I think it is simpler than this. Rather than telling people to do what they love, we should tell them to serve what they love. When we serve what we love, we tackle the annoyances joyfully, because that is the nature of the service we seek to give. Indeed, when we serve what we love, we seek out the area of greatest annoyance because that is where the greatest opportunity for service exists.
i disagree, at least for myself. i'm a psychiatrist and the annoyances i experience - the forms to fill out, the authorizations and fmla and work limitiation letters, the state database lookups for controlled drugs, the rewrites of prescriptions that are out of stock somewhere, the phone calls for minor or foolish reasons - are just the price i pay for the good part of seeing people get better. the annoyances in no way enhance my experience.
No trained psychiatrist here, but perhaps Adam and the Cybernetic Psych series he references understate part of the observation. It's not the annoyance, it's the solving of the annoyance. And, perhaps a big part of the story is not even just the solving of the annoyance, it's the degree to which the full powers of the mind are engaged in the solving of the challenge. The annoyances I think you reference are likely circumstances where the rest of your brain is thinking it is being wasted by the trivial problems. The annoyances that I think Adam wants to address are where a bigger part of the mind is engaged. Trivial annoyance = trivial happiness when resolving. Big annoyance = big happiness. I still don't think this completely captures the model, but I think it comes closer.
I think they do. Annoyances are the wallpaper on the desktop of your profession, to coin a metaphor. The rewards are that much sweeter when you earn them with a bit of pain. You should try golf.
Yeeeesssss, this is it. And, if you'll forgive me, I may tweak your metaphor to "annoyances are the wallpaper in the room of your profession," because, man, that shit is annoying as hell to put up but it makes the space real cute afterward, doesn't it?
There's a strain of altruism that looks like doing nice things just because it feels nice, but I think the response-to-negativity kind is more common. That's why more people will help a stranger in distress than take time out of their day to plant flowers in a decidedly non-annoying public green space. The planting-flowers kind of altruism is really special.
Great essay! So true. I am, was, a lawyer. I had annoyances, but overall, it was, is a great career. At 74, I still mediate and arbitrate so I can hang with other lawyers (most of whom I like) and exercise the mind.
Reminds me of how Richard Feynman felt about physics at one point:
"Physics disgusts me a little bit now, but I used to enjoy doing physics. Why did I enjoy it? I used to play with it. I used to do whatever I felt like doing—it didn’t have to do with whether it was important for the development of nuclear physics, but whether it was interesting and amusing for me to play with.
When I was in high school, I’d see water running out of a faucet growing narrower and wonder if I could figure out what determines that curve. I found it was rather easy to do. I didn’t have to do it; it wasn’t important for the future of science; somebody else had already done it. That didn’t make any difference: I’d invent things and play with things for my own entertainment.
So I got this new attitude. Now that I am burned out and I’ll never accomplish anything, I’ve got this nice position at the university teaching classes, which I rather enjoy. And just like I read The Arabian Nights for pleasure, I’m going to play with physics whenever I want to, without worrying about any importance whatsoever.
Within a week I was in the cafeteria and some guy, fooling around, throws a plate in the air. As the plate went up in the air I saw it wobble, and I noticed the red medallion of Cornell on the plate going around. It was pretty obvious to me that the medallion went around faster than the wobbling.
I had nothing to do, so I started to figure out the motion of the rotating plate. I discovered that when the angle is very slight, the medallion rotates twice as fast as the wobble rate—two to one. It came out of a complicated equation! Then I thought, “Is there some way I can see in a more fundamental way, by looking at the forces or the dynamics, why it’s two to one?”
I don’t remember how I did it, but I ultimately worked out what the motion of the mass particles is, and how all the accelerations balance to make it come out two to one.
I still remember going to Hans Bethe and saying, “Hey, Hans! I noticed something interesting. Here the plate goes around so, and the reason it’s two to one is…” and I showed him the accelerations.
He says, “Feynman, that’s pretty interesting, but what’s the importance of it? Why are you doing it?”
“Hah!” I say. “There’s no importance whatsoever. I’m just doing it for the fun of it.”
His reaction didn’t discourage me; I had made up my mind I was going to enjoy physics and do whatever I liked.
I went on to work out equations of wobbles. Then I thought about how electron orbits start to move in relativity. Then there’s the Dirac Equation in electrodynamics. And then quantum electrodynamics. And before I knew it (it was a very short time) I was playing—working, really—with the same old problem that I loved so much, that I had stopped working on when I went to Los Alamos: my thesis-type problems; all those old-fashioned, wonderful things.
It was effortless. It was easy to play with these things. It was like uncorking a bottle: everything flowed out effortlessly. I almost tried to resist it! There was no importance to what I was doing, but ultimately there was.
The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate."
Source: “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard Feynman
Regarding the bits to a song I didn't think I like, I cannot help thinking of Mazurka by Altan. That little hitch used to bug me so much, but I have come to love it. Great article, one of your best.
So far my favourite piece from the recent discussions surrounding friction/annoyance/productivity myths. “Fun fades, but irritation is infinite” and “Annoyance is the only truly renewable resource known to man” should become instant Substack classics. It’s very late where I live and I would love to have anything of substance to say but just great job. My favourite newsletter for yet another year.
Adam, if I didn't know better I would think you read my book "The Paradox of Passion" (but it's not out until next month). In box me if you want a copy to review.
"It's a textured pleasure" is one of the best ways I've ever heard this sensation described. Thanks for another wonderful read, Adam.
