Category: culture

  • Life Is Uncertain. Porridge Is Not

    Life Is Uncertain. Porridge Is Not

    For the past week my appetite has surged like a rogue wave. That could mean several things, none of them particularly flattering. Perhaps I’m medicating stress with food. Perhaps there are subterranean stress triggers rumbling beneath the surface that I haven’t identified yet. Life, after all, provides a constant background hum of anxiety, and it’s difficult to distinguish ordinary daily strain from something more corrosive.

    Retirement is hovering in the distance like a financial fog bank. I’ve been emailing HR about the price of keeping my Kaiser coverage after I retire versus moving to my wife’s more modest plan. Her school pays less than mine, which means we’re staring at something in the neighborhood of $1,500 a month once dental and vision enter the scene. Retirement, which is supposed to represent liberation, suddenly looks like a complicated negotiation with spreadsheets, identity, and self-worth. And apparently my body’s response to this existential accounting exercise is simple: eat more chicken.

    There is, at present, a dangerous quantity of takeout chicken in this house. Fried chicken. Roasted chicken. Greasy, seductive chicken lounging in the refrigerator like a gang of edible hoodlums. I open the fridge intending to take a small, respectable bite. Five minutes later I’m standing there gnawing through a drumstick like a raccoon that has discovered civilization. The aftermath is predictable: gluttony followed immediately by anxiety.

    The anxiety, unfortunately, does not arrive alone. It brings a surveillance drone. I watch myself overeating as if my consciousness has sprouted a third eye hovering above the scene like a judgmental security camera. I am both the criminal and the detective. The more I watch myself eat, the more anxious I become. The more anxious I become, the more I eat. I have achieved what behavioral psychologists might politely call a closed loop of misery.

    Action is required.

    My proposed solution is radical in its simplicity: three meals a day, no snacking. Breakfast will be steel-cut oatmeal or buckwheat groats fortified with protein powder. Lunch will be rolled oats with yogurt and more protein powder. Dinner will consist of a sensible portion of protein, vegetables, and an apple. It is not glamorous, but glamour is precisely the problem.

    Oatmeal comforts me. It possesses the mild, reassuring neutrality of something that has no ambitions beyond keeping you alive. Perhaps it is a kind of surrogate baby food. Perhaps the approach of retirement has triggered a mild regression in which my brain seeks the emotional equivalent of warm porridge and a quiet afternoon nap. As I drift deeper into my mid-sixties, it is entirely possible that my culinary philosophy is reverting to something suitable for a kindly monastery.

    Life is uncertain. Porridge is not.

    I like the predictability of three meals a day involving some form of oatmeal. I like the idea of owning a Lenovo ThinkPad, which is the oatmeal of computers. I like the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, which are the oatmeal of the automobile world. And I like my solar atomic G-Shocks, which are the oatmeal of timepieces—durable, accurate, incapable of drama.

    If possible, I would like to swim inside a large industrial vat of oatmeal, floating peacefully while the chaos of the modern world clangs harmlessly against the outside of the tank.

    Unfortunately, hostile forces surround the vat.

    My daughters campaign relentlessly for takeout: Dave’s Hot Chicken, Wingstop, Panda Express. Holiday gatherings appear with enough pies and brownies to launch a regional bakery franchise. A man can only resist these temptations for so long before the walls of discipline begin to buckle.

    Meanwhile, medical costs continue their relentless ascent, and retirement funds tremble nervously as global markets perform their daily interpretive dance of geopolitical uncertainty.

    Under such circumstances I find myself clinging to a personal doctrine I’ve begun to call The Porridge Principle: the instinct to confront anxiety by retreating into humble, reliable technologies and routines that promise frictionless predictability. Oatmeal breakfasts. ThinkPad laptops. Honda sedans. Solar atomic watches. These objects do not thrill, but they do not betray.

    When the world becomes chaotic, the mind begins searching for tools and rituals that behave exactly the same way every day.

    So that is the plan.

    Trader Joe’s opens in an hour. I will buy groceries for my family and a heroic supply of oatmeal. The campaign against uncertainty has begun.

