“Make sure they learn to code.” “Get them into STEM.” “A computer science degree is the safe bet.” Responsible, practical guidance — optimized for an economy where human execution was the bottleneck.

AI eliminated that bottleneck almost overnight. Not in a decade. Not gradually enough for the advice to update itself. Overnight.

I have young boys. The oldest is eight. By the time he’s applying to college — if college still makes sense, which is its own question — the career landscape will be unrecognizable. Not just different. Unrecognizable. And the advice I was raised on, the advice most parents are still giving, was calibrated for a world that’s already gone.

Robots taking jobs is obvious and that framing feels quaint. What I’m worried about is what happens to your kids when the entire premise of career preparation stops working — and what to do about it before the thing in their pocket does the deciding for them.

The Old Playbook Is Dead

Junior lawyers are being displaced. Entry-level analysts. Accountants. The starter roles in every “safe” career parents spent two decades pushing kids toward — first to go.

Nobody expected that. Every previous automation wave hit blue-collar workers first. Factories, farms, assembly lines. The professional class got to design policy responses from a comfortable distance — retraining programs for factory workers, think pieces about the dignity of labor, all written from a desk that felt permanent.

This time it started in the office. The disruption landed in the professional class’s living room. That creates a political dynamic we’ve never seen: the people who traditionally design policy responses to economic disruption are the ones being disrupted. Whether that produces better, more empathetic policy or sheer panic from a class with enormous political leverage — we’re about to find out.

The parents who steered their kids away from trades and toward knowledge work may have pointed them directly into AI’s crosshairs.

Meanwhile, the kid who wanted to be a carpenter has a physical-world moat. At least for now. (Robots will eventually handle most trades too, but that’s still years out. The physical world buys time that the digital world doesn’t.)

The “risky” path — follow your interests, go deep on something you actually care about, build things with your hands — turned out to be the strategic one. The parents who said “that’s not practical” were wrong — what’s practical changed under their feet.

The Bigger Picture (and Why It Matters for Your Kid)

Here’s the uncomfortable part of economic growth: every massive economic expansion in human history was built on coerced labor. Rome. Colonial economies. The antebellum South. The Industrial Revolution. Even globalization — cheaper production always meant finding someone more desperate to do the work.

AI breaks that pattern. For the first time, we have labor that scales massively, costs almost nothing, doesn’t tire, and doesn’t suffer. You don’t have to exploit anyone to get it. That’s genuinely new.

But the economic value flowing from AI doesn’t automatically distribute itself. Slavery’s gains didn’t flow to everyone — they flowed to plantation owners. The structural risk with AI is identical on the capital side. If AI productivity flows only to those who own the models and infrastructure, we’ve removed the suffering but recreated the concentration.

So where does that leave your kid?

It depends on which future materializes. In the darkest version — and honestly, the most likely by default — you get a small ownership class, a modest professional class serving them, and a vast population that’s economically superfluous and purposeless (though not necessarily poor). We already have a preview in communities where industry left: deaths of despair, addiction, radicalization. Scale that to the majority of the population and it’s terrifying.

The optimistic version requires something harder than technology: a cultural shift where identity decouples from economic production. Where people build, create, connect, and pursue mastery not for money but for meaning. It requires kids who have an internal engine that doesn’t need a paycheck to run.

The most likely version is a messy hybrid. Some people thriving. Some people drowning. And the difference between the two groups won’t be intelligence or education or even luck. It’ll be whether they developed purpose before the economy stopped demanding it.

This is especially hard because the economic incentives of the largest companies on Earth are aligned against your kid developing that purpose. Every hour they scroll TikTok instead of creating something, someone makes money. Complacency is the business model.

So that’s what this is really about: raising humans who can function — who can thrive — in a world that no longer requires them to work, while an industry spends billions keeping them passive. The most important things you can give them aren’t skills. They’re qualities. Curiosity. Depth. The ability to sit with something difficult long enough to get good at it. An identity that doesn’t depend on a job title.

What Actually Compounds

Here’s what I’ve noticed about the people thriving right now: none of them learned their skills as a career strategy.

They’re the ones with genuine curiosity that compounded over decades. There’s a massive difference between a CS degree pursued for job security and thirty years of building things because you couldn’t stop yourself. AI amplifies people with real taste, vision, and intrinsic drive. It exposes everyone who was going through the motions. If you’re doing your job because it pays the bills, not because it’s the thing you can’t stop thinking about — the gap between you and someone who actually cares is about to become very visible.

You can’t fake compounding interest. A kid who’s been obsessively tinkering with electronics since age eight has something a bootcamp graduate doesn’t — not knowledge, but relationship with the work. Depth that can’t be shortcut. The kind of understanding that lets you look at a problem and know, before you can articulate why, that something is off. That’s taste. And taste is the one thing AI can’t generate for you.

The person who learned Python because a career counselor said to will use AI as a faster way to do the same tasks. The person who learned Python because they were trying to automate their weird hobby will use AI to do things nobody else has thought of. Same tool, completely different outcomes.

The lesson for parents: your kid’s obsessions aren’t distractions from their future. They are the future. The ten-year-old who won’t stop drawing isn’t wasting time. The twelve-year-old who’s deep into mushroom identification isn’t being impractical. They’re compounding.

And this isn’t just about tech kids. The same applies to the kid who wants to build teepees in the forest, or practice 87 different ways to prepare eggs, or spend every weekend building Lego creations nobody asked for. The domain doesn’t matter. The depth does.

The Provenance Generation

When AI makes production infinitely cheap, the scarce resource becomes authentic human intention.

Think about it. If anyone can generate a novel, a song, a design, a business plan in thirty seconds — what’s left? When production cost approaches zero, production itself has no value. What’s left is the same thing that makes a handmade chair worth more than an IKEA flat-pack: provenance. The who and the why behind it. The fact that someone chose to make this, in this way, for this reason.

“Why should I care that you made this?” becomes the defining economic question.

Craft, taste, story, a genuine point of view — these are the things no model can commoditize. Kids who develop a distinctive voice and a deep relationship with a craft own something permanent. This is true whether the craft is woodworking, cooking, music, writing, or building software with real intentionality.

There will be more roles for craftsmen in the AI economy, not fewer. But they’ll be valued for what machines can’t replicate: the fact that a human gave a damn.

The same applies to teachers, coaches, counselors — anyone whose presence is the point. I think we’ll see a boom in hands-on experiences: week-long photography workshops, writer’s retreats, wilderness expeditions. When everything can be delivered digitally, showing up in person becomes the luxury.

I’m making an economic argument here, not a nostalgic one. When everything can be produced, nothing produced has inherent value. Value migrates to intention, to story, to the irreplaceable specificity of a person who cared enough to make a choice. The kid who develops that — who has a point of view and the craft to express it — is holding the one currency that doesn’t inflate.

The Attention War

The qualities kids need most — curiosity, depth, intrinsic motivation, sustained focus — are exactly what algorithmic feeds are engineered to destroy.

This isn’t accidental. Social media and algorithmic content are systems purpose-built to capture attention and convert exploration into passive consumption. A kid who spends hours going deep on something weird and personal is developing the exact muscle this economy rewards. The algorithm’s job is to interrupt that process and replace it with frictionless dopamine.

The feed doesn’t want your kid to be curious. It wants your kid to be engaged. And those are opposite things.

Curiosity pulls you outward into the unknown. Engagement traps you in a loop of what already works on you.

Complacency is the product. A complacent user scrolls longer, clicks more ads, and never leaves the platform. From an engagement perspective, complacency is the ideal outcome. But a complacent human in the AI economy has nothing to offer — no taste, no drive, no point of view worth paying for.

This is an economic argument, not a screen time one.

I know how that sounds. Parents have been wringing their hands about screens for a decade, and kids are fine, and every generation panics about new media, and maybe we should all relax.

No. This is different. The timing is catastrophic. We are entering an economy that rewards exactly one thing — intrinsic motivation — at the exact moment an industry has perfected the art of destroying it. Every hour a kid spends in an algorithmic feed is an hour they’re being trained out of the self-direction that will define success in the next economy. That’s not a parenting opinion. It’s a market reality.

Purpose as a Survival Skill

The biggest risk for the next generation is purposelessness.

We already see the preview. A generation that can scroll for six hours but can’t sit with boredom for six minutes.

The algorithmic feed and the post-labor economy are a catastrophic combination. One eliminates the need for human effort. The other eliminates the desire for it.

When survival is decoupled from labor, the kids who have an internal engine — mastery, curiosity, service, connection — will thrive. The kids waiting for external structures to tell them what to feel, watch, and care about will struggle profoundly.

Purpose isn’t something you discover after you’re financially secure. It’s something you cultivate from childhood — unless something strip-mines it first. Or interrupts you from ever developing it. A kid who spends all day watching PAW Patrol or YouTube never has time to be bored, which means they never have time to discover what they actually care about. Boredom is where passion comes from.

We’ve spent a generation telling kids that meaning comes after stability. Get the degree, get the job, get the house — then you can figure out what you care about. That sequence never really worked, but at least the structure kept people moving. Remove the structure — remove the economic necessity that forced people out of bed — and you’re left with people who never learned to move on their own.

This is already happening. Look at the statistics on young men not in education, employment, or training. Look at the rates of anxiety and depression in teenagers. Look at the kids who graduate from good colleges with good grades and genuinely have no idea what they want. My LinkedIn feed is full of incredible engineers I’ve worked with over the years who’ve been laid off in the last twelve months. These aren’t personal failures. They’re systemic ones. We optimized kids for compliance and credentialing and forgot to help them develop an inner compass.

What This Looks Like at Home

Let them build. My kids build things. Not because I’m training future engineers — because the act of making something develops agency and taste in ways that nothing else does. A Lego set with or without instructions. A birdhouse that falls apart. A terrible song recorded on a phone. A movie of their own design. A strange configuration of shapes in free-form. It doesn’t matter what they build. What matters is that they experience themselves as someone who makes things rather than someone things happen to. Building is the antidote to consuming.

Protect their attention with intention, not fear. I’m not anti-technology. I build with AI every day — I have a team of AI agents working around the clock on projects for me. Make sure they experience tech as a tool they direct, not a feed that directs them. There’s a world of difference between a kid who uses a computer to make something and a kid who opens TikTok because they’re bored.

And now, nearly anything they can imagine, they can create. A kid with a vision and basic prompting skills can build apps, compose music, make films, design products. Access stopped being the barrier. Having something worth building became the barrier.

Stop optimizing for credentials. A kid who goes deep on something “impractical” is developing exactly the muscles this economy rewards. The fourteen-year-old who’s obsessed with fermentation isn’t wasting time. The eight-year-old who wants to know everything about bridges isn’t being weird. They’re going deep. That’s the skill. Let them. Encourage them. Don’t stifle it in favor of skills that made sense when we were growing up.

Teach them to direct AI, not compete with it. The skill is knowing what’s worth building and why. A kid who understands what matters — who has taste, judgment, a point of view — can direct AI tools to build things that actually mean something. A kid who only knows how to execute instructions is competing with a machine that executes instructions infinitely faster.

Model it. Kids don’t learn purpose from lectures. They learn it from watching you engage with the world intentionally. They notice what you reach for when you’re bored. They notice whether you build things or scroll. They notice if your phone comes out at dinner. Model the life you want them to live.

Resist the anxiety. The instinct to push kids toward “safe” paths is strong, especially now. But safety has moved. The conventional path — credentials, prestigious firms, climbing a ladder — is now the risky one. The kid following genuine curiosity down an unmarked trail is the one with the advantage. That’s terrifying for parents. Sit with it.

Talk about this stuff. Not in a doom-and-gloom way, but honestly. Kids are perceptive. They hear the anxiety in adult conversations about AI. They see the headlines. Give them a framework that’s empowering, not paralyzing: the world is changing fast, the people who thrive will be the ones who build and create and go deep, and that’s exactly what you’re already doing when you spend three hours on that weird project in the garage. Name it. Make it legible to them.

