Re:Thinking Innovation

Re:Think Innovation 2015 in Chicago is coming up quickly and I’m super excited. Last year’s workshop was a hit.

You can learn all about it right here. (There are 9 spots left.)

What I want to talk about today is something we’re going to discuss at the workshop: Developing your knowledge library or why it’s potentially great to have ADHD.

One ingredient to being more creative is developing an understanding of how you learn and using that to increase the chunks you store in your head.

Chunks represent a knowledge element if you will. Think of them as a mental model, an idea, or even an abstract concept. Chunks can form with or without complete understanding of the idea.

For instance, you can learn what a word means in a language without knowing how to conjugate it or use it to communicate. But, all things considered, it’s better to have a complete understanding because that allows you to interconnect chunks more easily and retain them more strongly.

Why is this important?

Interconnecting chunks is where creativity comes from. In fact, this is largely what science tells us about how we develop ideas. We make connections between chunks – or ideas – in our working memory.

Einstein called this combinatory play. This is how we internally brainstorm. Often these ideas suck but sometimes they change the world. We still need to filter.

Research has shown that you can hold four to five ideas in your head (in working memory) at a time to make connections with.

If you have ADHD, these ideas turn over much faster, increasing the velocity of creative combinations. That’s why, for all of its downsides, there are potential upsides to ADHD. It also explains why we tend to see people with ADHD as more creative.

For those of us without ADHD, we need to add more ideas to our mental library.

It’s hard to see ideas or solutions without the right chunks. Not only will these ideas help us make better decisions, but they help us “see” things that other people don’t.

You can think of these ideas as LEGO bricks, each one a different shape and color.

The more of these bricks you have, the more things you can build. The bigger the base of knowledge you bring to the table (ideally from a wide range of disciplines), the higher you can go.

And that, my friends, is one of the keys to Re:Thinking Innovation.

Come for the experience, soak up some wisdom, and walk away with what has been called “the best two days I’ve ever spent at an event.”

Sign up for Re:Think Innovation today.

Related Posts

William Deresiewicz: How To Learn How To Think

“I’ve spent my life trying to undo habits—especially habits of thinking. They narrow your interaction with the world. They’re the phrases that come easily to your mind, like: ‘I know what I think,’ or ‘I know what I like,’ or ‘I know what’s going to happen today.’ If you just replace ‘know’ with ‘don’t know,’ then you start to move into the unknown. And that’s where the interesting stuff happens.” — Humans of New York

***

I’ve read Solitude and Leadership, an essay by William Deresiewicz before. In fact, I even pointed out some of its leadership lessons. However, after a friend prompted a re-visit to the very same essay, I realized that I missed a key part.

How do you learn to think?

Let’s start with how you don’t learn to think. A study by a team of researchers at Stanford came out a couple of months ago. The investigators wanted to figure out how today’s college students were able to multitask so much more effectively than adults. How do they manage to do it, the researchers asked? The answer, they discovered—and this is by no means what they expected—is that they don’t. The enhanced cognitive abilities the investigators expected to find, the mental faculties that enable people to multitask effectively, were simply not there. In other words, people do not multitask effectively. And here’s the really surprising finding: the more people multitask, the worse they are, not just at other mental abilities, but at multitasking itself.

One thing that made the study different from others is that the researchers didn’t test people’s cognitive functions while they were multitasking. They separated the subject group into high multitaskers and low multitaskers and used a different set of tests to measure the kinds of cognitive abilities involved in multitasking. They found that in every case the high multitaskers scored worse. They were worse at distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant information and ignoring the latter. In other words, they were more distractible. They were worse at what you might call “mental filing”: keeping information in the right conceptual boxes and being able to retrieve it quickly. In other words, their minds were more disorganized. And they were even worse at the very thing that defines multitasking itself: switching between tasks.

Multitasking, in short, is not only not thinking, it impairs your ability to think. Thinking means concentrating on one thing long enough to develop an idea about it. Not learning other people’s ideas, or memorizing a body of information, however much those may sometimes be useful. Developing your own ideas. In short, thinking for yourself. You simply cannot do that in bursts of 20 seconds at a time, constantly interrupted by Facebook messages or Twitter tweets, or fiddling with your iPod, or watching something on YouTube.

