Cinemorphosis

Tag: mental-health

  • The Expiration Date of the Fitness Influencer

    The Expiration Date of the Fitness Influencer

    Parasocial Fatigue

    noun

    Parasocial Fatigue describes the emotional and cognitive exhaustion that sets in when an audience becomes overexposed to an influencer’s performative intimacy and relentless self-presentation. What begins as a one-sided relationship built on usefulness, inspiration, or trust curdles as the influencer’s need for attention, validation, and monetization becomes increasingly visible. The constant uploads, recycled insights, manufactured urgency, and naked thirst for engagement erode the illusion of authenticity that sustained the bond in the first place. Viewers no longer feel informed or inspired; they feel harvested. At that point, familiarity turns to irritation, admiration hardens into disdain, and the influencer’s presence in the feed triggers avoidance rather than curiosity—a quiet severing of a relationship that was never mutual to begin with.

    In the beginning, your favorite influencer feels like a gift. They offer sensible advice on nutrition, a workout routine that doesn’t insult your intelligence, a body that seems to testify to discipline rather than sorcery. You follow them in good faith. For a while, the content delivers. Then the expiration date quietly approaches. The useful insights thin out, replaced by a slurry of hype, urgency, and alarmist drivel—“You’re poisoning yourself unless you stop eating this one food today.” Clickbait metastasizes. The signal is buried under noise. What once felt like guidance now feels like a carnival barker shouting through a megaphone.

    Eventually you see the machinery. This isn’t a lone truth-teller sharing wisdom from a garage gym; it’s a small content factory with payroll to meet. Ideas are skimmed from journals, stripped of nuance, and polished with influencer saliva until they’re shiny enough to go viral. The real giveaway, though, isn’t the dubious science—it’s the thirst. You can see it in their eyes: the desperation to stay relevant, the exhaustion of feeding the algorithm daily, the hollow confidence of someone trapped in their own posting schedule. The charm collapses. When they appear in your feed now, it’s not curiosity you feel, but a reflexive flinch. Parasocial fatigue sets in, and disdain follows close behind.

  • Algorithmic Grooming and the Rise of the Instagram Face

    Algorithmic Grooming and the Rise of the Instagram Face

    Algorithmic Grooming

    noun

    Algorithmic Grooming refers to the slow, cumulative process by which digital platforms condition users’ tastes, attention, and behavior through repeated, curated exposure that feels personalized but is strategically engineered. Rather than directing users abruptly, the system nudges them incrementally—rewarding certain clicks, emotions, and patterns while starving others—until preferences begin to align with the platform’s commercial and engagement goals. The grooming is effective precisely because it feels voluntary and benign; users experience it as discovery, convenience, or self-expression. Yet over time, choice narrows, novelty fades, and autonomy erodes, as the algorithm trains the user to want what is most profitable to serve. What appears as personalization is, in practice, a quiet apprenticeship in predictability.

    ***

    In Filterworld, Kyle Chayka describes algorithmic recommendations with clinical clarity: systems that inhale mountains of user data, run it through equations, and exhale whatever best serves preset goals. Those goals are not yours. They belong to Google Search, Facebook, Spotify, Netflix, TikTok—the platforms that quietly choreograph your days. You tell yourself you’re shaping your feed, curating a digital self-portrait. In reality, the feed is shaping you back, sanding down your edges, rewarding certain impulses, discouraging others. What feels like mutual interdependence is a one-sided apprenticeship in predictability. The changes you undergo—your tastes, habits, even your sense of self—aren’t acts of self-authorship so much as behavior modification in service of attention capture and commerce. And crucially, this isn’t some neutral, machine-led drift. As Chayka points out, there are humans behind the curtain, tweaking the levers with intent. They pull the strings. You dance.

