Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts

The luxury of statistics

Mike's Notes

A great article by David Court lays out a fundamental truth about the business of filmmaking.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library > Subscriptions > Compton
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

08/05/2026

The luxury of statistics

By: David Court
Compton: 03/05/2026

Founder of Compton School, the business school for creative people: ‘The movie industry is a crucible where money and talent are refined down to their essence. It has so much to teach us about business, creativity and human nature.’

Why filmmakers can never see eye-to-eye with movie studios.

When filmmakers and studio executives come together there is always a great display of bonhomie.

Hands get shook and backs get slapped. As though they were bound together in their mutual enterprise: the movie business. Perhaps there’s some argy-bargy about profit shares but basically they are on the same page.

Yet the truth is: there is a fundamental disjunct between filmmaker and executive.


It’s not just that one is on salary while the other is eating their savings. Nor is it the power imbalance between them, or the different pathways they have followed to arrive where they are. It’s that one is operating at 30,000 feet and the other is dug in at ground level.

If you’re making a film, it occupies your entire field of view. You can’t see past it. You don’t have time or bandwidth to think about anyone else’s film. You are all in on one thing — the film you are making.

This is true financially too. You have put all your chips down on one square and you can’t take them back. Whereas the studio executive is managing a slate of films. They’ve got chips on 20 squares.

Harvard professor Mihir Desai calls this the core of finance. He starts his book The Wisdom of Finance with a story about chance and pattern. Chance is what the world looks like close up: an arena of luck, accidents, flukes, coincidences, or what the ancients called fortuna.

Whereas pattern is chance viewed over time – statistically. It’s what we notice when we study the world and keep records. It’s the view from 30,000 feet.

‘Finance, ultimately, is a set of tools for understanding how to address a risky, uncertain world’ – Mihir Desai

The study of patterns is what gave us the insurance business (the averaging of bad luck), portfolio theory in finance (strategic diversification) and the studio slate (the search for a hit). These are all methods of managing risk, of taming fortuna.

But our filmmaker has wandered into a casino and bet everything on single spin of the wheel. Their risk is irreducible. They don’t have the luxury of statistics.

So for all the backslapping, the studio executive and the filmmaker are really two different species. Different stakes, different aims, different view of the world.

For our filmmaker, chance is the whole point. The risk is not to be managed but to be taken.

This post is the first in a series I plan to publish based on my reading – the insights I’ve gathered and think worth sharing.

The American Dream needs a factory reset

Mike's Notes

An interesting solution to the housing problem. Shows what is possible if there were the will.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library > Subscriptions > Rational Optimist Society
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

19/02/2026

The American Dream needs a factory reset

By: Stephen McBride
Rational Optimist Society: 18/01/2026

Rational Optimist Society - Founder.

Housing’s “iPhone moment”

In today’s diary:

  • Expensive homes = fewer new families
  • Where most housing innovators fail
  • How Tesla’s “tent hack” solves housing
  • Factories that update like an iPhone
  • Build your home like The Sims—in 30 days

Dear Rational Optimist,

I have a friend back in Ireland named Zach.

Zach is a mechanic with his own business. He grinds and does everything right. Yet every night he walks past the main house and goes to sleep in a log cabin in his girlfriend’s parents’ backyard.

Now his girlfriend is pregnant with their first child. They’re about to bring a new life into the world, and they don’t have a place to put the crib.

I have another friend in New York City, the founder of a promising, high-growth startup. He’s crushing it but lives in a Manhattan one-bedroom apartment with his wife and daughter. They want another baby but can’t afford the extra bedroom.

Studies show rising housing costs explain roughly half of the fertility decline in America between 2000 and 2020.

That’s millions of kids who were never born because the rent was too high.

Having kids is a vote of confidence in the future. It’s the ultimate act of optimism. We’re pricing people out of that optimism.

We know the solution: Build. More. Housing. Yet we’re building homes today slower than we did in 1971.

Over the last decade venture capitalists incinerated billions of dollars betting on startups that promised to fix housing. They all failed.

But I think I’ve finally found…

The Henry Ford of housing.

Before we meet this company, let’s visit the graveyard of failed housing startups. There are many headstones.

A few years ago housing disruptor Katerra raised $2 billion to build “gigafactories” for homes. It wanted to mass-produce homes on an assembly line like iPhones, ship them nationwide, and snap them together on-site.

We build cars in factories, so why not houses? It sounded inevitable.

Katerra went bust in 2021. It stepped on two booby traps which killed almost every would-be housing disruptor.

Booby trap No. 1: shipping air.

When you build finished rooms in a factory and ship them, you’re shipping floors, walls, and ceilings. You’re essentially paying to ship empty boxes of air.

This eats up every penny saved by the factory efficiency.

Booby trap No. 2: cash incinerator.

Giant factories cost a lot of money to build. To make the math work they must run at near-full capacity.

But housing is boom-and-bust. When the market dips (it always does), the factory doesn’t stop costing money and turns into a cash incinerator. Katerra built cathedrals of manufacturing requiring perfect economic weather to survive. When it started raining, it drowned.

Then there’s the deadliest booby trap of all.

The US government tried to build houses in factories…

1969 was a great year for the optimists. America put a man on the moon and Concorde flew its first supersonic voyage.

