Chris Cal

Tag: status/evergreen

  • Become More Demanding

    What being Demanding means

    The undemanding reader asks no questions-and gets no answers.

    Mortimer J. Adler, Charles Van Doren – How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading

    A demanding person tends to manufacture dissatisfaction with reality as it presently appears to them. They do not simply accept what is given. They create a higher-order tension between themselves and the world: this is wrong, confusing, ugly, insufficient, or not yet understood. But that tension moves them into action because, at some level, they want to resolve it. Even if the process feels like irritation, anger, or annoyance, there is still something attractive in it to them. They are drawn to the work of correction.

    A demanding person, then, does not merely notice problems. They actively produce a felt sense that there is a problem here. That produced dissatisfaction is the tension. The tension is higher order because it targets not just what is there but how it is framed, what is taken for granted, and what has been quietly settled without examination. It is the wedge they drive between themselves and the apparent shape of things.

    To be demanding, in this sense, is to refuse the first appearance of adequacy. They like to think it is to make the world answerable to deeper standards of understanding, coherence, truth, or form. A demanding person treats reality not as something to passively accommodate, but as something to question, press against, and improve.

    Being demanding, then, is the attitude of making the world feel like a problem on purpose, because only a world that feels problematic invites improved understanding and better action. The demanding person lives by creating these tensions and then trying to resolve them.

    So how do you become more demanding? 

    “How do I become more demanding” can easily become a project of adopting the behaviors of demanding people which are asking more questions, pushing back more, complaining about frames, refusing to settle. But doing those things without the underlying engine just produces contrarianism or fussiness. The behaviors are downstream of something.

    What’s upstream is the belief that the gap between appearance and reality matters, is closeable, and is worth the discomfort of opening. Without that belief, no amount of behavioral imitation produces the real thing. So the question isn’t really “what should I do” but it’s “what would I have to believe, care about, and tolerate for demandingness to become my natural posture?”

    Start from things you already care about enough to be dissatisfied about

    Manufactured dissatisfaction needs a seed. The seed is usually a domain where you already feel a faint wrongness that you’ve been discharging through acceptance, dismissal, or distraction. Pick one and refuse to discharge it. Sit with the wrongness until it becomes articulable. The muscle you’re building is tolerance for unresolved tension which is the actual bottleneck for most people, not insight.

    Treat your own reactions as data rather than verdicts

    When you feel confused, irritated, bored, or vaguely dissatisfied, that’s information about a gap between your model and the situation. Most people close the gap by suppressing the reaction. The demanding move is to hold the reaction open and ask what it’s pointing at. The reaction itself is often more accurate than the official story being told around it.

    Become suspicious of settledness

    When something feels closed, examined, handled, consensus treat that as a flag, not a conclusion. Not because settledness is always wrong, but because it’s the thing that most reliably hides problems. Ask yourself who decided this was settled? What would have to be true for them to be wrong? What’s the strongest case that the frame itself is off?

    Work on hard-to-vary explanations of your own, not just criticisms of other’s

    This is the piece that separates demandingness from contrarianism. If you’re going to refuse what’s there, you have to be building something that could fail. Otherwise the refusing becomes the whole activity and you never get to the resolution. 

    Protect the enjoyment

    This is the part most advice misses. If the tension becomes only painful, you’ll stop. The demanding person finds something in the friction *attractive*. It could be the sense that the world is alive to them, that there’s work to do, that they’re in real contact with what is. If you’re losing that, you’ve drifted into grinding, and the attitude won’t sustain. Notice what kinds of problems light you up and what kinds only exhaust you.

    Spend time around people who already have it, and let it friction your own standards

    Demandingness is partly contagious. The Bell Labs effect in Hamming’s telling isn’t mystical, it’s that proximity to people with higher standards makes your own apparent adequacy visible as inadequate. You start to manufacture dissatisfaction almost involuntarily because your baseline for “fine” has shifted.

