Humans Love Stories

A tribute to Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky. MIT.

We connect with narratives more than numbers, react to emotions over logic, and make decisions based on perception rather than statistical reality. This isn’t just an individual quirk, it’s a fundamental part of how societies operate. The unpractical part of this is that the world we think we live in is often a carefully constructed illusion, shaped by media, misinformation, and our own cognitive biases. But wait theres more. Most people don’t even realize it.

Emotions are the filter through which we understand the world. When we hear about a tragic accident, a shocking crime, or an emotional personal story, it feels real. But the numbers that tell the bigger story? Those are harder to grasp, and often, they’re ignored.

We connect emotionally with individuals, not statistics.

We make decisions based on perception, not probability. A single shark attack makes people afraid of the ocean, yet few consider the far greater risk of driving to the beach in the first place.

The result? Our fears, anxieties, and even our policies reflect the stories we’re fed, not the world as it actually exists.

The phrase “If it bleeds, it leads” isn’t just a catchy saying-it’s a business model. Media doesn’t show us what’s most important; it shows us what’s most compelling. And compelling doesn’t always mean true.

Succession. HBO. 

Violent deaths dominate coverage but are rare. Violent or freak accidents account for more than two-thirds of coverage in major newspapers but less than 3% of total deaths in the U.S.

Public policy follows perception, not data. Governments allocate billions to counterterrorism, while preventable diseases kill far more people with little urgency.

Fear-based reporting keeps people tuned in. When the world feels scary, we watch more news. And when we watch more news, the cycle of fear continues.

The consequences are real: when society overreacts to rare events while ignoring daily systemic failures, we end up solving the wrong problems.

False information spreads 70% faster than the truth (Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral 2018. MIT), and it’s not because people are stupid, simply misinformation is designed to trigger emotion.

Monsters Inc. Pixar.

News thrives on outrage. False stories are more likely to evoke anger, shock, or disgust, making people share them before verifying their accuracy.

People believe what feels true. Once an emotionally charged falsehood takes root, facts alone rarely dislodge it, and you are more likely to see people dig their heels into it. 

If critical thinking is the answer, why don’t we all just… think critically? Because it’s not that simple. Unlike language, critical thinking isn’t universal. Being logical in one area doesn’t mean you apply the same skepticism everywhere. Even highly educated people fall for bias when it aligns with their emotions.

If we can’t change human nature, can we at least change how we interact with information?

• Pause before reacting. If something sparks immediate outrage or fear, ask: Who benefits from me feeling this way?
• Seek context. One shocking story isn’t the whole picture. Look for the bigger trends.
• Challenge easy narratives. If something sounds too simple, it probably is. Reality is messy!

A society that values reason over reaction, analysis over outrage, and truth over sensationalism is a healthier society. It’s not about suppressing emotions—it’s about making sure our emotions aren’t being manipulated.

Alice, Unwritten

The jasmine flower did what it was meant to do. As the water embraced it, its petals loosened, unfurling in slow, delicate spirals, stretching as though waking from a dream. Wisps of fragrance curled into the air, sweet, fleeting, impossibly light. Alice watched as the transformation unfolded in her cup, a quiet kind of magic. An awakening that whispered, rather than announced itself, simply becoming.

She lifted the porcelain to her lips, inhaling the scent before taking the first sip. The warmth slid down her throat, blooming from the inside. But something in the air shifted. A ripple, as if the world itself had exhaled.

The newspaper beside her blinked, if paper could blink. The ripple passed through the pages, like a dress caught in a soft breeze. Letters loosened, dissolving, then reforming elsewhere, sentences slipping into new shapes before her eyes. Ink pulsed-first words, then images, landscapes, and figures she almost recognized. Or had always known. She reached for the paper, but it was not a newspaper at all. Not anymore. The edges of her vision blurred, colors deepening as if the world had taken a slow breath and let itself sink. The chair beneath her softened; the floor, lighter than mist, gave way like clouds kissed by morning light. The sky stretched into pastels, lavender skies, peach-hued clouds, a blush-pink horizon unspooling like silk. Reality did not break or dissolve, only bent, folded, expanded, as gentle and certain as the jasmine flower in her tea.

She stood now in a vast, color shifting land where everything made sense until it didn’t, and nothing was real until it was questioned.

