Cinemorphosis

Blog

  • Why a G-Shock Frogman Makes More Sense Than a Mechanical Collection

    Why a G-Shock Frogman Makes More Sense Than a Mechanical Collection

    If you come to me and confess that you’re curious about my watch hobby—intrigued, even—and ask for guidance so you can pursue the passion with the same enthusiasm, I won’t welcome you into the brotherhood.

    I’ll stop you at the door.

    If you are currently free from thoughts of watches, I will advise you to remain free. Walk away. Continue your life as a relatively sane and solvent human being. Because the mechanical watch hobby, viewed without romance or nostalgia, makes less and less sense in the modern world.

    You are paying premium money for obsolete technology in an age that worships useful technology. Why spend six thousand dollars on a Swiss machine that tells you the time when a five-hundred-dollar fitness watch can monitor your heart, track your sleep, detect arrhythmias, and quietly send your vital signs to your doctor before you collapse in a parking lot?

    Mechanical watches don’t make you healthier. They make you sentimental.

    The future is not kind to sentiment. As the world moves away from mechanical timekeeping, competent service will become slower, rarer, and more expensive. Your treasured watch will eventually be packed into a padded box and shipped across the country—or the ocean—where it will sit for months awaiting lubrication, regulation, or a gasket replacement. When it returns scratched, delayed, or mysteriously altered, you’ll enter a corporate complaint system so backlogged it feels less like customer service and more like geological time.

    Meanwhile, the social currency that once justified the expense is quietly evaporating.

    There was a time when a fine mechanical watch signaled professional success. Doctors noticed. Lawyers noticed. Bankers noticed. Today, most people don’t know a Rolex from a Fossil, and many don’t notice watches at all. The design language of luxury horology is becoming a private dialect spoken by a shrinking tribe.

    This is where the collector encounters Analog Futility Syndrome: the slow, uncomfortable realization that enormous resources are being poured into a technology that no longer solves a modern problem. The pleasure remains—but it is shadowed by a faint, persistent question: Why am I doing this?

    Meanwhile, the cultural signaling has inverted.

    Show up wearing a $500 solar-powered G-Shock that works everywhere, never needs service, survives abuse, and keeps atomic time, and people read something entirely different. Efficiency. Practical intelligence. Optimization. The G-Shock wearer looks like a person who solves problems, not one who collects them. The same watch works at the office, on a trail, or on a flight across time zones. It whispers competence. It suggests you might belong to MENSA. Or at least that you don’t spend your evenings arguing about bezel fonts.

    So if you ask me how to become a watch enthusiast, I will not guide you toward Swiss luxury and its Ferrari-like maintenance costs. I will point you toward the solar, radio-controlled, GPS-enabled tools that actually serve a modern life.

    A GPS Master of G Rangeman.
    A radio-controlled square.
    The digital Frogman.

    Real time anywhere. Light weight. Near-zero maintenance. Functional serenity.

    Writing this advice to you has caused something strange to happen to me while composing it. The argument has pointed an accusatory finger toward me. What began as guidance for you has become a prosecution of my imbecilic watch hobby.

    The longer I write, the more irritated I become at my own years of horological excess—years spent chasing mechanical romance while quietly accumulating cost, inconvenience, and low-grade anxiety.

    I may have to sell everything.

    I may have to replace the entire collection with a single indestructible digital watch and walk away.

    You think I’m exaggerating. I am not.

    Writing this has triggered a full-blown Horological Renunciation Fantasy: the emotionally charged vision of liquidating every mechanical piece and replacing them with one maintenance-free instrument—liberation not from watches, but from the psychological gravity of owning too many of them.

    The fantasy is seductive. I can’t imagine being happy right now unless I sell all my mechanicals and replace them with a digital Frogman.

    And that should tell you everything you need to know about the hobby.

  • Rome Wasn’t Built in a Day, and Neither Was a Better Body

    Rome Wasn’t Built in a Day, and Neither Was a Better Body

    Five months into a rotator cuff injury, my left shoulder now runs a morning protest movement. Today it was particularly militant. The arthritis pain was so loud it drowned out my writing, which is saying something, because writing is usually where I go to escape pain, not negotiate with it.

