Episodes

  • Make Better Decisions When Nothing is Certain

    Make Better Decisions When Nothing is Certain
    Nov 4 2025
    You're frozen. The deadline's approaching. You don't have all the data. Everyone wants certainty. You can't give it. Sound familiar? Maybe it's a hiring decision with three qualified candidates and red flags on each one. Or a product launch where the market research is mixed. Or a career pivot where you can't predict which path leads where. You want more information. More time. More certainty. But you're not going to get it. Meanwhile, a small group of professionals—poker players, venture capitalists, military strategists—consistently make better decisions than the rest of us in exactly these situations. Not because they have more information, but because they've mastered something fundamentally different: they think in probabilities, not certainties. I learned this the hard way—I once created a biometric security algorithm that the NSA reverse-engineered, where I mastered probabilistic thinking perfectly in the technology, then made every wrong bet with the business around it. By the end of this episode, you'll possess a powerful mental toolkit that transforms how you approach uncertainty. You'll learn to estimate likelihoods without perfect data, update your beliefs as new information emerges, make confident decisions when multiple uncertain factors collide, and act decisively even when you can't guarantee the outcome. This is the difference between paralysis and power, between gambling recklessly and betting wisely. What Is Probabilistic Thinking? But what does probabilistic thinking actually entail? At its core, it's the practice of reasoning in terms of likelihoods rather than absolutes—thinking in percentages instead of yes-or-no answers. Instead of asking "Will this work?" you ask "What are the odds this will work, and what are the consequences if it doesn't?" This approach acknowledges that the future is uncertain and that every decision carries risk. By quantifying that uncertainty and weighing it against potential outcomes, you make smarter choices even when you can't eliminate the unknown. The Cost of Demanding Certainty Today's world punishes those who demand certainty before acting. Research from Oracle's 2023 Decision Dilemma study—which surveyed over 14,000 employees and business leaders across 17 countries—found that 86% feel overwhelmed by the amount of data available to them. Rather than clarity, all that information creates decision paralysis. And the paralysis has real consequences. When we can't be certain, we freeze. We endlessly research options, seeking that final piece of data that will guarantee success. We postpone critical decisions, waiting for perfect information that never arrives. Meanwhile, opportunities pass us by, problems grow worse, and competitors who are comfortable with uncertainty move forward. This demand for certainty doesn't just slow us down—it exhausts us. Decision fatigue sets in as we agonize over choices, draining our mental resources until we either make impulsive decisions or avoid deciding altogether. Neither outcome serves us well. What Certainty-Seeking Actually Costs You Here's what it looks like in real life: You're the VP of Marketing. Your CMO wants a decision on next quarter's campaign budget by Friday. You have three agencies to choose from, each with strengths and weaknesses. So you ask for more data. Customer focus groups. Competitive analysis. Agency references. By Wednesday you're drowning in spreadsheets and conflicting opinions. Friday arrives. You still can't be certain which choice is right, so you ask for an extension. Two weeks later, you finally pick one—not because you're confident, but because you're exhausted and the CMO is furious about the delay. The campaign launches late. You've burned political capital. And you still have no idea if you made the right choice. Meanwhile, your competitor's marketing VP looked at the same decision, spent two hours assessing the probabilities, and launched on time. If it works, great. If it doesn't, they'll pivot. They didn't need certainty. They needed enough information to make a good bet. That's the tax you pay for demanding certainty: missed timing, exhausted teams, and decisions made from fatigue rather than judgment. Meanwhile, a small group of professionals thrives in these exact conditions. Professional poker players like Annie Duke understand that good decisions sometimes lead to bad outcomes and bad decisions sometimes get lucky—so they judge their choices by process, not results. Venture capitalists often see that most of their investments will fail, but they bet anyway because one success out of twenty can return the entire fund. Military strategists make life-and-death decisions with incomplete intelligence, not because they're reckless, but because waiting for perfect information means defeat. The difference isn't access to better information. It's the willingness to act on probabilities rather than certainties. How To Make Better Decisions When Nothing Is Certain...