I find for myself that my first thought is never my best thought. My first thought is always someone else’s; it’s always what I’ve already heard about the subject, always the conventional wisdom. It’s only by concentrating, sticking to the question, being patient, letting all the parts of my mind come into play, that I arrive at an original idea. By giving my brain a chance to make associations, draw connections, take me by surprise. And often even that idea doesn’t turn out to be very good. I need time to think about it, too, to make mistakes and recognize them, to make false starts and correct them, to outlast my impulses, to defeat my desire to declare the job done and move on to the next thing.

I used to have students who bragged to me about how fast they wrote their papers. I would tell them that the great German novelist Thomas Mann said that a writer is someone for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people. The best writers write much more slowly than everyone else, and the better they are, the slower they write. James Joyce wrote Ulysses, the greatest novel of the 20th century, at the rate of about a hundred words a day—half the length of the selection I read you earlier from Heart of Darkness—for seven years. T. S. Eliot, one of the greatest poets our country has ever produced, wrote about 150 pages of poetry over the course of his entire 25-year career. That’s half a page a month. So it is with any other form of thought. You do your best thinking by slowing down and concentrating.

Deresiewicz concentrating and thinking

And there you have it. An argument to spend more time thinking.

Related Posts

Schopenhauer: On Reading and Books

One of the most timeless and beautiful meditations on reading comes from the 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer: On Reading and Books

Finding time to read has never been an issue for me. I read different books at different levels — you don’t put the same effort into Harry Potter as you do Seneca.  Reading is the best way to get smarter. And while I’ve always taken notes while reading to improve my ability to remember what I’ve read, I’ve had a nagging feeling that I was missing part of the work.

Perhaps, I’ve been reading too much and reflecting too little.

As I reflect more on the relationship between reading and acquiring wisdom, I discovered Schopenhauer’s classic On Reading and Books.

***

Munger Master the best

For me, reading has always been about this website’s tagline: Mastering the best of what other people have already figured out.

In The Prince, Machiavelli offered the following advice:  “A wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great men, and to imitate those who have been supreme, so that if his ability does not equal theirs, at least it will savour of it.”

Seneca, writing on the same subject, said, “Men who have made these discoveries before us are not our masters, but our guides.”

So it makes sense to start with the people that came before us. No matter what problem we face, odds are someone has faced it before and written about it. No need to start from scratch right?

***

We return to the fundamental questions. What does it mean to read? Is reading the path to acquiring wisdom? If not why?

These are the questions that Schopenhauer attempts to address in On Reading and Books.

When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process..

Mortimer Adler believed that reading is a conversation between you and the author. On this Schopenhauer comments:

When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. It is the same as the pupil, in learning to write, following with his pen the lines that have been pencilled by the teacher. Accordingly, in reading, the work of thinking is, for the greater part, done for us. This is why we are consciously relieved when we turn to reading after being occupied with our own thoughts. But, in reading, our head is, however, really only the arena of some one else’s thoughts. And so it happens that the person who reads a great deal — that is to say, almost the whole day, and recreates himself by spending the intervals in thoughtless diversion, gradually loses the ability to think for himself; just as a man who is always riding at last forgets how to walk.

Such, however, is the case with many men of learning: they have read themselves stupid. For to read in every spare moment, and to read constantly, is more paralyzing to the mind than constant manual work, which, at any rate, allows one to follow one’s own thoughts.

Just as a spring, through the continual pressure of a foreign body, at last loses its elasticity, so does the mind if it has another person’s thoughts continually forced upon it. And just as one spoils the stomach by overfeeding and thereby impairs the whole body, so can one overload and choke the mind by giving it too much nourishment. For the more one reads the fewer are the traces left of what one has read; the mind is like a tablet that has been written over and over. Hence it is impossible to reflect; and it is only by reflection that one can assimilate what one has read if one reads straight ahead without pondering over it later, what has been read does not take root, but is for the most part lost. Indeed, it is the same with mental as with bodily food: scarcely the fifth part of what a man takes is assimilated; the remainder passes off in evaporation, respiration, and the like.

From all this it may be concluded that thoughts put down on paper are nothing more than footprints in the sand: one sees the road the man has taken, but in order to know what he saw on the way, one requires his eyes.

