Explaining the world one sketch at a time

Sketchplanations makes complex ideas simple with clear, insightful sketches. Explore topics from science, creativity, psychology, and beyond explained in pictures.

New sketches by email

Learn something new in a sketch each Sunday

Recent sketches

Manager time, maker time

Manager Time and Maker Time explain how managers or makers need to manage time differently. In Manager Time, a day is neatly sliced up into hourly chunks according to the calendar. Meeting someone is as easy as finding a free slot that coincides. You don’t have to worry too much about what you’ll be doing next as your calendar will tell you. In Maker Time, a day is an open book to get something hard and meaningful done. Even thinking when a meeting might be and remembering to go can distract from getting on with making. Long, uninterrupted chunks of time, not sliced and diced by meetings on the hour, are ideal for making progress on hard problems and tackling something new. Even a single meeting in the middle of an afternoon can disrupt that long, meaningful chunk into two, making it harder to tackle something big as you have to context switch and pick up where you left off. Most modern offices operate on Manager Time. It’s great for meetings but comes at the cost of getting meaningful work done. If you’re a maker, you may associate with the feeling that to get some real work done, you need to do it on the weekend or an evening after everyone’s gone home, when you’ll be free of interruptions. If you’re a manager, consider your makers when you schedule your next meeting. This observation is from Paul Graham's excellent article Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule. Related: Umbrella management and funnel management Rubberducking…Manager Time and Maker Time explain how managers or makers need to manage time differently. In Manager Time, a day is neatly sliced up into hourly chunks according to the calendar. Meeting someone is as easy as finding a free slot that coincides. You don’t have to worry too much about what you’ll be doing next as your calendar will tell you. In Maker Time, a day is an open book to get something hard and meaningful done. Even thinking when a meeting might be and remembering to go can distract from getting on with making. Long, uninterrupted chunks of time, not sliced and diced by meetings on the hour, are ideal for making progress on hard problems and tackling something new. Even a single meeting in the middle of an afternoon can disrupt that long, meaningful chunk into two, making it harder to tackle something big as you have to context switch and pick up where you left off. Most modern offices operate on Manager Time. It’s great for meetings but comes at the cost of getting meaningful work done. If you’re a maker, you may associate with the feeling that to get some real work done, you need to do it on the weekend or an evening after everyone’s gone home, when you’ll be free of interruptions. If you’re a manager, consider your makers when you schedule your next meeting. This observation is from Paul Graham's excellent article Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule. Related: Umbrella management and funnel management Rubberducking

22 Aug 2020

Forcing functions in design - 2 examples: a hotel room with the lights controlled by key card and a lawnmower that needs both hands to turn it on

Forcing function — design

Forcing functions are a super way to help make things foolproof, or better, errorproof — as all of us make mistakes with designed things without being fools. You may have used your own forcing function when, in an attempt to make sure you remember your passport or tickets before a flight, you put them directly in front of the door so you couldn’t open it without noticing them. That little dialogue that asks you if you want to save your changes before closing your work, that’s a forcing function too. My first memory of understanding a forcing function was when working with a giant machine capable of cutting through 100 pieces of paper at a time. The two buttons to operate it were on opposite sides of the machine. I couldn’t start the machine without spreading my arms out wide. There was then no way to also accidentally have your fingers in with the paper and near the blades when it started. Smart. I learned this sense of forcing function from Don Norman’s classic The Design of Everyday Things. Also from Don, see Mapping. The other sense of forcing functions for productivity is also really useful: helping kick ourselves into action.…Forcing functions are a super way to help make things foolproof, or better, errorproof — as all of us make mistakes with designed things without being fools. You may have used your own forcing function when, in an attempt to make sure you remember your passport or tickets before a flight, you put them directly in front of the door so you couldn’t open it without noticing them. That little dialogue that asks you if you want to save your changes before closing your work, that’s a forcing function too. My first memory of understanding a forcing function was when working with a giant machine capable of cutting through 100 pieces of paper at a time. The two buttons to operate it were on opposite sides of the machine. I couldn’t start the machine without spreading my arms out wide. There was then no way to also accidentally have your fingers in with the paper and near the blades when it started. Smart. I learned this sense of forcing function from Don Norman’s classic The Design of Everyday Things. Also from Don, see Mapping. The other sense of forcing functions for productivity is also really useful: helping kick ourselves into action.

