I had an early-morning gig this past weekend that took me three hours to get to, and then the long drive home. On the way back, I found myself a little peckish, so I stopped at a fast-food joint for a quick bite and then got back on the road. I could have opted for the drive-thru; however, I had been in the car for a while, so I decided to stretch my legs and eat at a table, not in the car, one hand juggling a burger, the other operating heavy machinery.

A few things you should know: the gig hadn’t gone well, and I was cranky. I am not a huge fan of driving, and I had spent a lot of time in the car, so I was cranky. When I stepped out of my car to go inside, I stepped right into a very deep puddle that soaked my shoe, and it made me cranky. For those following along, you may notice that I was cranky. That was my general demeanor when I stepped into this Burger King. I was cranky. This crankiness permeated my being and tinted all of my actions.

I placed my order, and the woman taking orders read it back to me wrong twice. At this point, I took my hackles out of my fanny pack and put them on. I tried one more time, and she read it back wrong again. This time, I shouted, yes, I admit, I shouted my order at this woman. It was wrong, I know, but I was triggered, and I lost control, so I shouted. At this point, the manager, a tall man with glasses, stepped forward and told me not to shout at his employee, and I said, well then, tell her to get my order right. He said, “Maybe you should be more respectful of other people.” I froze. I was stung. I felt his words were a slap in my face, so I did what any normal person would. I pulled a glove from my belt, stepped behind the counter, and slapped the manager across the cheek with the glove. “You, sir, have offended me in public, and so for that, I demand satisfaction.”

We decided on seconds and picked the spot. The next morning, as the sun was shaking off sleep and peeking over the horizon, the manager and I stood on a strip of land near a copse of trees by a river, pistols in hand, seconds at the ready. We counted out ten paces as is the usual distance; at a word we turned to face each other. The manager, uneasy already, took his shot first, and it missed me by a mile, grazing some leaves on a nearby tree. I, on the other hand, took my time, monitored my breath, and I shot him. He dropped to the ground, clutching his left arm. The doctor stepped in, proclaimed that the manager would live, we all shook hands, and I felt satisfied.

Looking back now, I was pleased that I hadn’t killed the manager — at the last second I aimed left, deciding only to wing him. Seeing his offense was minimal, I had no desire to kill him. I just wanted satisfaction for his disrespecting me. And he did; make no mistake about it, this fast-food manager had dissed me, and now he knew the consequences. The bullet I put in his arm would be a constant reminder not to dis me.

A Measured Response

How could I possibly do this, you may be wondering. How could I challenge someone to a duel and go so far as to shoot this person over a fast-food order? How could anyone be so casual and cruel? All good questions, and I hope my answer gives you some satisfaction and understanding. So, my answer is, of course, I didn’t do that. Of course I didn’t challenge a fast food manager to a duel, slapping him in the face with a glove. First off, I rarely travel with my dueling gloves, so I wouldn’t be able to slap him with one. Secondly, I didn’t challenge him to a duel because we’re not in America in 1859. Duels just don’t happen any longer. They are barbaric and silly. We are much more cultured and caring about human life now, and no one would think it’s okay to shoot another person over something as trivial as a fast-food order. Who would do that? No one.

So, dueling is not an acceptable or measured response to having your fast-food order messed up. The question now is: if your fast-food order does get messed up, is trashing the establishment okay?

One of my jobs as a copywriter is to understand what content is fresh and trending, and I spend time on YouTube watching trending videos. Along with absolutely adorable puppies doing puppy things, I have noticed a ton of videos of people throwing fits in fast-food joints and convenience stores. Video after video of someone screaming about not being respected and trashing the restaurant or pulling everything off the shelves in a convenience store, often pulling display racks down and then just walking out. Not, I think, examples of measured responses.

How does someone get that angry? “I opened my son’s bag, and he had nine chicken McNuggets, not ten. I will not be disrespected like that, and you will not deprive my child of his dinner, you will not!” One woman screamed in a video, and then she proceeded to break computers, throw bags of food that were not hers at the cashier, go behind the counter and take food, all the time screaming things like, “Don’t play with me,” and, “You picked the wrong one.”

One video I watched several times showed a woman in a convenience store; when it starts, she steps back from the counter and says, “You think this is funny?” That question becomes her mantra as she pulls down display racks, throws bottles of soda on the floor, and destroys the entire shop, all the time yelling, “You think this is funny?” No, actually, I don’t. But the people around her in the shop seem to, as they are all standing by, watching the destruction, phones out and laughing. When the woman is finally stopped by the police, a few of the people who watched the entire incident complain to the workers that they couldn’t get their snacks and their cigarettes because of the destruction. Didn’t seem to be a problem for them when they were filming the destruction, but now, well, now they were inconvenienced.

What Happened

My father was a quiet man, a very shy man, and he was one who never got involved in someone else’s business or forced his opinion on another person. A gentle man when he was not drinking. And yet, several times when I was a kid, going along with him to run errands, I witnessed him stepping into confrontations in stores where someone was yelling at a clerk, the clerk usually a female, close to tears, and my father, the shy guy, stepping up and saying to the yeller, “She’s just doing her job the best she can, you’re not really mad at her, so let’s take a breath and relax.”

I witnessed him do and say that about ten times, and each time, he soothed the battered egos, rescued the weeping clerk, and all was fine. He never had to throw a punch; no one ever barked in his face to back off or piss off or fuck off; they listened, and they understood. A different time, I suppose.

The point is, I was raised to be socially aware and to help people whenever I could. So, when I see a confrontation in action, my instinct is to calm the situation and get people talking calmly and like adults. Now, the instinct is to pull out the phone and start filming.

We didn’t stop caring. We just found a cheaper way to look like we do. Filming costs nothing: no risk, no awkward eye contact, no chance of being told to mind your own business. Helping costs something every time. Somewhere along the way, we quietly decided the costless version counts as the same thing.