It’s important to take time to think about what we’re reading and not merely assume the thoughts of the author. We need to digest, synthesize, and organize the thoughts of others if we are to understand. This is the grunt work of thinking. It’s how we acquire wisdom.

This is how we acquire foundational knowledge. The knowledge that allows us to pull forth relevance when reading and bring it to consciousness. Without this foundational knowledge, we are unable to separate the signal from the noise.

No literary quality can be attained by reading writers who possess it: be it, for example, persuasiveness, imagination, the gift of drawing comparisons, boldness or bitterness, brevity or grace, facility of expression or wit, unexpected contrasts, a laconic manner, naïveté, and the like. But if we are already gifted with these qualities — that is to say, if we possess them potentia — we can call them forth and bring them to consciousness; we can discern to what uses they are to be put; we can be strengthened in our inclination, nay, may have courage, to use them; we can judge by examples the effect of their application and so learn the correct use of them; and it is only after we have accomplished all this that we actu possess these qualities.

Reading consumes time. And if we equate time with money, it should not be wasted on bad books. In an argument that pulls to mind two filters for what to read, Schopenhauer writes:

It is the same in literature as in life. Wherever one goes one immediately comes upon the incorrigible mob of humanity. It exists everywhere in legions; crowding, soiling everything, like flies in summer. Hence the numberless bad books, those rank weeds of literature which extract nourishment from the corn and choke it.

They monopolise the time, money, and attention which really belong to good books and their noble aims; they are written merely with a view to making money or procuring places. They are not only useless, but they do positive harm. Nine-tenths of the whole of our present literature aims solely at taking a few shillings out of the public’s pocket, and to accomplish this, author, publisher, and reviewer have joined forces.

There is a more cunning and worse trick, albeit a profitable one. Littérateurs, hack-writers, and productive authors have succeeded, contrary to good taste and the true culture of the age, in bringing the world elegante into leading-strings, so that they have been taught to read a tempo and all the same thing — namely, the newest books order that they may have material for conversation in their social circles. … But what can be more miserable than the fate of a reading public of this kind, that feels always impelled to read the latest writings of extremely commonplace authors who write for money only, and therefore exist in numbers? And for the sake of this they merely know by name the works of the rare and superior writers, of all ages and countries.

Arthur Schopenhauer

Knowing what to read is important but so is its inversion— knowing what not to read.

This consists in not taking a book into one’s hand merely because it is interesting the great public at the time — such as political or religious pamphlets, novels, poetry, and the like, which make a noise and reach perhaps several editions in their first and last years of existence. Remember rather that the man who writes for fools always finds a large public: and only read for a limited and definite time exclusively the works of great minds, those who surpass other men of all times and countries, and whom the voice of fame points to as such. These alone really educate and instruct.

One can never read too little of bad, or too much of good books: bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind.

In Norwegian Wood, Haruki Murakami makes the argument that “If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking.” On this Schopenhauer said:

Oh, how like one commonplace mind is to another! How they are all fashioned in one form! How they all think alike under similar circumstances, and never differ! This is why their views are so personal and petty.

On the two types of literature, Schopenhauer comments:

There are at all times two literatures which, although scarcely known to each other, progress side by side — the one real, the other merely apparent. The former grows into literature that lasts. Pursued by people who live for science or poetry, it goes its way earnestly and quietly, but extremely slowly; and it produces in Europe scarcely a dozen works in a century, which, however, are permanent. The other literature is pursued by people who live on science or poetry; it goes at a gallop amid a great noise and shouting of those taking part, and brings yearly many thousand works into the market. But after a few years one asks, Where are they? where is their fame, which was so great formerly? This class of literature may be distinguished as fleeting, the other as permanent.

Arthur Schopenhauer Books

Commenting on why we learn little from what we read, he writes:

It would be a good thing to buy books if one could also buy the time to read them; but one usually confuses the purchase of books with the acquisition of their contents. To desire that a man should retain everything he has ever read, is the same as wishing him to retain in his stomach all that he has ever eaten. He has been bodily nourished on what he has eaten, and mentally on what he has read, and through them become what he is. As the body assimilates what is homogeneous to it, so will a man retain what interests him; in other words, what coincides with his system of thought or suits his ends. Every one has aims, but very few have anything approaching a system of thought. This is why such people do not take an objective interest in anything, and why they learn nothing from what they read: they remember nothing about it.