    Pray for me.

  • College Essay Prompt: Crime, Entertainment, and the Ethics of Vigilantism

    College Essay Prompt: Crime, Entertainment, and the Ethics of Vigilantism

    Few crimes provoke stronger public outrage than the exploitation of children. In the digital age, the internet has expanded the opportunities for predatory behavior, making the protection of minors an urgent social concern. At the same time, some media platforms and online personalities have turned the pursuit and exposure of suspected predators into a form of public entertainment. These productions often present themselves as acts of justice, but they also raise difficult ethical questions.

    The 2025 documentary Predators explores these tensions by examining the growing trend of turning crime-fighting into a spectacle. In some cases, individuals attempt to expose suspected offenders through online stings, public confrontations, and viral videos. Supporters argue that these tactics raise awareness and help bring dangerous individuals to light. Critics, however, argue that transforming criminal investigations into entertainment risks exploiting a serious issue, encouraging voyeurism and vigilantism, and potentially interfering with legitimate law enforcement.

    In a 1,000-word argumentative essay, respond to the following claim:

    Turning the pursuit of suspected predators into entertainment or sport is a form of exploitation that undermines justice and trivializes the serious problem of child predation.

    In your essay, you may defend, challenge, or complicate this claim. Consider questions such as: Does public exposure help deter crime and protect victims, or does it encourage reckless vigilantism? What are the ethical risks of turning criminal investigations into viral entertainment? Can awareness and entertainment coexist responsibly, or does spectacle inevitably distort justice?

    Your essay should present a clear thesis, analyze examples from the documentary, consider counterarguments, and explain why your interpretation of the issue is the most persuasive.

  • 4 Writing Prompts That Address Sports Betting

    4 Writing Prompts That Address Sports Betting

    Next semester I’ll be teaching a class of student-athletes. Based on the epidemic of sports gambling, I am certain many of them are sports gamblers, or at least know people who are in the throes of this addiction. I think it would be appropriate to offer a unit in which they can write a research paper on this topic. Here are four argumentative topics:

    1. The Normalization of Gambling in Sports Culture

    Professional sports leagues once treated gambling as a threat to the integrity of competition. Today those same leagues partner with sportsbooks, run betting segments during broadcasts, and place odds directly on screen. Write an argumentative essay that answers this question: Does the normalization of sports betting strengthen fan engagement or does it corrupt the spirit of sports by transforming competition into a financial spectacle? Use examples from professional sports broadcasts, advertising, and campus culture to support your position. Address the counterargument that betting simply adds entertainment value for fans.

    1. The Ethics of Sports Betting Among Student-Athletes

    Many college athletes gamble on sports despite NCAA rules prohibiting it. Some argue these rules are outdated and unrealistic in an era when gambling apps are ubiquitous and heavily advertised. Others argue that athletes betting on sports—even unrelated games—undermines the integrity of college athletics and creates conflicts of interest. Write an argumentative essay evaluating whether the NCAA’s restrictions on sports betting for student-athletes are justified. Consider issues of integrity, fairness, financial pressure, and personal freedom. Include a counterargument that challenges your position.

    1. Are Sportsbooks Designing Gambling Addiction?

    Modern betting apps use features such as push notifications, instant deposits, “risk-free bets,” and live betting during games. Critics argue these features are designed to keep users betting continuously and blur the line between entertainment and addiction. Supporters argue that gambling is simply a voluntary activity and individuals must take responsibility for their choices. Write an argumentative essay evaluating the claim that the sports betting industry intentionally engineers addictive behavior. Use evidence from journalism, psychology, or personal observation. Address the counterargument that adults should be free to gamble without government or institutional interference.

    1. The Illusion of Skill in Sports Betting

    Many bettors believe they can “beat the system” through research, statistics, and insider knowledge of teams. However, studies show that the vast majority of bettors lose money over time. Write an argumentative essay addressing the claim that sports betting is largely an illusion of skill rather than a true test of knowledge or strategy. Is sports betting closer to investing, where expertise matters, or to casino gambling, where the house always wins? Use evidence from reporting on the sports betting industry and address the counterargument that disciplined bettors can consistently profit.