    The solution, as usual, was humility. I picked up light dumbbells and did slow lateral raises—nothing heroic, nothing Instagram-worthy. Just enough movement to get blood into the joint and remind it that we are still partners, not enemies. The pain eased. Ibuprofen helped too, but I’ve learned the hard lesson: skip it for a day, let the inflammation throw a party, and it takes hours to evict the guests.

    Rotator cuff arthritis is a mechanical problem disguised as a moral one. When the joint isn’t tracking well, the socket gets irritated, and the irritation becomes inflammation. Night makes it worse. While you sleep, the synovial fluid thickens into something closer to cold syrup. Morning arrives, and the shoulder feels like a rusty hinge. The cure is movement—gentle, persistent, unglamorous movement. Every time I loosen it up, the joint forgives me a little.

    Training now looks less like conquest and more like diplomacy. Two kettlebell sessions a week, mostly lower body, with some shrugs and narrow-stance knee push-ups—just enough upper-body work to maintain function without provoking rebellion. Power yoga is back three days a week, a return to the early-2000s era of Bryan Kest and Rodney Yee, now supplemented by the Man Flow Yoga channel. I modify poses for the shoulder, but once I settle into the rhythm, the familiar state returns—the quiet, steady current of yoga flow. At this point, the mental repair may be more important than the physical.

    The Schwinn Airdyne—the Misery Machine—has been demoted to one day a week. Left unchecked, I turn cardio into a courtroom, constantly trying to beat yesterday’s calorie output. Competition with yourself sounds noble until it becomes another form of anxiety.

    Underneath all of this sits the larger ambition: weight loss through appetite discipline. Easier declared than achieved. Two nights ago I dreamed I wanted to be lean again but could only get there through GLP-1 drugs (which I’ve never taken). Such a dream is what your subconscious imagines when it has lost faith in your willpower. I’m hovering around 230—solid in a T-shirt, but without the narrower waist that signals to the world (and to my lab results) that discipline has the upper hand. For me, that line is about 210.

    Physical self-improvement is rarely about aesthetics alone. It’s an attempt to become the kind of person who can choose the long-term over the immediate—the kind of person who doesn’t negotiate with every craving. Discipline isn’t punishment. It’s the architecture of a calmer life.

    This question of belief came back to me while watching the documentary Queen of Chess, about Judit Polgar, who fought her way through a male-dominated chess world. Her advice was simple: you have to believe in yourself. The line landed harder than expected.

    But belief doesn’t arrive on command. If your history includes abandoned goals and broken dietary programs, confidence isn’t a mindset—it’s a construction project. It’s built the only way durable things are built: small wins, repeated often enough that the brain stops arguing.

    Rome wasn’t built in a day. Neither is a shoulder. Neither is a waist. Neither is a self you trust.

  • The Watch Potency Paradox: Why Fewer Feels Better–Until It Doesn’t

    The Watch Potency Paradox: Why Fewer Feels Better–Until It Doesn’t

    The Watch Potency Principle states that as a watch enthusiast adds watches to his collection, the potency of his pleasure and satisfaction derived from his watches dissipates and is replaced with anxiety, displeasure, disappointment, and resentment, and that the opposite is also true: As his collection winnows down to a few–usually between three and six–the potency of pleasure and satisfaction he derives from his watches increases to the point that the potency affirms the hard-fought choices he had to make to arrive at his small albeit potent collection. 

    But the story of the watch enthusiast looking for watch potency is complicated by the fact that his Inner Watch Minimalist is at war with his Inner Watch Adventurer, the part of him that has an undying curiosity for new watches and new experiences with watches, including the different effects diverse watches have on his wrist, and his curiosity leads to accumulating more watches than he can wear. This results in Watch Devitalization, the weakening of the watch’s power, so to speak. In the case of Watch Devitalization, the enthusiast will sell a perfectly excellent watch, one he has arduously saved up for many years, sell the watch and then realize when the fever of Watch Devitalization has passed, that he has made a grave mistake. 