The One Job Left

I’ve written about this before, and I imagine I’ll write about it again, because I don’t think it’s going away: AI is coming for the content, and it’s going to be very good at exactly the kind of content this piece has been describing. It will write faster than any of us, edit faster, and it won’t be long before it can manufacture the McNugget meltdown or the “you think this is funny” rampage more convincingly than either woman managed on her own: no actual bad day, smashed display rack, or actual human being required. It can already fake the auditor getting pepper-sprayed, complete with the reaction shots and the outraged comments underneath. The math that turns a security guard’s temper into a paycheck is about to get an unlimited, free supply of security guards losing their temper, generated on demand, with nobody on either side of the camera actually suffering for it.

That should be good news. If the content can get made without a real person having a real bad day, maybe fewer real people have real bad days in public. But I don’t think that’s how it plays out, because the appetite was never really for the meltdown. It was for the reaction, the sense of having witnessed something, stood for something, caught something on tape. AI can manufacture the meltdown. It can’t manufacture the one thing that used to sit on the other side of it: a person deciding to do something about it.

That’s the part it can’t do. It can’t put a hand on someone’s shoulder. It can’t stand behind a counter and absorb the heat meant for someone else, the way my father used to, for free, expecting nothing back. It can’t be tired, inconvenienced, or a little afraid, and step in anyway. That’s not a content problem. That’s a human problem, and it’s the one job nobody’s going to automate out from under us unless we keep handing it over ourselves, one phone-out moment at a time. Some of us make a living making content for a job. That doesn’t buy us out of asking, every so often, what it’s actually for.

So maybe that’s the actual measured response. Not a duel. Not a rampage. Not a manufactured mace-in-the-face for the algorithm. Just a hand, offered before the camera.

The Takeaway

Maybe the problem isn’t that we’ve become worse people. I don’t really believe that. I think we’ve slowly become accustomed to being spectators. Something happens, and before we’ve even decided what we think about it, we’re reaching for the phone. We film it, post it, comment on it, share it, condemn it, defend it, and somehow all of those things have begun to feel remarkably similar to actually doing something.

They’re not.

My father didn’t have a camera in his pocket when he stepped between an angry customer and a frightened clerk. Maybe that’s part of it. There was nothing else for him to do with the moment except be in it. He couldn’t turn it into content. He couldn’t collect likes for being the reasonable guy in the store. He couldn’t post about what happened afterward and wait for strangers to tell him what a good person he was. He saw someone who needed a little help, decided he could provide it, and stepped forward. Nobody watched it later. Nobody shared it. It disappeared almost as soon as it happened, except that I was there, and apparently I’ve been carrying it around ever since.

We’re about to enter a world with more content than any human being could consume in a thousand lifetimes. AI will make sure of that. There will always be another outrage, another confrontation, another unbelievable video demanding that we watch it and decide whose side we’re on. For those of us at ThoughtLab, and anyone else who makes things for people to watch, read, click, or share, that’s worth remembering. Making more things won’t be the difficult part. Deciding what deserves people’s attention, and what we hope they’ll do with it once we have it, might be.

So maybe the question isn’t whether you should pull out your phone the next time something starts going sideways. Maybe the question comes a second earlier.

Are you here to watch this happen, or are you actually here?

Because those aren’t the same thing. And in a world increasingly capable of manufacturing everything worth watching, being genuinely present may turn out to be one of the few things still entirely up to us.

And then, silence. Not quiet, because in quiet, you still hear things; the wind, birds chirping, the highway miles away. You hear things in the quiet. The quiet makes you hyper-focused on sounds. In silence, there are no sounds. Nothing.

“Silence was deafening” is a phrase I’ve heard before, and it’s one that my years in the theater have taught me to recognize. There is nothing like a deafening silence, especially when you’re doing comedy. That’s what makes creating a comedy so difficult.

I recall a time when I was doing the play “Is He Dead?” and the other actors and I were trying to work out a bit. Now, a bit, for those unfamiliar with the term, is a self-contained unit of material centered on a single funny premise, theme, or story. It typically includes a setup, multiple punchlines, and related “tags” (additional quick punchlines), functioning as a building block for a longer routine. The bit we were working on involved an empty casket that supposedly contained a dear friend, but was actually just part of a trick we were playing on another character. Now, when you start a bit, you start with nothing. Perhaps you know the props you’re working with, but really, all you have is a piece of dialogue and the feeling that something has to happen here. So there we were, five actors, a casket, and nothing else. We came up with ideas, and those ideas evolved over rehearsal. By the time we got to final dress, we were tired, and we hated every single thing we did. Lucky for us, we had a very smart director, Chuck Morey, who didn’t let us get despondent. The problem? We had been playing this bit to empty rooms and people who had seen it over and over. Because of that, it was easy to lose confidence in the work we’d done and turn to changing everything. Again, a wise director kept us in check.

We knew in our hearts the bit was funny. It was mathematical, and we were all good comedic actors, so we understood the need for precision, energy, and playing the bit moment to moment. We knew it intellectually, but a good bit isn’t intellectual; it’s physical. The action is physical, and the response, when done right, is as well. The audience gets hit with the bit. The bit lands on them. And if it lands right, the response is laughter. A special kind of laughter where the audience is taken by surprise, and their laughter floods out of them in great waves that we, the actors, feel almost physically hitting us. There are very few feelings as good as doing a bit well and having the audience just explode. It is wonderful, and yet, it is terrifying. Wonderful because there is nothing that heals like laughter. During that particular show, no matter how I was feeling before curtain, when I stepped on stage with that cast, the joy of performing was ignited, and we all cruised through the show. Wonderful.

