Looking Back On The Records Of My Life

Looking Back On The Records Of My Life

I’m going through my personal document archive right now. I have data stretching back to 2007, though most of it clusters around 2009+ which when I started getting “serious” about hoarding data, documents and other bits of intellectual flair about myself. What started off as a simple Spring Cleaning-type exercise in tidying up my digital filing system is instead turning into a philosophical journey to a land of the past self and it’s inviting a lot of questions and thoughts I wasn’t expecting to have, such as…

I’ve got A LOT of information I collected at various times I was attempting to self-educate on topics of interest. For example, I have enough reading material to teach and supply a graduate level course on investing and financial analysis, business management and strategy and basic accounting and corporate finance. I also have collected digital copies of nearly every book and article I’ve read on economics and related sociology and historical topics. It’s essentially a download of my brain on these topics and, given that I feel comfortable with my level of knowledge in these areas, I’ve done a lot of the hard work in gathering up a comprehensive curriculum here which might be of use to a future learner, such as my child.

But will my child want to study these things? Will my Little Lion need to do the kind of painstaking scouring of primary materials, in volume, that I did? Or will my Little Lion learn a lot of the fundamentals by a kind of osmosis being around me, talking about this stuff with me, such that it won’t really be much use to have the archive for personal perusal?

Now that I am done with these materials, they have little value to me personally. It’s nice to imagine I’d dig in here and there for reference or to double-check something, but I haven’t touched this stuff since 2012 when I began collecting it. That’s 5 years! I knew I had it all this time, but I never went looking for it. What are the chances I will look back on it another 5 years from now? Or 20?

I try to live a simple life. I’m not a minimalist in practice, but the people around me would accuse me of such. I am tempted to just delete this stuff wholesale.

When I think about transmitting my book learning to my kin, and I think about the principles of selectivity and simplicity, there are few titles I would like to hand down and say “Read this if you want to be part of the family/have success in your life/grow your mind.” A book like Human Action comes to mind. That’s as close to Required Reading on each of those points as anything I can think of. But a PDF copy of “Investment Topic X”? Or “Economic Subject Y”? I don’t think it is essential to have that all lined up for the next in line.

The modern trend of Big Data promises amazing returns to collecting and analyzing comprehensive data about people’s interests, behaviors, etc. Mostly, it is a false promise in my experience and I think it’s a false promise in looking through my archive as well. Here’s some notes I took in 2010 on some subject. Here is a spreadsheet I built for something in 2011. Here is some list of experiences I wanted to have, or goals I was chasing after. It is the story of my life, the breadcrumbs along the path to whatever my final purpose and meaning is. (It’s amazing how you seem to get an idea in your head early on in your life and just iterate it over and over. I wonder where those ideas come from and why we get fascinated with them?) But what of it? Can’t rehash that part of my life and choose differently, and I am where I am, and it doesn’t offer much predictive value for where I am going unless it is to continue on the path I am on, but then it is inevitable so, again, what of it?

I think about this with my email archiving as well. I have a lot of emails stored up over the year. Conversations on all kinds of topics. Lengthy diatribes about what I think and why. A veritable mind map on a plethora of issues. It’s fun to be able to look back on it from time to time. But really, it is of more value to Google in selling my (anonymized?) data to advertisers than it will ever be to me in providing some kind of meaningful insight or prediction about myself. Mostly it is good for looking up old logins, loyalty program info, or upcoming event or itinerary data. After that, it is the past, and it doesn’t matter.

I have all these photos, too. Ever since I had a web-connected phone, they just started accumulating. A snap here, a photo there. How many have I looked back on even a week or two after I took it? The significance fades, even if the memory is still there. One day I could share with a friend who wants to know about a place I’ve been or an experience I’ve had, or with my Little Lion, to illustrate what life was like before I was a parent. Why? Why does this matter? It is gone. It can’t be gotten back to. What can it tell us? Little, I think.

So, a new habit to inculcate: create a robust, dynamic filing structure for recalling and accessing current data and records of interest, and then have the discipline to purge when these files go “inactive” in my consciousness.

A Summary Of Horizon Kinetics’ Arguments Against Indexation (#investing, #theory, #indexing)

A Summary Of Horizon Kinetics’ Arguments Against Indexation (#investing, #theory, #indexing)

Murray Stahl and Steven Bregman of Horizon Kinetics have written an ongoing series examining the theoretical and practical flaws of indexation as an investment strategy. As the series is long and the arguments are many, I’ve decided to try to summarize each of their major essays into a single summary sentence to make the argument easier to follow. All links below come from the “Under the Hood: What’s In Your Index? series:

  1. International Diversification – Bet You Don’t Know How Much You’ve Got, investors seeking diversification with their indexing strategies are ignorant of the fact that almost 30% of the revenues of S&P 500 companies come from outside the US, and many international companies in non-US indexes derive substantial parts of their revenue from the US; therefore political diversification of economic risk is illusory in index allocation strategies
  2. Not Your Grandfather’s S&P, the calculation of the S&P 500 was adjusted for available float (non-inside held shares) beginning in 2005, meaning that much of expectations about its return built on past price performance is no longer analagous because earlier index returns were purely market cap-weighted and thus the index got the full benefit of great, insider-owned growth stories such as Wal-Mart and Microsoft
  3. Your Bond Index – Part of the ETF Bubble; valuation-agnostic institutional investors following a “diversified” asset allocation model use tools such as international bond ETFs to gain exposure, and the liquidity constraints of the underlying issuance create perverse results wherein war-torn, criminally fraudulent and economically unstable foreign regime debt ends up with lower yields than stable, profitable US corporate debt
  4. How to NOT Invest in the Dynamism of Emerging Markets: Through Your Emerging Markets ETF; using India ETFs as an example, it is shown that the concentration of market caps, lack of trading liquidity and concentration of the largest firm’s revenue sources outside the home market imply that one can not reliably get exposure to an emerging market by buying emerging market ETFs, meaning that the “diversification” available with such tools is illusory
  5. How Liquid is YOUR ETF, or What Does This Have to Do With Me?; in a “virtuous circle”, the liquidity of index ETFs has attracted long-term asset allocators whose allocation decisions have created even greater liquidity in the ETF, but the events of August 24th, 2015, show that it’s possible for this circle to operate in reverse, creating sharply-divergent share price performance between an ETF itself and its underlying holdings
  6. The Beta Game – Part I; allocation models favor low-beta strategies (historical price risk relative to broader market) over high-beta strategies, such that high-beta strategies are being allocated out of existence and low-beta strategies are being allocated into a bubble, even when the underlying strategy itself seems to imply higher risk and volatility than the broad market
  7. A New Bubble Indicator; Is One of Your Stocks In a Momentum ETF?; “the appearance of billion-dollar momentum ETFs means that the most expensive stocks are being bid higher, and those that have not done well – that is, their relative momentum has abated, as it ultimately must – are being sold short, so the cheap are being sold cheaper”, “The index universe has become, simply, a big momentum trade. It is the most crowded trade in the history of investing.”
  8. The Beta Game – Part II; when the beta-trade goes in reverse because peak beta-driven demand is reached, index ETFs which are primarily purchased because of their beta will fall in value and funds will flow into contrarian, non-indexed securities which will also have constrained supply (illiquid) resulting in sharper price increases
  9. The Robo-Adviser, Part I: What Does Rebalancing Mean to You?; asset allocation patterns, especially the robo advisor-driven variety, create a structural need for outsize turnover volumes of ETFs versus the turnover of their underlying stocks as portfolios are more aggressively rebalanced, in the future a cascading rebalancing effect could create dramatic selloffs in underlying securities just as cascading demand seems to drive price increases on the way up
  10. The Robo-Adviser, Part II: What’s in Your Asset Allocation Program?; robo-advisor portfolio recommendations seem to make similar investment allocations despite different inputs, creating a herd momentum in index ETFs
  11. How Indexation is Creating New Opportunities for Short-Sellers, And Why This Should Alarm Ordinary Buyers of Stock and Bond ETFs; historically low interest rates and growth of indexing as a strategy have made short-selling a punishing exercise, but sudden and unpredictable price volatility will force low-beta ETFs to dump their holdings in favor of other securities, opening up opportunities for short-sellers to profit
  12. Why Utility Stocks Should Concern Income-Oriented Investors; qualitative analysis reveals a worrisome risk picture for the utility industry, yet ETF flows and the search for yield have combined to create high P/Es for the industry as a whole
  13. The Exxon Conundrum; despite a massive decrease in the price of oil and thus $XOM’s per share earnings, its share price was relatively unimpacted and it remains an overweight position of numerous ETFs, suggesting it is $XOMs pre-existing size and liquidity which generates its (over-)valuation, and not the other way around
  14. 5000 Years of Interest Rates (Part I); interest rates in 5,000 years of recorded human history across the globe have never been near zero or negative as they predominantly are in Western economies at present, meaning equity valuations are built on truly unprecedented circumstances while most financial logic involves historical pricing as a basis constructing behavioral models
  15. 5000 Years of Interest Rates (Part II); interest rate increases would result in painful adjustments to the value of fixed-income (bonds) and fixed income-like ETFs (REITs, utilities), and a safer bet would be in non-indexed securities whose prices are already somewhat depressed and whose underlying businesses represent idiosyncratic risks versus the broad market
  16. What’s in Your Index? The Value of Cash; cash is deemed to be a liability in a low interest rate environment, creating a drive to acquire assets regardless of valuation, when in reality cash might be the very thing investors need to survive the coming tide of rising rate-induced market crashes
  17. What’s in Your Index? Gold Miner ETFs; leveraged ETFs in the gold miner space seem to be creating price movements divorced from the underlying fundamentals of gold itself, indicating this is not an efficient market despite the fact that it is being indexed (or rather, because it is being indexed)
  18. The Indexation That Is, Versus The Indexation That Should Be; the commodity nature of index strategies implies that most fund providers who face the same profit motives as active managers of the past will promote diversification strategies to “index investors” that will cause them to underperform the broad market for the same reasons active managers did

The Argument (So Far), Summarized:

  •  Modern indexation is primarily practiced via allocation to various thematic ETFs
  • The construction of the thematic ETFs is often inconsistent with their stated theme and therefore unable to provide the sought after diversification, due to liquidity constraints
  • The price behavior and valuation of the holdings within these ETFs seem divorced from underlying economic reality and are largely explainable through the feedback mechanism of high inflows to indexation/ETF-based strategies themselves
  • Myopic focus on beta (a measure of relative volatility) and momentum (tendency for price trend to continue, a characteristic which shouldn’t exist in an efficient market) have created herd mentalities and currently dominate index-driven strategies
  • Indexation as a strategy requires and logically replies upon historical price data, but the data being relied upon was gathered in an interest rate environment that was historically normal but entirely dissimilar to recent interest rate paradigms, bringing into question the validity of this data to present strategies
  • Indexation relies upon the existence of an efficient market to operate, but the indexation phenomenon itself seems to be driving persistent inefficiencies in the market, bringing into question the stability of the indexation phenomenon
  • Most current index investors do not follow the historic and academic recommendations for executing an index strategy, nor can they given the profit motives of investment marketers offering ETFs outside of the broad market index theme, ensuring underperformance relative to the index benchmark for the same reasons active managers underperformed in the past

BONUS, Horizon Kinetics Q4 2016 Market Commentary, summarized:

  • When the total available pool of index-driven funds reaches its limit, index strategies which are valuation-neutral will no longer set the marginal price for the underlying securities they own, and that price will be set by value-conscious active managers, implying a sharp correction downward for indexed security prices in general
  • Indexation as a strategy has a place in certain portfolios in a “normal market”, but this is not that market and therefore indexation seems to carry undue risk
  • There is no such thing as an “inadequate index return”, so index investors have no logical basis for being unhappy with the returns they get
  • If index investors did try to pull their money all at once, there is no logical alternative to active asset managers because bonds are priced too high to offer a greater return and there is not enough money in money market funds to change places with the index fund outflows at current prices
  • Returns to large cap equities from 1926-2015 have averaged between 9% and 10% a year; returns to equities from 1824-1924 averaged 7% a year, but most of that return came in the form of dividends, not price appreciation
  • In an age of indexation, true diversification comes from analyzing individual securities and finding the one’s whose share price performance is not dictated by broader market trends, as indexed ETF securities are
  • The age of analyst-driven active management may again be upon us
Review – Good Strategy/Bad Strategy (#review, #books, #strategy)

Review – Good Strategy/Bad Strategy (#review, #books, #strategy)

Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters

by Richard Rumelt, published 2011, 2013

I recently came across GS/BS on an old blog I have been subscribed to for years. Being in the middle of some strategic planning within our own business, the find seemed timely so I moved the title to the top of my list and set aside “The Russian Revolution: A People’s Tragedy” for completion at a later date. I am glad I did, although having now concluded the read I find I have a conflicted view of the book.

One reason I find myself interested in this book is it is in fact, interesting. I find myself thinking a lot, and thinking differently, about various strategic topics covered in the book as well as my own related challenges, which suggests the book has given me a valuable new framework. On the other hand, I thought the author did not define his terms in such a way that leaves me feeling confident he has created a solution to the problems he has identified with most approaches to strategy– it’s almost like he came up with an even sexier sounding way to think about strategy problems without addressing the concrete limitations of the approaches he has critiqued.