But reading good works is not enough. We must re-read important works immediately because it aids our understanding, a concept that Mortimer Adler echoes.

Any kind of important book should immediately be read twice, partly because one grasps the matter in its entirety the second time, and only really understands the beginning when the end is known; and partly because in reading it the second time one’s temper and mood are different, so that one gets another impression; it may be that one sees the matter in another light.

And the final part of the essay I want to draw your attention to speaks to how advancement happens in a flurry of false starts, and answers the age-old question of why so many luminaries — whether scientific or even artistic — fail to be recognized in their present age as they will later come to be seen by the world.

… imagine the progress of knowledge among mankind in the form of a planet’s course. The false paths the human race soon follows after any important progress has been made represent the epicycles in the Ptolemaic system; after passing through any one of them the planet is just where it was before it entered it. The great minds, however, which really bring the race further on its course, do not accompany it on the epicycles which it makes every time. This explains why posthumous fame is got at the expense of contemporary fame, and vice versâ.

If you think Schopenhauer is for you, pick up a copy of The Essential Schopenhauer: Key Selections from The World As Will and Representation and Other Writings.

Mental Model: Misconceptions of Chance

Misconceptions of Chance

We expect the immediate outcome of events to represent the broader outcomes expected from a large number of trials. We believe that chance events will immediately self-correct and that small sample sizes are representative of the populations from which they are drawn. All of these beliefs lead us astray.

***

 

Our understanding of the world around us is imperfect and when dealing with chance our brains tend to come up with ways to cope with the unpredictable nature of our world.

“We tend,” writes Peter Bevelin in Seeking Wisdom, “to believe that the probability of an independent event is lowered when it has happened recently or that the probability is increased when it hasn’t happened recently.” 

In short, we believe an outcome is due and that chance will self-correct.

The problem with this view is that nature doesn’t have a sense of fairness or memory. We only fool ourselves when we mistakenly believe that independent events offer influence or meaningful predictive power over future events.

Furthermore we also mistakenly believe that we can control chance events. This applies to risky or uncertain events.

Chance events coupled with positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement can be a dangerous thing. Sometimes we become optimistic and think our luck will change and sometimes we become overly pessimistic or risk-averse.

How do you know if you’re dealing with chance? A good heuristic is to ask yourself if you can lose on purpose. If you can’t you’re likely far into the chance side of the skill vs. luck continuum. No matter how hard you practice, the probability of chance events won’t change.

“We tend,” writes Nassim Taleb in The Black Swan, “to underestimate the role of luck in life in general (and) overestimate it in games of chance.”

We are only discussing independent events. If events are dependent, where the outcome depends on the outcome of some other event, all bets are off.

 

***

Misconceptions of Chance

Daniel Kahneman coined the term misconceptions of chance to describe the phenomenon of people extrapolating large-scale patterns to samples of a much smaller size. Our trouble navigating the sometimes counterintuitive laws of probability, randomness and statistics leads to misconceptions of chance.

Kahneman found that “people expect that a sequence of events generated by a random process will represent the essential characteristics of that process even when the sequence is short.”

In the paper Belief in the Law of Small Numbers, Kahneman and Tversky reflect on the results of an experiment, where subjects were instructed to generate a random sequence of hypothetical tosses of a fair coin.

They [the subjects] produce sequences where the proportion of heads in any short segment stays far closer to .50 than the laws of chance would predict. Thus, each segment of the response sequence is highly representative of the “fairness” of the coin.

Unsurprisingly, the same nature of errors occurred when the subjects, instead of being asked to generate sequences themselves, were simply asked to distinguish between random and human generated sequences. It turns out that when considering tosses of a coin for heads or tails people regard the sequence H-T-H-T-T-H to be more likely than the sequence H-H-H-T-H-T, which does not appear random, and also more likely than the sequence H-H-H-H-T-H. In reality each one of those sequences have the exact same probability of occurring. This is a misconception of chance.

The aspect that most of us find so hard to grasp about this case is that any pattern of the same length is just as likely to occur in a random sequence. For example, the odds of getting 5 tails in a row are 0.03125 or simply stated 0.5 (the odds of a specific outcome at each trial) to the power of 5 (number of trials).

