The one remaining Huberman oddity is his insistence on “delayed caffeine intake” to about 90 minutes after waking up to avoid a crash later in the day, which a recent literature review has all but debunked. There’s certainly nothing that requires listening to hours of podcasts. Speaking of info-dumps: I’m going to suggest that Huberman’s podcast-lectures are not actually that well-formatted for those with a casual interest in science. On multiple listens, his style starts to resemble a Gish Gallop, an unending cavalcade of information and citations in which it’s very difficult for either scientists or laypeople to distinguish the science from the supplement sales pitch. (This podcast is brought to you by Mathletic Greens, the only balanced nutritional supplement that supports and enhances your maths skills). So not only is some proportion of the information suspect, it’s surplus to requirements.

    In fact, over my long history of trying and failing to be consistent with anything self-improvement, I’ve come to suspect that all the extra information gets in the way. We labour under the delusion that more information — or information delivered in a slightly different package — is what we need, when what we really require is the ability to stop overthinking, simplify the more-than-adequate information we already have, and put it into consistent practice.

    If I ever figure that out, I’ll let you know.


    1. The weight-lifting program I (very imperfectly) use is essentially Casey Johnston’s LIFTOFF, which – as far as I can tell – shares a bit with Starting Strength, including some newbie-friendly tweaks. If all of that means nothing to you, don’t worry. I do recommend checking out Casey Johnston, though. She’s great. ↩︎

    2. Before anyone decides to point it out: You shouldn’t really use noise-cancelling headphones as earmuffs. You should use earmuffs. But my mower is electric, and sounds more like a content swarm of bees than the usual deafening four-stroke roar, so I’m sure it’s not doing me any harm. What? What’s that? Sorry, I think some kind of bell that never stops ringing is calling me. ↩︎

    3. Any neoliberal economists reading this can leave now, secure in the knowledge that your expertise is indeed applicable to every facet of life, as you’ve long suspected. ↩︎

    4. And yet there’s probably something to it. If I’d looked a bit closer at Mark Rippetoe’s YouTube content before embarking on his podcast I might have come to the meathead conclusion a bit sooner and avoided the whole debacle: his omnipresent desk ornaments include a toy monkey and an oversized novelty mug with tits. ↩︎

    5. When I was about eight I based an uncomfortably large part of my personality on Garfield comics. The autism is more and more obvious in retrospect. ↩︎

    6. You also have to eat enough food with adequate protein, but that’s another story that others are probably better equipped to tell. ↩︎

  • Making The Link

    Making The Link

    While I’m working on a bigger piece, I figured I’d write up some self-improvement links I thought were worth collecting. I haven’t done this before so I’m not sure if it’s a good idea. Do you like this sort of thing? Do you want to submit a link for a future newsletter? Let me know in the comments.

    But you should probably read the newsletter first.

    Blue zones might not be real

    Heard of “blue zones?” You probably have: there are many articles, multiple books, TV docos, and a Netflix show. The idea is simple: that in areas where people mostly eat simple, reasonably nutritious food, walk around, and have a good sense of community, longevity follows. Good ol’ small-town country livin’, in other words. Now a (preprint) scientific paper throws the whole premise in doubt. It’s one of those excellent scientific reports that’s summed up neatly in the headline: “Supercentenarian and remarkable age records exhibit patterns indicative of clerical errors and pension fraud.” Yup: Blue Zones look to be either people forgetting how old they are, or “forgetting” how old they are.

    Caution is warranted. It’s a preprint, for one thing, and for another it would be a mistake to throw out the “eating well, enjoying community, and taking active transport” baby with the “extraordinary claims of longevity require extraordinary proof” bathwater. But if Occam’s Razor holds, as it so often does, it looks like we’ll be able to replace the blue zone concept with a bunch of actual old frauds.

    a screencap of a post that says "yeah they dropped a new love language. yeah a sixth one. its biting"

    Love languages definitely aren’t real

    As reported by New Zealand Geographic, my favourite magazine and one to which I wholly recommend subscribing, love languages are bunk. First described in 1992 by Baptist pastor Gary Chapman, the “five love languages” are familiar to self-help aficionados and anyone who’s ever fallen foul of a certain kind of social media algorithm: physical touch, words of affirmation, acts of service, quality time, and receiving gifts. So far, so good: that’s a list of things that nearly everyone likes. But it gets more complicated! Everybody supposedly has a primary and a secondary love language, and to love your partner efficiently, you must learn to speak their love language.

    An image of the cover of the book "The Five Love Languages" that is cheesy in the extreme and features all five love languages on the cover
    This book cover is peak 90s self-help design, and is one of the happy cases where you can get everything of value in the book from merely reading its cover.

    Not so, Impett et al argue, in an paper that manages to be delightfully tactful while destroying love languages with facts and logic:

    Despite the popularity of Chapman’s book The 5 Love Languages, there is a paucity of empirical work on love languages, and collectively, it does not provide strong empirical support for the book’s three central assumptions that (a) each person has a preferred love language, (b) there are five love languages, and (c) couples are more satisfied when partners speak one another’s preferred language

    This is bound to annoy people whose love language is being annoyed when their favourite bit of bunkum gets munted by science. “But my love language is gifts, and I know it, because I really like getting gifts.” OK! I don’t really think it matters that much if people are using “love languages” as a shorthand or excuse for doing nice things for each other, just as I’m not overly fussed by people who take astrology slightly seriously. There’s plenty of potential harm for people who go too hard on it – for instance, anyone who says they’d “never date a Virgo” is dismissing one twelfth of the human population for no good reason, and anyone who takes love languages too seriously is potentially depriving themselves of, well, love. But using it to get more pressies or hugs? Sure, why not. Go for your life. The authors seem to get it:

    We offer an alternative metaphor that we believe more accurately reflects a large body of empirical research on relationships: Love is not akin to a language one needs to learn to speak but can be more appropriately understood as a balanced diet in which people need a full range of essential nutrients to cultivate lasting love.

    Lovely. Go read the whole paper, it’s very accessible to laypeople and (to me and possibly no-one else) very funny in the its methodical, wholesale destruction of love languages.

    An image of a twitter meme with too much text for alt text :(
    This meme managed to bother me in every possible way, as on the one hand I feel like I could make more use of my talents if I could better market myself, or wanted to; but I simultaneously feel like I fall into the overconfident dude bracket. Thanks, Internet – as usual, you’ve been no help at all.

    Holy scientific method, Batman

    New research just dropped about how science can inspire spiritual feelings and it’s about goddamn time.

    This… suggests that spirituality of science reflects a unique attitude toward science that is not captured by belief or interest in science, but which is characterized by its unique associations with awe and spirituality.

    Sure, it’s just a survey, but I like that someone out there is looking at this stuff, as I’ve been fascinated by the idea of scientific spirituality since I read Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World and Pale Blue Dot. This, in particular, resonated:

    Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual… A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later such a religion will emerge.

    That does sound nice! But don’t think about it too hard, or you might find yourself beset (as I am) by a blizzard of cognitive dissonance where I imagine scientists presenting a paper in an attempt to inspire a congregation to feel the numinous as a janky band plays milquetoast rock and people sing whilst clapping out of time or waving their arms vaguely. To make it worse, I have rewritten my favourite Pentecostal worship song, Our God Is An Awesome God, which – I can’t stress enough – is real. (Please click that link, if only for the ~2 minute drum intro.)
    Josh’s version:

    Auroras: a phenomenon
    They cause oxygen
    To emit red photons
    Oh, forbidden transition!

    I’m sorry about all that. Let’s forget science for a bit, and draw from the reliable well of hokum and witchcraft:

    How to use chickens to cure cat allergies

    DID YOU KNOW: if you have cat allergies, a cure is simple! First, acquire some chickens. Encourage your cat to make friends of the chickens, or at the very least, make sure their boundaries overlap significantly. Care well for the chickens and give them a comfortable home, so they produce eggs. Then, feed some of the eggs to your cat. Bam, your cat allergy is gone!

    Nonsense, right? Well, what if I told you that it’s all true?

    It is. There’s a protein in cat saliva called “Fel d1” that’s responsible for most feline allergies. Because cats groom themselves with their tongues, the protein gets everywhere the cat goes, and that’s why your allergic brother starts sneezing the moment he enters your house. Chickens will produce antibodies to allergens they encounter in their environment, and these antibodies are passed into the yolks of their eggs, for the good of their young. So if you make sure your cat and chickens share an environment, and feed these yolks to your cat, the chicken antibody will nix the cat allergen. This incredible paper has the details. I’ve been meaning to get chickens, and I think this clinches it. (On the other hand, bird flu.)

    Star Wars BB-8 toy, cat, and chicken on tiled-floor
    Photo by Daniel Tuttle / Unsplash

    Birmingham

    I’ve been a big fan of the Brisbane-based writer John Birmingham for a very long time, ever since I discovered his work via (this is telling on myself a lot) the long-defunct Australian “lad’s mag” Ralph. He’s probably best known as the author of He Died With A Felafel In His Hand, which has long resonated with me, as someone who had his share of horrific flatmates and revolting flats.

    He’s still writing – he turns out enjoyably sweary, explosion-heavy sci-fi, and, like me, punishes himself by writing two newsletters despite being in the grip of the dead hand of procrastination. For Alien Side Boob, the best-named newsletter on Substack, he’s written two bangers. The first is on modern loneliness; he suggests that the title should have been “It’s The Phones, Stupid.”

