Tim Harford introduces us to the messy world around us with an insightful new perspective. Tim explains that gifts of character like creativity, responsiveness and resilience are not found without the disorder, confusion, and disarray to produce them. ...
Tim Harford introduces us to the messy world around us with an insightful new perspective. Tim explains that gifts of character like creativity, responsiveness and resilience are not found without the disorder, confusion, and disarray to produce them. Discover the wonder of mess and the unexpected connection it has with creativity.
Tim Harford, “the Undercover Economist”, is a Financial Times columnist, BBC broadcaster, and the author of nine books and host of the podcast “Cautionary Tales” | https://timharford.com
Discover a Proven Process for How Jerry Seinfeld, Elizabeth Gilbert, Lin Manuel Miranda and Iconic Creators Throughout History Come up With Ideas and Turn them into Reality
Eliminate Distractions, Focus on What Matters, and Thrive in the New Economy
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Visit the tribe.
Srini Rao: Welcome to the Unmistakable creative. Thanks so much for taking the
Tim Harford: time to join us. It was my pleasure. Thanks for having me on the show.
Srini Rao: It is my pleasure. So I actually found out about your work because I read your book messy and absolutely loved it. I thought it was highly relevant to creative people. I thought, yeah, there's just so much valuable insight in here for anybody who is either a knowledge worker creator, or for that matter, anybody who is living in this day and age, but before we get into all of that just based on the book and based on your background in my mind, I kind of see you as a combination of a social scientist and economist.
So I want to stress to you. What social group were you a part of in high school and what impact did that end up having on the choices that you've made throughout your life and your career?
Tim Harford: Well, I suppose two groups, the the debaters and the role-players. So, so role-playing games, the most famous of which has Dungeons and dragons were a big part of my My activities, my hobbies when I was at school.
And to be honest, they still are. But the other thing that I did a lot of when I was at school was public speaking and debating competitions. And so those, those two things I think really defined my, my social group home. I'm hard pressed to think of friends that I had that were not involved in, in one of those two groups.
Srini Rao: So, you know, I, I've always wondered about the subculture of people who play D and D cause I, when I was growing up, it always just seemed like a bunch of, you know, weird nerds gathered or out of touch with the rest of the world. And so I'm curious, what is it about the subculture of Dungeons and dragons that draws people to it that creates such a sort of loyal tribe and such a sort of fervent fanatics about
Tim Harford: this?
I think it's worth pointing out that the. Way that Dungeons and dragons is played when you're say 12 years old is not necessarily the way that it's played when you're 47 years, years old. I mean, I think you'd make the same point. Oh yeah. People who watch movies when they're 12 and watch movies when they're 47 or people who go on dates when they're 12 and go on dates when they're 47, it's just not the same thing.
Right. It's not the same thing. Yeah. And like dates and like movies, art culture there's a lot of different things that you, you can do with it. But for me, the fundamental thing about role-playing games is it's a highly imaginative, highly collaborative process where creativity is taken. Absolutely.
As a, given that everybody involved in a role playing game is creating maybe on a very small scale or maybe on a big scale. And it's just assumed in, in a way that I think is not true of other subcultures. So not, not everybody who enjoys riding a motorbike could strip a motorbike down and put it back together.
Again, not everybody who enjoys playing with computers could build their own computer. And not everybody who enjoys watching Marvel movies goes home and says, I'm going to write a script for a movie. I'm going to draw my own comic, but pretty much everybody who plays Dungeons and dragons is, is tinkering with the game is messing around, is creating their own systems, their own modifications, their own scenarios.
It's really just. It's so basic to the way you play. And I think that that's now that's part of what I enjoy about it. Of course the other thing is that your you're kind of having these exciting adventures, you know, much like reading an exciting book or watching a movie. But you're doing it with your friends and you're making decisions, decisions together.
And so that's a pretty bonding experience as, as you know, any kind of adversity is a bit of a bonding experience. Now here, of course the adversity is simulated, but I think it still works.
Srini Rao: Well, so what I wonder, just based on the fact that, you know, w the way I asked you the question makes me realize my own sort of, you know, perception of it, somewhat biased, because all I know is just sort of what I experienced, because I didn't play.
Why do you think that people have the misperceptions, that they do have the types of people who play Dungeons and dragons and, and, you know, what are the misperceptions that people like me have and what are the stereotypes that you've seen defied?
Tim Harford: Wow. It's perceived as being in a very geeky, nerdy game.
It's perceived as being kind of intellectual. Not that cool. Quite male. Not many female players, that's the cliche. I think all of those things are changing. So, you know, and I speak as someone who's out of touch with the kind of the subculture. I still play a lot, but like, I don't know what the cutting edge has Dungeons and dragons is these days.
But the impression I get is it's way more inclusive. Lots more female players. It's, it's cool in in as much as there are quite a lot of celebrities who say they play it and a proud to play it. I think people, the people who spring to mind are Wil Wheaton and Stephen Colbert. And I'm drawing a blank on his name VIN diesel.
They will, they will. Yeah, no, they love, they love the game and there are many others. So I think, I think the, those perceptions are shifting actually it's worth. I would encourage people listening to this if they have a moment to go and listen to an episode of my podcast, cautionary tales that is specifically about an episode early on in the history of Dungeons and dragons.
And it's about a young man who went missing called Dallas Egbert and this huge moral panic around why he had gone missing and what had happened to him and Dungeons and dragons was blamed. And this was all in 1979. So this was a very new game. It was not very well understood and I won't spoil the ending or really happened.
But one of the points that comes out is of the media struggling, even to describe what this thing is and. It's very, hand-wavy kind of terms. So like, oh, it's a very, it's a bizarre and intellectual game, you know, they'd say, and it's just, this is just what happens when you've got something new and people don't know, they don't know what it is and they don't understand it and then they start fearing it.
So yeah, I would encourage people to check out cautionary tales. I think they, they might find, they might find that fun to listen to. Yeah. So
Srini Rao: you brought up overcoming adversity together, even in a virtual setting. And I wonder for parents who are listening to this, what would you say to them about what the benefits are of these kinds of games for children later in their life and, and what have been the benefits for you from your D and D experience that have impacted your adult life?
Tim Harford: Well, I think before we get to the benefits, it's fun. Yeah. I mean, it's fun to play and in a way that should be enough. Yeah. It's fun and it's, it's safe and it's not fattening. And you know, of all the things that teenagers could be doing in D and D is pretty safe. And it's, and it's great fun. A friend of mine who runs games for his son who is 14 and his son's friends, he says, now parents are just beyond happy.
