Learn from the
world's best
founders.athletes.scientists.investors.leaders.founders.

Being close enough to winning turns out to be way damn harder than losing. Nobody needed to tell you. Somewhere early on, you worked out for yourself that you had more in you than most people around you. Things came a little easier. You could see a little further. You had, in the word everyone used, potential. Years later, the potential is still the most interesting thing about you. The work is good. The feedback is good. People you respect say you are going somewhere. And you have been going somewhere for long enough now to notice that you have not reached anywhere. You can see what the people who did reach places do differently. You have studied them. And the difference is almost nothing. A little more nerve, a little more luck, one decision made a year earlier. An inch. That inch is the whole problem. If it were a mile, you could let it go. It is an inch, so you can’t. The silver medal problem From a distance, you assume that the closer you get to something, the better you should feel. Surely the person who nearly made it is happier than the person who never came close. Well, it’s the opposite. In 1995, three psychologists took footage of Olympic medal winners and asked a group of students to rate each athlete’s face on a scale from 1 to 10. One was agony, ten was ecstasy. The people who came third looked happier than the people who came second. You see, the silver medalist is looking up, at the gold that was one race away. While the bronze medalist is looking down, at the fourth place that was one race away. Same podium, same medal ceremony, and they are comparing themselves to opposite things. And the comparison decides the feeling. Eleven years later, another team checked the findings on judo medalists from 35 countries at the Athens Olympics. Not one silver medalist smiled in the moment after their match. Gold did, bronze did, silver did not. Try applying that to your own podium. Everyone below you has an “at least.” At least I got in. At least I am doing better than I expected. At least I am doing better than my parents did. You have no “at least.” You can see the gold from where you are standing, so the only sentence available to you is “if only”. The Salieri trap “If only” is about where you look. There is a second part to the curse, and it is about how well you see. There is a famous play, later a famous film, called Amadeus. It tells the story of Mozart through the eyes of another composer, Antonio Salieri. Salieri, in the play, is the most successful musician in Vienna. He is respected, hardworking, technically excellent, the man the emperor hires. Then Mozart arrives, a rude, childish young man who writes music that Salieri instantly recognises as something he will never be able to write. That is his tragedy. He is good enough to understand how great Mozart is, but not good enough to do it himself. He has the ear, he lacks the hand. The play imagined most of this. The real-life Salieri had a fine career and probably no such rivalry. But the trap the play describes is real, and you are in it. The problem is that taste always grows faster than ability. Someone with ordinary judgment cannot tell the difference between very good and extraordinary, and that blindness protects them. They finish their work, feel fine about it, and move on. You can tell the difference. Your judgment crossed the line years ago, but your ability is still walking toward it. So you finish something. A piece of work you put effort into. And before anyone else has seen it, you already know where it falls short. You can point to the paragraph that is fine but could have been great. The idea you played safe with. The moment where someone better would have pushed further, and you pulled back. Nobody else can see these things. The people who see it will say it is good, and they will be right. You will say thank you and know that good was never what you were going for. That is the trap. The better you get at seeing, the less you can enjoy what you make, because you are judging it by a standard your hands have not reached yet. Almost is the most addictive position there is You would think a person who feels this way about their own work would eventually stop. Put it down, pick something else, find some peace. Most people in your position do the opposite. They go again, harder, for years. And the reason for that has very little to do with willpower. In 2009, researchers at Cambridge put fifteen people in a brain scanner and had them play a slot machine. What they wanted to see was the near-miss, the spin where it stopped one symbol short of a win. A near-miss is a loss. The player gets nothing. But the scans showed the parts of the brain that process reward lighting up for near-misses almost the same way they lit up for real wins. The lead researcher concluded: the brain “responds to near-misses as if a win has been delivered.” Outside the scanner, the same people said near-misses felt unpleasant. And then their desire to keep playing went up. That is you, every time you come close. The person who is nowhere near the top loses, feels it, and is free to walk away and build a different life. You never get that. Every time you fall an inch short, your brain hands you a reward and reads the loss as proof that the win is coming. So you go again. The inch stays an inch, and you cannot