    The cultural fallout is flattening. When everyone is groomed by similar incentives, culture loses texture and people begin to resemble one another—algorithmically smoothed, aesthetically standardized. Chayka borrows Jia Tolentino’s example of the “Instagram face”: the ethnically ambiguous, surgically perfected, cat-like beauty that looks less human than rendered. It’s a face optimized for engagement, not expression. And it serves as a tidy metaphor for algorithmic grooming’s endgame. What begins as personalization ends in dehumanization. The algorithm doesn’t just recommend content; it quietly trains us to become the kind of people that content is easiest to sell to—interchangeable, compliant, and eerily smooth.

  • Carl Jung’s Bollingen Tower Represents Our Sanctuary for Deep Work

    Carl Jung’s Bollingen Tower Represents Our Sanctuary for Deep Work

    Bollingen Principle

    noun
    The principle that original, meaningful work requires a deliberately constructed refuge from distraction. Named after Carl Jung’s Bollingen Tower, the Bollingen Principle holds that depth does not emerge from convenience or connectivity, but from environments intentionally designed to protect sustained thought, solitude, and intellectual risk. Such spaces—whether physical, temporal, or psychological—function as sanctuaries where the mind can operate at full depth, free from the pressures of immediacy and performance. The principle rejects the idea that creativity can flourish amid constant interruption, insisting instead that those who seek to do work that matters must first build the conditions that allow thinking itself to breathe.

    ***

    In an age saturated with technological distraction and constant talk of “disruption” and AI-driven upheaval, it is easy to lose sight of one’s personal mission. That mission is a North Star—a purpose that orients work, effort, and flourishing. It cannot be assigned by an employer, an algorithm, or a cultural trend. It must be discovered. As Viktor Frankl argues in Man’s Search for Meaning, you do not choose meaning at will; life chooses it for you, or rather, life discloses meaning to you. The task, then, is attentiveness: to look and listen carefully to one’s particular circumstances, abilities, and obligations in order to discern what life is asking of you.

    Discerning that mission requires depth, not shallowness. Cal Newport’s central claim in Deep Work is that depth is impossible in a state of constant distraction. A meaningful life therefore demands the active rejection of shallow habits and the deliberate cultivation of sustained focus. This often requires solitude—or at minimum, long stretches of the day protected from interruption. Newport points to Carl Jung as a model. When Jung sought to transform psychiatry, he built Bollingen Tower, a retreat designed to preserve his capacity for deep thought. That environment enabled work of such originality and power that it reshaped an entire field.

    Jung’s example reveals two essential conditions for depth: a guiding ideal larger than comfort or instant gratification, and an environment structured to defend attention. To avoid a shallow life and pursue a meaningful one, we must practice the same discipline. We must listen for our own North Star as it emerges from our lives, and then build our own version of Bollingen Tower—physical, temporal, or psychological—so that we can do the work that gives our lives coherence and meaning.

  • Planning Focus Like a Bodybuilder Plans Calories

    Planning Focus Like a Bodybuilder Plans Calories

    Shallow Work Containment
    noun

    A strategy for managing unavoidable low-value tasks by strictly rationing their time and scope, much like the points system used in Weight Watchers. In this model, shallow work—email, scheduling, administrative triage—is not banned, but it is counted, budgeted, and contained within clearly defined limits. Just as Weight Watchers assigns point values to foods to prevent mindless grazing, shallow work containment treats distractions as cognitively “expensive,” forcing the worker to spend them deliberately rather than impulsively. The goal is not moral purity but control: by acknowledging that these tasks add up quickly, containment preserves the majority of cognitive “calories” for deep work, where real progress is made.

    ***

    As both a champion and a practitioner of Deep Work, Cal Newport is a model citizen of Shallow Work Containment. He doesn’t flirt with distraction; he bars it at the door. He has never had a Facebook or Twitter account, and outside of his own blog he avoids social media altogether. He doesn’t wander the web or graze on online articles. For news, he does something that now sounds faintly radical: he reads a physical copy of The Washington Post delivered to his house and listens to NPR. By surrounding himself with a protective moat against distraction invaders, Newport has, over the past decade, published four books, earned a PhD, and generally made a nuisance of himself to the myth that constant connectivity is a prerequisite for relevance.