In my review rubric, a 5/5 is a “classic” book that not only can be read again and again, but should and likely will be, each reading offering new insights or appreciation of the human condition examined within. A 4/5, on the other hand, is not a “near classic” but rather just a “very good book” that is worthy of recommendation to others. A 3/5 is a book with some value, but is otherwise unremarkable. And we won’t waste or time rehashing the miserable 2/5 and 1/5 ratings. I am puzzled because I think I am going to end up re-reading this book, and most likely in a very short period of time after I’ve tried to digest and apply some of what I think I’ve just learned to my own strategic activities. That suggests it is a potential 5/5. But I don’t feel like I will enjoy this book more with each re-reading, especially because some of the case studies contained within will have grown very stale (many I have encountered in other reading materials and few of those had any new insights to glean this time around). And because of my concerns with the definitions and overall structure of the book, I am not even sure it is a 4/5. I went back and forth with a friend in a private message system about whether I thought he should read it or not, finally settling on “yes”, and I have recommended it to others since then. It’s definitely not a 3/5.

Since my mind is not made up about what this book is saying, I don’t have a concise review of its major ideas to offer at the moment. I might reflect and write another post if and when I do, likely after the suggested re-reading. For now, I am just going to collect all the passages I highlighted and see if anything obvious bubbles up into my consciousness as a result:

  • Strategy is about “discovering the critical factors in a situation and designing a way of coordinating and focusing actions to deal with those factors.”
  • A strategy that fails to define a variety of plausible and feasible immediate actions is missing a critical component.
  • Doing strategy is figuring out how to advance the organization’s interests.
  • The kernel of a strategy contains three elements: a diagnosis, a guiding policy and coherent action.
  • The most basic idea of strategy is the application of strength to weakness.
  • A hallmark of true expertise and insight is making a complex subject understandable.
  • If you fail to identify and analyze the obstacles, you don’t have a strategy.
  • A strategy is like a lever that magnifies force.
  • Strategic objectives should address a specific process or accomplishment.
  • Business competition is not just a battle of strength and wills; it is also a competition over insights and competencies.
  • To obtain higher performance, leaders must identify the critical obstacles to forward progress and then develop a coherent approach to overcoming them.
  • The need for true strategy work is episodic, not necessarily annual.
  • A good strategy defines a critical challenge.
  • Strategies focus resources, energy and attention on some objectives rather than others.
  • All analysis starts with the consideration of what may happen, including unwelcome events. I would not care to fly in an airplane designed by people who focused only on an image of a flying airplane and never considered modes of failure.
  • A great deal of strategy work is trying to figure out what is going on.
  • Slowing growth is a problem for Wall Street but is a natural stage in the development of any noncancerous entity.
  • A diagnosis is generally denoted by metaphor, analogy or reference to a diagnosis or framework that has already been accepted.
  • A guiding policy creates advantage by anticipating the actions and reactions of others, by reducing the complexity and ambiguity in the situation, by exploiting the leverage inherent in concentrating effort on a pivotal or decisive aspect of the situation, and by creating policies and actions that are coherent, each building on the other rather than cancelling one another out.
  • The coordination of action provides the most basic source of leverage or advantage available in strategy.
  • Anticipation simply means considering the habits, preferences, and policies of others as well as various inertias and constraints on change.
  • A master strategist is a designer.
  • The truth is that many companies, especially large complex companies, don’t really have strategies. At the core, strategy is about focus, and most complex organizations don’t focus their resources. Instead, they pursue multiple goals at once, not concentrating enough resources to produce a breakthrough in any one of them.
  • A competitive advantage is interesting when one has insights into ways to increase its value.
  • The first step in breaking organizational culture inertia is simplification.
  • To change the group’s norms, the alpha member must be replaced by someone who expresses different norms and values.
  • Planning and planting a garden is always more interesting and stimulating than weeding it, but without constant weeding and maintenance the pattern that defines a garden — the imposition of a special order on nature — fades away and disappears.
  • In a changing world, a good strategy must have an entrepreneurial component. That is, it must embody some ideas or insights into new combinations of resources for dealing with new risks and opportunities.
  • Making a list is a basic tool for overcoming our own cognitive limitations. The list itself counters forgetfulness. The act of making a list forces us to reflect on the relative urgency and importance of issues. And making a list of “things to do now” rather than “things to worry about” forces us to resolve concerns into actions.
  • When we do come up with an idea, we tend to spend most of our energy justifying it rather than questioning it.
  • A new alternative should flow from a reconsideration of the facts of the situation, and it should also address the weaknesses of any already developed alternatives. The creation of new, higher-quality alternatives requires that one try hard to “destroy” any existing alternatives, exposing their fault lines and internal contradictions.

4/5

Things I Think I’ve Learned: The First 90 Days of Being A Parent

Things I Think I’ve Learned: The First 90 Days of Being A Parent

I’ve been a parent for just over 90 days now. It’s easy to think one’s anecdotal experiences are empirically-verified facts about the reality of parenting, child development and how it all works, so take these observations with the same level of skepticism I have in recounting them. In no particular order, and solely from the perspective of a new father, here is a list of things I think I’ve learned so far about being a parent (formatted as bullet points this list would be extra annoying to read, but understand each paragraph is a separate idea):

There is an unreal adrenaline rush that occurs the first time you see your kid. It last about ten days. During that time, you are on a cloud and you feel invincible. When people start asking you, days after the fact, “Are you getting any sleep?” you don’t get why it matters, because you aren’t and you still feel GREAT!

Even if you think a successful relationship depends upon avoiding the temptation to manage one another’s emotions, your spouse will be going through some extreme hormonal swings and you may find it necessary to “slap” (verbally) some sense into them from time to time and in so doing, manage their emotions. Betraying your deeply held principles doesn’t feel right, but it does seem expedient.

Finding a “balance” of responsibilities with your spouse vis a vis the new child, housework, any pets or other dependents you own and maintain, work, “play”, etc., is obviously subjective and dependent upon your previous arrangements and ideas of what works, but it’s going to get flipped completely upside down and you’ll take turns feeling like life isn’t “fair” while occasionally stumbling upon a seemingly stable equilibrium that will work for awhile and then get blown apart, forcing you to scramble to find another.

You will quickly learn what is in fact essential for you to survive day-to-day, and it will probably involve the same kind of activities the child is engaged in– eating, sleeping, eliminating. You will convince yourself early on you “can’t function” without some kind of release or chance to relax, but the reality seems to be that if you just dedicate yourself to this mindless caregiving quest and cover these essentials, you’ll eventually be too tired to notice how little fun you’re having, but manage to get through your days quite satisfied with what you’ve spent your time on regardless. That being said, if you can ever find the odd thirty minutes for a mindless diversion, take it. It will be deeply satisfying.

A baby is an enormous time sink. You will suddenly understand why your friends, whose competencies and adequacies as adult human beings you began to question when they seemed to falter in the face of new parenthood, totally deserve some slack. You will begin to deeply question what kind of abuse or neglect of one’s family a person is engaged in who seems to be unphased by this humongous new responsibility in their life (in fact, you’ll find the theme is common that those who seem to balance it all without skipping a beat are shirking their duties and not admitting to the fact that someone else is shouldering the burden for them.)

