Why Fish Don’t Know They’re Wet

You know that David Foster Wallace speech about fish? Two young fish swimming along, older fish passes and says “Morning boys, how’s the water?” The young fish swim on, then one turns to the other: “What the hell is water?”

That’s the point. We don’t notice what we’re swimming in.

The Furniture We Sit In

Think about chairs. If you grew up sitting in chairs, you probably can’t comfortably squat all the way down with your feet flat on the ground. Try it right now. Most Americans can’t do it—our hips and ankles don’t have that range anymore.

But people in many Asian countries can squat like that easily. They didn’t sit in chairs as much growing up, so their bodies kept that mobility.

The chair didn’t reveal “the natural way to sit.” It created a way to sit, and then our bodies adapted to it. We lost other ways of sitting without noticing.

Stories and language work the same way. They’re like furniture for our minds.

Mental Furniture

The stories you grow up hearing shape what thoughts seem natural and what thoughts seem strange or even impossible.

If you grow up hearing stories where the hero goes on a journey, faces challenges, and comes back changed—you’ll expect your own life to work that way. When something bad happens, you might think “this is my challenge, I’ll grow from this.” That’s not wrong, but it’s not the only way to think.

Other cultures tell different stories:

  • Some stories teach “be clever and survive” instead of “face your fears and grow”
  • Some teach “keep the group happy” instead of “discover who you really are”
  • Some teach “things go in cycles” instead of “you’re on a journey forward”

None of these is more true than the others. They’re just different furniture. They each let you sit in some positions comfortably while making other positions hard or impossible.

Reality Tunnels

Writer Robert Anton Wilson called this your “reality tunnel”—the lens made of your beliefs, language, and experiences that shapes what you can see. He was right that we’re all looking through tunnels, not at raw reality.

Wilson believed you could learn to switch between different reality tunnels—adopt a completely different way of seeing for a while, then switch to another one. Try thinking like a conspiracy theorist for a week, then like a scientist, then like a mystic.

He wasn’t completely wrong. But switching tunnels isn’t as easy as Wilson sometimes made it sound. It’s more like switching languages—you need immersion, practice, and maintenance, or you just end up back in your native tunnel when things get difficult.

Why This Matters

When you only have one kind of mental furniture, you think that’s just how thinking works. Like those fish who don’t know they’re in water.

But when you realize stories and language are furniture—not reality—you get some important abilities:

First: You notice when your furniture isn’t working. Sometimes you face a problem where thinking “I need to grow from this challenge” actually makes things worse. Maybe you just need to be clever and get through it. Or maybe you need to stop focusing on yourself and think about the group. Your usual way of thinking might be the wrong tool for this specific situation.

Second: You can learn to use different tools. Not perfectly—that takes years of practice, like learning a new language. But you can borrow techniques.

Want to think more tactically? Read trickster stories—the wise fool who outsmarts powerful people through wit rather than strength.

Want to notice how groups work? Pay attention to stories that focus on harmony and relationships instead of individual heroes.

Want to see patterns instead of progress? Look at stories where things cycle and repeat instead of moving forward to an ending.

Third: No framework gets to be the boss. This is where it gets interesting. Once you see that all frameworks are furniture, none of them can claim to be “reality itself.” They’re all tools.

Think about how cleanliness norms work in Japan. There’s no cleanliness police enforcing the rules. People maintain incredibly high standards because they value the outcome. The structure is real and binding, but not coercive.

Your mental frameworks can work the same way. You choose which ones to use based on what you value and what works, not because any of them is “the truth.” That’s a kind of mental anarchism—no imposed authority telling you how you must think, but still having structure because you value what it enables.

The Hard Part

Here’s what most people don’t want to hear: different frameworks sometimes genuinely conflict. There’s no way to make them all fit together nicely.

An anthropologist once read Shakespeare’s Hamlet to a tribe. The tribesmen thought Hamlet’s uncle marrying his mother was perfectly reasonable, and Hamlet’s reaction seemed childish. They weren’t offering “an alternative interpretation.” From their framework, the Western reading was simply wrong.

This creates real tension. You can’t be “in” two incompatible frameworks at once. You have to actually pick, at least for that moment. And when you’re stressed or in crisis, you’ll probably default back to your native framework—the one you grew up with.

The question is whether you can recover perspective afterward: “That framework felt like reality in the moment, but it doesn’t own reality.”

The Practical Part

You probably can’t completely change your mental furniture. That would be like growing up again in a different culture. It would take years of immersion in situations where a different framework actually matters—where there are real consequences for not using it.

But you can do three things:

Stay aware that you’re sitting in furniture, not on the ground. Notice when your usual way of thinking is just one option, not the truth.