It was also the year of Operation Breakthrough, the US government’s experiment to industrialize housing. The goal was to fund mass-producible building systems and construct 25,000 modern homes.

It was a total disaster. They built fewer than 3,000 units before shutting down.

Uncle Sam failed to account for local governments.

Factories work when they build the exact same thing, over and over. You can’t do that with homes because there are 26,000 towns and cities with different building codes.

It’s like trying to mass-produce a car, but every town has its own rules about where the brake pedal and steering wheel should go.

We’ve been trying to build houses like cars for a century. But houses aren’t cars. They’re legal projects, financial products, and custom assemblies rolled into one.

Malcom’s box

Malcom McLean was a North Carolina truck driver with an idea.

Create steel containers that could neatly and quickly stack on ships, trains, and trucks. The shipping container was born!

On a spring morning in 1956, McLean’s refitted oil tanker left Newark carrying 58 identical steel boxes. That was the day global trade got rewired.

The cost of shipping fell by more than 90% over the following years. Those steel boxes became the universal language of trade, easily swappable across ships, trains, and trucks. Every global brand you know—Nike, Walmart, Apple—owes its business model to McLean’s steel box enabling global trade.

What McLean did for shipping, Cuby Technologies is doing for housing.

“What’s in the box?”

If you’re a Dune superfan like me, you know the scene.

"What's in the box" Dune quote image

Ask that question to Cuby co-founder Aleks Gampel and he won’t respond “pain.” He’ll say, “Everything you need to build a new home in just 30 days.”

Cuby doesn’t build houses. It builds the factories that build houses.

It took an entire automotive-grade production line—robotics, CNC machines, welding stations—and packed it into approximately 122 shipping containers.

Cuby’s product is the Mobile Micro-Factory (MMFTM). It’s a standardized, portable factory that turns homebuilding into a predictable manufacturing process.

When Tesla hit “production hell” in Fremont, it couldn’t get permission to build a new facility fast enough. So Elon put up a massive tent in the parking lot. Because it was a “temporary structure,” he bypassed the zoning nightmare and saved the company.

Cuby takes Tesla’s tent hack to the next level:


Cuby lean-tos image
Source: Cuby

If you build a factory, you need permits and years of approvals. Cuby figured out how to snap 122 shipping containers together and be classified as one giant “machine.”

This hack allows Cuby to stand up an MMF, capable of pumping out 200 homes per year, in just 30 days.

MMFs are compact enough to slot into a mall parking lot. You inflate a massive, pressurized dome. Inside the dome the shipping containers open up to become a fully functioning housing factory:


Cuby housing factory interior image
Source: Cuby

Cuby’s other co-founder, Aleh Kandrashou, walked me (virtually) through its test facility in Eastern Europe to see how an MMF works.

Cuby broke the construction process down into 35 different departments. Walk past one container and inside is a dedicated welding robot fusing steel foundations. Move to the next container, and it’s a specialized paint booth coating the exterior panels.

The containers snap together to form a conveyor belt that takes raw materials—steel coils, glass, resin—and spits out a complete “kit of parts” to build a home:


Cuby conveyor belt image
Source: Cuby

Every stud, pipe, wire, and floorboard needed for a specific house is flat-packed.

Cuby = affordable homes.

Cuby’s target cost is $100 to $110 per square foot. That’s far cheaper than traditional builders that spend $150 to $300+ per square foot depending on location.

Aleks stressed to me Cuby is relentlessly focused on costs: “Tesla launched with the expensive Roadster to fund the cheap Model 3. You can’t do that in housing. If you are a Roadster on day 1, you die.”

“If Jesus came back today the only job he’d recognize is a…”

Carpenter. That was Aleh’s humorous way to describe the lack of innovation in housing.

It’s not for lack of trying. As I mentioned, startups have been trying to disrupt housing for a century.

Cuby has “last-mover advantage.” It designed the MMF specifically to disarm the three booby traps that killed its predecessors.

Shipping air.

Katerra built big whole rooms and shipped them to the site. Cuby ships the factory to near where the house will be built.

Cash incinerator.

A Cuby factory costs 10% as much as a normal factory. It only needs to build 70 homes a year to make money.

Best of all, it’s mobile. If the housing market in Phoenix cools, you can pack the 122 containers and move them to Dallas, where demand is hot.

Cuby doesn’t build homes. It builds the factory that builds the home, which is another safety buffer. It enters into joint ventures with local developers that put up the $10 million to build the factory. Cuby doesn’t deploy the machine until the demand is guaranteed.

Regulatory camouflage.

Cuby’s factories produce a kit of parts that follows International Building Code specifications. With small tweaks they are compliant with America’s 26,000 jurisdictions.

Aleh told me its first US test home in Michigan had zero permitting issues. The home was built under 60 working days at 30% to 40% below local contractor quotes!

To a building inspector, a Cuby home looks like a normal house, just built with unusually high precision:


Cuby home example image
Source: Cuby

Cuby is basically…

A software company wrapped in steel

As an ROS member you know all about the physical innovation famine.

For 50 years progress was trapped in a narrow cone of software, apps and the web. That’s why your phone is a supercomputer, but your house is still built like it’s 1925.