    Show More Show Less
    23 mins
  • You Think In Analogies and You Are Doing It Wrong

    You Think In Analogies and You Are Doing It Wrong
    Oct 28 2025
    Try to go through a day without using an analogy. I guarantee you'll fail within an hour. Your morning coffee tastes like yesterday's batch. Traffic is moving like molasses. Your boss sounds like a broken record. Every comparison you make—every single one—is your brain's way of understanding the world. You can't turn it off. When someone told you ChatGPT is "like having a smart assistant," your brain immediately knew what to expect—and what to worry about. When Netflix called itself "the HBO of streaming," investors understood the strategy instantly. These comparisons aren't just convenient—they're how billion-dollar companies are built and how your brain actually learns. The person who controls the analogy controls your thinking. In a world where you're bombarded with new concepts every single day—AI tools, cryptocurrency, remote work culture, creator economies—your brain needs a way to make sense of it all. By the end of this episode, you'll possess a powerful toolkit for understanding the unfamiliar by connecting it to what you already know—and explaining complex ideas so clearly that people wonder why they never saw it before. Thinking in analogies—or what's called analogical thinking—is how the greatest innovators, communicators, and problem-solvers operate. It's the skill that turns confusion into clarity and complexity into something you can actually work with. What is Analogical Thinking? But what does analogical thinking entail? At its core, it's the practice of understanding something new by comparing it to something you already understand. Your brain is constantly asking: "What is this like?" When you learned what a virus does to your computer, you understood it by comparing it to how biological viruses infect living organisms. When someone explains blockchain as "a shared spreadsheet that no one can erase," they're using analogy to make an abstract concept concrete. Researchers have found something remarkable: your brain doesn't actually store information as facts—it stores it as patterns and relationships. When you learn something new, your brain is literally asking "What does this remind me of?" and building connections to existing knowledge. Analogies aren't just helpful for communication—they're the fundamental mechanism of human understanding. You can't NOT think in analogies. The question is whether you're doing it consciously and well, or unconsciously and poorly. The quality of your analogies determines how quickly you learn, how deeply you understand, and how effectively you can explain ideas to others. Remember this: whoever controls the analogy controls the conversation. Master this skill, and you'll never be at the mercy of someone else's framing again. The Crisis of Bad Analogies Thinking in analogies is a double-edged sword. I learned this the hard way. A few years ago, I watched a brilliant engineer struggle to explain a revolutionary idea to executives. He had the data, the logic, the technical proof—but he couldn't get buy-in. Then someone in the room said, "So it's basically like Uber, but for industrial equipment?" Instantly, heads nodded. Funding approved. Project greenlit. One analogy did what an hour of explanation couldn't. Six months later, that same analogy killed the project. Because "Uber for equipment" came with assumptions—about pricing, about scale, about network effects—that didn't actually apply. The team kept forcing their solution to fit the analogy instead of recognizing when the comparison broke down. I watched millions of dollars and two years of work disappear because nobody questioned whether the analogy was still serving them. The same mental shortcut that helps you understand new things can also trap you in outdated patterns. Consider Quibi's spectacular failure. In 2020, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman launched a streaming service with $1.75 billion in funding—more than Netflix had when it started. Their analogy? "It's like TV shows, but designed for your phone." They created high-quality 10-minute episodes optimized for mobile viewing. Six months later, Quibi shut down. What went wrong? The analogy was flawed. They assumed mobile viewing was like TV viewing, just shorter. But people don't watch phones the way they watch TV—they watch phones while doing other things, in stolen moments, with interruptions. YouTube and TikTok understood this. They built for distraction and fragmentation. Quibi built for focused attention that didn't exist. That misunderstanding burned through nearly $2 billion in 18 months. We see this constantly where complex issues get reduced to simplistic analogies that feel intuitive but lead to flawed conclusions. Someone compares running a country to running a household budget—"If families have to balance their budgets, why shouldn't governments?" The analogy sounds intuitive, but it ignores that countries can print currency, carry strategic long-term debt, and operate on completely ...