Borrow strategically from other frameworks for specific situations. Use a different mental model, tell yourself a different kind of story about what’s happening, ask different questions. Not because the new furniture is better, but because sometimes it gives you a view you couldn’t see from your regular chair.

Accept the tension when frameworks conflict. Don’t try to force them into a neat synthesis. Real anarchism isn’t chaos—it’s having structure without letting any structure claim ultimate authority. You maintain your primary way of thinking because you value what it enables, not because it’s “true.” And you accept that other frameworks might be genuinely incompatible with yours, with no neutral way to resolve it.

The Bottom Line

We all swim in water—language, stories, ways of thinking that feel natural but are actually learned. The point isn’t to get out of the water. You can’t.

The point is to notice it’s there. To see that your framework is a way, not the way. To choose which furniture to sit in based on what you value and what the situation demands, not because someone told you that’s reality.

That’s harder than it sounds. When things get tough, your native framework will reassert itself and feel like the only truth. But if you can recover perspective afterward—if you can remember that you were sitting in furniture, not touching the ground—you’ve gained something real.

It’s a kind of freedom. Not the easy freedom of “believe whatever you want.” The harder freedom of “no framework owns you, but you still need frameworks to function.”

That’s not much. But it’s something. And it beats being the fish who never even knew there was water.

Parable of Teaching Horses to Sing

“A thief was captured and hauled before the local ruler. ‘Give me one good reason I shouldn’t have you put to death,’ the monarch said. The thief replied, ‘Your majesty, I can teach your finest horse to sing – if you give me a year to do it!’ The court burst out in laughter at this, and the ruler, bemused, said, ‘Very well. You will be imprisoned in the royal stable besides my finest stallion, and in a year if he cannot sing, you will be put to death.’ So every day the prisoner sang to the horse. Eventually one of the stablehands sneered at the prisoner, ‘I don’t see why you bother. Everyone knows horses can’t sing. Your stupid gambit gained you nothing.’

‘To the contrary!’ replied the prisoner with equanimity, ‘It gained me a whole year which I didn’t have before. A lot can happen in a year. The king may die. The horse may die. I may die.

And maybe he horse will learn to sing.'”

h/t Siderea.

Lludd and Llefelys

Lludd and Llefelys, one of the medieval Welsh tales collected in the Mabinogion, is a vision of the internet. In fact, it describes the internet twice. Here, a terrible plague has settled on Britain: the arrival of the Coraniaid, an invincible supernatural enemy. What makes the Coraniaid so dangerous is their incredibly sharp hearing. They can hear everything that’s said, everywhere on the island, even a whisper hundreds of miles away. They already know the details of every plot against them. People have stopped talking; it’s the only way to stay safe. To defeat them, the brothers Lludd and Llefelys start speaking to each other through a brass horn, which protects their words. Today, we’d call it encryption. But this horn contains a demon; whatever you speak into it, the words that come out are always cruel and hostile. This medium turns the brothers against each other; it’s a communications device that makes them more alone. In the story, the brothers get rid of the demon by washing out the horn with wine. I’m not so sure we can do that today: the horn and its demon are one and the same thing.”

Sam Kriss, “The Internet is Made of Demons.” Damage Magazine. April 21, 2022.

Interesting metaphor.

The Good Guy/Bad Guy Myth

“Less discussed is the historic shift that altered the nature of so many of our modern retellings of folklore, to wit: the idea that people on opposite sides of conflicts have different moral qualities, and fight over their values. That shift lies in the good guy/bad guy dichotomy, where people no longer fight over who gets dinner, or who gets Helen of Troy, but over who gets to change or improve society’s values. Good guys stand up for what they believe in, and are willing to die for a cause. This trope is so omnipresent in our modern stories, movies, books, even our political metaphors, that it is sometimes difficult to see how new it is, or how bizarre it looks, considered in light of either ethics or storytelling…

When I talked with Andrea Pitzer, the author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps (2017), about the rise of the idea that people on opposite sides of conflicts have different moral qualities, she told me: ‘Three inventions collided to make concentration camps possible: barbed wire, automatic weapons, and the belief that whole categories of people should be locked up.’ When we read, watch and tell stories of good guys warring against bad guys, we are essentially persuading ourselves that our opponents would not be fighting us, indeed they would not be on the other team at all, if they had any loyalty or valued human life. In short, we are rehearsing the idea that moral qualities belong to categories of people rather than individuals. It is the Grimms’ and von Herder’s vision taken to its logical nationalist conclusion that implies that ‘categories of people should be locked up’.”