    As we can see, the eternal battle between the Inner Watch Minimalist and the Inner Watch Adventurer guarantees that the watch enthusiast lives a life of perpetual agony. 

    This is because the watch obsessive is trapped in the Potency Confirmation Loop–the reinforcing cycle in which a reduced collection briefly restores joy and conviction, validating the pain of past purges—until curiosity resurfaces and the Adventurer begins quietly plotting the next breach.

  • The High Isn’t the Watch–It’s the Rabbit Hole

    The High Isn’t the Watch–It’s the Rabbit Hole

    One of my favorite pastimes is watching YouTube comparison videos of the Toyota Camry vs. the Honda Accord. I’m not shopping for a car. I don’t need a car. I may never buy another car. 

    But these videos? They soothe the savage beast inside of me. They go down like a smooth bourbon, with notes of ABS braking and a smoky finish of fuel economy.

    While others go to YouTube to meditate or do yoga, I fall into the hypnotic cadence of two grown men comparing rear-seat legroom and infotainment systems with the solemnity of Cold War negotiators. 

    I’m riveted. Parsing the pros and cons of these two sedans gives me a focus so intense it borders on religious ecstasy. I study engine specs like they’re verses from Leviticus. My concentration sharpens, my anxiety fades. I am, for a brief and blissful moment, free.

    And then it hits me: I don’t want the car. I want the focus. The Camry and Accord are just placeholders in the temple of obsession.

    This revelation sheds light on my watch obsession. It helps me realize that acquiring a watch in most cases is a bitter letdown. A $3,000 watch on the wrist is like a Tinder date at Denny’s: out of place and super embarrassing. 

    I’ve worn $5,000 watches while taking my daughters to YogurtLand and I’ve said to myself, “Dude, you’ve lost the plot.”

    How did I get here with expensive watches that I wear when I’m buying pretzels and diet soda at Target?

    And then I realize. The same drive to focus on Camry-Accord comparisons is the same drive that makes me do “timepiece research.”  Watching my fellow timepiece obsessives drool over bezels and lume shots is the real high. That’s what lights me up. That’s what gets the adrenaline surging through my veins. 

    So as watch obsessives, we need to understand that, even more than watches, we are addicted to focus. We are afflicted with Focus Addiction–the true dependency hiding beneath consumer desire: the craving for intense, narrowing concentration that drowns out modern life’s chaos, even if it must be chemically replicated through YouTube reviews and lume shots.

    I’ve spent years confusing consumer acquisition with personal transformation. Getting this thing or that thing will change me inside. I want to be courageous, dignified, courteous, disciplined, fit, and healthy. A watch can’t redeem me. It can’t make me whole. It can’t make me the person I wish I were. Not once have I ever put a new watch on my wrist, gave my wife a wrist shot, and said, “Look, honey, I’ve achieved a metamorphosis.”

    She’ll just look at me and say, “Dude, clean the leaves out of the rain gutters.”

    The material thing in my hands is a letdown because what I really want is the chase and the intense focus. The glorious plunge down a rabbit hole lined with brushed stainless steel and leather-wrapped dashboards. My consumerism isn’t about consumption—it’s about cultivating a state of intense obsession that drowns out the shrieking absurdity of modern life.

    So no more mistaking adrenaline for fulfillment. No more clicking “Buy Now” hoping for transcendence in a shipping box. 

    I’ll keep researching. That’s my Prozac. That’s my monastery. 

    But buying something has proven to be a fool’s errand. And if doing so-called research inflames my consumer appetites, then I should probably put my foot on the brakes when it comes to the research because it can be a prelude to making a purchase I don’t want to make.

    Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say you’re back in high school and you’re at the high school dance, but your girlfriend isn’t there because she’s on a ski trip. While bored at the dance, your ex shows up. She looks more beautiful than you remember her. She approaches you and asks you to dance. “Nothing will happen,” she says. “It will be completely innocent.” You dance with her and something happens. 

