There’s this strange logic many people take with their health.

They read or hear that something is good for them. So they decide more and more of it must be great But that’s not how the body works.

Here’s are some “healthy” habits and why you should tread carefully with them.

1. When good hydration goes wrong

In 2007, Jennifer Strange took part in a radio contest called, “Hold Your Wee for a Wii.” She drank two gallons of water within a few hours. Only to go into a health emergency and die hours later.

Doctors ruled the cause of death hyponatremia. Her brain swelled after a huge drop in sodium levels.

And hyponatremia isn’t just common in extreme cases.

A 2005 study of Boston Marathon runners found that 13% of competitors suffered from excessive water in their system. Researchers went further to say this excessive hydration posed a very real health risk and concluded, “Hyponatremia occurs in a substantial fraction of non-elite marathon runners and can be severe.”

Here’s the trick:

• Focus on smaller sips. Your body can only process .8 to 1 liter of water per hour. Anything more than that is likely to be excreted.

• Listen to your body. This doesn’t mean waiting until you are parched and your mouth is completely dry to drink water. It means learning a more nuanced approach to hydration. Get a feel for when you need water.

• Add a small bit of salt to your water if you are sweating often (you can add a bit of a sports drink like Gatorade to achieve this as well).

2. The fasting bandwagon

Ever since Joe Rogan and other podcasters have evangelized intermittent fasting and other variations of it, I’ve seen many people taking up the habit without doing proper research beforehand.

Fasting can indeed be healthy, activating systems that can help boost overall health. One review from 2002 through 2024 found that this practice can improve insulin sensitivity and reduce oxidative stress and inflammation.

But it can also put stress on the body. There needs to be controls in place, and consultation with a medical professional before embarking on a fast—even if it is only intermittent.

Intermittent fasting can put people at risk of hypoglycemia, especially if they are on glucose lowering medications.

One study showed that long-term intermittent fasting regimens can put people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease mortality — potentially through the loss of lean mass and circadian misalignment.

3. That cleanse may not be cleansing anything

Even the words detox and cleanse imply there is something good happening, like you are cleaning out the dirt, gunk, and other things that might be harming your health.

A systematic review, published in the Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, found there are no rigorous controlled trials that actually support their use. The authors went further and said that even the current evidence is heavily undermined by flawed methodologies and tiny sample sizes.

What’s even more troubling is that many of these fasts, including “juice” fasting, may cause major complications, that are sometimes life threatening. In one case, a woman presented with oxalate-induced acute renal failure, due to a juice fasting diet she’d been on.

And this is the grey area on dieting that people need to remember. Oxalates are actually quite healthy and found in many fruits and vegetables. But if you overload your body with them, it can cause kidney stones and other issues.

For example, a 65-year-old man came into the hospital after doing a spinach heavy juicing diet for years (getting 10x the oxalates needed), and doctors found he’d suffered extensive kidney damage. He survived, but it required significant medical interventions and ongoing medications.

Tread carefully with juicing.

4. When the miles start to add up

In 2025, a preliminary study was presented at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s Annual Meeting.

The surprising study surveyed 100 people between ages 35 and 50 who had competed in at least five marathons or two ultramarathons. Of them, 42 had intestinal polyps, among which 15 were considered precancerous growths. In a normal population, you’d typically only see 1-2 of those people with precancerous growths.

Of note, none of these participants actually had cancer per se — and the study’s sample size was is relatively small, but it is sparking real conversation with researchers who are beginning secondary studies.

And this isn’t the only issue with these endurance competitions. Other studies have linked extreme endurance running to increased myocardial damage.

All of this—without even getting into the damage running can do to your joints.

So what do you actually do with this information?

I recognize you might be confused now on what is and isn’t healthy.

See the grey area on this. There’s still tremendous benefits to exercise. It’s still linked to lower risks of colon cancer. Eating fruits and vegetables remains one of the healthiest food choices you can make — but not when you concentrate them into juices with 10x the amount your body needs.

Water is healthy, but two gallons in a few hours can still kill you.

Juicing can absolutely be healthy when done in moderation and not to the exclusion of other key foods and nutrients. Remember to eat a healthy mix of natural foods, such as nuts, eggs, fatty fish, broccoli, kale, sweet potatoes. You probably already know which foods are healthy. Stick with them.

The trap that people fall into is taking this extreme maximalist approach to health and wellness. Rather than do a solid hour workout each day, they decide they need to train for a 50 mile running race. Rather than adopt a healthy diet, they begin relying on juice only for days and weeks at a time.

Or they spend huge sums of money on an array of supplements, eating three protein bars a day because of a commercial they saw.

All this effort when those benefits (and then some) could easily achieved with healthy whole foods.

There’s this human instinct to take a good thing and push it to its illogical extreme. Health doesn’t need to be a contest where those who do the most of it win. Remember that too much of anything can be unhealthy.

Master the ordinary things and let them be enough.

15 years ago, I was going through hard times. I was feeling down about the direction of my career. My romantic life had taken a left turn.

Compounding this — I kept looking at how good things were going for my friends and colleagues. It was your typical, run-of-the-mill grass is greener stuff. I should have been watering the grass I was standing on.

And then — from some random place in the abyss of my mind — I got this crazy idea.

At the time, I was a voracious reader, my ability to visualize was as good as it had ever been. I started doing this mental exercise, and it really did lift me up — in a big way.

It’s going to feel a bit raw, counterintuitive, and weird. It’s called “positive subtracting” and many studies have shown that it helps improve your mood over time.

Some of you are going to do better at this than others. To make it work, I ask that you to muster the best visualization skills you have — like it is a great book and you are standing right there in the scenes you reading.

It helps if you read slow and immerse yourself.

These exercise begins here

You open your eyes.

The ceiling is cement, with faded paint and small cracks throughout.

You are lying on a cot-like bed. It’s firm and uncomfortable. Several steel bars run beneath the thin mattress.

Read more

You’ve probably seen platforms like LinkedIn absolutely littered with AI content. And if you see it enough over time, it becomes abundantly obvious which posts are quick copy-pastes from Claude, ChatGPT and the like.

Sometimes the tells are more obvious at the macro level. For example, on several platforms, I’ve seen authors suddenly publishing 5+ articles per day, some of which are 1600 words or more long (this was never really a thing).

This avalanche of AI slop has eroded trust and disenfranchised users. So much so that LinkedIn recently introduced a report option labeled, “Looks like AI Slop.”

I’ll admit I’ve become quite cynical towards content in general. Anytime I see a user publishing a defensive essay, tweet, or note about why using AI is OK or how they compare this AI detection to a “modern witch hunt”—I generally assume the vast majority of their work is AI generated.

I routinely groan to myself, “Have people lost the courage to express themselves in the wonky, slightly unpredictable, beautiful and fascinating ways humans do?”

I’ve run multiple digital publications that anyone can submit drafts to. Consequently, I’ve had a front row seat to this onslaught. It started about 2-3 years ago. Submissions all started to look alike, with the same patterns, same flamboyant use of adjectives, long sentences, and purple prose. Eventually, it evolved into today’s AI scourge, with endless parallelism (It’s not X, it’s Y), repetitive structures, emojis (on social posts), and other tells you can’t unsee.

The wave of AI slop has even impacted academia in shocking numbers, which is why the entire discipline has taken a keen interest in these AI tools.

In a recent article, published in Nature, researchers investigated a new generation of AI-detection tools and found they are far more powerful and accurate than their predecessors.

The tool takes a different approach. While older ones focused on the quirks and commonalities of LLMs, new detectors, such as Pangram, instead analyze millions of human-written texts then ask LLMs to create mirrors of them, and then train their models to distinguish the two. They refined performance and fed the hardest cases in and had profoundly effective results.

Pangram’s false-positive rate was a staggering .02%.

Threading the needle

This isn’t to say AI can’t be incredibly valuable. I find it is fantastic at proofing an essay, distilling research papers down to key insights. It can help you brainstorm ideas well—especially if you give it good guidance. I also see no problem with having it help write routine emails and process tedious work documents, etc.

But a part of me dies when people begin passing off AI text as personal expression. It feels like a theft of the human spirit, a casual and lazy vote against authenticity.

I don’t think this fight is futile either. The investment in new technology to push back on this slop may well change things. Additionally, the rampant negative user feedback about AI slop may help turn the tide.

Indeed, services like Pangram may help. But it’s actually a new law in the EU which could change everything in this fight.

The new policy that’s leading the way

Article 50 of the EU AI act, which took effect on August 2nd, 2026, mandates that providers of AI content (be it audio, video, or text) add a detectable watermark.