It really does take a village. But not a democratic, collectivist political one. Having family and friends nearby to pitch in is invaluable. There’s no way to appreciate (besides reciprocating) what help they offer you in this time with cooking, cleaning and other care-giving. Doing a new parent a solid like that just has no equivalence to a non-parent in some kind of scrape. If you have relatives willing to live-in and help, let them, even if it means gritting your teeth when they interact with your child in unapproved ways, or do annoying things like treat your kitchen the way they treat their own, etc.

Most parents think they’re doing the best they can, know they don’t have all the answers, but really don’t have the bandwidth (emotional, physical, or otherwise) or desire to compare notes and try to “optimize” the parenting function. Beyond the odd sharing of “tips and tricks”, you might be surprised to learn that other parents really don’t want to explain their philosophy (or defend it), don’t want to learn what you do and why and they most certainly don’t want to be judged in any way, shape or form for the parenting choices they make. Having a new child gives one a completely new perspective on “live and let live” about a subject that comes to be deeply meaningful and personal, the perfect kind of subject for making one anxious about how others perform!

Your life has completely changed at this point, and there’s no going back to the way things were. For the father, this may or may not be a shock, but if the act of creating a child was willful and intentional, it probably doesn’t feel like a big loss and if anything is quite a profound and exciting realization to have. Life Before Child is relatively meaningless and boring by comparison. But for the mother, whether she thinks she was ready to be one or not, it is likely to prove quite devastating for her to accept that she’s never going to be a “maiden” again, as one friend puts it, and even if her LBC was equally meaningless (clubbing, being “young and sexy”, etc.), the stakes are perceived as higher for a variety of reasons for the woman and so this identity crisis can be quite sudden and jarring. Empathy is called for, if you have the little extra energy required to give it.

Your friendships will change with people. You now have friends with kids, who you understand a lot better and vice versa, friends without kids who are planning to have them, and friends without kids who don’t want them and will seem to be going their own way.

Back to the time sink thing– say goodbye to your library, your writing habit, and perhaps even your gym membership and anything else you do for recreation, at least for a little while. You’re just not going to find time for these things on a consistent basis and the more you try to, the more frustrated you will become. Let it go. They’ll be waiting for you when you get back.

Infants are very similar to puppies. Extremely needy. Extremely cute. But easy to trick yourself into thinking you made some kind of mistake if you project the present level of care (and lack of meaningful feedback) forward infinitely into the future and not expecting things to change and develop, as they will.

You will develop all kinds of arcane knowledge related to your infant’s cues and behavior signals which will essentially be useless 12-18 months later when their cognitive ability has significantly improved and they can verbalize most of their needs to you without confusion. The good news is your memory is so shot from lack of sleep that you probably weren’t going to have a solid long-term memory of any of this stuff taking up space anyway. This is probably why most people who have parented infants but are now in their middle age don’t seem to have many useful memories to draw upon about this period of time that can help you navigate it via best practices.

Also like raising a puppy, people around you will project their needs and most awkward insecurities onto your child (tabula rasa?) and it can be both terrifying and annoying to watch this adult “misbehavior” unfold. Your infant, who is new to everything around them and understands very little of not only what is going on, but its own behavioral responses to it, will nonetheless manage to “be angry with”, “be happy with”, “be faking crying (intentional emotional manipulation)”, “be so smart”, “be a little crowd pleaser,” “be so in love with”, etc., your parents, siblings, relatives, friends, neighbors and perfect strangers. Yet, none of these things are true besides these people wanting them to be so!

It does seem to be good, for you and your infant, to get on some kind of a predictable schedule… but it won’t always work and you can’t fool yourself into believing there is one when there isn’t one, or the infant into cooperating when they don’t want to.

It takes longer to do everything (time sink x3!), you can still get to where you need to be on time, you just need to start earlier and build in some time for a sudden diaper change, etc.

If you have any health concerns with your child, it’s worth seeking multiple opinions before acting, especially if the recommended action is rather drastic.

Infants follow Murphy’s Law, especially with regards to needing to feed at unplanned times or devastating diapers and outerwear when you least expect it.

You can get into a real dark place, really quick, if you start convincing yourself you can’t do simple caregiving things for yourself before tending to your child such as eating, peeing, taking a 5 minute shower, etc. That being said, get used to holding your pee, finishing your meals in increments (and/or starting them late), and so on.

And now that the Little Lion has awoken from his nap, this post has found it’s most logical endpoint!

Blast From The Past: Mike Cernovich’s “Epistemological” Problems With 60 Minutes (@Cernovich)

Blast From The Past: Mike Cernovich’s “Epistemological” Problems With 60 Minutes (@Cernovich)

This is from 2008, from the now defunct “Mencius Moldbug” blog:

In 1933, public opinion could still be positively impressed by group calisthenics displaying the face of the Leader, eagles shooting lightning bolts, etc, etc. By today’s standards, the public of 1933 (both German and American) was a seven-year-old boy. Today’s public is more of a thirteen-year-old girl (a smart, plucky, well-meaning girl), and guiding it demands a very different tone.

You are not a thirteen-year-old girl. So how did you fall for this bizarre circus? How can any mature, intelligent, and educated person put their faith in this gigantic festival of phoniness?

Think about it. You read the New York Times, or similar, on a regular basis. It tells you this, it tells you that, it reports that “scientists say” X or Y or Z. And there is always a name at the top of the article. It might be “Michael Luo” or “Celia Dugger” or “Heather Timmons” or “Marc Lacey” or… the list, is, of course, endless.

Do you know Michael or Celia or Heather or Marc? Are they your personal friends? How do you know that they aren’t pulling your chain? How do you know that the impression you get from reading their stories is the same impression that you would have if you, personally, saw everything that Michael or Celia or Heather or Marc saw? Why in God’s green earth do you see their “stories” as anything but an attempt to “manipulate procedural outcomes” by guiding you, dear citizen, to interpret the world in a certain way and deliver your vote accordingly?

The answer is that you do not trust them, personally. Bylines are not there for you. They are there for the journalists themselves. If the Times, like the Economist, lost its bylines and attributed all its stories to “a New York Times reporter,” your faith would not change one iota. You trust Michael and Celia and Heather and Marc, in other words, because they are speaking (quite literally) ex cathedra.

So you trust the institution, not the people. Very well. Let’s repeat the question: what is it about the New York Times that you find trustworthy? The old blackletter logo? The motto? Suppose that instead of being “reporters” of “the New York Times,” Michael and Celia and Heather and Marc were “cardinals” of “the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?” Would this render them more credible, less credible, or about as credible? Suppose, instead, they were “professors” at “Stanford University?” Would this increase or decrease your trust?

For a hardened denialist such as myself, who has completely lost his faith in all these institutions, attempting to understand the world through the reports and analysis produced by the Cathedral is like trying to watch a circus through the camera on a cell phone duct-taped to the elephant’s trunk. It can be done, but it helps to have plenty of external perspective.