    As I grow older, I find that I have to put more effort into reaching out. Because, of course, I do. The things that make friendship and connection so easy when we’re young, time and proximity, work against us as the years pile on. With children and careers, time becomes short. The friends we held close in our teens and twenties might well scatter to the far side of the world in their thirties and beyond. It seems as if we’ll never have that easy confluence of time and presence until, of course… we do. Because the seasons of work and parenthood also pass.

    Modern Loneliness
    I drove up the freeway to Ipswich early on Easter Sunday a couple of years ago. It must have been after the worst of COVID had receded, but it can’t have been too long after that weird, liminal disruption to all of our lives. The clock was running. I do remember that. I was making the hour or so round trip to pick up an old friend we were hosting for Easter lunch. I remember what we had. A slow-cooked shoulder of lamb with all of the trimmings, and chocolate, of course. Way too much chocolate. It was a very old-fashioned meal, top-shelf stodge, really. But this was an old-fashioned friendship, one that reached back over 50 years to the very first day of primary school.

    It’s a timely read. I was in the grip of the usual low-grade Sadness that makes worthwhile work so hard and solipsistic scrolling so easy when I found the impetus to keep tapping away at this newsletter, and Birmingham’s most recent piece played a big part in that.

    Focusing on goals, like winning a race or a game—or writing a book, or losing weight, or fixing the sliding door to the guest room that the stupid dog knocked off the runners during a thunderstorm a couple of years ago and which has been hanging there mocking you and your lack of home handyman skills ever since—focusing on those end goals is only likely to remind you that you haven’t fixed the fucking door and you don’t even know how to start and you are a worthless excuse for a man so why even bother.

    Focussing on process, though? That’s the money shot.

    For me, these days, that means two things. Writing stuff and staying well.

    The process is “simple but hard,” which – in my growing experience of self-help stuff – bodes well.

    I turn up at my desk every day at about the same time. I make a list of three things I have to work on, but I understand I may not get to the third, and that’s fine. I quickly check in with a writing buddy on the other side of the world, a guy who’s usually just sitting down to his evening writing session as I begin my day. We tell each other what we’re writing. Then, I meditate for ten minutes. When that is done, I turn on my timer, set it to fifty minutes, and start to write. When the timer goes off, I tick a box on my three-item to-do list. I set another timer. Ten minutes. I do some stretches. I might lift some weights or hit the punching bag. The timer goes off, and it’s back to the desk for another fifty.

    I liked it so much that I’m copying it. A big chunk of this newsletter was written by the fairly simple expedient of setting a timer for 50 minutes and not doing anything else until it went “ding.” Of course, I’ve tried this sort of thing before, and it works, but I’ve often fallen off it because something fools me into thinking that I’ll find some other method that doesn’t require that first, gut-wrenching lurch into action. Accepting that sudden twist of fear has been the only thing that ever gets me doing anything worthwhile. It’s simple, but hard – and worth it.

    The full newsletter is here and well worth reading. Content warning: it contains mentions of weight loss, but mostly in a “forgetting about weight and focusing on getting strong” way that I think is a net positive.

    Trusting the process
    I wrote my first book, you know, that share house one, in five weeks, fuelled by four thousand dollars worth of hot chips, whisky and amphetamines. I had a goal. Get that sucker done before my 30th birthday. And one day before I fell backasswards out of my twenties I dropped the floppy disc with the finished manuscript on my publisher, Michael Duffy.

    The products and services that support this newsletter

    Hey! You know how I think that self-improvement content should be free, and so I make my newsletter aggressively free? Unfortunately I keep suffering from this nagging need to feed my family and pay the mortgage, and to that end I think I should probably try to make my tiny art-merchandise business something more than an annual tax liability. To that end, here is a tea-towel, designed by me, and printed right here in New Zealand. Do buy it.

    A towel for teas, feat. Birds in Hats

    Do you have teas that need towelling? Are you after a piece of display art that folds away neatly in a drawer? Or do you merely wish that more tiny hats came with accompanying birds? Manifest those desires simultaneously in your own home by simply buying these tea-towels I made that are currently sitting in a box and not towelling anything.

    Yes, I have teas that need towelling.

    That’s it for today. I have high hopes that my new “do work instead of fucking around” method produces measurable results. I suppose we’ll find out together! To that end, here’s that large blue comment button again.

    Because you have been patient, and you’re worth it, here is Pango the kitten.

    Pango the black rescue kitten playing in a green, red, and orange toy dump truck
  • Going To Pot

    Going To Pot

    It’s not about marijuana, sorry. I’ll save that for another time.

    It’s about the garden.

    See, we have these potted plants on the deck. There’s herbs, some plants some friends gave us, a plant with a horrifically problematic name now known as a Thai lime, a non-Thai lime, a yellow flower whose name perpetually escapes me, and some pots of dirt.

    (The dirt contains bulbs, which may or may not flower at some point in the future.)

    Gerberas! That’s the name of the flower. When we got them, they looked lovely. We took good care of them, and the rest of the plants, and they rewarded us with many healthy flowers. For about two weeks. Then we started to forget to water them. Abruptly noticing the yellowing, drooping leaves and dying flowers, I’d drench the plant. This made things worse. Meanwhile, the plants kindly gifted by our friends live on the deck in the same temporary pots they arrived in. I’ve been meaning to put them in the garden for six months. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been possible because for the last 18 months or so the garden has been an impenetrable jungle. I’m barely exaggerating: I recently bought a machete to help deal with it.

    In my defence, the yard is both large and challenging. When we bought the house it had a well-kept vegetable garden, several fruit trees, and an expanse of hedges that wouldn’t look out of place in the gardens of Versailles. The former owners liked hedges so much that some of the large camellia hedges have smaller hedges, under which are lesser hedges made of a kind of hedge-grass. Under these, I suspect, will be moss hedges, and so on.

    Within a few months of moving in, the lawns approximated meadows, the vegetable garden was overrun, the fruit trees – perhaps aware of their fate – appeared to be trying desperately to leave the premises, and the hedges were performing the topiary equivalent of free-form jazz. The seedlings and bulbs and Little Gardens we planted got eaten by the weeds and an alarmingly large army of slugs and snails that, it turned out, lived in the hedges. I went out once after dark to pick some mint and found them crawling over the walls and plants. There were, once more without exaggerating, thousands of them. When my family visited from Australia and tried to make progress through a former gate, inhibited by a hedge comprised entirely of Triffids, I made embarrassed apologies for the state of the place. “Oh, no, it’s nice!” said my sister-in-law. “It’s like The Secret Garden.”

    As the yard grew wilder, so did any hope of improving it. The base state was so unkempt that I felt like I couldn’t tackle any one aspect of it, and so it fell further and further behind where I wanted it to be.

    Despite this, I’ve finally made some progress in the yard. It started by spending a few minutes of my breaks poking at the worst weed infestations, and escalated to swapping some of my Scrolling Time to spending early mornings outside, swatting at plants and digging things. In the same spirit of pointing out obvious things that motivates this newsletter and all of the self-help genre: it’s nice to get outside during the day, even if it’s raining.

    Things reached a new level when I realised I owned the house and could kill any hedge I wanted. I’ve been at it for a month or two now, even hiring a mulching machine that allowed me to feed the hedges to the rest of the garden. The ones that didn’t mulch I set on fire. When my dad came to stay a couple of weeks ago we blitzed the whole place with loppers, chainsaws and trimmers, letting the surviving hedges off with a warning.

    Sure, the garden had gone to pot, and it was a lot to deal with, but – once I found the right approach – all that was fixable. Now that the garden fundamentals are in place and I’ve finally caught up with all the overgrowth, it feels like we might have space for some of the other things we’ve been wanting to plant.

    There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler’s mind.


    It’s been a while since I last emailed and I am increasingly conscious of the gap. When I did a reader poll some time ago, people told me to take my time with newsletters, and I do, but consistency remains the elusive goal. It’s tricky to judge how much of my personal life to bring into what is mostly a personal development + comedy newsletter but it’s inevitably a lot. The fact is, our little family had more bereavement – my wife Louise’s much-loved nana Ella passed away, and a week later so did our much-adored tabby cat, Darcy. We like to think he went to keep her company.

    In events’ wake, we decided not to have any pets for a while.

    Last Monday, we were dropping Leo off at preschool when I spotted a tiny black shadow on the tight shoulder of the road. I pulled over and went back to check what it was, almost getting smoked by a car in the process.

    I found this.

    A small, black, slightly frightened-looking kitten.

    Of course, we’d decided not to have any more pets. Our resolve to stay the course lasted about two days. He’s since had a vet check-up (all’s well) and his name is Pango. As I write, my lap looks like this:

    A tiny black fluffy kitten on a lap with a laptop behind it.

    The cat distribution mechanism, something I was previously unaware of, has done its work. The cosmic ballet goes on. Oh! And speaking of the cosmic ballet:

    When I heard about a solar storm predicted to cause aurora visible throughout the whole of New Zealand I steeled myself for disappointment. Surely it’d fizzle out, like the other times I’d chased aurora. But no. Somehow, we got Aurora Australis, at this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country. My brother-in-law and I drove out to his parents’ farm with my ancient, entry-level DSLR, and I took pictures I’ve been obsessing over ever since. Despite attempts, it’s impossible to do the aurora justice. While the colours are less intense than they appear in photos, no picture (or prose) can convey their sheer scale and majesty. The Lights are like a fracture in the sky, and it is easy to see why people have long attributed them to gods.

    If you’re looking for a self-improvement moral, I suppose it’s that nature is healing – whether it comes in the form of gardens, or cats, or vast swathes of radioactive debris flung across space by a pitiless star. From my own experience, I can think of nothing better to lift your spirits than witnessing a once-in-a-century cosmic event. Do try it.