Terrifying? Yes. Imagine working hard in a rehearsal hall, constructing a great bit, working and sweating to hit the precision, the timing, and physical needs all down to math, everyone doing their part to the very best of their abilities, and then, you put it in front of an audience and … silence. That deafening silence we mentioned at the top of this piece. That happens. And there is nothing so gut-wrenching as getting it wrong. Being off by a fraction and the laugh just slipping by, out the window, and you’re left on stage with four minutes of bit left to do, and you can already feel the audience has checked out. There is not much to be done. You stay the course, do the work you rehearsed, and hope it’s just a sleepy audience who just had a big dinner and a bottle of wine and they’re just not with you this time. Okay, that’s one night, but if it happens again, then you have to drag the bit back into the room and rework it. Find what went wrong, why the laughs weren’t coming, and how to make it work. That’s what previews are for: to rework and fix what the audience told us wasn’t working. Okay, it’s a drag and a bummer and a bit deflating, but you need the show to be as good as possible, so back into the room to rebuild. That’s just part of the job, and we’ve all experienced it. Usually, you come up with something that works, and when you drop it on the audience and they laugh, the relief is indescribable. After the audience laughs, you can set and settle into the bit, add things, remove things, and hear the audience catch something; that becomes part of the bit for the run. It all works out, but it’s not as easy as it seems.

I was thinking about this today as I got an email with a photo from that show, and I recalled the work we put in to make not just the show, but that bit in particular, work. Thankfully, it landed perfectly, and we didn’t have to go back into the rehearsal room and make it work. We were able to do this because we had faith in what we were doing and because we had a solid comedic director who didn’t allow us to doubt ourselves and who trusted the work we had done. Still, there is that moment before there is an audience when you wonder, is any of this funny? Will any of this work? Are we all going to be standing onstage with omelet stations on our faces? In situations like that one, you have to have trust. Trust in the work you’ve done, in the serving of the play, and in the director who won’t allow you to doubt and question every single step of the way. But, most of all, you trust history. We’d all been there before, creating a bit out of nowhere, trusting that we knew what we were doing and allowing the bit to have its breadth. Trust your history, commit to the bit, and then you have to allow the risk of putting it out there to be worth it; you have to trust the past and not throw away everything because the empty room is no longer laughing.

“We just want a website,” I recall a client saying in a meeting. He was responding to the amount of depth ThoughtLab puts into a website before we even start on design. They had heard of us and knew we were top of the field in web design, but they didn’t want all the “bells and whistles,” as they called all the time and research that goes into creating a website that converts. They wanted it quick and cheap. At one point, someone on their team said, “You know, with AI we can knock this out in less than a day.” At which point we said, yes, yes, you can. And that client went on its way. Later, we looked at the website AI had knocked out in a day, and you know what, it looked good. It did. It looked like a website. But it didn’t do anything. I mean, aside from lacking animation or good storytelling, the site didn’t do anything. It didn’t solve the problems people might be coming to the site to get answers about. It certainly didn’t hold our attention, and it did nothing to convert. It looked like a website, as almost every single website looks when it’s slapped together. It looks fine, but looks are only a sliver of the overall spectrum when we’re talking about websites.

It isn’t really about websites. It’s about anything you’re building before you know if it’ll work: a campaign, a launch, a pitch, a first draft of a new offer. There’s always a version of it you could get fast, and it will look like the thing you meant to make. The question is never whether the fast version looks fine. It’s whether you’ll know what to do the moment it goes quiet.

I think about that client sometimes, and I think about that silent room.

When a bit died in previews, it was never a mystery for long. We knew our blocking, we knew our timing, we’d sweated over every beat of it, so when it didn’t land, we had somewhere to look. That’s also how we knew the difference between a bad night and a real problem: one quiet room might just be a quiet room, but we’d know our own choices well enough to see it if the same beat kept dying twice. That’s when we went back into the room, took the bit apart, found the half-second we were late on the turn, and rebuilt it. That’s not failure. That’s the job. The room exists so you have somewhere to go once you actually know something’s wrong.

The AI website never had a room. It had a prompt. It looked like a website the way a stand-in looks like an actor until you ask it to do something under pressure, and when it didn’t convert, there was nothing to rework, because nothing had been decided on purpose in the first place. You can’t drag a website back into rehearsal if it was never in rehearsal. You can only start over, and starting over from a prompt gets you exactly what you got the first time.

That’s what “trust the process” actually means, and it’s not a slogan. It means doing the work by hand long enough that you’d recognize your own choices if they failed, so that when the room goes quiet, you have something to go back to. A shortcut doesn’t just risk a worse result. It risks a result you couldn’t explain if someone asked you why it didn’t work. And in this business, someone always asks.

We still stepped on that stage every night, not knowing for certain the bit would land. That never goes away, and it shouldn’t. The day you’re certain is the day you’ve stopped listening to the room. But we walked out there with history behind us: reps, choices, a director who wouldn’t let us panic and rebuild from scratch just because one house was cold. That history is the only thing that makes the risk worth taking.

You can commission a website in a day. You can’t commission that.

Takeaway

The worry never fully goes away, and it isn’t supposed to. Every time you build something new, a campaign, a launch, a pitch, a first draft,  there’s a version of that silent house waiting for you, the one where you don’t know yet if it’ll land. That’s not a sign that something’s wrong. That’s just the room before the audience gets there.

What decides how that moment goes isn’t whether you’re nervous. It’s whether you know the thing you built well enough to fix it if it doesn’t land, or whether all you have is a result you can’t explain. One of those gives you somewhere to go. The other leaves you standing on stage with four minutes left and nothing but hope.

Trust the process. But build one worth trusting.

Ted Kazanoff was a great man, a brilliant acting teacher, and one of the most frustrating teachers I ever had the sheer pleasure of working with. That was the general consensus about Ted while I was in grad school at Brandeis University. One of the greatest things about Ted wasn’t something I discovered until years later, after I left school and embarked on my professional career as an actor. Ted never gave you answers; he asked you questions and pointed you in the right direction. That was his gift.

I mean, that wasn’t all. He had insights and theories about acting that I’ve carried with me ever since and passed on to anyone who happens to land in one of my classes. I’ve held onto those ideas because they work. For me, they work, and they seem to work for those I’ve shared them with. But when I was sitting in a classroom with Ted, trying to understand what he was saying while he dismantled a scene I’d just performed, I had no idea what he was talking about. And that, dear reader, was the point.