Now that cone is widening into the physical world. Cuby manually mapped out the 10,000 steps required to build a house from scratch. It filmed every process, wrote code for every action, and built it into a system called “FactoryOS.”

This is Cuby’s secret sauce. It’s LEGO instructions on steroids.

FactoryOS spits out 3D instructions for every single screw in the house. It’s built on Unreal Engine, the same video game engine used for Fortnite. These digital guides allow even an idiot like me who struggles to assemble an IKEA desk to build a house.

The software also acts as a relentless quality control manager. For example, it won’t let a worker move to the next step until the AI visually confirms the last step is perfect.

There’s a reason I call Cuby “the Henry Ford for homes.”

Before Ford pioneered the assembly line, building cars relied heavily on highly skilled craftsmen. Ford’s innovations simplified the process and drastically reduced build time. Cuby’s software does the same for homes.

Its digitally guided microtask system atomizes assembly. Four workers (in two shifts) can go from foundation through finishes in roughly 45–60 days. Cuby plans to drive this under 30 days.

We need to talk about toilet paper

Cuby clocked 1 million engineering hours designing its Mobile Micro-Factories, kit of parts, and software. That obsession shows up in strange places, like the bathroom.

When Cuby ships MMF extension units to a site (which are like self-contained command centers equipped with Starlink, workstations, lockers, hot showers, and every tool the crew needs), it packs the exact number of toilet paper rolls needed for four workers for the specific duration of the build.

That precision planning defines Cuby. If a worker finishes a task but a specific wrench isn’t back in its slot, the AI recognizes it. The software won’t let him finish his working day until he finds it. No delays due to missing tools:


Cuby workspace image
Source: Cuby

To avoid “shipping air,” the software calculates the volume of empty space in a container down to the cubic inch. It will delay ordering small parts (like door hinges) until they can perfectly fill the gaps in a shipment of larger materials. Tetris for supply chains.

But my favorite feature is how the factories improve themselves.

We all know about Tesla’s over-the-air updates. Back in 2017 when Hurricane Irma was hurtling toward Florida, Tesla remotely unlocked extra battery range for owners fleeing the storm. With the flick of a switch, the car got better.

Cuby does the same for factories. If a crew in Nevada finds a faster way to install a window, that process update is pushed to every Cuby factory worldwide instantly. Factories now update like your iPhone.

Ultimately the only thing that matters is: Can Cuby build homes faster and cheaper?

Yes. Labor accounts for roughly 70% of the cost of building a home, depending on location. Cuby’s FactoryOS aims to slash that by over 80%.

Today a traditional construction crew burns about 450 minutes of human sweat to finish a single square foot of a house. Cuby does the exact same work in 50 minutes.

A traditional builder needs over 15,000 hours of labor to go from foundation to move-in ready for a standard 2,000-square-foot family home. Cuby crosses the same finish line in just 1,659 hours. It’s building the same house with one-ninth the human effort.

This allows Cuby to pump out more affordable homes while not compromising on quality. Its houses come with steel framing and triple-pane windows, typically luxuries in the US.

On the desert outskirts of Las Vegas…

Cuby’s first US Mobile Micro-Factory is going up. It’s scheduled to pump out homes this fall for a local developer building 3,300 units. I can’t wait to visit.

But one factory won’t solve the housing crisis.

That’s why Cuby stood up a “papa factory” in China. This is the machine that builds the machines. Its job is to mass-produce the 122-container Mobile Micro-Factories.

Next year the papa factory will pump out four MMFs. The year after, 8 to 12. The exponential curve is starting now.

Talk to Aleh for five minutes and you realize he’s a serial inventor. He walked me through a dozen patented technologies, from the “magnetic skin” that lets you swap a home’s exterior like a phone case, to the pressurized factory dome that inflates like a tennis bubble.

And Cuby’s ultimate invention is, to quote Aleks, “a universal manufacturing engine that scales to whatever the world needs next. We’re already working on military barracks, data centers, and contractor garages.”

Housing is arguably the most broken industry in the world, with tough competition from healthcare and education. It’s a gigantic market that affects us all.

High housing costs mean fewer kids. It also warps politics as people feel locked out. Just look at NYC voting in a communist mayor!

If Cuby wins, the payoff is civilization-scale. I asked Aleks and Aleh for their vision:

“A 25-year-old schoolteacher in North Carolina no longer spends her weekends touring open houses she can’t afford. She opens an app to design her house like she’s playing The Sims.

You can drag and drop rooms, see the exact cost update in real-time, push a button to see available plots and finally click order. The MMF gets to work, and she moves in one month later.”

Aleks ended with: “We want to build more homes than anyone else on earth.”

If Cuby succeeds it has a shot at rebuilding the American Dream.

What future would you build if you could have a cheap, custom house by next month? Let me know in the comments below. And remember to click “like” and “restack” to help us spread rational optimism.

—Stephen McBride

Mountains of Evidence

Mike's Notes

Another excellent article from After Babel. I agree 100% with no social media for kids. It's causing a mental health epidemic.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library > Subscriptions > After Babel
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

19/02/2026

Mountains of Evidence

By: Jon Haidt and Zach Rausch
After Babel: 15/01/2026

.