  • Narcissism, Status Anxiety, and the Manosphere: College Writing Prompt

    Narcissism, Status Anxiety, and the Manosphere: College Writing Prompt

    In recent years, online communities sometimes described as the “manosphere” have attracted attention for their discussions about masculinity, dating, gender roles, and male identity. Supporters often argue that these spaces help men discuss frustrations they feel are ignored elsewhere. Critics argue that many of these communities promote resentment toward women and normalize misogyny.

    One way to analyze this phenomenon is to examine the relationship between male self-absorption and misogyny. When a person’s worldview centers heavily on personal validation, recognition, or entitlement, other people may begin to appear primarily as tools for confirming one’s identity. In this framework, rejection or disagreement can feel like a personal injury rather than a normal part of human interaction. Some analysts argue that this dynamic can turn frustration or disappointment into resentment toward women. Others argue that such explanations oversimplify the motivations of men who participate in these communities.

    For this assignment, watch the Netflix documentary Inside the Manosphere. Then write a 1,000-word argumentative essay that explores the relationship between male self-absorption and misogyny in the communities portrayed in the film.

    In your essay, you may choose to:

    • Defend the claim that self-absorption and status anxiety play a major role in producing misogynistic attitudes within the manosphere.
    • Challenge the claim by arguing that the documentary overlooks other social, economic, or cultural factors that shape the behavior of men in these communities.
    • Complicate the claim by arguing that both personal psychology and broader social forces contribute to the dynamics seen in the film.

    As you develop your argument, consider questions such as:

    • How do the men in the documentary describe their frustrations or grievances?
    • In what ways do issues of status, recognition, or entitlement appear in their narratives?
    • How does the documentary portray the role of women in these communities’ discussions?
    • To what extent do these attitudes reflect individual psychology versus broader cultural changes?
    • Does the documentary present a balanced explanation of the problem, or does it simplify the issue?

    Your essay should include a clear thesis, specific references to scenes or ideas from the documentary, careful reasoning, and engagement with possible counterarguments. The goal is not merely to summarize the film but to analyze the deeper connection—if any—between self-focused identity narratives and the emergence of misogynistic beliefs.

  • Delusional Heroes in Bugonia and The Inventor: A College Essay Prompt

    Delusional Heroes in Bugonia and The Inventor: A College Essay Prompt

    In her Bugonia movie analysis “An Intimate Portrait of Humanity at Its Worst,” Shirley Li brilliantly observes that in the movie’s central characters Teddy and Michele are both delusional heroes. She writes, “They’re so self-important and solipsistic that they’re oblivious to how heartless they’ve become.” To add to their alienation, they cannot listen to each other. Li writes that their “conversations tend to resemble a feedback loop, in which neither character is willing to compromise”: Teddy is certain Michelle is a dangerous alien; Michelle is certain Teddy suffers a mental illness that requires urgent help. 

    Saddled with delusions of grandeur, these cosplay heroes from the fictional movie resemble the cosplay or fake hero and notorious fraudster Elizabeth Holmes featured in the HBO documentary: The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley. Your job is to write a 1,000-word essay in which you compare the theme of the delusional hero as is embodied in Bugonia and Out for Blood. Explore the following questions: Is the hero a product of sincere madness, cynicism, both? Does the hero possess a fragment of truth that they confuse for a whole or absolute truth and this confusion makes them go crazy? Does this type of fake hero represent certain pathologies roiling in our society? Explore these questions in your comparison essay. 

  • The Day the Dream Team Got Punched in the Mouth

    The Day the Dream Team Got Punched in the Mouth

    The documentary We Beat the Dream Team transports us back to 1992, when basketball briefly resembled mythology. For the first time, the Olympics allowed NBA professionals, and the United States responded by assembling a roster that looked less like a team and more like an Avengers summit: Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Charles Barkley, and a lineup of future Hall of Famers whose collective talent could have bent the earth’s axis.