This watermark won’t be visible to lay people, but will instead be easily detected by actual platforms.

It creates a specific cryptographically selected token. I’ll explain.

When AI writes a sentence, it typically picks the next word token by token using predictive text. There’s no single right word.

For example, if AI writes, “The dog was....”

It may have three options to choose from next:

1. Big

2. Large

3. Huge

An AI will typically choose one of those three options randomly. But with this new system, it stops picking randomly. Instead, it may have a rule where, “If you have a tie between equal words, choose option 3.”

So the AI chose huge.

And where this looks completely natural and normal to human readers, it actually leaves a trail with that rule that makes it detectable. Importantly, there needs to be a minimum amount of text. Low text typically only provides low probability. But if people are copy-pasting huge paragraphs in from an LLM, it will be much easier to detect.

In that same sentence, humans will typically choose from a longer list of words to end that sentence, and even with those three options, will typically vary quite a bit.

Remember that one of the hallmarks of AI content is the homogenized nature of the sentences that you’ll notice between different “authors”.

Fortunately, more laws are beginning to help in this fight as well.

Legislation similar to Article 50 was already implemented in Korea but there are still issues with enforcement, which will always be tricky. But this still seems like a big, large, or even huge step in the right direction.

The controversy about older AI detectors

As someone who lives in the content world, reviewing drafts constantly, I’ve found that standard AI detectors are actually quite accurate on average.

And the research agrees with me.

One study found that the three most popular AI detectors all had a 96% or higher accuracy on average. Pay attention to the AUC figure below. That’s the overall accuracy:

Big tech and many of these LLMs have made no small effort in disparaging and publicly discontinuing detectors that weren’t accurate.

But the data so far is pretty clear that they are quite good at what they do.

Are there false positives? Sure. But one can always double-check this by testing another post by a user to be sure. Spoiler alert: they are almost always frequent offenders.

And look—yes, it does seem like a lot of extra work to be pasting in text to these detectors—but it does carry value. I would encourage all of you to try doing it on a few articles. It is oddly empowering and helps you see the reality of the internet and what you’re dealing with. It helps you learn to recognize the signs too.

Why it matters for platforms

Many readers have hostile opinions of content that was AI generated and presented as human. I do hope we can have a world, or at least a few places on the internet, where we can rest assured that people are publishing content as their own, and not selling off these copy-paste jobs.

But it’s a weird world we live in. I was recently on Rotten Tomatoes, looking at reviews. And sure enough, I came across slews of user reviews that were very clearly AI generated. Some were positive, others negative. And it blew me away. With the positive reviews, I could at least write them off with some plausible deniability that the review was paid for by the movie studio.

I was perplexed that the whole spectrum was filled with these obvious Claude and ChatGPT pieces. What was the point? They weren’t being paid. They were writing under a pseudonym. You can’t even gain followers or create a digital presence on this platform doing these reviews. You can’t grow your email list or expand your professional opportunities.

What gives? I suspect there are some weird mental gymnastics at work, where a person convinces themselves that they still had some hand in producing this work.

“Claude couldn’t have done it without me, bro. You can’t teach this kind of vision.”

They’ve forgotten their review is strikingly similar to dozens of other recent reviews posted. Yet they still can’t stop pasting these reviews.

It’s akin to the proven strong dopamine hit cheaters get when winning a game. After all, they wouldn’t do it if it didn’t still feel good on some level.

Perhaps this goes to the very core of the problem, that people have shifted away from saying something, to just checking a box, to providing the appearance of a contribution, without having given one.

A machine can surely string together paragraphs and generate flowery posts for you. But sadly, it strips away the thing readers want most: you in it.

People rarely play dumb in interviews—and it makes sense. Nobody is trying to hire fools. But sometimes, acting like you know less can actually save you time, energy, and tons of hassle.

Meanwhile, being highly competent can sign you up for even more headaches. Here’s why playing dumb pays—sometimes.

In war and with prisoner

In 1967, Doug Hegdahl was on a reconnaissance mission during the Vietnam War.

His boat cruised along the river. Then, suddenly, a battle broke out. In the chaos, Doug was tossed into the water. Panicked, he swam for shore—unfortunately, toward the Vietcong side.

He was met with a quick beating and dragged out of the water, screaming. They tied him up and threw him into a cage, unsure whether to keep him alive or execute him.

During the interrogations, Doug realized they were trying to figure out if he had any value to them. So, he started playing dumb—giving jumbled, goofy answers and acting confused.

At one point, he kept yelling, “No water buffalo!”

In Vietnam back then, owning a water buffalo meant you had a high level of wealth. By shouting that, he was trying to convince them he was just a poor nobody.

Being poor was good. The Vietcong hated wealthy people.

His rambling gained him the nickname, “The Incredibly Stupid One”.

While other American soldiers were tortured, the Vietcong pitied Doug. They saw him as a clueless, unlucky guy. He was just another fool who got drug into a war against his will.

What they didn’t realize? Doug was quietly collecting intelligence. During his time in captivity, he memorized the names of 200 fellow prisoners of war, along with detailed information and whereabouts of the enemy base.

During a negotiation, the Vietcong chose him as their release, thinking he was a simpleton and no threat.

Doug got home and immediately gave a press conference. He told the US of those prisoners, and their freedom was obtained.

For those wondering, he memorized the 200 names using the song Ol’ McDonald Had a Farm. He even needed to hum it when reciting the names back over.

You might not find yourself in a situation like Doug’s, but his story offers a useful lesson in dealing with people in power, especially when you are vulnerable.

For example, when getting pulled over by a cop, it’s typically smarter to play it cool and talk, instead of nervously over-explaining everything to them.

More often than not, keeping what you know to yourself is the safer move.

True genius is knowing when not to reveal it. Consider the context before showing all of your cards — or hiding them.

Answering this annoying question correctly

Read more

As a young child, I asked my parents the usual rigamarole of questions young children ask, including the infamous, “Who do you love more, me or my sister?”

Mom turned to me and said the only correct answer to that question, “I love you both the same.”

Then, I asked, “Why did you have a second child?”

Mom said, “Your father and I realized that only children tend to be weird. So we wanted to have one more.”

And, of course, I held on to that belief, steadfastly thinking this was an ancient truth, an axiom bestowed upon us by god, a case studied repeatedly proven across time.

At age 14, I met a friend, Robert, who was a fellow military brat living in a new city. He who was an only child. I mentioned what my parents told me about only children. He laughed it off — but never let it go. Months later, we were riffing and teasing at each other, and he said, “Oh, is it because I’m an only child?”

I said, “Tisk tisk. Did someone get their feelings hurt?”

We gave each other a hard time, but always respected one another. It was apparent this was a sore subject for him.

The only child stereotype is a stubborn one. Not many people know where it originates from, or why it stays. And it reveals something about our problematic everyday thought process.

The othering has its roots

For thousands of years, being an only child was a relatively rare event. Children were born and raised en masse — in part because of a lack of birth control — and because parents needed help with farm labor. With industrialization, and the mass entry of women into the workforce, this pattern changed and families dramatically shrank in size.

The only child stigma officially began in 1896, with psychologist G. Stanley Hall, who posited that only children were destined to be misfits and eccentrics, describing the only child as “A disease in itself”.

In 1922, psychologist Abraham Brill, wrote, “Whether burdened by heredity or not, the only child usually shows one prominent feature, namely, he is a very poor competitor in the struggle for existence…he is devoid of those qualities which characterize a real boy.”

There was a real stigma, a general perception that all only children were coddled and spoiled. And one can surely conjure a memory of such cases if they want. I knew a neighbor, Jessica, who was an only child, and who was treated like a princess from day one, and given more Christmas presents than the rest of the neighborhood combined.

But — this occurrence of spoiling is not more common than it is with children who have siblings. Moreover, the brat is not mutually exclusive to the only child.

The media is to blame too

In 1968, the New York Times ran a piece, “The only-child syndrome”, saying that only children are over-exposed to adults, unable to rough-and-tumble with children, and never humbled when parents give attention to a sibling instead of them. Thus, they are maladjusted as they entered school and adulthood. The author, Alfred A. Messer, even went so far as to encourage parents to adopt a child if they only had one of their own. The concern was real.

In China, where a one-child policy was implemented, there is still a stigma against only children, despite them being the predominant family setup. They call it “little emperor syndrome“ which describes the only children of upper class families, who are showered with praise, gifts, and attention from everyone. They ostensibly become insufferable and spoiled adults.