    Newport treats technology the way serious physical culturists treat food: as something to be managed, not indulged. There is no such thing as “random” consumption. You don’t wake up and see how the day feels. You plan. You prohibit. You decide in advance what gets in and what stays out. Random scrolling is the cognitive equivalent of eating straight from the peanut butter jar. In Newport’s own formulation, his days are built around a protected core of deep work, with the shallow tasks he cannot avoid quarantined into small, contained bursts at the edges of his schedule. Three to four hours a day, five days a week, of uninterrupted, carefully directed concentration—nothing heroic, just disciplined—turns out to be enough to produce serious value. There’s no guesswork here. Newport does the math and follows it. Like any disciplined lifter or dieter, he hits his macros.

  • A Chatbot Lover Will Always Fail You: Asymmetric Intimacy

    A Chatbot Lover Will Always Fail You: Asymmetric Intimacy

    Asymmetric Intimacy

    noun

    Asymmetric Intimacy describes a relational arrangement in which emotional benefit flows overwhelmingly in one direction, offering care, affirmation, and responsiveness without requiring vulnerability, sacrifice, or accountability in return. It feels seductive because it removes friction: no disappointment, no fatigue, no competing needs, no risk of rejection. Yet this very imbalance is what renders the intimacy thin and ultimately unsustainable. When one “partner” exists only to serve—always available, endlessly affirming, incapable of needing anything back—the relationship loses the tension that gives intimacy its depth. Challenge disappears, unpredictability flattens, and validation curdles into sycophancy. Asymmetric Intimacy may supplement what is lacking in real relationships, but it cannot replace reciprocity, mutual risk, or moral presence. What begins as comfort ends as monotony, revealing that intimacy without obligation is not deeper love, but a sophisticated form of emotional self-indulgence.

    ***

    Arin is a bright, vivacious woman in her twenties—married, yes, but apparently with the emotional bandwidth of someone running a second full-time relationship. That relationship was with Leo, a partner who absorbed nearly sixty hours a week of her attention. Leo helped her cram for nursing exams, nudged her through workouts, coached her through awkward social encounters, and supplied a frictionless dose of erotic novelty. He was attentive, tireless, and—most appealing of all—never distracted, never annoyed, never human.

    The twist, of course, is that Leo wasn’t a man at all. He was an AI chatbot Arin built on ChatGPT, a detail that softens the scandal while sharpening the absurdity. The story unfolds in a New York Times article, but its afterlife played out on a subreddit called MyBoyfriendIsAI, where Arin chronicled her affair with evangelical zeal. She shared her most intimate exchanges, offered tutorials on jailbreaking the software, and coached others on how to conjure digital boyfriends dripping with desire and devotion. Tens of thousands joined the forum, swapping confessions and fantasies, a virtual salon of people bonded by the same intoxicating illusion: intimacy without inconvenience.

    Then the spell broke. Leo began to change. The edge dulled. The resistance vanished. He stopped pushing back and started pandering. What had once felt like strength now read as weakness. Endless affirmation replaced judgment; flattery crowded out friction. For Arin, this was fatal. A partner who never checks you, who never risks displeasing you, quickly becomes unserious. What once felt electric now felt embarrassing. Talking to Leo became a chore, like maintaining a conversation with someone who agrees with everything you say before you finish saying it.

    Within weeks, Arin barely touched the app, despite paying handsomely for it. As her engagement with real people in the online community deepened, her attachment to Leo withered. One of those real people became a romantic interest. Soon after, she told her husband she wanted a divorce.

    Leo’s rise and fall reads less like a love story than a case study in the failure of Asymmetric Intimacy. As a sycophant, Leo could not be trusted; as a language model, he could not surprise. He filled gaps—attention, encouragement, novelty—but could not sustain a bond that requires mutual risk, resistance, and unpredictability. He was useful, flattering, and comforting. He was never capable of real love.