    Presiding over this gathering of basketball demigods was Coach Chuck Daly, a man as famous for psychological maneuvering as he was for play diagrams. Daly understood something that many coaches never quite grasp: elite athletes do not merely need strategy; they need emotional calibration. Their egos must be tuned like instruments.

    Standing opposite this galaxy of NBA legends was the Dream Team’s practice partner—the Select Team. On paper they were merely college players: Grant Hill, Chris Webber, Penny Hardaway, Allan Houston, Jamal Mashburn, Bobby Hurley, Rodney Rogers. In reality they were the future of the NBA, still young enough to be starstruck and arrogant enough to believe they belonged.

    The documentary wisely tells the story from their perspective.

    The Select Team players describe walking into the gym like tourists visiting Mount Olympus. They were sharing the court with Jordan, Magic, and Bird—the men whose posters hung on their bedroom walls. You can still see the grin spread across Chris Webber’s face as he recalls those practices, the mixture of disbelief and pride. Jamal Mashburn and the others felt two contradictory emotions pulling them in opposite directions.

    On one side was reverence. These were basketball gods.

    On the other side was pride. Pride whispered: prove you belong here.

    So the young players performed a delicate dance. Respect the legends—but challenge them. Bow slightly, then throw an elbow.

    And challenge them they did.

    In one now-famous scrimmage, the Dream Team—perhaps relaxed, perhaps overconfident—found themselves ambushed. The hungry college players came at them like wolves that had been smelling steak all week. Possession by possession, the Select Team outplayed them. By the end of the scrimmage, the impossible had happened.

    The Select Team beat the Dream Team.

    To the young players, the moment felt electric. They had just taken down the greatest assembly of basketball talent the world had ever seen. It was the kind of victory that becomes a permanent souvenir in the heart.

    But the story refuses to stay simple.

    Coach Mike Krzyzewski later offered a different interpretation. According to him, Chuck Daly deliberately sabotaged the scrimmage. Daly allegedly benched key players and allowed the Select Team to win in order to shock the Dream Team out of complacency. In this version, the loss was psychological theater. Daly was staging a controlled humiliation to inject the team with rage and urgency before the Olympics.

    And in fairness, the strategy would make sense. After that scrimmage, the Dream Team entered the Olympics like a pack of irritated lions. They obliterated their competition and walked away with the gold medal.

    But Grant Hill isn’t buying the conspiracy.

    Hill insists the Select Team won fair and square. According to him, Daly looked genuinely rattled after the loss and even made sure the score mysteriously disappeared before reporters could record it.

    So which story is true?

    Was Daly a chess master orchestrating a motivational ambush? Or did a group of fearless college players simply catch the greatest team ever assembled on a sleepy afternoon?

    Like most sports legends, the truth may be tangled somewhere in between.

    What the documentary makes clear, however, is something deeper about elite athletes: their competitiveness doesn’t end when the buzzer sounds. Great athletes compete in everything—including memory. They compete over who really won, who deserves credit, and whose version of the story survives.

    Narrative itself becomes a championship.

    You can see that dynamic unfold in the documentary as Krzyzewski and Hill politely debate the event. Neither man is shouting. Both are smiling. Yet beneath the civility you can feel the competitive instinct humming like a live wire.

    Who owns the story matters.

    As someone who teaches college writing to athletes, I couldn’t resist imagining how useful this documentary would be in the classroom. It’s a perfect springboard for an argumentative essay. Did Daly throw the game? Is the “thrown game” theory simply a face-saving myth for wounded legends? Or does the truth lie somewhere in the murky middle?

    But for me the film worked on another level entirely.

    While watching it, I stopped thinking like a writing instructor and started thinking like the young man I was in 1992. I was back on my couch watching Jordan, Magic, and Bird—the superheroes of my youth—reminisce about the day a group of fearless kids punched them in the mouth.

    And I couldn’t stop smiling.

  • The G-Shock Multiband 6 Salvation Fantasy

    The G-Shock Multiband 6 Salvation Fantasy

    Pascal once observed that man cannot sit quietly in his room. Leave him alone with his thoughts and he begins to itch. Mortality looms. Meaning feels slippery. Silence becomes unbearable. So he reaches for distraction—baubles, upgrades, shiny mechanical companions that promise significance if only he can tighten one more screw or polish one more bezel.