Two new projects catalogue research on social media’s many harms to adolescents. Some of the strongest evidence comes from Meta.

Much of the confusion in the debate over whether social media1 is harming young people can be cleared away by distinguishing two different questions, only one of which needs an urgent answer:

The historical trends question: Was the spread of social media in the early 2010s (as smartphones were widely adopted) a major contributing cause of the big increases in adolescent depression, anxiety, and self-harm that began in the U.S. and many other Western countries soon afterward?

The product safety question: Is social media safe today for children and adolescents? When used in the ordinary way (which is now five hours a day), does this consumer product expose young people to unreasonable levels of risk and harm?

Social scientists are actively debating the historical trends question — we raised it in Chapter 1 of The Anxious Generation — but that’s not the one that matters to parents and legislators. They face decisions today and they need an answer to the product safety question. They want to know if social media is a reasonably safe consumer product, or if they should keep their kids (or all kids) away from it until they reach a certain age (as Australia is doing).

Social scientists have been debating this question intensively since 2017. That’s when Jean Twenge suggested an answer to both questions in her provocative article in The Atlantic: “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” In it, she showed a historical correlation: adolescent behavior changed and their mental health collapsed just at the point in time when they traded in their flip phones for smartphones with always-available social media. She also showed a correlation relevant to the product safety question: The kids who spend the most time on screens (especially for social media) are the ones with the worst mental health. She concluded that “it’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen [Gen Z] as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones.”

Twenge’s work was met with strong criticism from some social scientists whose main objection was that correlation does not prove causation (for both the historical correlation, and the product safety correlation). The fact that heavy users of social media are more depressed than light users doesn’t prove that social media caused the depression. Perhaps depressed people are more lonely, so they rely on Instagram more for social contact? Or perhaps there’s some third variable (such as neglectful parenting) that causes both?

Since 2017, that argument has been made by nearly all researchers who are dismissive about the harms of social media. Mark Zuckerberg used the argument himself in his 2024 testimony before the U.S. Senate. Under questioning by Senator Jon Osoff, he granted that the use of social media correlates with poor mental health but asserted that “there’s a difference between correlation and causation.”

In the last few years, however, a flood of new research has altered the landscape of the debate, in two ways. First, there is now a lot more work revealing a wide range of direct harms caused by social media that extends beyond mental health (e.g., cyberbullying, sextortion, and exposure to algorithmically amplified content promoting suicide, eating-disorders, and self-harm). These direct harms are not correlations; they are harms reported by millions of young people each year. Second, recent research — including experiments conducted by Meta itself — provides increasingly strong causal evidence linking heavy social media use to depression, anxiety, and other internalizing disorders. (We refer to these as indirect harms because they appear over time rather than right away).

[IMG]

Source: Shutterstock

Together, these findings allow us to answer the product safety question clearly: No, social media is not safe for children and adolescents. The evidence is abundant, varied, and damning. We have gathered it and organized it in two related projects which we invite you to read:

  • A review paper, in press as part of the World Happiness Report 2026, in which we treat the product safety question as a mock civil-court case and organize the available research into seven lines of evidence. The first three lines reveal widespread direct harm to adolescents around the world. Lines four through seven reveal compelling evidence that social media substantially increases the risk of anxiety and depression, and that reducing social media use leads to improvements in mental health. Taken together, these lines of evidence provide a firm answer to the product safety question.
  • MetasInternalResearch.org, a new website that catalogues 31 internal studies carried out by Meta Inc. The studies were leaked by whistleblowers or made public through litigation — despite Meta’s intentions to keep them hidden. The most incriminating among them: an experiment designed to establish causality, where Meta’s researchers concluded that social media causes harm to mental health.

In the rest of this post we present the Tables of Contents from these two projects, so that you can jump into the projects wherever you like and see for yourself the many kinds of research demonstrating harm to adolescents. After that, we return to the historical trends question to suggest an answer. We show that the scale of harm we found while answering the product safety question is so vast, affecting tens of millions of adolescents across many Western nations, that it suggests (though does not prove) that the global spread of social media in the early 2010s probably was a major contributor to the international decline of youth mental health in the following years. We suggested this in Chapter 1 of The Anxious Generation. The two mountains of evidence we present here make that suggestion even more plausible today.

The Review Paper: Seven Lines of Evidence

The World Happiness Report (WHR) is a UN-backed annual ranking that has become the global reference point for national well-being research. It draws on Gallup World Poll data from more than 150 countries. We were invited to write a chapter for the upcoming WHR on the 2026 theme: the association between social media and well-being. Following their 2024 report, which documented a widespread decline of well being among young people, this year they ask whether social media’s global spread in the 2010s was a major contributor to that decline. Our chapter, “Social Media is Harming Young People at a Scale Large Enough to Cause Changes at the Population Level,” offers an answer to the product safety question — no — and to the historical trends question — yes.

The editors graciously allowed us to post our peer-reviewed chapter online before the March 19 publication date so that discussion and debate on this topic can begin immediately.