That he's doing this because he, they realized that this is a way for these young people to interact in a way they don't normally interact and to kind of solve problems together and so on. So that's, I found that I had that conversation with him quite recently and found that interesting and striking because I don't, I'm now trying to get my children involved, but mostly I just play with other 40 year olds.
So but, but also what are the other benefits? So it it's that it's highly literary. So there's a lot of reading. These, these were all books to have fat, lots of small print, and they inspire. Young people I think to go and read more. It's quite mathematical famously the, the early additions of Dungeons and dragons had a bell curve on about page three, just explaining the probability distribution of where, what happens when you roll three dies and the way they form a bell curve that that sort of geekiness is just right there.
You very quickly just learning to add and subtract numbers very fast as a totally natural thing. Just a whole bunch of numbers. You just quickly add them all up. So you D it's not advanced mathematics, but you get comfortable with, with maths. But I think most importantly, you are you are cooperating together in this imagined world.
So it's quite close to a team building exercise that someone might do in an office away day. It's quite close to improvise theater, this idea of everyone building on. Everybody else and trying to create something that no one person could do by himself or herself. So there's a lot going on there. And of course, yeah, if you're 12 years old, you're not reaching creative Heights with this stuff.
And a lot of it's just, oh, I hit the goblin with my sword and I'm going to roll a dice and I miss, or I, you know, so I don't want to make grandiose claims for it, but I think it's a really, it's a really fun, creative generative way to spend time as a young person.
Srini Rao: I appreciate the fact that you brought up fun because these days I think that you know, and, and the way you set it up, I appreciate that because I think often these days, everything, whether it's a kid in an activity or even an adult starting an online project, there has to be some end in mind of, oh, I've got to do this in order to accomplish some goal.
And I think that we lose sight of the value of creativity when that happens.
Tim Harford: I think that's right. And it's really, it's, it's tough when it, when I think back to the last 15 months or so the pandemic and my own experience, which has been, I think fine compared to most people's experience. I think a lot of people have experienced a lot of fear and a lot of loss and economic insecurity and all of these things.
I feel I've been quite fortunate that I've been able to work in a safe way that still feels relevant, so I'm not complaining. But when I think about my experience, one of the things I think that I, I reflect on is the sense of always being on you're used to sitting at the same desk working and the feeling of guilt.
If you're not. Doing doing. Yeah, I think we can all relate and it's not just about the pandemic. Right. But I think the pandemic has really, I hadn't realized how much I was reliant on just making a date to go and see some friends or to go to the theater or to see a movie or something. I hadn't realized how much I was reliant on that to just stop me working.
I had assumed that I probably would stop working at 7:00 PM anyway, but not turns out I would. So it's, it was a real lesson in learning to be more or mindful and intentional about on a youth to stop now and you have to go and do something that's. Fun. And actually, one of the things that I have been doing is every week playing online via discord.
So most people will know discord. Is this sort of a, it's like a chat text or audio these days, people talk about clubhouse, but discord was there long ago. I've been playing role-playing games with friends from all over the country on discord every Thursday night. And that's been, you know, and they're expecting me at half past seven and I've got to stop work because I got to join the game and I don't want to let people down.
It's been important.
Srini Rao: That's funny, my roommates and I build a Lego sets together you know, really big sort of expert level Lego sets that have thousands of pieces. And I I've always found that that's such a great disconnect because I'm an avid snowboarder. And when the pandemic came around, my roommates were just like, all you do is sit around and read, write, and work.
And I said, you have to remember, this is not what my life was like. I used to take entire weeks off just to snowboard.
Tim Harford: Yeah. Yeah. And that break it's so important. And well, I mean, you must have had so many conversations about what we've, what we learned from the pandemic. I think one of the, one of the many lessons is just how much of what we did we did because it was a sort of habit.
And then when all the habits are disrupted, I mean, this gets into some themes from MSCI, which we can discuss if you like, but when, when the habits are disrupted you, sometimes you find amazing things to do. But in any case you have to start thinking like, oh, I'm not just naturally cycling. Normally I cycle on my commute.
Well, there's no commute, so I'm not cycling. So am I going to be more deliberate about cycling? I can't, I can't go swimming. How am I going to get that exercise? And, and yeah, I can't go and see friends. So how else am I gonna get that social interaction? Just to be more thoughtful about all of this has been a real it's a cliche, but it really has been a learning experience.
Hasn't it? Yeah.
Srini Rao: So what has been the trajectory that leads you from being a kid who plays Dungeons and dragons and is on the debate team to becoming a author, a journalist and an economist, because that's, doesn't seem like a linear trajectory at all.
Tim Harford: It's not linear. Hey, I hesitate to even begin to answer the question because the answer could get very long.
So let me try and be brief. I did philosophy politics and economics as a subject at university, meaning to major in philosophy and to drop economics, but I was persuaded to change my mind and stick with economics. And the strange thing was I really enjoyed economics, but I had always planned to drop it.
And it's one of these things where sometimes you need someone to prod you and go. You are actually enjoying this, what you don't have to stick to your original plan. So, so qualified as an economist, I went to taught economics at an Irish university for a year, went back to Oxford university to do a master's, to be an economics.
And while I was doing all this got involved in scenario planning at shell, a big oil company, which was, I had a love, hate relationship with that job because I wasn't crazy about oil companies. And I wasn't crazy about big corporations in general, but that job was so interesting, surrounded by such interesting people, just trying to peer into the future and integrate lots of different views of the world.
And one of the people I met who had come in to help us think about technology was a science writer guy called David Madonnas. Who'd written a book. Wonderful book about the history of E equals MC squared and all of the components of that equation and all of the people who've been involved in putting together Einstein's theory of relativity and making it all possible.
And so by then I was probably about 26 and I remember having coffee with David and saying, you know, I really would like have to write a book like that only about economics, because I always loved my economics. It was always fascinating. And David of course just raised an eyebrow and grinned at me.
Like I was an idiot because it was, yeah, you don't need any permission to write a book. You want to write a book? I write a book. So I spend years trying to right and, and publish this book, which eventually became the undercover economist, which when I had finished the first draft, I didn't have an agent.
I didn't have a publisher. I didn't have any reason to believe anybody would. Ever read it. I think we're, we're over a million and a half copies sold now. So people read it. But it did take, it did take several years to get from that first draft through to actually on the shelves. There was a lot of iteration.
And while undercover economist was being redrafted and redrafted and redrafted, I first went to the financial times on a summer internship and then to the world bank, because the financial times said, we want to give you a job, but there's a hiring freeze. So I went to the world bank because that seemed like an interesting place to go if you're an economist.
