by: Jonathan Waldman

My neighbor, Richard DeLuca, recently gifted me this book. His message on the book says it all:

“I am hopeful that, after you read this book, you will have greater insight that will contribute to solving the mystery of the localized RUSTING of the postal truck roofs!!!”

Remember how I was – and still am – completely flummoxed by why only the left-top part of the postal vans gets discolored? BTW, they came and fixed all of them once. The problem is back again!

In any case, back to the book.

Fascinating!!

Boy, did I learn a lot about rust! Did you know that rust has felled bridges and killed many people, sunk ships, caused house fires, and nearly brought down the Statue of Liberty? It has caused the crash of an F-16, torn apart the fuselage of a commercial plane midflight, shut down oil pipelines, and nearly caused a reactor meltdown!

Rust costs America more than $400 billion – with a “B” – per year, more than all other natural disasters combined.

Now I am so sensitized to the damage rust causes that I notice it everywhere. Bridges, lampposts, road signs, banisters… everywhere I look, I see rust. I think Sharmila got a little peeved during our trip to Chicago two weeks ago, where I kept pointing out rust on virtually every physical structure imaginable downtown!

The book is structured to give you insight into rust in the first chapter. Then it gets into a series of stories – some short, some long – but all very entertaining.

On the fact side, you will learn that, other than a handful of finance, banking, and insurance companies, virtually every Fortune 500 company has to deal with this pestilence. You will learn that rust exists in space too, thanks to atomic oxygen rather than molecular oxygen. You will also learn that there are two types of rust: red Fe₂O₃ (hematite) and black Fe₃O₄ (magnetite).

On the story side, you will learn how two guys illegally scaling the Statue of Liberty eventually exposed the massive scale of corrosion inside. There is also the story of a photographer who illegally created beautiful photographs of rust in the remains of the Bethlehem Steel Works, which are not open to the public. And then there is the intriguing difficulty of building cans that can safely hold liquids!

The most fascinating story to me was about the pig – not the squealing kind, but the one that travels inside a pipeline for inspection purposes. In fact, the book’s longest chapter is dedicated to tracking such a pig as it runs through the nearly 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

I have to mention one hilarious moment in the book.

The protagonist in that pipeline chapter is a quirky gentleman named Bhaskar (who happens to be Bengali, like me). Coincidentally, he is married to an American woman – whose name also starts with a “B” – Bonnie. They eventually had two children, whom they named Brij and Brianna.

The license plate on Bonnie’s van is: “B TEAM”

I almost fell off my chair laughing.

I loved the book. I think you will too.

If anybody wants to borrow it from me, let me know!

If you are one of Facebook friends, who in the last couple of months had referred to this book in one of your posts, can you please stand up? For the life of me, I cannot remember whose post it was. But thanks for pointing me to a good book.

This is a book about how to authentically “see” a person – to get to know someone in the truest sense of the phrase. There are plenty of interesting insights and thought-provoking ideas throughout. I especially enjoyed the stories Brooks weaves in, along with the quotes from journalists, authors, and philosophers.

Brooks begins by laying out the many reasons we fail to truly see other people: egotism, anxiety, naive realism, the “lesser minds” problem (we have much richer access to our own thoughts than to anyone else’s), a static mindset (holding on to an outdated conception of someone), essentialism (stereotyping), and more.

The next part focuses on how to actually see another person. Brooks goes beyond the usual advice about empathy and listening and offers a framework for recognizing another person for who they really are. He explores the ways our mental shortcuts distort our view of others – and how to avoid those traps.

For example, while explaining “naive realism” – the assumption that our reality is essentially the same as someone else’s – he tells a memorable story. A woman standing on one side of a river calls out to a man on the opposite bank, “How do I get to the other side of the river?” Confused, the man shouts back, “But you are on the other side of the river!”

The biggest challenge to seeing another person, Brooks argues, is understanding the complexity of being human. Our brains naturally prefer simplicity. It is much easier to slap broad labels on people – kind, wicked, generous, selfish – as though those words describe them at every moment. But human beings are full of contradictions. We recognize that complexity in ourselves, yet often fail to see it in others.

Small talk and simply spending time around someone are also vastly underappreciated parts of getting to know a person. You do not always need a probing conversation. Sometimes, you need to hold back and allow the other person to move at their own pace.