We structured the chapter as if we were filing a legal brief offering 15 exhibits organized into seven separate lines of evidence. The first three lines are the equivalent of testimony from witnesses in a trial. If the people who had the clearest view of an event say that Person A punched Person B, that would count as evidence of Person A’s guilt. The evidence is not definitive — the witnesses could be mistaken or lying — but it is legitimate and relevant evidence. Here’s the structure of that part of the chapter:

After establishing that the most knowledgeable witnesses perceive harm from social media, we move on to the four major lines of academic research. While most researchers agree that correlational studies find statistically significant associations between social media use and measures of anxiety and depression, and that social media reduction experiments find some benefits for mental health, the debate centers on whether the effects are large enough to matter.2 We show that the experimental effects and risk elevations are larger than is often implied — in fact, they are as large as many public health effects that our society takes very seriously (such as the impact of child maltreatment on the prospective risk of depression.)3

Furthermore, we take a magnifying glass to some widely cited studies that claim to show only trivial associations or effects between social media use and harm to adolescents (e.g., Hancock et al. (2022) and Ferguson (2024). We show that these studies actually reveal much larger associations when the most theoretically central relationships are examined — for example, when you focus the analysis on heavy social media use (rather than blending together all digital tech) linked specifically to depression or anxiety (rather than blending together all well-being outcomes) for adolescent girls (rather than blending in boys and adults).

Meta’s Internal Research: Seven More Lines of Evidence

Throughout 2025, a variety of lawsuits against social media companies were progressing through the courts. In the briefs posted online by various state Attorneys General, we found references to dozens of studies that Meta had conducted. Some of this information had been available to the general public since 2021, when whistleblower Frances Haugen brought out thousands of screenshots of presentations and emails from her time working at Meta. Others were newly found by litigators in the process of discovery.4

The descriptions of these studies are scattered across multiple legal briefs, most of which are hundreds of pages long, so it has been difficult to keep track of them — until now. We have collected all publicly available information about the studies in one central repository, MetasInternalResearch.org. Indexed in this way, the scattered reports form a mountain of evidence that social media is not safe for children. The evidence was collected and hidden by Meta itself.

We found information on 31 studies related to the product safety question that Meta conducted between 2018 and 2024. Meta has long hired PhD researchers, particularly psychologists, to conduct internal research projects. (In January 2020, Jon met with members of this team and shared his concerns about what Instagram was doing to girls.) Meta’s researchers have access to vast troves of data on billions of users, including what exactly users saw and what emotions or behaviors they showed afterward. (This is known as “user-behavioral log data.”) Academic researchers never get access to rich data like this; they must devise their own surveys, which obtain a few crude proxy variables (such as “how many hours a day do you spend on social media?” and “How anxious were you yesterday?”). So we should pay attention to what Meta’s researchers found and how they interpreted their findings.

In one example, recently unsealed court documents from lawsuits brought by U.S. school districts against Meta and other platforms reveal that Meta conducted its own randomized control trial (considered to be the best way to study causal impact) in 2019 with the marketing research firm Nielsen. The project — code-named Project Mercury — asked a group of users to deactivate their Facebook and Instagram accounts for one month. According to the filings, Meta described the design of their study as being “of much higher quality” than the existing literature and that this study was “one of our first causal approaches to understand the impact that Facebook has on people’s lives… Everyone involved in the project has a PhD.” In pilot tests of the study, researchers found that “people who stopped using Facebook for a week reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison.” One Meta researcher also stated that “the Nielsen study does show causal impact on social comparison.”

In other words, Meta’s own research on the effects of social media reduction confirms those from academic researchers that we report in Line 6 of our review paper. Both sets of researchers find evidence of causation, not mere correlation.

We were impressed by the great variety of methods that Meta’s researchers used. In fact, the 31 studies we located fit neatly into seven lines that are similar to the seven lines we used in our review paper. The findings from Meta researchers are highly consistent with the findings from academic researchers, which gives us even more confidence in our conclusions about the product safety question.

Here’s the Table of Contents. Once again, after the introductory material, we present three lines of testimony:

We then move on to lines 4, 5, and 6, which correspond exactly to lines 4, 5, and 6 in the review paper: correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies, although line 7 is unique. (It involves reviews of academic literature conducted by Meta’s researchers.)

Returning to the Historical Trends Question

The product safety question is distinct from the historical trends question. A consumer product (e.g., a toy or food) can be unsafe for children without it producing an immediate or easily detectable increase in national rates of a particular illness.5

But social media is an unusual consumer product because of its vast user base and the enormous amount of time it takes from most users. It’s as if a new candy bar, intentionally designed to be addictive, was introduced in 2012 and, within a few years, 90% of the world’s children were consuming ten of these candy bars each day, which reduced their consumption of all other foods. Might there be increases in national rates of adolescent obesity and diabetes?

In our WHR review paper, we estimate the scale of direct harms (e.g., cyberbullying, sextortion, and exposure to disturbing content) and indirect harms (e.g., elevated risks of depression, anxiety, and eating disorders). We then show that these estimates are likely underestimates because they don’t account for network effects inherent to social media, nor the heightened impact of heavy use during the sensitive developmental period of puberty. All told, the number of affected children and adolescents likely reaches into the hundreds of millions, globally.

Once we consider the vast scale at which social media operates — used by the large majority of young people, for many hours each day, over many years, and across nearly all Western nations — it becomes clear that social media companies are harming young people on an industrial scale. It becomes far more plausible that this consumer product caused national levels of adolescent depression and anxiety to rise, especially for girls.