    That’s what watch research is like. You tell yourself the research is innocent. You’re just reading forums. Watching a video or two. Maybe checking inventory. 

    But then you wake up and you’re shopping at Target with a $5,000 watch on your wrist and you feel both embarrassed and ashamed.

    Doing research on watches is like having that dance with your ex-girlfriend: Something is going to happen. And it’s not going to be pretty. 

    Have a wonderful day, everyone. Don’t forget to smash that Like button of your soul.

  • How Watch Collectors Lie to Themselves About “Finding Their Style”

    How Watch Collectors Lie to Themselves About “Finding Their Style”

    I recently made a YouTube video arguing that a man should not chase variety in his watch collection but instead find his signature style and whittle his hoard down to a tasteful few. Like a monk with only one robe. Or a chef with one good knife. Or a middle-aged guy who knows that buying yet another GMT won’t fix his marriage.

    Now, did I believe what I was saying? Not entirely. I was, to be honest, talking myself off the ledge. It was a kind of public self-hypnosis: say it enough times on camera, and maybe I’ll stop buying watches I never wear. But I’ll admit—the thought experiment was stimulating, like sniffing ammonia salts just to feel something. Most commenters agreed, saying peace of mind only arrived after purging the herd. But not all. Some insisted that a large, diverse collection brings them genuine joy. Fair. Not everyone needs to live like a horological monk.

    Still, I enjoyed making the video. It felt like intellectual calisthenics for the soul, even if it didn’t convert me.

    One viewer, the formidable “Captain Nolan,” asked a deceptively simple question that demands more than a quick reply:

    “How can you discover your identity without trying watches in every category—divers, pilots, field watches, dress, digital, mechanical, quartz, and so on?”

    By “identity,” he means your taste. What fits your lifestyle, your aesthetic, your internal brand. A fair question. And at first, I answered like a smug adolescent. I said, “You know what you like the same way I knew Raquel Welch was the apex of female beauty when I was nine. One glance. No need to watch Love American Style reruns or thumb through Vogue. Case closed.”

    But that answer is glib. And idiotic. Taste in watches—unlike adolescent lust—is not a hormonal thunderclap. It’s a process.

    So here’s the grown-up answer: yes, you do need to try different styles, just like trying on jackets at Nordstrom. Some are flattering, some make you look like a Bulgarian hitman. It’s tactile. Visceral. And wildly expensive. To really figure out your taste, you may end up spending $5,000 to $10,000 just to land in the right neighborhood. You might call this the Fitting Room Narrative—the idea that trying on a wide range of watches will help you find the “real you.”

    It sounds rational. Comforting, even. But I don’t believe in it.

    The problem is the human brain. It’s not a spreadsheet. It’s a haunted house full of desires, delusions, and marketing fumes. So let me propose a more honest theory: Fever Swamp Accretion–the uncontrolled phase of acquisition in which watches multiply faster than self-awareness. Purpose is retroactively assigned; sanity is postponed.

    Here’s how it works:

    You fall headfirst into the hobby. You start buying watches the way a toddler grabs Halloween candy. You buy microbrand divers, G-Shocks, Speedmasters, and maybe a Rolex or two if your credit limit allows it. You tell yourself each one serves a “purpose.” You start spending a grand a month, easy. Over ten years, you’ve spent more than most people do on therapy. And God knows you need therapy.

    Eventually, the collection metastasizes. Dozens of watches, each one representing a temporary high. You stop wearing half of them. You obsess over straps, bezels, lume. Your identity fuses with your hobby. You’re no longer a man who wears watches; you’re a man being worn by them.

    Then comes the collapse: financial strain, marital tension, the vacant stare of a man wondering why he owns three identical Seikos. Maybe you go through a breakup or foreclosure. Maybe your friends stage an intervention. Maybe your dog leaves you. Think about that. Your watch obsession got so bad your dog abandoned you. 

    You finally tap out. Sell the collection. Keep three. Or two. Or one. You tell yourself you’re “cured.”