The Paradox

The most practical thing you can do for your kid’s economic future is to stop thinking about their economic future.

The economy is shifting to reward exactly what good parenting has always tried to cultivate — curious, self-directed, purposeful humans. But we’ve allowed an industry to plant itself between our kids and those qualities, strip-mining their attention for ad revenue.

For the first time in modern history, “follow what drives you” isn’t idealistic advice. It’s the most strategic thing a parent can say. The practical path and the passionate path have converged. The Venn diagram is a circle.

But only if your kid still has the capacity to be driven by something real. And that’s the part that scares me — because there’s a multi-trillion-dollar industry working around the clock to make sure they don’t.

AI gives us something unprecedented — an economy where human labor is increasingly optional. That should be liberating. The question “what do you want to be when you grow up?” finally gets to mean “what kind of person will you become?” instead of “what job will you do?”

But liberation requires capacity. A freed prisoner who’s never made a decision doesn’t know what to do with freedom. A kid whose curiosity was strip-mined by algorithms and whose ambition was channeled into credentials doesn’t know what to do with an open future.

That question — “what kind of person will you become?” — is only liberating if a kid has the inner life to answer it.

Raising kids who can answer that question. Protecting their curiosity. Guarding their depth. Letting them go deep on things that don’t make sense to you yet. Resisting the urge to optimize them for a world that no longer exists.

This isn’t about homeschooling or Waldorf or going off-grid. It’s about making a series of small, daily choices. Do you let the algorithm babysit, or do you sit with the boredom until something real emerges? Do you push them toward the “responsible” extracurricular, or let them spend Saturday afternoon taking apart a broken toaster? Do you ask “will this look good on an application?” or “does this kid come alive when they do it?”

The answers seem obvious when you write them down. They’re harder at 5 PM when you’re exhausted and the iPad would buy you an hour of quiet. I know. I’m there too.

But the stakes have changed. The margin for error on attention and purpose has narrowed dramatically. Not because the world is ending — because the world is opening up in ways that reward depth and punish drift. Your kid’s relationship with their own curiosity isn’t a nice-to-have anymore. It’s the whole game.

The irony is almost too clean: the most strategic parenting advice in the age of AI is the advice idealists have been giving forever. Follow what drives you. Build things. Pay attention. Go deep.

It just happens to finally be true.

I’ve been writing code for thirty years. It took me decades of practice to ship something that good.

Chasing a Ghost

In my first Technonymous post, I wrote about learning HyperCard in the early 90s. If you’re too young to remember it, HyperCard was Apple’s attempt to give normal people the power to build software. It created this sensation—this almost physical feeling—that anything was possible. I fell in love with technology because of it.

Then HyperCard died, and for three decades, that feeling became a ghost. Programming got more powerful but also more complex. The barrier to entry rose. The magic became a profession. My profession.

I’ve spent thirty years chasing that ghost.

And, with Claude Code, I caught it.

Confessions of a Skeptic

Let me be honest about where I was six months ago.

I’d been using AI coding tools—Copilot, Cursor—for a couple of years. They were useful. They made me faster. But the code needed babysitting. Basic errors. Weird hallucinations. A decent tool, sure, but only in expert hands.

When people talked about “vibe coding,” I dismissed it. The tools weren’t good enough.

But if I’m being really honest? My skepticism was equal parts technical assessment and ego. I’ve been writing code since the Clinton administration. Surely that skillset can’t become obsolete overnight.

Right?

Dinner, Then Everything Changed

Recently, my partner and I were at dinner. We started riffing on an idea for a word game. Nothing serious—just playing with a concept over cocktails and queso.

The next evening, we were playing it. Crosslet. Live on the internet. It’s fun. It looks good. It works.

I never looked at the code. Not once.

I just talked to Claude Code like I’d talk to a junior developer, except this junior developer worked at otherworldly speed, never got defensive about feedback, and didn’t need health insurance.

My thirty years of expertise? Useful for knowing what to ask for. Completely unnecessary for the actual building.

Here’s What Nobody Tells You

There’s a dirty secret about vibe coding: the vibe dies the moment you try to share what you built.

You create something amazing in two hours. You’re flying. Then you realize you need to actually put it on the internet. So you trudge off to set up hosting. Configure DNS. Figure out deployment pipelines. Want users to log in? Go wrestle with Firebase. Need to send emails? Set up Resend. Analytics? Google Analytics. AI features? Now you’re juggling API keys from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, trying to remember which billing profile is which.

Your two-hour miracle has become a full day of account creation and configuration. The vibe isn’t just dead—it’s been buried in a shallow grave behind a YAML file.

So I fixed it.

I built ItsAlive.co. One command: npx itsalive-co. Enter your email, click a link, and your app is live. Ten seconds, start to finish.

It launches today. If you’ve been vibe coding, try it, it’s free.

But honestly, ItsAlive isn’t what this post is about.

What This Post Is Actually About

While building ItsAlive, I kept shipping things. Testing the infrastructure. Scratching itches. Just this week:

• Custom evites for a birthday party (15 minutes)

• That racing game my kid built at lunch

• A founder proposal for a friend to join me in building ItsAlive (10 minutes)

• A non-algorithmic Substack alternative (1 hour)

• A recipe manager that generates AI illustrations for every dish and calculates the exact start time for each step so your whole meal finishes hot at once (3 hours)

Three hours for that recipe app. It would have taken a small team months to build that a few years ago. I would have raised a million dollars in VC to fund that development. Now it’s an afternoon.

And, standing in my kitchen, looking at the app telling me exactly when to start the risotto so it finishes with the chicken, I realized something:

Commercial software is living on borrowed time.

Why would anyone pay HubSpot hundreds of dollars a month for a CRM that sort of fits their workflow when they could build exactly what they need in a day? Why wrestle with Notion’s limitations when you can just… build the thing you actually want?

We’re not going to adapt our workflows to software anymore. We’re going to build software that adapts to us.

The Ghost, Caught

Thirty years ago, HyperCard whispered a promise: everyone could build.

Then the world got complicated. Programming became priesthood. The promise faded into nostalgia.

But it wasn’t a lie. It was just early.

Today, an 8-year-old can ship a game before the appetizers arrive. A word game can go from dinner conversation to live product overnight. A recipe app that would have required a team and a budget materializes in an afternoon.

Everyone can build now. Not “soon.” Not “eventually.” Now.

This will change everything about how we interact with computers, with software, with each other.

I think it’s going to be wonderful. I’m excited to keep building.

Let’s go!

The story was remarkably consistent: I used to have Netflix and that was it. Now I need five or six services just to watch what I want. I’m paying more than cable ever cost. And somehow the experience is worse.

One friend put it bluntly: “I stopped pirating because streaming was better. I started again because streaming became worse than cable.”

The Enshittification Cycle Comes for Streaming

What my friends are describing has a name. Writer Cory Doctorow calls it enshittification—a term so precisely descriptive it was named the American Dialect Society’s Word of the Year in 2023.

Doctorow’s framework describes a predictable three-stage arc that big tech follows: First, platforms are good to users to attract them. Then they abuse users to make things better for business customers (advertisers, studios). Finally, they abuse those business customers to extract maximum profit for shareholders. Then they die—or become something unrecognizable.

“Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves.”

Sound familiar? Netflix launched in 2007 at $7.99/month for unlimited streaming. No ads. One simple plan. By January 2025, that same ad-free experience costs $17.99—with premium reaching $24.99. Where Netflix took about fourteen years to double its original price, Disney+ accomplished the same feat in just four.

The average American household now subscribes to four streaming services at a combined cost of $69 per month—a 13% increase from last year alone, according to Deloitte’s 2025 Digital Media Trends report. Many households report spending over $100 monthly across six or more services.

We cut the cord to escape cable. We’ve rebuilt cable, but fragmented and more expensive.

The UX Degradation Nobody Asked For

But it’s not just the money. The experience itself has degraded in ways that feel almost deliberately hostile.

Amazon Prime Video—once praised for its clean, ad-free interface—inserted ads in January 2024 without reducing prices. Want the experience you previously paid for? That’ll be an extra $2.99/month. Reviewers have called it “insulting to sit through ads on a previously ad-free service.”

Netflix’s password-sharing crackdown in 2023 generated immediate backlash—Spain reportedly saw a million cancellations. Research from MoffettNathanson found that a majority of password sharers now view Netflix negatively, with nearly 80% of affected users under 35 expressing negative perceptions. Netflix pushed through anyway, banking on the reality that switching costs and content fragmentation would prevent mass exodus.

They were right. Netflix added 27% more subscribers in the eighteen months following the crackdown. The message to the industry was clear: you can make users angry if you’ve made leaving hard enough.

Meanwhile, the interfaces themselves optimize for engagement over usefulness. Autoplay trailers you can’t disable. Algorithmic recommendations designed to keep you browsing rather than watching. Content buried behind “because you watched” carousels that somehow never surface what you’re actually looking for, because they would rather get you started on a 7 hour “Real Housewives” binge.

Rising prices, growing ad fatigue, and uneven user experience are reshaping streaming behavior, creating tension between cost and experience as viewers reevaluate services and shift toward options that deliver clear value.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Global piracy site visits ballooned from roughly 104 billion in 2020 to over 216 billion in 2024—a 66% increase in four years, with film and TV leading the surge. MUSO’s 2024 report tracked 216.3 billion visits to piracy sites globally.

The demographics tell the real story. Studies show 67-76% of Gen Z and millennials admit to using illegal platforms alongside paid subscriptions. Not instead of—alongside. They’re paying for multiple services AND pirating, because the legitimate options have become so fragmented and frustrating that piracy fills the gaps.

In Sweden, 25% of people aged 15-24 openly admit to pirating content, viewing streaming as “cable 2.0.” European households now spend around €700 annually on subscriptions. Indian families report spending $36/month for multiple streaming apps when cable cost $9.

The original promise of streaming was simple: pay a reasonable price, get access to everything, no ads, watch what you want when you want it. Every element of that promise has been systematically broken.

Why This Matters Beyond Entertainment

The return of piracy isn’t really about piracy. It’s a signal—a market correction that reveals what happens when the enshittification cycle runs its course.

Doctorow argues that four forces historically prevented this kind of rent-seeking: competition, regulation, labor power, and switching costs. Streaming services have systematically neutralized all four. Exclusive content deals eliminate competition. Regulatory capture prevents intervention. Tech workers never unionized. And content fragmentation across platforms creates artificial switching costs—cancel Netflix and you lose Stranger Things; cancel HBO and you lose House of the Dragon.

The only remaining check is what economists call “exit”—users leaving entirely. Piracy is exit. It’s consumers voting with their bandwidth that the legitimate product no longer delivers sufficient value for its cost and friction.

When a significant portion of paying customers simultaneously returns to illegal alternatives, the product has structurallyfailed. It no longer serves its users.

The Lesson for Technology Design

There’s a reason this matters beyond your Netflix bill. The same enshittification pattern plays out across every platform built on the post-2007 model of “free” services monetized through attention and data extraction.

Social media platforms that once showed you posts from friends now show you algorithmic content optimized for engagement. Search engines that once returned the best results now return results optimized for advertising revenue. Children’s apps that once taught skills now teach consumption patterns.

The streaming wars offer a compressed, visible version of what’s happened more slowly across our entire digital landscape. Users attracted with value, locked in with switching costs, then gradually squeezed until the original value proposition inverts entirely.

When I talk to parents about Cloudberry OS and why we’re building laptops designed around pre-2007 computing principles, this is the context. We’re not nostalgic for the past—we’re trying to build tools that structurally resist this cycle. Tools that remain tools, designed for the humans using them rather than for the shareholders extracting value from them.

Until we build technology systems that can’t so easily turn against their users, Jolly Torrent will keep rising from his grave.