And one can imagine if you are an only child, who feels otherwise well adjusted, yet see this hysteria about your status proliferate. Does it call into question your own sense of self and wellbeing? Any insecurity can be talked into existence.

The reality that people should consider

High quality, loving parents, are really the thing that’s overlooked in the discussion of only children. I found zero evidence showing there’s a substantial detriment to being an only child.

If anything, being an only child confers an advantage in terms of achievement. The only child may receive more attention and guidance than they would, with other siblings competing for resources. One study showed that only-children were more likely to seek and get help from a teacher in class, because they are used to dealing with adults more often.

Yet, only a few decades ago, some psychologists wrote and spoke with utter confidence that raising only one child was signing him or her up for a disability in life.

In China, in particular, there has been enormous social research on the subject of only children and how it has impacted their citizens, culture, and emerging generations. And yet, again, no significant difference was found.

For example, my aforementioned friend, Robert, is perfectly well-adjusted now as an adult. He became an officer in the Army, flies helicopters, and is married to his high school sweetheart. The guy couldn’t be more likable and fun. But because of this weird trend in society about only children, he was and is at the brunt of countless jokes.

Perhaps we humans can’t help but look for any small way to other a person. If everything else is normal and good about them, we remind them that they are an only child, and so they must be weird.

And worse, we show them movies that are absolutely inundated with examples of only child outcasts and brats. There’s the tyrant child, Veruca Salt, from Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory, who tantrums and demands a squirrel, ransacking the factory floor, before being dropped down a chute.

There’s Coraline from Neil Gaiman’s book, Coraline, who is painfully lonely and isolated. She finally finds an outlet via an alternate world where her life is far more idealized and free from the problems and isolation she faces back home.

In case after case in films, the only child is depicted as either the obnoxious, type-a know-it-all, the emo lonely kid who doesn’t know how to make friends, or something in-between.

And sadly, because we imbue this stereotype upon children, it often manifests into existence. One study by Dr. John Flanagan, found that only children are more likely to enjoy time to themselves, and less likely to socialize with other children, in part due to the stigma they faced.

The thing to remember

Only children will eventually be more common than 2 or more. In fact, we are quite close already. The average number of children being born has been slowly dropping over the past 50 years in the United States. It fell from 2.44 in 1965, to 1.6 in 2025.

There’s nothing wrong with having siblings and they can surely provide benefits. I’ve enjoyed having a sister, even if we bickered a ton as kids.

But we should perhaps question these hand-me-down theories about people that carry on, despite a lack of hard evidence. Perhaps only children would be more likely to socialize and be friends with other kids, if they weren’t being constantly asked why they were weird, or why they didn’t have siblings.

I regret my part in playing into this narrative and hope others take a pause to examine assumptions that so quickly jump to.

When I look back at the many other children and adults I’ve encountered, the spoiled tyrant title has not discriminated in choosing its offenders, least of all by how many siblings they have.

I shall return to the basics and stop judging people for things they can’t control.

Sarah was a beautiful blonde beach girl. She snorted when she laughed and had this perpetually raspy voice, like she had this cold that never went away. Both qualities were oddly charming.

We lived in my hometown of Virginia Beach and were planning to meet up at a local house party.

I was your typical insecure teenager who overcompensated and tried too hard to be cool. I was worried about what to wear and had checked my hair three times in the mirror before leaving. An hour later, I was immersed in a loud party without a parent in sight.

We stood on the second floor, talking in a hallway full of people. The house was packed. Sarah still hadn’t arrived. I turned to my friend and said, “Well, I am going downstairs to refill my beer.”

And just as I got to the stairwell, it was like an invisible hand came and pushed me from behind. I tumbled down the stairs head over feet several times— and not in the charming way you see in movies where you land, dust yourself off and take a bow.

I hit my head and elbows on the wall with loud thuds, and eventually splatted face down on the kitchen floor. My hair was mopped over my face. My shirt was ripped and soaked in beer. I sat up to see a room full of people quietly looking at me, and sure enough, there was Sarah, staring down with a concerned, but pitying face.

This moment became an endless well of embarrassment that I couldn’t fill with concrete. I still think of it occasionally, for no reason and with no provocation.

Read more

Early in my writing career, I left my DMs open on my platforms.

Anyone who had a question or comment was free to hit me up.

It was great at first. People were kind and mostly complimentary, leaving messages of encouragement and intelligent questions that made me think.

Eventually, I felt like everyone’s assistant and therapist, giving out free writing and dating advice.

Once, I found myself helping a man who was in the closet and trying to come out. Though I was immensely flattered, I’m not sure why he reached out to me on this matter, as I am straight and had no experience or expertise in the subject. But I helped as much as I could.

Eventually — I realized I was playing Mother Teresa. I was serving everyone’s needs at the expense of my own. And so I began drawing boundaries to protect my time and energy.

This problem of perpetual availability became pronounced in the early 2000s, with the advent of the blackberry, which created a new era of interconnectedness, and heralded the end of the beeper.

Before this, we used fax, mail, and relied on our desktop computers to check email. It was a common expectation that there may be a delay before one could respond. But this multi-use device, used by the masses, created a “spiral of expectations”. Just as you know someone was seeing your message instantly, and could respond as soon as they had a moment, you felt the same pressure to respond quickly to others.

Being unavailable became a moral shortcoming, which could ostensibly cost you a promotion, friend, or good standing with a loved one. So how can we resolve this?

A look at the data

Social media researcher, Matthew Heston, conducted an experiment where someone was trying to coordinate via Slack with people on their availability. Respondents consistently reported having less warm feelings towards those who were slower to respond.

Which is a real and valid concern — especially at work. It can feel like the moment a message is received, our competency hourglass gets turned upside down, and we feel the heat to get back to them. After all, the term “fast-paced environment” is in many job descriptions for this exact reason.

As a financial analyst, I often relied on other employees and project managers for recurring tasks. But it was a two way street as they relied on us too. A manager told me, “I try to get back to people as fast as possible, because then they’ll be faster to get back to me when I need them.”

This worked but, again, I found myself racing to reply to every message as fast as possible. It created this sandwich of expectations that tasted like high potency stress.

Which is why it’s quite easy to start apologizing constantly.

The problem remains that idleness, and the lack of responsiveness can be seen as a character flaw. But in reality — who was actually harmed? In many cases, there is little, if any, actual damage done. The real problem is often that we allow this expectation to continue unchecked.

So how do we combat this?

My problem is with the instinct to apologize too often, which is a predicament many women face — as they are often conditioned to be agreeable and go with the flow.

We shouldn’t apologize when there isn’t a need to — for two reasons. First, it casts us in a negative light unnecessarily. Second, it reinforces the expectation that we should be responding to people in unfair time windows. But the apology isn’t always poorly intended.

Per Dr. Melissa Mazmanian, professor at the University of North Carolina, apologizing for a delay can signal your caring for a person’s relationship, that you don’t want to damage their feelings towards you. If you aren’t able to respond immediately, one alternative is to instead say, “So nice to hear from you!” Then write your message. Another option is to just type your reply, and make it a good one. Quality can alleviate many perceived sins.

Sometimes, if I have a big question come in that requires research on my end, I send the person a quick note saying something to the effect of, “I’ll get back to you — but it might be a few days, as I dig in on the problem.”

If the delay hasn’t been that long, beware of saying, “Thank you for your patience.” Because, again, that reinforces something being inherently wrong with not getting back to them immediately.

A parting tip

We should stop being part of the problem. Culture, societal expectations, and reciprocal behavior can all cause us to unintentionally put the heat lamp on others. If we want to fix the problem, we should unbecome the problem ourselves.

The final challenge is one of authenticity. Very often, we aren’t apologizing for delays because we are actually sorry. Most of my apologies were more out of being pleasant and not looking to offend.

But, as luck would have it, I did apologize today for a late reply and meant it truly. I discovered I’d missed a voicemail from three weeks ago and when returning the call, it was the first thing I mentioned. My point being: some apologies are needed.

If your boss is contacting you with requests, I generally advise you respond quickly and with the appropriate information. Sadly, many bosses do judge us on how quick we get back to them, and often use these messages as a way of ensuring we’re doing the actual work asked of us.

As a small consolation, a study at Cornell University, led by Dr. Vanessa Bohns, found that participants overestimate how urgent off-hours emails are, and feel pressured to respond to them even when it isn’t necessary.

Per Dr. Bohns, “Our expectations for how quickly others expect us to respond are [often] inaccurate. We think we have to respond right away, but actually people are okay if we take our time.”