For an actor, answers are not like those for a math student. A mathematical constant is a fixed, unchanging number that arises naturally from the fundamental rules of geometry, calculus, or number theory. Because these values represent universal truths, they remain exactly the same across every equation and operation. They are constants. There are no constants in the art of acting.

One theory or approach may work brilliantly in one situation and fail completely in another. If you’re a method actor, you’re going to find it difficult to apply that same approach to classical work. It’s hard to method act Shakespeare. Different writers demand different ways in. I like animal imagery when I’m building a Shakespeare character. When I play Sir Toby Belch in Twelfth Night, I often begin with the image of a bear. The physical informs the verbal, and the verbal melds with the physical, giving me an entrance into the character. Working from the outside in suits Shakespeare, at least for me. So if we agree there are very few constants in acting, we can also agree there are very few answers.

When I was studying with Ted, all I wanted were answers. How do I get better? What does better feel like? How do I get the part? How do I become famous? How do I get it?

Of course, Ted never answered those questions because his answers and my eventual discoveries were never going to be the same. The need for answers was outweighed by the value of process. As an actor, sometimes how we arrive at truth in imaginary circumstances is just as important as the destination itself.

Between my first and second years of grad school, I was doing a show when something Ted had said months earlier suddenly made sense. The fog I’d been dragging around like a piece of carry-on luggage was no longer a burden. It had become part of my process. It stopped being something I carried and became something I understood. Best of all, I arrived there on my own. Ted didn’t explain it, mostly because he wouldn’t. I simply found myself in the right place, in the right frame of mind, and everything clicked. It happened months after class, while I was standing on a professional stage.

As that realization became clearer with each rehearsal, I understood something that has stayed with me ever since. Had Ted simply given me the answer, I never would have been able to fully apply it to my own work. It wouldn’t have settled into me. It wouldn’t have lasted. The nuances behind his teaching had to be discovered individually, or they wouldn’t become yours.

Time, self-interpretation, and nuance all came together to help me understand what Ted had been trying to teach me. He planted the idea, pointed me toward it, then pushed me out the door and said, in effect, “Figure it out for yourself.” Only then did what I learned truly become mine.

Learning to Participate

Looking back now, I realize Ted wasn’t withholding answers because he enjoyed watching us struggle. Well…he did, a little. He’d laugh when one of us exploded in frustration, grin, and say, “Okay…start from there.”

But beneath the mischief was something much more important. Ted understood that struggle isn’t the obstacle to learning. It’s part of learning. Confusion isn’t necessarily a sign you’re failing. More often than not, it’s a sign you’re thinking.

We’ve spent so much of our lives trying to eliminate friction that we’ve forgotten some kinds of friction are productive. The discomfort of not quite understanding something forces us to stay with it. It asks us to turn an idea over, look at it from different angles, wrestle with it until it finally becomes our own. The moment someone simply hands us the answer, that process ends.

Increasingly, though, we seem less willing to tolerate that kind of uncertainty. We expect information to arrive fully formed, immediately understandable, and instantly useful. We want the key takeaways before we’ve considered the argument. We reach for the summary before we’ve read the story. We demand clarity before we’ve earned understanding.

Somewhere along the way, we’ve begun treating every unanswered question as a problem to solve instead of an invitation to think.

I found myself thinking about Ted again this morning after reading an article in The Atlantic about how we’re collectively reading less than we used to. Not because we’ve suddenly decided we don’t like books, but because we’ve slowly retrained ourselves to consume information differently. It struck me that reading isn’t all that different from what Ted was trying to teach us.

When you read, just like when you see a play or a film, you’re part of the experience. You can sit back and let it happen to you, or you can lean forward, ask questions, imagine, interpret, and participate in what’s unfolding. Artists don’t create so their work can remain hidden away. The completion of an artist’s endeavor is the audience.

I can rehearse a play, especially a comedy, for only so long before I need an audience to tell me whether it works. The audience isn’t just there to witness the performance; it’s the final element that completes it.

So I read the article about our declining reading habits, and it offered familiar explanations. TikTok and social media reward information delivered in small, visual bites that ask almost nothing of us beyond a like, a share, or the next swipe. They reward speed over contemplation. Reading asks something entirely different.

It asks us to hold characters, ideas, and unresolved questions in our minds. It encourages us to remember what happened fifty pages ago because it may matter fifty pages from now. It gives us leave to tolerate uncertainty, to wait for understanding, and occasionally to finish a chapter with more questions than answers. Most importantly, it asks us to participate.

The Reader’s Role

Increasingly, though, we’ve become accustomed to information that arrives already interpreted for us. We want the summary before we’ve read the article, the highlights before we’ve watched the interview, and the answer before we’ve had time to wrestle with the question.

Convenience isn’t the enemy here. But every time we remove a little more effort from the process, we also remove a little of the thinking that effort was quietly doing on our behalf.

One of the arguments the article put forward was that AI is making the problem worse. By summarizing, simplifying, and condensing information so effortlessly, it risks stripping away the nuance that makes ideas worth exploring in the first place. I don’t think that’s quite right.

AI is capable of remarkable nuance when we ask it to be. It can compare competing ideas, examine multiple perspectives, challenge assumptions, and spend thousands of words exploring an argument from every conceivable angle. But that’s rarely what we ask of it.

We ask for summaries. Bullet points. Executive briefs. Key takeaways. We ask it to tell us what matters before we’ve taken the time to decide that for ourselves.

In many ways, we’re approaching AI exactly as we’ve trained ourselves to approach everything else: as a shortcut to certainty.