    Resist the failure modes

    The main ones: manufacturing tension about things you can’t or won’t actually work on (this becomes cynicism), making the tension about other people rather than reality (this becomes contempt), demanding from others what you don’t demand from yourself (this becomes tyranny), and refusing to ever resolve tension because resolution feels like settling (this becomes paralysis). The attitude only works if it stays pointed at soluble problems, generates internal work, and closes loops when they’re closable.

    See also:
    Paul Graham’s Taste for Makers
    Edsger Dijkstra’s essay On the Cruelty of Really Teaching Computer Science
    C. Wright Mills’s On Intellectual Craftsmanship
    Richard Hamming’s You and Your Research

    Links to this note:
    Don’t Protect Your Ideas

  • Hölder’s Inequality

    Hölder’s inequality is Young’s inequality lifted from one product to a whole sum of products. Young controls a single mixed term. Hölder controls the total overlap of two sequences. The bridge is normalization.

    The basic problem is this: a product like $𝑥_𝑛 𝑦_𝑛$ mixes two quantities together, and mixed terms are hard to control directly. Hölder’s inequality shows that if you measure each sequence in the right way first, then the total mixed overlap stays bounded.

    Start with Young’s inequality: if \(p,q>1\) satisfy\[\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1,\]then for any \(a,b\ge 0\),\[ab\le \frac{a^p}{p}+\frac{b^q}{q}\]This says that a single product can be bounded by separate \(p\)- and \(q\)-power costs.

    This is the local prototype for everything that follows. Hölder will not invent a new kind of control. It will repeat this same kind of control term-by-term and then add the results together.

    Hölder’s inequality aims to prove that for sequences \(x=(x_n)\in \ell^p\) and \(y=(y_n)\in \ell^q\),\[\sum_{n=1}^\infty |x_n y_n|\le\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty |x_n|^p\right)^{1/p}\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty |y_n|^q\right)^{1/q}\]The left-hand side is a sum of local products. The right-hand side is a product of global sizes.So the problem is to turn many local products into a bound in terms of global norms.

    Here \(\ell^p\) denotes the space of all infinite sequences \(x=(x_n)\) such that\[\sum_{n=1}^\infty |x_n|^p < \infty\]Its associated \(p\)-norm is\[\|x\|_p=\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty |x_n|^p\right)^{1/p}\]So saying \(x\in \ell^p\) means exactly that the sequence has finite \(p\)-normLikewise, \(y\in \ell^q\) means\[\sum_{n=1}^\infty |y_n|^q < \infty,\qquad\|y\|_q=\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty |y_n|^q\right)^{1/q}\]

    The key move is to normalize the sequences. Assume first that neither norm is zero, and define\[a_n=\frac{|x_n|}{\left(\sum_{k=1}^\infty |x_k|^p\right)^{1/p}},\qquadb_n=\frac{|y_n|}{\left(\sum_{k=1}^\infty |y_k|^q\right)^{1/q}}\]Then each sequence has unit size in its own scale:\[\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n^p = 1,\qquad\sum_{n=1}^\infty b_n^q = 1.\]Normalization strips away scale and leaves only shape.

    Now apply Young’s inequality term-by-term:\[a_n b_n \le \frac{a_n^p}{p}+\frac{b_n^q}{q}\]Summing over \(n\) gives\[\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n b_n\le\frac{1}{p}\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n^p+\frac{1}{q}\sum_{n=1}^\infty b_n^q\]Since the normalized sums are both equal to \(1\), this becomes\[\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n b_n\le\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1.\]So once both sequences are normalized, their total overlap cannot exceed \(1\).

    Now undo the normalization:\[a_n b_n=\frac{|x_n|}{\|x\|_p}\frac{|y_n|}{\|y\|_q}=\frac{|x_n y_n|}{\|x\|_p\|y\|_q},\]where\[\|x\|_p=\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty |x_n|^p\right)^{1/p},\qquad\|y\|_q=\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty |y_n|^q\right)^{1/q}\]Therefore\[\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{|x_n y_n|}{\|x\|_p\|y\|_q}\le 1\]Multiplying both sides by \(\|x\|_p\|y\|_q\) yields Hölder’s inequality:\[\sum_{n=1}^\infty |x_n y_n|\le\|x\|_p\|y\|_q\]If one of the norms is zero, then the inequality is immediate.