leave the machine. The people most stuck are the ones who keep almost getting there. The death of the local hero For most of history, being almost exceptional was a good life. If you were the second-best doctor in your city, your waiting room was full, because nobody in it had ever been treated by the best. The second-best singer in town sang to full houses, because the best singer in the world was a rumour from somewhere else. Distance protected the very good. Every town had its own top, and the top paid well. In 1981, an economist described what happens when that distance disappears. When everyone can reach the best, they do, and the market stops needing the second-best. In his words, “small differences in talent become magnified in large earnings differences.” He wrote that before the internet existed. Since then, every market that could go global has gone global. Music, writing, software, comedy, teaching, advice. Everyone now hears the best, so everyone now competes with the best, and work that is 95% as good earns a small fraction of the reward instead of 95% of it. The gap between you and the exceptional did not grow. It is the same inch it has always been. What grew is the gap in what the two sides of it get paid. Your parents could be very good at something and be rewarded for it. You can be very good and watch the entire payout go to someone an inch ahead. What almost does to a person Here is what nobody tells the kid with potential. You have been treating your magic as the curse. You can see the inch. The person far below you cannot. They look at the top and see a different species, something they could never become, so they never try. You look at the top and see one decision, one risk, one braver draft. That is a map. Nobody else in the room has it. You can see every tiny flaw in your own work. That is exactly what someone with ordinary judgment lacks, and it is why they stay ordinary. They cannot fix what they cannot see. You can point to the paragraph that played it safe. You know which idea you pulled back from. That is the most precise set of instructions you will ever be given about what to do next, and it comes from inside your own head. And your brain fires like a win every time you come close. Inside a slot machine, that is a trap, because a slot machine is random and the near-miss means nothing. Your work is the opposite of random. When your brain tells you that you are close, it is right. So the grind was never the mistake. The mistake was where it was aimed. Years of effort pointed at the person one inch ahead, at catching them, at matching them, and almost none of it pointed at the potential you could already see in your own work. The “if only” will be there the whole time. That is the price of being in the race to win. But the people who crossed were standing exactly where you are standing, seeing exactly what you see. They aimed at their work instead of the person. Thank you for reading. Subscribe below to receive more of my work. Sources.

You keep looking for meaning in smaller and smaller places, and it keeps getting harder to find. When was the last time you went looking for meaning? Your answer doesn’t have to be some big revealing mystery about your life. The search could have been tiny. Like a song by a stranger that you were sure was saying more than the lyrics. A brand you buy from because the founder’s story means something more. The film you call your favourite because of what it really means, underneath the plot. The tattoo you have been planning for years, because the meaning behind it is larger than the design. You probably did it recently. Most people do it several times a day without even noticing, and once in a while even with the big things: the work, the relationships, the shape of life itself. Usually triggered by a quote seen on Pinterest, a reel scrolled on Instagram, or an article read on Substack. Just like you are doing right now. A song can’t be just entertainment anymore, it has to mean something. A jacket can’t just be a piece of cloth anymore, it has to mean something. A movie can’t just be a story anymore, it has to obviously mean something. A tattoo can’t just be ink on your skin anymore, again, it has to mean something. What happened? How did we get here? When did we become so starved that we started living on crumbs? When researchers asked 18- to 25-year-olds whether they felt a sense of purpose or meaning in the past month, 58% said it was either not true or only a little true. But where does this so-called meaning come from? What is it made of? Because if an entire generation is short of something, it is worth knowing what the something is. You were told to look in the wrong direction For years, the culture gave one consistent answer to the question of purpose: look inside. Find your passion, discover your truth, figure out who you really are, work on yourself. Know your values, your patterns, your attachment style, your love language. The self became the site of the search, and the search became a lifestyle. It sounded right. If meaning is personal, it should be found in the person. And you did exactly what you were told. You looked inward with more tools, more vocabulary, more time and more honesty. Journals, therapy, personality frameworks, hours of introspection in the form of content. What you found was yourself. Which turns out to be a different thing from finding