And it was two years at the world bank, All the while at the world bank submitting occasional pieces to the financial times. Cause I had a very cool boss at the world bank. Who said, if you want to Moonlight and write for the financial times, that's fine by me. Just don't write about the world bank. I mean that's a really, that's a very cool boss because he's basically taking all the downside risk in order to give me more opportunities.
It was a terrific boss, but I did things like I interviewed Steve Levitt, the author of Freakonomics just before Freakonomics came out. I interviewed two Nobel prize, winning economists, Gary Becker and Thomas shelling all while I was working for the world bank. And then I finally published on the cover.
Economist came back to the UK, started working on the editorial board of the financial times and that was 16 years ago. And. Since then eight more books, TV, TV series, several radio series. But all that, the rest of it is all mine more connected. It makes much more sense after that point, because then it's like, okay, you're a, you're a geek who tells stories about geek.
You talk about it, you talk about statistics, talk about behavioral economics, economics all of these ideas. And, and they're in the books, they're in the radio series, the podcasts, everything. But yeah, the first 10 years when I was no slightly annoyed at an oil company or hanging out at the world bank because I'd been promised a job in journalism, but there wasn't a job.
You know, that was all the preparation for, for actually doing what I eventually started to do, which was being a writer about nerdy subjects.
Srini Rao: Hmm. So as somebody who has written about behavioral economics, I wonder why do you think that with no agent, no publisher, no audience, you persisted through writing this manuscript and why is it that other people who have, you know, a much easier time, at least, you know, an abundance of opportunity at their fingertips, granted a lot more competition don't even try.
Tim Harford: So it's a good question. And there's a co I think the answer is complicated and I, I should say, I think I had an abundance of opportunity. There was plenty of opportunity. I didn't, I mean, the fact that I didn't have a publisher or an agent didn't mean I didn't have any opportunity. I had a decent job that I could, that I was able to scale down to four days a week instead of five days a week.
I was really interested in the subject and I didn't have any kids. And so there's plenty of free time. To get some writing done. So I had the opportunity, but I mean, I did love writing the book and I do love writing books. And that helps, I guess you don't write nine books unless you like writing books.
It's like it's like 3d chess. You're trying to put together this complicated puzzle, all these different ways that you could put the story together. I mean, really it's difficult, but it's really fun. But I had a couple of very positive interactions with, with certain friends. So first there was David bananas at the beginning who said, you know, just do it.
Why not? And who, every time I would send him like ridiculous, like I'd sent him like 250 words, I've written the first 250 words, David, what do you think? And of course, all he would ever say is it's great. Keep going. Cause, what do you say? What do you say? Someone sends you a third of a page. But you know that you're looking for validation, but I, another friend of mine, I remember saying to her, this book, writing things really hard and she's, she's another economist.
She says, she's another economist. And she, she said, well, this only an economist could say this. She said, of course it's hard. If it was easy, everybody would already have done it. And I was like, oh right. Yeah, it's supposed to be hard. That was the thing. Of course it's supposed to be hard. Like you wouldn't train for the Olympics and then complain that it was hard to get the Olympic to the Olympics.
Right. W why we, or, or if we scale it back a bit, you wouldn't train to run a marathon and then say it's really hard to run a marathon. I mean, these things are supposed to be hard, right? That's one of the reasons why they're worth doing. And I had had another friend who. She was icing a book and we were sort of swapping some chapters and kind of very delicately edging around each other because it's a very sensitive thing to be talking about someone else's first manuscript, but at a certain point, she said, you know, you've written one chapter and I think it's pretty good.
And I think you could probably just go and write the rest of the book really quickly, if you want to do that. At that point, the flood gates opened I'd spent a year, a year on that first chapter, and then it was, it was a month per chapter after that. So I finished the book at another year, remember working four days a week in an office job.
So I wish I could write books that fast now. But those sorts of moments, people encouraging you, people reassuring you that the. The way you're feeling about the book is, you know, is what you might expect. People giving you permission to just go off and write fast. All of that was, was really helpful.
And one more friend, I basically very, very nearly gave up in retrospect, you know, a couple of yards from the finish line when I'd had, you know, one final agent had got back to me and said you know, you should make this change. And this change in this change. And I, and I'd said to a friend I'm just done with it.
I've got I'm, I'm thinking of writing a book about public speaking, actually about debating and this friends it's like this agent is telling you, if you make these changes, he will represent you. How long do you think it's going to make the changes? And it was like two weeks. So you've been working on the book for three years and you're not going to give up at this point.
And of course it's obvious, but sometimes you need that. That wisdom from the outside observer to tell you what you should notice yourself. And of course, two hours into that process of, of doing the revisions. I was like, oh, I'm really enjoying this. Why did I hesitate for a moment? But you know, before I started, I just, I felt a bit tired and I wanted something fresh.
Srini Rao: Yeah, it's funny you say that because, I mean, the whole reason I ended up starting the podcast was because I was in this online blogging course and one of the first people I interviewed was one of the he's the 13th person I interviewed. And I remember emailing him saying, Hey, I want to start a multi-author blog.
Will you contribute? And he emailed me back and he said, actually, no. He said, you're a pretty average writer, but he said you were good at interview. So I think you should actually focus on that and spin it out as a separate site. So I replied back an hour later with a mock-up of a website saying, Hey, when do you want to get started?
I don't think that was what he had in mind, but yeah, I mean to this day, and it was funny cause I've had the opportunity to write books to the publisher and, and you know, I, I, he was one of my first calls. I said, apparently my publisher disagrees with you, but he was right. I am a far better interviewer than I am a writer.
You know, like writing I do for myself. I feel like
Tim Harford: it's, it's not easy to get that kind of really direct, clear. Feedback. That's that's, that's a valuable gift. He gave you there. I built a career off of it. So now I'm sure you recognize it, but I just, we do. I think we do we struggled to seek out that sort of advice.
I guess you never know. Who's going to give you that sort of advice. We tend to look for much more sort of generic reassuring comments. Like it's, it's going fine. Keep going. And those are, those are valuable comments sometimes, but sometimes you need something much more crisp, but incisive less than that, more of that.
Yeah. And I think the other thing
Srini Rao: I see, particularly creative people and it, this is a lesson I learned when I was writing my first book of the publisher. I had a writing coach is being able to separate feedback on you as a person from feedback on the work, because her feedback was always brutal. It was never, if you did anything good, the most you got was a good, and if it was lousy, it would be like lazy, try again.
