I think I subscribe to your paid substack Dan precisely because I don't get the impression you have all the answers :) You are asking good questions and sharing even more interesting examples from history that cause me to rethink what I know. I would love more people to follow your work. You remind me somewhat of a Canadian Dan Carlin, which I hope you consider a compliment. A podcast with Carlin is probably wishful thinking but I would no doubt enjoy the conversation!
Of course, someone I know you are close to who would be fascinating to hear from in oral conversation with you, would be Dr. Bent Flyvbjerg. I have become an avid reader of much of his written material and I quoted him in a speech I gave late last year. (But first, I needed his help in pronouncing his name)! His most thought-provoking article for me has been the Law of Regression to the Tail. A powerful framework for assessing what kind of crisis we may be facing, at any given time.
Indeed! Bent and I just finished co-writing a book together. To be published next February. I expect we'll have lots to chat about when the book comes out.
I've read a couple of the (many) books by Bruce Schneier - "Schneier on Security" and "Liars and Outliers", and was struck how he referenced psychological findings that meshed nicely with many of those you refer to in your writing. Don't know whether, or how, you doing something with Mr. Schneier might happen, but I do think it would be very enlightening (and entertaining). https://www.schneier.com/
In a similar vein, I've read most of the books by Michael Moore, and Jon Ronson, again see confluences with many of the things that interest you, and think a dialogue between you and either/both of them would be enlightening.
Interesting that you saw the parallel: In fact, I met Schneier after he wrote some extremely generous praise of "Risk" along the lines of "this is the book I should have written...etc." Yes, we're very simpatico! So that's a great suggestion. Dan
Dan, I too have enjoyed your work for quite some time. Like you, I am an intellectual omnivore, a fox not a hedgehog.
My parents were scientists, tangentially involved with nuclear power, so I have been exposed to public misperception of risk and poor social choice issues my entire life. That is why I bought your first book. Then, over the past 30 years as an investor I have spent a fair bit of time and energy thinking about forecasting, reappraisals, risk-adjusted outcomes and being ‘more right than wrong, on average over the long haul’, and that is why I bought and enjoyed Superforecasting.
Alas, your analysis of punditry is spot on - and in many respects, it is Marketing 101. Focus and consistency builds an audience of the likeminded whereas a smorgasbord of offerings for intellectual omnivorous is a very hard sell. I empathize. Marketing the work of a fox is very hard. Professionally, what I did was convert my fox-like interests into ‘multi channel hedgehog offerings’. I have no easy answer to your dilemma other than to say strongly that what you are doing is interesting, it is valuable even if not easy to monetize, and I like it. I will tell you though that the lesson of Sales 101 is also correct - ‘keep making the ask repeatedly’. It works, and now nudged by you out of my laziness, I am a paid subscriber. Best. Neil.
Dan, I have enjoyed your work for quite a while now and was happy to become a subscriber. I have both of your books, as well as a copy of Superforecasting (which you didn't mention - why give Phil Tetlock all the credit). I remember reading Risk at a time when I was struggling to deal with public perception that oil pipelines were somehow exceptionally dangerous things. I certainly gained a better understanding of how few people really understand risk in its proper context.
Personally, I don't mind when you jump from one topic to another. If anything, I'm impressed with your "bandwidth", in terms of your ability to move across seemingly disparate topics. Seeing what you'll come up with is part of the attraction of being a subscriber. I rarely skip a column, only if it's something that I feel I have a pretty good understanding of already.
Keep up the good work, and I appreciate your willingness to accept feedback. Readers who are subscribers are probably more motivated to provide comments/reactions.
A key to keep subscribers is not to sound full of rage all the time, especially at your potential audience. It's easy, but it puts your actual paying audience off.
Perhaps it's a semantics thing, but I wouldn't describe Dan's pieces as always (or even frequently) being full of rage. Perhaps incredulity from time to time, and (in my view) rightly so. I started reading Dan's pieces when he was writing for the Ottawa Citizen and what drew me to his writing was the underlying theme of asking critical questions. For this legislation, this policy, this practice, what is the desired outcome? How/when will we know if that outcome has been achieved? How does that outcome, if achieved, make our community/society better? What are the costs, fiscal and social, that this will impose on our society? Does attainment of that desired outcome justify those costs? Are there other outcomes that are perhaps equally (or more) desirable, and what are their costs?
There are more, but those are the kinds of questions that Dan regularly asks, and in my view the kinds of questions that an informed citizenry ought to be regularly asking of their governments.
Hah! This is not a question that comes up terribly often so I'm afraid I have no answer. Let's just take some classic advice and say it's the thought that counts. Dan
Thanks for your columns! To answer your question about why I read your work, it's because back when I started a subscription to the Ottawa Citizen in ~2007 I respected your work and was sad to see you go! As for interviews, here's a suggestion with a tenuous link to my understanding of your area of interest: Samuel Arbesman. Author of an interesting book on complexity, I wonder if his background may tie in with your book in progress on projects? Failing that I appreciate both of your work and you're both smart so I think it would be engaging! Keep it up.