meaning. Introspection produces self-knowledge, an accurate picture of what you want, what you fear, what you are like. The sense that any of it matters comes from somewhere else, and the harder you look for it on the inside, the more it gets away. The mistake is in the picture of what meaning is. The culture treated it like something that is stored somewhere inside your personality, waiting to be excavated. But in reality, meaning behaves something similar to an electric current. It runs only when a wire connects you to something outside yourself, like a person, a task, a thing that needs doing, and it stops the moment the wire loops back into your own head. Which is why the song, the jacket, the film, the tattoo. Each one is a wire that goes from the world into you and ends there. A little current, for a moment, and then nothing, because nothing went back out. Meaning was never inside you waiting to be found. It only exists between you and something else. Meaning and happiness are not the same thing Part of why the search went wrong is that two different things were being chased under one name. In 2013, a team of psychologists surveyed nearly 400 adults on both. They asked how happy people were, and how meaningful their lives felt, and then looked at what predicted each. The two overlapped. Most people who had one had some of the other. But when the researchers separated them, the causes turned out to be almost opposite. Having your needs and wants satisfied raised happiness and did close to nothing for meaning. Being short of money hurt happiness about twenty times more than it hurt meaning. Happiness lived in the present. Meaning showed up in people who spent time thinking about the past and the future, who saw their life as one continuous line. And then the finding that explains everything the most: happiness was linked to being a taker; meaning was linked to being a giver. Read that against the life you were handed. Every system around you is built to deliver the first. Needs met faster. Wants satisfied sooner. Comfort, convenience, the present optimised to the minute. Nothing in it is built to make you a giver. It’s like giving out the complete recipe for happiness and saying it was the recipe for meaning. Viktor Frankl argued that a human life always points beyond itself, toward a work to finish or a person to love, and that a life aimed only at its own well-being loses its grip on why it is being lived. Sociologists in the 1980s called it mattering, and defined it as “the sense that other people find us important, depend on us, are interested in us, and care about what happens to us.” Depend on us. That is the clause that has gone missing. Think of the last time something outside you needed you, and you came through. It was probably small. A friend who called you, out of everyone they know, because you were the one who would understand. A piece of work that would have fallen apart without you, and didn’t. Something you fixed for your father that he could not have fixed alone. Notice how little of your life these things make up. That is the gap in a modern life. Plenty flows in. Care, comfort, content, progress, all of it arriving for you. And very little of what you do on an ordinary day leaves you and lands on anything else. A life can be full of things coming in and have almost nothing going out, and from the inside, that feels like hollowness. Where meaning is still being found The survey we talked about above also asked: what gives you meaning and purpose? About 200 people answered. The answers were relationships with family and friends, overwhelmingly. Work came much lower on the list, and that says more about where these people are in their lives than about work itself. At the start, a job is mostly something you take from. Skills, a salary, a line on the CV, experience for the next one. Almost nothing you do yet rests on anyone. Ask the same question of someone running a team, a doctor, a teacher, a founder with people on payroll, and work climbs the list fast, because by then something depends on it. Work carries meaning at the point where it stops being only for you. 13% named serving or helping other people. And those who belonged to a religion were more likely to report meaning (47%) than atheists (34%) or agnostics (32%). This is not a cue to turn you into a religious person, by the way. Look at what those answers have in common. Family. Friends. Service. Faith. Work, once it matures. Each one is a place where a person is needed by something or someone beyond themselves. Each one puts them, at least sometimes, in the position of the giver. And each one is the kind of thing the modern world treats as optional. Family is managed from a distance. Friends are kept on the basis of peace. Service is a thing you do in a gap year. Work is a thing you keep at arm’s length so you can have balance. Faith was supposed to be on its way out, until the young started walking back into it. Meaning survives in exactly the places where being needed survives. It was always going to be heavier Those places have one more thing in common. Every one of them costs something. Family means obligation. Friends mean showing up when it is inconvenient. Service means your time going to someone who may never thank you. Work that matters means it can go wrong on your watch. Faith means answering to something you cannot argue with. Each of them asks for a