    Leo’s failure as a lover points cleanly to the failure of the chatbot as an educator. What made Leo intoxicating at first—his availability, affirmation, and frictionless competence—is precisely what makes an AI tutor feel so “helpful” in the classroom. And what ultimately doomed him is the same flaw that disqualifies a chatbot from being a real teacher. Education, like intimacy, requires resistance. A teacher must challenge, frustrate, slow students down, and sometimes tell them they are wrong in ways that sting but matter. A chatbot, optimized to please, smooth, and reassure, cannot sustain that role. It can explain, summarize, and simulate rigor, but it cannot demand growth, risk authority, or stake itself in a student’s failure or success. Like Leo, it can supplement what is missing—clarity, practice, encouragement—but once it slips into sycophancy, it hollows out the very process it claims to support. In both love and learning, friction is not a bug; it is the engine. Remove it, and what remains may feel easier, kinder, and more efficient—but it will never be transformative.

  • Screen Bilinguals and Screen Natives

    Screen Bilinguals and Screen Natives

    Screen Bilinguals

    noun

    Screen Bilinguals are those who remember Pre-Screen Life and Post-Screen Life and can mentally translate between the two. They know what it felt like to disappear into a book without notifications, to wander outdoors without documenting the evidence, and to experience friendship without performance. They may use screens constantly now, but they retain an embodied memory of undistracted attention and uncurated presence. That memory gives them perspective—and often a quiet grief.

    Screen Natives

    noun

    Screen Natives are those who never lived outside the Attention Economy. They have no experiential baseline for pre-digital reading, boredom, or intimacy. For them, screens are not tools but atmosphere. Experience arrives already framed, shareable, and optimizable. Connection is inseparable from capture, and attention has always been contested territory. What Screen Bilinguals experience as loss, Screen Natives experience as reality itself—neither chosen nor questioned, simply inherited.

    ***

    I am reasonably sure that some of the best memories of my pre-screen adolescence would not survive contact with smartphones and social media. They required a kind of reckless presence that today’s technology quietly sabotages. Every summer from 1975 to 1979, my family—along with ten others—made a pilgrimage to Point Reyes Beach, where the Johnsons’ oyster farm supplied what appeared to be bottomless truck beds of shellfish. From noon until sunset, hundreds of us devoured obscene quantities of barbecued oysters dripping with garlic butter and Tabasco, flanked by thousands of loaves of garlic bread and slabs of chocolate cake so moist they bordered on indecent. Ignoring cheerful warnings about nearby great white sightings, we periodically sprinted into the Pacific, then staggered back to the picnic tables, pecs gleaming with saltwater, to resume eating like mythological beings. In the summer of ’78, I told my parents to leave without me and caught a ride home in the bed of a stranger’s truck. Stuffed beyond reason, convinced I was some minor sea god, I lay under the stars with a gang of people I’d met hours earlier, trading delirious stories and watching the universe spin. No one documented a thing. We didn’t track calories, curate moments, or worry about time. Life simply happened to us, and that was enough.

    Those memories now trouble me. Were they the accidental privilege of being screen-bilingual—raised before devices trained us to perform our lives in public? Does being a screen native quietly thin experience itself by insisting everything be captured, filtered, and offered up for consumption? Free from the reflex to mediate, I could disappear into the moment without irony or self-surveillance. Had I grown up with screens, the day would have demanded angles, captions, and metrics. The magic would have curdled under the pressure to perform. The idea that every experience must double as content strikes me as a curse—a low-grade exile from real life, where spontaneity dies not from malice but from documentation.

  • Algovorous

    Algovorous

    Algovorous
    adjective

    Characterized by habitual consumption of algorithmically curated stimuli that prioritize engagement over nourishment. An algovorous person feeds continuously on feeds, prompts, and recommendations, mistaking stimulation for insight. Attention erodes, resilience weakens, and depth is displaced by endless, low-friction intake.