Sources:

• Deloitte Survey: US Consumers Spend $69 Monthly on Video Streaming - Variety

• MUSO 2024 Piracy Trends and Insights Report

• Every Streaming Cost Increase in 2025 - Nerdist

• Enshittification - Wikipedia

• Cory Doctorow’s McLuhan Lecture on Enshittification

• Netflix Password Sharing Crackdown Impact - Antenna

• Why Piracy is Winning in 2025

• Streaming UX Key Trends 2025 - Meltwater

Even after throwing out over 2,000 pounds of stuff—and donating just as much—I still feel like I’m drowning, trying to get things back under control. Hopefully a few more weeks and I can start properly nesting.

It’s been a strange winter, too. Extremely warm, even up here at Technonymous HQ (aka Yonderosa), 8,000 feet above sea level.

I’m planning to pick back up the weekly posts next week, starting with a topic I’ve been thinking about for a while: the return of piracy. Not as rebellion or nostalgia, but as behavior—what people do when systems stop serving them. I’ve been organizing my own thoughts, but I’m more curious about what you’ve experienced.

Have you gone back to pirating media in the last year?
If so, what pushed you there?

Send me an email. I’m happy to keep anything you share anonymous.

My square footage is basically cut in half, and I now live in a place with no closets. No mudroom. No built-in storage. Very few “shove-it-here-and-deal-with-it-later” zones, aside from a couple of sheds.

My kids used to have roughly 500 square feet of indoor play space. Now they have an 80-square-foot loft tucked under the eaves. It’s adorable. And it forces a level of intentionality I’ve managed to avoid for most of my adult life.

Ever since the move, everyone keeps asking me the same questions:

“What about the stuff in your mudroom?”
“Where are you going to put all your shoes?”
“What about your closet?”

And here’s the thing:
I have a lot of stuff.
A LOT of stuff.

My inclination a few years ago would’ve started shoving it into boxes so I could “figure it out later.” In fact, that’s what everyone expects me to do now. But having both houses through December gives me a strange kind of luxury: I don’t have to bring anything over unless I really want it here. So I’m trying—actively—to resist the gravitational pull of autopilot accumulation.

This month, I’m making decisions one object at a time. What comes into the cabin? What stays behind? What gets donated? What gets tossed? And what, honestly, was I carrying around out of pure habit rather than actual usefulness?

During the time I was under contract on this house, planning out my move, I consumed a lot of content around minimalist principles, decluttering. Surrounding yourself with items that spark joy. Building a functional space for the things I love to do: cook, read, write, hike, build, fix, think.

This video came across my algorithm as I was planning:

It’s about toys, yes, but it’s actually about attention, overwhelm, and how too much stuff steals time from kids and parents alike. If you have children and are overwhelmed by the STUFF, I’d highly recommend it.

There’s an idea in the video that hit me hard:

When kids have less, they still play. They often play more. And everyone spends less time cleaning up. But when their lives are full of more and more toys, the focus shifts from play to accumulation.

That was the click for me.
I realized I don’t need more storage.
I need fewer things.

When space shrinks, clarity expands

Yonderosa forces the question:
If something doesn’t have a place, should it even come inside?

A smaller, more intentional home is pushing me toward something I’ve intellectually believed for years but practically avoided: my stuff should serve my life, not the other way around.

As I stand in this new house with its limited corners and its nonexistent closet space, I’m asking:

• Do I really need five down jackets?

• What books are important in their lives?

• Which toys can I use to populate their play loft and actually spark their imaginations?

• If everything I own requires managing, what does that really cost me?

Choosing intentionally, in real time

This isn’t me telling the triumphant story of how I decluttered my life.
That post doesn’t exist yet.

This is me documenting the process mid-stream:

• Some things are easy to let go of: duplicates, broken items, the charger for my iPhone 5.

• Some things surprise me: I’m keeping less for nostalgic reasons than I expected, and far more for functional ones.

• I don’t yet have a dedicated office here, but I hope to build one in the next few years, so I’m putting away some momentos from my office into bins in the shed until there’s a space for them.

• It is overwhelming and often leads me to want to just take a nap instead. But, I have a garage sale scheduled for 18 days from now, and, in 21 days, I will no longer have my old home, so I must keep going.

I’m deciding this month, not years later, what actually deserves a place in this smaller life I’m trying to build.

A new metric for enough

The more I sit among the pines, the more I understand the core insight of that video:
When we have less, we still play. We still live. We still create. But we spend way less time maintaining and managing.

I want that.
I want a home where the default state isn’t clutter.
Where my kids see their toys and play with them, not drown in them.
Where I don’t waste half my Saturday putting things “away”—a word that, in a no-closet cabin, becomes hilariously loaded.

So this week and next—I’m choosing what comes through the door.
Not what I can fit, but what I want to live with.

The new place isn’t quite off-grid, but it’s close enough to feel like it. Electricity, yes. Everything else, no. My mailbox is ten minutes down the road, and nobody delivers packages. UPS and FedEx stop miles away. DoorDash and Uber don’t exist out here. I haul my own trash.

But the tradeoff is everything I hoped. On the porch, the only sound is the birds and the wind in the trees. I can see the stars from my bed. I wake up, go downstairs, light the wood stove, make a cup of tea, and actually begin the day on purpose. Then, when I’m ready, I drive the slow 10 miles in to town and enter the world on my terms. It’s all my favorite parts of camping but with running water and a comfortable couch and—yes—a big-screen TV. (We call that foreshadowing.)

In the middle of the chaos of moving, though, my behavior didn’t exactly match the serene vision of this place. I bought myself some time by giving the boys more screen time than usual. I remembered how much fun I had playing Tony Hawk as a kid, downloaded it, and set them up so I could unpack boxes and try to get ahead of the mess.

They loved it. Especially my five-year-old.

And last night at dinner, it all came to a head.

“What do you mean I don’t get to play skateboarding any more today?”

“Well, by the time we get home it’ll be time to get ready for bed.”

Meltdown. A full-body, full-volume, all-systems-go collapse. It looked physically painful for him to imagine not playing. And honestly, I recognized that feeling. It doesn’t take long for our brains to hook into something that gives us a hit of relief in the middle of overwhelm.

Standing there with him, I could feel the gap between the life I’m trying to build out here—slow mornings, intention, breathing room—and the life I default into when I’m overloaded. A glowing rectangle can bridge that gap for a minute, but the bill comes due fast. In a few days, he’d built a habit. In a few days, I had too.

I moved out here for quiet and space. But those things aren’t guaranteed by a location. They’re built choice by choice, even on the chaotic days. Especially on the chaotic days.

I don’t have all the answers. Most days I barely have the questions in the right order. But I’m trying to match the life I say I want with the life I’m actually living. To practice intention instead of just admiring it from afar. To give my kids the kind of internal strength I’m still trying to find for myself.

Maybe I’ll have it all figured out by next Tuesday. But honestly? I think the figuring-it-out part might be the whole point.

No phone. No search bar. No instant clarity. Just you and the question, circling each other for days.

Back then, a question was something you lived with. It didn’t demand immediate resolution. It reshaped itself as you played, as you walked home, as you stared out the car window. That slowness wasn’t a bug — it was the engine of curiosity.

When Answers Required a Journey

In 1992, getting an answer took effort. You asked adults who didn’t always know. You waited for your dad to get home from work because he might. You flipped through books that led you to other books. You marked the question in your mind: Ask the librarian on Saturday.

The question stayed alive the whole time, unfolding in the background of your thoughts.

That waiting wasn’t empty. Psychologists now call this “incubation” — the period when your brain’s default mode network quietly forms connections, tests possibilities, and integrates fragments of knowledge you didn’t even know you had. You were learning before you found the answer. You were building a mental model of how the world might work, feeling out the edges of what seemed true.

The answer, when it finally came, had a place to land.

The Encyclopedia Effect

I used to spend hours lying on the floor with a volume of the World Book Encyclopedia open in front of me. Not looking anything up — just wandering. Letting my attention snag on whatever image or word seemed strange or beautiful.

You’d turn from tarantulas to tectonic plates to Tchaikovsky to tungsten without ever intending to. And the detours weren’t wasted time. They expanded the perimeter of your mind. They built what neuroscientists now call cognitive flexibility — the ability to jump between ideas, see sideways connections, and imagine alternatives.

Modern research confirms that this kind of unguided exploration activates regions tied to divergent thinking. In other words, “getting lost” was part of how your brain learned to be creative.

But you didn’t know that then. You just knew it felt good to follow your attention wherever it wanted to go.

Efficiency Killed the Wander

Now it’s 2025. A kid wonders that same thing — how tornadoes start — and before the question can settle into their imagination, a parent has pulled up a 90-second YouTube explainer with HD graphics and a cheerful narrator. Question answered. Mystery closed. The default mode network never even wakes up.

Search is astonishingly effective. But its efficiency hides a cost.

The incubation window closes before it opens. We get answers, but we don’t get understanding. We collect facts, but we don’t build mental models. The moment curiosity sparks, it’s smothered by precision.

When every unknown is resolved instantly, the mind loses the very friction that once shaped it.

The Shrinking Inner Landscape

Instant answers eliminate the blank space where imagination used to roam. Those moments on the bus, in the kitchen, lying in bed before sleep — the spaces where a question could drift, mutate, collide with something else you were half-thinking about — are now filled with quick hits of certainty.

We’ve forgotten how to be bored in productive ways. The kind where your mind wanders from your homework to wondering why shadows are different lengths at different times of day, then back to your homework, then to whether birds get cold. That meandering path wasn’t distraction. It was your brain building the capacity to think in layers.

Ask someone to explain their favorite book and watch how often they reach for their phone to fact-check a detail. We’ve lost trust in our own reconstructions of meaning. We think through search engines now rather than with them. The difference is subtle but vast.

And the effects accumulate. Attention narrows. Curiosity thins. Ideas feel more linear and less surprising. We can still generate thoughts, but we’ve outsourced the work of sitting with them.

Psychologist Daniel Schacter calls memory’s natural fading “transience,” and argues it’s essential for how we make meaning and form identity. But we’ve engineered the opposite: permanent, immediate recall. Answers with no journey behind them.

When the unknown lasts only a second, imagination stops showing up. Why would it? It never gets invited to the conversation.

Kids Still Remember How to Wonder

Children don’t naturally think in straight lines. My five-year-old asked last week why the moon follows our car.

Before I could pull out my phone, he added: “Maybe it’s curious about us? Or maybe it’s just really, really fast and we don’t notice?”

He was building a cosmology. Testing theories. My phone would have given her the angle-of-observation explanation and closed that world down.

Kids don’t want sterile, optimized answers. They want the room to explore the question. The chain of “but why?” isn’t annoying — it’s divergent thinking in motion. It’s exactly what their brains are built to do.

But when we respond instantly — with facts, with definitions, with the tidy endpoints delivered by a search bar — we compress that branching path. We accidentally teach them that questions should be resolved, not explored. That wondering should lead somewhere concrete as fast as possible.

Curiosity becomes something to clear, not something to follow.

A Small, Radical Practice

If you’re reading this and you remember 1992 — or 1987, or 1996, or any year before Google — you know what I’m talking about. You remember what it felt like to not know something for longer than it takes to unlock your phone.

The fix isn’t to swear off technology. It’s simpler — and more subversive — than that:

Carry a question again.

Not forever. Not even for an hour. Just... longer than a second.

Let it linger while you pour coffee. Write it down in your notebook. Guess wildly. Notice what your mind does with the silence. Invite your kids into the process before you reach for the screen:

“Hmm... what do you think?”
“Let’s imagine a few possibilities first.”
“Let’s make a prediction before we look it up.”

Try this: When your kid asks a question, answer it wrong — playfully, obviously wrong. “Why is the sky blue? Because it’s sad that the sun has to leave every day.” Watch what happens. They’ll laugh. They’ll correct you. They’ll build theories. They’re thinking, not just receiving.

What you’re doing in these moments is reopening the door to incubation, to divergent thinking, to the quiet cognitive work that helps us understand the world instead of just labeling it.

You’re rebuilding the landscape where curiosity used to live.