You say that I need therapy

Well, my darling, so do you

Don't need for you to tell me

What is wrong in all I say or do

in a world obsessed with perfection, no filters, no edits, just me.

Testing Loss Aversion Theory in Real Life

Loss is Weird.
We know it happens, but when it hits, it still feels like a personal betrayal. The human brain is wired to feel losses more intensely than gains—a little quirk called loss aversion that makes setbacks feel like the end of the world, even when they’re just temporary data points.

So I did something unconventional—I took my biggest loss and turned it into a mathematical problem.

How much did I really lose? Not just in dollars, but in time, mental health, and future opportunity. And more importantly, how long would it take to get me back to "baseline"—the state I was in before this loss occurred?

The Reality of Losing
One minute, I had a stable paycheck. The next, I didn’t.

Throw in legal fees, an existential crisis, and a brief loss of freedom, and you’ve got yourself a story. But instead of letting the weight of it crush me, I wanted to quantify it. Because if I could measure the loss, I could also measure the way back.

The Psychology of Loss
Humans hate losing. In fact, psychological studies show that we feel the pain of a loss twice as strongly as we feel the joy of an equivalent gain.

That means even if I made all my money back tomorrow, it wouldn’t automatically cancel out the gut punch of losing it in the first place. But I wanted to test this theory on myself.

If loss is disproportionately painful, what happens when you measure it?

If you break it down into numbers instead of feelings, does it start to feel… fixable?

So I did what any completely normal person would do when staring into the abyss—I ran the numbers on my own downfall.

The Breakdown: What I Actually Lost
Here’s how it stacked up:
ᐧ Income lost: $31,250 (thanks to five months of unemployment).
ᐧ Legal fees & penalties: $7,000.
ᐧ Total financial hit: $38,250.

But that’s just money. The real loss? The psychological cost.

How do you quantify losing peace of mind? Or the weight of waking up every day feeling like you have no control over what happens next?

I needed a way to measure that, so I applied a psychological distress multiplier—based on studies showing how major life stressors impact productivity, happiness, and long-term resilience.

The result? A total weighted loss of $114,750 when factoring in the emotional cost.

Three times the actual financial hit.

Loss aversion wasn’t just an abstract theory, it was happening in real time.

The Recovery Equation
Okay, so if the pain of loss is exaggerated, then the recovery must be undervalued, right?

I tested different paths forward.
If I landed a job paying twice my old salary ($150K/year), I’d make back the financial loss in under a year—but would it feel like a win?
If I landed a job paying three times my salary ($225K/year), would that cancel out the emotional damage?
Turns out, no.

Loss aversion says that money alone wouldn’t erase the wound.

The job itself had to do more, it had to restore autonomy.

Because if loss is really about losing control, then true recovery isn’t just about making the money back.

It’s about choosing a role, an environment, and a direction that puts me back in the driver’s seat.

Otherwise, it’s just a high-paying band-aid.

Revisiting the Variables 
Instead of asking "What salary do I want?", the real question is:

🐞 How much do I need to earn (and for how long) to fully recover from the loss?
🐝 What job level makes that a reality in the shortest possible time?

Breaking Down Recovery Time by Salary Tiers
Salary Level                 Annual Income Gain ($)     Time to Recover (Years)

$112K (1.5x salary)       $37,500                                     3.1 years
$150K (2x salary)        $75,000                                     1.5 years
$225K (3x salary)       $150,000                                   Under 1 year

So, objectively:
A $150K job gets me back to baseline in about 1.5 years.
A $225K job neutralizes the loss in under a year.

The Bottom Line: It’s Just Math.
If a higher-paying role matches my skills and gets me back to a stable mental & financial state faster, it’s simply the most efficient choice.

Because at the end of the day, loss isn't just about what’s taken from you.

It’s about what you choose to take back.

But then again…

Can you really lose something you never had to begin with?

Government is Just Versailles Without the Wigs

Marie Antoinette. 2006

You know you love a good power play. And no one plays the game better than the ones who pretend they aren’t playing at all. But don’t be fooled, dear reader—your city council meeting is just a masquerade ball with worse outfits and fewer chandeliers. The etiquette? As rigid as a corset. The power dynamics? As delicate as a powdered wig in a rainstorm. And the irony? Absolutely decadent.

