Emma Goto

If I had to sum up this book in one sentence it would be that the key to happiness and life satisfaction is to spend as much of your time in a “flow” state as possible. Even if you’re not familiar with the concept of flow itself, you’ve probably experienced it before - it’s that feeling when you really “lock in” to a task at hand, and can focus on it without any distractions, where time feels like it passes quicker, and you emerge with that satisfying sense of a job well done.

This isn’t just another pop science book on “how to find happiness” though, since the author Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi is a psychologist who had quite extensively studied and was the originator of this concept of “flow”. Although the book is over 30 years old now, it still feels quite relevant. It’s aimed at regular readers so it’s not too heavy on the scientific concepts and is quite an interesting read, although I do feel at times it does get quite wordy and meander a bit.

How to enter a flow state

To enter a state of flow, there’s a fine line to tread between finding something that’s challenging enough that your brain wants to lock onto it as a problem that it wants to solve, but not so challenging that you feel defeated and have to give up mid-way. For me, the most common time I enter flow is when I get stuck into some code and can spend some number of hours on fixing a bug or programming a new feature without my mind wandering anywhere else.

The kind of activity you need to be doing to enter a flow-state is something that requires a skill. You don’t need to necessarily be skilled though - it’s as long as the activity is appropriate for your skill level. A natural example is a sport, or a hobby like art, or suprisingly even walking can get you in a flow state, if you use the time to observe the environment around you, or are working towards achieving some sort of goal (visiting landmarks, or walking a certain distance and so on).

Something that doesn’t require flow would be something like watching TV, where you are a more of a passive consumer. I could imagine that it is still possible to get into a flow state when watching TV though - maybe if you used the time to notice certain visual techniques that are being used, or if you watched something not in your native language as a way to improve your language skills.

Flow at work vs for leisure

It’s towards the end of the book where I feel the book finally gets to the good part, and introduces a rather interesting paradox - people tend to spend the majority of their time in “flow” while at work, and not in their leisure time. And although they may say that they wish they had to work less, they actually reported higher levels of satisfaction at work rather than in their free time, due to the amount of time they spent in flow.

You can imagine plopping onto your couch after a tiring day’s work and just switching on the TV to decompress. It can take your mind off things, but since there’s really no challenge in it, you don’t enter a state of flow and it might not quite be as satisfying.

The book’s answer to this is quite complicated and it would be a disservice to sum it up as “don’t be tired” but it is sort of like that a bit. Or at least be able to see the work at you do from a more positive angle, so then you still have the energy at the end of the day to do other things to keep you in a flow state (or find a new job).

Live your life in a state of flow

The book ends with suggesting that you strive to live your life always being in a state of flow. This is not an easy feat, since even if you find a satisfying job or multiple hobbies to help you enter flow states, jumping between these different activities will have you exit in and out of flow. And so you must find an overarching goal (basically your life’s purpose) such that all your sub-goals and the things you do are helping you proceed towards that main goal, which should help you be in a sense of flow all of the time.

Much easier said than done!

Goal-setting is such a personal activity that the book can’t really give you the answers on what they should be. This book doesn’t have a sequel, but if it did I feel like a natural follow-on would be find some sort of book on goal-setting. Or possibly Cal Newport’s book on “Deep Work” which is essentially about removing distractions so that you can spend extended periods of time focusing (and thus being in a flow state).

My thoughts

Overall, this was a book that leaves you with a lot of food for thought. Since it mostly makes reference to past studies done in the 60s and 70s, I would have loved a follow-up book or a revised edition, just to see what else has been learned from the science in the past couple of decades. But alas, the author passed away in 2021.

Another thing that wasn’t really covered in the book, but that in hindsight I would have liked clarified, is the difference between hyperfocus and flow. Although hyperfocus can have its merits, it’s also sometimes characterised as a negative thing, where you focus on something to the detriment of other parts of your life. In contrast, Csikszentmihalyi describes flow positively as being in a state of “optimal experience”.

If I get so stuck into a programming problem that I skip lunch and only stop when I realise it’s gotten dark outside, is that still flow, or is that hyperfocus? (Or both?) When I was younger, I can similarly remember getting hooked on video games in the same way. I suppose when you come up for air after a period of being locked in, the difference between flow and hyperfocus would be how you feel afterwards. Satisfied, or a sense of dismay at how you whiled the hours away?