Dan, I have read each of your newsletters and have gotten something valuable out of every one. It is a compliment to your readers that you leave it up to us to discern the threads that connect them to each other. It is also a reflection of your insight into humanity that you do not try to impose linearity and rigid cause-and-effect onto the stories you tell. The quirkiness and randomness you report on are fun to learn about but also reflect real life as we mostly experience it.
I have been sending copies to friends who share my interest in history and they have each been grateful. One, a retired history teacher, another, a risk manager with a military bent, a third, who self-published a book of brief biographies of Canadian prime ministers.
In some ways, I don’t want to try to steer you to historians or topics or themes that interest me; it is the lack of predictability that is part of the value and charm on offer here.
Still, since you ask, at some point, I would value learning from you your perspectives about three broad topics:
1) given how blazingly hard it is to predict well and also to make productive use of those predictions; and given how challenging it is to translate historical insight into prescience about the emerging future, how can we systematically approach the task of applying forethought that we can hope to act upon?
2) since we must be prepared, as individuals and organizations, “for whatever unfolds”, including the surprising mass disruptive events that are increasingly common, should we give greater emphasis to what people now call the field of “strategic foresight” or should we focus more on our capacIty to roll with the punches, adapt, respond with agility, and learn?
3) are there historians or historically-minded observers who seem to you the wisest in navigating the past-present-future continuum? Likely, they would not be the most prescient so much as the ones with the greatest capacity to make unusual connections, ask (themselves) challenging questions, and remain curious and open, unlike typical pundits!
I joined this morning. I treasure reading well written, make that superior (and difficult to find), well researched material about topics and people I know little about—many famous but known to me only by name. Your genre(?) of writing is quite rare in the online sphere.
This newly acquired, detailed knowledge/information helps me grow into a more informed, well rounded, and hopefully, more understanding individual who travels on the shorter side of the lifespan. Personal growth a core goal, albeit not written down, but part of my make up. I’m a seeker, aren’t we all?
Don’t know what substack, blog linked to you but I am grateful. Please keep it up. Your substack is number one on my list. Thank you, twice! Let’s make that thrice😀
I think I subscribe to your paid substack Dan precisely because I don't get the impression you have all the answers :) You are asking good questions and sharing even more interesting examples from history that cause me to rethink what I know. I would love more people to follow your work. You remind me somewhat of a Canadian Dan Carlin, which I hope you consider a compliment. A podcast with Carlin is probably wishful thinking but I would no doubt enjoy the conversation!
Of course, someone I know you are close to who would be fascinating to hear from in oral conversation with you, would be Dr. Bent Flyvbjerg. I have become an avid reader of much of his written material and I quoted him in a speech I gave late last year. (But first, I needed his help in pronouncing his name)! His most thought-provoking article for me has been the Law of Regression to the Tail. A powerful framework for assessing what kind of crisis we may be facing, at any given time.
Indeed! Bent and I just finished co-writing a book together. To be published next February. I expect we'll have lots to chat about when the book comes out.
I've read a couple of the (many) books by Bruce Schneier - "Schneier on Security" and "Liars and Outliers", and was struck how he referenced psychological findings that meshed nicely with many of those you refer to in your writing. Don't know whether, or how, you doing something with Mr. Schneier might happen, but I do think it would be very enlightening (and entertaining). https://www.schneier.com/
In a similar vein, I've read most of the books by Michael Moore, and Jon Ronson, again see confluences with many of the things that interest you, and think a dialogue between you and either/both of them would be enlightening.
Interesting that you saw the parallel: In fact, I met Schneier after he wrote some extremely generous praise of "Risk" along the lines of "this is the book I should have written...etc." Yes, we're very simpatico! So that's a great suggestion. Dan
Dan, I too have enjoyed your work for quite some time. Like you, I am an intellectual omnivore, a fox not a hedgehog.
My parents were scientists, tangentially involved with nuclear power, so I have been exposed to public misperception of risk and poor social choice issues my entire life. That is why I bought your first book. Then, over the past 30 years as an investor I have spent a fair bit of time and energy thinking about forecasting, reappraisals, risk-adjusted outcomes and being ‘more right than wrong, on average over the long haul’, and that is why I bought and enjoyed Superforecasting.
Alas, your analysis of punditry is spot on - and in many respects, it is Marketing 101. Focus and consistency builds an audience of the likeminded whereas a smorgasbord of offerings for intellectual omnivorous is a very hard sell. I empathize. Marketing the work of a fox is very hard. Professionally, what I did was convert my fox-like interests into ‘multi channel hedgehog offerings’. I have no easy answer to your dilemma other than to say strongly that what you are doing is interesting, it is valuable even if not easy to monetize, and I like it. I will tell you though that the lesson of Sales 101 is also correct - ‘keep making the ask repeatedly’. It works, and now nudged by you out of my laziness, I am a paid subscriber. Best. Neil.