And for anyone starting from a position of absolute faith in the Cathedral, there is simply no other source of information against which to test it. You are certainly not going to discredit the Times or Stanford by reading the Times or going to Stanford, any more than you will learn about the historical Jesus by attending a Latin Mass.

News Media Can Not Be Objective

News Media Can Not Be Objective

A friend in the financial industry sent over an article that began,

Hedge funds run by women have outperformed a broad benchmark of alternative asset managers over the past five years, raising fresh questions about why there are so few female portfolio managers.

This is a great example of the “fake news” phenomenon and will serve to illustrate why news media is not and can not be objective in its presentation of facts.

First, news gathering and publishing is part of the discipline of history– it deals primarily with events and information that have already taken place, even while commenting on or attempting to predict events yet to happen. When you open up a newspaper, you are reading articles about things that happened in the past, albeit the recent past. The only difference between what you read in a history book and what you read in a newspaper is how much time has passed between your present reality and the events portrayed in the book or article. In a news article, that time period may be hours, days, weeks or even a few years; in a history book, it may be decades, is often centuries and is sometimes millennia.

Second, as a specimen of history, news gathering and publishing suffers from the same philosophical problem that history in general does, namely, developing a criterion for selecting meaningful facts and data to tell a particular story from the essentially infinite quantity of such facts and figures available. To write history, you first need a person (the author) who has a set of values or curiosity that dictate his desire to explore a particular historical topic. Once he has selected a topic, he has to come up with a theory about the topic and then use the theory to select from and interpret the available data to tell a story about the topic. The news journalist works the same way– start with a person, the journalist (or their editor, advertiser, owner or other primary influencer) who uses their values and judgment to determine what stories need to be told, then, using pre-existing theories of how the world works, select and interpret relevant data to tell the story that needs to be told.

History does not write itself, and neither does the news. Historians write history, journalists write the news, and some innate values and beliefs are necessary in each to cause sufficient motivation to inspire the act of writing and publishing in the first place. Given the motivation, pre-existing logical theories of cause and effect are necessary to determine which facts and data belong to the story and which do not and how they are relevant. At no point in this process up to this point, or after it, is any “objectivity” involved.

Returning now to the example of the story my financial friend shared with me, what can we make of it? A few questions and observations come to mind, using the framework above:

  • Why (what theory/value) is the proportion of female versus male money managers a story that needs to be told?
  • Why was a five year period of data used for observing the phenomenon of relative outperformance?
  • How did the female active managers perform against a genderless, passive index strategy?
  • Were any male active managers able to outperform the broad benchmark used? Were they able to beat the female managers’ performance?
  • Do women want to run hedge funds?
  • Is there is a systemic reason for female fund managers outperforming a benchmark that is persistent and not attributable to luck?

Of course, none of these are addressed in this news story. That is because the job of interpreting the news falls on the consumer of the news, not the news itself– for the news to attempt to interpret itself would be a highly problematic and morally suspect enterprise!

Why Do Some Families Lack Clean Water?

Why Do Some Families Lack Clean Water?

There is an ad pre-rolling on Youtube I have seen several times now that features Matt Damon for Stella Artois/Water.org pitching for some supposed concern they have for “solving the world water crisis.” Ignoring the fact that this phraseology makes it sound like a sudden act of nature and not a socio-cultural phenomenon that so many people around the world go without “clean water”, whatever the hell that means, this ad strikes me as utter bullshit worth commenting on for the following reason:

Damon says they SA/Water.org have partnered to bring clean water to “women and their families” in such stricken Third World environments. Why “women and their families”? Why wouldn’t it be “men and their families”? Don’t these women’s families include men? If so, why aren’t the men doing anything to provide the “women and their (the men’s) families” with clean water? Since women are just as capable as men (Feminist Truth), why aren’t women in these countries able to provide clean water on their own?

Why is clean water something that people in certain countries can do themselves, but in other places, we need Matt Damon and a beer company to shill so people will help out?

This is a fraud on a variety of levels, as indicated by the fact that Matt Damon is a part of the production.

Review – The Vaccine Book (#vaccination, #health)

Review – The Vaccine Book (#vaccination, #health)

The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child

by Dr. Robert W. Sears, published 2011

How many people who are “pro-vaccine” have read a book about vaccines?

How many people are aware of the frequency, severity and treatability of diseases which have vaccines available before deciding to take the vaccine? How many people understand the common, rare and potentially severe side effects, the physical components in the vaccines, the method by which the vaccine is manufactured and the availability of competing vaccine brands and production methods?

How many people understand the common vectors of each vaccine treatable disease and thus how to potentially avoid exposure to it entirely?

Who is likely to be better read on the subject of vaccines (even if you argued that they are ultimately misinformed)– your average vaccine taker, or your average vaccine skeptic?

Dr. Bob Sears is “pro-vaccine”– he believes vaccines have done more good than harm in the history of medicine and that they are an important part of individual and public health practices and he believes the standard vaccine schedules for infants and adults should be followed with few exceptions. So why is he having his medical license put under review because he supposedly gave a “non-evidence based” recommendation to a family to not vaccinate their child?

Because it’s hard to imagine a world in which a doctor would come under the scrutiny of authorities for giving a pro-intervention recommendation to a patient that was “non-evidence based”, perhaps we can assume that it is because Dr. Bob has challenged the medical establishment on the most fundamental level possible by writing a book which posits that patients should be informed about their choices and should ultimately provide knowledgeable consent before proceeding with a potentially dangerous treatment regimen such as infant vaccination. Sadly, if you ask most doctors to explain why they want to treat you the way that they do, what you get is not “evidence based” dialog about your choices, but sarcastic reminders about whose medical school plaque is on the wall.

It’s sometimes more like a priesthood than a profession, even though that doesn’t necessarily mean their advice is wrong or should be ignored.

So that is the controversy, but what does Dr. Sears actually say about vaccines?

The first twelve chapters of the book are dedicated to one disease each and its respective vaccine; the remaining chapters explore vaccine research, vaccine safety, vaccine ingredients, vaccine side effects and other topics.

The disease chapters outline the common course of each disease including symptoms, severity and treatment, followed by the common vaccine options available on the market including their preparation method and ingredients and common and rare side effects. There is a “pro” and “con” section exploring reasons to consider administering the vaccine and reasons why people/parents have not wanted to take the vaccine, and then Dr. Sears weighs in with his own take on how important the vaccine is. Each chapter helpfully summarizes the information with simple boxed call outs indicating whether the disease is common, severe and treatable (without a vaccine).

The common/severe/treatable approach is interesting. I found a lot of the diseases covered not-threatening because of the various combinations they “checked” in each category: a disease might be severe and treatable, and not common, or common, but not severe and treatable. The worst combination would be common, severe and untreatable– I don’t remember any disease with that profile. Just the opposite, in fact. According to Dr. Sears, with thanks mostly to widespread vaccination, most of the diseases mentioned are not common (to the point that they’re actually or practically eradicated in the US/West) so there is almost no chance of catching it, vaccinated or not. Several others are typically so minor in their symptoms, especially in infants (versus adults), that they might be mistaken for a common cold if caught. And those that are potentially severe seem to be treatable with antibiotics in most cases, especially if diagnosed early in the course of the illness.