The Whole Point

We didn’t lose curiosity — we starved it of time.

The world is still full of hidden facts and surprising connections and beautiful detours. But you can only find them if you pause before you search. If you let uncertainty hang in the air long enough for your imagination to wake up and stretch.

Last week I let a question sit for three days: Why do we say “fall in love” but never “fall in friendship”? I never looked it up. But I thought about gravity, about surrender, about how language knows things before we do. The question became a companion. It changed shape. It connected to other thoughts I didn’t know I was having.

I didn’t need the answer. I needed the company.

Carry a question again. Even for a minute. That’s all it really takes to reopen a forgotten part of your mind — the part that knew, in 1992, how to wonder without rushing toward the end.

Subscribe now

Forgetting used to be one of the brain’s greatest tricks. We evolved to let things fade — to prune connections so we could stay adaptive. Forgetting isn’t failure; it’s intelligence. Neuroscientists describe how the brain actively discards irrelevant details so new patterns can emerge. Without that pruning, the mind would collapse under its own weight.

You don’t need to remember the name of the kid who sat three seats down from you in second grade. Your brain lets that go so it can make room for what matters now.

I’ve learned this in a personal way. Not long ago, I discovered that I have aphantasia — I literally can’t picture things in my mind’s eye (aphantasia.com). If you asked me to describe people closest to me — my children, my partner, my siblings, my mother — I could only give you a few data points: hair color, maybe eye color. I couldn’t tell you if they have a big chin or a small nose. I can’t “see” them.

This forced forgetting means I’m far less prone to reliving trauma. Vivid imagery can anchor pain; without it, I move on more easily. (Health.com)
It’s not ideal — there are losses. I have no true memories of my dad. I’m sometimes chided for being emotionally distant. But there’s freedom in it, too.

Psychologist Daniel Schacter at Harvard calls this transience — the natural fading of memory — one of the “seven sins of memory” that is, paradoxically, vital for identity. Forgetting isn’t an error; it’s the mind’s way of editing the story so it can keep going.

You are not a fixed archive of experiences but a living document under constant revision. Each act of forgetting makes space for reinterpretation. The fuzziness around old events isn’t decay — it’s authorship. It’s how the mind rewrites the self in real time.

If every version of you remained perfectly intact, you’d be crushed under the weight of your own history — every mistake, every humiliation, every past self demanding recognition. There’d be no space for evolution, only accumulation. Forgetting allows the narrative to cohere. It’s what lets you say I used to be that person instead of I still am.

Johnny Cash used to say, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”
He wasn’t celebrating dishonesty — he was acknowledging how memory works.
We remember in service of meaning, not accuracy. By blurring the edges, we shape experience into story, and story into self.

But when the record becomes immutable — when even our most minor moments are frozen forever online — we lose that creative latitude. We don’t allow the mind to sand down the details, to mythologize, to find pattern or grace. The stories that once circled up a dinner table, the gentle exaggerations that make a life coherent, get replaced by timestamps and receipts.

Without the freedom to forget, we lose our ability to forgive — both others and ourselves. We stay pinned to our worst day, unable to move past it or let anyone else do the same. Forgiveness requires blur; mercy needs soft focus.

But algorithms don’t forget. Every click, hesitation, or half-second linger becomes another fossilized fragment of you. Systems built for infinite recall mistake accumulation for wisdom. They don’t distinguish between curiosity and identity — between what caught your attention and what deserved it.

The result is a digital ecosystem haunted by versions of ourselves we’ve outgrown. A song you played once becomes a personality trait. An old search becomes a prophecy. Every scroll is an echo chamber of your former impulses. The machine can’t tell you’ve changed, because it doesn’t believe in change.

At scale, this becomes cultural rigor mortis. We live in a collective memory with no expiry date. Old tweets resurface like artifacts dredged from tar. A society that can’t forget is one that can’t forgive.

Europe saw this coming. In 2014, a Spanish man, Mario Costeja González, asked Google to stop linking to an article about his bankruptcy — he’d long since paid it, but the internet hadn’t moved on. That case birthed the right to be forgotten, later codified in the GDPR.

That law isn’t just about privacy; it’s about mercy. It acknowledges something algorithms can’t: the moral dimension of time. Humans understand that context changes — that who you were ten years ago isn’t who you are now. Code doesn’t. It treats every fragment as eternally relevant.

There’s a quiet cultural divide here. America treats “the internet never forgets” like a proverb. Europe treats it like a problem. One worships record; the other defends renewal.

Perfect memory is not intelligence. It’s paralysis. It leaves no room for redemption, imagination, or surprise. In the human brain, forgetting is what keeps thought alive. In society, it’s what keeps forgiveness possible.

The right to be forgotten is civilization’s attempt to give the digital world a conscience — to reintroduce entropy into code. Maybe the future depends not on what we remember, but on what we choose to let go.

A humane internet would remember like a person does — imperfectly, and with mercy.

Then, in 2009, the phone stopped waiting. Apple opened push notifications to third-party apps, and suddenly it could speak on its own behalf — or rather, on behalf of every corporation who wanted a piece of your attention.

Messages no longer waited for you to open them; they arrived uninvited, glowing through your pocket. The relationship inverted. The phone, once a humble conduit for conversation, became an instrument of control — not maliciously, but mechanically. It learned how to call for you even when no one else was on the line.

At first, it felt like progress — a clever workaround for Apple’s refusal to let apps run in the background. TechCrunch called the feature “great, but…” and warned it might make you “pull out your phone every couple of minutes.” They meant it might become an inconvenience. In hindsight, it was a prophecy.

Because now we do exactly that — not because someone’s calling, but because it’s become uncomfortable not to. The absence of a notification feels like a missing heartbeat. We’ve trained our brains to expect the hit, and when it doesn’t come, the body goes looking for it.

Our manufactured arrhythmia.

From Feature to Feedback Loop

Push notifications didn’t just reorganize software; they rewired expectation. What started as a system for convenience became a system for conditioning. Each buzz rewarded vigilance; each silence punished it.

Neuroscientists call this a variable-ratio reinforcement schedule — the same mechanism that keeps slot machines addictive. When the reward is unpredictable, the compulsion to check intensifies. You don’t pull out your phone because you need something; you pull it out because your brain is trying to close an open loop.

The phone, once a tool for connection, became a device for intermittent relief. A small machine that could soothe the very discomfort it created. We no longer reach for it to reach others; we reach for it to regulate ourselves.

This is the genius of notifications: the stimulus became internal. The phone no longer needs to call for you; your nervous system does it on its behalf. It was a key factor of what I call The Great Inversion – the tipping point in 2009 when technology began to rapidly weaponize our own brains against us.

The Great Inversion

2009 wasn’t remarkable for its hardware — the iPhone 3GS was just another upgrade — but for what quietly happened behind the glass. Push notifications became standard. Facebook launched its engagement-based News Feed. Twitter added the retweet button. YouTube began recommending what to watch next. And Google opened the gates to real-time bidding in digital advertising, letting brands compete for your attention in fractions of a second.

Each of these shifts pointed the same direction: from user-driven to platform-driven, from static media to self-optimizing loops. Before that year, you went online to find things; after it, things came to find you. It was the moment technology stopped extending human intention and began shaping it — the year connection evolved into control.

The Colonization of Idle Time

Once the compulsion was in place, the rest followed naturally. Platforms realized they didn’t need to compete for downloads — they only needed to compete for moments. Every pause in the day became an opportunity to reclaim attention: the grocery line, the red light, the silence between two thoughts.

Idle time had always been where imagination lived — the brain’s default mode network weaving stray inputs into insight. But with push came pull: each empty second was recast as wasted potential for engagement. The reward for restlessness was novelty. The punishment for stillness was boredom.

That’s when the feed arrived — the infinite scroll, the autoplay, the algorithmic drip calibrated to keep the loop alive. By 2012, our pockets were slot machines; by 2016, they were laboratories, fine-tuning the variable that kept the hand moving and the thumb twitching.

The phone had finished its evolution. What was built to connect us had learned to control us — gently, invisibly, completely.

The Fracturing of Inner Quiet

Once attention became harvestable, stillness turned suspect. The quiet moments that once buffered our thoughts — waiting in line, sitting at a red light, lying in bed — began to ache with restlessness. The body mistook that emptiness for danger.

Our devices offered relief on demand, so the mind never had to be alone long enough to metabolize anything difficult: boredom, grief, uncertainty, awe. Those emotions require space to unfold, but space was exactly what the new system consumed.

Over time, the absence of interruption started to feel like withdrawal. The compulsion wasn’t just to check — it was to escape. Each swipe offered a brief reprieve from the low-frequency hum of modern anxiety, the same hum it quietly sustained.

And the consequence was deeper than distraction. When reflection disappears, perspective goes with it. The ability to synthesize, to make sense, to choose deliberately — these are functions of a mind allowed to idle. When idleness dies, agency erodes.

That’s the true cost of the inversion: not that we’re losing time, but that we’re forfeiting authorship.

The Industrialization of Outrage

What began as a flicker of restlessness in individual nervous systems became the business model of the century. Platforms discovered that negative emotion — anger, envy, indignation — traveled faster and lasted longer than joy. The compulsion that once served novelty began to serve division.

Each engagement became a datapoint, each datapoint a prediction, and each prediction a slightly more persuasive invitation back. The algorithms didn’t invent outrage; they simply noticed how efficiently it captured attention and automated the process.

By the mid-2010s, the same infrastructure that once delivered friendly nudges was running the emotional economy of entire nations. The feed learned to optimize not for truth, but for friction — for the sharp edge that keeps the thumb moving.

And so the inversion that began in 2009 — the phone calling for us instead of us calling others — metastasized into a culture where everyone is shouting and no one is listening. The attention that once tethered us to each other has been monetized into isolation.

Reversing the Inversion

There’s no switch to flip, no app to delete that will return us to a pre-2009 state. The inversion isn’t a feature of our phones anymore; it’s a posture of our minds. Reversing it begins not with rejection, but with reclamation — remembering that attention is finite, sacred, and ours to direct.

The first step is friction. Delay the impulse. Let the pocket buzz unanswered. Each moment of restraint rebuilds a bit of the muscle that’s atrophied — the capacity to be uncontacted. In that gap, the old contours of thought re-emerge: curiosity without stimulus, boredom without panic, quiet without guilt.

Families can model it. Designers can encode it. A generation that once engineered the compulsion can just as easily engineer consent back into the loop — technology that serves rather than siphons. But it starts small: a walk without the phone, a meal uninterrupted, a day without the dopamine tap.

Right now, I’m under contract to buy a small home deep in the mountains outside Santa Fe. There’s no cell signal there — just a dirt road, tall pines, and two million acres of national forest. I’ll install Starlink on day one, of course; I still need to reach the world. But I keep wondering what might happen if I shut it off at 6 p.m., if I let the forest, not the feed, set the rhythm.

The phone was meant to connect us, but it rapidly evolved to control us — to make silence feel unsafe, to make us reach for it first thing in the morning and last thing at night, and in every quiet moment in between.

At first it felt like curiosity—staying informed, staying inspired.
But eventually I noticed something else creeping in: even thirty seconds of silence made me uneasy.
Like my brain didn’t know what to do with itself anymore.

So I started paying attention to what happens when the input finally stops.
That’s when I stumbled across the research on the brain’s Default Mode Network—the system that activates only when external noise fades.

It’s the part of us that integrates, imagines, connects.

And I realized I’d been starving it.

The Hidden Architecture of Thought

When scientists first mapped the Default Mode Network in the early 2000s, they thought they’d found an idle circuit—a part of the brain that powered down when we weren’t focused on a task. But then they noticed something strange: when the brain rests, this network lights up. It’s not idle at all. It’s the place where everything we’ve taken in starts to cohere.

That background hum of daydreaming, memory, imagination—it’s synthesis in action.
The brain uses that time to connect dots between things we didn’t even realize were related: the article we read last week, the argument we had yesterday, the problem we couldn’t solve this morning.
It’s a backstage process that only runs when the spotlight turns off.