piece of you that you do not get back, which is why the modern world marked them optional in the first place. And here is the part you will resist, because everything you have been told argues against it. In that same study, higher levels of worry, stress and anxiety were linked to higher meaning and lower happiness. People who described their life as a struggle reported more meaning. Being involved in anything that mattered brought more to lose, more to fear, more that could go wrong. Meaning itself is a weight. Caring about a person means being afraid for them. Carrying a responsibility means it can be dropped. Building something means it can fail. You were taught to read these things as a warning. Protect your peace. Cut what drains you. Keep your energy for yourself. Every one of those is sound advice for happiness. And every one of them removes the conditions meaning needs, so the lighter your life got, the emptier it felt. The lead author of that survey put it in two sentences. Many young adults are “achieving to achieve.” And: “Disconnected from meaning, achievement is a particularly frantic, hellish hamster wheel.” How meaning actually gets made Meaning shows up wherever a person is the giver in a loop. Something or someone receives the benefit of their effort, and would be worse off without it. Three things in a life can hold that position: A person who depends on you for something. The people who had meaning found it in family and friends, and the shape is the same everywhere. A specific person relies on you for something specific. A call they expect. A thing only you handle. A role in their life that would sit empty if you stopped. Meaning grows when someone leans on you, even if it is for something very small. Something outside yourself that you serve. 13% of those who answered named helping others, and the researchers’ own recommendation was to get young people involved in caring for others and in service. The mechanism is the giver finding. The benefit has to land somewhere other than you for the loop to close. A craft, or a standard that does not bend to your mood. This is the one most people miss. The study found that meaning showed up in people who expressed who they were through what they did, and who saw their life as one long line instead of separate days. A craft does both. A skill you keep working at for years. A business. A body of work. It needs you to show up whether you feel like it or not, and every day you do adds to the same thing. The work itself is what you are giving to. All three cost the same thing. More worry. Less ease. A life that weighs more. The research says the people who carry that weight are less happy in the moment and no longer hollow, and that trade is the one almost nobody was told existed. Thank you for reading. Subscribe below to receive more of my work. Sources.

On the quiet, almost invisible fear of looking like you want your own life too badly. We live in a world where society, culture, basically the whole universe, claims to reward big, scary goals. If this seems untrue, try opening your social media. Any app, and within a few minutes you will find a quote or a person telling you to grab the life you want. And yet, it feels so embarrassing to admit what you really want. Doesn’t it? When was the last time you honestly spoke out loud what you wanted? What were you working for? Speaking out loud is a pretty big step, so maybe let’s talk about something smaller and simpler: when was the last time you honestly admitted to yourself what you wanted? Wanting something badly is one of the most exposing things you can do. So you take the wants that matter most, and you make them sound like things you could easily live without. The thing you are secretly hoping works out with all the belief you have, you call a little side project. The person you think about all day, you mention like they barely cross your mind. You go to the gym, watch what you eat, check the mirror more than you would admit, and when anyone asks, you say it is just for your health, when what you actually want is the body. You want things so badly and desperately, but somehow you learned to pretend to not want them as much, so that nobody, not even you, ever sees the full size of it. But why does admitting that I want this feel like climbing onto a stage and painting a target on yourself? The disguised appetite Imagine a scenario of actually admitting and saying what you want out loud. You are with people, and the massive-sized dream comes out. I want to be rich. I want to be the best one in the room at the thing I do. I want to walk in a room and have people notice me. The horror of saying all these things openly. The weird, uncomfortable feeling you just got in your stomach. That is the fear of being too much, and it shows up the second the complete dream is admitted. It comes from what you are scared will happen next. The judgement on your friend’s face. The tiny pause. The thought you are sure is forming in their head: that you have got ahead of yourself, that you are reaching for more than someone like you is supposed to reach for. You have just shown a room full of people how big you believe you are allowed to be, and now every one of them is holding that against the ordinary person standing there. You can feel the distance between the two, and you are stuck in the middle of it. You do this even when there are no people at