16 Aug 2020

The BS asymmetry principle

Also known as Brandolini’s Law, this is the simple observation that it’s far easier to produce and spread BS, misinformation and nonsense than it is to refute it. In fact, the iSchool at University of Washington launched a course on Calling Bullshit with the first class being booked up within one-minute of registration. The professors, Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West have since written a book: Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World. Phil Williamson in Nature also wrote a nice article emphasizing that we should take the time and effort to correct misinformation where we can. In it, he proposed the idea that “The global scientific community could…set up its own, moderated, rating system for websites that claim to report on science. We could call it the Scientific Honesty and Integrity Tracker, and give online nonsense the SHAIT rating it deserves.”…Also known as Brandolini’s Law, this is the simple observation that it’s far easier to produce and spread BS, misinformation and nonsense than it is to refute it. In fact, the iSchool at University of Washington launched a course on Calling Bullshit with the first class being booked up within one-minute of registration. The professors, Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West have since written a book: Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World. Phil Williamson in Nature also wrote a nice article emphasizing that we should take the time and effort to correct misinformation where we can. In it, he proposed the idea that “The global scientific community could…set up its own, moderated, rating system for websites that claim to report on science. We could call it the Scientific Honesty and Integrity Tracker, and give online nonsense the SHAIT rating it deserves.”

9 Aug 2020

RACI

This acronym acts as a handy checklist to consider and clarify roles and responsibilities for projects. You could even build a table — a Responsibility Assignment Matrix — with what needs to happen and the people who are involved identifying what relationship each person has for each task. In particular, sometimes making it clear who doesn’t have a say can be the most helpful thing to do. It breaks down somewhat like this: Responsible Who will actually be responsible for doing the task. Accountable Who is accountable for it being completed and achieving its goals. Consulted Whose opinion will be sought for the task, though they won’t be doing it themselves. Informed Who doesn’t get a say in the task, but will be kept informed of how it’s going.…This acronym acts as a handy checklist to consider and clarify roles and responsibilities for projects. You could even build a table — a Responsibility Assignment Matrix — with what needs to happen and the people who are involved identifying what relationship each person has for each task. In particular, sometimes making it clear who doesn’t have a say can be the most helpful thing to do. It breaks down somewhat like this: Responsible Who will actually be responsible for doing the task. Accountable Who is accountable for it being completed and achieving its goals. Consulted Whose opinion will be sought for the task, though they won’t be doing it themselves. Informed Who doesn’t get a say in the task, but will be kept informed of how it’s going.