You know, and by far she was one of the best things that ever happened to me as a writer. And I think that it was, it took me a month, but I, I finally understood it. This is not you saying anything about me personally. You're doing the job I hired you to do
Tim Harford: one of the privileges. I think of, of writing long enough that you get to experience different editors is you start to realize that a lot of these comments are.
Just a particular editor style and you know, some editors are very positive and some editors are not particularly positive. Some will give you a few quite general pointers, like, oh, try, try and bringing sections three further up and see if you can show up in the conclusion or something like that.
But others will just do line by line. They'll edit your, your commerce and you know, and that's all valid as editorial input. But as, as a, as a writer, you can't help or creative in general. I think you can't help, but, but tends to take it personally. And I think you'll particularly vulnerable. Some people are very vulnerable, their whole careers, but I think you're particularly vulnerable early on because you haven't had so much of that.
Creative feedback and you, you are going to tend to take it, take it to heart. I'm quite struck by I'm just reading a manuscript that a friend of mine has written and it's his, it's his first book and he's I would say as, as a sensitive soul and the book's great. It's really good. And I think it's going to be a very successful book, but he's clearly very tender.
You know, you don't want to poke too much cause he will, it hurts him. And I sent him one chapter. He sent me, it was kind of on my specialist subject. So I sort of sent back a whole load of like quite detailed testing, like check this out. I think this is not quite right. You need to look this up sort of.
And he just sent me these long essays explaining why he'd made these decisions and like. I don't need to read any of this stuff. I'm just telling you, just telling you, you might want to check that definition, but like, if you're happy with what you've written, that's fine. Like, you don't need to explain yourself to me, but I see where he is.
He's sort of, you know, he's, it's feels like such a precious thing and it is a precious thing. Yeah, but he's going to be fine because the book's going to come out and it's going to do really well, so, Hmm. Well,
Srini Rao: I think that makes a perfect segue to getting into the concepts and messy. So what made you want to write messy of, of all the
Tim Harford: books that you could write?
It was so messy is, is a slightly yeah. Messy book about all of the things that we find hard to pin down predict, define the joys of improvisation, the joys of the stuff that can't quite be measured or does doesn't neatly fit into any category. And you can see I'm already struggling to to, to describe this book.
So w which is actually I'm I'm now I just heard a wonderful interview with ed camp. Well, the creator of, of Pixar, and he was saying that at least a third of Pixar movies needed to fail the elevator pitch. Oh, it's a movie about a rat who wants to learn to cook. Like he, he was proud that a lot of these movies you couldn't really define.
So I've made me feel better about messy, but so messy is this, as I say, is this book about all of these things that are hard to pin down. And a lot of it is about not all of it, but a lot of it is about the creative process and how our creativity responds to being forced to make things up on the spot or how it responds to disruption or how it w responds to creative friction or collaborative friction, working with people we don't want to work with originally, it was born of an observation that's quite familiar, which is a lot of the interesting stuff happens at the intersections.
So like you take two academic subjects, put them together. Like the point where they meet is where the cool stuff's happening. That's quite a familiar observation. And I wanted to write about that and to write about why nevertheless it's difficult. Like the structures that we build around, you know, bookshelf bookstores have classifications and academic journals have classifications and academic departments have classifications.
So I wanted to write about that tension, but as you will know, having read the book. There's not that much of that subjects left in the book. By the time I finished with it, it went all kinds of places. And I had a lot of fun writing it. I really enjoyed writing it. I have to say.
Srini Rao: Yeah. I mean, I, I, it, there's so many things that struck me.
I mean, I noticed patterns from my own creative work that I observed that you brought up in the book. And then I, I you know, observed things that people have, you know, set in contrast to what you've said in the book. So one of the things you say at the opening of the book is that often we're so seduced by the blandishments of tidiness, that we fail to appreciate the virtues of the messy, the untidy unquantified uncoordinated, improvised, imperfect, incoherent, crude, cluttered, random, ambiguous, vague, difficult, diverse, or even dirty.
And I think that the reason that struck me so much, as you know, you mentioned here before we hit record that you'd heard somebody like Cal Newport, a cure on the show. We've had people who almost, you know, do some degree, preach the exact opposite of what you're saying that has made them successful.
Cause I know you go on to talk about distractability, which we will But why is it that we were so seduced by this? Because, you know, think about sort of the aspirational media that's created from people like David Allen, all the way to people like Cal Newport, where there is this sort of rigid discipline sort of mindset involved in their message and how they are able to accomplish what
Tim Harford: they do.
So, I mean, I have to say I'm a big fan of Cal and David and th th the I think both of them would probably tell you, it's not as easy as it seems like. So, so if you take, for example, Cal Newport's time block planning method so he. When you hear about it, you're like, okay, what he does is he's like, he's got this, he's got the days journal and it starts at ATM whatever.
And the time log planning method is you just write down what you're going to do with every moment in the day. And then you do that. Like, that's the that's I think what a lot of people here actually, if you talk to Carol about it, he, or you read his staff, do you listen to him? He would say, well, no, that's obviously that's not, what's going to happen in your day.
You're you're gonna have to tear up that plan. Two or three times maybe more. And, but the point is that you should keep stopping and thinking about where you are and being willing to make a new plan. You shouldn't just be sort of drifting around, making it up as you go along. So immediately we, you know, we start with this idea of, oh, there's this plan.
I'm just going to make this plan for the day. And the guy who is the guru of time block planning is saying, no, no, no, that's just like, that's just plan a, there'll be a plan B, there'll be a plan C they'll play a B or plan D, but we don't want to hear that. We just liked the idea of, of planning. And very often I think we we just love the idea that will, can be controlled, that the world can be defined.
It can be planned. And, and of course, to some extent it can be. But then. The question is when it doesn't work like that, when the plan changes, when you have to adjust or adapt are you ready? And, and what are you going to do? And how are you going to adapt? And messy, I think is an exploration of different ways that people respond to these failures of the world to conform to the nice little boxes that we've tried to.
Srini Rao: Yeah. Well, it's funny you say that because I think that that's so common for young people, especially you grew up in Indian culture, you know, you're kind of handed a life plan when you're, I think probably 10 years old, it's like, Hey, which of these three past doctor, lawyer engineer is going to be your life.
And I think that, you know, as you get older, you start to see that nothing almost goes according to plan.
Tim Harford: Yeah, absolutely. Well, and as I was saying earlier, the, I nearly got stuck studying philosophy and politics and not economics, which is. What I'm known for and what I love because I had made a plan to drop economics and the fact that new information came in and it was like, actually, this subject is great.