Bazinga!
Dan, I have enjoyed your work for quite a while now and was happy to become a subscriber. I have both of your books, as well as a copy of Superforecasting (which you didn't mention - why give Phil Tetlock all the credit). I remember reading Risk at a time when I was struggling to deal with public perception that oil pipelines were somehow exceptionally dangerous things. I certainly gained a better understanding of how few people really understand risk in its proper context.
Personally, I don't mind when you jump from one topic to another. If anything, I'm impressed with your "bandwidth", in terms of your ability to move across seemingly disparate topics. Seeing what you'll come up with is part of the attraction of being a subscriber. I rarely skip a column, only if it's something that I feel I have a pretty good understanding of already.
Keep up the good work, and I appreciate your willingness to accept feedback. Readers who are subscribers are probably more motivated to provide comments/reactions.
Thanks, Murray.
A key to keep subscribers is not to sound full of rage all the time, especially at your potential audience. It's easy, but it puts your actual paying audience off.
I'm working on that. Meditation, therapy, sedatives. Should do the trick any day now.
Perhaps it's a semantics thing, but I wouldn't describe Dan's pieces as always (or even frequently) being full of rage. Perhaps incredulity from time to time, and (in my view) rightly so. I started reading Dan's pieces when he was writing for the Ottawa Citizen and what drew me to his writing was the underlying theme of asking critical questions. For this legislation, this policy, this practice, what is the desired outcome? How/when will we know if that outcome has been achieved? How does that outcome, if achieved, make our community/society better? What are the costs, fiscal and social, that this will impose on our society? Does attainment of that desired outcome justify those costs? Are there other outcomes that are perhaps equally (or more) desirable, and what are their costs?
There are more, but those are the kinds of questions that Dan regularly asks, and in my view the kinds of questions that an informed citizenry ought to be regularly asking of their governments.
Oh, and most important: What does the evidence say?
Which brings me to another matter; Dan, I want to convert my annual subscription to that of "Founding Member". How can I do that?
Hah! This is not a question that comes up terribly often so I'm afraid I have no answer. Let's just take some classic advice and say it's the thought that counts. Dan
Thanks for your columns! To answer your question about why I read your work, it's because back when I started a subscription to the Ottawa Citizen in ~2007 I respected your work and was sad to see you go! As for interviews, here's a suggestion with a tenuous link to my understanding of your area of interest: Samuel Arbesman. Author of an interesting book on complexity, I wonder if his background may tie in with your book in progress on projects? Failing that I appreciate both of your work and you're both smart so I think it would be engaging! Keep it up.
I read that years ago. Great idea. Thanks.
Dan, I have read each of your newsletters and have gotten something valuable out of every one. It is a compliment to your readers that you leave it up to us to discern the threads that connect them to each other. It is also a reflection of your insight into humanity that you do not try to impose linearity and rigid cause-and-effect onto the stories you tell. The quirkiness and randomness you report on are fun to learn about but also reflect real life as we mostly experience it.
I have been sending copies to friends who share my interest in history and they have each been grateful. One, a retired history teacher, another, a risk manager with a military bent, a third, who self-published a book of brief biographies of Canadian prime ministers.
In some ways, I don’t want to try to steer you to historians or topics or themes that interest me; it is the lack of predictability that is part of the value and charm on offer here.
Still, since you ask, at some point, I would value learning from you your perspectives about three broad topics:
1) given how blazingly hard it is to predict well and also to make productive use of those predictions; and given how challenging it is to translate historical insight into prescience about the emerging future, how can we systematically approach the task of applying forethought that we can hope to act upon?
2) since we must be prepared, as individuals and organizations, “for whatever unfolds”, including the surprising mass disruptive events that are increasingly common, should we give greater emphasis to what people now call the field of “strategic foresight” or should we focus more on our capacIty to roll with the punches, adapt, respond with agility, and learn?
3) are there historians or historically-minded observers who seem to you the wisest in navigating the past-present-future continuum? Likely, they would not be the most prescient so much as the ones with the greatest capacity to make unusual connections, ask (themselves) challenging questions, and remain curious and open, unlike typical pundits!
Good stuff, Morrey. Thanks. I'll think about this.
I joined this morning. I treasure reading well written, make that superior (and difficult to find), well researched material about topics and people I know little about—many famous but known to me only by name. Your genre(?) of writing is quite rare in the online sphere.
This newly acquired, detailed knowledge/information helps me grow into a more informed, well rounded, and hopefully, more understanding individual who travels on the shorter side of the lifespan. Personal growth a core goal, albeit not written down, but part of my make up. I’m a seeker, aren’t we all?
Don’t know what substack, blog linked to you but I am grateful. Please keep it up. Your substack is number one on my list. Thank you, twice! Let’s make that thrice😀