1 Aug 2020

Schadenfreude

That satisfying, superior, and slightly sinful feeling you get when you see the police pull over the aggressive driver who just sped past you? That’s Schadenfreude. What is Schadenfreude? Schadenfreude is the pleasure we take in someone else's misfortune. The word is a loanword from German, combining Schaden (damage, harm, or hurt) and Freude (joy or happiness). Schadenfreude follows the same linguistic pattern as Vorfreude, which means anticipatory joy—the excitement we feel in anticipation of something positive. At first glance, taking pleasure in someone else's hardship might seem unkind or even morally dubious. Is it a character flaw? Am I an evil person? Yet, on a little more reflection, we discover that Schadenfreude escapes few of us and is both commonplace and revealing about ourselves. Why Do We Feel Schadenfreude? I hadn't thought much of Schadenfreude before reading some excerpts from Tiffany Watt Smith's book Schadenfreude. She makes a compelling case for examining the moments when we feel superior at another's expense as a small window into ourselves. The moments we feel Schadenfreude—whether small or significant—often reflect our personal insecurities, values, or sense of justice. As Nietzsche described, Schadenfreude can be "the revenge of the impotent," emerging from feelings of powerlessness or envy. A boost to self-esteem: When a colleague doesn't get a promotion, a little twinge of joy might reveal your jealousy of their situation or a deep-down resentment of unfairness. Justice served: If the person who pushed in front of you in line drops their ice cream right after buying it, your satisfaction might be a sense of justice and equity for obeying the rules when they didn't. A window into our values: Schadenfreude can highlight what matters to us, whether it's fairness, competition, or maintaining a sense of order. Understanding these moments doesn't make the feeling disappear, but it can help us use Schadenfreude as an opportunity for self-reflection. Examples of Schadenfreude Schadenfreude in Films and Stories: The Villain's Comeuppance At first, I thought that, like a Buddhist monk, I might rise above Schadenfreude and not let my weakness affect me. Yet, as we discussed it in our podcast on Schadenfreude, we realised that it's a common theme through so many Western stories and films. An almost universal theme for films involving good guys and bad guys is the eventual comeuppance, or reckoning, for the evil protagonist. In other words, the bad guys tend to lose and suffer in a nasty way. You know, things like getting pushed out of an airlock, having to walk the plank themselves, or being bitten by their deadly pets. Consider James Bond saying "shocking" as the villain he's been battling falls onto electric lines. Much the same as a mob may have felt when bringing a criminal to justice, typically, we don't pity the bad guy. Often, the writer intends the bad guy's nasty end and the good guy's triumph against adversity to be the most satisfying part of the film—Schadenfreude at work. Schadenfreude in sport Schadenfreude is alive and well, in fact, practically encouraged in sports. In some ways, Schadenfreude is what many sports fans enjoy about sports. Imagine if the winning fans always shook hands with the losing fans, saying, "Jolly well played, you were very unlucky," and the losers said, "You were just too good for us today; good luck to you." Much of the rivalry that so many enjoy in sports would be lost. I know I've felt Schadenfreude when a player I dislike misses a penalty they didn't deserve—even when they're not playing against my team. It feels right, and it's hard not to feel satisfied. In fact, it feels good. I also learned that football fans can feel greater joy when their biggest rivals lose than when their teams win. Now, perhaps the world of sport would be a better place schadenfreude-free, but I can't see it happening any time soon. Reflecting on Schadenfreude While I can't wholly evade Schadenfreude, I aim to avoid its strong feelings. It makes no difference to me if a rude person later has a bad day. I should focus on what I can control and how I react to situations. When someone is mean, it's better if they come to understand a little how their actions impact others than if they have a terrible time. Having a miserable time may cause them to reflect on their actions and be more considerate in future. Or, more likely, it will cause them to be bitter and have no change at all. But when Schadenfreude strikes me, it's now an interesting opportunity for reflection. What does this feeling reveal about my values, and how can I use this insight to improve myself? Perhaps give it a try. Read More For a mini-intro to the intrigues of Schadenfreude, try Tiffany Watt Smith's TED Ideas article: Do you secretly feel good when others stumble? 5 ways to make peace with this very human emotion. I revised this sketch for the book Big Ideas Little Pictures. Ideas related to Schadenfreude If you found Schadenfreude intriguing, you might enjoy these related concepts: Vorfreude: The pleasure of anticipation—like the joy of looking forward to a holiday. Fading Affect Bias: Why we tend to remember negative experiences less vividly than positive ones. Emotional Hot Potato: How negative emotions can spread like a game of hot potato. Fact Tennis: The competitive back-and-forth exchange of facts in conversations. Self-serving Bias: Our tendency to attribute successes to our character and failures to external factors.…That satisfying, superior, and slightly sinful feeling you get when you see the police pull over the aggressive driver who just sped past you? That’s Schadenfreude. What is Schadenfreude? Schadenfreude is the pleasure we take in someone else's misfortune. The word is a loanword from German, combining Schaden (damage, harm, or hurt) and Freude (joy or happiness). Schadenfreude follows the same linguistic pattern as Vorfreude, which means anticipatory joy—the excitement we feel in anticipation of something positive. At first glance, taking pleasure in someone else's hardship might seem unkind or even morally dubious. Is it a character flaw? Am I an evil person? Yet, on a little more reflection, we discover that Schadenfreude escapes few of us and is both commonplace and revealing about ourselves. Why Do We Feel Schadenfreude? I hadn't thought much of Schadenfreude before reading some excerpts from Tiffany Watt Smith's book Schadenfreude. She makes a compelling case for examining the moments when we feel superior at another's expense as a small window into ourselves. The moments we feel Schadenfreude—whether small or significant—often reflect our personal insecurities, values, or sense of justice. As Nietzsche described, Schadenfreude can be "the revenge of the impotent," emerging from feelings of powerlessness or envy. A boost to self-esteem: When a colleague doesn't get a promotion, a little twinge of joy might reveal your jealousy of their situation or a deep-down resentment of unfairness. Justice served: If the person who pushed in front of you in line drops their ice cream right after buying it, your satisfaction might be a sense of justice and equity for obeying the rules when they didn't. A window into our values: Schadenfreude can highlight what matters to us, whether it's fairness, competition, or maintaining a sense of order. Understanding these moments doesn't make the feeling disappear, but it can help us use Schadenfreude as an opportunity for self-reflection. Examples of Schadenfreude Schadenfreude in Films and Stories: The Villain's Comeuppance At first, I thought that, like a Buddhist monk, I might rise above Schadenfreude and not let my weakness affect me. Yet, as we discussed it in our podcast on Schadenfreude, we realised that it's a common theme through so many Western stories and films. An almost universal theme for films involving good guys and bad guys is the eventual comeuppance, or reckoning, for the evil protagonist. In other words, the bad guys tend to lose and suffer in a nasty way. You know, things like getting pushed out of an airlock, having to walk the plank themselves, or being bitten by their deadly pets. Consider James Bond saying "shocking" as the villain he's been battling falls onto electric lines. Much the same as a mob may have felt when bringing a criminal to justice, typically, we don't pity the bad guy. Often, the writer intends the bad guy's nasty end and the good guy's triumph against adversity to be the most satisfying part of the film—Schadenfreude at work. Schadenfreude in sport Schadenfreude is alive and well, in fact, practically encouraged in sports. In some ways, Schadenfreude is what many sports fans enjoy about sports. Imagine if the winning fans always shook hands with the losing fans, saying, "Jolly well played, you were very unlucky," and the losers said, "You were just too good for us today; good luck to you." Much of the rivalry that so many enjoy in sports would be lost. I know I've felt Schadenfreude when a player I dislike misses a penalty they didn't deserve—even when they're not playing against my team. It feels right, and it's hard not to feel satisfied. In fact, it feels good. I also learned that football fans can feel greater joy when their biggest rivals lose than when their teams win. Now, perhaps the world of sport would be a better place schadenfreude-free, but I can't see it happening any time soon. Reflecting on Schadenfreude While I can't wholly evade Schadenfreude, I aim to avoid its strong feelings. It makes no difference to me if a rude person later has a bad day. I should focus on what I can control and how I react to situations. When someone is mean, it's better if they come to understand a little how their actions impact others than if they have a terrible time. Having a miserable time may cause them to reflect on their actions and be more considerate in future. Or, more likely, it will cause them to be bitter and have no change at all. But when Schadenfreude strikes me, it's now an interesting opportunity for reflection. What does this feeling reveal about my values, and how can I use this insight to improve myself? Perhaps give it a try. Read More For a mini-intro to the intrigues of Schadenfreude, try Tiffany Watt Smith's TED Ideas article: Do you secretly feel good when others stumble? 5 ways to make peace with this very human emotion. I revised this sketch for the book Big Ideas Little Pictures. Ideas related to Schadenfreude If you found Schadenfreude intriguing, you might enjoy these related concepts: Vorfreude: The pleasure of anticipation—like the joy of looking forward to a holiday. Fading Affect Bias: Why we tend to remember negative experiences less vividly than positive ones. Emotional Hot Potato: How negative emotions can spread like a game of hot potato. Fact Tennis: The competitive back-and-forth exchange of facts in conversations. Self-serving Bias: Our tendency to attribute successes to our character and failures to external factors.