I actually originally read this book a couple of years ago, but I felt like it was worth the re-read so I could more properly digest its contents (and write this book note on it). I actually bought a physical copy of it too. It’d been a long while since I’ve read a physical book (everything is on my Kindle these days) but man does it feel good! It’s unfortunate that living in my tiny Japanese apartment makes it hard to buy books, but I’d love to go back to having a proper physical library of books one day if I get a bigger place.

The book starts off quite slow-paced, as we are introduced to a character who has decided to quit her job to run a local bookshop. I'll admit that at first I didn't see the point of it - I didn't feel like anything was happening plot-wise - but by the end I felt really charmed by this one.

As the bookshop becomes a community and a place for locals to gather, the owner starts to grow into her role as bookshop owner as well. By the end I really wanted to visit the bookshop myself.

When I was a kid I wanted to run a bookshop (and live on the second floor above it) which I'm sure is a common dream for bookworms. But I guess running a bookshop is often more about the people that come to the store rather than the books themselves. I'm not much of a people person so I guess I'm glad that dream didn't pan out 😂

In comparison to the long-accepted belief that diseases can be spread at short distances via droplets that are coughed onto people, the field of aerobiology has been trying to prove that diseases can instead float long distances through the air since the 1940s.

Unfortunately the idea didn't quite take off. It's quite a hard thing to have enough evidence to convince people (even though scientific studies were done), and there was also a lot of strong opposition from some scientists, partly because the miasma or "bad air" theory from a much earlier time in history had already been disproved.

It was only once we were months into COVID, and enough scientists made some noise that it started to become a more accepted theory in scientific society, as we discovered that COVID was indeed airborne.

I think it's an interesting book which goes to show as rational and logical the field of science seems to be, scientists are still human and can be quick to dismiss a theory if it sounds "stupid". I'm sure the environment of COVID didn't help, since people would not have wanted to stir up more panic by considering the fact that COVID could be airborne.

Interestingly, famed aviator Charles Lindbergh even makes an appearance as he helps a scientist carry out tests to see what’s floating up at high altitudes. I got a bit sidetracked and found out that he was quite the cheater, and there's even a conspiracy theory he killed his first child.

Overall an interesting read, it provides a fairly interesting overview of the field of aerobiology.

A robot steps out of his regular routine as a manservant and discovers that the human world as we know it seems to have died out. What's left are robots stuck with their programmed conditions - to wait for guests to arrive to serve them tea, for instance.

But since there are no guests coming, they are destined to wait forever.

Although Uncharles the robot is quite fixed (well, programmed) in his ways, it's not in an annoying way, and his POV adds an interesting layer to the story as we more immediately grasp what's going on compared to the naivety of Uncharles. Another great book by Tchaikovsky.

Aliens have come along, demolished Earth, and let a couple million of the remaining humans participate in a televised fight to the death for the rest of the universe to enjoy.

It's obviously an absurd situation, but the main character Carl is quite aware of the fact that a) most of Earth has died and b) more are dying every day. He also has a talking cat named Princess Donut.

So it's kind of this mix between humour and the depressing reality of it all? Good if you're looking for a fast-paced action book with a twist.

In comparison to the long-accepted belief that diseases can be spread at short distances via droplets that are coughed onto people, the field of aerobiology has been trying to prove that diseases can instead float long distances through the air since the 1940s.

Unfortunately the idea didn't quite take off. It's quite a hard thing to have enough evidence to convince people (even though scientific studies were done), and there was also a lot of strong opposition from some scientists, partly because the miasma or "bad air" theory from a much earlier time in history had already been disproved.

It was only once we were months into COVID, and enough scientists made some noise that it started to become a more accepted theory in scientific society, as we discovered that COVID was indeed airborne.

I think it's an interesting book which goes to show as rational and logical the field of science seems to be, scientists are still human and can be quick to dismiss a theory if it sounds "stupid". I'm sure the environment of COVID didn't help, since people would not have wanted to stir up more panic by considering the fact that COVID could be airborne.