From Mirrored Halls to Conference Calls
Back in the days of Versailles, everything was a performance. Who walked in first? Who sat closest to the king? Who got the honor of holding his candle at bedtime? Status wasn’t just implied—it was choreographed, rehearsed, and executed like the most elaborate play. And in your local government?

We all know this meeting isn’t about ‘public engagement.’ It’s about making it look like public engagement happened. Smile for the minutes. It’s protocol, darling. And just like in Louis XIV’s court, knowing your place is the difference between influence and irrelevance.

The Crown, But Business Casual
Versailles ran on flattery. One perfectly timed compliment could elevate a nobleman’s career, while a single misstep (like, say, wearing the wrong color) could send them into exile. Fast-forward to now, and city officials are still masters of the art—except instead of lace cuffs, they wear Golden Goose sneakers, because nothing says 'I understand working-class struggles' like pre-scuffed $500 footwear.

Political endorsements? Love letters disguised as policy talk. Even the routine “great leadership” emails between staffers are just 18th-century court poetry in Arial font. The flattery may be subtle, but make no mistake-it's still a game, and the key to winning is knowing when to say just enough.

"Let Them Cut Ribbons"
Ah, the grandeur of Versailles. The silk. The gold. The feasts. And what was it all hiding? A crumbling economic system and a very angry, very hungry working class. But why acknowledge problems when you can just… throw another extravagant event?

Your local government is no different. Ribbon-cutting ceremonies, grand economic forecasts, sleek PowerPoint presentations—these are the modern versions of Versailles' masked balls. Your city might be drowning in budget deficits, but as long as there’s a well-lit groundbreaking photo op, the illusion of prosperity remains intact. Until, of course, the bill comes due.

Local Government, But Make it Gossip Girl
The nobility of Versailles was so lost in its own rituals that it failed to see the revolution knocking at the gates. Sound familiar?

City leaders dismiss discontent as “misinformation” until it turns into a full-blown crisis-all while your handpicked leadership quietly reinforces the status quo. And much like the courtiers of old, they don’t realize they’ve lost control until the metaphorical guillotine is being wheeled out.

No Crown, No Throne, Just Vested Interests
And just like in Versailles, the players who think they secured their dynasty always forget the one thing they can't control: the audience is watching. And when the illusion shatters, the downfall isn’t just inevitable—it’s colorful.

So sit back, grab some popcorn (or a croissant), and enjoy the show. Because if history has proven anything, it’s that no court—royal or municipal-outlasts its own delusions. 

XOXO… you know who.

*this is satire. any resemblance to bureaucratic nonsense is purely coincidental 

Forbes 500 of Disappearing Texas Ecosystems

For about a year I have been wrestling with an equation that could identify the TRUE worth of ecosystems, without the artificial inflation caused by extractive industries, government subsidies, and short-term exploitation.

Why Focus on the Blackland Prairie?
Texas has no shortage of endangered ecosystems, the Blackland Prairie is personal. I grew up on this land. George Strait writes country songs about this land. It's a disappearing relic, paved over for another concrete dream. 

But this isn't a eulogy-its a calculation. This isn't for the visualizers, the ones who think in colorful landscapes and geometric beauty. This is for the non-visualizers, the ones who think in equations, balance sheets, and returns on investments. The ones who prefer money over trees.

Originally covering about 12 million acres, today less than 1% remains statewide, fragmented into small patches. San Antonio's portion includes 175,000 acres of Blackland Prairie, which accounted for about 56% of the city's total land area (GIS ESRI-rough estimate). However, the exact amount that remains within San Antonio today is uncertain, as no comprehensive survey has been conducted to confirm the current acreage.

ArcGIS. Pink blob signifies the Blackland Prairie in San Antonio. 2025.

The Blackland Prairie sits directly in the path of urban expansion, yet there are no safeguards that price in its ecological worth. That’s why it serves as a test case for rethinking how we value land, particularly rare and irreplaceable ecosystems found.