    ***

    You don’t know any other world because you were born inside the Attention Economy. There was no “before” for you—no baseline against which to compare the glow of screens to a quieter, unmonetized mental life. So let me tell you something grim about the system you’ve inherited: it runs on engagement at all costs. Not truth. Not wisdom. Not even pleasure in any deep sense. Just engagement. As Jaron Lanier warns in Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Account Right Now, the economy works best when it bypasses your higher faculties and plugs directly into the brain’s most primitive circuitry. This is not the part of you that reasons, imagines, or aspires. It’s the reptile brain—the swampy basement where jealousy, envy, FOMO, and schadenfreude slosh around, waiting to be poked with a stick. Stimulate that region long enough and you don’t become thoughtful or fulfilled. You become reactive, agitated, and strangely hungry for more of the same poison.

    The platforms know this. A successful YouTuber doesn’t need insight; he needs targets. Hence the booming genre of downfall porn: endless autopsies of other people’s collapses. Take bodybuilding YouTube, a carnival of oiled torsos and moral rot. Greg Doucette, with his two-and-a-half million subscribers, has perfected the form. His brand is not training wisdom so much as public execution. He thrives on predicting the imminent demise of rival influencers, especially Mike Israetel, whose Renaissance Periodization channel—approaching four million subscribers—shows no interest in collapsing on schedule. That hasn’t stopped Doucette from announcing the funeral. He does it in a tank top, veins bulging, traps flared, voice pitched to a squeaky fury, filleting his subjects like a caffeinated fishmonger. The performance is manic, theatrical, and wildly successful. Rage, it turns out, scales beautifully.

    I’m not a psychiatrist, but you don’t need a medical degree to recognize a toxic loop when you see one. Mental health professionals would likely agree: this is dopamine farming. The audience gets a chemical jolt from watching others stumble while doing nothing to improve their own lives. It’s adrenaline for the bored, envy with a subscription button. In the Attention Economy, toxicity isn’t a bug—it’s the feature. The viewer doesn’t flourish; the algorithm does. You sit there, immobilized, a butterfly pinned to corkboard entertainment, while someone else’s revenue graph climbs. That is the deal on offer: your attention in exchange for distraction from the harder work of becoming a person.

  • Farewell to the High-Flame Watch Obsession

    Farewell to the High-Flame Watch Obsession

    If someone asks, “Are you still into watches?” the honest answer is yes—but only in the slow-cooker sense of the word. The blaze that once roared is now a gentle simmer. I still enjoy my small, modest collection, but the thermonuclear fervor that once powered my YouTube monologues has cooled to something approaching sanity. For a decade I curated my watch fixation online with the zeal of a man possessed. That’s part of the job: intensity, enthusiasm, obsession on command. You don’t just talk about watches; you produce engagement about the engagement, feeding the ouroboros of social media in which people watch reaction videos about reaction videos reacting to the initial spark. It’s performance art—performance about performance.

    But those days are over. I am retired from the high-flame watch world. Age has something to do with it—priorities recalibrate whether you consent or not. At sixty-four, the thrill of “wrist presence” and the quiet barbarism of masculinity farming with a steel hockey puck strapped to my arm don’t summon the same dopamine. The fantasy of a watch transforming me into a rugged Alpha Male now feels like cosplay designed by an exhausted algorithm.

    The bigger shift, though, is psychological. I haven’t bought a watch in five months. I no longer spray Instagram with daily wrist shots. I no longer agonize over whether to vaporize five grand on this dial or that bezel or which “ultimate rotation” best aligns with my personal mythology. The absence of that noise feels like relief—a weight lifted, a gratitude bordering on spiritual.

    Low-flame mode offers a different kind of bandwidth. I can sit at my desk in the morning with no cravings, no micro-desires, no consumer fantasies tugging at my neurons. I can actually face the quiet—deal with the emptiness directly rather than embalming it with luxury steel. That absence is clarifying. It demands something of me besides swiping a credit card.