  • The Bitter-Pill Truth About Making Your Bed

    The Bitter-Pill Truth About Making Your Bed

    Steel yourselves. I don’t know how one steels themselves – perhaps it is by taking an enormous amount of iron, grabbing a few charcoal bricks, and climbing into a blast furnace – but do what you need to prepare. This one is a big deal.

    Throughout this newsletter, I have championed brevity, mainly in the works of others. This is ironic, because my own posts are often thousands of words long. And yet, I long still for the succinct. I crave it. I want a life-changing piece of advice to be one sentence. A life sentence, if you will.

    Shower thought: a life sentence could be as short as one day. Hmm. Isn’t that profound? Such profundity, in your inbox, for free. I’d subscribe to me.

    But I, as always, digress.

    Here’s the point: I followed one of those pieces of self-help advice that everyone advises and no-one (except me) follows.

    I made my bed, every single day, for one whole year.

    Really.

    And here are the staggering, jaw-dropping, doctors-hate-him results.

    I hope you’re ready for this.

    Every single day that I made my bed, my bed was made.

    Let that sink in. I, single-handedly, or double-handedly if I’m being honest, overcame the forces of Chaos and Entropy and forced my own Order on an uncaring universe. I am the carpenter God of my own tiny world. I am the Maker of Beds.

    I bet you want to know how I did it.

    Method

    Here is the Drummond Protocol for Bed-Making, as articulated on my four-hour daily science podcast, the B-Lab (podcast forthcoming, title TBC, sponsored by Mathletic Greens, the only supplement proven* to support your mathematical skill).

    Step 1: Be alive.

    Step 2: (Optional) Sleep in bed. You don’t actually need to sleep in a bed yourself. You can make someone else’s bed if you like. I suggest visiting a friend, or breaking in to a neighbour’s house. Surprise!

    Step 3: Make the bed.

    If you want to know more specifically how to make a bed, visualisation might be helpful. Perhaps you could do it as part of your daily meditation. Simply picture a bed, a made bed, as you might have seen in movies or catalogues advertising desirable goods and services. Then stop meditating and make the bed.

    You can also manifest a made bed. Start by feeling that the Universe loves you and wants the best for you. (It doesn’t.) Imagine your made bed. Envisage it in rich detail. The satisfyingly smooth covers, the perfectly fluffed pillows. A duvet shook free of dust mites and cat hair. Let the image play in your mind, and then feel the universe make it real. Ideally, as a time-saving measure, you can do all this manifesting at the exact same time you actually make your bed. Isn’t the Universe amazing?

    Results of daily bed-making (amazing)

    What else happened? What superpowers resulted? What other beneficial habits did I take up as a direct result of my sheet-tugging and duvet-smoothening? How did my finances improve? Did my deadlift go up? What about the positive effects on my marriage and general well-being?

    Steel yourself. No, wait, you already did that. Tungsten yourself. Prepare for jaw-dropping. I suggest either a cushion on the floor or a tiny crash helmet you wear on your chin.

    What happened was:

    Nothing.

    In short: I made my bed every day and nothing happened.

    That’s the article, but you can keep reading if you want.


    I hope you enjoyed that. I did. Blowing the sentence “I made my bed for a year and nothing happened” out to 500-ish bloviated words is an enjoyable creative writing exercise; a must-do for any budding self-help author. I suppose it’s unfair to say that nothing happened. I liked having a made bed every day, or rather, every night, when I climbed into it. It’s nice for things to be tidy. And there was the usual mild satisfaction of doing something I hadn’t previously done on any kind of regular basis. But there was no epiphany, no greater purpose, no flow-on effect that I could notice. (Unlike taking cold showers, of which I’m still a daily fan.) And, believe me, with the bed-making I was trying to notice an effect. I didn’t want to be doing something every day for a year for no reason. It was very motivated reasoning! To make sure it was a fairish test, albeit a test with a sample size of one, I made a point of not making the bed for several weeks after my year was up and didn’t notice the slightest difference. I wish I could say that this was the Atomic Habit that I built an entire network of other beneficial habits on but it just… wasn’t. It was fine, I suppose, but it also didn’t matter.

    It might be different for you. Maybe making your bed will set you up for life. Maybe it’ll drag you out of a funk. Maybe it will depress you. Maybe you’ll find a long-lost five dollar note in the sheets. I have no idea. You may as well try it; I definitely don’t think it’ll hurt. As far as risk calculus goes I think making your bed is up there with “going outside” and “drinking water;” it’s not advice that needs to be studded with caveats.

    But there is another story here: a case-study in how the news media launders and makes up the kind of bullshit that’s designed to sell self-help books.

    And, as it turns out, beds.

    Make (Up) Your Bed (Bullshit)

    There is no shortage of self-help stuff that tells you to make your bed. Many people’s minds probably turn to Jordan Peterson, whose book 12 Rules for Life I am, out of a sense of obligation to readers, reading. Aside: this book is hilarious. Here is a real excerpt.

    Chaos, by contrast, is where – or when – something unexpected happens. Chaos emerges, in trival form, when you tell a joke at a party with people you think you know and a silent and embarrassing chill falls over the gathering.

    I swear I didn’t make that up. The whole book is written that way and it’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. Wodehouse and Bryson have nothing on Peterson. Humour aside, Peterson is associated with bed-making, thanks to the chapter in 12 Rules for Life entitled “Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world.”

    We’ll make space for Peterson and this… interesting sentiment in another newsletter, but for now it’ll suffice that he’s sort of associated with making beds, or at least getting your room tidied up. Here’s a video of him expounding on bed-making, set to an inspiring free-music soundtrack, that I promise will not enlighten you at all:

    If you want to save yourself five minutes, the auto-generated transcript gives you all the flavour you’re going to need, as his entire talk on bed-making is essentially one enormous run-on sentence.

    …and so you want to clean up your room well okay how do you do that exactly well a room is a room is a place to sleep and so if you set your room up properly then you figure out how to sleep and when you should sleep and how you should sleep and then you figure out when you should wake up and then you figure out, well, what clothes you should wear because they have to be arranged properly in your dresser and then you have to have some place to put your clothes if you’re going to have some clothes…

    So let’s leave Peterson for a bit. He doesn’t really dwell on bed-making all that much; for him it is just part of the setting-your-house-in-perfect-order continuum. The main Make Your Bed guy is one Admiral William H. McRaven.

    Admiral McRaven is a real person, and is somehow not someone made up by Tom Clancy

    McRaven’s book on bed-making is called, as you might expect, “Make Your Bed.” It spawned a daily journal, also entitled “Make Your Bed,” and God knows how many knockoffs on Amazon and Kindle Unlimited, which are also mostly called “Make Your Bed.” I accidentally downloaded one called Make Your Bed: The Keys to Achieving Anything You Dream by John Dmitry Bordelon: do not make the same mistake. The McRaven original is exactly the the kind of self-help I always look for: distillable down from tens of thousands of words to a single sentence, which – blessedly – negates the need to buy the book. At least it’s shorter than most self-help, which is because it’s based on an even shorter commencement speech McRaven gave at the University of Texas that went viral. The rave music video based on the inspirational speech is shorter still.

    Lots of people did buy the book, though. Make Your Bed is, astonishingly, a number 1 New York Times bestseller. I’ll never not be amazed that the most simplistic, obvious self-help stuff is what sells best.

    I bought it too, of course, because it’s kind of my job.

    And it’s fine, I guess? McRaven seems to be one of the less objectionable officers in the spectrum of those who serve the American Imperium, and his book does exactly what it says on the tin. Sure, it’s problematic in the way much self-help is – it glorifies martial ways of living, as taught by men who make a virtue of acquiring PTSD by blowing up anyone who hampers US access to oil fields – but ultimately it’s really just a lengthy, mostly harmless paraphrase of a Bible verse, Luke 16:10: “If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities.” There is nothing particularly wrong with it, apart from the writing. Look, it’s self-help; if you’re after prose styling you’ll read Proust or something. But there is no excuse for this, apart from comedy:

    For the first few months, we slept on Army cots. Nevertheless, I would wake every morning, roll up my sleeping bag, place the pillow at the head of the cot, and get ready for the day. In December 2003, U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein. He was held in confinement during which time we kept him in a small room. He also slept on an army cot, but with the luxury of sheets and a blanket. Once a day I would visit Saddam to ensure my soldiers were properly caring for him. I noticed, with some sense of amusement, that Saddam did not make his bed. The covers were always crumpled at the foot of his cot and he rarely seemed inclined to straighten them.

    There you have it. Be like McRaven, who always made his bed. Don’t be like Saddam Hussein, who was a military dictator, invaded Kuwait, gassed Kurds, and didn’t make his bed. Perhaps there’s a greater moral that if you are ever in military prison, you should always make your bed to impress your supervising guard, before you are hanged.

    What the book doesn’t do is connect bed-making with any kind of evidence that it helps people. The benefits are, evidently, self-evident. This sent me on a search for something a bit more empirical.

    Much like bed-making itself, I didn’t find anything particularly helpful.

    There was plenty in the media about the benefits of bed-making. “People who spend a couple extra minutes smoothing the comforter back and rearranging pillows actually led more productive lives,” trumpets CNBC, under the clickbait headline “Completing this task first thing in the morning takes seconds—and it can make you more productive all day.”

    Fascinating! What’s the source of this life-changing empirical data?

    “…according to a new survey from Best Mattress Brand.”

    Ah.

    Now, let’s not be too cynical. Best Mattress Brand may not have the impact factor of the more prestigious sociology journals, but that doesn’t mean their methodology was unsound. Let’s have a look at their disclaimer.