    Show More Show Less
    27 mins
  • How To Master Causal Thinking

    How To Master Causal Thinking
    Oct 21 2025
    $37 billion. That's how much gets wasted annually on marketing budgets because of poor attribution and misunderstanding of what actually drives results. Companies' credit campaigns that didn't work. They kill initiatives that were actually succeeding. They double down on coincidences while ignoring what's actually driving outcomes. Three executives lost their jobs this month for making the same mistake. They presented data showing success after their initiatives were launched. Boards approved promotions. Then someone asked the one question nobody thought to ask: "Could something else explain this?" The sales spike coincided with a competitor going bankrupt. The satisfaction increase happened when a toxic manager quit. The correlation was real. The causation was fiction. This mistake derailed their careers. But here's the good news: once you see how this works, you'll never unsee it. And you'll become the person in the room who spots these errors before they cost millions. But first, you need to understand what makes this mistake so common—and why even smart people fall for it every single day. What is Causal Thinking? At its core, causal thinking is the practice of identifying genuine cause-and-effect relationships rather than settling for surface-level associations. It's asking not just "do these things happen together?" but "does one actually cause the other?" This skill means you look beyond patterns and correlations to understand what's actually producing the outcomes you're seeing. When you think causally, you can spot the difference between coincidence, correlation, and true causation—a distinction that separates effective decision-makers from those who waste millions on solutions that were never going to work. Loss of Causal Thinking Skills Across every domain of professional life, this confusion costs fortunes and derails careers. A SaaS company sees customer churn decrease after implementing new onboarding emails—and immediately scales it company-wide. What they missed: they launched the emails the same week their biggest competitor raised prices by 40%. The competitor's pricing reduced churn. But they'll never know, because they never asked the question. Six months later, when they face real churn issues, they keep doubling down on emails that never actually worked. This happens outside of work too. You start taking a new vitamin, and two weeks later your energy improves. But you started taking it in early March—right when days got longer and you began going outside more. Was it the vitamin or the sunlight and exercise? Most people credit the vitamin without asking the question. But here's the good news: once you understand how to think causally, these mistakes become obvious. And one of these five strategies can be used in your very next meeting—literally 30 seconds from now. Let me show you how. How To Master Causal Thinking Mastering causal thinking isn't about becoming a statistician or learning complex formulas. It's about developing five practical strategies that work together to reveal what's really driving results. These build on each other—starting with basic tests you can apply right now, and progressing to a complete system you can use for any decision. Strategy 1: The Three Tests of True Causation Think of these as your checklist for evaluating any causal claim. The Three Tests: Test #1 - Timing: Confirm the supposed cause actually happened before the effect. If traffic spiked Monday but you launched the campaign Tuesday, that campaign didn't cause it. The cause must always come before the effect. Test #2 - Consistent Movement: When the supposed cause is present, does the effect reliably occur? When the cause is absent, does the effect disappear? Document instances where they occur together. Then examine situations where the cause is absent. If the effect happens just as often without the cause, you're looking at correlation, not causation. Test #3 - Rule Out Alternatives: Think carefully about what else could explain what you're seeing. Actively try to disprove your idea rather than only looking for supporting evidence. If you can't eliminate other explanations, you don't have causation. Strategy 2: Ask "Could Something Else Explain This?" Here's a technique you can implement in the next 30 seconds that will immediately improve your causal thinking: whenever someone presents a causal claim, ask out loud: "Could something else explain this?" This single question is remarkably powerful. It forces the speaker to consider hidden factors they ignored. It reveals whether they've actually done causal analysis or just noticed a correlation and declared victory. It shifts the conversation from assumption to examination. Try it in your next meeting when someone says "We did X and Y improved." Watch how often they haven't considered alternatives. Watch how often their confident causal claim becomes less certain when forced to address ...