Conclusion: What Now?

Academic debates over media effects often take decades to resolve. We expect that this one will continue for many years. But parents and policymakers cannot wait for resolution; they must make decisions now, based on the available evidence. The evidence we have collected shows clearly that social media is not safe for adolescents.

We believe that the evidence of direct and indirect harm that we have collected in these two complementary projects is now sufficient to justify the sort of action that the Australian government took in 2025 when it raised the age for opening or maintaining a social media account to 16. Just as the recent international trend of removing smartphones from schools is beginning to produce educational benefits, the research we reviewed suggests that removing social media from childhood and early adolescence is likely to produce a great variety of benefits, including lower rates of depression and many fewer victims of direct harms such as sexual harassment and sextortion.

Countries around the world ran a giant uncontrolled experiment on their own children in the 2010s by giving them smartphones and social media accounts at young ages. The evidence is in: the experiment has harmed them. It is time to call it off.

  1. By “social media” we mean platforms that include user profiles, user-generated content, networking, interactivity, and (in most cases) algorithmically curated content. Platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, and X all share these features. This means that ordinary use includes interacting with adult strangers.
  2. For examples of studies showing substantial risk elevations, see Kelly et al. (2019), Riehm (2019), Twenge et al. (2022), and Grund (2025). For examples of meaningful experimental effects, see Burnell et al. (2025).
  3. Burnell et al. (2025) report an average effect of roughly g = 0.22 (about one-fifth of a standard deviation) for “well-being” outcomes in sustained social-media-reduction studies. Grummitt et al. (2024) estimate that the increased risk of depression and anxiety attributable to childhood maltreatment corresponds to effects of d = 0.22 and d = 0.25, respectively. See section “Indirect Harms to Millions” for more details.
  4. We note that this is our only source of this information because Meta lobbies against legislation that requires them to share data with researchers, such as the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act.
  5. The trend of any particular harm may of course have several major influences, some of which may counteract each other. This can add considerable complexity to the historical trends question.

Structured Procrastination

Mike's Notes

Bravo!

This is kind of familiar. Go visit John's blog, it's cool.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library > Subscriptions > Amazing CTO
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

25/10/2025

Structured Procrastination

By: John Perry
Structured Procrastination: ?

John Perry is an emeritus professor of philosophy at Stanford. His office is Cordura 127 at CSLI, Stanford University, where he conducts several research projects. He is also a professor of philosophy (half-time) at the University of California, Riverside, on leave 2012–13.


Author practices jumping rope with seaweed while work awaits.

``. . . anyone can do any amount of work, provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at that moment." -- Robert Benchley, in Chips off the Old Benchley, 1949

I have been intending to write this essay for months. Why am I finally doing it? Because I finally found some uncommitted time? Wrong. I have papers to grade, textbook orders to fill out, an NSF proposal to referee, dissertation drafts to read. I am working on this essay as a way of not doing all of those things. This is the essence of what I call structured procrastination, an amazing strategy I have discovered that converts procrastinators into effective human beings, respected and admired for all that they can accomplish and the good use they make of time. All procrastinators put off things they have to do. Structured procrastination is the art of making this bad trait work for you. The key idea is that procrastinating does not mean doing absolutely nothing. Procrastinators seldom do absolutely nothing; they do marginally useful things, like gardening or sharpening pencils or making a diagram of how they will reorganize their files when they get around to it. Why does the procrastinator do these things? Because they are a way of not doing something more important. If all the procrastinator had left to do was to sharpen some pencils, no force on earth could get him do it. However, the procrastinator can be motivated to do difficult, timely and important tasks, as long as these tasks are a way of not doing something more important.

Structured procrastination means shaping the structure of the tasks one has to do in a way that exploits this fact. The list of tasks one has in mind will be ordered by importance. Tasks that seem most urgent and important are on top. But there are also worthwhile tasks to perform lower down on the list. Doing these tasks becomes a way of not doing the things higher up on the list. With this sort of appropriate task structure, the procrastinator becomes a useful citizen. Indeed, the procrastinator can even acquire, as I have, a reputation for getting a lot done.

The most perfect situation for structured procrastination that I ever had was when my wife and I served as Resident Fellows in Soto House, a Stanford dormitory. In the evening, faced with papers to grade, lectures to prepare, committee work to be done, I would leave our cottage next to the dorm and go over to the lounge and play ping-pong with the residents, or talk over things with them in their rooms, or just sit there and read the paper. I got a reputation for being a terrific Resident Fellow, and one of the rare profs on campus who spent time with undergraduates and got to know them. What a set up: play ping pong as a way of not doing more important things, and get a reputation as Mr. Chips.

Procrastinators often follow exactly the wrong tack. They try to minimize their commitments, assuming that if they have only a few things to do, they will quit procrastinating and get them done. But this goes contrary to the basic nature of the procrastinator and destroys his most important source of motivation. The few tasks on his list will be by definition the most important, and the only way to avoid doing them will be to do nothing. This is a way to become a couch potato, not an effective human being.

At this point you may be asking, "How about the important tasks at the top of the list, that one never does?" Admittedly, there is a potential problem here.