    These data are intended to be used for entertainment only. These data rely on self-reporting, and no statistical testing has been performed on the findings.

    Okay, credit to you, Best Mattress Brand, for at least disclosing your methodology, but unfortunately it amounts to “our research is useless.” Or perhaps that’s unfair. I’m sure it’s useful for farming search-engine hits and milking affiliate links, which appear to be the reason Best Mattress Brand exists. What’s not useful is the way it’s muddied the bed-making discourse, with dozens of news sites citing Best Mattress Brand’s spurious research and results.

    What else is out there?

    Patient, a UK-based health advice site that sets itself apart with the claim that “all content is checked by health professionals,” cites a mixed bag of research. A tidy environment can improve or retain brain function – in the elderly. They also reference a study claiming that having a “tidy living space can increase your generosity.” Both these studies bode well for the elderly miser demographic, but the rest of us might be left wanting. Then they assert that “bed-makers have more sex.” Spicy! This seems like a tangible benefit. Let’s see what it links to.

    Oh God damn it.

    Thanks, Patient. Your source for “bed-makers have more sex” is a site called “Mattress Nerd.” It is, of course, another SEO and affiliate link farm, that occasionally does real-ish surveys as an excuse to sell stuff.

    “Best Mattresses for Sex.” I mean who hasn’t Googled that.

    The more I dug, the more garbage I found. An article at the Zanesville Times Recorder – a top Google result – linked to a 2012 article from Psychology Today, which you might think was credible. It’s not. “Make Your Bed, Change Your Life?” wonders the headline, before parading statistics from survey conducted by a website rejoicing in the name Hunch.com, which (inevitably) no longer exists. But wait, there’s always more. “Why Making Your Bed Every Day Isn’t Just Being OCD” says an organisation called Amerisleep, offending OCD sufferers everywhere. Its source, as far as I can tell, is a paper entitled “Save $450 On Any Mattress Plus Free Shipping.”

    I could have kept going forever. I’m not going to. The media endorsement of the benefits of bed-making rests almost entirely on anecdotal evidence from admirable admirals and “for entertainment purposes only”-tier reports from link farms. I’m sure I could pick through Google Scholar for actual papers that link the benefits of bed-making to self-reported energy levels or something, but I suspect that (if they exist) they amount to the same thing: your mileage may vary. If it works for you, great. If it doesn’t, it probably doesn’t matter.

    What to make of it all? Feel free to give bed-making a go, if you don’t do it already. Or, if you already make your bed regularly, you could try stopping! Chances are that neither will hurt, and who knows, it might be the world-changing, Saddam Hussein-beating life hack you’ve always wanted. But nothing I could find backed up the claim that making one’s bed is a necessary first step in becoming a virtuoso of virtue. Claiming a causal connection between bed-making and success seems a long bow drawn much too far. Start making your bed and you’ll still be you, muddling on in a confusing, complicated world – except at the end of the day, your bed will be made.

    *Lies.

  • He’s checking in

    He’s checking in

    Time for a low-pressure check-in newsletter. How are you doing? Good? Don’t worry, I’ll have found a way to make you feel bad by the end of this.

    Yeet Your Phone: The Yeetening

    In phone-yeeting news, I am done with Instagram, and probably social media in general for the foreseeable. It was prompted by the experience of writing my review for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Be Useful. I generally grab the Kindle editions of self-help books because highlighting and switching to the audiobook version is easy, and it means the damn things don’t clog up my bookcase. I’d twice picked up my phone to open the Kindle app because I had to search for quotes and chapter headings, and each time – without meaning to – I ended up on Instagram. The second time it happened, it was as I picked up the phone while saying out loud “OK, gotta focus,” and as I did so my thumb, entirely of its own volition, flicked over to the Instagram app and opened it.

    I deleted it a minute later. I’m sorry, friends who occasionally send or receive memes from me, but this is the sort of behaviour that in previous centuries would have resulted in an exorcism. A friend sent me a similar yarn:

    That was the moment I quit Facebook. I walked up to a traffic light and then I was on Facebook and I went “WTF was that.” Then I put it in my pocket. Said “I won’t do that again.” Crossed the street, walked about 4 m and I was on Facebook.

    Then I took a “2 week break” and never logged in again.

    If I can figure out a social media strategy that has a purpose – actually engaging people in things I make or care about, like this newsletter – I’ll look to get back on it. Until then, fuck it. I’m out. The more I think about it, the more most social media feels like a scam. Even on the Twitter alternative I’m occasionally active on, Bluesky, I find I don’t get any engagement unless I’m kvetching about some kind of shared bête noire, like the catastrophic state of New Zealand politics. On that note, remember how I begged Kiwi politicians to f̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶e̶d̶ permit the pseudoephedrine? It’s finally happening, in a striking case of the below:

    Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point
    Because All Content Deserves To Go Viral.

    The problem with much of social media is that anything that isn’t sufficiently strident doesn’t get picked up, and sometimes – like today – I just want to talk like I would amongst friends. I’ll readily admit that social media has its uses, like in activism, but selfishly I care about how useful social media is for me, my time, and my mental health, and on those measures it’s about as helpful as a daily lobotomy.

    a screenshot of a Facebook post that reads "oh god why, I have a twitter account now. whyyyy"
    This was a mistake, and so was Facebook

    Caveat. Yes, I think it’s important that people know and care about important things that go on locally or in the world, like the genocide in Palestine, but I also think there are good ways to protest such things that aren’t necessarily social-media based. Here is a really good example. Indeed, we might need to work out ways of spreading awareness for important things that deliberately circumvent social media: Meta – not content with merely twisting the many knives it carefully placed in the rapidly expiring body of news media – is actively shadow-banning users and hiding posts that talk about Palestine. It’s another vote in favour of email newsletters. They’re a slower, more deliberate form of content, my stuff goes out to people who actively asked for it, and there are fewer algorithmic filters in the way.

    I was planning to cold-turkey social media for a month for an upcoming edition of this newsletter anyway, but I’m doing it earlier than I’d planned to. Initial results in this experiment are good: instead of the traditional 3.5 hours of scrolling on Saturday, I cleaned most of the house. This has been a long-winded way of saying that, before I switched it off, Louise sent me a self-improvement-tangential funny she found on Instagram (screenshotted from Tumblr) and I thought you’d like it.

    A screenshot of a Tumblr post that reads "yesterdaysprint: Does the average man get enough sleep? What is enough sleep? What is the average man? What is "does"? The San Francisco Examiner, California, February 25, 1935 flaneuriste: Sometimes I think humankind hasn't changed at all. drcrowdpleaser: WHAT IS "DOES"

    I had to know if that snippet was real, so I took out and immediately cancelled a “free” trial subscription to the newspapers.com archive to find out. I’m very happy to report that it is indeed real – and that Robert Benchley, grandfather to the guy who wrote Jaws, was writing some kind of analogue to The Cynic’s Guide To Self-Improvement as far back as 1935.

    Too long for alt text: A screenshot of a newspaper article that begins "Does the average man get enough sleep? What is enough sleep? What is the average man? What is 'does'?"

    Benchley, it turns out, was very famous in his time. He was a writer and actor, with a fascinating, star-studded career. Here’s a telling extract from his lengthy Wikipedia page:

    MGM invited Benchley to write and perform in a short production inspired by a Mellon Institute study on sleep commissioned by the Simmons Mattress Company. The resulting movie, How to Sleep, was filmed in two days, and it featured Benchley as both the narrator and sleeper—the latter a role Benchley claimed was “not much of a strain, as [he] was in bed most of the time.” … The only group not pleased was the Mellon Institute, which did not approve of the studio mocking their study.

    That short film went on to win an Oscar. I’d like to hold out hope that my career trajectory might turn out similarly, but something tells me that not living in a small town in the middle of rural New Zealand might be a prerequisite for that kind of success. Which is probably for the best.

    Up Lifting Tunes

    Hey alright, it’s Kip Casper for Klon radio – L.A.’s infinite repeat! How we feeling out there? How’s your drive time commute? I need a saga. What’s the saga? It’s Songs for the Deaf. You can’t even hear it!

    For me, Songs for the Deaf is one of those albums. I can still remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I first heard No One Knows for the first time. When I say “exactly” I am not exaggerating. I was driving my mum’s Ford Telstar, a lumbering shitbox that could only be started if you parked it on a convenient hill or had someone handy to push (again: not exaggerating) and the song came on the radio when I was precisely here: 123 Discovery Drive, Helensvale, Gold Coast, Queensland.

    Screenshot 2024-03-18 at 8.36.44 AM.png

    This was a while back. A long while back. I am an enjoyer of those horrible memes in which someone points out how old something is now and then does a comparison to how old something else was when the original something appeared. Like this one, which got me real good:

    A screenshot of a Bluesky post that reads: "did you know that OK Computer is as old right now as Let It Be was when OK computer was released"

    Since I’m indulging my enjoyment of QOTSA, let’s do one for Songs for the Deaf. It came out in 2002.

    DID YOU KNOW that Songs for the Deaf is as old right now as the video game Pac-Man was when Songs for the Deaf was released.

    Pac-Man came out in 1980. Feel old yet? Good. Go to the gym and play this. As far as I can tell, the entire album is about how rad it is to take heroin, but it’s also pretty good to bench-press to.