    The explanatory structure is:\[\text{Young}\;\to\;\text{normalize}\;\to\;\text{apply term-by-term}\;\to\;\text{sum}\;\to\;\text{undo normalization}\;\to\;\text{Hölder}\]

  • The Tangent-line Origin of Young’s Inequality

    Young’s inequality can look like a trick the first time you meet it. But the real source of the inequality is not algebraic cleverness. It comes from a geometric fact about a concave function.

    For \(f(x)=x^{1/p}\) with \(p>1\), the derivative is

    $$f'(x)=\frac{1}{p}x^{1/p-1}.$$

    Notice that this function is concave. It bends downward. Concavity gives us a built-in comparison tool: a concave function always lies below its tangent lines. Because tangent lines are linear, and linear expressions are much easier to work with than curved ones we can replace a curved expression with a linear upper bound.

    At \(x=1\), we have

    $$f(1)=1\qquad\text{and}\qquadf'(1)=\frac{1}{p}.$$

    We choose $𝑥=1$ because the arithmetic becomes especially clean there. The function value is $1$, the slope is $1/𝑝$,and the resulting line will contain the coefficients that later become $1/𝑝$ and $1/𝑞$.

    The tangent line at \(x=a\) has the general form

    $$L(x)=f(a)+f'(a)(x-a).$$

    Taking \(a=1\), this becomes

    $$L(x)=f(1)+f'(1)(x-1).$$

    Substituting the values gives

    $$L(x)=1+\frac{1}{p}(x-1).$$

    Expanding, we get

    $$L(x)=1+\frac{1}{p}x-\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{p}x+\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right).$$

    If \(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1\), then \(1-\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{q}\), so

    $$L(x)=\frac{1}{p}x+\frac{1}{q}.$$

    We introduce $𝑞$ here because Young’s inequality is written in terms of the conjugate exponents $𝑝$ and $𝑞$. This step reveals that the coefficient $1/𝑞$ is not inserted by hand. It comes directly from the tangent-line geometry.

    Since \(f(x)=x^{1/p}\) is concave on \([0,\infty)\), its graph lies below its tangent line at \(x=1\). Therefore, for all \(x\ge 0\),

    $$x^{1/p}\le 1+\frac{1}{p}(x-1)=\frac{1}{p}x+\frac{1}{q}$$

    A deeper insight into why we chose $x^{1/p}$ was something like this:If I want to control a nonlinear quantity by a linear one, I should look for a concave function whose tangent line produces the right coefficients.That is a very general mathematical move: identify the difficult nonlinear thing, find a geometric or structural property that linearizes it, and then choose the function that matches the exponents already present in the problem.

    Links to this note:
    Young’s Inequality for Products

  • Mission vs Admired Future

    A mission is not something you merely want to matter. It is something that has acquired priority in actual conflict. It wins when it collides with comfort, drift, ambiguity, entertainment, fatigue, and the desire to keep options open. Until then, it is still a preference, even if it is a very sincere one.

    So what has to change fast? Not your level of enthusiasm. Your constitution. By “constitution,” I mean the rules by which your chosen project competes against the rest of life. A project becomes your main focus only when you have decided what it is allowed to displace. That is the uncomfortable part. Everyone likes the language of mission. Fewer people like the implications. A main focus means some other things must become secondary, neglected, postponed, or abandoned. Otherwise “main focus” is just flattering language.

    If random internet time can beat it, then random internet time is above it.
    If fatigue always beats it, then state-management is above it.
    If uncertainty about what to do next beats it, then ambiguity-aversion is above it.
    If the fantasy of future seriousness beats present work, then self-image is above it.

    The project must move from “something I hope I do a lot” to “the thing around which the rest of my discretionary life is now arranged.”

  • Why Governing Ideas Matters

    Human time cannot be traded for an equal substitute, and it cannot be replenished. Because time is both irreplaceable and finite, seriousness is not a moral posture but a practical one. We are always dealing with problems, and time limits how many mistakes we can afford to fix before correction is no longer possible.