Certainty on Demand

The irony, of course, is that AI doesn’t force us to stop thinking any more than a calculator forces us to stop understanding mathematics. We decide how we use the tools we create. We can ask AI to challenge us, question us, expose us to ideas we hadn’t considered, or argue the opposite side of a position we’re convinced is right. Or we can ask it to save us time. Increasingly, we’ve chosen the latter. That’s not a failure of artificial intelligence. It’s a reflection of our own priorities.

AI hasn’t removed nuance from our thinking. It has simply become extraordinarily good at reflecting the way we’ve chosen to consume information. It didn’t teach us to want shorter answers or quicker conclusions. We taught ourselves that over years of headlines, notifications, executive summaries, social media feeds, and endless scrolling. AI simply arrived at a moment when we’d already decided faster was better and certainty was preferable to curiosity.

I think about Ted often these days, usually when someone asks me for an answer I know I shouldn’t give. It’s tempting. Answers are satisfying. They make us feel helpful. They bring conversations to a neat conclusion. But Ted understood that the answers we remember most are rarely the ones we’re handed. They’re the ones we discover after wrestling with an idea long enough for it to become our own.

The Search Matters

Perhaps that’s what concerns me most about the way we consume information today. It’s not that we have access to AI, social media, or instant answers. Those are extraordinary tools, and used thoughtfully, they can help us learn, create, and explore ideas in ways that were unimaginable only a few years ago.

My concern is that we’re becoming less willing to participate in the process of understanding. We want the conclusion without the journey. The insight without the struggle. The certainty without the curiosity.

Ted never let us have that luxury. He trusted that confusion had value. He believed questions could teach more than answers, that nuance wasn’t something to be explained but something to be discovered. Looking back, I realize he wasn’t just teaching us how to act. He was teaching us how to think.

Maybe that’s the question we should be asking ourselves as AI becomes more capable. Not whether it can think like we do, but whether we’ll continue to value the kind of thinking that asks us to slow down, sit with uncertainty, wrestle with ideas, and participate in the search for meaning instead of simply accepting the first answer we receive.

Maybe the real danger isn’t that AI becomes better at answering questions. Maybe it’s that we’re becoming less willing to live with them.

Ted pointed me in the right direction, opened the door, and sent me on my way. It took me months to understand what he was trying to teach me, but because I found it myself, I’ve carried that lesson with me for the rest of my life.

I sometimes wonder how many of the most important ideas in our lives are like that, ideas that can’t be summarized, accelerated, or handed to us because they only become meaningful through the act of discovering them ourselves. Maybe that’s why books still matter. Maybe that’s why great teachers ask questions instead of giving answers. And maybe that’s why, every now and then, it’s worth closing the summary, opening the book, and allowing ourselves the time to search.

Some answers are worth waiting for.

I found myself alone at the stern of a smallish whale-watching boat off the coast of Juneau. The captain had cut the engines and pointed to a patch of water where some “action” had been reported, and the rest of the passengers poured out of the cabin and crowded onto the bow. It was shoulder to shoulder up there, cameras and phones already raised, everyone trying to get a decent position at the rail. I took one look at the crowd and decided I didn’t feel like fighting for a place to stand, so I wandered to the stern, where a sea lion was swimming alongside the boat, minding its own business and doing sea lion stuff.

I was watching where the sea lion was, and now was not, when everything went quiet. Then, directly in front of me, not more than an arm’s length away, three humpback whales came to the surface. One followed the other in quick succession. They took a deep breath, hung at the surface for a moment, unafraid of the boats full of gawkers around them, and then slowly, oh so gracefully, they returned to the depths. Their enormous tails, each marked with distinctive patterns, were the last things I saw before these gentle giants slipped beneath the surface to continue feeding and living their giant lives.

I didn’t raise my camera or my phone in those moments. It wasn’t some noble decision on my part. I wasn’t making a stand against technology or choosing to be present in some wonderfully enlightened way. I simply forgot I had a phone. I didn’t need to prove to anyone that it happened, and I knew, even as it was happening, that this was one of those memories I’d never need a photograph to recall. It was intimate, moving, and awe-inspiring. After the whales had gone below, the captain was standing behind me, and he said, “Good for you, that was pretty damn amazing.”

A few moments later, the whales resurfaced several yards ahead of the boat, and the bow lookers were rewarded with tails and spouts and the photographs they’d been waiting for. I was still at the stern, trying to come to grips with the size and gentleness of these amazing creatures. It’s one thing to watch hundreds of nature documentaries and shows about the ocean and whales. It’s something else entirely to stand on a boat and have three of them surround you only a few feet away. No matter how many whales you see on screens and photos, even giant screens designed to make you feel as if you’re there, there’s absolutely nothing like being that close, hearing the sound as they take a breath, seeing their gigantic tails slip so effortlessly beneath the surface. You’re left stunned and humble.

After about half an hour, the captain called for us to get back into the cabin as he put the boat in gear and headed for another spot. When we reached it, we moved back outside, this time spreading out fore and aft, and there, about a hundred yards from the boat, we saw three huge black dorsal fins cutting through the water. We were looking at a pod of orcas, also known as killer whales, though that name suddenly felt a little dramatic once you were watching them just go about their day.

This pod, like the humpbacks we’d watched earlier, had a baby among them. When the adults surfaced to breathe, the baby popped up too, bouncing and splashing like a toddler. The adults were focused on feeding. The baby just wanted to play. And play he did, flipping over adults, jumping out of the water, and landing awkwardly on his side. One of the women on the boat said, “The baby is just like my Justin when he was a kid, always doing gymnastics in the house, bouncing off walls.” And he was. Except this little kid already weighed a ton.

The two naturalists on board, both in their late twenties, kept telling us this was the best whale watch they’d ever been on. In fact, they said they rarely saw orcas on a trip out. But there they were. One male’s dorsal fin seemed impossibly tall, straight and strong, unlike the collapsed and folded dorsal fins I’d seen on orcas in captivity at SeaWorld. We watched them move slowly along, unimpressed with the boats around them and the people hanging off those boats, all of us trying to get the best view of animals that didn’t seem to care whether we were there or not.