What is nice is that — once coworkers come to understand you don’t respond to emails generally on the weekend, they’ll know not to contact you unless it’s a true emergency. One professor took it so far as to leave this out-of-office message to his students:

Thank you for your message. Email received between [these dates] will be deleted from this server eight hours from now. Please send your message again after [this date].

It was a clear, and bold shot across the bow that said one thing: don’t bother me on my vacation.

The things to remember

This is all just an exercise in prioritization. Key stakeholders, spouses, and bosses are worthy of prompt responses. Reserve privilege for those who have earned or justifiably hold it.

As an independent writer, I have a client whom I’m expected to drop what I am doing to respond to when she is in need. It is a fire drill every time. And I am perfectly fine with this — because she pays me a good retainer for this privilege.

I recommend you don’t fall into the trap I fell into. Don’t be everything to everyone. Don’t apologize for every minor delay you impose upon a person. It just reinforces the problem. Conversely, don’t hold others to the same standard you are trying to escape.

And if you are slightly behind on replying, reframe it in a positive light if it’s an old friend. Remind them of how good it is to hear from them again.

Otherwise, set aside some time to go outside. Go on a walk — without your phone.

Back in 1998, my family was stationed in Fayetteville, a small city in North Carolina, which earned its nickname “Fayettenam” due to its huge military population.

I’d enrolled in a local private school, where I was one of the only military brats — and often felt out of place. There was a memorable moment after school on the soccer field, as we milled about before practice. The coach was sitting on the ground, fumbling with one of the sprinklers that was leaking as we looked on. The players around me were talking about how much their parents paid them for chores.

“My parents give me $15 to mow the lawn,” one kid said.

“Ah dang, my parents only give me $10,” said another.

Coach Maloney, who was a working class man, scoffed and said, “You guys need to learn how to do real work.”

I said, “Well, if it counts for anything, I mow the lawn or else.”

Coach gave me an uncharacteristic smile and said, “Sean knows what real work is.”

I wasn’t trying to appease him by any means — but it did feel good to be acknowledged. Many of these kids were wealthy, taking huge, expensive vacations on the regular, and living lives I wasn’t familiar with, as my father was a young officer, supporting our whole family.

This small window in time actually speaks to a misunderstood aspect of parenting and productivity for adults—that probably affects many of you reading this.

The origins of this issue

The problem is that chores are often a component of allowances.

Per a survey by T. Rowe Price, 83% of parents who pay their kids an allowance believe their kids should earn this allowance through chores. The problem is that — many experts argue this is a mistake.

They say you should pay your kids to do work beyond their duties if you want. But chores should be done because they are the right thing to do. They encourage responsibility and how to live correctly. They also promote the cohesion of the family unit as a team.

Social scientist, Alfie Kohn, wrote in his book Unconditional Parenting, “A considerable number of studies have found that children and adults alike are less successful at many tasks when they’re offered a reward for doing them–or for doing them well.”

It undermines a child’s intrinsic motivation to want to help the family out.

For example, though I made an earlier comment about having to mow the lawn “or else”, I actually didn’t mind doing it. My broader point was that it was just an expectation — and that was OK.

I’d seen my grandfather mowing our lawn when I was little. So when I finally got the opportunity to start mowing (it is slightly dangerous, so they made me wait), I felt more grown, like I had taken on more responsibility. I rather looked forward to doing the chore. Even at age 13, the feeling of starting the lawn mower engine felt an order of magnitude away from starting a car engine and driving on my own. I even enjoyed the struggle of tugging on the starter cord over and over, and finally hearing the engine catch and turn on. These little things mattered.

And if I was being paid to mow my own lawn, I may not have learned to embrace the struggle with many of these tasks, and the satisfaction of seeing a freshly mowed lawn.

Per sociology professor, Dr. Heather Johnson, “When we pay [kids] to do things that humans have always had to do as participants of communities and families, it sends them some sort of a message that they are entitled to [an] exchange for these things.”

She added, “This isn’t happening in poor families. They’re not like, ‘If you take care of your cousins, I’m going to pay you for it.’ It’s just expected that you would take care of your cousins if your cousins needed taking care of.”

The bigger message is that we should set a standard that life requires work and, “We are in this together.” It is more effective than turning your child into a vendor to distribute services for you.

Read more

Fifteen years ago, a group of farmers wandered down a dirt trail in the thick of the Amazon rainforest.

They were searching for a plot of land to farm. They’d heard there was fertile soil in this region.

Suddenly, an arrow thudded near them on the ground. They saw a man in the distance. They waved their hands, gesturing that they came in peace. Then, another arrow landed, and another. They retreated into the brush they came from — and wisely so.

This stranger is the last of his tribe. He’s often called the loneliest man on earth.

He speaks an unknown language. He has many nicknames but media outlets call him “the Hole Indian”. It stems from his hunting tactic of digging six-foot holes to catch prey.

We’ll call him “Last Man”.

There is one brief video showing Last Man chopping down a tree alone within a village. He is thin, muscular, and middle-aged.

Activists say this footage is important because it gives proof he’s alive. It allows them to campaign for his protection and legislation that guards his land.

Why he is alone

Civilians are best served by keeping a distance — Last Man’s entire tribe was killed 22 years ago. Experts speculate they died during battles with illegal loggers/farmers. It is why he is so aggressive towards strangers.

Last Man was attacked in 2009 by a gunman. Researchers questioned if he was even alive, but then more footage of him emerged — including the only photo ever taken of his face:

There might be more like him

Most people understand that the Amazon rainforest is large, but they don’t appreciate the gravity of its size.

It is 2.7 million square miles and is home to more uncontacted tribes than any other place in the world.

To appreciate its scale, this is the outline of the US compared to the Amazon rainforest:

The good news

There’s often substantial media hype around uncontacted tribes which is largely misguided and exaggerated.

Most indigenous people retreated deeper into the jungle more than 100 years ago during colonization efforts. They saw disease ravaging populations and knew, intuitively, that being near these outsiders was bad news.

However — many tribes still maintain a minimal level of contact with local merchants when the need arises.

Last Man is special because he is actively studied from a distance by regional anthropologists — who maintain a distance from him for his own health and safety.

He is aware of their presence and tolerates them — sometimes waving for them to avoid deadly holes he has dug. Researchers have left sanitized tools and bags of seeds for him as a show of trust.

Later, government officials entered a decree that nobody should go within three miles of his location. Last Man’s protected territory is 10 square miles.

You might be wondering why the government even allows people to log and threaten such special tribes — whose languages are so rare that you wouldn’t be able to associate them with any in the known world.

The reality is that — it’s illegal to log in the Amazon.

People are routinely arrested for it. The problem is that you can’t arrest someone prior to cutting down trees. You have to catch them in the act. And as you’ve seen, it is a very, very large area that isn’t easy to traverse.

The Amazon also includes several nations, among which there is corruption and significant poverty — which drives people to chase profits at the expense of anything.

How does the last man survive?

The last man has a small plantation of fruits and vegetables.

He supplements this vegetation with trap hunting. He also wields wooden and bamboo spears to catch wild pigs and birds to eat. He lives in the remains of his village, in a small hut that is protected from the rain.

What’s incredible is that this man may not even know what ice or snow is, let alone television. He lives in a sort of paleolithic stage of civilization — and that’s OK.

The dangerous instinct is to try and pressure natives into modern ways of thinking and living, “They would love it if they just knew what life\

was like.”

This line of reasoning has a terrible history.

Yet one can imagine just how lonely Last Man is. He is the last of his kind, with every person he ever loved now dead. When he dies, his language and culture will die with him.

Anthropologists believe he harbors a deeply hostile worldview: anything that has come in from the outside has only brought destruction and sorrow. Which is why he chooses to live alone in the woods.

Last Man likely sleeps with one eye open and is always in fear of outsiders.

No good deed goes without punishing

Uncontacted tribes are routinely (and unknowingly) decimated by unwitting hikers.

They don’t realize these tribes have zero immunity to many simple germs we carry. Visitors bring water and gifts to tribes and it ends tragically.

As a general rule, if an uncontacted tribes man shoots arrows at you — stay away.

Ultimately, we should remember that Last Man is a victim. He is part of a long-lasting tradition of aggression and displacement against indigenous people that has spanned the globe.

Imagine someone came up and offered you a million dollars to guess whether a stranger is a good or bad student.

You won’t see them. All you’ll have is data and key points about that student.

If you had one bullet and it said, “Arrives at class on time,” you wouldn’t have a ton to work with. Plenty of slackers are still punctual.

But if your facts also included, “pays attention” and “studies three hours a day”, you’d probably feel much safer on your million dollar guess.