The trick is to pick the right sorts of projects for the top of the list. The ideal sorts of things have two characteristics, First, they seem to have clear deadlines (but really don't). Second, they seem awfully important (but really aren't). Luckily, life abounds with such tasks. In universities the vast majority of tasks fall into this category, and I'm sure the same is true for most other large institutions. Take for example the item right at the top of my list right now. This is finishing an essay for a volume in the philosophy of language. It was supposed to be done eleven months ago. I have accomplished an enormous number of important things as a way of not working on it. A couple of months ago, bothered by guilt, I wrote a letter to the editor saying how sorry I was to be so late and expressing my good intentions to get to work. Writing the letter was, of course, a way of not working on the article. It turned out that I really wasn't much further behind schedule than anyone else. And how important is this article anyway? Not so important that at some point something that seems more important won't come along. Then I'll get to work on it.

Another example is book order forms. I write this in June. In October, I will teach a class on Epistemology. The book order forms are already overdue at the book store. It is easy to take this as an important task with a pressing deadline (for you non-procrastinators, I will observe that deadlines really start to press a week or two after they pass.) I get almost daily reminders from the department secretary, students sometimes ask me what we will be reading, and the unfilled order form sits right in the middle of my desk, right under the wrapping from the sandwich I ate last Wednesday. This task is near the top of my list; it bothers me, and motivates me to do other useful but superficially less important things. But in fact, the book store is plenty busy with forms already filed by non-procrastinators. I can get mine in mid-Summer and things will be fine. I just need to order popular well-known books from efficient publishers. I will accept some other, apparently more important, task sometime between now and, say, August 1st. Then my psyche will feel comfortable about filling out the order forms as a way of not doing this new task.

The observant reader may feel at this point that structured procrastination requires a certain amount of self-deception, since one is in effect constantly perpetrating a pyramid scheme on oneself. Exactly. One needs to be able to recognize and commit oneself to tasks with inflated importance and unreal deadlines, while making oneself feel that they are important and urgent. This is not a problem, because virtually all procrastinators have excellent self-deceptive skills also. And what could be more noble than using one character flaw to offset the bad effects of another?

The most powerful medicine we have

Mike's Notes

Doing the rounds at the moment.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library >
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

11/10/2025

The most powerful medicine we have

By: A US Physician
UAMS Patient Experiences group: 01/10/2025

Note by Kristen Koll

From a US physician [And in response to those who have asked: I am still trying to confirm authorship, but the post appears to originate from UAMS Patient Experiences group (facebook page) and I’ve messaged them to see if the author can be named. Also, they confirmed in response to another query that the names are pseudonyms, so HIPAA privacy was not violated]


I know the exact pressure it takes to crack a rib during CPR. But last Tuesday, I learned a patient’s silence can break a doctor’s soul.

His name was David Chen, but on my screen, he was "Male, 82, Congestive Heart Failure, Room 402." I spent seven minutes with him that morning. Seven minutes to check his vitals, listen to the fluid in his lungs, adjust his diuretics, and type 24 required data points into his Electronic Health Record. He tried to tell me something, gesturing toward a faded photo on his nightstand. I nodded, said "we'll talk later," and moved on. There was no billing code for "talk later."

Mr. Chen died that afternoon. As a nurse quietly cleared his belongings, she handed me the photo. It was him as a young man, beaming, his arm around a woman, standing before a small grocery store with "CHEN'S MARKET" painted on the window.

The realization hit me like a physical blow. I knew his ejection fraction and his creatinine levels. I knew his insurance provider and his allergy to penicillin. But I didn't know his wife's name or that he had built a life from nothing with his own two hands. I hadn’t treated David Chen. I had managed the decline of a failing organ system. And in the sterile efficiency of it all, I had lost a piece of myself.

The next day, I bought a small, black Moleskine notebook. It felt like an act of rebellion.

My first patient was Eleanor Gable, a frail woman lost in a sea of white bedsheets, diagnosed with pneumonia. I did my exam, updated her chart, and just as I was about to leave, I paused. I turned back from the door.

"Mrs. Gable," I said, my voice feeling strange. "Tell me one thing about yourself that’s not in this file."

Her tired eyes widened in surprise. A faint smile touched her lips. "I was a second-grade teacher," she whispered. "The best sound in the world... is the silence that comes just after a child finally reads a sentence on their own."

I wrote it down in my notebook. Eleanor Gable: Taught children how to read.

I kept doing it. My little black book began to fill with ghosts of lives lived.

Frank Miller: Drove a yellow cab in New York for 40 years.

Maria Flores: Her mole recipe won the state fair in Texas, three years running.

Sam Jones: Proposed to his wife on the Kiss Cam at a Dodgers game.

Something began to change. The burnout, that heavy, gray cloak I’d been wearing for years, started to feel a little lighter. Before entering a room, I’d glance at my notebook. I wasn’t walking in to see the "acute pancreatitis in 207." I was walking in to see Frank, who probably had a million stories about the city. My patients felt it too. They'd sit up a little straighter. A light would flicker back in their eyes. They felt seen.

The real test came with Leo. He was 22, angry, and refusing dialysis for a condition he’d brought on himself. He was a "difficult patient," a label that in hospital-speak means "we've given up." The team was frustrated.