all. Alone, late at night, try letting yourself fully think it. I am going to be huge. Watch what happens. Something in you turns it down, a little embarrassed, as if you could still be caught, as if wanting that much were a silly thing to be doing even inside your own head. The audience got so far inside you that it no longer needs to show up. You flinch at your own wants with nobody there to see it. So you never let it get that far. Before the want can embarrass you, you shrink it into something no one could ever call too much. This is embarrassment insurance. You pay the premium every time you make yourself smaller, and in return you are covered. If the dream never happens, there is no humiliation, because on paper you never wanted anything big to begin with. No one can accuse you of thinking too highly of yourself when you were so careful to never ask for much at all. The hall of mirrors There have always been people doing far more than you. History is full of them: the rich, the brilliant, the beautiful, the ones who built empires, the ones who lived great love stories. You always knew they were out there. But they reached you from a distance. A name, a story, something you heard about. You could admire them and then go back to your own life, because they were nowhere near you. Most of the time, it was just you and the people around you, and inside that ordinary life you could be, more or less, at peace. The feed changed that. The people doing far more than you are no longer far away. They are here, all day, in your hand. Someone your age with a body carved out of stone. Someone richer than you feel like you will ever be. Someone famous. Someone in love, someone on a vacation, someone collecting an award. The feed reaches across the whole planet, finds the richest, the fittest, the most beautiful, and lines them up in a scroll that never stops. Then you look up from the screen. Almost no one’s life looks like that. The people you were holding yourself against are a tiny fraction of everyone there is, caught on their best day, in their best light, put in front of you on purpose. But the feeling does not leave when you lock the phone. By then the bar is set. So wanting something starts to feel like being behind. Everyone up there looks like they got it without even trying. So the fact that you want it, and are still reaching, still short of it, still working, feels like proof that you are behind people who were seemingly born already there. And now admitting the want costs you twice over. In one breath you own up to wanting something big, and to being behind on it. Which makes wanting it at all feel a little pathetic. Like turning up to a race that everyone else finished years ago. The weapon of pre-emptive shrinkage The worst part is that you judge yourself before anyone else gets the chance to. Someone asks about the thing you are working on, and you get there before they can. “Realistically, it is a long shot”. “I probably will not pull it off, I know that”. You say it lightly, like you are in on the joke, and now there is no joke left for anyone else to make. This is the pre-emptive strike. If you call your own dream a long shot first, nobody can call it that after you. If you are already laughing at the distance between what you want and where you are, that laugh cannot be turned against you. You beat the room to the punch by aiming it at yourself. It feels like control. You are staying safe by being the first to list everything that is wrong with what you want. But look at who you had to become to do it. The person sneering at your ambition, measuring your dream against your ordinary life and finding it funny, the very figure you were so afraid of, is now you. You were so scared of being laughed at that you took the job and did it yourself. The price of never being too much The problem with all this is that pretending is not free. You are trying to win a race while pretending you are not running, and that is not a race you win. You cannot chase something you will not even name. Tell yourself long enough that you only train to stay fit, and your training never becomes the kind that builds the body you wanted. The cover story you told to feel safe turns into your real life. Keep it up for a few years, and the mask stops being a mask. You wanted to look like someone with modest little dreams so no one could laugh, and you eventually turned into that person. The world will agree with you and move its attention to the people willing to look like they wanted it. And the crowd whose laughter you are so afraid of was never watching. They are too busy doing the same thing you are, shrinking themselves so they do not look foolish in front of you. Everyone is performing. No one is in the audience. You are playing it safe for an empty room. To avoid one survivable moment of embarrassment, you gave up the whole thing. The life you never reached for. Years of knowing there was something you wanted, and that you argued yourself out of trying, just in case someone was looking. The world never hands you the thing you spend all your energy pretending not to want. It believes you, and moves on. So the want has to be admitted, at full size, even though it leaves you open to the thing you fear. That is the price of ever having a chance of getting it, and there was never a cheaper one. Thank you for reading. Subscribe below to receive more of my work.