It's really interesting. You never understood how interesting it was going to be. You're still gonna stick to the plan and you just needed somebody to, you know, to give me that sort of slap and say, hang on a minute. Are you sure you that the plan is still works? It's, it's surprising how, I mean, there's a word for it.
It's called plan continuation bias. You know, we just get this idea in our heads and it can be really hard to take that step back and say, hang on change course change direction.
Srini Rao: Well, so the things that you say early on as the distractability can indeed seem like an issue or even a curse, but that's, if we're looking only at the hill change, our hill climbing part of the creative process, distractable brains can also be seen as brains that have an innate tendency to make those useful random leaps.
And you actually talk about the benefits of, of working on multiple creative projects and in cross-fertilization, which we'll get to. But I think the thing that struck me most is that. I think when people hear the idea of distractability being good, they're like, oh, perfect. That it's an excuse for me to go fuck off on Facebook for an hour.
And I think that there's a difference between that kind of distractability and the kind of distractibility that you're talking about here. So can you explain that distinction for
Tim Harford: people? So the particular concept that, and I'm an economist, I'm not a psychologist, but the, the particular concept in cognitive psychology to which I'm referring is something called low latent inhibition and late latent inhibition is basically the ability to choose stuff out.
And low latent inhibition is that you are having more difficulty see you in a you're at a party. And you're trying to listen to what someone's saying to you. Can you focus on what they're saying to you, or is the noise of the other conversations kind of. Distracting you if, if the noise of the other conversations is, is, is impinging on your, your ability to understand what's being said that's low latent inhibition.
And I feel you know, I've never had it measured, but I feel that I certainly have it at times in particular, I find it very difficult to ignore TV. If I'm, you know, in a public space where there's a television, like a, an airport or a, you know, a bar or something, there's a TV on, I really find it hard not to look at the TV, even though I don't like TV and I'm not interested in TV, it's just constantly pulling my attention away.
Now the Harvard psychologist, Shelly Carson, who started low latent inhibition, this kind of particular type of distractability. And what she found is that the Harvard undergraduates who had it were. Vastly more likely to be serious creative overachievers. And by serious creative overachievers, we're talking, they ha they already had an album out or, or had published a novel and they're still undergraduates.
That sort of thing. Now of course there's a particular, there's a sampling bias here, right? So like these people managed to get to Harvard despite being, having this, what you might say, we call it neuro diversity these days, but you might say it's a kind of disability, the disadvantage, they still got to Harvard.
They must have something going for them. But for me it does make sense that, I mean, another way to, to describe this is just to say these are people who keep noticing interesting stuff. Like they were constantly noticing interesting stuff. So. I guess I don't know what to make of that, but I, I just find it fascinating.
And the, one of the, one of the people that I found most interesting while researching MSCI was Brian Eno, who is a visual artist, a musical artist, a ambient music composer, a producer, fascinating thinker. He's most famous for working on three of David Bowie's best albums, but he's worked with lots of other people like Coldplay and U2 and Twila far Divo.
And, but he, he finds the outside world extremely distracting. He can't go to a restaurant where there's music playing you just cause he can't get his ears off the music. So you can say if the music is playing in the restaurant, he's can't, you can't have a conversation. So that's a disadvantage, right?
Except. Except you're Brian Nino. So maybe it isn't,
Srini Rao: funny you say that because I played the tuba for 12 or 13 years. And when I would study the only kind of music I couldn't listen to was classical music because of the fact that I would not be able to listen to music, I would literally be thinking about fingerings and measures and, you know, play like the things that were involved in the tuba parts.
Tim Harford: Yeah, that makes sense. It makes sense.
Srini Rao: What you're talking about, the benefits of working on multiple creative projects. And I think that, yeah, you, you say that these two leading creativity researchers, Howard Gruber and Sarah Davis argued that the tendency to work on multiple projects is so common among the most creative people that it should be regarded as standard practice because of this whole idea of cross fertilization.
And you say the knowledge gain in one enterprise provides the key to unlock another. And I, I learned that firsthand about seven, eight years ago when we redesigned our entire website and rebranded, and I'd been teaching myself how to draw for 30 days. And I realized I can't draw for shit. But when it came time to redo the website and we got the first version, I, I looked at it.
I said, this website sucks, but I know what's wrong with it. We need to have one of our friends, custom illustrate all the icons. And I don't think I would have figured that out. If it hadn't been for the drawing. But on the flip side of that, I've seen a lot of people who are creative and, and because creative people have no shortage of ideas.
The tendency I've noticed is that they'll go a thousand miles in a thousand directions as opposed to a thousand miles in one. So how do you find the balance between those two things while also working on multiple projects?
Tim Harford: It it's, it's a risk, isn't it? The, the main stress I find with the multiple projects is just this sort of sense that.
Duff is going to get lost that you're having all these ideas that you don't have time to finish them all off. So at that point you just need some simple system. I, I talk about Twyla. Tharp's famous system of boxes. I mean, it's so simple. It's not even a system, right? Except it works. And Tyler, she's a great choreographer.
Her book, the creative habit is, should be required. Readings, wonderful book. And, but she says whenever she has something that she thinks might be a prod project, she just gets one of those big packing boxes. You know, about two feet by one foot by 18 inches, you know, the kind of cardboard box and, and she just starts throwing stuff related to the project in it.
And it's a very simple way of just accumulating ideas. And you don't need to think too hard. You don't need to be thinking about fine details and categorizations, you just it's this placeholder that you can put stuff. So. That I think is an important part of it. I think the, the, I mean there is no a hard and fast rule for how to stop.
Just kind of never completing anything and always just chasing after the next thing I, you know, except to be aware of that, that's a risk that at a certain point you have to, what would Seth Godin say? You have to share, you have to ship something. You have to say, okay, I've finished the draft of my book and I'm now going to send it to an agent.
Or I have a, I have a body of photography work, and I'm now going to try to find somewhere to exhibit it, or I'm not, not constantly using the start of a new project as an excuse to, to not finish the old project. So. Yeah, it's a temptation and it's a risk, but I think it's a risk that almost every creative person you can think of, I think has, has it worked in this way of just having multiple things going on at the same time, it just seems to be absolutely standard.
And occasionally you might say it's slightly dysfunctional. So I mean, Leonardo da Vinci, didn't finish a lot of stuff. On the other hand, you paint the Mona Lisa, how much nobody's going to notice where you didn't finish, how much more do you want. Right. And actually another of my cautionary tales podcast that I'm very proud of, quite recent is about Claude.
Shannon is a great. Mathematician, computer scientist who just produced this amazing thunderbolts of insight. He was like Einstein only for computer science. He also spent an awful lot of time. Pogoing around bell labs. He, he taught himself to juggle upside down and to unicycle and to walk on a tight rope.