    Making myself feel bad with album release dates made me think of doing the same to Robert Benchley’s sleep article in the San Francisco Examiner. It was written in 1935, which – I am unhappy to report – is closer in time to the first moon landings (34 years) than we are today (55 years and counting.) Oh, and the obscure Simpsons reference in the featured image at the top of the newsletter is from an episode that first aired in 1997, the same year as OK Computer’s release, so the Let It Be rule applies there too. That’s right: we are the same distance now from The Simpsons being culturally relevant as The Simpsons were from the height of the Beatles’ cultural relevance.

    I think that’s enough.

    Share & Enjoy

    I really like the comments and feedback people left on the previous newsletter. For some reason there’s now a great primer on libertarianism and a thought-provoking musing on systemic implications of the butterfly effect in the comment section, as well as this lovely sentiment from reader JP:

    I think that if I had read this article alone, versus the entire self-help genre I had in my teens and twenty I would have avoided my entire poor mental health experience. That is to say, you summed up in one single piece (and tbh a number of your pieces) exactly what’s been so damaging about the self help genre. It’s really brilliant. It was the best balm I could ever read to keep my head above water this week/month/year/life time. Thank you

    On that note, and conscious that I spent a bunch of this newsletter demotivating everyone with memetic reminders of the inevitability of age and loss, I’m keen to put together a playlist of songs people like to lift to, or that gets them going in the morning, or that are in some vague way motivational, ironically or otherwise. Please, sling some links in the comments.

    Current self-improvement reading: Four Thousand Weeks, Be More Pirate. Sadly, they are two different books.

    Currently working on: An article about how I made my bed for an entire year, which I’m sure everyone can’t wait to read.

  • Hey Arnold: a review of Be Useful by Arnold Schwarzenegger

    Hey Arnold: a review of Be Useful by Arnold Schwarzenegger

    There can’t be many people in the world more genuinely impressive than Arnold Schwarzenegger. His life trajectory is the stuff of (living) legend: born into obscurity and relative poverty in Austria, he became the world’s greatest bodybuilder, winning Mr Universe once and Mr Olympia seven times. Then he became a movie star, and then he became Governor of California. Now, in his old age, and with a lengthy Wikipedia entry‘s worth of success and controversy behind him, he’s completed the arc by becoming a self-help guy. His new book – with a title riff on both the venerable, awful Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and the new, awful 12 Rules for Life – is Be Useful: Seven Tools for Life.

    And it’s pretty good!

    Apparently, this article will take between 9 and 12 minutes to read. So here is a song of that approximate length to either enhance or detract from your reading experience.

    It is very easy to dunk on self-improvement books, and I will be dunking on this one, a bit. But the fact is it’s one of the better ones I’ve read, and I think there’s much more good in the book than bad. This is partly because consuming conditions were as close to ideal as it gets: I did most of my “reading” via audiobook, which I listened to while lifting weights at the gym. But it’s also just… pretty good. For one thing, it’s short. Like practically all self-help books, it could be shorter, but (especially on audiobook) you forgive Be Useful this flaw because it’s Arnie. He’s winning, charming, charismatic, and often very funny. Most self-help books indulge anecdote about anonymous Janes and Johns to the point of inducing serious pain, but here all the apocryphal stories are about Arnold Schwarzenegger, and they’re mostly true! He’s famous to the point that probably half the world’s population has built a parasocial relationship with him, and as such a lot of his book comes across as banter with an old friend. It also neatly avoids a lot of the most annoying stuff about plenty of self-improvement books. There’s no one weird trick, no fast path to success. That’s not to say the path Schwarzenegger lays out is any guarantee of success, but more about that later. For now, I think a pretty good précis of the book comes from the chapter headings:

    1. Have a clear vision.
    2. Never think small.
    3. Work your ass off.
    4. Sell, sell, sell.
    5. Shift gears.
    6. Shut your mouth, open your mind.
    7. Break your mirrors.

    Now, let’s get the dunks out of the way. It’s self-help, so there will be no shortage of received wisdom, canards, and false facts, right? Sadly, this is indeed the case. Here’s a point being made about how most things worth doing are worth doing mainly because they’re hard:

    Take something that most of us can relate to: becoming wealthy. It’s pretty remarkable when you realize that some of the least happy people you’ll ever meet are lottery winners and people with old family money. By some estimates, 70 percent of lottery winners go broke within five years.

    This simply isn’t true. As exhaustively detailed in Forbes, the “70 percent” statistic comes from a National Endowment on Financial Education symposium, where a single mention of one statistic got spread about by media. NEFE has since tried to debunk the fake statistic, to no success. “[It] is not backed by research from NEFE, nor can it be confirmed . . . frequent reporting — without validation from the NEFE — has allowed this ‘stat’ to survive online in perpetuity,” they say. The other main source of lottery winner unhappiness is a 1978 study that compared the happiness of lottery winners, a control group, and people who had been recently paralysed in accidents. Not the greatest source of comparative happiness, right? The study also had a very small sample size – less than 100 people were studied – which, as we’ve learned, is a red flag. More recent, reputable studies have looked specifically at the happiness levels of lottery winners, like this one from Germany, and found that lottery winners tend to be – and stay – absolutely stoked. This is congruent with other modern research about money; that having enough of it is extremely helpful to your well-being. It’s enough to consider the myth of the unhappy lottery winner completely debunked. (I do not know about the happiness statistics for generational wealth, and as I only have so much time, I will for now continue to be ignorant on this and many other matters.)

    A picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger from the cover of Arnold Schwarzenegger's book "Be Useful: Seven Tools for Life"
    As a way of both showing my age and wasting what time I have left, I Photoshopped Arnold Schwarzenegger’s head to be the same footballesque proportions as Arnold from the show Hey Arnold. This joke is not worth the time it took to make it, but at least I didn’t use AI.

    Why do I bring this up, especially at such length? After all, the passage is used to illustrate a point that’s almost axiomatic; many accomplishments feel better if you work hard for them. I suppose it’s a sticking point for me because – apart from the basic annoyance of seeing false information repeated endlessly – when a book gets something this basic wrong, it starts you wondering what else is mucked up.

    I don’t have to wait long before finding out. About a page later is this:

    Imagine if Sir Edmund Hillary had been dropped at the summit of Mount Everest by helicopter, instead of trekking to it over two months in the spring of 1953. Do you think the view from the top would have been as beautiful? Do you think he would have given a shit about that other, smaller mountain he saw in the distance when he was up there? Of course not!

    This one is even more of a nit-pick; of course the point of climbing Everest was the climb itself. I agree wholly with the sentiment. It’s the details that are wrong. First, the helicopter. I know full well it’s a metaphor but the fact is no-one managed to land a helicopter on the summit of Everest until 2005, 52 years after Hillary and Tenzing first climbed it. It was done by by French test pilot Didier Delsalle, and no one has ever managed to repeat the feat, because flying helicopters at the altitude of Everest is nuts. It’s mostly done for world record attempts, making – ironically – flying to the summit in a helicopter far more impressive than merely climbing there.

    The next problem is “Do you think he would have given a shit about that other, smaller mountain he saw in the distance when he was up there?” And here again I’m cursed by my knowledge of trivia I picked up from a childhood reading atlases and encyclopaedias: one of the very first things Hillary did on summiting Qomolangma was eye up other mountains, courtesy of the excellent view from Everest, and evaluate possible routes to their summits. Here’s the relevant passage from Hillary’s diary:

    I noticed that the Barun approaches to Makalu looked very difficult if not impossible – a 1,000ft rock cliff. Tenzing and I shook hands and he so far forgot himself as to embrace me. It was quite a moment!

    But even if I hadn’t known that fact from my weird childhood, I’d have learned it from reading a book called Be Useful, by Arnold Schwarzenegger. In Chapter 2, we discover:

    While [Hillary] was up there he saw another mountain in the Himalayan range that he hadn’t climbed yet, and he was already thinking about the route he would take to summit that peak next.

    Those goofs all occur within a few pages of each other. I’m not going to go through the whole book hunting for them, it’d take me a year, but I’m sure they’re there. If they’re anything like the ones I found, they don’t matter that much. It’s not like he’s telling readers to drink bleach; it’s just me being pedantic and easily annoyed by shoddy copy. This which is probably why I am a small-time newsletter writer and Arnold Schwarzenegger is Arnold Schwarzenegger. There are other issues, like things that I’m sure aren’t meant to be taken seriously, but probably will be. Here’s more Chapter 1, where Arnold – sensibly – recommends boxing up some time to work on things you actually care about instead of aimlessly scrolling on your phone or Netflix:

    I can already hear the question coming from a bunch of you: What about time for rest and relaxation? First of all, rest is for babies and relaxation is for retired people. Which one are you?

    Again, I get the point being made, in the form of a slogan that’s practically a joke. But if a reader doesn’t take it as a joke, they’re going to have a bad time. Arnold, who has probably spent more time working out than I have hours in my life, knows this better than I ever will, but it bears repeating: adequate rest is required for many aspects of life, particularly when it comes to the gym. This is why untrained people who suddenly start “working out everyday” without seriously considering what they mean by that almost invariably burn out, often within a week or two. Competitive bodybuilders certainly do go to the gym more often and for much longer than normal mortals, but there are a couple of important caveats; they’ve (literally) built up to it, and they’re training “splits,” where one takes care to work one muscle group while carefully avoiding others that have just been trained to near-exhaustion. And it’s especially annoying to read something like this in Arnold’s book because, just a page prior, he says:

    How many hours per day do you sleep? Let’s say it’s eight hours, because that’s what all the current science says is ideal for peak performance and longevity.

    And while this isn’t really right either, it’s correct enough for the average person, and it’s certainly true for me.

    The rest of Chapter 1 is about creating a bold and ambitious vision for your life.