Between the three humpbacks that surrounded me at the stern and the pod of orcas moving so close to us, I felt tiny. But I also felt safe. The humpbacks had looked at me, or at least it felt that way. They saw I was just this puny human guy on a small, easily smashable boat, floating around in their territory, and they judged me okay. Not a threat. Maybe they had chartered a human watch the same way we had chartered a whale watch. Maybe some older female had told the others, in whatever language whales use, “Hey, I know a spot where humans congregate. Let’s go look at some. They’re hilariously small and weak.”

So there was a moment when the three giants surrounded me, and I had no idea whether I was the one watching or the one being watched.

Giants

I’ve watched nature documentaries for as long as I can remember. Like most people, I’ve seen whales on screens hundreds of times. I’ve watched them breach in slow motion, seen drone footage that shows their sheer size against the vastness of the ocean, and sat in front of giant cinema screens that promise to immerse you in the experience. They’re all remarkable, but they’re all missing something.

Scale is one of those things that’s almost impossible to appreciate until you’re standing beside it. You can know how big a humpback is. You can read the statistics, admire the photography, and marvel at the aerial footage, but none of it prepares you for hearing one take a breath just a few feet away, or watching something the size of a house move through the water with a grace that seems to defy its own mass. It’s one of those experiences that instantly remind you there’s a world beyond the one we spend most of our lives looking at through glass.

What surprised me most wasn’t the size of the whales, it was how they made me feel. Standing next to something so enormous, I didn’t feel vulnerable or threatened. I felt small, and strangely, I found that comforting.

We spend much of our lives trying to feel bigger than we are. We build careers, companies, and reputations. We compete, compare, and convince ourselves that being important is the same thing as being significant. Then, every once in a while, nature quietly reminds us that we’re none of those things. We’re just another species sharing a planet with creatures so much larger than us that they make all our usual measures of scale feel a little ridiculous.

Maybe that’s why the encounter stayed with me. For a few brief moments, my world shrank to the sound of whales breathing and the sight of giant tails disappearing beneath the surface. My emails, deadlines, worries, and ambitions all seemed to become wonderfully unimportant. I wasn’t thinking about work, the news, or what was waiting for me when I got home. I was simply standing on the back of a boat, watching three giants go about their day, completely indifferent to the fact that I was there.

It wasn’t until much later that I started thinking about the word giant. We use it all the time. We talk about technology giants, retail giants, financial giants, and industry giants as though the word has become little more than shorthand for success. Standing beside an actual giant has a funny way of reminding you that we’ve rather lost sight of what the word was supposed to mean.

The Biggest Things on Earth

It struck me later that we borrow the word giant remarkably freely. We talk about technology giants, retail giants, pharmaceutical giants, financial giants, and industrial giants as though size alone is enough to earn the title. Sometimes we even describe people that way. Sporting giants. Literary giants. Giants of industry. Standing beside an actual giant makes you realize how casually we’ve been using the word.

Real giants don’t spend much time trying to convince you they’re giants. The humpbacks didn’t announce themselves. They didn’t breach because there was an audience. They didn’t swim a little closer so we’d get a better photograph. They weren’t performing for us any more than the sea lion had been. We just happened to be sharing a small patch of ocean for a few minutes before they got on with the business of being whales.

The same was true of the orcas. There were half a dozen boats following them, people hanging over the rails hoping for the perfect shot, yet the whales couldn’t have cared less. They surfaced when they needed to breathe, disappeared when they needed to feed, and carried on with lives that had absolutely nothing to do with us. There’s something oddly refreshing about that.

We spend an extraordinary amount of our lives trying to be noticed. People do it. Brands do it. Companies certainly do it. We celebrate visibility as though it were the same as importance.

The whales couldn’t have cared less. They surfaced because they needed air, not because they had an audience. They disappeared beneath the surface without the slightest concern for whether anyone had managed to capture the perfect photograph.

Attention has become one of the world’s most valuable currencies, and just about everyone is trying to capture ours. The whales weren’t interested in any of it. They didn’t need our admiration or validation. They didn’t need an audience to confirm their importance. They simply existed, completely indifferent to whether we noticed them or not. It made me wonder if we’ve started confusing visibility with significance.

The biggest things on Earth don’t spend their lives trying to be seen. They simply are. Maybe that’s why standing next to them feels so humbling. For a few moments, all the things we normally use to measure success quietly disappear. Followers, market share, job titles, awards, and quarterly results don’t mean very much when you’re standing beside something that has been navigating the oceans for millions of years.

Perhaps that’s the lesson the whales left me with. Greatness doesn’t always announce itself. Sometimes it swims quietly beneath the surface, completely unconcerned about whether anyone is watching.

The View from the Stern

I’ve thought about that morning more times than I can count, and one detail keeps coming back to me.

I wasn’t standing at the stern because I was looking for a better view, I was there because the bow was crowded and I’d wandered off to watch a sea lion. There was no strategy, no insight, no grand plan. I simply ended up somewhere nobody else happened to be. It makes me wonder how often that happens in business.

Most of us spend our time looking where everyone else is looking. We read the same reports, chase the same trends, attend the same conferences, and convince ourselves that if everyone is moving in one direction, that’s probably where the opportunity lies. Sometimes that’s true. But sometimes the most memorable experiences, the biggest ideas, and the most unexpected discoveries happen because we looked somewhere else.

I’m not suggesting we ignore the crowd for the sake of being different. There’s nothing particularly clever about standing at the back of a boat while everyone else rushes to the front. In my case, it was little more than chance. But chance has a habit of rewarding curiosity. If I hadn’t wandered off to watch that sea lion, I wouldn’t have found myself standing within a few feet of three humpback whales. I’d have gone home with the same photographs as everyone else, but without the memory that has stayed with me ever since.

I never did take a photograph that morning. My phone stayed in my pocket, not because I was making a point, but because for a few brief moments I’d forgotten it existed. Looking back, I’m glad I did.