Brooks then delves into the question of what makes a person a person. In trying to understand someone’s experiences, he points out that the events themselves are not the whole story. What matters is how the person processed those events. As Aldous Huxley put it, “Experience is not what happens to you; it’s what you do with what happens to you.” Anaïs Nin expresses a similar idea: “We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.”

I thought this was a particularly powerful perspective. A person, then, is simply a point of view.

That naturally raises another question: Is there such a thing as objective reality? Brooks’ answer is that yes, objective reality exists – but we only have subjective access to it.

From there, his conclusion follows quite logically: to see a person – to see someone who is, in part, a point of view – you have to understand how they see the world. Brooks offers practical suggestions for doing that: treat attention as an on/off switch rather than a dimmer, be a “loud listener,” do not fear pauses, and so on. One technique I particularly liked was asking detailed questions from time to time, so that the other person becomes the author of the conversation rather than merely a witness to it.

Brooks also offers another useful frame for understanding people: seeing them both as individuals and as members of groups. A person’s community, ethnicity, culture, or tribe inevitably shapes how they see the world. But none of those categories fully defines the individual. To truly see someone, you have to consider both the individual and the broader groups that have shaped them.

The book also gets into education and parenting. Brooks argues that our schools – and, to some extent, our homes – have become overly focused on achievement. We want kids to excel at math, sports, music, or some other measurable skill, while paying less attention to teaching the moral skills that help people treat one another with kindness, generosity, and respect. My mind went back to a subject we used to be taught in school – “Moral Science.” I might have underestimated the value of that class.

One section surprised me. I consider myself fairly introspective, and I have always felt that introspection has helped me. But Brooks points to research suggesting that introspection is overrated. What is happening in our minds is not only more complicated than what we understand; it is more complicated than what we can understand.

I also learned that the Myers-Briggs personality test has no strong scientific validity. I have never been a big fan of those tests anyway – I find it hard to believe that a point-in-time evaluation can meaningfully capture a person’s personality – so now I have one more reason to complain to my HR department!

A couple of other quotes I liked:

“Washington is not filled with wild kids who stuck the cat in the dryer; it’s filled with the kind of kids who ratted on the kids who stuck the cat in the dryer.” – journalist Meg Greenfield

“You can be knowledgeable with other men’s knowledge, but you can’t be wise with other men’s wisdom.” – Montaigne

Overall, I found the book to be thoughtful, accessible, and full of ideas worth carrying into everyday life. The central lesson sounds simple – really see the people around you – but Brooks does a good job showing just how difficult that is, and how much better our relationships might be if we made the effort.

“It is time to talk about the Bank of Mum and Dad.”

This turned out to be one I did not enjoy as much as I had expected.

Which is surprising. I heard the author speak at an event in Rome earlier this year, and she was very impressive. The topic she touched upon, generation gaps, was enlightening. Her analysis and data went far beyond the general impressions and stereotypes I had of Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and so on.

Her main thesis was that family wealth is the real economic story of the twenty-first century. Younger generations are far more dependent on inheritance today than ever before. And she is not focused on inheritance as the one-time event toward the end of the benefactor’s life. She is talking about the much larger phenomenon of giving money, or even time, such as taking care of a young beneficiary’s children while the beneficiary is holding down two jobs throughout the life of the beneficiary.

She divides the benefactors primarily into Baby Boomers and, to a lesser extent, Gen Xers, with the beneficiaries being Millennials and Gen Zers. In the talk, she shared some jaw-dropping numbers and illustrations. For example, in the next ten years, in the US alone, $12 to $16 trillion of wealth will change hands through inheritance. With a “t” at the beginning! The following ten years will see somewhere around $100 trillion or more changing hands. This would be the largest transfer of wealth in human history.

She gave examples of how Baby Boomers generally had to take care of only one generation, their children. Every other generation has to take care of two, parents and children. She talked about how income growth has been fairly minimal over multiple decades, while the traditional wealth creation mechanisms, home ownership and education, have risen in price by leaps and bounds, putting them out of reach for later generations. Instead, they spend money on what has become much cheaper – e.g. traveling.

This is where getting financial support from parents early on opens up entirely new opportunities for those lucky children. This is not just about wealth creation. It is also about how much time people have at their disposal, whether they are holding down two jobs instead of socializing after one, their mental health, and even access to better healthcare.

In fact, because of this built-in separation in access to opportunities based on parental wealth, she declares meritocracy dead, or nearly so. Hence the title of the book.

All this was in the talk I heard.

I came home and ordered her book. Actually, I ordered three copies. I wanted both my kids to read it.