That being said, some of these diseases have the potential to put the victim in the hospital if the disease is not checked early, or it happens to be especially challenging to an individual’s immune system. In such a situation, even with a full recovery and no lasting damage the experience itself is likely to be stressful, costly, traumatic for the child and heartbreaking for the parents to watch– it’s not a joke as far as risks go, and it needs to be considered seriously. And a few of the diseases, if caught and if particularly intense in the course of the disease, do risk permanent neurological or organ damage even if successfully treated. That’s a terrifying possibility!

Reading between the lines a little bit here, Dr. Sears seems pretty clear that whatever risks there are for an unvaccinated child in contracting and fighting any of these diseases, they are even smaller for a child who is breastfed and avoids day care or other germ-ridden public child environments. Assuming this is the course a parent is following with their infant (as we are), it seems a lot more like a judgement call between accepting the risks of rare disease complications the child is likely never to get, or accepting the risks of vaccine side effects (short and long-term) which are inevitable and seemingly random in their frequency and severity. There are several diseases/vaccines mentioned which simply pose no risk whatsoever (chickenpox), or for which the illness can not be contracted by the infant without an infected mother who transmits it during pregnancy or birth, or for which the illness and vaccine do not become relevant until adolescence or adulthood (such as HPV, a sexually-transmitted disease). Taking what’s left, and given our commitment to breastfeeding and homecare/homeschooling, it just doesn’t look like vaccines make a lot of sense for our family.

That was the part of the book I struggled with the most, when Dr. Sears recommended a vaccine not for the infant’s safety, but for public health reasons, such as to maintain low prevalence of a disease across a population, or to protect at-risk family members or caregivers who could catch the disease from the infant and have a more difficult time fighting it (for example, Dr. Sears talks about how a pregnant school teacher could catch a disease from unvaccinated students that could harm her unborn child). This is all good information to have and consider in the event of one of these complicating circumstances actually being relevant to a family’s situation, and certainly the “moral” issues are worth considering and debating, but it seems clear that if the question is simply put as “Does this vaccine represent a worthwhile risk/reward profile to the individual being vaccinated?” the answer we arrived at was often “No.” That’s a very different question from “Is it our job to take health risks with our child to protect other people/children from health risks?”

Interestingly, smallpox has been eradicated but the vaccine is no longer given to preserve herd immunity. Instead it is controlled by the US government as a national defense reserve. In identical situations where a disease, such as polio, has been practically eradicated, Dr. Sears still recommends getting the vaccine for public health reasons, but with smallpox there is no suggestion that the public needs to keep getting vaccinated to be protected from an eradicated illness. Why the different logic?

Another item I made special note of was the relationship between traveling, domestically and internationally, and vaccination of an infant. Dr. Sears is explicit in saying that flying around on airplanes is not an easy way to catch a vaccine-preventable disease, and that there is essentially no risk of this happening for travel within the US, and there is very little chance of this happening for travel outside the US. He does suggest that people who are essentially “living in the bush”, doing missionary work in remote locations or areas where these diseases are endemic in the population, are at special risk for some of these illnesses, but again this doesn’t apply to us because we aren’t going to be traveling to poverty-ridden areas or where access to clean water might be an issue. It was comforting to know that travel as part of our lifestyle doesn’t really need to be changed because of our decision not to follow the recommended infant vaccination schedule.

The other thing I wanted to mention is Dr. Sears’s opinion about the state of vaccine safety research. In short, he says a lot of the studies are wanting. Here are some especially troubling quotes:

Some vaccines aren’t studied alone. Instead, they are given along with several other vaccines, so there is no way to know what their actual side effects may be.

[…]

Most vaccine side effects are monitored for a short time via parent questionnaires.

[…]

Out of the twenty-three major studies done to date that show no link between vaccines and autism, eighteen have some conflict of interest involving vaccine manufacturers. Similarly, the addition of the hepatitis B vaccine to the infant schedule was driven largely by research done by doctors who worked for the vaccine manufacturers.

[…]

What about the statistical chance that your child might get a severe, life-threatening case of one of these diseases? To my knowledge, that information has never been determined accurately through precise scientific statistical analysis. [… Dr. Sears estimates these risks as follows:] A very rough total of 55,000 cases of severe diseases each year in children. We know that the current US population of kids twelve and under is about 60 million. Dividing 60 million by 55,000 cases means that each child has a 1 in 1090 chance of suffering a severe case of a vaccine-preventable illness over the first twelve years of life. Note that flu and rotavirus are responsible for most of these cases. If one were to run the numbers without those two diseases, the risk of suffering a severe case of one of the uncommon disease is only about 1 in 6000. Most severe pediatric cases occur during the first two years of life. An estimation of severe cases in children two years and younger would be about 34,000 cases divided by 10 million kids, or about 1 in 300.

[…]

What is very clear, however, is that vaccines have triggered autism in a very small number of children. A phrase I recently heard sums it up very well: Vaccines don’t cause autism… except when they do.

[…]

If we were to throw out all research that has some conflict of interest, we would actually be left with very little on either side of the [vaccine-autism] debate […] the right type of research has not been done yet.

In addition, here is what Dr. Sears would consider to be the minimum standard for a valid safety research study, which might be helpful for people trying to evaluate various studies in making up their mind about the risks posed by diseases and their vaccines:

  • Prospective: the study group is selected and then followed in real time. Virtually all current research has been retrospective, looking back into the past at data on groups of children who have since grown up (for which the outcome is already known).
  • Randomized: test subjects are selected at random and placed in either the study or the placebo group in a random manner to avoid bias.
  • Placebo-controlled: a study group exists that is not receiving the treatment in question (in this case, vaccines). This is the primary way to be able to draw conclusions with a high degree of accuracy.
  • Double-blind study: the researchers and the study subjects don’t know who is receiving the test treatment (vaccines). This prevents bias as the researchers observe and collect, and the test subjects report, data.
  • Large-scale research: this is needed for a study to be considered statistically significant and to prove the findings aren’t simply due to chance.

Interestingly, he explains why these studies haven’t been performed to date, and I am not surprised to report it is not an example of “market failure”! The government, as usual, plays a big role here.

A final note: There are several instances where Dr. Sears refers to a disease which has been practically eradicated, but which in recent memory has experienced a sudden outbreak in a localized community before being contained. Aside from a generic geographic description, such as “a neighborhood in Ohio” or something like that, there is no demographic data given about these outbreaks, if it is even collected and publicly known. Wouldn’t it be interesting to know that? If these periodic outbreaks are restricted to specific socio-economic populations, wouldn’t that change the implied incidence of risk for the population as a whole? I’d want to know that information, but the current state of medical research in our country considers this unscientific and irrelevant, so much so that it is politically incorrect to wonder about it. How can facts be offensive? It seems like there is an attempt to control political dialogue here, which I find disturbing.

