Last week, I stumbled across the Braess Paradox. The brunt of it is this: adding a faster route can slow traffic down. Given a common tendency to choose the fastest route between A and B, traffic grows on the faster route. One way to alleviate this is by introducing friction. On a highway, this could be considered a toll. Friction is essential because it encourages taking other available routes and improvising, not merely through short-cuts, but ingenuity. Not cluttering in a single space spreads the weight across different avenues so a flow state is more likely to be achieved.

One can track the evolution of this by considering social media platforms, like the notes section of Substack or Threads. There are particular templates used, which could be construed as digital roads. They’re often hot takes or information that seems genuine. You could interpret it as a traffic jam of sorts. Some went viral. Others followed in the hopes they would go viral too. Some did. Templates repeated for the sake of getting somewhere.

To where?

Presumably, the readers and writers with substance.

A note is a signal, which seems fair because notes are public-facing decisions to share information. Substance is content that you want to read because it provides value . A note can be a signal for substance and contain substance, but a bunch of notes signaling for or about substance is just noise. While the mute and block buttons appear to be faster routes to a curated feed, they can also lead you into an echo chamber.

A problem presented by viral content that only signals substance is that it gives the impression that a template can be tried, tested, and repeated to varying degrees of success.

Are success and substance interchangeable?

When the search for substance becomes attached to visibility, this metric is not only applied to one’s own numerical value on the platform, but it serves as a numerical way to measure the value of others on the platform. It makes sense to value a subscriber with a high numerical value (subscribers/followers) because of their reach and the pleasant implication that they find substance in your work, especially when you can’t offer their work the same reach through a restack.

In game theory, a Nash Equilibrium is not the optimal state. It is a stable state in which neither you or the other is particularly inclined to change strategies, likely because changing strategies can’t be calculated to produce a better reward. The standard and shared high-value rewards are substance, substance with visibility, and visibility.

What is substance?

Emotionally moving, thought-provoking, or spiritually resonant work.

Why visibility?

The human need to know that your work matters and if it doesn’t matter, that it follows a template that is repeatable and/or profitable.

---

The Braess’s Paradox and the Nash Equilibrium offer interesting perspectives on the usage of social media platforms. The friction that accompanies seeing a feed full of signals can lead to different avenues, including templates, muting, blocking, and developing a strategy that is optimal for you.

Digital burnout is real. Optimization of a digital strategy is personal. While there may be ease in templates and value in numbers, visibility or reach does not imply substance. Discernment and ingenuity are practical skills, often honed by genuine experiences in the world. To go back to the paradox, the fastest alternative routes are shown to everyone on GPS. Personal experience however, teaches you about an unexpected shortcut you discovered when you made a wrong turn one day. It need not be a shortcut. Perhaps a wrong turn led you into an alley with gorgeous artwork. It took you longer because you felt a natural yearning to get out and see the world.

For more information about the Braess’s Paradox, click here.