If I’d taken a picture, I’d probably have looked at it a few times before it disappeared into the thousands of photographs sitting on my phone. Instead, I remember the sound of a humpback taking a breath just a few feet away. I remember the spray catching my face. I remember the baby orca bouncing around its family like an overexcited child. I remember feeling tiny, and somehow completely safe. Those are the things that stayed with me.

Perhaps that’s because the moments that shape us aren’t always the ones we capture. They’re the ones we experience so completely that we don’t think to reach for a camera in the first place.

Standing at the wrong end of the boat turned out to be the right place to be. Not because it gave me a better view, but because it reminded me that significance isn’t always where the crowd is looking. Sometimes it’s quietly waiting somewhere else, completely unconcerned about whether anyone notices.

Looking back, it wasn’t really the whales that changed the course of that morning. It was the sea lion. If I hadn’t looked at the crowd on the bow and decided it was too busy, if I hadn’t wandered to the stern to watch something that had simply caught my eye, I’d have gone home with the same photographs as everyone else and missed the moment I’ll remember for the rest of my life.

Curiosity rarely announces where it’s going to lead. More often than not, it starts with something small, something that seems hardly worth noticing. A sea lion swimming past the back of a boat. A conversation. A question. An idea that doesn’t quite fit with what everyone else is thinking.

Most of us spend our lives following well-worn paths because they’re comfortable and they’re proven. Every now and then, though, curiosity nudges us in a different direction, and that’s where the interesting things tend to happen.

The Takeaway

Curiosity rarely points us toward the biggest opportunities. More often, it draws us toward something small, unexpected, or seemingly unimportant. A question. A conversation. A different point of view. Or even a sea lion swimming past the back of a boat.

The organizations that continue to innovate aren’t always the ones chasing what everyone else is chasing. More often, they’re the ones willing to follow their curiosity, explore beyond the obvious, and remain open to finding something remarkable where nobody thought to look.

I have nine minutes before a meeting. I’m prepared, ready, willing, and perhaps, depending on how you define it, able. I have coffee, notes, a list of things I’ve accomplished during the week, and I’m ready. Problem is, I have nine minutes and nothing to fill that time with. AI has helped me save time in my work, but now I have this extra time, which isn’t enough to make breakfast or drive over to FogTown coffee for a cuppa joe and a breakfast sammich with sriracha mayo, good sausage, and the kind of morning that makes you briefly reconsider your entire routine.  I don’t have time to watch a movie or a YouTube video, as my time is now down to six minutes.

There will be plenty of time post-meeting to do work, and there is work to be done; it’s just the interim period, four minutes with nothing to do because there’s not enough time to start anything. AI has helped me save so much time that I now have a brief moment in time where I have a surplus of time but not enough time to do anything meaningful, so I guess I didn’t save enough time this time. Two minutes.

Meeting.

But I’m still wondering about time-saving. What are we saving all this time for? Seriously, can I get a jar to sit on my desk that I can drop time into and pull out when I need it? Time to read, or pontificate on an otherworldly cheeseburger. I mean, everything we get sold promises to be a time saver. No more wasting time. Brands have built empires on the idea of time-saving. But are we saving time? And if so, how come most of us are putting that time directly back into working?

Brands swear that they will save you time, give you time, put time back in your pocket, like time is marbles or sand brains or coins. But are we really saving any time, and what are we doing with that time? Where does it go, and how do brands help us make better use of our time, not just promise to save us time when we all know time cannot be saved, nor can it be hoarded like acorns in a tree. Once you do something that is now taking up your time, does using a specific brand actually stop time so you can use that time for more appealing tasks? 

Does a brand telling us it will save time actually lie to us?

The Time Didn’t Go Anywhere. It’s Right There. Waiting.

Here’s the thing about saved time. It doesn’t disappear into some kind of cosmic savings account where it earns interest and pays out when you need an extra hour on a Tuesday. Time isn’t a 401k. You can’t defer it, roll it over, or cash it out when the market looks good. When a brand saves you time, that time goes exactly one place: somewhere else in your day, looking for trouble. Like a gang member from the Jets or the Sharks. They have time to rumble in toe shoes, with jazz hands. That’s time well spent.

Wouldn’t it be something if we had time purses? Little cosmic clip-top purses we all carried around, dropping our saved minutes in throughout the day. Then, when you’re running late, or sitting across from a friend over a sandwich, or just enjoying a quiet moment with your own reflection, you could reach in, pull out a dollop of time, and apply it directly to your circumstances. We don’t have that. We have a calendar app and the vague sense that we should be further along by now.

Think about what actually happens. AI writes your first draft in four minutes instead of forty. Congratulations. You now have thirty-six minutes. What do you do with thirty-six minutes? If you’re like most people, you use them to do more work, answer more emails, take a meeting you’d previously had a reasonable excuse to decline, or stare at your screen, wondering why you feel busy when you just saved 36 minutes. The time didn’t get saved. It got reassigned. There’s a difference, and brands have been remarkably quiet about it.

This isn’t new, by the way. The dishwasher was supposed to liberate households from the tyranny of hand washing dishes. And it did. It also quietly introduced the expectation that the kitchen would now be cleaner more often, dinner parties could be larger, and somehow the time saved by not scrubbing a pot was immediately absorbed by everything the dishwasher made newly possible. Same with the washing machine, the microwave, the calendar app, and the project management software that was going to make everything more efficient, but instead gave everyone a new place to have meetings about meetings.

Brands don’t save time. They relocate it. And they’ve been getting away with this for decades because we’re very busy people who don’t have time to notice.

Saving Time Since, Actually, Never 

Brands have been selling time like they own it. Save time. Reclaim your day. Get back to what matters. It’s the oldest pitch in the book, and it works because we want it to be true so badly that we’ll pay almost anything to believe it for another quarter. There’s an entire economy built on the promise of time returned, and if you look closely at the fine print, which nobody does because who has time, you’ll notice the promise is always future tense. You will save time. Your mornings will be easier. You’ll finally have room to breathe.