    If action is driven by ideas, then seriousness begins with the ideas that govern us. Our behavior does not arise directly from willpower. It arises from the ideas that shape how we see, value, and act. So a serious life treats governing ideas as the main point of leverage. We cannot simply choose our decisions into existence, but we can influence which ideas take hold. We do that by exposing them, criticizing them, and developing better alternatives.

    Behavior is often the best test of which ideas actually rule us. When someone claims to hold a governing idea but repeatedly acts against it, even under favorable conditions, that pattern suggests that another idea has the real causal force. For that reason, making governing ideas explicit is useful even though it is imperfect. Self-description is unreliable, so what we say about our beliefs must be checked against what we actually do.

    This work has two aims. One is to arrive at truer ideas. The other is to give those ideas a form the mind can genuinely absorb and live by. Truth and influence are not the same. An idea can be true and still remain inert. The serious person therefore works on both the substance of ideas and the way they are held, so that truth is more likely to become effective in action.

  • The Customer Solution Profit Model

    The Customer Solution profit model from The Art of Profitability by Adrian Slywotzky focuses on achieving high, long-term profitability by deeply understanding a customer’s business and delivering custom, integrated solutions. This model involves high initial investments, often losing money in the short term, to build deep relationships and tailor services that become indispensable to the client. 

    Key Aspects of the Customer Solution Profit Model:

    • Deep Customer Intimacy: The strategy is based on investing time and resources to learn everything about the client’s business, including their operational processes, metrics of success, and future needs.
    • Customization and Integration: Instead of selling a generic product, the business creates bespoke, high-value solutions that become woven into the daily operational fabric of the client’s business, decreasing the customer’s overall costs while increasing the provider’s value.
    • The “J-Curve” Profitability: Businesses typically “lose money for a short time” during the initial research and integration phase, but “make money for a long time” once the solution is implemented and the relationship matures.

    See also:
    The Long Game
    Obvious Adams

  • The Long Game

    The long game is the strategy of making reality to argue for you given enough time. It works when your position is genuinely good, because reality eventually exposes what is true and erodes what is merely performed. The central strategic question is, “What would have to become true such that you are eventually the obvious choice?” Reduce the need for persuasion by improving the underlying reality by:

    1. Letting people observe a pattern rather than hear a pitch.
    2. Avoiding moves that gain compliance at the cost of future trust.
    3. Keep showing that when you are involved, better outcomes tend to happen.
    4. Be patient enough to let cumulative evidence do its work.

    See also:
    The Customer Solution Profit Model
    Obvious Adams

  • Young’s Inequality for Products

    $$ab \leq \frac{a^p}{p} + \frac{b^q}{q}$$where $\frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} = 1$, with $p, q > 1$, and $a, b > 0$.

    What the inequality is saying in plain English:

    A product ab can be controlled by a sum of powers of a and b.

    Why this matters
    Products are often awkward to handle because they couple variables together while sums are usually easier because they keep the variables seperate. So this inequality lets you replace a difficult multiplicative term with something additive. When variables are separated, you can study each one independently. That matters because most mathematical tools work better on separated structure:

    • integrals distribute over sums,
    • derivatives distribute over sums,
    • estimates can often be applied term-by-term,
    • maxima/minima are easier to study when variables are uncoupled,
    • error control is easier when each source of size appears in its own term.

    Proof

    See The tangent-line origin of Young’s inequality for how we got from concavity to the first inequality.

    \[\text{concavity of } x^{1/p}\;\to\;x^{1/p}\le \frac{x}{p}+\frac{1}{q}\;\to\;ab\le \frac{a^p}{p}+\frac{b^q}{q}.\]

    Starting from the tangent-line inequality for the concave function \(x^{1/p}\),

    $$x^{1/p}\le \frac{x}{p}+\frac{1}{q},\qquad\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1,$$

    we derive Young’s inequality.