    Show More Show Less
    25 mins
  • How to Improve Logical Reasoning Skills

    How to Improve Logical Reasoning Skills
    Oct 14 2025
    You see a headline: "Study Shows Coffee Drinkers Live Longer." You share it in 3 seconds flat. But here's what just happened—you confused correlation with causation, inductive observation with deductive proof, and you just became a vector for misinformation. Right now, millions of people are doing the exact same thing, spreading beliefs they think are facts, making decisions based on patterns that don't exist, all while feeling absolutely certain they're thinking clearly. We live in a world drowning in information—but starving for truth. Every day, you're presented with hundreds of claims, arguments, and patterns. Some are solid. Most are not. And the difference between knowing which is which and just guessing? That's the difference between making good decisions and stumbling through life confused about why things keep going wrong. Most of us have never been taught the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. We stumble through life applying deductive certainty to inductive guesses, treating observations as proven facts, and wondering why our conclusions keep failing us. But once we understand which type of reasoning a situation demands, we gain something powerful—the ability to calibrate our confidence appropriately, recognize manipulation, and build every other thinking skill on a foundation that actually works. By the end of this episode, you'll possess a practical toolkit for improving your logical reasoning—four core strategies, one quick-win technique, and a practice exercise you can start today. This is Episode 2 of Thinking 101, a new 8-part series on essential thinking skills most of us never learned in school. Links to all episodes are in the description below. What is Logical Reasoning? But what does logical reasoning entail? At its core, there are two fundamental ways humans draw conclusions, and you're using both right now without consciously choosing between them. Deductive reasoning moves from general principles to specific conclusions with absolute certainty. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. "All mammals have hearts. Dogs are mammals. Therefore, dogs have hearts." There's no wiggle room—if those first two statements are true, the conclusion is guaranteed. This is the realm of mathematics, formal logic, and established law. Inductive reasoning works in reverse, building from specific observations toward general principles with varying degrees of probability. You observe patterns and infer likely explanations. "I've seen 1,000 swans and they were all white, therefore all swans are probably white." This feels certain, but it's actually just highly probable based on limited evidence. History proved this reasoning wrong when black swans were discovered in Australia. Both are tools. Neither is "better." The question is which tool fits the job—and whether you're using it correctly. Loss of Logical Reasoning Skills Why does this matter? Because across every domain of life, this reasoning confusion is costing us. In our social media consumption, we're drowning in inductive reasoning disguised as deductive proof. Researchers at MIT found that fake news spreads ten times faster than accurate reporting. Why? Because misleading content exploits this confusion. You see a viral post claiming "New study proves smartphones cause depression in teenagers," with graphs and official-looking citations. What you're actually seeing is inductive correlation presented as deductive causation—researchers observed that depressed teenagers often use smartphones more, but that doesn't prove smartphones caused the depression. And this is where it gets truly terrifying—I need you to hear this carefully: In 2015, researchers tried to replicate 100 psychology studies published in top scientific journals. Only 36% held up. Read that again: Nearly two-thirds of peer-reviewed, published research couldn't be reproduced. And those false studies? Still being cited. Still shaping policy. Still being shared as "science proves." You're building your worldview on a foundation where 64% of the bricks are made of air. In our personal relationships, we constantly make inductive inferences about people's intentions and treat them as deductive facts. Your partner forgets to text back three times this week. You observe the pattern, inductively infer "they're losing interest," then act with deductive certainty—becoming distant, accusatory, or defensive. But what if those three instances had three different explanations? What if the pattern we detected isn't actually a pattern at all? We say "you always" or "you never" based on three data points. We end relationships over patterns that never existed. So why didn't anyone teach us this? Traditional schooling focuses on teaching us what to think—facts, formulas, established knowledge. Deductive reasoning gets attention in math class as a mechanical process for solving equations. ...