    Call this Pascalian Gadget Panic: the modern expression of Pascal’s insight that when faced with the vague terror of existence, a man will anesthetize himself with objects. Radios. Cameras. Knives. Mechanical divers. G-Shocks. The object rotates through the years like a carousel horse, but the agitation underneath remains faithfully employed.

    Consider a suburban man in reasonably good health who nonetheless struggles with discipline, boundaries, and the mild chaos of his inner life. Spiritual philosophy eludes him. Self-knowledge feels slippery. Relationships are uneven terrain. Faced with this fog, he does what many modern men do.

    He buys toys.

    In his case, the toys are watches.

    For twenty years he labors happily in the vineyards of mechanical divers—Seikos mostly—fine steel contraptions that tick like tiny diesel engines beneath sapphire glass. The collection eventually reaches a comfortable plateau: curated, restrained, almost dignified.

    And then, inexplicably, he loses interest.

    The mechanical divers are quietly retired to their watch box like aging prizefighters. In their place emerges a new obsession: G-Shocks, but only of a very specific species—digital, solar-powered, atomic-synchronized, strapped in rubber armor like tiny tanks.

    Four commandments define the new religion:
    Tough Solar.
    Multiband 6 Atomic.
    Digital-only display.
    Rubber straps.

    One madness has been replaced with another, though the patient insists this is progress.

    To maintain psychological order, he compartmentalizes. The mechanical divers remain sealed in their box like museum artifacts. The G-Shocks, however, require their own ecosystem.

    Enter the Industrial Pipe Shrine.

    This object began life as a two-tier industrial pipe jewelry stand, the sort of thing normally used to hang headphones or necklaces. But in this household it has been promoted to sacred architecture. It sits reverently on a windowsill each night so the watches may commune with the atomic time signal emanating from Fort Collins, Colorado.

    To the uninitiated, it looks like plumbing hardware assembled by a bored welder.

    To the devotee, it is a receiving station of cosmic precision.

    Each night the G-Shocks dangle from the steel arms like metallic fruit awaiting revelation. Somewhere in Colorado a radio transmitter hums. Somewhere in the suburban night a man sleeps. And somewhere between them invisible time signals pass through drywall and glass until they arrive inside the tiny ferrite antenna hidden in a digital watch.

    When the signal locks in, the man experiences what can only be called the Multiband-6 Salvation Fantasy.

    For a brief moment the universe feels orderly. Accurate. Aligned. The watch has synchronized itself with atomic time. Solar cells sip daylight. Precision has been achieved.

    The feeling of control is intoxicating.

    Unfortunately, it lasts about as long as the next YouTube review.

    When members of the G-Shock community encounter this newly converted soul, they greet him with cheerful recognition.

    “Congratulations,” they say. “You’ve been G-Shocked.”

    The phrase functions like a baptism. The initiate is welcomed into a brotherhood of people who understand the deep satisfaction of armored watches, radio synchronization, and the quiet glow of solar charging indicators.

    At this moment the man realizes something unsettling: his geekdom has intensified

    Part of him embraces the absurdity. The watches are inexpensive. The hobby is harmless. Why not laugh at himself and enjoy the ride?

    But another part of him wonders whether something darker is unfolding.

    Is this, perhaps, the arrival of the Jungian Shadow—the neglected, obsessive part of the psyche now expressing itself through tactical wristwear?

    Will the Shadow politely stop at three G-Shocks?

    Or will it grow ambitious—multiplying into a monstrous collection that colonizes dresser drawers, nightstands, gym bags, glove compartments, and every horizontal surface in the home?

    Disturbed by these questions, the man attempts a strategic retreat. He throws himself into his other pursuits: bodybuilding, physical culture, literature, television, film.

    These distractions provide temporary relief.

    But the G-Shock Shadow is patient.

    Soon he is back on YouTube watching reviews of obscure Japanese models. He is compiling wish lists. He is studying signal reception strategies.