Addressing Missing Data
One major challenge in assessing the economic and ecological worth of Blackland Prairie is data inconsistency and lack of transparency. The city’s building permit records, which should reflect declared land valuation, are incomplete for recent years. San Antonio has not consistently recorded land valuation data in its development permits, making it impossible to track how ecosystem-rich land is being financially assessed...if at all. 😳

Why this should matter to you:

• Without valuation data, taxpayers can't track how much land is worth or how much revenue the city should be collecting.
• It hides real economic impact of development.
• It could allow land to be underpriced or misrepresented in financial reports.

Given these data gaps, my analysis relies on secondary sources, environmental research, and economic valuation models to estimate a true(er) value of remaining Blackland Prairie. 

The Blackland Prairie Market Failure – What’s It Actually Worth?
Using a combination of hedonic pricing models, Bayesian inference, and logistic decay projections, I estimate the real economic value of the Blackland Prairie land that remains in San Antonio.

 1. The Extinction Forecast
Using a logistic decay model, the forecasted remaining Blackland Prairie within San Antonio will be at functional loss in ~75 years. If development rates accelerate this timeline shrinks dramatically, potentially within a few decades.

Trends in Large-Scale Developments City of San Antonio Open Data. 2025

One of the most striking findings from this San Antonio development permit analysis is that the curve suggests acceleration and a non-organic increase in permit approvals and applications over time, which is unusual unless theres an external driving force.

2. A True(er) Market Valuation E³VF Formula 

Or, as I like to call it, the Exponential Ecological Economic Valuation because i'm fancy. 

Current land pricing completely ignores ecological value, so to correct for that:

E3VF= (Sₙ+ HR) x I x e^s / EV

Where:

• Sₙ (Sustainable Net Worth): $5,000 per acre per year (carbon sequestration, flood control, soil health)
• HR (Health ROI): $2,000 per acre per year (mental, physical, and psychological health benefits)
• EV (Extinction Volatility): 5% annual risk of ecosystem collapse
  
• I (Intrinsic Factor): 1.5 multiplier (cultural, historical, and ecological significance)
• S (Scarcity Factor): 1.2 (to reflect the extreme rarity)
  
  

Applying these values:

E3VF= (5000 + 2000) X 1.5 X e^1.2

             0.05

                                          E3VF ≈ (140,000) x 1.5 x 3.32

                                          E3VF ≈ $697,680 per acre

3. Comparing Market Price vs. True(er) Value
Final Estimate of Blackland Prairie in San Antonio:

Total Estimated Remaining Prairie: 14,399 acres
Protected Prairie (Conservation Easements): ~2,880 acres
Unprotected Prairie with High-Quality Soil: ~6,912 acres
Total Prairie Loss from Historical Extent: ~91%
Percentage of All Remaining Blackland Prairie in Texas Located in San Antonio: ~12%
Percentage of the Original Blackland Prairie That Still Exists in San Antonio: ~8.23%

4. What Would Buyers Pay for This Land?

• Current market price for suburban development: $132,300 per acre ($3.04 per sq ft)
• Current market price for multi-use development: $198,450 per acre ($4.55 per sq ft)

• Bayesian-adjusted price considering rarity and soil value: $219,036 per acre ($5.03 per sq ft)

• Revised True Economic Value $766,947 per acre ($17.62 per sq ft)

What This Means

1. Blackland Prairie land is being sold at a fraction of its true(er) value.
2. If the last 14,399 acres were properly valued based on ecological worth, scarcity, and true market adjustments, they would be worth $10 billion.
3. If the 14,399 acres of Blackland Prairie were sold at a typical suburban development rate ($132,300 per acre) they would be worth $1.9 billion.
4. This pricing failure benefits buyers who enter at low price, rely on structural appreciation, and externalize environmental losses to taxpayers.

SOOO To Conclude

While San Antonio's Blackland Prairie holds a true economic value of $17 per sq foot, undeveloped land in San Fransisco averages $165 per sq ft. Even in Austin, TX the average price per acre is $460k which is about $10 per sq ft, highlighting how undervalued San Antonio's ecologically rare land truly is. If scarcity were properly priced, the last remnants of Blackland Prairie would be nearly untouchable. Heres an underutilized opportunity to actually use scarcity as the driving price gauge. 

I get being on sale every once in a while, but San Antonio was on clearance its whole life. Yall never priced nature like the irreplaceable asset it is-and lost the very thing that makes you proud to be from Texas.

Although there could be another theory, what if land value is inversely correlated with resource self-sufficiency?