    Show More Show Less
    29 mins
  • Why Thinking Skills Matter More Than Ever

    Why Thinking Skills Matter More Than Ever
    Oct 7 2025
    The Crisis We're Not Talking About We're living through the greatest thinking crisis in human history—and most people don't even realize it's happening. Right now, AI generates your answers before you've finished asking the question. Search engines remember everything so you don't have to. Algorithms curate your reality, telling you what to think before you've had the chance to think for yourself. We've built the most sophisticated cognitive tools humanity has ever known, and in doing so, we've systematically dismantled our ability to use our own minds. A recent MIT study found that students who exclusively used ChatGPT to write essays showed weaker brain connectivity, lower memory retention, and a fading sense of ownership over their work. Even more alarming? When they stopped using AI tools later, the cognitive effects lingered. Their brains had gotten lazy, and the damage wasn't temporary. This isn't about technology being bad. This is about survival. In a world where machines can think faster than we can, the ability to think clearly—to reason, analyze, question, and decide—has become the most valuable skill you can possess. Those who can think will thrive. Those who can't will be left behind. The Scope of Cognitive Collapse Let's be clear about what we're facing. Multiple studies across 2024 and 2025 have found a significant negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities. We're not talking about a slight dip in performance. We're talking about measurable cognitive decline. A Swiss study showed that more frequent AI use led to cognitive decline as users offloaded critical thinking to machines, with younger participants aged 17-25 showing higher dependence on AI tools and lower critical thinking scores compared to older age groups. Think about that. The generation that should be developing the sharpest minds is instead experiencing the steepest cognitive erosion. The data gets worse. Researchers from Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University found that the more users trusted AI-generated outputs, the less cognitive effort they applied—confidence in AI correlates with diminished analytical engagement. We're outsourcing our thinking, and in the process, we're forgetting how to think at all. But AI dependency is only part of the story. Our entire information ecosystem has become hostile to independent thought. Social media algorithms create filter bubbles that curate content aligned with your existing views. Users online tend to prefer information adhering to their worldviews, ignore dissenting information, and form polarized groups around shared narratives—and when polarization is high, misinformation quickly proliferates. You're not thinking anymore. You're being fed a carefully constructed reality designed to keep you engaged, not informed. The algorithm knows what you'll click on, what will make you angry, and what will keep you scrolling. And every time you accept that curated reality without question, your capacity for independent thought atrophies a little more. What Happened to Education? Here's where it gets personal. Schools used to teach you HOW to think. Now they teach you WHAT to think—and there's a massive difference. Research from Harvard professional schools found that while more than half of faculty surveyed said they explicitly taught critical thinking in their courses, students reported that critical thinking was primarily being taught implicitly. Translation? Professors think they're teaching thinking skills, but students aren't actually learning them. Students were generally unable to recall or define key terms like metacognition and cognitive biases. The problem runs deeper than higher education. Teachers struggle with balancing the demands of covering vast amounts of content with the need for in-depth learning experiences, and there's a misconception that critical thinking is an innate ability that develops naturally over time. But research shows the opposite: critical thinking skills can be explicitly taught and developed through deliberate practice. So why aren't we doing it? Because education systems reward compliance and memorization, not inquiry and analysis. Students learn to regurgitate information for tests, not to question assumptions or evaluate evidence. They're taught to accept authority, not challenge it. To consume information, not interrogate it. We've created generations of people who are educated but can't think. Who have degrees but lack discernment. Who can Google anything but can't reason through problems on their own. The Cost of Mental Outsourcing Let's talk about what you're actually losing when you stop thinking for yourself. First, you lose agency. When you can't analyze information independently, you become dependent on whoever controls the information flow. Political leaders, social media influencers, corporations, algorithms—they all shape your reality, and you don't even realize it's happening. 73% of ...