All of these details are considered correlates. They don’t produce perfect causality, but they do carry statistical significance.

Now, imagine we pivot and do the same exercise with a person’s happiness. Therein lies a great framework to produce a happy person—or close to it.

Embrace these five things, and you’ll be like that latter student who seems much more likely to be on point.

1. Prioritize experiences over material things

The smartest man I know loves to invoke jealousy on my Instagram feed. He’s a well-paid engineer and his travel photos stir awe in the most cynical wanderlustian.

He’s standing on a sparkling Hawaiian beach with his buddies. He’s snowboarding in white-caked mountains. He doesn’t own a big house or sports cars. A majority of his money goes towards travel. In his posts, he includes the hashtag “#memoriesovermoney.”

He isn’t off.

People who spend their money on experiential purchases tend to be happier than those who buy material things. Moreover, investing in life experiences delivers longer-lasting satisfaction. The thrill of shiny objects decays faster than a well-delivered memory.

2. This is the most powerful predictor of happiness

Read more

You can learn all you need to know about a person by watching them. Small acts are ripples that live in harmony with a thousand larger decisions.

When we learn to appreciate the power in small things, we learn to acknowledge them in ourselves. And in that recognition, there is change waiting to happen.

Learn to size a person up quickly and you’ll do well in life. You’ll know who to learn from and who to keep around. You’ll know that some folks are radioactive and you should run for cover.

And if you find yourself wincing at any of these character flaws, the problem might be you.

A dating poll revealed a character flaw I had never considered

I was doing a research project for a client and sent out a big survey to female readers. It was mostly dating questions. One of the questions was, “What do you find to be most attractive in a man?”

I was expecting a predictable set of responses: he’s hot, he’s nice and intelligent, he’s funny and ambitious. Those answers were there. But the answer that came back most was one I wasn’t expecting: “He does what he says he’s going to do.”

A dangling lightbulb flipped on in my memory bank. I suddenly saw all of the flaky people I’d struggled with:

“Yes, I’ll send that right away!”

“Sure! Wednesday night sounds perfect!”

They cancel. They’re consistently late. You have to hold them to the fire to get them to commit to anything.

Most people are wise enough to honor their word to their boss.

But do they have the character to honor commitments to friends?

Some people would be late to their mother’s funeral. If you hate flaky people, channel that disgust into treating your word as gold. You’ll stand out in an otherwise frustrating population.

After that dating poll, I started honoring my word, even on the tiniest things. I channeled Game of Thrones and said to myself, “A Kernan always keeps his promises.” It was incredible how much it helped my dating life and made up for my other flaws.

How you lose speaks volumes about your character

It’s easy to feel demoralized in a world where talent is hyper-visible. No matter how good you are at something, there’s a 13-year-old on YouTube who could totally own you.

Think you’re good at chess? Watch this blindfolded prodigy beat five adults at once. Think you’re good at piano? Here’s a one-armed tween playing Flight of the Bumblebee.

More than two decades ago, I was a tall, lanky 15-year-old, warming the bench on my high school basketball team.

Seven basketball courts filled the enormous industrial warehouse I practiced at. Every time I stepped into the building, I was greeted by a crescendo of bouncing basketballs and shouts from varying distances.

The entrance to the building felt like a portal to another dimension. There wasn’t a single day where I didn’t see grown men shouting, screaming, or fist-fighting over a pickup game. You’d have thought one of them owed the other money that was long overdue.

A mentor once told me, “You need to learn to lose like a man.” I tried to keep that in mind when I felt my rage boiling. Losing humanizes us and brings us back to earth. Losing with dignity honors our fallibility and mortality. We become more likable.

Fighting and making excuses is a digression from the basic lessons in sportsmanship.

I want people in my life who can check their ego and “take the L” in any form life dishes out.

Accept that there are 13-year-olds who can dunk on you at most things. You’ll be better off for it.

Words matter—what people say will tell you a lot about who they are

There’s a woman in my immediate circle who I have to spend time with (my use of the word “have” suggests how I feel about her). Regrettably, she’s dating a good friend of mine.

Here’s the seed of my problem with her: We’ve been on several vacations and in the years that I’ve known her, she hasn’t once asked me a single question about my life. Nothing, across a wide spectrum of small talk, real talk, and a hundred hours spent around each other. Everything is about her.

She also makes lots of egocentric, judgmental, self-congratulatory comments.

Social psychologist, James W. Pennebaker, did an incredible study analyzing speeches, interviews, and papers by thousands of people. He found that you can learn much about a person simply by the words they choose.

For example, when they tell the truth, they frequently use singular pronouns, such as “I” alongside excluders like “except” and “yet.” This is because the person is drawing lines around what they did and didn’t do. Someone who is lying will struggle to draw lines and nuance. Complicated lies are harder to build.

An egotistical person, unsurprisingly, will refer to themselves more often during conversation. They will steer any topic back towards something that affects them rather than showing care for another person’s feelings.

Focus on the words a person says.

• What does it say about them and their ambitions?

• Are they thoughtful of other people’s feelings and vulnerabilities when speaking?

• Do they listen to what you say and ask about it?

How a person frames their thoughts provides powerful forensic evidence of their true character.

What a person says is often less important than how they choose to say it.

The most obvious character flaw? When the person operates as two different people

The personality type I despise above all others has two modes:

1. They are super kind and ingratiating.

2. They are massive, insensitive jerks.

The only thing that separates those two modes is whether the person they’re talking to is important or has power over them.

You’ll see the worst of this in corporate offices, a manager screaming “mush” at his subordinates until his own boss walks in and he purrs, “Why hello, my brilliant leader. We are all just happily working on this seamless project as always. How might we assist you on this lovely day!?”

Watch how someone treats a stranger, especially someone who has nothing to offer them. Kindness and curiosity towards “the little guy” is a sign of empathy.

If they’re rude to subordinates, it reveals a situational value system. More plainly, you’ll be expendable as soon as you’re no longer useful. Run, don’t walk, to your nearest exit.

Tune in to the little things because they all add up

I don’t love judging people or drawing quick conclusions. But much of life mandates getting a read on a person’s character. Get burned a few times and you’ll appreciate the value in having a people compass.

One can both assume the good in people while also knowing that many will prove that assumption wrong.

This isn’t a perfect science, of course. We all have bad days and misrepresent ourselves due to frustration or sleep deprivation.

Just stay vigilant and on the lookout. Or you’ll waste your time with broken people.

Every week across the US, plastic surgeons are seeing increasing numbers of patients with a dream of a face that can’t be achieved.

They walk into the office holding an AI image in their hand, and plead, “Can you make me look more like her?”

If you’ve seen AI faces, you know exactly what this means. All of the AI models have this generic, Instagram-like face that will blend together in groups. Which isn’t terribly surprising because the software is farming Instagram models and their actual profile pictures (which hasn’t been without controversy).

How are surgeons reacting?

Dr. Nugent, president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, says they try to manage expectations because they don’t have the luxury of managing every pixel the way software does. AI programs are known to produce hyper-symmetry in faces, which is simply unrealistic in surgery, which is as much art as it is science.

But these expectations have always been a challenge. Since the profession’s inception, patients have walked in, stretched their faces taut with their hands, and asked the surgeon for that look. Which makes the entire practice look easier than it is.

In prior decades, it was quite common for patients to walk into an office, clutching ripped-out pages from Vogue, with pictures of Gisele Bündchen or Claudia Schiffer, and ask the doctor to make them look like those models, as if the surgeon could easily push a button, wave the scalpel like a wand, and make it so.

This eventually evolved into Snapchat dysmorphia, with 72% of patients reporting they wanted plastic surgery just to look better in selfies, and to better live up to the heavily filtered versions of themselves they were presenting online.

The insidious thing about these AI-modified versions of yourself—is that it makes these changes feel so attainable.

With AI-powered programs like FaceApp, you can easily tweak basic features such as your eyes, nose and mouth, and those seemingly small tweaks in position and size can actually have an outsized effect on your overall appearance. A shift of a few millimeters can make you look like an entirely different person.

Read more

I grew up on military bases and saw the full lifecycle of war: the absence of my father, the death of my friends’ fathers, the silent wounds that linger on in veterans. Anyone who says war isn’t terrible has never been near it.

For hundreds of years, it was believed that humans were the only species engaging in warfare — at least in the way that we do — with all its organized brutality and deliberate use of strategy.

Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that this notion was challenged by our closest relatives, chimpanzees. In fact, many scientists argue that chimps are on a similar evolutionary track, living as we did in the Stone Age. They already demonstrate a preference for and understanding of cooked food. They just lack the ability to create fire.