And then he set himself the task of unicycling upside down on a tight rope. And just when you look at his life, you go, did he just spend too much time, just endlessly messing around and never finishing anything maybe, but then you, then you look at what he achieved and you say, well, he, he achieved more than anybody in, in, in many ways.
These two great thunderbolts of insight, maybe that's enough. So I mean the whole, that whole cautionary tale is me wrestling with this dilemma that you've described. How distractible is too is too distractable. At what point do you say, actually you're wasting your potential. You're wasting your time.
Srini Rao: But
Tim Harford: he was, he was absolutely one of the greats.
And so can you separate all of that? Non the pogoing and everything, and, and there's so much it's, it's funny how many dumb things he did. Like, I mean, cute. There'll be these there'd be YouTube baker projects these days. Like he made these these massive shoes out of polystyrene. You can actually go and walk.
They were like canoes. You could walk on water in these enormous shoes. There's so, so much stupid stuff like that, that he did. Can you separate it from his, you know, his amazing insights in computer science that completely turn the field upside down twice. I'm not sure you can.
Srini Rao: Yeah, it was funny. It reminds me, we're watching this movie last night called the Mitchell's versus the machines was a hilarious animated show, a movie on Netflix and the movie starts out with a young girl saying I make weird art.
And I thought to myself like, yeah, people should make weird art.
Tim Harford: Yes. I liked that. I liked that. You know, at a certain point you want to. Be able to S to call it finished and put it on the wall or to get it into a bookshop or whatever. But there, there will be a lot of noodling around a lot of experimentation, a lot of projects that don't don't have a quite make the cut.
Srini Rao: So you go to the chapter on collaboration, which I think that things, two things really struck me because you know, they seem so obvious when you say them. You say, when our stream social media updates fits tightly into our preconceptions, we're hardly likely to mess it up by seeking out the people who disagree.
And the pattern repeats endlessly. We gain new choices about who to listen, to whom to trust and whom to be your friend. And we use those new choices to tighten the circle around us, to people who are more and more like us. So I, I wonder you know, to, to sort of points of view as a journalist, does it, how do you see us ever solving that problem?
Because you know, that's kind of what media is these days, particularly in the United States where our media is so sort of polarized and divided.
Tim Harford: Yeah, yeah, yeah. She, you reading that section out. I think to myself, gosh, I mean, that's, that's become a very, very common lament in the five years since I wrote it.
How do we break out of that? Well one observation is that social media does at least give you a spread of use. So. It does tend to polarize, but at the same time, it does tend to throw out random stuff. And the random stuff can be worth pursuing. So my friend Tyler, Cowen, who blogs at marginal revolution and has, has a wonderful interview podcast.
He advocates, but counts into Twitter. So he'll say he'll, he'll follow like Ethiopian politics, Twitter. Or whatever. You know, he'll find some people who are kind of really into Ethiopian politics and the Devery now, and then he'll just kind of check his list of people he's following her into Ethiopian politics or, or, or whatever it is.
So for me right now, epic, you know, epidemiology, Twitter, call the nerds who are talking about variants of concern and vaccine effectiveness and sort of following the latest trials. You can, I don't spend enough time on Twitch to make this worth my while I think, but you can curate them into a list and you can say, okay, I'm going to, I'm going to spend some time on epidemiology, Twitter.
I'm not going to just Twitter, epidemiology. Twitter is where I'm going to go. And once you're building lists with that sort of thing in mind, they will tend to CR to cut across other areas of concern. Whereas if you're just sort of on Twitter in a general sense, A lot of it is just people shouting at each other about politics and it, it tends to get into these political bubbles quite, quite easily.
So that's one possible approach. I think another thing that's worth doing is to seek out just different media. I find blogs still. It still interesting. I know they're quite 2004 but you know, if you follow some interesting bloggers, they will be alerting you to stuff that's not quite on the news cycle.
That's not quite in the Twitter outrage cycle. Books, books are good and books and in books can polarize too. But often because a book is kind of slightly out of the loop, it gives you a more timeless perspective. They can't just be furious about whatever it was that. That Trump said or whoever, you know, cause the book was in, in 2012, you know, it's, it's ancient now.
Or you could be really radical and you could actually deliberately seek out people who see the world differently. This is quite hardcore. For politics, I think it gets very frustrating, but I think for other subjects it's, it's worth trying to do that. So as an economist to say, okay, I don't want to just follow the economists.
I want to, I want to follow the psychologists who think that. Economics, maybe isn't so, so realistic and they'll give me just a different, a different cut on things, a different perspective on things. Yeah.
Srini Rao: So let's talk briefly about improvisation because I think the thing that they're, they're two things in particular that struck me that you said about improvisation.
You said perhaps the most important element in successful improvising is simply this being willing to take risks and to let go, that's much easier when you have little to lose, but even when there was a lot on the line, improvising can be your best way forward. And it kind of makes me think about, you know, even as a, as a creator or somebody who owns a business, how, when you get to a certain level, you have a lot more to lose.
So for example, now, you know, we've raised around a venture funding you know, I I've written two books, so. There are places where I have to draw a line where my own improvisation could cost me. And cause to your point, I think that when there's no audience, you have nothing to lose. So it's easy to take huge, huge risks.
And the paradox to me has always been, those are the very things that get you into the position that you're in when you do have something to
Tim Harford: lose. Yeah. Yeah. It's a real dilemma. Of course you can improvise a lot of different themes without actually taking that many risks. The, you know, the risk ends up being that you maybe don't deliver the performance that you were hoping versus.
You say something outrageous and you get canceled? I think as long as you're reasonably sensible, the risk of, of that is fairly minimal. There is of course, a risk that you, that you slightly underperform, but you can frame it in certain ways. I mean, when I think about Keith Jarrett, who as a, as a musician is someone who fascinates me, part of the point of Keith Jarrett concerts is I mean, sadly he's, he's ill.
He doesn't play anymore. But the point of these Keith Jarrett concerts where he's, he's just gonna play, whatever comes into his head and you take that risk as an audience member, that's part of the excitement like that. You don't know what it's going to be. And you might go and see improv comedy and you know that some of it's going to fall flat and that's part of, so sometimes it can just be a thing that you you present, like.
This is an improvised. This conversation is improvised, right? You didn't send me a list of questions. I didn't know what
Srini Rao: well funny. I was going to ask you after your next quote, right? When you
Tim Harford: said that. Yeah. So that's what a good conversation is improvised. Right? Cause otherwise it's not a conversation.