    Show More Show Less
    19 mins
  • How to Build Innovation Skills Through Daily Journaling

    How to Build Innovation Skills Through Daily Journaling
    Sep 30 2025
    Most innovation leaders are performing someone else's version of innovation thinking. I've spent decades in this field. Worked with Fortune 100 companies. And here's what I see happening everywhere. Brilliant leaders following external frameworks. Copying methodologies from people they admire. Shifting their approach based on whatever's trendy. But they never develop their own innovation thinking skills. Today, I'd like to share a simple practice that has transformed my life. And I'll show you exactly how I do it. The Problem Here's what I see in corporate America. Leaders are reacting to innovation trends instead of thinking for themselves. They chase metrics without questioning if those metrics matter. They abandon promising ideas when obstacles appear because they don't have internal principles to guide them. I watched a $300 million innovation initiative collapse. Not because the market wasn't ready. Not because the technology was wrong. But because the leader had no personal framework for making innovation decisions under pressure. This is the hidden cost of borrowed thinking. You can't innovate authentically when you're following someone else's playbook. After four decades, I've come to realize something that most people miss. We teach innovation methods. But we never teach people how to think as innovators. There's a massive difference. And that difference is everything. When you develop your own innovation thinking skills, you stop being reactive. You start operating from internal principles instead of external pressures. You ask better questions. Not just "How can we solve this?" but "Should we solve this?" That's what authentic innovation thinking looks like. The Solution So what's the answer? Innovation journaling. Now, before you roll your eyes, this isn't keeping a diary. This is a systematic development of your innovation thinking skills through targeted questions. My mentor taught me this practice early in my career. It became a 40-year obsession because it works. The process is simple. Choose a question. Write until the thought feels complete. Close the journal. Start your day. However, what makes this powerful is... The questions force you to examine your core beliefs about innovation. They help you develop principles that guide decisions when external pressures try to pull you in different directions. Most people operate from borrowed frameworks. Market demands. Best practices. Organizational expectations. Their approach shifts based on context. Innovation journaling builds something different. An internal compass. Your own thinking skills provide consistency across various challenges. Let me show you exactly how I do this. Sample Prompt/Demonstration Let me give you a question that consistently surprises people. Here's the prompt: "What innovation challenges do you consistently avoid, and what does that tell you about your beliefs?" Most people want to talk about what they pursue. But what you avoid reveals just as much about your innovation thinking. I've watched executives discover they avoid innovations that require long-term thinking because they're addicted to quick wins. Others realize they dodge anything that might make them look foolish, which kills breakthrough potential. One leader discovered she avoided innovations that required extensive collaboration. Not because she didn't like people. But because her core belief was that innovation required individual genius. That insight changed how she approached team projects. The question isn't comfortable. That's the point. Innovation journaling works because it bypasses your intellectual defenses. It accesses thinking you normally suppress or ignore. When you write "I consistently avoid innovations that..." you're forced to be honest. And that honesty reveals your actual innovation philosophy. Try this question yourself. Don't overthink it. Just write whatever comes up. You'll be surprised by what you discover. The Benefits Here's what changes when you develop your innovation thinking skills this way. You stop being reactive to whatever methodology is trendy. You have principles that guide you through uncertainty. You make decisions faster because they align with your authentic beliefs. Your team dynamics improve. People respond differently when you lead from consistent principles instead of borrowed frameworks. You create psychological safety because you're comfortable with not knowing. You ask ‌better questions. Instead of rushing to solutions, you examine whether problems deserve solving. You integrate your values with your innovation work. Most importantly, you stop performing someone else's version of innovation. You start thinking like the innovator you actually are. I've been doing this practice for 40 years. It's the foundation of every breakthrough innovation I've created. Not because it gave me ideas. But because it taught me how to think. Your innovation thinking skills are like a muscle. They get stronger with ...