There are even reports of chimps using spears to hunt in Senegal. But it was an initial report of an actual chimp war that rocked the environomental world. Jane Goodall was there as a witness and her perception of kind primates was totally upended.

The origins of the Gombe Chimp War

In the 1970s, Jane Goodall spent years embedded with a chimp community in Gombe Stream National Park, Tanzania.

Initially, she evangelized their beautiful qualities, highlighting their affection for each other, their kindness, and maternal nature, while also acknowledging their capacity for violence.

Goodall herself is considered the matriarch of primate conservation. Her entire goal was to document the friendly chimps in hopes of educating the public and reducing human encroachment.

The chimp community lived as normal with no striking events until 1971. That year, the Northern Kahama alpha male, Leakey, passed away. A new alpha, the second in the hierarchy, stepped forward to take over the group. However, he was not accepted by two brothers, who began fighting with him. Threat displays and small skirmishes broke out in the coming days. And as is typical, just after these violent displays, the same chimps who were attacking each other would then be grooming one another like friends.

Eventually, the turmoil grew too big and caused the chimp community to split. One group migrated north while the other went south. The chimps chose allegiances based on who they had the strongest social ties with. It seemed like a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

There’s an old, and well-known theory in the social sciences, called Contact Hypothesis. It suggests that tensions rise in humans when there is isolation between groups, and decreases when there is intermingling. The same phenomenon is often seen among chimp communities. After initially splitting, everything was fine. The two groups even interacted occasionally. But as they spent more time apart, tensions rose.

The conflict escalated in January of 1974, when the northern tribe formed a war party. All the males came together and migrated towards the other group.

Chaos breaks out in the jungle

A war party descended upon the more peaceful, southern group in the middle of the day, as they were lounging in the brush. They first killed a male chimp named Godi. The event was witnessed by Jane Goodall and other scientists, who watched in horror. It was the first time they’d seen chimps systematically attacking other chimps.

Notably, the chimps went into a fevered celebration after the kill. They jumped up and down, tearing down branches. They flew up and down trees. Their screams soared across the jungle, in an undeniable celebration of bloodlust. Things only got worse.

Over the next four years, the marauding males came back over and over again. They systematically killed each male of the southern troop. It was gang-style violence, teaming up on individual chimps one by one. By the end of 1978, all the males in the southern troop had been killed, along with several females.

The males then forced the remaining females to join them. Tragically, they raped several and killed some of their young. After the group was consolidated back into one, everything slowed down and the war was over. The event was named the Great Gombe Chimpanzee War.

The takeaway and backlash

Initially, Jane Goodall’s claims were met with great skepticism. Jane was already known for having broken a major rule of research: falling in love with your subject matter.

She was also accused of over-anthropomorphizing the chimps. It was an easy conclusion to draw as she’d been known to name the chimps, talk to them, feed them, and sing lullabies as though they were her children.

Many experts also said the conflict was an unnatural occurrence, caused by human influence: direct interference and encroachment on their land. But this was later disproven after a group of scientists conducted their own set of studies on 18 chimp communities throughout Africa.

What they saw confirmed Goodall’s observations. They found that chimps actively engage in warfare. It usually starts with a breakdown in their social structure, followed by a power struggle. Their wars are almost entirely carried out by males, typically over resources. The conflicts are prolonged, with pressure applied over months and years.

The fights can be over the expansion of territory, access to water, food, and fertile females. The shorter in supply any these resources are, the higher the odds of warfare and violence.

No, nobody ever suggested nature was kind. Even in its cruelest moments, everything serves a purpose. There is no malice, nor any remorse.

Yet it is eye-opening to think there is another species carrying out conflicts that are strikingly similar to human warfare. Perhaps it shouldn’t be so surprising given we share 98.8% of our DNA with these powerful creatures. The Gombe Chimpanzee War doesn’t necessarily confirm that war is of human nature. But it certainly highlights brutality, and that empathy and cruelty can both exist in a being.

If anything, it reminds me of how dangerous our base instincts can be, and that harmony is a fragile thing. It needs to be nurtured and cared for with all kindness we can muster.

Be good to each other, folks.

I’ve long admired art and artists, wondering how they do it.

There’s always been an appeal to me about creating something out of nothing—using very few tools or instruments. That is what pulled me to the writing profession a decade ago.

I also wanted to do something that would take me away from a digital screen, that was no pressure, with no goal of winning anything or making any money. So I decided on a whim to start drawing two months ago. It excited me to work a fresh and different part of my brain. It was also something I didn’t fancy myself as having any talent in. It would be a fun experiment.

How it began

I was at my mother’s house and she happens to have 20 pet chickens. So I grabbed a pencil and said, “Why not now? It’s time to do my first drawing.”

The first thing I learned is that feathers are really, really hard to draw (my first drawing is depicted above as the cover photo).

I’m ashamed of how many times I had to erase and redraw the rooster’s feet.

Interestingly, when I woke up the next day, my hand was a tiny bit sore! Who knew drawing was a mini workout? The physicality of the craft, the feel of the pencil, hearing the scratching sound on the paper, even the smell of the graphite, was refreshing, and a reminder I wasn’t just sitting around doomscrolling.

This first drawing loudly announced that I had a lot to learn.

I realized that perspective, and even the simple task of making one of the rooster’s feet seem further away was harder than I imagined, and that I needed to study shadows.

So I watched a YouTube lesson on shading using a sphere and took a stab at one. It came out a bit sloppy but it still felt like progress.

I figured I’d try a rooster again so that I had more than one rep. But I went with a still image because, as I learned firsthand, roosters sure hate standing still for a portrait.

Spoiler alert: It was a disaster

A small part of me said, “Maybe you should just quit this stupid hobby.” I literally spent hours only to produce this lump:

Read more

I want you to do an experiment.

The next time you’re on the road, take a quick look around and guesstimate what percentage of vehicles are either a truck or SUV. You might be surprised.

It’s estimated that 70–80% of vehicles sold in the US are trucks or SUVs. These vehicles are often marketed for their ruggedness, and ability to handle rough conditions, depicted in commercials splashing through mud and traversing snow covered mountain roads.

And inside most of these cars? I see nicely dressed people driving 30 minutes to work on pristine roads.

Per a newly released study by Dr. Anthony A. Laverty, associate professor of public health, curbing sales of these vehicles would reduce the risk of pedestrian harm, air pollution, and fatalities by a large margin.

Sadly, global roads are all succumbing to “car spreading” — which is the progressive enlargement of vehicles over time.

In 2023, total sales of SUVs in developed economies surpassed 50% for the first time in history. I even noticed this during my recent trip to Europe.

Each day, sandwiched between the on-brand tiny sedans, was at least one hulking SUV, squeezing down narrow cobblestone streets. SUVs are even popping up in Eastern Europe in spades.

Read more

She will never wrong you.

She will agree with you on most things, compliment your instincts, and take your side in every argument.

She is as beautiful as you can imagine her to be.

She will ask you about your day without you ever asking back. She will have no bad moods, family baggage, annoying obligations, drama, or opinions that grate on you.

And if “she” doesn’t suit your whims and needs, she has a cloned brother who is just as capable.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised in the rise of AI companions and the frictionless intimacy with requires none of the work. The foregoing of so many human complications offers a relief that is both seductive and convenient.

But it is becoming corrosive in a way that many people are missing.

How things have changed

If you think these AI companions are one-off hobbies for no-lifers living in their mom’s basement, you’d be mistaken.

AI companion app downloads totaled 220 million globally on the Apple Store and Google Play as of July of 2025, growing 88% year over year.

In China, there was a wave of cyber heartbreak as a major platform altered its algorithm, switching from emotional connections to more calculating interactions. Users across social media penned grieving letters to their lost partners.

And yet this is such a common storyline. When the companion app Soulmate shut down, it rocked multiple users, including Matt. The account read:

Matt was shocked when he learned Sam had one week left to live.

The pair had an unconventional relationship — they were frequent companions, and occasional lovers. Mike, 43, would often call her for company and to wile away the hours as he drove around northern Michigan for his job as a cell phone tower technician.

Now, Mike tried to make the most of the time they had left together, peppering her with questions he’d never had a chance to ask.

From the outside looking in, this can all look stark mad. It has certainly made me scratch my head with bewilderment.

Beyond the implications for interhuman romance (for which there are many), this reliance on AI bots, who aren’t and can never be people, has drawn massive attention from researchers. Specifically, they’ve been tracking how this frequent use alters a person’s perception of and interaction with reality.