And the missteps started there. First, they charged me for three books but sent me only one. It came from the UK. Fortunately, I had ordered through Amazon, and they immediately refunded the price of the other two.

Not sure whether my expectations were simply too high, but reading the book was really a challenge. Maybe I learn differently and was expecting sharper analysis and more insightful observations. They were there, here and there. But there were so many personal stories, almost making this an autobiography, many of which felt trite and distracting, that I repeatedly lost the thread of the key points she was trying to make.

Her ideas were thoughtful and right on the mark. A couple of examples for each would have been enough. The book could easily have been one-fifth its length. It could have been a very powerful book with a handful of memorable messages. Instead, those messages became diluted by lengthy and often unnecessary personal anecdotes.

The editor and publisher could have done her a great favor by ensuring the themes flowed in a more structured and succinct way.

That said, the book does touch upon a few things her talk did not.

A couple of examples.

She talks about how Baby Boomers set the standards for entering youth, with optimism that hard work would be rewarded, but have struggled mightily to enter elderhood. They are now copying the younger generation. They are the largest segment of Facebook users, spend as much time as young people peering into their phones, and have seen the highest increase in alcohol overconsumption and sexually transmitted diseases. Sounds like somebody in their twenties, right?

She also brings out the unique perspective of what a Millennial woman like her has to go through. “The tyranny of time,” she calls it. Not the daily calendar, but the important milestones in life. Education, greater social freedom, and ambition have allowed Millennial women to pursue careers and other interests with unprecedented independence. But at the same time, they are constrained by milestones that cannot be moved very much. “Don’t marry early. Focus on your career… but don’t get left on the shelf.” “Don’t have kids early… but don’t wait until you are too old.” “Enjoy your twenties and travel… but prepare and invest for your future.” Opportunities have expanded, but biological and life milestones remain relatively inflexible, creating an infuriating struggle in the minds of many young women.

Again, great topic. Perhaps I should give it a second try someday.

Meanwhile, feel free to buy the book, or borrow it from me. But I would recommend listening to her on YouTube or finding one of her presentations first. She was kind enough to send me her slides after I connected with her on LinkedIn.

This book was recommended to me by my friend Sunjay Talele. The title seemed vaguely familiar when he mentioned it, but I had never actually read it. I fixed that oversight this month.

If you have even a passing familiarity with common computer algorithms or statistical and mathematical concepts, you will love this book. It brilliantly demonstrates how many real-life problems have already been solved by algorithms that computer scientists and mathematicians have been studying for decades. The fascinating part is that we often end up applying these algorithms instinctively, without even realizing it. The flip side is equally intriguing: if we actually understood the algorithms, we might make even better life decisions.

Take the “optimal stopping” problem. Imagine you’re evaluating candidates and trying to make the best possible choice. The catch is that once you pass on someone, they’re gone forever. But you also don’t want to stop too early and miss an even better option. This applies to dating, hiring, buying a house—you name it. When should you stop, and what strategy should you follow? (Math and computer science folks will recognize this as the famous 37% Rule.)

Or consider the Explore vs. Exploit problem. Exploration opens up new possibilities. Exploitation lets you capitalize on what you’ve already discovered. The question is: when do you stop exploring and start exploiting?

The authors make an interesting observation here. Humans take an unusually long time to become fully independent. Most birds and animals are ready to fend for themselves remarkably soon after birth. Humans, however, spend years under the protection of parents and their community. That extended childhood gives us a long, safe period to explore before we have to exploit our knowledge — a luxury that arguably contributes to our extraordinary adaptability.

When discussing sorting (and searching), the authors point out an amusing fact about the animal kingdom. “Sorting” is usually accomplished through size or outright fights. Humans, fortunately, have developed other mechanisms. So, much as we complain about the “rat race,” we should probably be glad it’s a race and not a fight that determines our social order!

Similarly, while discussing scheduling algorithms, the authors tackle one of the most universally despised aspects of professional life: meetings. Surprisingly, they make a compelling case that without regularly scheduled meetings, our work lives would actually be worse. Planned meetings are one of our best defenses against constant interruptions and unplanned context switching.

By far my favorite chapter was the one on overfitting. In fact, I was so struck by it that I photographed one of the pages and sent it to several colleagues at work. As we’re all trying to make sense of AI’s impact on our workplace, these lines resonated deeply with me:

“As a species, being constrained by the past makes us less perfectly adjusted to the present we know but helps keep us robust for the future we don’t.”