This book has many virtues but its greatest one is that the information is both comprehensive and well organized, while still remaining succinct. It’s very easy to approach the question of vaccination, its risks and benefits, from a number of angles and find all of them anticipated by this book, and more.

4/5

Why I Am Not Doing My Annual Review/Planning Session This Year

Why I Am Not Doing My Annual Review/Planning Session This Year

Although I have never been a resolution-maker (phony!), I have long-been an annual planner, and since 2014 my efforts have taken an explicitly formal yet evolving shape. Depending on my other priorities and distractions, I typically begin reflecting on my year-past in late December and finish up writing out some thoughts and expectations for the year-coming by mid-January; I then set a calendar reminder to circle back mid-year in June to see how I am doing and recalibrate if necessary. In this way, I have generally made steady progress on a number of annual and life goals over the last three years.

The heart of the process involves the following steps:

  1. Flick through my calendar for the year-past and review major activities logged therein
  2. Sit in quiet and dig into memories of significant experiences and other events not captured on the calendar
  3. Write out an essay-form reflection on these accomplishments and the thoughts and emotions they evoke
  4. Lay out a new set of goals or achievements to be accomplished in the coming year as a list
  5. Write a brief summary of the anticipated path to achieving these goals via specific behaviors, processes and routines in the coming year

To this I added last year the “mind-mapping” practice suggested by a friend, wherein one gets out a blank sheet of paper, writes some words for major categories of life activities (I used Relationships, Career, Wealth, Mind/Body (Health) and Travel/Lifestyle) which are encircled and then additional related words are “bubbled” out from each category in a randomized chain of thought. It creates a neat visual representation of your ideas, especially if you use size to emphasize weight of concern, or can find ways to draw linkages between related ideas on disparate categories. It’s also a lot quicker to scan for meaning than an essay. I found combining this practice with my essay writing practice gave me a more complete picture of my yearly accomplishments.

I found listing out what I had done to be therapeutic. One thing I struggle with is giving myself credit for what I accomplish. I always want more and want to do more, and so it’s easy for me to convince myself I haven’t done enough, even when I have done everything on an arbitrary list! Writing it all down creates a volume of evidence that is hard to ignore: all the trips, all the interactions with friends and family, all the meals planned, the workouts at the gym, the money saved and invested, the skills developed, etc. It’s harder to look at that list and conclude “I didn’t get anything done last year!”

Another interesting aspect of this practice is I have a record I can look back on and see:

  • how long did it take me to accomplish a particular goal?
  • did I remain persistent if I didn’t get it done when I first wanted to?
  • did I decide to give up on a goal and if so, why? (did I realize it wasn’t important?)
  • what themes exist that are consistent across time with regards to goals I have set?
  • how am I “different” or “the same” in what I am trying to accomplish from year to year?

There are some things I have failed to achieve for several years now but which I still desire. There are other things I thought I wanted but decided weren’t important or worth prioritizing at some point along and consciously let them go in order to simplify my life. And there are some things I have been so stupendously efficient with that I’ve made progress each year on another “tier” of related achievements such that I am much farther along in the space of a few years than I would’ve thought when setting out on my first related activity some years ago.

Another reflection and motivation process I considered doing this year was suggested by another friend. Basically, I was to write myself a letter, dated January 1, 2018, which outlined all the different goals I had achieved throughout 2017 with explanations of the processes or routines I used to achieve them. For example, I accomplished X by spending Y minutes every week on Z. The idea is that one can not only consciously envision these tasks as already completed (so you get the sense they can be done) but you have also given yourself the how-to manual you can use to achieve them. It’s like having a crystal ball you didn’t realize you programmed. I really liked this idea and was prepared to implement it.

Somewhere along the line between early December, when I first started outlining my annual review process, and today, nearly at the end of the first month of 2017, I seem to have completely lost my motivation to get any of this done and so I have essentially given up on it!

I have a lot of friends who excel at personal organization, motivation and self-development. Most of these friends now have children of their own, and their reports have been consistent: children will dramatically change your personal productivity. I have to admit I discounted these reports quite a bit. I thought I was even better organized, even more productive, so it wouldn’t affect me, or at least as much or in the ways it affected them.

Simply put, I was wrong. Being extra sleep-deprived has sapped my drive. It’s required me to take more down-time where I do nothing too intense so I can mentally, emotionally and physically recover. Being on-call for my Little Lion has made it harder to focus on activities which require dedicated focus to make progress. In fact, it’s often impossible to even imagine starting such activities lest I get immediately interrupted and feel frustrated in the process. And now and for the foreseeable future, pitching in on tasks the Wolf could normally handle by herself means I divert a significant fraction of “me” time each week toward things other than me. So I am not superman, and my experience here has been quite similar to my friends just as they predicted or said to expect.

But having my Little Lion has also been incredibly motivating in the sense that it’s given me a new, concrete purpose to pursue various activities, from the minute daily upkeep stuff to the big life-planning stuff. And it’s definitely made me more resilient and less prone to complaining or feeling bad for myself; where I couldn’t always see it before, it is now abundantly obvious to me that “no one is coming to the rescue”, and if I don’t do what I have to do, it doesn’t get done and he, the Wolf and myself all suffer for it.

So I don’t think that is what is going on here, though it makes for a convenient and wildly coincidental excuse!

I am still thinking about this so I can’t say anything for sure, but I will take a stab at what I think is going on. I think what’s going on is that I have built a process here that is almost an end unto itself in terms of the energy and investment required to make use of it. It takes too long. It requires too much thought. It encompasses too much potential behavior and activity in the future. It seems to leave little room for spontaneity. It takes away from too much of the “living of life” I’d like to be doing right this very moment. It is, in a word, overwhelming.

This will seem like a tangent but here goes: recently the same friend who was proposing the letter-writing exercise (which is, ironically, probably a dramatic step towards simplifying this process if I did JUST that, rather than adding it to my existing process…) was talking about how he heard Tim Ferriss on one of his podcasts make some remark about how he has kept a nutrition and workout log for himself every single day of his life since he was 16 (or something, I don’t remember… it was a long amount of time). Essentially, Ferriss could pick any day since he was 16 (or whenever!) and tell you exactly what he ate and what workout he did and what weight he managed to lift, if you asked. My friend thought this was an incredible example of discipline, organization and data-gathering.

And truly, it is. But what of it? How is this valuable? What on Earth could Ferriss do with this data besides impress someone like my friend, or scratch some strange “autistic” itch of his with regards to data-fying his own life? How much healthier, more fit, etc., is he than the average health nut or fitness buff because of this practice?

There is a difference between exhaustive and exhausting. I would say this is exhausting. I would say my annual review process has become exhausting. So I can look back at how my goals have changed since 2014. Why besides personal vanity do I think this is valuable? “Oh look at who I was and what I am now!” Some self-help gurus say you should stop comparing yourself to others and only compare yourself to yourself. “Transcend yourself.” If you want to compete, compete against your personal best.