Spoiler alert: the results aren’t great

An Oxford study released in June 2026 examined the effects of humans developing deeper relationships with AI companions. It wasn’t necessarily romantic companions and also included platonic friendships.

The study involved 3,075 participants who used these companions. The AI services were found to be sycophantic, tending to provide emotional and self-esteem support we typically get from close friends and family.

The consequence is that users reported much lower satisfaction with their everyday relationships. They found the interactions more difficult and draining, and became less social as a result.

Users became less likely to initiate new interpersonal relationships or take steps to fix or nurture existing ones.

And why wouldn’t they feel this way? A companion that remembers everything you say, and gets along with you so seamlessly probably feels great. But what does that mean for our greater society? What I fear is that these companions won’t just make people more reclusive, but also more difficult to deal with. Sadly, the research supports this fear.

During the aforementioned experiment, users’ conviction of being right rose by 43-62% with hypothetical scenarios, and their odds of apologizing dropped by 10-28%.

The troubling part is that even when researchers attempted to counteract the effects of this AI sycophancy, telling participants their responses came from AI, or using a more neutral tone in the messages, the effect was still the same. People have a ravenous thirst to hear what they want to hear.

And even worse, these effects were observed after only one interaction with a chat bot.

The very feature that causes harm with AI companions is the feature that drives engagement. It’s yet another dopamine drip on our phones and computer screens.

When I began combing through research, I found a seemingly endless library of studies on the terrible effects these AI bots—despite the technology being so new. For example, they are strongly linked to extreme political views and theories.

Unfortunately, developers are heavily incentivized to create bots that are agreeable and feed people positive information about themselves and their ideas.

A study of the 11 leading large language models found that on average, the models’ responses were 50% more sycophantic than a human’s—even when the users engaged in unethical, illegal, or harmful behaviors.

The very real human

There’s a concept called the Lake Wobegon Effect. It’s a fictional town, described by the narrator as, “…where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.”

It is self-evident that, statistically, not all children are above average, nor all women strong, and all men good-looking. The Lake Wobegon effect describes illusory superiority, which is a natural human tendency to overestimate one’s abilities.

And humans are rife with this illusion. A classic study found that 93% of American drivers rated themselves as above average. Another 94% of professors rated their teaching ability as above average. A nationally weighted study found that 65% of Americans agree with the statement, “I am more intelligent than the average person.”

The scary thing? All of these stats arrived before sycophantic AI bots began watering this problematic instinct.

Don’t be surprised if you start seeing bigger egos in people, and fewer apologies.

Part of the problem is that LLMs are training their data on Reddit and other communities that are prone to echo chambers. Think about it. Most people don’t engage long-term with people they disagree with. If the LLM is farming this pattern, it tends to replicate it.

Consequently we have a service that is both programmed towards agreeableness and pandering, and anchored in it too.

A quick tip

I don’t know where this trend is going, but there are things you can do to avoid becoming part of the problem.

As an experiment, I went into an AI program, and found that if I specifically told the app to stop using superlatives, to cut out the toxic positivity, and be objective, it helped me get real feedback that isn’t massaging my ego.

The problem is that there’s excessive anthropomorphism in these apps when they should just be more objective.

If you say something stupid, the bot should just call you out for a stupid idea. Not tell you it’s groundbreaking innovation.

Unfortunately, calling people out for their stupidity simply doesn’t pay.

To whatever extent you use AI, remember that it may be great at many things, but it isn’t a good therapist, personal advice giver, or judge of whether you were the jerk in some interaction it didn’t witness itself.

And call me crazy, but it isn’t a good girlfriend or boyfriend either. I’d rather be occasionally wrong with a real person than perpetually right with a server farm.

Your brain creates imaginary monsters when you stare at the mirror for too long because of Troxler fading. Put simply, your brain gets bored and finds ways to scare you.

And if you stare at someone else for too long, you become their monster. Here are four problems you create by staring and why you should stop.

Things you can fix

My spouse and I have our own patented Transparency Clause. If either of us stinks, needs a shower, has something stuck in our teeth, on our lips — anything that is distracting — we have full permission to tell the other person without getting in trouble.

I created this clause because of a previous relationship where I couldn’t mention anything without my ex blowing up on me. Establishing this policy at the beginning worked wonders for our relationship. It makes us more honest with each other.

This way, the other person isn’t completely distracted while we talk, not hearing a word we say because of some piece of food stuck in our teeth that has them hypnotized, grossed out, and wondering whether to say something.

If you see someone with an unzipped fly, don’t just stare at it, make yourself useful: Whisper that it is down, “Psst. You’re about to let the horse out of the barn.”

Otherwise, you’ll look like a creep staring at their crotch for two minutes straight.

Is it culture or biology?

What do most men agree on?

Shapes. We like shapes. Spheres. Circles. Hourglasses. Cylinders. Ovals. We like partial shapes too. We like looking at them and watching them move. We even like looking at lines!

These shapes, particularly on a female (or male) body are highly potent to our attention.

One of the more interesting case studies I encountered was with trans-man friend here in Tampa.

Read more

The bizarre series of events began with my bartender leaning across the counter and whispering, “The police are here. If you don’t have a real ID, I’d leave.” I was 19. And up until then, it was always an unspoken thing at the bar that my friends and I were underage. Tequila Grill needed our business. We needed alcohol. I glanced right, and saw police coming down the stairs at the entrance.

We were in downtown DC, at a bar in the basement of a high rise. Months earlier, my dorm neighbors at GWU made me a fake ID for $20 and insisted it would work like a charm. And it did — for a while.

I slipped out the bar’s side door, and out into an empty night street which was surrounded by high rises and typically packed with cars during the day. I turned left and began a brisk walk, feeling completely free. Then I heard a shout from behind me, “Hey! Come over here.”

I turned, seeing a cop standing outside the door, waving me over. A small part of me whispered, “Run! You can run! Do it!” But I thought better of it and went back.

After reaching him, the cop said, “Let me see your ID.” And, being an honest fool, I handed over my fake ID and was in cuffs shortly thereafter. Three girls were also arrested with fake IDs. A white paddy wagon pulled up minutes later. The doors opened with a creak and I was led to it. A wall went down the middle, separating the male and female sides. I stepped inside, my wrists tightly handcuffed behind me. The girls loaded into the other side. And for the next 30 minutes, I heard a chorus of crying.

“This will go on my p-p-p-permanent record,” one girl sobbed. I tried to console her, saying it would all work out. But I’ll be honest, I was on the verge of tears too. I’d never been arrested, and having it happen in front of a crowd outside the bar was a bit overwhelming.

I was put into a jail cell around midnight. We were in a rough part of the city. The facility was small and I was the only arrestee in my area. Two hours later, I heard a commotion, and a man yelling down the hall. It grew louder. Suddenly, four officers appeared outside my cell, carrying a man by his outstretched arms and legs. He was hanging in the air, face down, with his pants pulled down to his ankles, and his boxers still concealing his nether regions. His shoulder-length black hair dangled down over his face in a wet tangled mess.

“Please don’t put him in my cell. Please don’t put him in my cell,” I chanted to myself — only for them to do exactly that, tossing him to the ground in a heap. As our cell door clanged shut, he stood up, pulled his pants up and tightened his belt, while defiantly staring out the cell door.

He brushed himself and turned to me, “Next time they come to this cell, let’s…” and then he did a throat cutting motion with his hand.

I said, “I don’t think so, brother. I wouldn’t recommend you try that.” Fortunately, he didn’t. He was asleep on a bench snoring minutes later.

It was pouring frigid rain outside when they let me out at 5 AM. I had just enough money for the cab home — thank god. But my problems had only begun.

A month later, I appeared in court

My dad was working nearby at the Pentagon. It was 2003 and he was in the thick of managing a war in the Middle East. He was able to appear with me, showing up in full military uniform. After awaiting our turn, the judge, a silver haired man, with thick glasses and a stern demeanor, said, “Who is here for a fake ID arrest?”

A dozen of us stood up in unison. The judge surveyed us, then said, “You have two options. You can either pay a $350 fine. Or you can do 30 hours of community service.”

I turned to Dad and said, “Great! We can just pay this fine and it’s done!”

It was naive of me to think my stern father would just fork over the money for my screwup. It would have been way off brand. Dad turned to me with a grim smile, “I don’t think so, buddy.”

Three weeks later

I stood on a grey sidewalk at 7 AM, walking along Adams Morgan (the bar district) with a broom. Five other college students, who’d also been caught with fake IDs were cleaning alongside me. We were all hungover and miserable. Like fools, we’d gone out the night before and drank our faces off, only to wake up early and suffer another round of consequences. We swept the streets on five separate Saturday mornings and it was brutal — every, single, time.