They never say when.

Every generation gets its own version of the pitch. The microwave was going to save dinner. The laptop was going to save the office. The smartphone was apparently going to save everything, but instead it just moved the office into your pocket and followed you to the beach, the dinner table and the bathroom. AI is the current champion of the time-saving promise, and it’s genuinely impressive technology, but let’s be honest about what’s actually happening. We’re not saving time. We’re getting faster at filling it back up again. We’re efficiency machines running on a treadmill that keeps pace with however efficient we become.

The brands aren’t lying exactly. That’s what makes it so good. The time does move. Something does get faster. The pitch is technically defensible. It’s just that nobody mentions that the time you saved on that task is going directly into three new tasks that the saved time made possible. You didn’t get your afternoon back. You got a more ambitious to-do list.

And somehow, every time, we’re surprised. Like local news anchors who marvel when a new month starts, “Can you believe it’s June???” Yes, yes, I can because it happens every single freakin’ year.

Nobody Saved You Time. They Just Moved Your Furniture.

Here’s the question nobody in the time-saving business wants to answer: saved for what, exactly? Because if the answer is “to do more work,” we’ve built an entire industrial complex of efficiency tools that have successfully helped us become more productive at being busy. That’s not salvation. That’s a faster hamster wheel with better branding.

We don’t have a time-saving problem. We have a time-purpose problem. The time was always there. It didn’t need saving. What it needed was a reason, and nobody’s selling that because reasons are personal and personal doesn’t scale, and scaling is what built the empires we’re talking about.

Think about the last time you genuinely had time to yourself. Not time between things. Not time you were supposed to be doing something else. Actual time, with no agenda and no guilt attached. Can you remember it? Because most people can’t, and that’s not because they haven’t saved enough time. It’s because every tool designed to give them time back came with an implicit instruction manual that said, “Now do more.”

The furniture got moved around beautifully. The room looks different. But you’re still living in the same house, working the same hours, wondering why the kitchen always feels cluttered.

What Would You Do With a Free Tuesday?

Seriously. Think about it. Not a holiday Tuesday, when errands and obligations are dressed up as leisure. A real Tuesday. No meetings, no deliverables, no inbox quietly filling up like a bathtub with a slow leak. Just a Tuesday that belongs entirely to you. What would you do with it?

Most people, when asked this question, go blank. Not because they’re incapable of imagination, but because the question feels vaguely dangerous. Like admitting you’d like a free Tuesday is admitting you’re not committed enough, not hungry enough, not sufficiently devoted to the grind that everyone around you seems very publicly devoted to. We’ve spent so long optimizing our time that we’ve forgotten to have any opinions about what it’s actually for.

On the old Mickey Mouse Club, Tuesday was Anything Can Happen Day. Which, as a concept, is genuinely radical when you think about it. A whole day with no predetermined outcome. No agenda. No optimized workflow. Just Tuesday, wide open, ready for whatever showed up. We were fine with that once. We thought it sounded fun.

And here’s where it gets interesting. The brands selling you time savings have absolutely no interest in you having a free Tuesday. A free Tuesday is a problem for their business model. What they want is for you to save time on the thing they’re selling so you can spend that time on the next thing someone else is selling. The economy of time savings only works if the saved time is reinvested immediately. A person sitting quietly on a porch on a Tuesday afternoon, doing nothing in particular, eating a sandwich, maybe a good one with sriracha mayo and proper sausage, is not a growth market.

The time purse is a beautiful idea. The problem is nobody wants you to fill it. They want you to spend it before you even know you have it.

Busy Is a Choice. So Is the Sandwich. 

We’ve made busyness a personality. Not just a condition, a full identity with its own aesthetic, its own vocabulary, its own LinkedIn posts about grinding and hustle and sleeping when you’re dead. Busy means important. Busy means wanted. Busy means you matter in a way that a person sitting on a porch on a Tuesday afternoon apparently does not.

But here’s the thing about busyness. It’s the perfect hiding place. If you’re busy enough, you never have to answer the question of what you’d actually do with your time if you had it. You never have to find out whether you’d like the answer. The saved time never accumulates because you won’t let it. Every efficiency tool, every AI assistant, every app promising to give you your mornings back becomes a shovel you use to dig a bigger pile of things to do. Not because you have to. Because the alternative is a Tuesday with nothing in it, and that is apparently terrifying.

This isn’t a productivity problem. It’s an identity problem. We’ve confused the schedule with the self for so long that clearing the schedule feels like losing something. The brands know this, by the way. They’ve always known it. Busy people are the best customers. They’ll buy anything that promises relief without requiring them to actually stop.

So the next time a brand tells you it’s going to save you time, ask yourself what you’re planning to do with it. Not what you’ll probably do with it. What you actually want to do with it. There’s a difference, and that difference is where your actual life is hiding.

The Takeaway

At ThoughtLab, we spend a lot of time thinking about what brands promise versus what brands deliver. Not because we enjoy being difficult, although we do, but because the gap between those two things is usually where the most interesting work lives. And the time-saving promise is one of the oldest, most successful, most quietly dishonest gaps in the business.

Nobody is going to give you your time back. Not the app, not the AI, not the project management software with the friendly interface and the aggressive onboarding email sequence. What they can do, what the good ones actually do, is help you spend your time on things that matter instead of things that merely accumulate. That’s a different promise. It’s a harder promise to make and a harder one to keep, but it’s the one worth making.

Because here’s the question we’d leave you with. Not what tool is going to save you time, but what would you do if you actually had some? What’s the thing you keep not doing because you’re waiting for a window that never quite opens? What’s your Tuesday?

The time purse is yours. It’s always been yours. The question was never how to fill it. The question is whether you’re brave enough to spend it on something that doesn’t show up on a quarterly review.

FogTown opens at six. The sriracha mayo isn’t going to eat itself.