    “Vision is the most important thing. Vision is purpose and meaning. To have a clear vision is to have a picture of what you want your life to look like and plan for how to get there. The people who feel most lost have neither of those.”

    Look. There’s a lot to unpack here. Suffice it to say that it falls into the classic self-help trap of assuming people have – or can take – much more control over their lives than is actually possible. “No one made them take that dead-end job,” it says on Page 4. Except sometimes someone did make them take the dead-end job! Sometimes it’s literal, and other times circumstances can be compelling to the point of compulsion. Self-help so often misses privilege; that circumstances are often dictated by quirks and flukes – of generation, of location, of gender, of so many other things, and all these are compounded by sheer luck, good or bad. You can have the most potential and greatest vision of anyone in the world and get killed by lightning, and that’s it for you. Likewise, the world’s hardest worker can get felled by, I dunno, long Covid. We can talk about positivity or the ability to choose your response to a given situation forever, but end of the day our choices often limited to the point of being illusory. You might call that cynical. I call it realistic.

    Page 4 continues: “No one made them stay up late every night playing videogames instead of getting eight hours of sleep.”

    Well, fuck. Okay. You got me there, Arnold. Clearly, there’s lots of life where you have no agency at all, but there are definitely some bits where you do. “Turn your TV off,” Arnold says. “Throw your machines out the window. Save your excuses for someone who cares. Get to work.” He’s right. Privilege cuts both ways; self-help often fails to recognise it as a concept, but it is correct to point out that those with privilege often fail to use it effectively, or at all.

    Chapter 2, Never Think Small, seems the logical extension of Have A Clear Vision. It’s inspiring stuff! He suggests taking your current vision and making it ridiculously big. I do this in the pages of my gym notebook, because I am giving this self-improvement thing a serious shake. If you’re reading this: I’m doing it for you.

    Because there’s a lot I’d like to achieve – I don’t have any trouble dreaming big – I break it into sections.

    • Writing vision: finish a book. -> Ridiculous vision: book becomes New York Times bestseller
    • Gym vision: Do a muscle-up -> Ridiculous vision: bench press 150 kilogrammes.
    • Newsletter vision: Post once a week, get 10k subscribers -> Ridiculous vision: get 1 million subscribers

    The cringe just about makes my guts turn inside out. As I write, I wonder what gym-goers will make of a pile of wobbling viscera sitting on the lateral pull-down machine. Partly it’s because it’s embarrassing to publicly write down a vision, ridiculous or not. (Oh no, Josh! What if someone reads this?) It’s also because it’s statistically very unlikely to occur. Not everyone can be a New York Times bestselling author for the same reason that not everyone can win the lottery: what’s more, if everyone who wanted to be one (or just wrote down “New York Times Bestselling Author” on a vision list) achieved their goal, the bestseller list would be meaningless.

    Reading Be Useful, feeling equally inspired, skeptical, and self-conscious, I’m reminded of an RNZ interview with author David Robson, entitled “Great people don’t always give the best advice.” In it, Robson talks about Masterclass, and the founding idea that “you have these stellar people – award-winning authors, actors, billionaire entrepreneurs giving their masterclass on how to achieve what they did. And it just sounds so sensible, doesn’t it? If you want to learn, you want to learn from the best.”

    But, he says, the model is fundamentally flawed. And it’s not because the people who give the classes are grifters – they usually aren’t. There’s something else going on.

    “I’m not saying it’s a problem with any individual who is giving these classes,” Robson says. “It’s more that the psychology of giving advice is much more complicated than we might assume, and one reason for that is the phenomenon known as survivorship bias.”

    Robson cites a well-known example: bomber aircraft that returned from combat in World War Two tended to have suffered damage mainly in the wings and tail. Air Force brass proposed armouring those areas, but mathematician Abraham Wald suggested taking the opposite approach: recognizing that the aircraft that didn’t return had been hit in vital areas like the engines, nose, and fuel tanks, he proposed adding armour to those areas instead.

    A diagram of a bomber aircraft riddled with bullets in the wings and tail, but not in the engines or cockpit, illustrating the concept of survivorship bias.
    A diagram illustrating survivorship bias. File: Wikimedia Commons.

    The people who are most successful, Robson is suggesting, are often doing the lifestyle equivalent of suggesting that you armour up your wings and tail. It’s not so much about the things that have happened to them, or that they’ve done; it’s things that haven’t happened.

    “There could be many, many other people – thousands of other people – for each one of those [successes] who applied exactly the same routines and strategies, who had exactly the same ambitions, but just didn’t achieve success,” Robson says. “But we can’t see those failures because they’re invisible. We need to look at the people who didn’t succeed as well as people who did succeed.”

    That, I think, is the best way of identifying a huge problem with self help as a genre, and Be Useful can’t escape its gravity. Arnold’s remarkable life is both his greatest asset and biggest liability as a self-help author. To his credit, he’s a lot more self-aware than some other self-help authors: he opens a chapter with the admission that he’d have got nowhere without a lot of help from others. “I have a rule. You can call me Schnitzel, you can call me Termie, you can call me Arnie, you can call me Schwarzie, but don’t ever call me a self-made man,” he charges. But even that doesn’t change the fact that he’s an extraordinarily hard worker who has had a lot of help and has also been very, very, very lucky. When you look back over your life and see huge success after huge success, it’s easy to imagine that others can emulate it – and it’s easy for readers to believe it too. As Robson explains, that not the case; it’s mathematically improbable to the point of being nearly impossible.

    But.

    Let’s look back at those ridiculous visions that made me – and possibly you – cringe so hard.

    It might be statistically unlikely to become a New York Times bestselling author, but it’s important to remember that all bestselling authors are subsets of another set: authors. People who manage an impressive bench-press are, almost invariably, people who bench-press. And newsletters with a million subscribers are a (very small) subset of people with 10 subscribers. (Or, in the case of the one you’re reading, 2000. But who’s counting.)

    It’s not so different from saying “a journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step” or, more blithely “Shoot for the moon and you’ll land among the stars.” (Because I’m me, I felt compelled to look up the source of this quote, and imagine my surprise to find it’s probably from Norman Vincent Peale, a Protestant preacher and author of the original toxic positivity bible The Power of Positive Thinking. Some amateur physics research also suggests that a failed moonshot might place you in a slowly decaying orbit around the sun, which means that your frozen corpse will land among a star, eventually. Stuff like this is why it takes me two weeks to write a book review.) Dubious quotations aside, it’s true that if you want to achieve something big, achieving something smaller is a necessary pre-requisite. Even if great success is not important to you, then you can just get stuck straight into the small stuff. “Do you have any idea how powerful an hour a day is? If you want to write a novel, sit down and write for an hour every day, and aim for just one page. At the end of the year, you will have a 365-page manuscript. That’s a book!” Arnold says accurately, making me feel very seen for the many times I’ve tried and failed to write a novelsworth of book at a rate of one page a day.

    Robson’s skeptical thesis seems to be in agreement. “There’s no easy way to just kind of absorb what another person’s done, you actually have to kind of forge your own path through that expertise,” he says.

    With all caveats out of the way, I have to recommend Be Useful. It certainly seems no worse than any other self-help books, and all those books suffer from the additional drawback of not having been written and (in the audiobook version) read by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The book is frequently very funny, much more so than you’d expect, which makes it all the more amusing. Go back and read all the quotes I’ve supplied in Arnold’s voice and get a mental preview. “In my experience, the fitness world, Hollywood, and politics are full of amazing people. They’re also full of douchebags, pricks, and assholes. Navigating the gross parts of these worlds was like trying to move inside a set of Russian nesting dolls full of shit and hair gel.” Now thats what I call a simile, and there’s more where it came from. Arnold begins the audiobook by explaining that he’s recording it in his home studio and apologising for any noises made by his pet donkey and pig. I had a hard time not cracking up in the gym.

    Jokes – and all the the problems of self-help as a genre – aside, the book also wins major points for me for being less about helping yourself and more about helping others. This is the ultimate point of this enjoyable, short book, and it’s a very good one: No matter who’s telling you to do it, Be Useful is good advice.

    💬
    Comments have been a bit quiet since this newsletter moved to Ghost, which is probably inevitable, but I enjoyed the long comment threads too much to let it go! It’s very easy to register an account and leave a comment, and I’m keeping comments free for as long as my readership remains free of libertarians. Go on, have a yarn.
  • The bad news for news

    The bad news for news

    Straight to the point: News media in this country is getting pulped and it’s an absolute goddamn catastrophe. It’s happening so fast, insanely fast, and I worry we’re not even beginning to grasp the sheer loss to society.

    Newshub will soon be gone, disposed of like so much trash by its megacorporate owners Warner Brothers Discovery, who seem to exist for the sole purpose of un-making media. At least Newshub isn’t being killed merely for tax reasons. Meanwhile, the Pantograph Punch is going on a hiatus that looks like it might be permanent, and TVNZ – which, contrary to popular opinion, has frequently been a net funder of Government rather than a recipient of Government funding – is facing enormous cuts, with flagship programs like Fair Go and Sunday set to get the axe.

    Naturally, David Seymour, the future Deputy Prime Minister and shareholding minister in TVNZ, is already dancing on journalism’s grave. It’s absurd. Very few politicians or political parties have manipulated or benefited from media the way David Seymour and ACT have; witness this telling tale from The Spinoff, wherein Seymour utterly ghosts the media that have helped him so much the moment he has no more use for them.