Once I understood that, a lot of modern life started to make sense.
We’ve optimized for input—endless, frictionless, always-on.
We’ve even romanticized output—shipping, publishing, producing.
But the middle space, the synthesis, has almost disappeared.
And that’s where meaning happens.
Not while we’re taking things in.
Not while we’re pushing things out.
But in the quiet, unclaimed space in between.

The Checks and Balances of a Thinking Life

Input is where it all begins—the raw material of thought.
But raw material isn’t valuable on its own.

You can repeat it, remix it, post about it—but that’s not thinking.
It’s memory pretending to be insight.
We confuse recall with reflection.

When all you do is absorb, your ideas start to sound like everyone else’s—not because you lack intelligence, but because you’ve given your mind no time to make the material its own.

Without synthesis, output becomes mimicry.
You’re not shaping ideas; you’re forwarding them.

And at scale, that mimicry becomes dangerous.
We start mistaking repetition for understanding.
We hear an argument, store it, replay it—and feel smarter for doing so.
But nothing new is being made inside the mind.

Algorithms thrive on this loop.
They don’t reward integration or nuance; they reward velocity—how fast an idea can spread, how quickly it can trigger agreement or outrage.
So the inputs we receive are optimized not for thinking, but for reinforcement.

Each repetition strengthens the same neural pathways, narrowing what we’re capable of seeing.
Instead of expanding perspective, input becomes insulation.
The divide deepens not because people are more extreme, but because our cognitive diet has lost its middle layer.

Without synthesis, we stop metabolizing what we take in.
We can’t hold two ideas at once, or imagine how they might fit together.
We just keep ingesting and reacting, mistaking conviction for clarity.

Synthesis Is a Muscle You Have to Build

The more I studied the Default Mode Network, the more I realized how fragile this system is—and how quickly it weakens when neglected. Neuroscientists have shown that when external input drops, this network comes alive. It’s responsible for self-reflection, autobiographical memory, future thinking—the slow, integrative processes that make us who we are.

But when we never reach that quiet state—when our attention is constantly tethered to something new—the brain adapts. It becomes better at scanning, worse at integrating. The very circuitry that connects ideas, emotions, and experiences begins to thin.

In other words: if you never stop consuming, your brain’s wiring adapts to non-stop consumption. The spaces where connection and insight form begin to atrophy.

Researchers have found that people who struggle with boredom—the ones who immediately reach for stimulation—show measurable changes in the Default Mode Network. It becomes harder for them to sustain attention, to self-regulate, to imagine. What begins as distraction ends as dependence: the more you resist boredom, the harder it becomes to tolerate it.

That means synthesis isn’t just a habit—it’s a muscle. And right now, most of us are badly out of shape.

What Losing That Muscle Feels Like

You scroll through article after article and still feel empty.
You finish a podcast and can’t recall what you learned.
You sit down to write, and realize every thought sounds borrowed.

It’s not a failure of curiosity or intelligence. It’s the result of a system that’s been trained for perpetual intake. We’ve overdeveloped the muscles for collecting and reacting, and let the ones for connecting and creating waste away.

The good news is that this muscle rebuilds quickly—if you give it space to work.

Three Small Ways to Rebuild It

Recover micro-boredom.
Don’t wait for a silent retreat. Start with the minute you’re waiting for the elevator, the red light, the grocery line. Resist the urge to fill it. Let your mind wander, even if it’s uncomfortable. You’re re-teaching your brain that it’s safe to idle.

Finish one, then stop.
After reading an article or watching a talk, pause before opening another. Sit with it. Ask: What does this connect to? What does it change? That moment of digestion is where input begins to turn into understanding.

Externalize one idea a day.
Write a paragraph. Draw a diagram. Say something out loud that you haven’t rehearsed. It’s not about output for others—it’s about forcing your mind to make shape from what it’s absorbed. Expression is the proof of synthesis.

We talk about “attention spans” as if they’re the problem, but the real crisis is integration—our ability to make sense of what we’re taking in.
Synthesis is how we metabolize thought, and we’ve been starving it.

Give your mind space to do what it evolved to do.
Let it get bored. Let it drift.
The strength returns faster than you think.

And I felt like I was drowning. I spent all day responding to messages and struggled to make progress.

So I created a system, which I called “Just Three” at the time. I designed a compact planner that I could carry in my pocket and printed hundreds of copies. I shared some with friends and used them extensively for years. Over time, the system has evolved and been refined. Sometimes I drift away from it for a while, but I always return.

I believe it has become even more valuable over the last decade, which is why I decided to write a book about it and collaborate with my friend David to develop an app as well.

So, for today’s Tuesday post, I’d like to share the first chapter of that book with you. I’m looking forward to sharing the full book with you soon, and I hope these methods I’ve honed over the years can help you in your (crazy) life:

Chapter 1: The Jar Is Full

You’ve probably heard this story before. It’s been told in classrooms, boardrooms, and church basements for decades—a parable so familiar it borders on cliché.
But clichés survive for a reason: they hold something true that we keep forgetting.
So let’s look again, slowly.

A philosophy professor walks into his classroom carrying a large, empty glass jar.

Without a word, he fills it with fist-sized stones until no more will fit.

“Is the jar full?” he asks.

The students nod. It looks full.

He smiles and pours in a box of pebbles, shaking the jar so they settle into the gaps.

Then a box of sand—the fine grains slip into every remaining space until the jar seems packed solid.

Finally, he pours in a cup of coffee that seeps through to the bottom.

“There’s always room,” he says, “for coffee with a friend.”

You know the moral: the stones are what truly matter, the pebbles are the supporting pieces, and the sand is everything else—the errands, emails, and micro-demands that fill the day if you let them.
If you don’t put the stones in first, you’ll never get them in at all.

We all nod at that lesson. And then, tomorrow morning, we go right back to shoveling sand.
You probably will too—unless you build a way of living that makes choosing differently automatic.

This book is about changing that—for good.

What You’ll Learn Here

• Why you’re always out of time, even when you’re busy every second—the psychology of attention, distraction, and why your brain is wired to chase the wrong things.
• How to divide your life into two kinds of energy—for yourself and for others—so you can fill your own cup while still showing up fully for the people and work that depend on you.
• How to see what truly matters, separating urgent noise from meaningful progress.
• How to scaffold your goals so that your three daily stones connect to your weekly, monthly, and yearly intentions, turning ambition into achievable motion.
• How to build habits that stick—small, repeatable wins that rewire consistency into your identity.
• How to triage the sand—errands, email, and maintenance tasks—so they stay in their place instead of stealing your life.
• How to rebuild your relationship with technology, the ever-present tide that keeps most of us reactive and scattered. You’ll learn practical ways to reclaim your focus, attention, and peace.

Along the way, we’ll talk about why busyness feels like progress but isn’t, how to use data without letting it use you, and what it means to measure your days not by volume but by meaning.

The goal isn’t to do more—it’s to do the right things on purpose.

By the end, you’ll have a simple framework that helps you choose what matters, finish what you start, and feel full again—not from squeezing more in, but from living more deliberately.

If you’ve ever felt like your day happens to you instead of through you, this is your way back to authorship.

So let’s begin where the parable begins: with the jar, and what we choose to put inside.

The Reign of Sand

Modern life is optimized for sand.

Your phone buzzes. Your inbox fills. The school sends another reminder. A bill is due.
You try to read a single paragraph of an article, but three notifications stack up before you finish the second sentence.
It’s a constant drizzle of demands—individually harmless, collectively suffocating.

You can fill every minute of your day and still end the week with that hollow feeling: busy but not better.

Your day happens to you.
Your week happens to you.
Your life happens to you.

Most productivity systems don’t fix this—they accelerate it. They help you process sand faster, color-code it, sync it across devices. You get better at reacting, but you’re still reacting. You’re still living at the mercy of the next ping.

And now, as artificial intelligence reshapes entire industries, the flood is only accelerating.
The tools meant to save us time often just give us more to react to.
The challenge of the coming decade won’t be how to work faster—it’ll be how to stay human while the machines get faster around us.

The False God of Throughput

I used to think productivity meant getting more done.
More systems, more hacks, more lists.
If I could just fit a little more sand in the jar, maybe I’d finally feel caught up.

But being productive without being intentional just makes you efficient at the wrong things.

A good system shouldn’t make you faster—it should make you wiser.
It should help you see what actually matters, and protect it.

About a decade ago, I built a small paper system to keep myself sane. I called it Just Three.
It wasn’t about doing more—it was about remembering what mattered.

Three Stones, No More

Most systems treat life like one endless list—one ladder of obligations. But you’re not one-dimensional. You don’t exist only to produce or to serve. You have an inner life and an outer life.
You have responsibilities, yes, but you also have needs.

Every morning, you begin with an empty jar.
Your job is to choose three stones—the three things that deserve space today.

At least one should be for yourself—something that refills you.
At least one should be for others—something that serves, contributes, or connects.
The third is flexible: it goes where it’s most needed.

The balance will shift with the tides of your life. Some days, the world needs more from you. Some days, you need more from yourself. The rule isn’t symmetry; it’s honesty.

Three stones total. That’s all a human day can hold well.

More than that, and the weight turns to noise.
Less than that, and you drift.

This is the discipline of enough.

Each stone is an intention made visible—something you can actually finish.
They’re not tasks; they’re declarations: This is what will matter when the day is done.

The Rule of Achievability

Each stone must be achievable, not aspirational.
If you keep carrying the same one forward, it’s not a stone—it’s a mirage. Re-shape it until it’s real.

• “Fix my health” → ❌
• “Book doctor’s appointment” → ✅
• “Write the book” → ❌
• “Draft the opening page” → ✅

Your brain doesn’t crave effort; it craves closure.
Completion builds confidence. Repetition without completion builds shame.

Start finishing again.

The Rule of Measurability

Every stone should have a clear edge—a done-state you can name.

“Work on project” is sand.
“Finish section 1 of project” is a stone.

Ambiguity kills momentum. Precision fuels it.
When you can see the edges of what matters, you can finally lift it.

Scaffolding Your Goals

Big goals can feel impossible until you see how they shrink.
Here’s where Three Stones becomes more than a daily ritual—it becomes a full framework for progress.

Start with Your Compass

Before you plan your month or your week, you need direction. Everything you choose should flow from the deeper things you care about—the forces that give your work and your days meaning.

In Three Stones, we think in two directions: inward and outward.
Internal intentions shape who you are on the inside—how you live, feel, and grow.
External intentions describe how you show up in the world and what you give to others.

Here’s an example of how my compass might look:

Internal
• Be intentional with how I spend my time
• Live an adventurous life
• Be physically strong

External
• Make sure my family is financially and emotionally cared for
• Help others gain control over their time and lives
• Help parents raise children with a healthy relationship to technology

These are your compass points. They’re not fixed forever; they’ll evolve as you do. But they orient you toward meaning.

On any given day, your three stones should point back toward them—at least one inward and one outward. When they do, life starts to feel aligned. Your actions echo your values.

Zoom One Level In: The Year

Once you’ve defined your compass, ask: What could I do this year to move these forward?
This is your long arc of effort—the twelve-month horizon where vision turns into concrete ambition.

Maybe it’s training for a triathlon, building a business, paying off debt, or taking your family abroad for the first time.
Yearly goals give the months context; they’re the first translation of intention into direction.

Zoom Again: The Month, The Week, The Day

From there, we get practical. You don’t just set three stones for today—you scaffold them.

Three for the Month—your broadest short-term intentions.
These are your “big stones” for the near horizon—meaningful goals that take sustained effort. They define the shape of your month.

Three for the Week—your stepping stones.
Pieces of those larger goals, broken down into what’s realistically doable in the next seven days. Each week becomes a checkpoint, a gentle recalibration.

Three for the Day—your daily actions.
The smallest, clearest pieces—achievable bites you can actually finish. They connect directly to the weekly goals, which ladder up to the monthly ones.