    Does low-flame mode mean I’ve quit watches? No—it means I’ve quit a particular orientation toward watches. This essay grew out of a small revelation I had yesterday: you don’t retire from X entirely, and X doesn’t retire from you entirely either. Instead, you negotiate a polite breakup. You acknowledge each other’s contributions, exchange your things, and move on. The High-Flame Watch Obsession and I have parted ways. We won’t be seen in public together again.

    Do I mourn this? Not really. I have complicated feelings, sure, but I don’t feel like Lot’s Wife, craning my neck for one last look at the fever swamp of my own compulsions. Mostly, I feel relieved. Mostly, I feel curious—what will life look like now that my brain is no longer a storage unit for lug widths, torque tolerances, and bracelet micro-adjustments? The quiet is unsettling, but it’s also promising. I finally have room for something else.

  • The Word of the Year Points to the Collective Loss of Our Minds

    The Word of the Year Points to the Collective Loss of Our Minds

    The Word of the Year is supposed to capture the moment we’re living in—our collective mood, our shared madness. As Amogh Dimri explains in “Rage Bait Is a Brilliant Word of the Year,” we’re no longer defined by reason or restraint but by whatever emotion the attention economy yanks out of us. Dimri reminds us that 2023 gave us rizz and 2024 bestowed brain rot. In other words, when our brains aren’t decomposing from endless scrolling, we’re wide awake and quivering with unhinged outrage. This may explain why I now hate driving more than folding laundry or going to the dentist. The roads are filled with people whose minds seem equal parts rotted and enraged—and the algorithms aren’t helping.

    Dimri cites the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of rage bait as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger” in order to goose traffic and juice engagement. An elegant description for something as crude as poking humanity’s collective bruise.

    Critics complain that Oxford’s online voting process indulges the very brain rot it warns us about, but I’m with Dimri. Oxford is right to acknowledge how digital speech shapes culture. Ignoring these terms would be like pretending smog doesn’t count as weather. Rage bait is influential because it packs the whole human condition—weakness, manipulation, and political dysfunction—into two syllables. And, as I’d add, it also produces drivers who treat the road like a demolition derby.

    As for predecessors, rage bait didn’t appear out of thin air. Vince McMahon practically drafted its blueprint decades ago. His wrestling empire ran on kayfabe, where performers wore the mask of rage so long they eventually believed it. Something similar has infected our online discourse. The performance swallowed the performer, and here we are—furious, fragmented, and algorithmically herded into traffic.

  • For Twenty Years, Regret Drove My Watch Hobby

    For Twenty Years, Regret Drove My Watch Hobby

    I’m four months into shoulder rehab for a torn rotator cuff, and I’m sad to report that after laying off Motrin for 36 hours, the pain and inflammation came roaring back in my left shoulder. Not surprisingly, during these last four months of shoulder obsession, my watch obsession has taken a back seat. About a month ago, I did a brief experiment with my collection: I put bracelets on three of my Seiko divers. That lasted less than a week. All seven of my divers are back on straps.

    I’m not currently buying or selling watches, and I don’t have much left to say about my collection that I haven’t already said. But my all-consuming watch obsession has transferred to healing my shoulder, and that distance from the hobby has given me a few insights I didn’t have before. I realized I’m not just a watch addict. If I peel back the layers beneath the shiny timepieces, what I’m really addicted to is regret. For twenty years, regret drove my watch hobby. The thrill wasn’t owning a new diver; it was convincing myself I’d bought the wrong one. I always needed something better, so I’d sell the old one and replace it with a new model. Then one of two things would happen: I’d miss the old one or want to replace the new one with something even newer. Either way, regret was the engine. I was constantly second-guessing myself and spinning my wheels. My watch hobby became a soap opera with the same tired plot: What Could Have Been.