The same probability rule applies for getting the specific sequences of HHTHT or THTHT – where each sequence is obtained by once again taking 0.5 (the odds of a specific outcome at each trial) to the power of 5 (number of trials), which equals 0.03125.

This probability is true for sequences – but it implies no relation between the odds of a specific outcome at each trial and the representation of the true proportion within these short sequences.

Yet it’s still surprising. This is because people expect that the single event odds will be reflected not only in the proportion of events as a whole, but also in the specific short sequences we encounter. But this is not the case. A perfectly alternating sequence is just as extraordinary as a sequence with all tails or all heads.

In comparison, “a locally representative sequence,” Kahneman writes, in Thinking, Fast and Slow, “deviates systematically from chance expectation: it contains too many alternations and too few runs. Another consequence of the belief in local representativeness is the well-known gambler’s fallacy.”

***

Gambler’s Fallacy

There is a specific variation of the misconceptions of chance that Kahneman calls the Gambler’s fallacy (elsewhere also called the Monte Carlo fallacy).

The gambler’s fallacy implies that when we come across a local imbalance, we expect that the future events will smoothen it out. We will act as if every segment of the random sequence must reflect the true proportion and, if the sequence has deviated from the population proportion, we expect the imbalance to soon be corrected.

Kahneman explains that this is unreasonable – coins, unlike people, have no sense of equality and proportion:

The heart of the gambler’s fallacy is a misconception of the fairness of the laws of chance. The gambler feels that the fairness of the coin entitles him to expect that any deviation in one direction will soon be cancelled by a corresponding deviation in the other. Even the fairest of coins, however, given the limitations of its memory and moral sense, cannot be as fair as the gambler expects it to be.

He illustrates this with an example of the roulette wheel and our expectations, when a reasonably long sequence of repetition occurs.

After observing a long run of red on the roulette wheel, most people erroneously believe that black is now due, presumably because the occurrence of black will result in a more representative sequence than the occurrence of an additional red.

In reality, of course, roulette is a random, non-evolving process, in which the chance of getting a red or a black will never depend on the past sequence. The probabilities restore after each run, yet we still seem to take the past moves into account.

Contrary to our expectations, the universe does not keep accounting of a random process so streaks are not necessarily tilted towards the true proportion. Your chance of getting a red after a series of blacks will always be equal to that of getting another red as long as the wheel is fair.

The gambler’s fallacy need not to be committed inside the casino only. Many of us commit it frequently by thinking that a small, random sample will tend to correct itself.

For example, assume that the average IQ at a specific country is known to be 100. And for the purposes of assessing intelligence at a specific district, we draw a random sample of 50 persons. The first person in our sample happens to have an IQ of 150. What would you expect the mean IQ to be for the whole sample?

The correct answer is (100*49 + 150*1)/50 = 101. Yet without knowing the correct answer it is tempting to say it is still 100 – the same as in the country as a whole.

According to Kahneman and Tversky such expectation could only be justified by the belief that a random process is self-correcting and that the sample variation is always proportional. They explain:

Idioms such as “errors cancel each other out” reflect the image of an active self-correcting process. Some familiar processes in nature obey such laws: a deviation from a stable equilibrium produces a force that restores the equilibrium.

Indeed, this may be true in thermodynamics, chemistry and arguably also economics. These, however, are false analogies. It is important to realize that the laws governed by chance are not guided by principles of equilibrium and the number of random outcomes in a sequence do not have a common balance.

“Chance,” Kahneman writes in Thinking, Fast and Slow, “is commonly viewed as a self-correcting process in which a deviation in one direction induces a deviation in the opposite direction to restore the equilibrium. In fact, deviations are not “corrected” as a chance process unfolds, they are merely diluted.”

 

***

The Law of Small Numbers

Misconceptions of chance are not limited to gambling. In fact most of us fall for them all the time because we intuitively believe (and there is a whole best-seller section at the book store to prove) that inferences drawn from small sample sizes are highly representative of the populations from which they are drawn.

By illustrating people’s expectations of random heads and tails sequences, we already established that we have preconceived notions of what randomness looks like. This, coupled with the unfortunate tendency to believe in self-correcting process in a random sample, generates expectations about sample characteristics and representativeness, which are not necessarily true. The expectation that the patterns and characteristics within a small sample will be representative of the population as a whole is called the law of small numbers.