-Marina Benjamin, “The good guy/bad guy myth.” Aeon. January 29, 2018

Directive

Beginning of a six-part fiction series about a man working completely alone aboard a spaceship bound for a new planet. His fellow passengers will remain cryogenically frozen for the 20 years it will take for the ship to reach its destination; Frank’s work is to maintain the environment and make sure all is proceeding as it should. Despite his solitude, the show is actually a dialogue between Frank and Casper, the spaceship’s AI. They have an abrasive, dependent relationship, and the progression of the series made me think a lot about where our current interactions with AI tech might lead (12m38s).”

—”Hebrew, Frozen, Dark.” TheListener.co. September 19, 2019.

Why Fiction Trumps Truth

“When it comes to uniting people around a common story, fiction actually enjoys three inherent advantages over the truth. First, whereas the truth is universal, fictions tend to be local. Consequently if we want to distinguish our tribe from foreigners, a fictional story will serve as a far better identity marker than a true story…

…The second huge advantage of fiction over truth has to do with the handicap principle, which says that reliable signals must be costly to the signaler. Otherwise, they can easily be faked by cheaters…

…Third, and most important, the truth is often painful and disturbing. Hence if you stick to unalloyed reality, few people will follow you.”

—Yuval Noah Harari, “Why Fiction Trumps Truth.” The New York Times. May 24, 2019.

Gratuities at Your Discretion

“Opera is, in fact, a quite close cousin to video gaming or porn, in that the storytelling really is not much more than an excuse for a bunch of insanely gifted singers to belt out a succession of heart-rending crowd-pleaser torch songs. Ditto, to some extent, Shakespeare – let’s face it, you’re not at a production of Lear or Othello or Macbeth to see how the story comes out. You’re in it for the visceral thrill of the language, the delivery of soliloquies and declamations, the soaring, gut-wrenching sight of those time-worn characters getting wrung out and destroyed in iambic pentameter glory. But no-one talks about gratuitous chunks of metered verse, or gratuitous extended melodic range, because to do so would force a reassessment of what’s really going on. You’d get short shrift if, like me, you bellyached about all the gratuitous singing and dancing in a Bollywood movie – that’s part of the conventions of the form, you’d be told. You have to tune up, you have to take a more culturally sophisticated approach to these things.

Damn straight, we do.

All of us.”

—Richard K. Morgan, “Gratuities at Your Discretion.” RichardKMorgan.com. April 5, 2016.

The Minto Pyramid Principle for Writing

Barbara Minto‘s “The Minto Pyramid Principle” is a how-to guide for writing concise reports in a management consulting firm that has been around for years. I wrote a one sheet summary of her book over a decade ago that I still sometimes find to be a useful aid for writing. While it might be overkill for most writing we do, it is still a useful reference.

First Things First, Subject/Predicate

  1. What is the subject you are writing about?
  2. What is the question you are answering in the reader’s mind about the subject?
  3. What is the answer?

Make It a Story

  1. What is a situation where the Subject/Predicate can be illustrated?
  2. What problems complicate the situation?
  3. Do the question and answer still follow?

Find The Key Line or Take-Away

  1. What new question is raised by the answer?
  2. Will you answer it, inductively or deductively?
  3. If you answer inductively, what is your plural noun?

Always Do

  1. Dramatize the main idea using imagery.
  2. Imagine a doer – for analysis and writing.
  3. List all the points you want to make, then find relationships.

Rules

  1. Ideas at any level must always be summaries of the ideas below.
  2. Ideas in each grouping must always be the same kind of idea.
  3. Ideas in each grouping must always be logically ordered.

For Beginners

  1. Always try top down first.
  2. Use the Situation for thinking through the introduction.
  3. Don’t omit to think through the introduction.
  4. Always put historical chronology in the introduction.
  5. Limit the introduction to what the reader will agree is true.
  6. Be sure to support all key line points.

Initial Questions

  1. What is the problem?
  2. Where does it lie?
  3. Why does it exist?
  4. What could we do about it?
  5. What should we do about it?

Introductions/Openings

  1. Introductions are meant to remind not inform.
  2. They should contain the three story elements.
  3. Length of introduction depends on reader and subject.

Headings

  1. Never use only one element for a heading.
  2. Show parallel ideas in parallel form.
  3. Limit to the essence of thought.
  4. Don’t regard headings as part of the text
  5. Introduce each group of headings.
  6. Don’t overdo.

Critical Focus

  1. Question the order in a grouping – time, structure, or ranking.
  2. Question source(s) used in the problem solving process.
  3. Question the summary statement.
  4. Question your expression.

Structures for Evaluation

  1. Financial structure – consider strictly financial issues.
  2. Task structure – focus on how work gets done.
  3. Activity structure – focus on what needs to happen to create problem.
  4. Choice structure – bifurcate choices.
  5. Sequential structure – combination choice and activity structure.