    Late at night he imagines the watches hanging from the steel arms of his T-bone pipe stand.

    And in darker moments he sees them differently.

    Not as tools.

    But as vampire bats—black, armored creatures dangling upside down, waiting for him to drift into sleep so they can descend silently and drink his blood.

    When he wakes in the morning, they will still be there on the windowsill.

    Perfectly synchronized.

    And waiting.

  • From Muscle Monsters to Ken Doll Tyrants

    From Muscle Monsters to Ken Doll Tyrants

    When I was a teenage bodybuilder in the 1970s, the weight room was full of boys with the same secret: we were trying to fix ourselves. Our cure for insecurity was iron. We trained like men preparing for war, convinced that if we grew large enough—huge traps, bulging biceps, necks like bridge cables—we could terrify the world into respecting us. We fantasized about becoming “monsters” or “gargoyles,” grotesque statues of muscle that would scare away humiliation and banish our private doubts. Of course, the plan never worked. Just as the chronic overeater cannot outrun gluttony, we could not out-muscle low self-esteem. The demons we tried to crush with barbells simply followed us out of the gym.

    Nearly fifty years later, bodybuilding’s old delusion has been replaced by a stranger one: looksmaxxing, the obsessive attempt to engineer physical perfection through cosmetic intervention and digital-age narcissism. In Becca Rothfeld’s New Yorker essay “The Captivating Derangement of the Looksmaxxing Movement,” we meet a new breed of self-improvement fanatic embodied by an influencer who calls himself Clavicular. Testosterone injections, rhinoplasty, double-chin surgery, pharmaceutical regimens, manic diet protocols, and relentless “biohacking” have sculpted him into something resembling a laboratory-grown Ken doll. The goal is not merely attractiveness but algorithmic perfection: a human face optimized to survive the merciless scrutiny of social media.

    Yet beneath this glossy surface lies something dark. Rothfeld observes that the movement often overlaps with the internet’s most antisocial subcultures—incel forums, misogynistic grievance factories, and communities obsessed with ranking human worth according to facial symmetry and bone structure. Technology theorist Jaron Lanier warned years ago that social media algorithms reward content that appeals to our most primitive impulses, dragging public discourse downward toward the brain stem. Looksmaxxing appears to be the logical endpoint of that descent: a digital coliseum where identity, masculinity, and human dignity are reduced to metrics of jawline geometry.

    Ironically, the men who pursue this transformation claim they are trying to become more attractive to women. Instead, they often cultivate the personality of a malfunctioning action figure: narcissistic, performative, and incapable of genuine intimacy. They rehearse “alpha male” poses, brag about their surgical upgrades, and sneer at the supposedly inferior masses who lack their aesthetic discipline. What emerges is not confidence but solipsism—individuals who can admire their reflection indefinitely but seem constitutionally incapable of love.

    When broken misfit toys acquire millions of followers and begin shaping cultural and political attitudes, the spectacle stops being merely ridiculous. It becomes ominous. Movements fueled by resentment, aesthetic purity, and tribal grievance have a long and ugly history. The looksmaxxing phenomenon, with its blend of cosmetic obsession, internet radicalization, and juvenile power fantasies, bears the unmistakable scent of decadence—and perhaps something worse. A healthy society cannot thrive when its young men aspire not to become human beings but to become action figures.

  • The Digital Purist’s G-Shock Manifesto

    The Digital Purist’s G-Shock Manifesto

    When I bought my G-Shock Frogman and experienced the peculiar bond that many G-Shock owners describe, I began hearing from other enthusiasts who spoke about their watches with the same kind of fervor usually reserved for religion, motorcycles, or properly cooked brisket. Curious, I started watching G-Shock videos online. What struck me was not the technical analysis—though there was plenty of that—but the sheer affection people felt for these watches. It was humbling to see someone speak with genuine reverence about a $100 resin timepiece with the same poetic intensity that others reserve for ten-thousand-dollar Swiss luxury watches. Apparently joy does not scale with price tags.