Consider the sequence:

1, 2, 3, _, _, _

What do you think are the next three digits?

The task almost seems laughable, because the pattern is so familiar and obvious – 4,5,6. However, there is an endless variation of different algorithms that would still fit the first three numbers, such as the Fibonacci sequence (5, 8, 13), a repeated sequence (1,2,3), a random sequence (5,8,2) and many others. Truth is, in this case there simply is not enough information to say what the rules governing this specific sequence are with any reliability.

The same rule applies to sampling problems – sometimes we feel we have gathered enough data to tell a real pattern from an illusion. Let me illustrate this fallacy with yet another example.

Imagine that you face a tough decision between investing in the development of two different product opportunities. Let’s call them Product A or Product B. You are interested in which product would appeal to the majority of the market, so you decide to conduct customer interviews. Out of the first five pilot interviews four customers show a preference for Product A. While the sample size is quite small, given the time pressure involved, many of us would already have some confidence in concluding that the majority of customers would prefer Product A.

However, a quick statistical test will tell you that the probability of a result just as extreme is in fact 3/8, assuming that there is no preference among customers at all. This in simple terms means that if customers had no preference between Products A and B, you would still expect 3 customer samples out of 8 to have four customers vouching for Product A.

Basically a study of such size has little to no predictive validity – these results could easily be obtained from a population with no preference for one or the other product. This of course does not mean that talking to customers is of no value. Quite the contrary – the more random cases we examine, the more reliable and accurate the results of the true proportion will be. If we want absolute certainty we must be prepared for a lot of work.

There will always be cases where a guesstimate based on a small sample will be enough, because we have other critical information guiding the decision making process or we simply do not need a high degree of confidence. Yet rather than assuming that the samples we come across are always perfectly representative, we must treat random selection with the suspicion it deserves. Accepting the role imperfect information and randomness play in our lives and being actively aware of what we don’t know already makes us better decision makers.

Summer Reads for the Curious Mind

summer reading list

Out of the 44 books I read from January to June, here are the 7 that resonated with me the most. (For the curious see the 2012, 2013, I can’t find the 2014 edition.)

  1. Pebbles of Perception: How a Few Good Choices make All the Difference — This book is an invitation to be curious, build character, and make better choices. Very much in line with the Farnam Street ethos — so much so that I’m mentioned in the acknowledgements. It belongs on your shelf next to Seeking Wisdom.
  2. Sit Like a Buddha: A Pocket Guide to Meditation — If I could encourage you to look into one thing to think and focus better, this would be it. This is an enormously powerful little book that will help you focus your mind, open your heart, and think with more insight. It’s short enough to consume over a glass of wine (or two) on the patio and simple enough that you’ll want to put it into practice.
  3. The Lessons of History — A concise book of lessons drawn from the survey of history. The book comes highly recommended by someone I met at the Berkshire Hathaway meeting. I can’t believe I haven’t read this before. I’ll be re-reading this a few times and I’ve started listening to the audio version in the car as well.
  4. The Three Marriages: Reimagining Work, Self and Relationship — A beautiful and thought-provoking book that argues we should stop thinking in terms of work-life balance. “Work-life balance is a concept that has us simply lashing ourselves on the back and working too hard in each of the three commitments. In the ensuing exhaustion we ultimately give up on one or more of them to gain an easier life.”
  5. How to Get Lucky: 13 Techniques for Discovering and Taking Advantage of Life’s Good Breaks — Some people are luckier than others and it’s not always by chance. Lucky people tend to position themselves in the path of luck. They take risks but not stupid ones. They know when to give up on love, stocks, and even opinions. A great read.
  6. Obvious Adams: The Story of a Successful Businessman — a short, yet important, book that I wish more people would read and think about. (You can find a pdf here.) In a nutshell the book represents the mindset that “avoiding stupidity is easier than seeking brilliance.” It’s amazing what we see when we focus on the obvious insights that we’re missing because we’re trying too hard to grasp the esoteric.
  7. The Art of Stillness: Adventures in Going Nowhere — An excellent counterbalance to our endless diet of movement and stimulation.

Leave a comment below and tell me what you’re reading.

Related Posts