No matter how many times you transcend yourself, you’re still you. You’re still here. Whichever version of yourself you are this very moment, that’s the one you’ve got to work with. You got a leg up on You-Of-A-Year-Ago. Congratulations. One should HOPE one has a leg-up on someone who is a full year behind! What have you done for yourself lately?

I’ve been fighting this battle for a few years now, mostly with myself, and on a number of fronts, this battle of telling myself I should be doing certain things to accomplish certain goals. I tell myself I want to be a “highly productive person”, and I look around and imagine that all HPP have goals, do annual planning routines, etc. Worked fairly well for me up to this point doing it the way I had done it, and I can see people who seem to accomplish even more than I, and I can imagine they’re even more intense about it. So I tell myself to do a little bit more, push a little harder, be a little more consistent. But each effort in that direction seems to be pushing up against my Diminishing Marginal Return boundary, because I am becoming less and less a HPP and more and more a Person-Striving-To-Be-A-HPP in the process.

I’ve been doing this with writing for the last ten years, blogging in particular. I used to write/blog A LOT when I was younger. I felt like I had a lot to say. I really enjoyed hearing myself think. I’d go back and re-read my own material and get a chuckle. Oh, it was good! Then, something happened. I realized a lot of what I was saying had been said before. I realized I wasn’t a professional writer so I was mostly writing for my own amusement. I realized, I had a lot of other stuff I wanted to do besides write my thoughts down somewhere! Writing and blogging slowly became not something I did because I felt motivated and passionate about my writing subject, but a habit I stuck to because I convinced myself it was some integral part of my identity.

My annual planning has taken a similar turn. It is mostly something I am keeping up with to convince myself I am that HPP I think I want to be and can become if only I do things like this. It is not so easy to sit down and do it. It isn’t coming naturally to me. Yes, I am tired right now, but no, I still get a lot of other stuff done despite that, because I want to do those things.

Instead of doing my annual planning process this year, I have decided to write about why I am not doing it. I felt like I needed to give myself permission to let it go, and this is how I chose to do that.

Your Rich Ancestry (#family, #heritage, #wealth, #inheritance)

Your Rich Ancestry (#family, #heritage, #wealth, #inheritance)

To my Little Lion,

We’ve been reading up on the RIE (Resources for Infant Educarers) philosophy of Magda Gerber in more depth since you were born. We were already familiar with the basic principles from observing practicing friends, reading the introductory literature and hosting a RIE-class at our home before you were born. But now we’re eagerly doubling down to make sure we really understand it. The information is digested quite differently when a child like you isn’t a theoretical possibility but a living, breathing actuality. We want to try to get it right.

One of the things Magda Gerber stresses is that the most important thing we as your parents have to teach you is who we are as people. Everything we do and say in front of you you will be paying attention to and learning from. You’ll be internalizing ideas about what is normal, what is desirable, what is ideal or typical for parents, for adults, for people who are more powerful than you in various ways, etc. You’ll also be looking at us as examples of how to relate to oneself, and to others– is it with compassion, empathy, respect and benevolence? Or is it a pattern of vindictiveness, aggressive assertiveness, leverage and manipulation?

We feel relieved that this is really all we need to teach you, although it’s an epic task by itself! It makes sense to us also that this is really all we CAN teach you. If it was a parent’s job to teach their child everything they needed to know, every parent would be bound to fail from the get go. No parents are omniscient because no people are, and parents vary in their ability to communicate and educate about key ideas. But teaching who we are is something any parent can do and will do, as it happens normally in the course of living one’s life. We’re going to be mindful of this reality as we learn more about you, and you learn more about us.

One thing may give you pause, though– we will know almost everything about you, because we will have known you since the moment you were born. But we have lived for several decades before you arrived, and even if we do not mean or want to keep secrets, we can not possibly recount every detail of our lives as they existed prior to your arrival. We will try to share with you what we think is important and worth knowing, but you should understand that there is some bias inherent in this selection and try as we might, we may not always be objective in the telling of the facts. As always, it will be up to you to ask questions and make up your own mind. We hope we can be faithful partners in that process.

Now, there are other things that we can teach you and that we want to teach you, especially things we feel especially well-suited to provide guidance and our individual experience about. Your mother, the Wolf, is a talented home cook despite a lack of professional training, and she is eager to share her skill and passion with you if you’re interested. Your father is a bibliophile and has many books and stories to share with you, and years of methodology on how to extract the most juice from the pulp. These are just a few examples, there are many others.

Aside from teaching you about ourselves and modeling what it is we can model for you, you have a wealth of other family members and family friends who can enrich your life with other skills and wisdom as well.

Your Auntie Lionesses are students of film and photography, business and marketing, athleticism and foreign languages. One has picked up the guitar, which your father has never managed to learn but which he just might if you wanted to give it a go together. They can model great compassion and kindness for you.

Your Grandpa Lion is a mechanical person. He didn’t manage to impart many of these skills to your father, but he can probably be convinced to make good on that missed opportunity by teaching you how to use simple tools and DIY around the house, how to work on cars and motorcycles and other things with engines and transmissions. He’s also an outstanding businessman and leader. He knows how to rally excellent people to a cause he believes in and drive the effort forward to a successful conclusion, a timeless social skill you will benefit from immensely if you can learn it from him. Your Grandma Lion is extremely artistic and creative, with a strong eye for design. She can teach you about how to create a warm, decorated home environment, how to develop style in your clothing. Your Grandma Wolf can teach you about what it is like to grow up in another country, and the experience of leaving home behind to start over in some place unfamiliar. She can model what it means to work hard, which means getting on with life and its challenges and doing it with a smile. She can help you grow up to be bilingual so you’ll have an immediate advantage in your future travels, business opportunities and relationships.

Your mother and father have so may close personal friends with endless things you can learn about from them. One is a pioneer with his family, literally hacking a living out of a remote jungle location far from us. Another is learned in the ways of artisanal butchery and can teach you all about the cultivation and processing of nutritious animal proteins. We have friends who have had corporate careers, and those who are entrepreneurs. We know people who are incredible professional investors and people who are thrifty amateurs. We know people who know all about how to have a good time and others who know about being serious and keeping one’s head down. If you desire a balanced life, you’ll want to consider all these examples and choose what makes the most sense to you.

You have great grandparents and practically innumerable aunts, uncles and cousins on both sides of your family. Your life is so abundant and rich in so many ways, the biggest challenge you will have will most likely be taking advantage of it all– you won’t have enough time or interest, so you’ll need to learn to be selective.

When people think of education, they primarily think of books and schools. There will be some of that in your learning process, no doubt, but where you can learn the most is by interacting with other capable people. Just like us, they can model who they are and what they know and love and in so doing offer you a wealth of ideas on how to get the most out of your life.

All of this you get just for showing up in life!