As I, as I say in the book but you can, you can frame things in, in as, as an experiment, as an improvised thing, and people enjoy that. And there's a certain amount of forgiveness for that too. And you can see, you know, if you're a performer, you can say, look, this bit is, is prepared in this bit is improvised and color.
You can take the best of both, but yeah, there's whisk there is risk. There's I know I've directed people to the cautionary tales podcast. There is one more. The first episode of season two, of course entails revisits a story that's in MSCI about these two speakers, Gerald Ratner, and Martin Luther king you've of course, heard of Martin Luther king.
You may or may not have heard of Joel Ratner, but these two speeches they gave that completely defined their careers for better or worse, and the role that improvisation played in those speeches. And I don't want to spoil the surprise, but people come up with a lot of assumptions about what was prepared and what was improvised.
And when things went wrong, people blame the improvisation and it turns out actually a lot of the stuff that went wrong. It didn't, it wasn't because of the improvisation and a lot of stuff that went right. It wasn't because of the script.
Srini Rao: W it's funny, you talk about the script because, and you mentioned my questions and I think this is why this highlight struck me.
You said a script can seem protective, like a Bulletproof vest. Sometimes it's like more like a straight jacket, improvising, unleashes creativity. It feels fresh and honest and personal above all. It turns a monologue into a conversation. And I literally thought to myself, yes, this is why I never will send anybody questions in advance.
And if they ask for them, I say, yeah, here's the questions. Just know I'm probably not going to ask you any of them.
Tim Harford: Yeah, absolutely. I've never, I have done interviews where people have said, oh, you know, here are the questions we're gonna ask. I mean it did occasionally. You can say, don't ask me that question because it's a technical question and I don't know the answer and I'm not going to do the homework, so you won't get a good answer.
But, but I mean, for this sort of conversation, would we have been better off if you'd sent me the list of questions quite apart from the fact that we would have been way off the list of questions after about four minutes, when we went, when I went deep nerd straight into the Dungeons and dragons. Yeah.
Srini Rao: Yeah, exactly. Well, let's talk about winning because there's one thing I wanted to ask you about was this whole idea of the ODA framework, because there's one thing that you said. And so you said, if you could disorient your opponent, forcing them to stop and figure out what's going on, you gain an advantage.
And in my mind, I was like, wait a minute, I'm on this like steady losing streak on this NBA, two K video game with my roommate. I was like, how do I do that in a video game? So can you tell me how I would use observe orient, decide and activate, basically beat my roommate at this basketball game?
Tim Harford: No idea. I don't, I don't know the game that you're talking about and yeah, no idea.
Srini Rao: me, give me the general principle behind.
Tim Harford: So these are you see don't you don't send me the questions in advance. We've just established it. So the general principle, this is this particular idea is very famous in a particular sub community. And it was developed by a guy called John Boyd who was a.
Terrific fighter pilot in the fifties sixties and then became very influential as a bit of a Maverick strategist and influence people such as Dick Cheney. And the Boyd's basic idea was that you're out on the battlefield and you're just trying to, you're trying to, it's very, it seems very pedestrian.
You're just trying to figure out what's going on, observe orient. And then you have to decide what to do. Like you've assessed the situation and you have to decide what to do and then you have to act, and then it's a loop. So you have to go back to lemon, you have to observe the results, figure out what to do and then act and so on.
And so on. That kind of seems pretty obvious Boyd's point. The becomes genius is. The, the aim in, in a conflict situation should be to consistently observe orient, decide and act so fast that the situations changed before you opponent can act. Okay. So your opponent is constantly observing, deciding, and they have to restart, observe, decide, restart, observe, decide, restart, and you think, okay, that sounds kind of clever, but what, you know, give me an example.
Well, an example is what Donald Trump did too. Jeb Bush in the Republican primaries in 2016, which is Trump would say something that everyone thought was a bit crazy and Jeb Bush would withdraw to consult with his focus groups and come back about 36 hours later with some kind of response that had been very carefully triangulated by which time Trump had just moved on to the next thing.
So whatever Bush was doing was just hopelessly out of date. And it was, it was incredibly effective Jeff Bezos at Amazon, the same thing, very calculated early on in Amazon. He was consistently making decisions that his own staff were saying, we can't do this. It's going to be kind of a mess. We start.
We're going to start shipping knives, but like a system is designed to the only categories in the system, a hardback or paperback. And like now you're going to sell kitchen. Like how can we, how can we do this? And he was very much of the mind that look, we are going to be crushed by Barnes and noble big book retailer.
And then we're going to be crushed by toys R us, and then we're going to be crushed by Walmart, whatever. And the only, the only way we're going to avoid being crushed is they're slow. And if we move fast enough, they'll never catch up. And if we're constantly taking risks, overworking our staff the fact that our warehouses are snarling up.
Well, that's just, that is the price we have to pay in order to stay at the head of the, of the OODA loop of our enemies. I also describe a world war two general, who did this very effectively as well, but in a more, much more literal sense. But yeah, it's just that being willingness to being willing to say, I will make an imperfect decision now because it will force an even more imperfect decision from my opponent.
And the aim here is to win not to produce the perfect decision.
Srini Rao: It's funny because as silly as it sounds like I'm thinking about this video game that we play, it's a, it's a basketball video game and I'm thinking, oh, I could just pass and pass and pass until where it was like 10 seconds left in the shot to drive
Tim Harford: him crazy.
Yeah. I mean, there were ways Magnus, Carlsen, the chess player That is very good at making moves just as there's time pressure. And you can see when you get computers to kind of analyze these, these moves you can see his opponent, the quality of both players falls under the time pressure, but the quality of Magnises opponents moves, falls further than hits.
So he kind of manages to basically turn the chess match into a street fight where he's, you know, he's better able to, to land the punches than his opponent. I mean, I'm not, I'm not sure Magnus would recognize the description of what it, what I'm saying, but these, it is fundamentally this understanding that if I'm 10%, if I'm performing 10% worse, whether we're talking about a boxing match, a debate presidential primary.
A war, a chess match, whatever, if I'm performing 10% worse, but I can get my opponents to perform 30% worse than I'm ahead because it's a zero sum game. That's the basic insight from that chapter of Messi. Yeah.
Srini Rao: Well, let's wrap this up by, by talking about incentives. And then you had a really great sort of nugget on, on life in general.
At the very end, you said the trouble is that when we start quantifying and measuring the world, we soon begin to change the world to fit the way we measure it. And I can't help, but think about how people become obsessive particularly creatives in the modern day world about their social media metrics.
And so they end up spending all this time optimizing for metrics as opposed to creating something decent or something worth consuming.