    Except… maybe you’re not. Maybe, like Bell’s palsy or a bad ex, the obsession lies dormant. All it takes is one random trigger—a stressful day, a YouTube thumbnail, a flash sale—and you relapse. Buy a Sinn. Then a Squale. Then you’re back in the swamp.

    Why do we cling to the Fitting Room Narrative when it’s so obviously false? Because it has a tidy structure. A clean arc. Beginning, middle, resolution. We’re narrative junkies. We want our Luke Skywalkers to finish Jedi school and never regress. 

    Same with watch collectors. We want the Watch Ninja to overcome his demons and live a Zen life with a single Grand Seiko. If he relapses, we unsubscribe. He becomes a punchline. Another Liver King of horology.

    Still don’t believe me? Consider Pete Rose. In the ‘70s, he was “Charlie Hustle,” the human embodiment of work ethic. But zoom out, and the myth crumbles. Pete wasn’t disciplined—he was compulsive. He gambled, lied, betrayed friends. The man was a walking cautionary tale wrapped in a Cincinnati Reds jersey.

    Or take Sedona. Supposedly a spiritual vortex. In reality, a commercialized fever dream of overpriced crystals, green juice, and pseudo-mystical hokum. You arrive expecting transcendence and leave with a maxed-out credit card and lower back pain from a “chakra realignment.”

    We love myths because they sell. But real life is more complicated. Messier. Less flattering.

    So I could tell you a satisfying tale about finding my “true self” through curating a humble collection of retro divers and minimalist field watches. I could wrap it all up with a bow. But I won’t. Because that would be fiction.

    And honestly, haven’t we had enough of that?

  • Letting Go of the Bro Code

    Letting Go of the Bro Code

    My friend Lee retired at sixty-one, fled the tech industry, and landed in Santa Fe like a man stepping out of a chrysalis. The move gave him what he said his spirit had been begging for: a clean reinvention. These days he volunteers as a rescue worker at the local ski resort—hauling people out of trouble, useful again, awake in his body.

    My own retirement is eighteen months away, and I feel the same hunger for reinvention—but without the romance of relocation. My wife and kids aren’t uprooting, and neither am I. So if I’m going to change, the terrain has to be internal. I don’t need a new zip code; I need a new relationship with myself.

    Some of this craving is spiritual. Some of it is brutally practical. For the past five months I’ve been rehabbing a torn rotator cuff marinated in arthritis. I tried to negotiate with my kettlebell workouts—adjusting angles, trimming volume, pretending moderation would save me. It half-worked. What didn’t improve was the resentment. In fact, it metastasized.

    I know exactly how I got here. I overdid kettlebells—four days in a row, again and again—until my shoulder finally filed a formal complaint. Now the bells feel less like tools and more like accusations. I still want to train five or six days a week, but the thought of picking them up fills me with a low-grade fury. When resentment becomes chronic, it’s information. Ignoring it is how you end up injured and stubbornly proud about it.

    What I keep circling back to is yoga—specifically my mid-2000s era, when power yoga was my religion. Back when Bryan Kest and Rodney Yee videos taught me that yoga could be punishing, sweaty, and deeply satisfying. One hour. Total exhaustion. Muscles lit up, ego humbled, mind quiet. I want that again—not just the shape of it, but the mental state. I want to get lean. I want a diet that actually complements the practice: simple, semi-vegan, enjoyable. Yoga four days a week. The exercise bike on the others. Nothing heroic. Nothing destructive.

    Of course, underneath all of this is the same old human wish: character. I want a yoga lifestyle that reflects self-possession, self-discipline, and self-confidence—the real currencies of happiness. Not indulgence. Not macho theater. If I’m going to retire in the Southern California suburbs, fine. But I can’t be the retired guy slowly maiming himself in the garage, clinging to an identity that no longer serves him.

    Yoga never hurt me. Not once. It always left me clearer, calmer, and stronger in ways that mattered. As a lifetime weightlifter, I’m realizing I need to let go of the Bro-Coding and Bro-Signaling that once fed my pride. What is a real man, anyway? It isn’t someone chasing pump and punishment while overeating and limping through life. It’s someone fit, injury-free, and genuinely disciplined.