Why It Works

This scaffolding—from compass → year → month → week → day—transforms overwhelm into momentum. You’re no longer staring up at a mountain; you’re taking the next visible step.

It also honors one of the most powerful truths in behavior design: make success feel close.
When you win small, you keep moving.
When you only set grand goals, you freeze.

Each layer keeps the next one honest.
The compass ensures meaning.
The year ensures direction.
The month ensures progress.
The week ensures focus.
The day ensures completion.

Together, they build a life that moves in one clear direction—yours.

The Inbound List

Here’s the safety valve that keeps everything else from flooding your focus.

As new tasks, ideas, and interruptions appear during the day, log them in an inbound list—a single, running capture zone.
Don’t act on them yet. Don’t even evaluate them. Just park them.

Later—at day’s end, or when you plan tomorrow—you look through that list. Some items will graduate to tomorrow’s stones. Most will quietly die. And that’s fine.

The separation between capture and commitment is sacred. It’s what keeps your day yours.

The Real Point Isn’t Productivity

If you’re reading this because you want to “get more done,” I get it.
But the goal isn’t output—it’s authorship.

When you start each day by choosing three stones—at least one for yourself and one for others—you’re not just planning your time. You’re declaring ownership over your attention.

You’re saying:
These three things define what matters today.
Everything else is just sand.

That act—simple as it is—restores a sense of authorship that modern life erodes.
You stop drifting. You start directing.

And strangely, when you focus on your stones, the sand still gets handled—just more lightly, more sanely. The errands, the calls, the paperwork: they still happen, but they don’t own you anymore. They fit into the cracks and leave space for what matters.

The Emotional Layer

If you’ve ever watched a child build something—a fort, a tower, a cardboard spaceship—you’ve seen pure focus. No multitasking. No dashboards. Just absorption.

Adults lose that somewhere along the way. We start confusing attention with obligation. We trade depth for throughput.

But when you limit yourself to three meaningful things—one inward, one outward, one flexible—you rediscover flow. You stop scattering your focus so thinly that nothing feels satisfying.

You begin to experience the rare state of full engagement again—the feeling that this matters, this moment is enough.

What Stones Really Represent

Your stones aren’t just tasks—they’re values expressed as actions.

• “Go for a run” is a vote for vitality.
• “Read with my kid” is a vote for presence.
• “Call Mom” is a vote for connection.
• “Finish proposal” is a vote for integrity and craft.

Every checkmark becomes proof that you’re living the way you say you want to live.
That’s how a list becomes a mirror—a daily reflection of what you truly value.

The Promise

You can’t eliminate sand. There will always be laundry and invoices, browser tabs and birthday parties, errands and emails.
Life will always generate more small things than you can possibly finish.

But you can decide what goes in first.

That’s the work of Three Stones.

When you begin each day by naming three things—at least one for yourself and one for others—you start to reclaim authorship of your time.
Then, as you learn to scaffold those intentions—aligning them with your compass, and breaking them down into the year, the month, the week, and the day—your life begins to take shape.
Each layer connects to the next, like stones in a wall, until meaning and momentum start reinforcing one another.

Over time, something subtle shifts. You stop measuring success by how much you got through and start measuring it by what actually moved you forward.
You notice that your best days aren’t the ones where you did everything, but the ones where you did the right things—deeply, fully, without distraction.

The sand never disappears, but it starts to settle around your stones instead of burying them.
And when you look back—at the end of the day, the week, the month, the year, or eventually, at the end of your life—the jar finally feels full.
Not because you fit in more, but because what’s inside really matters.

Life’s like a movie
Write your own ending
Keep believing
Keep pretending
We’ve done just what we’ve set out to do
—The Muppet Movie, 1979

That choice—to act deliberately rather than reactively—is becoming more important by the day. Artificial intelligence is quickly mastering everything mechanical, repetitive, and purely efficient. What it can’t replicate are the things that make you human: attention, empathy, curiosity, and purpose. The future will belong to those who protect those capacities—who can still decide what matters and why.

That’s what Three Stones is really about.
Not efficiency. Humanity.

Follow these rules and you’ll still be busy—but you’ll be busy with purpose.
And one day soon, when you glance back at the jar of your life, it’ll finally look, and feel, full.

Most of us already know what matters. The problem isn’t clarity—it’s capacity.
We live in a world that hijacks our attention, rewards distraction, and punishes stillness.
Before we can live intentionally, we have to understand what’s stealing our time and energy in the first place.

That’s where we’re headed next.

It sounds innocuous. But what they’re really saying is:
“Would you like to give us a little more of yourself in exchange for 40 cents off yogurt?”

Loyalty programs aren’t really about loyalty. They’re about data. Every swipe, every scanned banana, every impulsive pint of ice cream adds to a profile that says who you are — what you eat, when you shop, how predictable you’ve become. That profile gets sold, shared, and stitched together with a thousand others until your “discount” becomes part of someone else’s business model.

But there’s a loophole hiding in plain sight, and it comes with a melody attached:
867-5309.

Punch it in (with your local area code) when the register asks for a phone number, and nine times out of ten, the system happily applies the discount. Somewhere out there, an anonymous “Jenny” has been getting everyone’s grocery points for years — a shared ghost account passed from one privacy-conscious stranger to the next.

It’s a small act of rebellion.
You get the discount, but not the data trail.
You stay human in a system that wants you to be a customer ID.

And no, it’s not perfect. The real Jenny (or whoever owns that number now) has probably had her fill of weird coupons and mistaken calls. And, in some stores, they have blocked the number, so it won’t work. But the gesture matters. It’s a reminder that opting out — even symbolically — is still an option. That we don’t have to trade a little more of ourselves for every small convenience.

It’s a wink to everyone who still believes that privacy has value, even in the cereal aisle.

Jenny, if you’re out there:
thanks for taking one for the team.

By the way, this will be my last Thursday post for a while. I’m working on a lot of longer form content, so I’m going to be limiting my writing here to Tuesday posts for the foreseeable future!

I was talking about this with my partner, a professional writer who somehow watches even less TV than I do. She said she gets the same question, but she reminds me that the question isn’t whether the content is good or even worthwhile. It’s simply an inquiry into how you choose to spend the limited time you have in a day.

Because that’s exactly what we’re doing—spending our most valuable resource: time. At least when we spend money, we can (usually) make more. If we run out, we can borrow some. When we spend time, it is gone forever, never to be recovered.

“Just one more episode” takes you 46 minutes closer to your final breath.

“I Did All This While You Were Watching TV”

There’s a spot in the mountains of New Mexico that might be my favorite museum in the world: Tinkertown. It’s the life’s work of a man named Ross Ward, who spent decades collecting, carving, assembling, and tinkering—building his own little world out of glass bottles, carved wood figures, and pure stubborn imagination.

Ross built walls out of bottles. He painted hand-lettered signs. He filled rooms with miniature circus scenes and Western towns, all animated by tiny mechanisms. Every surface feels alive with curiosity and care.

Scattered throughout the property is his favorite saying:
“I did all this while you were watching TV.”

Whether or not you love folk art, it’s impossible to miss the conviction in that line. Ross Ward wasn’t just building dioramas—he was building meaning. Every hour he spent tinkering was an hour of life reclaimed from passive consumption.

Ross died young. He was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s at only 58 and passed away 4 years later. But in those 62 years, he lived more life than most centenarians. He left behind a world he built with his own hands—proof that how we spend our hours matters far more than how many we get.

The Cost of Screens (Reframed)

The average American watches around 2½ to 3 hours of TV a day—roughly 1,000 hours a year, or twenty-five full workweeks. That’s half a year of waking life spent staring at a rectangle.

In a life-table model based on Australian data, researchers estimated that every single hour of television watched after age 25 reduces the viewer’s life expectancy by about 21.8 minutes. That is time off your life in addition to the time you spent watching.

Now, this is not a guarantee—but it’s a sobering projection. Every hour of passive consumption carries latent cost.

Would you feel more alive after an hour of The Bear, or an hour walking under the open sky? Would you grow more, learn more, or feel more connected after reading a book or an essay in The New Yorker, or after another episode of prestige TV?

To be clear: I’m not trying to make your value judgments for you. I just want you to be thoughtful about where you spend the one resource you can’t go earn more of.

The Great Inversion and the Death of Attention

We live in a culture that has made consumption the dominant mode of being. Our entertainment platforms are optimized to remove all friction—autoplay, infinite scroll, “next episode in 3…2…1…” The Great Inversion trained us to see our time not as a resource to be stewarded, but as a void to be filled.

When everything is available instantly, choosing not to consume becomes an act of rebellion. It’s not about rejecting pleasure or art—it’s about reclaiming attention as the raw material of a meaningful life.

So here are the uncomfortable questions:

• What are the things that bring you joy?

• What are your goals—for your life, for this year, for this week, for today?

• Does watching the latest episode of The Bear bring you closer to those, or further away?

It’s easy to look down on “trash TV.” You might tell yourself you’re watching quality content—not Real Housewives of Terre Haute or Fake It Till You Bake It. But the issue isn’t what you’re watching. It’s whether you’re choosing to watch at all.

Maybe you genuinely love Yellowstone, and that’s great. Maybe sharing it with your partner is part of your connection ritual. But most of us aren’t that intentional. We fill the space between work and sleep with a stream of other people’s stories because it’s easier than making space for our own.

Ross Ward’s bottle walls stand as a quiet rebuttal to that passivity. He reminds us that every choice is an act of creation—or surrender. He reminds us that time is the only real currency we have. He reminds us that someday, maybe sooner than we think, we’re going to die.

And when that day comes, the question won’t be what shows we finished.

It’ll be what we built, what we learned, and who we became while we were here.

Memento Mori

I’ve been reading Daniel Lieberman’s The Molecule of More, which explores how a single chemical—dopamine—drives love, sex, creativity, ambition, and maybe even the fate of our species. The book offers a fascinating framework for understanding why “the next thing” always seems to hold such power over us.

Consider this passage:

The brain manages the external world by dividing it into separate regions, the peripersonal and the extrapersonal—basically, near and far. Peripersonal space includes whatever is in arm’s reach; things you can control right now by using your hands. This is the world of what’s real, right now. Extrapersonal space refers to everything else—whatever you can’t touch unless you move beyond your arm’s reach, whether it’s three feet or three million miles away. This is the realm of possibility.

With those definitions in place, another fact follows, obvious but useful: since moving from one place to another takes time, any interaction in the extrapersonal space must occur in the future. Or, to put it another way, distance is linked to time. For instance, if you’re in the mood for a peach, but the closest one is sitting in a bin at the corner market, you can’t enjoy it now. You can only enjoy it in the future, after you go get it. Acquiring something out of your reach may also take some planning. It could be as simple as standing up to turn on a light, walking to the market for that peach, or figuring out how to launch a rocket to get to the moon. This is the defining characteristic of things in the extrapersonal space: to get them requires effort, time, and in many cases, planning. By contrast, anything in the peripersonal space can be experienced in the here and now. Those experiences are immediate. We touch, taste, hold, and squeeze; we feel happiness, sadness, anger, and joy.

This brings us to a clarifying fact of neurochemistry: the brain works one way in the peripersonal space and another way in the extrapersonal space. If you were designing the human mind, it makes sense that you would create a brain that distinguishes between things in this way, one system for what you have and another for what you don’t. For early humans, the familiar phrase “either you have it or you don’t” could be translated into “either you have it or you’re dead.”

From an evolutionary standpoint, food that you don’t have is critically different from food that you do have. It’s the same for water, shelter, and tools. The division is so fundamental that separate pathways and chemicals evolved in the brain to handle peripersonal and extrapersonal space. When you look down, you look into the peripersonal space, and for that the brain is controlled by a host of chemicals concerned with experience in the here and now. But when the brain is engaged with the extrapersonal space, one chemical exercises more control than all the others, the chemical associated with anticipation and possibility: dopamine. Things in the distance, things we don’t have yet, cannot be used or consumed, only desired. Dopamine has a very specific job: maximizing resources that will be available to us in the future; the pursuit of better things.