Intellectualising your emotions to the point of becoming almost numb to them. What was the best thing that happened to you this year? Or wait, a little easier to recall, what was the worst thing? I am almost positive, almost, that you can explain the latter question extremely well. You can describe in detail what happened, what the impact was, what the emotions were, what you were supposedly feeling in that moment. Yes, supposedly. Because, in all honesty, you know that wasn’t what you were feeling at that point, even though you know that is exactly how it would have felt. This isn’t an attack on you, nor is this to call you a liar or dismiss your feelings. Just the point is, the things you felt weren’t exactly what you described, and that is because you were too busy intellectualising your feelings. This is not just a you problem. Plenty of people today have become remarkably good at understanding their own feelings. You know which old pattern it pressed on, which earlier wound it reopened, what it revealed about the people involved and about you. The account is accurate, but it is empty. Something feels thin. You cry less than you think you should. When you are sad, mostly you just know that you are sad. Every feeling gets picked up, labelled, understood, and set back down, and very little of it moves through you anymore. You spent years learning to understand what you feel. So why does understanding it this well leave you feeling so little of it? The elephant in the room Go back to the moment itself, the first few minutes, when the feeling is still raw. You are angry, or breaking, or stunned, and for a little while you are properly inside it. Then a second version of you shows up in your head, calm and a little removed, and starts to turn the moment into sentences: so this is what betrayal feels like, this is me spiralling, funny that I went to anger first, when underneath it is probably hurt. One of you is living the thing. The other is already writing it up. And the moment you step back far enough to describe a feeling, you are no longer all the way inside it. You have to leave the thing a little in order to look at it. So the watching numbs it every time, which is why the version you are left feeling is always a little colder than the one that first arrived. The word that turns the feeling down Let’s understand these feelings we are talking about. A feeling starts in the body, before it is a thought at all. Anger is heat in the face and a tightness in the jaw. Grief is a weight sitting on the chest. Fear drops the stomach. Whatever the emotion is, it shows up first as something physical, a wave that needs a moment to rise and move through you. And you have learned a trick that stops the wave halfway. The second it starts, you name it. This is anxiety. This is my abandonment thing. This is just cortisol. The label arrives, and a small relief comes with it, because naming the thing feels like getting your hands back on the wheel. In 2007, a team at UCLA ran a study they named: Putting Feelings Into Words. People were shown photographs of angry and frightened faces while their brains were scanned. Looking at the faces lit up the amygdala, the little alarm system of your brain that handles fear and threat. Then they were asked to put a word to the emotion, to label it as angry or afraid, and the amygdala went quieter, while the calm, thinking part of the brain switched on. The label turned the feeling down. The researchers shared this as good news, and for one unbearable moment it is. When something is drowning you, naming it can pull your head back above the water. But you run it on everything. The small irritations get the same quick label as the real heartbreaks, all day, every day. A move that gently lowers the intensity of one feeling, used on every feeling you have, slowly lowers the intensity on all of them. You feel it a little less each time, because you explained it a little more. What the understanding protects So why do you do it? If the explaining drains the feeling, why reach for it? Because the explaining protects you, and what it protects you from is how undignified real feeling actually is. Left to run all the way through, a feeling has no dignity in it. Grief looks like someone heaving on a bathroom floor, red-faced and making no sense. Rage shakes your hands and cracks your voice. Love turns you reckless and a little pathetic, willing to embarrass yourself over another person. Every one of them takes your control away, and usually with someone there to watch. Understanding is how you get out of that. If you can lay your heartbreak out as an attachment pattern and a chemical crash, you never have to be the one sobbing at the party. You get to stay calm. Articulate. Fine. Psychologists call it intellectualisation, taking a raw, humiliating feeling and turning it into a clean, manageable idea. The language of therapy, used this way, becomes the most respectable hiding place ever built. You get to look wise and self-aware when you are just keeping the real feeling at arm’s length. The perfect map of a house on fire You know your own pain the way a scholar knows a subject. You can tell someone which attachment style it grows from, which parent it traces back to, which thought pattern keeps it running, which defence it trips in you. Asked about your worst tendency, and you can hand over a full diagram, labelled and accurate. But here’s the catch: knowing all of that is a completely different thing from feeling it. A blueprint of a house can show you every beam, every wire, and exactly how a fire would move from room to room. It will never once be warm. You can hold the complete design of your own suffering in your head, every cause sitting in its right place, and feel barely any of it, the way you can read the word fire on paper and not flinch. There is an old idea, from a thinker named Alfred Korzybski, that a map and the territory it describes are two different things, made of different stuff. Somewhere along the way you became a brilliant mapmaker of your own interior, able to chart every corner of what you feel in fine detail. And you spend less and less time standing in the house you keep drawing. This is the cost of getting so good at understanding yourself. Every feeling you explain instead of sitting in is a feeling you have, in some small way, skipped. It happened, you were there, you can describe it perfectly, and still a part of it passed through you without ever fully landing. Do that for long enough and your own life starts to feel like something you are very well informed about, rather than something that is happening to you. And the understanding keeps promising that it will be enough. One more layer of insight, one more pattern named, and surely this time the knowing will finally do what the feeling was meant to do. It never quite does. You went looking for understanding to get closer to yourself. Somewhere in all that intellectualising, it quietly turned into the distance. Thank you for reading. Subscribe below to receive more of my work. Sources.