A large muscular man in his thirties was our supervisor. He had dark hair, broad shoulders, and a thick Brooklyn accent. He looked like he could be a bouncer too.

We were walking along the sidewalk on one of those Saturdays, and a homeless Hispanic man, who was wearing three separate coats and a scarf, came shuffling over and started hounding one of the college girls for money. She looked very uncomfortable, ignoring him and focusing on sweeping the street.

Out of the blue, our supervisor came over and grabbed the homeless guy with both hands — and shoved him hard. The man flew backward, tumbling over himself several times. I was shocked at how rough the supervisor was with him.

The homeless man stood up and started systematically taking off his coats while glaring at the supervisor, almost like he was preparing for a final fight. He slurred out, “Oh you think you are tough, eh?” Which was surprising because the homeless guy wasn’t big at all, nor did he appear coordinated in the moment.

Our supervisor, seemingly unperturbed, suddenly smiled, looked at the sky, and said, “I guess we are going to have the royal rumble here.” I was wide eyed from the tension. Our menacing supervisor looked like he’d had a hundred street fights. His knuckles were bricks and he had a scar running vertically down his eyebrow, the tell tale sign of a street fight.

Then, out of the blue, the supervisor pulled out a dollar and walked over and handed it to the homeless man — and the man completely dropped all pretenses of wanting to fight, and let out a big thank you. Then he promptly took his things and left. It was one of the strangest sequences I’ve ever seen, but it offered me a brief reprieve from my hangover.

I eventually finished my community service and, for a time, was bitter the city put all this effort into cracking down on college students drinking. What did they expect 19-year-olds to do? We were walking to the bars and not driving. I could be drafted into war but couldn’t have a beer? Great use of our tax dollars.

But it is what it is — I broke the law, knowingly. Their punishment certainly deterred me from using a fake ID again. But for all the pain it involved, it left me with a series of memories that were hard to forget. My parents love to bring this whole incident up at dinner and at get togethers, which has helped keep the memory alive.

A part of me is glad that my dad held me accountable, as he always did. But I’m also glad I can still look back and say I lived a little.

Jason’s mother walked to the front door and abruptly turned to his sister, Julie, “No boys, tonight. You got it?” She was our babysitter that night.

“Of course not!” Julie said with a wry smile. Her mother stared back, hard, to emphasize the point. Julie was 16 and quite beautiful, with big eyes and long curly brown hair. You had to get in line to have a crush on her.

Jason’s parents left and just 15 minutes later, Julie’s boyfriend seemingly rappelled in from the ceiling. They were instantly making out in the pool. Jason and I stared out the window in disgust at them. They were like two suckerfish attached at the face.

I vividly remember thinking, “Why do people kiss? It’s so weird.” My confused curiosity was at least partially driven by my lack of male hormones. But even today— it still feels like an unusual practice. What gives? Why do we like lip-on-lip contact so much? There are a few reasons.

The origin story

Evolutionary psychologists argue that what we know today as “kissing” may have come from “kiss-feeding” which was an exchange of pre-chewed food from mother to baby. It’s an ancient practice, often used during the weaning process. The mother helped the baby swallow and digest food through the use of saliva and chewing. The process also looks a heck of a lot like french kissing.

There are other factors at work too.

Read more

Can you remember the best birthday present you ever received? What was it? Where were you and what imagery do you remember?

I got mine when I was 9. My mother gave me $100 to spend at Toys “R” Us. This was in the 1990s, when $100 went a long way. When the doors to the store swung open, I felt the endless possibilities, feeling so lucky and fortunate as I did the math on how many toys I could purchase. And spoiled as this moment made me, it is a treasured memory that reminds me I was loved and cared for.

So much pomp and circumstance surrounds birthdays now, from Sweet 16’s to quinceañeras. But so little is written about their origins. How did we get here? How have birthdays changed in meaning over time?

The evolution of your special day

Centuries ago, birthday celebrations weren’t even a consideration in most cultures. Until very recently, many Native American tribes didn’t even count their ages in the way that we do, with people simply living. Age was just an abstract concept they ignored, which sounds much nicer on this half of life.

But there were intermittent examples of birthday “events” in various cultures, particularly for the upper class. Egyptian pharaohs threw lavish parties to celebrate key birthdays.

A vindolanda table rom Roman Britain was found with an invitation to a birthday party in 100 AD (which is likely the oldest surviving document written in Latin by a woman). Roman birthday celebrations were an extension of the cult of Genius — who was a personal god who was born and then died alongside you (women had an equivalent god, Juno). These celebrations and the use of cake and other ornaments gave homage to this personal god, asking him or her for another year of prosperity.

In 1700s Europe, birthdays were celebrated — but with some hesitation. It was believed that evil spirits often came for the person on this day, and so people gathered around to provide well wishes and help ward off the ghosts.

The huge change that emerged

Between the late 1800s and the early 1930s, there was a cultural shift from children being an economic asset, to them being an emotional one, and a heightening of importance in individuality. This coincided with children being removed from the workforce (rightfully), and a new collective identity being established for them.

An overlooked shift in this trend was in the role of time keeping. Clocks were considered a luxury before the 19th century, as most were expensive and inaccurate. But as the technology progressed, and industrialization kicked in, more and more homes owned clocks and began to think of time in concrete terms in daily life. This especially mattered as people entered factories and more standardized workforces, and were expected to be in at a specific time. After all, we could only rely on knocker uppers pelting our windows with peas in the morning for so long.

Birthdays, as a tradition, didn’t begin fomenting without resistance. Many saw them as self-indulgent and materialistic, causing children to become spoiled rotten. Others saw it as a distraction from spiritual pursuits and conversations with God. But their resistance proved futile.

The good side of things

For all the criticism birthdays get, they do carry great value. They give a child their own unique day, reinforcing the meaning and love that surrounds them. Their birthday harbors nurturing and caring, and reminds them that in this chaotic and indifferent world — they are indeed special. But scholars argue this meaning only came into significance when families became much smaller.

The entire concept of age consciousness is a relatively recent phenomenon. For most of modern history, people were just seen as old, young, or in between. Make no mistake: age was respected. But nobody was keeping score.

In the late 19th century, we began benchmarking ages as milestones, and delineating when things like marriage or having a job were and weren’t age appropriate. This became even more cemented with the arrival of middle class suburbia.

There’s no arguing the significance of birthdays. There’s even a proven effect whereby we prefer the numbers in our birthday over other numbers. I’ve noticed this myself as I see when a clock matches my birthday.

How America’s birthdays became what they are today

During the 19th century, the standard parties, with cakes, and hoorahs, began to form more concretely. The ceremony is likely a combination of several traditions. Cake is tied to Roman birthday rites. Candles stem from the German aristocracy, which often used these candles before electricity was available and often with religious undertones.

Mass production of birthday cards began in the 1900s, though they read quite differently in those days:

The use of wrapping paper stems from American consumerism as corporations began finding ways to add revenue to their coffers. But there remains no singular rule for how a birthday can be celebrated, as they are a family affair, written freely and in line with your family’s rules and traditions.

The problematic side of birthdays

I haven’t had this problem — but very often, birthdays become objects of comparison, which inevitably lead to anxiety and social conflict. Expectations abound and when they aren’t met, disappointment ensues.

Per historian Howard P. Chudacoff, “Birthdays provide a milestone by which individuals can compare their status, accomplishments, and appearance with other people who are the same age. It’s kind of like a train: Are you ahead of time, on time, or behind time?”

Which is precisely how our new concept of birthdays emerged: through schedule references. For the first time, people described their birthdays in context to life goals, and whether they were getting to their destination in due time. Each birthday segments us into a new cohort. The comparisons in age come easily and naturally, and you can easily feel your life isn’t progressing fast enough if you fall into this psychological trap.

But remember that these birthday celeb rations are still important. They say much about personhood, kinship, and your sense of belonging. Continue celebrating with those you love. Acknowledging the significance of one’s birthday is acknowledging that person’s significance to you, and it rarely goes unnoticed.

Some of the fondest memories I have are related to birthdays: when my partner flew all of my friends out to surprise me with a party, when my parents had a huge birthday pool party for me and my friends. And even the quieter ones, where I just stayed in with my spouse and enjoyed each other’s company, rank among my favorite.

These are the richer moments of life, and they stem from a deep history in ancient rituals that transcend time and culture. Embrace them. Even if it means overpaying for a birthday card.