I walked into his room and sat down, leaving my tablet outside. We sat in silence for a full minute. I didn't look at his monitors. I looked at the intricate drawings covering his arms.

"Who's your artist?" I asked.

He scoffed. "Did 'em myself."

"They're good," I said. "This one... it looks like a blueprint."

For the first time, his gaze lost its hard edge. "Wanted to be an architect," he muttered, "before... all this."

We talked for twenty minutes about buildings, about lines, about creating something permanent. We didn't mention his kidneys once. When I stood up to leave, he said, so quietly I almost missed it, "Okay. We can try the dialysis tomorrow."

Later that night, I opened my Moleskine. I wrote: Leo Vance: Designs cities on paper.

The system I work in is designed to document disease with thousands of data points. It logs every cough, every pill, every lab value. It tells the story of how a body breaks down.

My little black book tells a different story. It tells the story of why a life mattered.

We are taught to practice medicine with data, but we heal with humanity. And in a world drowning in information, a single sentence that says, "I see you," isn't just a kind gesture.

It’s the most powerful medicine we have.

Terrence Deacon: Incomplete Nature, How Mind Emerged from Matter

Mike's Notes

I first discovered Terrence Deacon in an essay by my friend James Miller. James recently sent me a link to a YouTube video of Terrence talking about his book Incomplete Nature, How Mind Emerged from Matter, in a 2012 interview.

And then I discovered some more talks by Terrence.

Sadly, his faculty page at Berkeley is gone. They may get deleted when professors retire.

It might be available on the Wayback Machine.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library > Authors > Terrence Deacon
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

17/05/2025

Terrence Deacon: Incomplete Nature, How Mind Emerged from Matter - Sane Society

Tom Palmer: Sane Society
YouTube: 13/09/2012

A radical new explanation of how life and consciousness emerge from physics and chemistry from the UC Berkeley Anthropology Chair, Terrence Deacon.

Terrence W. Deacon on Incomplete Nature: radically reformulating the concept of emergence

Stanford Complexity Group: 
YouTube: 29 June 2012

By recasting emergence theory in dynamical terms and focusing on the role of constraint in explaining ascending levels of causal relationships, this talk will argue that such basic scientific challenges as explaining the origins of life, the nature of information, and the dynamics of mental function need to be rethought. Though relying heavily on complex systems approaches, I will argue that various approaches to biological and neurological processes that depend on models of self-organizing dynamics are fundamentally incomplete, and that a higher order emergent dynamical approach is necessary, which I call teleodynamics.

Incomplete Nature - How Mind Emerged from Matter

Pangea:
YouTube: 9 August 2014

As scientists study the minutiae of subatomic particles, neural connections, and molecular compounds, their attempts at a “theory of everything” harbor a glaring omission: they still cannot explain us, the thoughts and perceptions that truly make us what we are. A masterwork that brings together science and philosophy, Incomplete Nature offers a revolutionary, captivating account of how life and consciousness emerged, revealing how our desires, feelings, and intentions can be understood in terms of the physical world.

As physicists work toward completing a theory of the universe and biologists unravel the molecular complexity of life, a glaring incompleteness in this scientific vision becomes apparent. The "Theory of Everything" that appears to be emerging includes everything but us: the feelings, meanings, consciousness, and purposes that make us (and many of our animal cousins) what we are. These most immediate and incontrovertible phenomena are left unexplained by the natural sciences because they lack the physical properties—such as mass, momentum, charge, and location—that are assumed to be necessary for something to have physical consequences in the world. This is an unacceptable omission. We need a "theory of everything" that does not leave it absurd that we exist.

Incomplete Nature begins by accepting what other theories try to deny: that, although mental contents do indeed lack these material-energetic properties, they are still entirely products of physical processes and have an unprecedented kind of causal power that is unlike anything that physics and chemistry alone have so far explained. Paradoxically, it is the intrinsic incompleteness of these semiotic and teleological phenomena that is the source of their unique form of physical influence in the world. Incomplete Nature meticulously traces the emergence of this special causal capacity from simple thermodynamics to self-organizing dynamics to living and mental dynamics, and it demonstrates how specific absences (or constraints) play the critical causal role in the organization of physical processes that generate these properties.

Terrence Deacon: Did Mind Emerge From Matter? Origin of Life, Causal Emergence, & Descartes' Shadow

Tevin Naidu: 
YouTube: 4 September 2022

Terrence Deacon is Professor and Chair of the Department of Anthropology and member of the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at the University of California, Berkeley. His research combines developmental evolutionary biology and comparative neuroanatomy to investigate the evolution of human cognition, and is particularly focused on the explanation of emergent processes in biology and cognition. Terrence is a Harvard Lehman Fellow, a Harvard Medical School Psychiatric Neuroscience Fellow, a Western Washington University Centenary Alumni Fellow, and the 69^th James Arthur Lecturer for the American Museum of Natural History. He has published over 100 research papers in collected volumes and scholarly journals, and his acclaimed book, "The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain" (1997) was awarded the I. J. Staley Prize for the most influential book in Anthropology in 2005 by the School of American Research. His other books include "Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter" (2011) and "Homo Sapiens: Evolutionary Biology and the Human Sciences" (2012).