Interestingly, famed aviator Charles Lindbergh even makes an appearance as he helps a scientist carry out tests to see what’s floating up at high altitudes. I got a bit sidetracked and found out that he was quite the cheater, and there's even a conspiracy theory he killed his first child.

Overall an interesting read, it provides a fairly interesting overview of the field of aerobiology.

When I saw my favourite book roasting podcast (If Books Could Kill) covered this book, I figured I'd read it first and then see how the podcast would roast it.

The book posits that thanks to feminism, women no longer need to rely on marriage (and men) for financial stability. But that it has left men in a weird spot where their societally defined role as a breadwinner hasn't really been updated with the times.

The author offers 3 solutions to try and help men in today's society:

1. Start boys a year later than girls at school to account for the different rates at which boys and girls mature. The podcast raises a good point that a) what do you do with childcare for the boys for an extra year and b) won't that cause stigma because it sends a message that boys are dumber than girls (at a young age anyway?)
2. Similar to the STEM drive for women, we should be having a HEAL drive for men to get them into traditionally "caring" roles like nursing, teaching etc.
3. Men and women get 6 months paid parental leave each - which ties into the idea of making childcare a bigger role in a man's life, since being the breadwinner is no longer the default option. The author does say though that maybe women can handle more of the younger years while men take on the older years... Could be interesting but not sure I agree.

Points 2 and 3 sound good, although it sounds quite expensive to get governments to implement. HEAL roles are criminally underpaid, and I feel like are less respected as professions in society - maybe bringing more men into the field could inadvertently help fix this as it becomes less of a "woman's job"?

And similarly with parental leave, at the end of the day women having to do more of the childcare is the real career killer, so we need to remove that assumed responsibility as much as possible so I'm in full agreement there.

However the author also doesn't think we need gender parity in STEM - his reasoning being that although it's taboo to say, some women are more likely to tend towards "caring" roles as a gender, and so maybe we should aim for a slightly lower number (I forget what he suggested, maybe 40/60?)

He also points to statistics where the gender ratio in STEM is closer to even in poorer countries, but surprisingly still very skewed in richer countries that have better gender equality overall - and so posits that this is because women are more likely to enter STEM when they need to financially, rather than because they truly want to do it as a career.

... A quick Google about this finds a study which terms this as the "Gender Equality Paradox" and that this could just be because the male/female stereotypes are stronger in richer countries, so it seems like the author may be wrong on that point. STEM does pay more, and so if we want to close the gender pay gap we probably should continue to aim for parity as much as possible.

Listening to the podcast afterwards, it went less roasty, and was more a good faith take on the topic. I only ended up getting halfway through it before being distracted by other things. Although the comments on Spotify were all pretty outraged that the podcast hosts went too easy on the book, I do think we need more conversations like this. I think people get a bit outraged because women's rights isn't really a "solved" issue and we still have a long way to go so it's like, why are we focusing on men? But I think with stuff like parental leave or a HEAL drive, it can help men and women at the same time, doesn't have to be an either or.

When I saw my favourite book roasting podcast (If Books Could Kill) covered this book, I figured I'd read it first and then see how the podcast would roast it.

The book posits that thanks to feminism, women no longer need to rely on marriage (and men) for financial stability. But that it has left men in a weird spot where their societally defined role as a breadwinner hasn't really been updated with the times.

The author offers 3 solutions to try and help men in today's society:

1. Start boys a year later than girls at school to account for the different rates at which boys and girls mature. The podcast raises a good point that a) what do you do with childcare for the boys for an extra year and b) won't that cause stigma because it sends a message that boys are dumber than girls (at a young age anyway?)
2. Similar to the STEM drive for women, we should be having a HEAL drive for men to get them into traditionally "caring" roles like nursing, teaching etc.
3. Men and women get 6 months paid parental leave each - which ties into the idea of making childcare a bigger role in a man's life, since being the breadwinner is no longer the default option. The author does say though that maybe women can handle more of the younger years while men take on the older years... Could be interesting but not sure I agree.

Points 2 and 3 sound good, although it sounds quite expensive to get governments to implement. HEAL roles are criminally underpaid, and I feel like are less respected as professions in society - maybe bringing more men into the field could inadvertently help fix this as it becomes less of a "woman's job"?