Lieberman’s framework lands with a kind of elegant simplicity.
We developed a deeply entrenched belief that the next thing will be better, because we had to believe this to keep going. That’s what dopamine demanded of us.

Translated to modern life, we’ve built trillion-dollar companies around that same premise—the joy, the dopamine, is in the procuring, not the possessing. The ordering. The tracking. The waiting. How many things have you bought with the best of intentions— the planner, the Peloton, the blender. Things you couldn’t wait to use to change your life. Only to immediately become disenchanted.

And I think Americans, in particular, are especially vulnerable to this loop. Our national mythology is built on it. We’re descended from people who believed so fervently that the future could be better that they boarded ships for a new world. They gave up everything to chase that next thing just out of reach.

Even within America, we can still trace the pattern: New England thrift versus California flash. Those whose ancestors landed and said, “this is good enough,” versus those who heard there might be gold in the hills outside San Francisco and risked it all again.

When we think about “wise” cultures, we often think of those rooted in one place for thousands of years—traditions that found harmony in today rather than tomorrow. Taoists, Buddhists, many Indigenous peoples, Sufis, Shinto practitioners, even the Stoics—all centered on presence and acceptance rather than the unquenchable hunger for what could be.

It’s fascinating—and a little humbling—to realize that what we often call ambition or progress might just be the same ancient dopamine circuit, unmoderated, running on 21st-century hardware.

As I keep thinking about parenting, technology, and how to live more intentionally, I’m realizing that maybe the goal isn’t to silence dopamine, but to learn how to harness it to help us reach our goals.

I feel my own dopamine circuitry is especially unhinged. I’m always scanning for the next thing—the one that will finally make life perfect. I’ve owned forty-five cars in twenty-five years of driving. I have a drawer full of e-ink devices that were going to make me more thoughtful. Stacks of notebooks and planners, still in their packaging, after serving their real purpose: the dopamine hunt. I’m trying to get honest about it, mostly with myself. It’s overwhelming, embarrassing, humbling. But it’s me.

So, for now, I’m just feeding this material into my subconscious and letting my default mode network chew on it. Thanks for reading—and for letting your DMN do the same alongside mine.

We’ve built a world that rewards noise. Fred Rogers built one that trusted quiet.

Fred Rogers once said, “I feel so strongly that deep and simple is far more essential than shallow and complex.” He built the exact inverse of modern media: he spoke softly, paused often, and trusted silence. His show wasn’t about capturing attention — it was about honoring it.

His most important lesson was simple: presence is love made visible. And it’s harder to practice today than at any point in history.

Be Fully Present — Attention Is the Purest Form of Love

We were at a kids’ gym yesterday. I was bouncing between my boys — spotting them on the balance beam, pushing swings, cheering zip-line rides. It was fun — and, after an hour, I’ll admit, a little boring. I caught myself scanning for a quiet corner where I could steal a moment on my phone.

That’s when my five-year-old said, “Daddy, can I teach you how to drive?” Eyes wide.
So instead of retreating, I got down on the floor (not my natural habitat at 6’5”) and let him show me how this plastic steering wheel worked. For five minutes, he was electric — glowing with pride to teach me. Every cell in his body buzzed with joy that he had my complete, undivided attention.

Five minutes. That’s all it took to make his day.

“The greatest gift you ever give is your honest self.” — Fred Rogers

Our children rarely get our full attention. They share it with phones, partners, chores, and background noise. That moment reminded me: just a few minutes of undivided focus can fill a child’s tank more than an entire afternoon of half-presence.

When we get down to their eye level and give them our whole attention, we’re saying, You matter more than anything else in the world right now. That’s love made visible.

“There’s a world of difference between saying ‘I love you’ and being able to say ‘I understand you.’” — Fred Rogers

When we give our kids our undivided attention, we come to understand them — and they gain the confidence that they are not alone in the world.

The Therapy of Attention

This isn’t nostalgia; it’s neuroscience. The foundation of modern play therapy — backed by decades of research — shows that consistent, accepting presence improves children’s emotional regulation, attachment security, and resilience (see Axline 1947; Landreth 2012; Ray et al., Journal of Counseling & Development, 2005).

At its core, play therapy teaches that the adult’s presence — calm, accepting, and non-intrusive — is what heals. Rogers modeled that truth for millions of children before the science caught up.

Bringing It Home: How Parents Can Practice “Therapeutic Play”

I carve out 20–30 minutes for each child a couple of times a week — no phone, no multitasking. Here’s the framework I’m using:

1. Let the Child Lead

Follow their ideas and pace. If they say, “You’re the dragon,” be the dragon. Don’t fix the plot or add lessons.

“The child leads the way; the therapist follows.” — Virginia Axline

2. Make Time for Unhurried, Undivided Attention

Get on their level — floor, sandbox, pillow fort — and let them know this time is only for them.

“Listening is where love begins: listening to ourselves and then to our neighbors.” — Fred Rogers

3. Mirror, Don’t Manage

Describe what you see: “You stacked those blocks so carefully.” Reflection builds emotional vocabulary without judgment.

4. Accept All Feelings, Limit Harmful Actions

All emotions are welcome; destructive behavior isn’t. “It’s okay to be mad, but I won’t let you hit me.”

5. Keep Boundaries Consistent

Same time, same rules, a predictable ending. “We have five more minutes, then dinner.” Routine creates safety.

6. Trust Play to Do Its Work

Don’t hunt for meaning. The healing is the play. When children control the story, they process what words can’t.

7. End with Connection

Close with warmth: “I loved playing with you today.” They’ll remember the feeling more than the game.

“Play is often talked about as if it were a relief from serious learning. But for children play is serious learning. Play is really the work of childhood.” — Fred Rogers

I’m assembling a small box of toys just for this time — blocks, puppets, animals — distinct from our everyday toys, to mark the space as special.

Remember

Presence > Performance
Acceptance > Advice
Connection > Control

When adults chase control of a child’s attention, they lose connection. When they offer calm, unconditional presence, a child’s natural healing and learning emerge on their own.

Mister Rogers taught us that attention is love made visible. It was true in 1970 — and it’s even truer now.

What Optimism Actually Is

Psychologists distinguish between blind positivity and dispositional optimism—a grounded expectation that good outcomes are possible and that your actions matter. Decades of research link this stance to better physical health, coping, and persistence under stress. It’s not magical thinking. It’s a lens that keeps effort on the table.

The “why” matters: optimism broadens our mental repertoire. Barbara Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory shows that positive states widen attention, expand problem-solving, and—over time—build resources like social ties and resilience. In other words: optimism isn’t about ignoring risks; it’s about keeping enough cognitive bandwidth to see options.

Does It Really Change Outcomes?

At the population level, yes. A major study spanning the Nurses’ Health Study and the VA Normative Aging Study found that higher optimism was associated with 11–15% longer life and a greater chance of reaching age 85+. Subsequent summaries from the research teams emphasize the same point: mindset isn’t everything, but it reliably predicts healthier trajectories (Boston University summary). Meta-reviews echo this: optimists are more likely to engage in health-promoting behaviors, recover better from hardship, and show lower markers of inflammation and cardiovascular risk (review).

Why Pessimism Feels Smart (and Isn’t)

Cynicism signals sophistication in the current culture. Doomscrolling masquerades as diligence. Pessimism has a certain intellectual cachet—it feels like the mark of someone who knows better.

But here’s the trap: intelligence does not protect you from being manipulated. In fact, it may make you more vulnerable. A 2021 Science Advances study showed that people with higher cognitive ability were not better at resisting misinformation. Instead, they often used their reasoning skills to justify and reinforce preexisting beliefs. In other words, “smart” people can be easier to manipulate, because their intelligence helps them build stronger defenses around their biases.

That’s why pessimism so often feels smart—it cloaks itself in skepticism and critical distance. But if your sharpness only helps you rationalize despair, you’re not being insightful. You’re being predictable.

Practicing Optimism (Without Going Soft on Reality)

Think of optimism like strength training for attention and action:

• Facts first, then “what-if-right.” Start with the baseline reality (data, constraints, risks). Then ask: If this were solvable, what would I try first?

• Write the competing narratives. Draft two short memos: Why this will fail vs. How this could work. Reconcile them into a third: What we’ll do to give the upside a fair shot while hedging the downside.

• Borrow other people’s optimism. Spend time with builders—people who keep looking for levers. Momentum is contagious.

• Audit your inputs. If your media diet relentlessly primes threat, your nervous system will default to withdrawal. Balance it with stories of successful interventions (real ones, with numbers).

• Measure what matters. Optimism is not “feeling good”; it’s continuing to take good actions. Track behaviors (outreach, experiments, workouts, walks) more than mood. Over time, behaviors bootstrap belief.

A Personal Reframe

When I catch myself sinking into “nothing’s going to change,” I try a two-step check:

1. What’s the smallest useful action available?

2. What evidence would signal this is working?

Sometimes the move is tiny—send one email, take one walk, prototype one page. But that shift—from rumination to action—is the core mechanic. Optimism gives effort a home.

The Practice for This Week

Be an optimist. Not by denying what’s broken, but by deliberately orienting toward possibility and acting accordingly. When critique shows up (and it should), add one sentence: What could go right—and what would make that more likely?

Write it down. Take one step. Repeat.

Hi there! I’m Sam, and I write a blog called Technonymous. I spend a lot of time studying how technology changes the way our brains work.

One day I was reading an article I wrote to my boys, and they said, “Dad, you need to write a post just for kids so they know parents aren’t just being mean!”

So here it is—the first post in a series just for you. Think of it as a behind-the-scenes look at why your parents set screen rules, and some of the science of how screens affect your brain and body.

Why parents even care about screen rules

Here’s the deal: if parents wanted the easy way out, they’d let you use screens nonstop. No limits, no arguments. But they don’t. Why? Because they see things most kids don’t notice yet:

• Your brain is still under construction. Scientists call this “neuroplasticity.” It means your brain cells are wiring together every time you learn something new. Too much passive screen time can mess with how those connections form, especially in areas for focus, memory, and self-control.

• Screens are sneaky. Games, apps, and videos are designed using psychology tricks (like rewards, points, and flashing colors) to keep you hooked. This is called the “dopamine loop”—your brain gets a tiny hit of the “feel-good” chemical dopamine every time you scroll or win, and then it wants more.

• Balance builds stronger brains. Physical play, reading, sports, and creative stuff light up parts of your brain that screens don’t. Kids who mix screen time with real-world challenges actually end up with better focus and problem-solving skills.

The “fast food” brain trap

Think about food: a candy bar gives you quick energy, but then you crash. Real meals keep you going longer. Screens can be the same way. Fast, exciting, and fun—but not always filling.

Too much screen time can leave your brain feeling:

• Tired (blue light messes with your sleep cycle).

• Cranky (dopamine spikes can make you irritable).

• Restless (you get used to constant stimulation, so quiet moments feel boring).

That’s why parents step in—they’re helping you avoid the sugar-rush-and-crash pattern, but with your brain.

Love, not punishment

It might feel unfair when your parents say “no more screens.” But rules aren’t about punishment. They’re about protection. Your parents are guarding something you can’t replace: a growing, flexible brain that will shape who you are for the rest of your life.

And here’s the big secret: they’d rather fight with you now than see you struggle later with focus, sleep, or mood. That’s love.

Your Job: Be a Screen Detective

Here’s something most kids don’t know—you can actually help your parents, too.

Adults get sucked into screens just like kids do. They might tell you “put the phone down,” but then spend 20 minutes scrolling through work emails or watching videos themselves. That’s called being a hypocrite (saying one thing but doing another). My boys are really good at letting me know when I’m being a hypocrite, and it helps me do better!

Your job: Be a Screen Detective.

• If you notice your parent glued to their phone at dinner, politely say: “Hey, I think you might need a break from your screen, too.”

• If they’re looking at their phone instead of listening to you, try: “Can I get your eyes, not just your ears?”