    Lee rescues skiers. I admire that. But before I can rescue anyone—before I can reinvent anything—I have to rescue myself first.

  • Absolutes and the Ruin of Watch Collecting

    Absolutes and the Ruin of Watch Collecting

    It’s often said that comparison is the mother of misery. No matter how high you climb in any pursuit, there’s always someone perched above you, dangling their boots over the edge. The distance between you and them can feel vast—so vast it erases the climb you already made. In watch collecting, this happens fast. You finally land your grail: a Seiko GMT diver that cost real money, money that made you flinch. You admire it. You feel complete. Then a friend casually flashes a five-thousand-dollar Grand Seiko and—poof—your triumph collapses. You don’t feel lucky. You feel inadequate.

    If comparison is the mother of misery, then she has a meddlesome sister. Call her Aunt Absolute. Aunt Absolute is just as ruinous. She whispers that contentment requires perfection. Not just a great watch, but the right watch. Not just a collection, but the collection. The correct rotation. The correct strap. The correct bracelet. She promises peace once everything clicks into place forever.

    This hunger for absolutes usually rides shotgun with an OCD streak in the hobby. The flaw in that mindset is simple: the hobby refuses to stay still. Tastes change. Knowledge deepens. Bodies age. Jobs shift. Moods fluctuate. Absolutes hate variables, and watch collecting is nothing but variables. To the absolutist, change feels like threat, and threat breeds anxiety. In its ugliest form, that anxiety convinces you your collection is one wrong move away from collapse. Sell a watch. Swap a strap. Wear a bracelet again. The whole thing topples. This is Jenga Anxiety—the chronic fear that a single adjustment will destabilize not just your watches, but the identity you’ve built around them. Adaptability feels like fragility. Experimentation feels like self-destruction.

    I lived under Aunt Absolute’s roof for about two years. I refused bracelets entirely. Every watch sat on Divecore FKM straps. The system was clean. The rules were rigid. I was happy—until the FKM “forever chemical” scare cracked the foundation. I reassessed. I adjusted. Now four watches live on straps and four on bracelets. The collection breathes. I have options. And yes, I forgot how good a bracelet can feel until I let myself enjoy one again.

    That experiment proved something important. I didn’t need absolutes to enjoy the hobby. I didn’t need perfection. Flexibility wasn’t failure—it was freedom. The watches didn’t lose meaning when the rules softened. They gained it.

    Will I stay flexible, or will I drift back toward absolutism? History suggests vigilance is required. But if I feel Aunt Absolute tugging at my sleeve again, I’ll remind myself of a simple truth: absolutism is the aunt of misery.

  • Evil With a Vacant Face: The Turpin Case and the Myth That Mental Illness Explains Everything

    Evil With a Vacant Face: The Turpin Case and the Myth That Mental Illness Explains Everything

    I remembered the Turpin case the way most people do: as a headline too grotesque to metabolize. Thirteen siblings chained, starved, beaten, and imprisoned by their parents until one of them finally escaped in 2018 and called the police. I hadn’t revisited the story until I saw an update, The Turpins: A New House of Horrors. In it, Diane Sawyer interviews three of the children who survived their parents’ private dungeon—only to be handed over by social services to another household that abused them all over again. The people who adopted them have since been convicted. The rescue, it turns out, was only a handoff to a new nightmare.

    What struck me immediately was how eerily gothic the parents appear, as if the story had summoned its own visual shorthand for evil. The mother, Louise Turpin, radiates menace—her face tight with cruelty and mental fracture. The father, David Turpin, looks equally arrested, a sixty-year-old man wearing the shaggy hair and slack affect of a disturbed adolescent. Both faces are blank, glum, almost vacant. And yet once you hear what they did—years of systematic starvation, torture, and control—you understand that the vacancy is not emptiness but concealment. Behind those dead expressions worked a tireless, inventive cruelty.