Tim Harford: Yes. And that's an epic cell phone, isn't it? I mean, it's just all awful because you're. Because none of this stuff matters, none of this stuff matters. And normally this sort of new defamation of the character to fit the metric is something that gets imposed on us.
Like it happens in organizations and hierarchies where they were targets. The idea that we, we now start to do it to ourselves in order to jump through these social media hoops is extremely depressing, but it, yeah, it's a very natural thing. I mean, I'm a numbers guy. I like the numbers. Numbers are, as I point out in my latest book, the data detective they're like radar, they show us what's going on in the world.
They're incredibly powerful. But you've got to understand that they're limited and numbers tend to be at their most dysfunctional when they're being used by one person to try to control the actions of another person. So like bonuses and incentive pay in a hierarchy, it tends to get. Really, really dumb really quickly.
So just to pick up an example, the us news and world report ratings of colleges, very, very influential in terms of how colleges are viewed. One of the ways to do well in those rankings is to be highly selective. Well, okay. And you know what that's measuring, right? Like, well, yeah. Lots of people. Yeah. So it's, it's highly selective, but you can't measure that directly.
So then, you know, well, how do you measure it indirectly? Well, you measure it indirectly by like how many people get turned down. Well, that it turns out it's not very difficult to you want to turn down lots of people, you just have to persuade lots of people to apply. So then the next thing you do is you have this big recruitment drive and you make it super easy to apply, or just sort of upload your resume or whatever, just click a button and we'll, we will automate the whole process.
We'll make it so easy. You can apply. We can reject you. Everyone's a winner. Because our, our selectivity rate, our exclusivity metrics just went through the roof. And you can describe that and you can see, oh yeah, of course that's what would happen. But it's, it's not so obvious when you first set the target because you know how many people you turned down is a really good measure of how desirable, how exclusive you are as a place, right up to the point at which.
Anything actually rests on that metric. The moment you put any, any pressure to bear on the metric, it will immediately buckle. And this is a fact about the world that has been, it's got various names. So it's by psychologists and sociologists. It's called Campbell's law economists call it Goodhart's law.
I mean it, yeah, it's it seems to be a fundamental truth about a universe I'm afraid.
Srini Rao: Well, yeah, I remember seeing there was a documentary about the college admissions scandal here in the U S and one of the people on it was a former admissions officer for Stanford, and he literally said, he said, this is all just a manufactured perception because of exactly what you're talking about.
Tim Harford: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Srini Rao: Well, so two of my favorite things you said towards the end of the book, cause I feel like we could talk about this for hours, but you, you know, in the chapter on life, you say, you know, real creativity, excitement and humanity lies in the messy parts of life, not the tidy ones and an appreciation of the virtues of mess and fulfilling our human potential is something we can encourage our children from an early age.
If we dare, when we overprotect our children, denying them the opportunity to practice their own skills, learn to make wise influence choices, experience Panelas in generally all might make an almighty mess. We believe we're treating them with love, but we also may be limiting their scope to become fully human.
So as you know, the person who was raised by two Indian parents who were not over protective, but they definitely had their boundaries in terms of what we could do and get away with. For example, my mother refused to buy me a skateboard as a kid, because she said that kids who skateboard break bones, and now I'm an avid surfer and snowboarder.
And I got a skateboard when I was staying at my parents' house at 36 years old. And I said, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, because you know what kids who skateboard may bake bro break bones, adults who skateboard break bones and those bones don't
Tim Harford: heal. Yeah. It's but as a parent, I understand you don't want anything to happen to your kids.
Not physically, not psychologically. You, you want to be able to protect them. And of course kids are I mean, kids are amazing imaginative learning machines. You know, all of this stuff is that's all true, but they're also, let's, let's be Frank. They can be pretty dumb and make lots of bad choices because they haven't learned.
And it's so tempting as an adult to, to step in and prevent them from the consequences of their choices to keep them away from all risk. And I'm not saying I resist that temptation with my own children. But I, I try to resist it and give them that freedom to, to experiment and to fail. I think I'm probably way shorter where I should be in terms of how much I let them screw up.
But but I'm trying, because I think in the end, that's when we know intellectually, we know that's where the growth comes from, that's where the learning comes from. But it's just so hard to let go.
Srini Rao: Well, I feel like I could talk to you for two or three hours about all this stuff. I have one final question for you, which is how we finish all of our interviews at the unmistakable creative. What do you think it is that makes somebody or something unmistakable
Tim Harford: That's such a good question. Do I have a good answer?
I guess the whole, the nature of the answer is that there's no, the nature of the question is there is in fact no answer to it because everybody who is unique, I mean, unless stackable effectively means unique in a way that you can identify as opposed to unique in a way that you can't and anybody who is identifiably unique is going to be unique in their own particular way.
So what makes a Phillip glass opera sounds so distinctively? Like a Philip Glass opera is not anything like, you know, what makes Gary Gygax co-creator of. Dungeons and dragons sort of distinctive as the creative Dungeons and dragons. There's no similarity whatsoever. And that is the point. So I guess my Zen answer is the, the, the question denies its own answer.
Srini Rao: It has to be probably the most interesting answer I've heard to date in a thousand interviews.
Tim Harford: Interesting. May not, maybe not insightful, but I'll settle for interesting.
Srini Rao: It is, to me, I think it's a brilliant dancer personally. Like I, I love that answer. Well, I can't thank you enough for taking the time to join us and share your story, your wisdom and insights with our listeners. Where can people find out more about you, your books, your work, and everything else that
Tim Harford: you're up to?
Well, thank you. Really enjoyed the conversation as well. It's always fun. Just talking about yourself. My website is Tim halford.com. Not that not Tim Hartford, Tim halford.com. Just always got to spell it correctly. I'm on Twitter as Tim Halford but on Tim half.com there's links to all my books.
My most recent book is the data detective there's links to my cautionary tales podcast, my financial times column the whole thing, so that
Srini Rao: amazing. And for everybody listening, we will wrap the show with that.
Tim is an economist, journalist and broadcaster. He is author of “The Next Fifty Things That Made the Modern Economy”, “Messy”, and the million-selling “The Undercover Economist”. Tim is a senior columnist at the Financial Times, and the presenter of Radio 4’s “More or Less”, the iTunes-topping series “Fifty Things That Made the Modern Economy”, and the new podcast “Cautionary Tales”. Tim has spoken at TED, PopTech and the Sydney Opera House. He is an associate member of Nuffield College, Oxford and an honorary fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. Tim was made an OBE for services to improving economic understanding in the New Year honours of 2019.