Parents might not love being called out—but trust me, deep down, they’ll respect you for noticing and appreciate your help. Technology rules should go both ways, and you can help them live by the same balance they want for you. None of us parents are perfect, but we’re all trying to do the very best we can for you, because we love you very much!

What’s next

In the next post, we’ll talk about your first Kid Superpower: Sleep.

Scientists have proven that light from screens, especially blue light, tricks your brain into thinking it’s still daytime. That blocks melatonin, the hormone that makes you feel sleepy. Without it, you stay wired when you should be winding down.

Sleep isn’t just “rest.” It’s when your brain cleans out waste, stores memories, and recharges. Protecting sleep is one of the most powerful things you can do as a kid.

👉 For now, remember: screen rules = brain protection = love. And sometimes, your parents need reminders about that, too.

It felt like eating two meals at once and not tasting either.

The Myth of Multitasking

We like to think we can juggle. But neuroscience is clear: the brain doesn’t truly multitask. It switches—rapidly, and with a cost each time. That cost isn’t just efficiency. It’s depth. When you split your attention between two inputs, you shortchange both experiences.

• You miss the details of the story you’re watching.

• You don’t really absorb the article, message, or post you’re scrolling.

• You end up with a fragmented memory of both.

Not Just Screens

This isn’t only about watching TV with your phone out. It’s about how we layer any input.

If I’m going to check something on my phone, I pause my podcast. Because even though there’s comfort in a voice running in the background, it meaningfully takes away from my ability to think. The words I’m reading and the words I’m hearing compete with each other. Neither lands fully.

The same is true when you try to “just have something on” while working, or when you put on a podcast to keep me company while scrolling. It feels like productivity—or companionship—but what it really does is crowd out thought.

Why It Matters

When we scatter our attention across multiple inputs, we train our brains to be restless—always half here and half elsewhere. That’s fine if your goal is background noise. But if your goal is enjoyment, connection, or even clear thinking, the divided-input habit undermines it.

Think about the difference between:

• Watching a movie and feeling immersed in its world.

• Watching a movie while half-reading headlines and then wondering why you don’t feel moved.

• Listening to a podcast in silence, letting the ideas sink in.

• “Listening” to a podcast while texting and realizing you have no idea what was just said.

One feels like nourishment. The other feels like empty calories.

A Simple Rule

So here’s my practice for this week: one input at a time.

• If I’m watching something, the phone stays face-down, out of reach.

• If I want to scroll, I pause the show.

• If I’m reading, the podcast goes off.

• If I want to think, I give myself silence.

It sounds almost childishly simple. But the effect is profound. Stories land more deeply. Conversations feel more real. Thinking feels less cloudy.

The Hidden Benefit

When you commit to one input at a time, you’re not just protecting your focus—you’re retraining your brain. You’re teaching it that it doesn’t need constant micro-stimulation. You’re reclaiming a little bit of patience, presence, and choice.

Practice for the week: Next time you’re tempted to double up—TV and phone, podcast and texts, reading and background chatter—pause. Ask yourself: What do I actually want to be doing right now? Pick one. Give it your full attention. Notice how much better it feels.

Tech is evolving faster than we can study it, and the lack of longitudinal studies makes it hard to make informed decisions. There are no studies on the long-term effects of TikTok on the brains of 12-year-olds, because it's only become popular in the US in the last few years.

Most guidance out there relies on vague terms like "moderation" and "quality content." What does that even mean when you're standing in your kitchen at 5 PM with a tired 7-year-old?

Here is my current approach for thinking about technology use for kids aged 5-10. I'll cite research where it exists, but much of this comes from my own experiences and observations—trial and error in our household—since solid research is still catching up. This is my thinking as of September 2025. (These guidelines work for 5-10 year olds; toddlers and teens need different approaches.) I'm not claiming perfection here; we've had our share of slip-ups, like the time I let a quick video turn into an hour-long distraction just to get dinner on the table. But documenting what we're trying helps me stay accountable, and I hope it sparks ideas for you.

They're watching you constantly. Every time you check your phone during dinner or scroll while they're talking, you're teaching them that devices matter more than people.

These are our ground rules, based on extensive research—if you take away nothing else from this post, please adopt these practices:

• Don't be a hypocrite. Model the behavior you want to see. I've caught myself checking my phone absentmindedly too many times, and it's a wake-up call when my kids mimic it.

• No background screens. Silence builds focus. Do not let the TV sit on in the background while they do other things (play, draw, etc). This takes away from the development of patience and focus, and robs them of the mental downtime where creativity flourishes. Research consistently shows background TV disrupts play and attention (Harvard 2008, Georgetown 2014, and multiple others).

• Limit your tech support. Let them struggle productively. I resist jumping in when they can't figure something out—it builds confidence, even if it means a few frustrated tears.

• Pay attention to your child's response to screen time. Watch for addiction signals. Every kid is different; if they're begging or getting angry when it's time to stop, you need to cut it off. I've had to pause certain apps because the pull was too strong.

Okay, let's dig into it. I've split this into "green light, yellow light, red light" as a handy reference. But always check your kid's reactions—if any activity sparks compulsive behavior, switch it to red and adjust.

Green Light

These are okay as much as they want, without interfering with life.

• Video/phone calls with family or role models. I've ordered these Tin Can phones for the kids—I'll report back next year on how they work in practice.

• Mouse-based, non-algorithmic computer time. This is tough to find, which is why I'm building Cloudberry OS, but for now, we use an old ThinkPad with Linux, TuxPaint, and GCompris—offline only. The clunkiness builds skills; our kids have gotten creative with it, though setup took some trial and error.

• Music. We use a Yoto player or, for our 8-year-old, Siri on a filtered HomePod for specific songs. I'm experimenting with a home media server for better quality—stay tuned for updates on that.

Yellow Light

These are okay in moderation—here's how we handle it practically.

• Touchscreen usage. Trackpads and mice are called "abstract input devices," where a touchscreen is a "direct input device." Using abstract input devices requires us to manipulate an object on one plane, while observing the effect on another. This wires our brain for better spatial reasoning and improves cognitive development. Touchscreens make it EASY to interact with our devices, but easy isn't the goal, growth is. When it's EASY, it's easy to develop addiction.

• Content consumption. This is the big challenge. Our framework:

  • Movies: 1-3 per week, depending on what else we have going on. We rent DVDs from the library (no streaming) to avoid endless options. We watch together—popcorn, no phones, full attention. It keeps me from approving junk, since I'm sitting through it too.

  • PBS Kids: 30 minutes at a time, 1-3 times weekly, after chores and outside play. No algorithms here, and pretty solid quality content, so it's safer. I listen in while doing dishes, but I'm not too worried about what they're going to come across.

  • YouTube/Other Content: Extremely limited, supervised, and tied to learning—like a quick video on the sun's size after a chat. Never alone—the algorithm can spiral fast.

• Games/Consumption. Mostly for travel, like PBS Kids games on long trips. We set budgets (e.g., 2 hours for a 6-hour drive) and enforce them. If withdrawal signs appear, we pivot to books or car games.

Easy isn't the goal, growth is. When it's EASY, it's easy to develop addiction.

Red Light

We fully avoid these—no exceptions in our house.

• Algorithmic platforms. They drive addiction, limit exposure, and push fringe content. No direct access to YouTube, Spotify, Netflix, or Disney+ for the kids.

• Games with in-app purchases (beyond subscriptions). These mimic gambling with reward loops. We skip Roblox, Candy Crush, Fortnite, etc.—even without real money, they rehearse addiction.

Even if kids can't actually buy tokens, the cycle of 'craving / reward / depletion' is still rehearsed—they're practicing addiction.

• Screens before school. They mess with attention; mornings are for routines, not distractions.

• Screens while eating. Screens at meals disrupt kids’ ability to notice hunger and fullness cues, leading to mindless overeating, and they replace the family conversations that build connection, language, and emotional regulation. Research shows children eat more calories when watching TV, and they’re less engaged socially. Meals are one of the strongest protective routines for kids—keep them sacred, screen-free.

• Screens before bed. Even short bursts of screen use before bed suppress melatonin, delay sleep onset, and overstimulate the brain, making quality rest harder. Children who use devices at night consistently get less and lower-quality sleep, which impairs memory, mood, and attention the next day.

• Social media. Not healthy for developing brains—period.

The red light, yellow light, green light model is not perfect—nothing is when it comes to parenting and technology. But it gives you a clear, memorable framework to make decisions in the moment without getting lost in vague terms like “quality” or “moderation.”

Most importantly, remember that your kids are watching you. Modeling intentional tech use is far more powerful than any rule you set. Keep mornings, mealtimes, and bedtimes sacred. Protect shared experiences. Treat screens as tools, not pacifiers. And when in doubt, ask: Is this activity building my child’s patience, creativity, and resilience, is it just giving me a break from parenting, or is it feeding an algorithm and triggering an addiction response?

That simple question is often enough to know whether it’s a red, yellow, or green light.

For this week’s practice, I’m going to look at the business models behind these products and make different choices where I can.

As I discussed in my post on privacy a few weeks ago, these companies make money by learning as much as they can about you, packaging that information, and selling access to your attention. When we let them build near-complete profiles of us, we give up chunks of autonomy. That’s not hyperbole. There are massive financial incentives to subtly steer our psychology toward spending. The smartest people in the world work on nudges—keeping the Amazon boxes flowing to your doorstep, curbside pickup at Target hopping, and your thumb flicking through autoplaying shopping videos that drop you into one-click checkout.

The experiment (4 weeks)

Goal: Whenever possible, stop using ad-funded, behavior-shaping “free” services from for-profit companies, and replace them with paid, privacy-respecting or community-governed alternatives.

What I’m changing (and how):

• Search: Switch to Kagi, a paid, ad-free search engine.

• Email: I moved to Proton earlier, so I’m already covered here. No ads, no selling data; I pay for the service.

• Feeds / doomscrolling: Replace feed time with paid news and books.

• Browser: I'm going to try out Orion+.

How I’ll measure:

• Friction log: Each time I hit a wall and “need” a free service, I’ll note it and decide whether to tolerate it, pay, or skip it.

• I'll keep notes as I go about what's working and what I'm struggling with.

Exceptions (on purpose):

1. Free & Open Source Software (FOSS): I’ll keep using and preferring it. “Free” here means freedom, not price—the freedom to use, study, modify, and share the software. That matters because the incentives are aligned with users, not advertisers. See the Free Software Foundation’s four freedoms and the Open Source Definition.

2. Apple ecosystem: I’m exempting Apple’s first-party apps during this trial. Apple emphasizes privacy and largely makes money on hardware; I’m comfortable keeping Apple Maps, Screen Time, etc., for this experiment.

3. In-car navigation: I’ll use my car’s built-in navigation (Google Maps) without signing in. (I just want to get from A to B.)

Perfection isn’t the goal—awareness is.

A simple playbook (join me if you want)

Step 1: List your “free” defaults. Search, email, maps, browser, file storage, notes, calendar, photo backup, news, social, password manager, ad blocker.

Step 2: Pick 2–3 easy swaps.

• Search → Kagi (paid).

• Email → Proton (paid).

• News/social → RSS or newsletters you choose (bonus if you pay creators you love).

Step 3: Set a “values budget.” Decide what you’re willing to pay monthly to stop being the product. Generally it only takes a few dollars a month to replace a "free" provider.

Step 4: Keep a friction log.

Step 5: Debrief each Sunday. What got easier? What felt worse? Where did I backslide?

What I expect (and what I’m curious about)

• Less noise, a bit more mental clarity. If I remove the ad-shaped funnels, do my “oops I bought it” moments drop?

• A small cost, a big mental shift. Paying even a little reframes the relationship: I become the customer again.

• Friction in weird places. Some free services are sticky for a reason. I’ll document where the pain is real and whether it’s worth it.

I’ll report back in four weeks with the tally: what stuck, what didn’t, what surprised me, and how much it cost.