    They are plainly evil people. They also appear mentally ill. Those two facts do not cancel each other out. Narcissism, for instance, is a recognized pathology, but it often carries a moral charge—a pleasure in domination, a delight in harm. Watching the Turpin parents, I was reminded of M. Scott Peck’s The People of the Lie, a book I read decades ago that argued precisely this point: that evil can wear the mask of sickness, and sickness can provide cover for evil. Louise and David Turpin fit that category with chilling precision—malignant narcissists cloaked in religious piety, manipulating their children while feeding off their suffering.

    What makes Sawyer’s interview watchable, even bearable, is what comes after. The children speak about therapy, recovery, work, and the slow construction of a life that does not revolve around fear. Sawyer notes that they “won the hearts of the country,” and it’s true. They are lucid, self-possessed, and deeply sympathetic. You don’t pity them so much as root for them.

    The clearest light in the story is their sanity—and how visibly it flows from their love for one another. These siblings endured the same menace together. They shared it. They protected one another where they could, and afterward, that bond became ballast. They are not just survivors; they are witnesses for one another. Watching them, you come away with a rare conviction that sounds sentimental until you see it embodied: that love, stubborn and mutual, can outlast even prolonged, institutionalized evil. In this case, it appears to have done exactly that.

  • Buy Now, Regret Later: How Ancient Instincts Ruined Modern Shopping

    Buy Now, Regret Later: How Ancient Instincts Ruined Modern Shopping

    In the early 1990s, I saw comedian Rob Becker perform Defending the Caveman in San Francisco—a one-man anthropology class disguised as stand-up. His central thesis, stitched together from kitchen-table spats with his wife, was that men are hunters, women are gatherers, and this prehistoric wiring still runs our modern relationships like a bad operating system.

    His proof? Shopping.

    For the gatherer, shopping is a leisurely daydream. Wandering the mall for six hours and imagining buying things she can’t afford is an enriching sensory experience—like spiritual window-shopping. For the hunter, shopping is a surgical strike. He wants pants. He buys pants. He leaves. The suggestion to “just browse” makes his eye twitch.

    “Let’s get the hell out of here,” says the man. He has completed his mission. He has felled the beast.

    That moment—man as single-focus, tunnel-visioned, goal-oriented predator—explains a great deal about the pathology of watch addiction. We are still cavemen, just hairier and worse at squatting. And we don’t hunt food anymore. We hunt wristwear.

    We see a watch online and a brontosaurus steak lights up in our brain. Locked in. Target acquired. Our dopamine circuits spark like faulty Christmas lights. We must have it. There is no tranquility, no peace, until the object is in our possession.

    The problem? Our primitive instincts weren’t designed for the digital age. Back then, acquiring a new object meant trekking through wilderness, battling saber-toothed tigers, and earning your meal. Today, it’s clicking a “Buy Now” button while half-watching a YouTube review at your ergonomic standing desk, surrounded by a sea of unopened Amazon boxes. Intoxicated by online shopping platforms, we are overcome with the Horological Hunt Reflex–the involuntary lock-on response triggered by spotting a desirable watch. Once activated, attention narrows, patience evaporates, and the collector cannot rest until the object is captured—regardless of need, cost, or logic.

    Our brains still think we’re walking 40 miles to spear a mammoth. In reality, we’re reclining in office chairs with lumbar support, ordering $2,000 divers like they’re takeout sushi. The hunt requires no sacrifice, no sweat, no real effort. And so it never satisfies.

    This caveman instinct affects our watch hobby. We get the watch. We admire it. We post a photo to Instagram. Then—we twitch. We fidget. Our brain says, “Good job. Now go get another.”

    We are not content in the cave. Evolution didn’t design us for stillness. It designed us to be hungry. To prepare. To hoard. So we keep hunting. And the cave fills with stainless steel trophies until the glint attracts low-flying pterodactyls that dive-bomb us in our sleep and try to pluck the Omega off our wrist.