    Show More Show Less
    22 mins
  • The WSJ Got Quarterly Reporting Wrong

    The WSJ Got Quarterly Reporting Wrong
    Sep 23 2025
    Michael Dell and his investors spent twenty-five billion dollars to buy back Dell Technologies. But they weren't really buying a company. They were buying freedom from quarterly earnings pressure. I'm Phil McKinney, former CTO of Hewlett-Packard, and I witnessed how this pressure shaped decisions for years. Today, we are exploring why the WSJ's recent defense of quarterly reporting misses what actually happens inside corporate boardrooms. The Reality of Quarterly Pressure I want to show you what quarterly reporting actually looks like from the inside. Let me paint you a picture. It's week seven of the quarter, and you're in a conference room with your executive team. On the screen are two critical numbers - your revenue projection and Wall Street's expectations. They don't align. During my time as CTO at HP, I found myself in these situations repeatedly. R&D projects worth billions in the future would get paused. Innovation initiatives that could transform the company would get delayed. Not because they lacked value. But because we had weeks to hit the quarterly numbers. What struck me was how predictable this became. Quarter-end approaches? Cut the long-term stuff. Meet short-term targets. Rinse and repeat. When your stock price swings ten percent over missing earnings by three cents per share, you optimize for quarterly performance, even when it destroys long-term competitiveness. Now, this is where it gets interesting. One CEO escaped this system entirely. The Dell Example: Twenty-Five Billion Dollar Proof Here's the proof that this system is broken. Michael Dell and Silver Lake paid $ 24.9 billion for one thing: freedom from quarterly earnings pressure, killing Dell's long-term potential. Dell's explicit goal: "No more pulling R&D and growth investments to make in-quarter numbers." What happened next was remarkable. R&D spending jumped from just over one billion to over four billion dollars. That's a 400 percent increase. Dell transformed from a declining PC manufacturer to an enterprise solutions leader. The return on investment by 2023? Seventy billion dollars. What Dell did wasn't just a corporate restructuring. It was a twenty-five billion dollar bet that quarterly reporting destroys long-term value. And they were proven spectacularly right. If you've experienced similar pressure at your company, I'd love to hear about it in the comments. Why the WSJ Analysis Falls Apart So with examples like Dell showing the impact, why does the WSJ still support quarterly reporting? The WSJ points to the UK's optional move from quarterly to semi-annual reporting and notes that companies didn't dramatically change behavior. Their conclusion: quarterly reporting isn't the real problem. That reasoning ignores a fundamental truth. We've trained an entire generation to think in ninety-day cycles. Business schools teach earnings management. Compensation rewards quarterly performance. Analysts' careers depend on short-term predictions. Journalists need something to write about, like quarterly results. You don't undo decades of this quarterly mindset simply by making reporting optional. The UK comparison is meaningless without addressing the ecosystem that reinforces short-term thinking. The Big Tech Illusion The WSJ claims Big Tech's AI investments prove quarterly reporting doesn't hinder long-term thinking. The argument misses the point completely. Google, Microsoft, and Meta can hide enormous R&D in their massive profit margins. When you're generating margins of twenty to thirty percent on hundreds of billions in revenue? You can invest billions in moonshots while still beating quarterly expectations. But what about manufacturing companies with five percent margins? Healthcare companies fighting regulations? Emerging tech businesses that can't disguise innovation investments? The current system creates a two-tiered economy. Only the most profitable companies can think long term. Everyone else gets trapped in quarterly optimization cycles. And that's precisely why this threatens America's competitive future. What's Really at Stake America's competitive advantage came from patient, long-term investments in breakthrough technologies. Semiconductors, the internet, biotechnology - all required decades of sustained investment. Today's quarterly regime systematically discourages ‌"patient innovation". I call it the "fifty-year overnight success" - transformative innovations need sustained investment over decades. Try explaining that to analysts who want to know why margins dropped two percent. While we optimize for quarters, competitors in China make decade-long investments in critical technologies. We're giving away our innovation advantage. Three Real Solutions Switching to semi-annual reporting solves nothing. Six months isn't different from three months for long-term thinking. Three reforms could actually move the needle: First - eliminate forward-looking earnings guidance. This forces public commitments about ...