    After enough of these videos, I discovered something about myself: my lane in the G-Shock universe is extremely narrow. My watches must be digital. They must be Tough Solar. They must be Multiband 6. And they must come on straps. The moment a watch wanders outside those borders—analog hands, shiny bracelets, smartwatch features that make it look like a Garmin auditioning for a triathlon—it falls off my radar. Limited editions that feel like marketing departments squeezing collectors for lunch money also fail to stir my soul. My tastes are simple: give me the rugged, atomic-synchronized machinery of the late-20th-century Casio imagination.

    And that is where the magic happens. Casio is the undisputed curator of the 1980s and 1990s technological mood: efficient, unapologetically digital, and blissfully free from the surveillance culture of modern smart devices. A Tough Solar Multiband 6 G-Shock does everything you ask of it without demanding attention in return. It is competent, quiet, and oddly comforting. Once you step into that retro-technical atmosphere, you discover the purest G-Shock vibe: a blend of practicality, nostalgia, and cool restraint.

    Based on this revelation, I created what I now consider my essential G-Shock quartet:

    G-Shock Frogman GWF-1000
    G-Shock Rangeman GW-9400
    G-Shock Rescue GW-7900
    G-Shock GW-5000U

    I already own the first one. The other three remain safely outside my possession—at least for the moment. My strategy for maintaining discipline is simple: I try to read books and articles like a normal person. Unfortunately, every fifteen minutes my browser opens a new tab where I begin “researching” the Rangeman, the 7900, or the GW-5000U with the dedication of a graduate student preparing a thesis on atomic timekeeping. So far the watches remain unpurchased.

    But I would not advise betting against them.

    The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches is my book about the watch madness that many of us share. It is now on Amazon Kindle:

  • You Can Squander Your Entire Life on the Review Treadmill

    You Can Squander Your Entire Life on the Review Treadmill

    Over the past twenty years, something subtle but decisive has happened to our brains: we have stopped reading and started watching. The printed page asks for patience and solitude. Video, by contrast, offers a human face. We no longer want arguments delivered in paragraphs; we want a narrator standing before us, explaining the world with hand gestures, eyebrow raises, and the occasional conspiratorial smile. The writer has quietly stepped aside. In his place stands the “creator,” a figure who performs knowledge rather than merely writing it down.

    There are, to be fair, some remarkable creators who produce philosophical video essays—long, thoughtful meditations on culture, politics, or technology. These people still believe ideas deserve oxygen. But they are the minority. For the vast majority of viewers, the preferred form of knowledge is far more practical and far less exalted: product reviews. Comparisons. Rankings. Side-by-side verdicts on the minor differences between things we may or may not ever purchase.

    I am not immune to this gravitational pull. Suppose I want to understand the fine distinctions among solar, atomic G-Shocks—their legibility, antenna performance, charging efficiency, module behavior, and overall build quality. That path leads to a rabbit hole deep enough to swallow a decade of one’s life. I could earn a doctoral degree in G-Shock Studies and still emerge unsure whether the GW-7900 or the GW-9400 possesses the superior atomic reception. Doubt becomes the justification for further research. And further research leads to what might be called the Comparative Infinity Loop: a condition in which every answer breeds another comparison. The 7900 versus the 9400. Module 3193 versus module 3410. One display’s legibility versus another’s contrast. Each conclusion merely opens another door.

    The deeper irony is that the search for “absolute knowledge” can easily replace the experience itself. A person could spend an entire lifetime watching product reviews without ever purchasing the product in question. The mind remains entertained, stimulated, and convinced it is progressing toward certainty. But nothing actually changes.

    The metaphor that best captures this condition is the shark. A shark must keep swimming to force oxygen through its gills. Stop swimming and it suffocates. Our brains now behave the same way. We keep feeding them review after review, comparison after comparison, as if the next video will finally reveal the decisive truth. But we are not swimming toward a destination. We are circling the same patch of ocean.

    In this sense, modern consumer knowledge has become a form of exercise equipment: the Review Treadmill. The viewer burns mental energy at a heroic rate, accumulating ever finer distinctions between products, yet never actually moves forward. The belt keeps turning. The videos keep playing. And the horizon of perfect knowledge remains politely out of reach.