And this gem:

“A bit of conservatism, a certain bias in favor of history, can buffer us against the boom-and-bust cycle of fads. That doesn’t mean we ought to ignore the latest data either. Jump toward the bandwagon, by all means-but not necessarily on it.”

Speaking of fads, did you know that before kale became a “superfood” sensation around 2013, the single largest purchaser of kale was Pizza Hut? They used it in their salad bars—not as food, but as decoration!

The book also left me with one wonderfully thought-provoking question:

“If all jobs paid exactly the same, what job would you do?”

I wholeheartedly recommend this book. The authors have written it with plenty of humor and an engaging style that almost anyone would enjoy. But if you have even a passing interest in computer science, mathematics, or statistics, I suspect you’ll enjoy it even more.

I was drawn to this book one fine day, listening to an interview given by the author – a Nobel Laureate – with Neil deGrasse Tyson in the SpaceTalk show.

A fascinating thing about death that I have observed is that while this is the one given thing – perhaps the only given thing – moment we are born, we are, as individuals and as a group, a bit unwilling to talk about it. Trying to bring the topic up with my own family, even in the context of planning out what happens after my death, I immediately face angry demands of why I would bring up that topic. A Martian would have observed these discussions and concluded that we do not talk about death, perhaps because not talking about it will make it go away.

In the interview, Venki starts by asking, “What is death?” This seemingly innocuous question has some interesting facets. We have none of the cells we were born with. Are we dead? We have cases of reviving people whose hearts had stopped. Were they dead? In fact, Venki goes on to expound on the deaths of cells and tissues, simple animals, human beings, and then takes on the deaths of towns, villages, countries, and civilizations.

This book digs into the physiological causes of death. Quite paradoxically, after spending centuries and billions of dollars, while we understand a lot about what happens to our bodies at the sub-cellular level – and that has given rise to great medicines – we are still not entirely on the up and up about what really causes aging.

That said, we have come to understand that the same mechanism that prevents cancer also gives rise to aging. Evolution has made sure that the cancer-preventing mechanism dominates in our youth when we can reproduce, even if it comes at the cost of aging and dying when we cannot.

The author is fairly down on attempts by humans (he is particularly tough on the rich – especially the Silicon Valley moguls) who are trying to live forever. Even if it were possible – and he expressly believes this cannot be true – he points out the troubles it will cause to society, the economy, and one’s own quality of life. Living forever is not the same as setting the clock back. You are not going to be in your 20s again. In fact, he points out that we have doubled our life expectancy in the last century. We are not exactly that happy with the extra time we have!

But, what blew me away was the origin of the mitochondria, which is central to aging.

One of the finest philosophical comments when paraphrasing another author is “Life is an interruption in an eternity of personal nonexistence.”

Some of the other interesting thoughts that caught my attention.

* It is a curious facet of human psychology that even if we accept that we ourselves will be gone, we feel a strong need to be remembered.

* Unlike humans, most insects and grain crops reproduce only once.

* Natural selection rarely asks for the good of the species or even groups. It is entirely focused on an individual’s fitness – defined by the ability to reproduce.

* Menopause is a curious phenomenon unique to humans, mostly. Why such an abrupt change in a female from being able to reproduce to not being able to is not fully understood.

* Mammals typically have roughly the same number of heartbeats over their lifetime – about 1.5 billion. Humans did too. Till we figured out in the last century how to double our lifespan with the aid of hygiene and medical science. Humans were the same, except that in the last 100 years, our lifespan has doubled.

* DNA’s damage response is a balance between cancer and aging. It is a mechanism that has evolved to benefit early in our life – when we are likely to pass our genes, even if it costs us later.

* Larger species generally live longer than smaller ones because they have slower metabolisms and can also escape predation. But within species, smaller breeds generally live longer than larger ones. This might have something to do with how much growth hormone they make.

* There is strong evidence that damage to our mitochondrial DNA is an important factor in aging. Mitochondria themselves are the evolutionary descendants of a bacterium that was swallowed by a single-celled organism. Over millions of years, the bacteria managed to transfer most of their genes into the host’s genome while retaining a few. The reason is not quite well understood.

* We inherit these mitochondria entirely from the mother’s side.

* Physical activity turns on some of the same pathways that stimulate mitochondrial production in tissues ranging from our muscles to our brains.

* Although the number of centenarians has grown in recent decades, the number of supercentenarians (110 years or older) has not changed and remains very small.