And similarly with parental leave, at the end of the day women having to do more of the childcare is the real career killer, so we need to remove that assumed responsibility as much as possible so I'm in full agreement there.

However the author also doesn't think we need gender parity in STEM - his reasoning being that although it's taboo to say, some women are more likely to tend towards "caring" roles as a gender, and so maybe we should aim for a slightly lower number (I forget what he suggested, maybe 40/60?)

He also points to statistics where the gender ratio in STEM is closer to even in poorer countries, but surprisingly still very skewed in richer countries that have better gender equality overall - and so posits that this is because women are more likely to enter STEM when they need to financially, rather than because they truly want to do it as a career.

... A quick Google about this finds a study which terms this as the "Gender Equality Paradox" and that this could just be because the male/female stereotypes are stronger in richer countries, so it seems like the author may be wrong on that point. STEM does pay more, and so if we want to close the gender pay gap we probably should continue to aim for parity as much as possible.

Listening to the podcast afterwards, it went less roasty, and was more a good faith take on the topic. I only ended up getting halfway through it before being distracted by other things. Although the comments on Spotify were all pretty outraged that the podcast hosts went too easy on the book, I do think we need more conversations like this. I think people get a bit outraged because women's rights isn't really a "solved" issue and we still have a long way to go so it's like, why are we focusing on men? But I think with stuff like parental leave or a HEAL drive, it can help men and women at the same time, doesn't have to be an either or.

A popular Japanese YA novel about 7 children who visit a mysterious castle via a portal that suddenly opens in their mirror. The one thing they all have in common - they all are not attending their local middle school.

The main character Kokoro is introduced to us as someone who refuses to leave the leave the house due to anxiety. Although her mother does try at first for her to attend an alternative school, she also seems pretty willing to let her daughter sit around at home all day. (Which works well for the story, since it gives Kokoro plenty of time to visit the castle).

I'm not sure if whether we are supposed to empathise with Kokoro or pity her? But she doesn't start off as much of a likeable character. The book continues along for over 6 months as the children get to know each other and reveal their backstories, while knowing that the castle will close before the next year school year begins.

I read a lot slower in Japanese, and I felt like the middle really dragged on which put me off from finishing it for months, but things finally picked up towards the end and I got through the last third in one day while on a long-distance plane trip. There was one twist at the end which I did see coming, and another one that I didn't - which I feel did a pretty good job of wrapping things up neatly.

I think it's not a bad one for language learning, but personally not something I'd recommend if I was reading it purely for the plot.

The second book in the “Before the Coffee Gets Cold” series, which centres around a Japanese cafe with the unique power to let its visitors time travel, but only within the bounds of the cafe, and before their cup of coffee gets cold. The original title for this book is “before the secret gets out”, and so the stories of the time travellers are themed around loss, whether it's travelling forward in time to confirm your own death, or travelling backwards to meet a deceased friend or lover.

As the title would suggest, in some of the stories they end up accidentally revealing to the person that they are going to die. It's written from the POV of the time traveller, who has their own struggles, but gosh. Letting someone know they are going to die soon is such a horrible thing to place on someone, right? And I'm surprised this plot point is just skipped over in the stories. Nonetheless, there are some bittersweet moments in the stories as the travellers learn how to move on after a loved one's death.

I read this one in Japanese, so for language learners I would say it’s quite good. Since the entire story takes place within the cafe, and the story is mostly dialog, it helps to keep things simple (complex plots are hard enough to keep up with, let alone in another language).

The second book in the “Before the Coffee Gets Cold” series, which centres around a Japanese cafe which has the unique power to let its visitors go back in time. The original title for this book is “before the secret gets out”, and the short stories in this one mostly involve going back in time to meet a deceased friend or lover.

As the title would suggest, in some of the stories they end up accidentally revealing to the person that they are going to die. It's written from the POV of the time traveller, who has their own struggles, but gosh. Letting someone know they are going to die soon is such a horrible thing to place on someone, right? And I'm surprised this plot point is kind of just skipped over in the stories.

I read this one in Japanese, so for language learners I would say it’s quite good. Since one of the time travelling rules are that you can’t leave the cafe, and the story is mostly dialog, it helps to keep things simple (complex plots are hard enough to keep up with, let alone in another language).