    There is some truth to Seymour’s allegation that political news media can be more concerned with scalps than with substance. One major problem with his take is that he’s been a huge net beneficiary of their optics-first focus, and that the “scalps” tend to belong to people quite unlike Seymour. Too often they’re young, brown women. Just because there’s accuracy to elements of his critique doesn’t mean it’s being offered in good faith; in fact it seems that as a shareholding minister of TVNZ his comments could be breaking the law. Good-faith media criticism has mostly come out of the (doomed) hope that media might be made better, and none of the recent developments will achieve that. Instead, the mainstream looks like it’s being supplanted by something much, much worse.

    News isn’t going to become less popular just because it’s not profitable. People are addicted to it, and there are plenty of pushers. The likes of The Platform and Reality Check Radio are poised to fill the gap left by ad-funded media’s demise; they’re amply bankrolled by dilettante millionaires, mystery money, and easily-fleeced cookers. They can, and will, scale quickly, especially after being lent legitimacy by politicians who prize the need to be seen over good sense. Think tanks and lobby groups like the Taxpayer’s Union, the New Zealand Initiative, and Hobson’s Pledge will happily occupy any niches left – they already partly function as news platforms, doing journalists’ jobs for them, and they have been building up their own audiences via email, podcasts, and the like for years. The loss of mainstream media stands to make the neoliberal grift-tanks and their political actors more powerful, not less.

    The great advantage of having a mainstream media was that it allowed audiences to have a shared reality, and I think this loss is incalculable. Sure, the MSM was monolithic, beholden to advertisers, and got a lot wrong. But even if it only pretended to be non-partisan, or frequently focused on ranking politicians by how good their PR was, it often unearthed truths that the powerful would rather keep hidden. I think, on balance, that it succeeded more than it failed. If that’s true, the people celebrating the mainstream’s demise are fundamentally misguided, no matter their brand of politics. Once you see what’s coming to replace the old MSM – and, in many important ways, already has – you’ll miss the devil you knew more than you ever thought possible.

    Of course, as bad as things are, media Aten’t Dead yet. Stuff and The Spinoff carry on gamely in the unforgiving commercial marketplace; the Herald keeps heralding (subsidised largely by its overtly right-wing propaganda arm, Newstalk ZB); Government-funded RNZ remains; and TVNZ will keep making news for the moment, albeit horribly diminished. I hope they all find a way to continue, and if you have the means to pay for news – especially news that is owned and operated by journalists – now is a good time to start. Ignoring for a moment the brands and the mastheads, it’s journalism that matters, and the relatively few full-time journalists left are harried, threatened, overworked, overwhelmed, and underpaid. I hope that, as a society, we can find a way to change that. Given the new Government’s myriad assaults on democracy, transparency, and our founding treaty, we need journalism now more than ever.

  • Two steps forward, one step back

    Two steps forward, one step back

    As many people do, I had high hopes for the start of the year. I was on top of the yard work, I’d just finished listening to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s audiobook, I had a painting just about finished, and I’d finally been managing to get to the gym regularly for more than one month running. I seemed to have finally achieved some degree of consistency, and the weights were going up.

    Then I got back from a much-anticipated holiday up north with family with a case of strep throat. A course of antibiotics cleared it up, but it left me lifting less than I had in pre-strep gym sessions and feeling like all the effort had been for nothing.

    A few weeks later, I felt like I was on top of the house work and the day job, I’d just finished an excellent book, I’d finally made it to the beach, and I was at last back at the gym with the weights almost back to where they were in the halcyon days of Before Strep and – of course – my son brought a gastro bug home, and gave it to his mum, who gave it to me.

    And then once I was over that I picked up some sort of cold virus and… look, you know how the story goes by now.

    I went back to the gym, expecting to feel defeated and downcast by the fact I wasn’t capable of lifting the weights I was immediately before getting sick, and – in a break with tradition – did not.

    Because I’m still well ahead of where I was when I started.

    Sure, it’s been a step back. But there have been a lot more steps forward. Not only can I still lift more than I could when I started, my form is a lot better than it was. When I’m lifting it feels much less like my spine is about to implode under the pressure of the loaded barbell, which is nice.

    The metaphor carries across to this newsletter, which quietly had its one year anniversary last month. It’s worth looking back on what I achieved over a year of attempting various self-improvement things, and to be honest, a lot of what I did was circle around a given topic while remaining carefully equidistant. That said: I achieved a lot! I got back in the gym and started lifting. I quit doing a bunch of stuff that was getting in the way of doing other stuff. I took a cold shower every day for more than a year and, surprisingly, liked it. I spent my 40th birthday looking at birds. I did more art – despite difficult circumstances – than I’d ever done before, and (painfully) learned how to do photorealistic paintings. Thrillingly, I even made my bed every day, just like the climate change denying transphobe told me to. (I haven’t written about it yet, so stay tuned for this tell-all episode.)

    Did I manage to write with the consistency I set out to achieve? Not even slightly. But the number of posts I did write was also much greater than zero. Perhaps obviously, there were no subscribers starting out; now there are – somehow, for some reason – over 2000 of you. That’s a lot of people! Online subscription metrics are a strange space that’s easy to get lost in; a YouTuber with under a million subs is often seen as just starting out. But 2000 real live people is a huge, ridiculous number. Think about it in terms of real people filling a physical space and the size becomes clear: it’s more than many convention centres can carry. It’s also intimidating. Knowing that I’ve got a couple thousand people counting along with how many pull-ups I can do is kind of freaky.

    (On writing that bit, I wondered: how many pull-ups can I do, in a row? So went to the gym and found out. The answer depends on what you think a good pull up is. I can do eight “strict” pull-ups in a row, where you start from a dead hang and try not to use any momentum to assist you. I can do a couple more if I add in a “kip” which is using your knees to give you a bit more momentum. Crossfitters get taught to do pull-ups with kipping, while other schools of fitness thought seem to think it’s cheating. Either way, it might not be much in the scheme of things, but I don’t care; ten pull-ups of variable quality is nine more than I could do when I started this thing.)

    Fitness and self-improvement stuff aside, I’ve managed to make time for and finish some of the Weird Things that you have, for whatever reason, signed up to know more about. To that end, I:

    A painting of a Bored Ape, surrounded by used art materials.
    I hated painting this Bored Ape, but I like the painting. Go figure.

    Most absurdly, I wrote and published a 10,000+ word Harry Potter fanfic called The Department of Biological Determinism. Given that most of my close friends reacted to this news with (actual quotes) “oh GOD” and “whyyyyy???” I am sure you have questions. They’re probably good ones, like “but why would you write a Harry Potter fanfic when, well, have you seen what the author of Harry Potter has been up to lately?” Unfortunately, this and many other questions are best answered by reading the fanfic. I’ll say this: if you ever liked Harry Potter, or counted yourself a fan of J K Rowling, and have since stopped doing either of these things… you might enjoy it.

    I mention all this because older I get the more I realise that indulging the harmless things that make you weird isn’t really optional, if you want to enjoy life. If that isn’t self-improvement, I don’t know what is.

    Lastly: in the interests of improving this newsletter over last year’s iteration, I’ve mapped out an entire year of posts, starting next week. There’s a bunch of catastrophically bad books I can’t wait to review, a thousand new bizarre self-improvement trends I can turn myself into a guinea pig for, and so much more that I want to write about. So thanks for sticking with me so far. It’s been fun, and if you’ve enjoyed it, I hope you’ll hang around for Season Two of The Cynic’s Guide to Self-Improvement.

    💡
    If you’re keen to join in on this belated year-in-review thing, feel free to let me know what you self-improved on over the last 12 months or so in the comments! And if you’re keen to support whatever this is, a paid subscription is nice (yet entirely unnecessary, as everything I do for this newsletter goes out for free.)
  • Say the quiet part loud, for once

    Say the quiet part loud, for once

    This one is for the journalists who subscribe to The Bad Newsletter.

    There are quite a few of you, which is gratifying! I think it speaks well of the profession – or what’s left of it – that a publication that frequently criticises both media institutions and specific journalists is still subscribed to by those same institutions and people. So today’s newsletter is a helping hand, and a shout-out, disguised as the usual furious missive. Put it this way, journos: I know you read this, and I want to know why you’re not asking a very specific question:

    Mr Luxon, do you want full employment in New Zealand?

    There is a vicious, obvious contradiction at the heart of our economy, indulged by both Labour and National-led governments. It’s been written about many times, by myself and many others, and yet we seldom see it on the news when politicians are interviewed. The contradiction is that we have a government that denigrates the unemployed – while, simultaneously, we have an economic system that deliberately creates unemployment.

    Here are some words I am getting tired of typing: This is not a conspiracy theory. It is mainstream economic and fiscal orthodoxy. You can read about it on the Reserve Bank’s website.

    By influencing the cost of borrowing, we can influence the economy. We call our work to influence interest rates and the amount of money in the economy ‘monetary policy’. 

    The fact that the Reserve Bank hikes interest rates in order to increase unemployment often comes as a surprise to people who don’t closely follow economics or politics. Many assume that the goal is to have full employment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Reserve Bank has essentially just one tool at its disposal: hiking the Official Cash Rate, in the hope that businesses will eventually suffer so much from the resulting interest rate rise that they will sack their employees. Unemployment, and the resulting misery it causes in a society where it is unacceptable to not have a job, is intentional.

    The economic dogma that rationalises this cruelty, very loosely paraphrased, is this: when everyone has a job, businesses hike prices to make more money. Everything gets more expensive. This is called inflation. Inflation is bad. (Mostly because it makes the rich – who hoard money – less rich, but also because it makes the cost of living higher). Therefore, wage increases are bad, because they cause inflation, and therefore, wages should be suppressed, and the best way to suppress wages is to make sure that people are frightened of losing their jobs so they won’t ask for more, and the best way to keep people frightened of losing their jobs is to make sure that there is a permanent pool of desperate miserable unemployed people who’ll take any job for low wages, and the best way to make sure that unemployment is miserable is by deploying deliberate, systemic cruelty.