    Show More Show Less
    10 mins
  • How to Get Smarter by Arguing with People who Disagree with You

    How to Get Smarter by Arguing with People who Disagree with You
    Sep 16 2025
    What if I told you that the people who disagree with you are actually your secret weapon for better thinking? Just last month, my wife and I had a heated argument about studio changes I wanted to make here on the ranch. Her immediate reaction was about cost. Mine was about productivity and creativity. We were talking past each other completely. But when I applied what I'm about to teach you, we discovered we were both right—and found a solution that addressed both concerns without compromising either. What started as an argument became a session where each of us was heard and understood. Sounds crazy, right? By the end of this video, you'll not only believe it—you'll have experienced it yourself. Think of someone you disagree with about something important. Got them in mind? Good. In 25 minutes, you'll see that person as your thinking partner. You know that sinking feeling when a simple conversation with someone turns into a heated argument? You walk away thinking, "How did that go so wrong?" The problem isn't the disagreement itself—it's that most people never learned how to use disagreement to think better. We encounter difficult disagreements almost daily. Your spouse questions your spending. Your boss pushes back on your proposal. Your friend challenges your weekend plans. Each disagreement is an opportunity for your thinking to become sharper. When you approach it right, others often think more clearly too. Your Brain Gets Smarter Under Pressure During solo thinking, you operate in your thinking "comfort zone". Familiar patterns feel safe. Trusted sources get your attention. Comfortable assumptions go unchallenged. It's efficient, but it also limits intellectual growth. In our Critical Thinking Skills episode—our most popular video—we taught you to question assumptions, check evidence, apply logic, ask good questions. If you haven't watched that episode, pause this and watch that first—it's the foundation for what comes next. What we didn't tell you in that video is that intelligent opposition makes these skills far more powerful than solo practice ever could. Let me show you what I mean. Take any belief you hold strongly. Now imagine defending it to someone smart who disagrees with you. Notice what happens in your mind: You suddenly need better evidence than "I read somewhere..."Your own assumptions come under sharper scrutinyLogic becomes more rigorous under pressureQuestions get sharper to understand their position That mental shift happened because I introduced opposition. Your brain got more demanding of itself. And when you engage thoughtfully, something interesting happens—the other person thinks more carefully too. Think of it like physical exercise. Muscles strengthen through resistance, not relaxation. Your thinking muscles work the same way. Intellectual resistance—smart disagreement—strengthens your reasoning, your evidence gathering is more thorough, and your conclusions are more robust. This is where things fall apart for most people. The Critical Mistake That Kills Thinking Most people will never learn this because they're too busy being right. They miss the thinking benefits because they fail at disagreement basics. They get defensive. They shut down. Conversations become battles. Someone challenges their ideas, fight-or-flight kicks in. Instead of seeing an opportunity for better thinking, they see a threat. Imagine your boss questioning your budget request in a meeting. Your heart rate spikes. Your face flushes. You start defending instead of listening. Twenty minutes later, you've missed valuable insights about organizational priorities, they've tuned out your reasoning, and maybe both of you damaged a key relationship. Look, this makes total sense. Your brain can't tell the difference between a saber-toothed tiger and someone attacking your political views. The same threat response kicks in. When you get defensive, it often triggers defensiveness in others because they interpret your reaction as confirmation that this is a fight, not a discussion. Once this happens, thinking improvement stops immediately. Your emotional brain takes over. Pure survival mode. No learning happens. No growth occurs. The chance for better thinking vanishes. The solution? Learn how to keep disagreements constructive instead of destructive. How To Make Disagreements Constructive The difference between a constructive disagreement and a destructive argument isn't the topic—it's how you handle the interpersonal dynamics. These four skills transform how you approach disagreement and create conditions where others are more likely to think clearly, too. When you use these skills, something remarkable happens: you stay open and curious instead of defensive and closed. When others see you thinking clearly under pressure, they're more likely to follow suit. Think of these as the basic requirements for constructive disagreement. Miss any one of them, and even the best critical thinking ...
    Show More Show Less
    39 mins