    We are maladapted creatures. Our eyeballs evolved for survival. Now they doom us. We were built to scan the horizon for danger. Now we scan Hodinkee, Instagram, Reddit, eBay, WatchRecon, and Chrono24 until our dopamine is a wrung-out dishrag and our bank account is an obituary.

    We’re trapped in a glitch—stone-age instincts, 5G bandwidth. Our visual fixation, once essential to survival, now chains us to a cycle of desire and regret. Thousands of watches flood our screens in a single hour, and our brains are too old and too soft to resist. The only real solution is exile. But exile from what? Our jobs, our networks, our entire digital lives?

    There is no cave to retreat to. Just another tab open.

  • Why You Should Watch the Most Stressful Movie of the Year: If I Had Legs I’d Kick You

    Why You Should Watch the Most Stressful Movie of the Year: If I Had Legs I’d Kick You

    My wife and I first fell for Rose Byrne watching her volatile, oddly tender friendship with Seth Rogen implode and recombine in Platonic. When we heard she starred in a film called If I Had Legs I’d Kick You—with Conan O’Brien cast against type as a pinch-faced therapist—we were curious in the wary, “this could be a disaster” sense.

    We had just abandoned the TV series Ponies, unable to buy the premise that two American widows had any credible reason to embed themselves as spies in 1970s Russia. On a shrug and a whim, I said, “Let’s try the Rose Byrne movie.” Within minutes, I knew we weren’t watching something polite or forgettable.

    Byrne plays Linda, a mother in a state of constant triage, caring for an unnamed daughter—food-fussy, difficult, often infuriating—who suffers from a mysterious condition requiring a feeding tube. Linda’s life has narrowed to a single obsession: get her daughter to gain weight, get rid of the tube, reclaim some sliver of normalcy. That’s the plan, anyway.

    Then the ceiling collapses. Literally. Water, black mold, asbestos—biblical plagues delivered through faulty plumbing. Mother and child are displaced to a grim motel while the husband, conveniently absent on a luxury cruise, calls incessantly to bark instructions, demand progress, and outsource both parenting and home repair to his exhausted wife. Linda is alone, drowning, and being evaluated from all sides.

    About ten minutes in, I leaned over and said, “This feels like Uncut Gems.” Not long after, I learned the film was written and directed by Mary Bronstein, who happens to be married to Ronald Bronstein, a longtime Safdie collaborator. That anxious, grinding sense of no escape is not an accident.

    Let me be clear about what this movie is not. It is not a Hollywood crowd-pleaser. It is not a Conan O’Brien vehicle—his presence is cold, clipped, and deeply unsettling. It is not a date movie unless you’re looking to test the structural integrity of your relationship. And it is not a tidy parable offering uplifting wisdom about parenting.

    This is a horror film. Not the jump-scare kind, but the kind that tightens its grip scene by scene, turning ordinary stress into existential dread. The terror compounds. The center does not hold.

    The most devastating moment comes when Linda tells her therapist that she isn’t just a bad parent—she isn’t a parent at all. After years of vigilance and sacrifice, she feels emptied out, reduced to a hollow administrative shell, a being performing motherhood without any remaining sense of self. A nervous breakdown, she implies, would almost be a relief.

    After the credits rolled, I thought of a colleague from years ago who once told me about his brother’s family falling apart. Their teenage daughter, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, became violent. Doors were locked at night. Chairs were wedged against door handles. The strain was unrelenting, and eventually the marriage collapsed under it. Love wasn’t enough. Systems intervened. Judgment followed. The family was pulverized.

    That is the movie’s deepest horror: when parenting goes bad, it doesn’t fail gently. It metastasizes. Once institutions and experts enter the picture, you’re no longer just a parent—you’re a defendant. Forms multiply. Everyone watches. You second-guess every instinct. The spiral accelerates.

    If I Had Legs I’d Kick You is fearless in refusing to rescue Linda with a neat arc or a redemptive bow. The film respects her too much for that. I was riveted from start to finish, and when it ended, I felt wrung out.

    Most of all, my heart broke for Linda. She is not a lesson. She is not a case study. She is a wound. And she will stay with me for a long time.