I think it is simpler than this. Rather than telling people to do what they love, we should tell them to serve what they love. When we serve what we love, we tackle the annoyances joyfully, because that is the nature of the service we seek to give. Indeed, when we serve what we love, we seek out the area of greatest annoyance because that is where the greatest opportunity for service exists.
fantastic read!! i’ve found personally, im quite motivated by spite too, which obviously starts as annoyance as well. thank you for this
i disagree, at least for myself. i'm a psychiatrist and the annoyances i experience - the forms to fill out, the authorizations and fmla and work limitiation letters, the state database lookups for controlled drugs, the rewrites of prescriptions that are out of stock somewhere, the phone calls for minor or foolish reasons - are just the price i pay for the good part of seeing people get better. the annoyances in no way enhance my experience.
No trained psychiatrist here, but perhaps Adam and the Cybernetic Psych series he references understate part of the observation. It's not the annoyance, it's the solving of the annoyance. And, perhaps a big part of the story is not even just the solving of the annoyance, it's the degree to which the full powers of the mind are engaged in the solving of the challenge. The annoyances I think you reference are likely circumstances where the rest of your brain is thinking it is being wasted by the trivial problems. The annoyances that I think Adam wants to address are where a bigger part of the mind is engaged. Trivial annoyance = trivial happiness when resolving. Big annoyance = big happiness. I still don't think this completely captures the model, but I think it comes closer.
I think they do. Annoyances are the wallpaper on the desktop of your profession, to coin a metaphor. The rewards are that much sweeter when you earn them with a bit of pain. You should try golf.
Yeeeesssss, this is it. And, if you'll forgive me, I may tweak your metaphor to "annoyances are the wallpaper in the room of your profession," because, man, that shit is annoying as hell to put up but it makes the space real cute afterward, doesn't it?
There's a strain of altruism that looks like doing nice things just because it feels nice, but I think the response-to-negativity kind is more common. That's why more people will help a stranger in distress than take time out of their day to plant flowers in a decidedly non-annoying public green space. The planting-flowers kind of altruism is really special.
Counterintuitive but neat.
This answered SO MANY questions that had been bothering me!
Great essay! So true. I am, was, a lawyer. I had annoyances, but overall, it was, is a great career. At 74, I still mediate and arbitrate so I can hang with other lawyers (most of whom I like) and exercise the mind.
Reminds me of how Richard Feynman felt about physics at one point:
"Physics disgusts me a little bit now, but I used to enjoy doing physics. Why did I enjoy it? I used to play with it. I used to do whatever I felt like doing—it didn’t have to do with whether it was important for the development of nuclear physics, but whether it was interesting and amusing for me to play with.
When I was in high school, I’d see water running out of a faucet growing narrower and wonder if I could figure out what determines that curve. I found it was rather easy to do. I didn’t have to do it; it wasn’t important for the future of science; somebody else had already done it. That didn’t make any difference: I’d invent things and play with things for my own entertainment.
So I got this new attitude. Now that I am burned out and I’ll never accomplish anything, I’ve got this nice position at the university teaching classes, which I rather enjoy. And just like I read The Arabian Nights for pleasure, I’m going to play with physics whenever I want to, without worrying about any importance whatsoever.
Within a week I was in the cafeteria and some guy, fooling around, throws a plate in the air. As the plate went up in the air I saw it wobble, and I noticed the red medallion of Cornell on the plate going around. It was pretty obvious to me that the medallion went around faster than the wobbling.
I had nothing to do, so I started to figure out the motion of the rotating plate. I discovered that when the angle is very slight, the medallion rotates twice as fast as the wobble rate—two to one. It came out of a complicated equation! Then I thought, “Is there some way I can see in a more fundamental way, by looking at the forces or the dynamics, why it’s two to one?”
I don’t remember how I did it, but I ultimately worked out what the motion of the mass particles is, and how all the accelerations balance to make it come out two to one.
I still remember going to Hans Bethe and saying, “Hey, Hans! I noticed something interesting. Here the plate goes around so, and the reason it’s two to one is…” and I showed him the accelerations.
He says, “Feynman, that’s pretty interesting, but what’s the importance of it? Why are you doing it?”
“Hah!” I say. “There’s no importance whatsoever. I’m just doing it for the fun of it.”
His reaction didn’t discourage me; I had made up my mind I was going to enjoy physics and do whatever I liked.
I went on to work out equations of wobbles. Then I thought about how electron orbits start to move in relativity. Then there’s the Dirac Equation in electrodynamics. And then quantum electrodynamics. And before I knew it (it was a very short time) I was playing—working, really—with the same old problem that I loved so much, that I had stopped working on when I went to Los Alamos: my thesis-type problems; all those old-fashioned, wonderful things.
It was effortless. It was easy to play with these things. It was like uncorking a bottle: everything flowed out effortlessly. I almost tried to resist it! There was no importance to what I was doing, but ultimately there was.
The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate."
Source: “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard Feynman
Excellent! WELL said. Textured pleasure! PERFECT.
Nice article, as per usual! I might use this as a companion to Plato's "Philebus" someday.
Regarding the bits to a song I didn't think I like, I cannot help thinking of Mazurka by Altan. That little hitch used to bug me so much, but I have come to love it. Great article, one of your best.
https://open.spotify.com/track/6xOFCVBBwyuiXSR9MHZMg0?si=35a29bc9ce924c36
Incredible article. Brilliant.
Another great essay! Thanks! I love new insights, expressed beautifully. You're there, dude!
So far my favourite piece from the recent discussions surrounding friction/annoyance/productivity myths. “Fun fades, but irritation is infinite” and “Annoyance is the only truly renewable resource known to man” should become instant Substack classics. It’s very late where I live and I would love to have anything of substance to say but just great job. My favourite newsletter for yet another year.
Adam, if I didn't know better I would think you read my book "The Paradox of Passion" (but it's not out until next month). In box me if you want a copy to review.