    Ignoring the many ethical and logical holes in that argument – don’t blame me, blame neoliberal economists who managed to get their cancerous pseudoscience accepted by the world’s governing and financial institutions because it suits the wealthy and powerful – it is still more or less an accurate snapshot of the situation we find ourselves in. Beneficiaries are demonised by government, at the exact same time that financial institutions created by government try to increase unemployment.

    So here’s where we find ourselves. The Prime Minister lambasts unemployed “bottom feeders” and calls for “tough love” while glorying “the dignity of work.” Here are his words:

    There are 70,000 more people on a Jobseeker unemployment benefit today than there were in 2017. That’s like adding every man, woman and child in Napier onto the Jobseeker benefit in just six years

    Simultaneously, that same government removes the Reserve Banks’ mandate to manage inflation whilst maintaining “maximum sustainable employment,” saying – in Finance Minister and New Zealand Initiative alumni Nicola Willis’ exact words:

    “Risking higher inflation in the pursuit of unsustainably high employment, just creates the conditions for a more severe hike in interest rates later on to bring inflation back under control.”

    The increased numbers of unemployed people that Luxon is complaining about is because of monetary policy supported and enacted by his government. He’s attacking the previous Labour Government for creating more unemployed people, when his own policies intentionally do the same thing. It is impossible for Luxon not to know this. What’s more, if sanctions and job seminars worked, it would be a disaster, by neoliberal reckoning – that might create full employment, which as we’ve already discussed, isn’t allowed. And as they do not and cannot work, the only remaining reason for things like sanctions is to create ever more grinding poverty. As is so often the case, the cruelty is the point.

    Governments can’t have it both ways; if unemployment is created intentionally by government policy (and it is) then it’s cruel to demonise beneficiaries. It would only be even slightly ethically acceptable to be mean to beneficiaries if the aim of government was for everyone to have jobs (and it’s not). This is a contradiction. Contradictions create conflict. Conflict, when broadcasted, is spectacle. Conflict and spectacle create emotion, which creates audience interest, which generates clicks. Journalists are being offered a massive ratings win, and yet they’re not taking it. It’s baffling!

    Crazy Pills Will Ferrell GIF - Crazy Pills Will Ferrell Zoolander GIFs

    So, journos, here are some questions you can ask about the ridiculous heart of darkness that lies at the rotten core of our economy:

    Mr Luxon, do you support full employment?

    When he blusters but eventually admits he doesn’t, because supporting full employment would call the economist hellhounds down upon on his shiny head:

    Why not? Your own speeches talk about the dignity of employment. Shouldn’t everyone who needs a job be able to get one?

    More bluster, blah maximum sustainable employment blah, inflation blah:

    But your government removed the requirement for the Reserve Bank to consider the employment rate. You’re creating the unemployment you’re complaining about. If the jobs aren’t there, why should people be punished for failing to get them?

    Bluster bluster, bitter pills, tough love, sanctions, I used to run an airline:

    But it’s not even working, is it? The Reserve Bank has hiked interest rates multiple times and the employment rate is still high. And the unemployment rate remains near historic lows. It’s barely budged. And yet the cost of living keeps getting higher. Shouldn’t we be finding a better way to manage inflation than making huge numbers of people miserable?

    Er um, KPIs, key results, going forward, ambitious for NZ, greatest country in the world, beaches, barbecues, delivering on deliverables, airline:

    So why should unemployed people be sanctioned for failing to get jobs that simply don’t exist, because of your own policies?

    Airline! I used to run a, did you know, did you know? Airline airline airline

    So I ask you, Mr Luxon: if you increase the unemployment rate on purpose, what jobs are these beneficiaries you speak of so dismissively meant to get?

    There you go, journalists! An easy bit of conflict all wrapped up in a neat little package. It should rate through the roof. Here’s a chance to prove you’re more than optics-addled defenders of the status quo, more likely to opine on the oratorial vibes of a politician’s speech than the effectiveness of the policies the speech advocated for. Because the purpose of a system is what the system does, and it sure does look like the purpose of the economic system advanced by our current government is to keep five percent of people poor and desperate and miserable, all in the name of a cruel, flawed neoliberal theory about controlling inflation.

    I want to give the last words to new Green MP Efeso Collins, who died suddenly today. He was just 49. I hope that the message he gave in his maiden speech will live on, because it’s true.

    I want to say to this House with complete surety that the neoliberal experiment of the 1980s has failed. The economics of creating unemployment to manage inflation is farcical when domestic inflation in New Zealand has been driven by big corporates making excessive profits. It’s time to draw a line in the sand, and alongside my colleagues here in Te Pāti Kākāriki, we’ve come as the pallbearers of neoliberalism, to bury these shallow, insufferable ideas once and for all. And this, sir, is our act of love.

    💡
    I’ve turned comments on for paid subscribers only, mainly because a fossil fuel lawyer and ACT party candidate took it upon himself to start making comments along the lines of “well I am wholly ignorant of the Atlas Network so clearly they mean nothing,” which is very funny, yet very tiresome. If people like this want to continue commenting, they’re welcome to do so, but – as decreed by great Free Market and his holy Invisible Hand – they’ll now have to pay me before I delete them. (Comments from paid subscribers people who don’t go out of their way to work for the worst industries on earth will continue to be very welcome, as paid subscriptions really help support the work I do.)
  • “Towering bonfire of human misery” not yet large enough, say economists

    “Towering bonfire of human misery” not yet large enough, say economists

    Sunday, 18 February, 2024 – The nation’s economists have come together in one of their frequent displays of unity, calling on ordinary workers to sacrifice their jobs to fight inflation.

    “To beat inflation, we require some people to lose their jobs. That’s a comms challenge right there,” said Sharon Zhuul-Nâr, economist for a bank that is a three-time winner of the “Most Rapacious” industry award. “We need to communicate just how selfish people with jobs are, and how they should lose them for the Greater Good.”

    “It’s going to be pretty tough to curb the inflation rate without generating some hardship,” enthused economist Erich Clampdown.

    “You’ve got to cause some pain. You’ve got to create some unemployment,” cheered Mark Blister, head of private wealth at Shûb-Nigurrath Investment Partners. “More paaaaain,” he added, which turned into a chant among the assembled delegates.

    The economists were interviewed at their annual gathering, the F̶̖̫̀͜í̸̥̝ǹ̸̟̈́̕͜͜a̷̖̤̼͑͝n̸͈̈́c̸̝̣̰͗͌i̸͇͕͓͑ă̷̝ļ̸̭̊̐ ̷͖̀̕S̸̞̬͂e̴͓̗̙̐̈́̚ŕ̷̞̚v̴̤͎̋̀į̶̏͒c̴̤̘̃̀͗ë̴͓́̍̊s̴̭̥̠̋ ̸̛̳̝̓̿͜C̴͔̬͕̉̋̎ơ̸̙̟̌ǘ̴̋͜ͅñ̵̲̀̾c̷̹̲͠͠i̷̢̛̦̪l̵̞̠͊̓̋ ̶̢͇̈́Ç̶̭̿̓̔o̸̟̬̣͐n̸̰̺̂f̷͚͂͠e̴̱͎͈̔r̸̻̗͇͋e̴̡̍ņ̵͔̜̑͒̅c̸͙͓͕̽ȩ̵͍́ , where festivities traditionally conclude with a call to build the largest possible “Towering Bonfire of Human Misery.”

    The economists said they were thrilled with the government’s progress on the Towering Bonfire to date, but they said the Reserve Bank could be doing much more to create misery, and they scolded the public for their selfish desire to be able to afford homes and buy food.

    Asked if there was a contradiction implied by the Government’s plan to make unemployment benefits harder to access at the exact same time it was trying to increase unemployment, the economists said “of course not, that’s the point.”

    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, who spoke to the confabulation of economists, agrees.

    “I won’t apologise for tough love. All Kiwis, of course, have a right to support when times are tough. But with that right also comes responsibility. The responsibility to look for a job,” he said, “which you won’t be able to find, because we have simultaneously decided we will no longer risk higher inflation in the pursuit of unsustainably high employment. So what I’m saying is, not only do we want you to lose your job, but we want to make sure that you’re truly extra-miserable having done so.”

    Perhaps feeling he had been too succinct, the Prime Minister quickly added “Going forward, key deliverables, KPIs, airline.”

    This was cheered by the assembled economists, who chanted “Back On Track” and “The Dismal Science Demands Misery.”

    A growing mob of people who variously described themselves as “normal” and “not into finding sociopathic excuses for cruelty and elite greed,” were assembling outside. Some held gardening implements, and others were on their smartphones, thoughtfully scrolling the results for Google searches like “guillotine materials Bunnings.” Asked for an opinion by this reporter, a spokesperson for the mob said that they didn’t see the need for the Towering Bonfire at all, and that perhaps if the economists did see such a need, they could volunteer to be first atop it.

    The economists declined this suggestion. “Economists need their jobs, because where would the economy be without economists?” said Clampdown. “Why, without economists, there might not be a Towering Bonfire of Human Misery at all.”

    “We accept that economics doesn’t always make mathematical or logical or even common sense,” agreed Zhuul-Nâr, “but the Towering Bonfire awaits, and people must be sacrifices.”

    This reporter asked her if she’d actually meant to say “people must make sacrifices.”

    “No,” Zhuul-Nâr said.