    Assume first that

    $$a^p \le b^q.$$

    Then

    $$\frac{a^p}{b^q}\le 1,$$

    so the tangent-line inequality applies with

    $$x=\frac{a^p}{b^q}.$$

    Substituting gives

    $$\left(\frac{a^p}{b^q}\right)^{1/p}\le\frac{1}{p}\frac{a^p}{b^q}+\frac{1}{q}.$$

    Now simplify the left-hand side:

    $$\left(\frac{a^p}{b^q}\right)^{1/p}=\frac{(a^p)^{1/p}}{(b^q)^{1/p}}=\frac{a}{b^{q/p}}.$$

    Using

    $$\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1\quad\Longrightarrow\quad\frac{q}{p}=q-1,$$

    we get

    $$b^{q/p}=b^{q-1}.$$

    So the inequality becomes

    $$\frac{a}{b^{q-1}}\le\frac{a^p}{p\,b^q}+\frac{1}{q}.$$

    Since \(\frac{a}{b^{q-1}}=ab^{1-q}\), this is

    $$ab^{1-q}\le \frac{a^p}{p\,b^q}+\frac{1}{q}.$$

    Multiply both sides by \(b^q\):

    $$ab\le \frac{a^p}{p}+\frac{b^q}{q}.$$

    Links to this note:
    Hölder’s Inequality

  • Controlling structure undermines intrinsic motivation; enabling structure supports it

    Structure is not the enemy of intrinsic motivation. The crucial distinction is between controlling structure and enabling structure.

    Controlling structure tells a person what to do in a way that displaces authorship. It turns action into compliance. Its function is not mainly to help the person act, but to secure conformity to an external script. When structure is experienced this way, intrinsic motivation tends to weaken, because the activity no longer feels like something one is doing from oneself.

    Enabling structure does the opposite. It reduces confusion, clarifies options, lowers unnecessary friction, and supports competent action without taking over the person’s agency. It helps a person do what they are trying to do. In that case, structure does not replace motivation; it makes motivated action easier.

    So the question is not whether structure exists, but what role it plays. Structure undermines intrinsic motivation when it functions as a substitute for agency. It supports intrinsic motivation when it functions as an aid to agency.

    A useful test is this:
    Does the structure help me act on my purposes, or does it recruit me into someone else’s purposes?

    That is the difference between a scaffold and a cage.

    See also:
    Wittgenstein’s Ladder
    Christopher Alexander – “Which Has More Life?” Questions

  • Panic is the perceived absence of a next step

    Panic is not identical to fear. Fear is a signal that something may be wrong. Panic occurs when that signal arrives and no actionable next step is available in the mind.

    This makes panic primarily an epistemic problem. It is a failure of guidance, not merely an excess of emotion. The experience of panic is the experience of a void between threat and response.

    A useful criticism of panic is this:

    Either there is something to do, or there is not.

    If there is something to do, clear thought is needed, so panic is harmful because it degrades action.
    If there is nothing to do, panic adds no guidance and only worsens the experience.

    In both cases, panic contributes no functional information. It feels informative because intensity masquerades as knowledge.

    Training reduces panic by preventing this void. A trained person is not someone who feels no fear, but someone whose model of the situation reliably generates a move. Training supplies actionable structure where the untrained person experiences blankness.

    This also explains why one can understand the point intellectually and still panic. Different systems may hold different predictions about the same event. A verbal or conscious model may recognize that no real danger is present, while a deeper non-verbal system still predicts catastrophe. The problem then is not lack of reasoning, but lack of criticism that the deeper system accepts.

    That criticism is often experiential. When one overrides a false alarm and the predicted catastrophe does not occur, the deeper system receives evidence against its model. Over time, repeated successful overrides can build trust between systems. This is one function of training: not removing fear, but improving the quality of the next step generated under threat.

    But override must remain fallible. If conscious judgment always overrules bodily signals, rationality turns into domination rather than correction. The aim is mutual criticism: the body can be right about real damage, and the mind can be right about false alarms. What matters is not authority, but error-correction between systems.

    The trained person, then, is not distinguished by courage or willpower alone. The deeper difference is that their system contains enough tested guidance that fear does not open into panic.