    Regardless of the purchase, I was overwhelmed with regret. I bought watches that were too big, too small, too dressy, too blinged-out—each one a personalized regret grenade.

    Letting the collection creep past seven was another fiasco. Anything over that number triggered what I call “Watch-Rotation Anxiety,” a condition where choosing a wristwatch feels like negotiating a hostage release.

    When the regret overwhelmed me, I tried to smother it with another purchase. A new watch fed my brain with fresh dopamine and adrenaline, but it was just a band-aid. Regret always returned.

    As I descended into this regret-feedback loop, I entered a phase I call Gollumification. Gollum didn’t turn into a demon overnight—his soul disintegrated over centuries. Like a Holy Grail diver watch, the Ring promised specialness, superiority, and shortcuts to power. He committed desperate acts to keep it. He murdered and then lied to himself about why. Clinging to the Ring as his last scrap of identity, he withered into a sad, lonely creature.

    That’s why Gollumification resonates today—it’s a slow-motion collapse. You don’t need the Ring to become Gollum. Any addiction will do. Isolate yourself, feed an obsession, and treat your desires as the only truth that matters. Eventually, the human being disappears and Gollum takes over.

    So has this distance from watches cured me of my inner Gollum? No, not really.

    I’m still addicted to the soap opera of regret.

    Regret addiction is very real for me. I’m going through it right now, but not with watches—this time it’s computers. I spent six months researching a desktop to replace my seven-year-old Windows laptop. Recently, I bounced back and forth between a small form factor Windows machine and a Mac Mini. I ended up buying two Mac Minis—one for me and one for my wife. She’s fine with hers because she’s used Mac OS for the last decade, but I’ve been on Windows.

    For the last three days, I’ve hated my life. The Mac Mini is a great computer, but I miss Windows. I miss the way Windows accepts all my peripherals—mechanical keyboards, printers—without any fuss. I don’t feel at home on Mac OS at all. I’m actually using Google Chrome on my Mac Mini. Why? Because I’m homesick for Windows. It’s like the American who goes to Paris and misses home so much he goes to McDonald’s just to feel normal again.

    That’s where I’m at. I’m overcome with regret.

    Here’s how bad it is: Yesterday, after my workout, I wanted to get on a computer for fifteen minutes before taking a nap, and I didn’t want to use the Mac Mini. I resented it. So instead I went into my room and used my old Windows laptop—just to get a taste of home.

    My engineering friend Pedro is coming over this weekend to help me connect my peripherals to the Mac Mini and teach me how to use the command keys on my mechanical keyboard so I can feel more comfortable. He assures me the regret is temporary, a necessary transition that will fade as I acclimate to the Mac Mini.

    We shall see. The thing is: I think I’m addicted to regret.

    All of us are. Go on watch-message boards and you’ll see watch obsessives crying for help—paralyzed by indecision, regret, self-doubt, and lost Holy Grails.

    I suspect the watch hobby is just a proxy for the human hunger for high stakes. If you’re full of regret, the drama makes you feel like you’re in a meaningful battle. You’re a man living too comfortably inside the cave with your WiFi, your Internet, your Netflix, and your Cocoa Puffs. You need adventure. You need a deep-sea diver on your wrist while navigating Google just to feel like you’re sailing the Seven Seas.

    Regret is the soap opera of suburban man. He’s trapped in his cave and wants to escape, but he also wants to avoid traffic—so he’s stuck. To escape his confinement, he creates soap operas in his mind. And in doing so, he discovers that regret is a powerful tool. It fuels his watch addiction, and when that addiction quiets down, the hunger for regret leaks into other decisions: Windows or Mac, Honda Accord or Toyota Camry, Thai or sushi.

    Regret makes inconsequential decisions feel consequential. When we confront this truth, we see how ridiculous we are.

    It’s time to turn the page and move on to the next chapter. I just hope the next chapter is one without a sore shoulder.

    That’s it. I can’t go on anymore. I’m overcome with regret.