26 Jul 2020

Survivorship bias

So the story goes, as told by Stephen Sigler, Nature May 1989: "The US military studied fighter planes returning from missions to try to improve their survival rate and were considering adding heavy armour to those parts of the plane that tended to show the greatest concentration of hits from enemy fire, until statisticians pointed out the fallacy of that argument. The more vulnerable parts of the plane were those with the fewest hits; planes hit there tended not to return at all. The single most vulnerable part, the pilot’s head, was without serious scar in the sample of planes that returned." It’s easy to draw correlations from what we see in front of us. But what we see usually represents just a small part of what has happened. Focusing on the evidence we can easily see at the expense of that we can’t leads to survivorship bias. To say it another way, when Bill Gates drops out of college and starts Microsoft it might seem like dropping out is a path to success for others too, but that ignores all the dropouts who didn’t create Microsofts and consequently you didn’t hear about. Silent evidence — the evidence that we don’t or can’t easily choose to consider — is a term from Nicholas Nassim Talleb. When trying to discover the veracity of the planes story I enjoyed Bill Casselman’s American Mathematical Society article on The Legend of Abraham Wald. The postscript points to some of the source behind the story including a mention of Stephen Sigler’s letter in Nature quoted above. I covered survivorship bias before, but I like this story so much I thought it was worth doing again.…So the story goes, as told by Stephen Sigler, Nature May 1989: "The US military studied fighter planes returning from missions to try to improve their survival rate and were considering adding heavy armour to those parts of the plane that tended to show the greatest concentration of hits from enemy fire, until statisticians pointed out the fallacy of that argument. The more vulnerable parts of the plane were those with the fewest hits; planes hit there tended not to return at all. The single most vulnerable part, the pilot’s head, was without serious scar in the sample of planes that returned." It’s easy to draw correlations from what we see in front of us. But what we see usually represents just a small part of what has happened. Focusing on the evidence we can easily see at the expense of that we can’t leads to survivorship bias. To say it another way, when Bill Gates drops out of college and starts Microsoft it might seem like dropping out is a path to success for others too, but that ignores all the dropouts who didn’t create Microsofts and consequently you didn’t hear about. Silent evidence — the evidence that we don’t or can’t easily choose to consider — is a term from Nicholas Nassim Talleb. When trying to discover the veracity of the planes story I enjoyed Bill Casselman’s American Mathematical Society article on The Legend of Abraham Wald. The postscript points to some of the source behind the story including a mention of Stephen Sigler’s letter in Nature quoted above. I covered survivorship bias before, but I like this story so much I thought it was worth doing again.

19 Jul 2020

Search·Categories·Archive·List