What this covers
Le Cunff frames a diagnosis and a method in a fifty-five-minute talk to Google. The diagnosis: linear goals—traditional success defined as reaching a predetermined outcome—fail in a nonlinear world, breeding frustration and burnout. The method: adopt a scientist's experimental mindset and run "tiny experiments" (a committed action plus a fixed duration) to redefine success as learning rather than arrival. Le Cunff, a neuroscientist and founder of Ness Labs whose work spans psychology and neuroscience at King's College London and prior roles in digital health at Google, draws on ancestral philosophy and contemporary neuroscience to argue that this shift converts uncertainty from a source of anxiety-driven control-seeking into fuel for curiosity. Moderated by Allison Parin, the talk develops both the cognitive science and the practical mechanics.
The talk moves through several registers. It explains how the brain naturally learns through prediction and error—how the perception-action cycle makes failure inherent to learning—yet how the brain's survival drive pushes toward premature certainty. It identifies three cognitive scripts that constrain people: the sequel script (decisions must follow from past ones), the crowd-pleaser script (decisions made for others' admiration), and the epic script (everything must be world-changing). It then pivots to implementation: what a tiny experiment actually requires, why committing to duration upfront prevents confirmation bias, how running experiments in public adds accountability, and what leaders can do to build experimental culture in teams. Throughout, Le Cunff contests the productivity-optimization framing of experimentation; she positions it instead as a way to navigate complexity with less stress while staying intellectually alive—a operating system built from three principles: failure as inherent to learning, curiosity beating certainty, and pairing action with reflection.
Anne Lula argues that approaching work and life with an experimental mindset grounded in curiosity—rather than clinging to linear goals and the need for certainty—enables faster learning, reduces anxiety, and unlocks innovation, and this mindset can be systematized through tiny experiments that pair action with reflection.
- Linear goals create frustration and burnout in a nonlinear world; scientists succeed by reframing failure as learning data rather than personal failure
- The brain's perception-action cycle naturally learns through experimentation, but we suppress this by desperately seeking certainty; replacing certainty with curiosity aligns with how brains actually work
- Tiny experiments—structured as observation → hypothesis → action with fixed duration → reflection—can be applied to any domain and create psychological safety for teams to learn together
This asset isn't compiled yet
You're seeing its claims, ranked. Compile it to build the argument threads, weight them, and check each claim against your library — the full view.
Scientists define success differently from the broader culture: not as reaching a specific destination, but as learning something new, which allows them to view any outcome—including failure—without self-blame or self-judgment, extracting insights from unexpected results.
“You know who has a completely different definition of success? Scientists. For a scientist, success is not reaching a specific destination. Success is learning something new. whatever the outcome, whatever the results, they're able to look at it without self-lame or self- judgment.”
Linear goals based on the idea of reaching a specific destination are omnipresent in modern life—four-year university degrees followed by five-year career plans followed by 30-year mortgages—but this linear framework fails because we live in a nonlinear world with shifting market trends, disruptive technologies, and unpredictable global events that cause plans to collapse.
“Linear goals are based on the idea that in order to be successful, you need to have a clear vision and a clear plan...we have four-year university degrees followed by a five-year career plan followed by a 30-year mortgage...we don't live in a linear world. We live in a nonlinear world. You have market trends that keep on shifting, new technologies that can disrupt your industry...things rarely go to plan.”
The conventional definition of success—'reaching a desired outcome'—is built on linear goals (clear vision and plan), but because we live in a nonlinear world of shifting trends and disruptions, clinging to linear goals leads to frustration, overwhelm, and burnout.
“there's only one problem with linear goals. it's that we don't live in a linear world. We live in a nonlinear world.”
The brain learns through the perception-action cycle: it perceives environmental data, formulates a prediction, and updates with new information when predictions are wrong—meaning failure is an inherent part of learning that aligns with how the brain naturally wants to work.
“the way your brain works is based on something neuroscientists call the perception action cycle... you're going to perceive some information in the environment, some data. Based on that data, your brain is going to formulate a hypothesis, a prediction.”
The brain is optimized for survival and therefore tries to reduce uncertainty as quickly as possible, which made evolutionary sense for ancestors but is maladaptive for modern humans who want to thrive rather than merely survive.
“your brain is also optimized for survival. So, it's trying to reduce uncertainty as quickly as possible. And that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.”
Replacing the desperate need for certainty with curiosity—using the perception-action cycle not to resolve uncertainty as quickly as possible but to treat uncertainty as an opportunity to learn and grow—results in finding solutions faster and experiencing less anxiety and stress in the process.
“Instead, you're still using your perception action cycle, but instead of trying to resolving uncertainty as quickly as possible, you're using that uncertainty as an opportunity to learn and to grow. What's amazing is that there is research showing that when you approach challenges with this curious way, in a more experimental way. Not only you're going to find solutions faster, but you're also going to experience less anxiety and stress in the process, which is pretty neat.”
A 1979 study found that most people placed in the same situation behave in exactly the same way, revealing 'cognitive scripts'—useful for social functioning (e.g., doctor visits) but problematic when unconsciously followed in life decisions like careers and self-presentation.
“This is a fascinating study that's from the late '7s, 1979... what they found is that most people when placed in the same situation with the same scenario end up all acting in exactly the same way.”
Framing uncertain projects as experiments from the outset fixes skewed incentives: linking uncertain work to a fixed linear goal creates pressure to hide failure with post-hoc narratives, whereas defining success as learning together transforms binary win/lose outcomes into shared learning.
“The issue is when we have something that's very uncertain and we link it to a linear goal, a specific destination. When that doesn't work out... we try to create a a post hawk narrative saying why that didn't work... but we're not really learning in the process because we're just trying to hide the failure”
Scientists define success not as reaching a destination but as learning something new, allowing them to view any outcome without self-blame or self-judgment—a reframe that makes curiosity more powerful than certainty.
“For a scientist, success is not reaching a specific destination. Success is learning something new. whatever the outcome, whatever the results, they're able to look at it without self-lame or self- judgment.”
The experimental mindset is not about eliminating uncertainty or anxiety—which is biologically natural and very hard to remove—but about noticing and accepting it, then designing experiments that convert paralysis into action and restore a sense of agency.
“a misconception when I talk about the experimental mindset is that it's about getting rid of the uncertainty... and it's not... So what you want to do instead is noticing it, accepting it, knowing that this is perfectly normal and then design an experiment”
The experimental cycle requires pairing action with reflection—you must do something, observe the result, and then change your behavior based on the information collected—and this pairing is essential because without reflection, action becomes mere repetition without learning.
“It can only work when you pair action with reflection. So you need to do something, look at the result, and then change the way you behave based on that information that you just collected.”
The brain evolved to reduce uncertainty as quickly as possible for survival reasons—in ancestral environments, the more information and certainty you had about resources and threats, the more likely you were to survive—but this survival-optimized drive for certainty conflicts with thriving in modern work and relationships.
“your brain is also optimized for survival. So, it's trying to reduce uncertainty as quickly as possible. And that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. If you think back on our ancestors and the environment in which they were evolving, the more information you had, whether it's where are the resources, what's that weird noise in the bushes over there, the more you knew, the more certainty you had, the more likely you were to survive. But I think we all agree that whether it comes to our work, our relationships, our health, us modern humans want more than just surviving. We want to thrive.”
It is completely normal and expected to feel anxiety and discomfort when faced with uncertainty because the brain is evolutionarily optimized to reduce uncertainty, but many people experience shame about their anxiety, falsely assuming others are less fearful when in reality most people are just better at hiding it.
“I think the first step is to acknowledge the fact that it's completely normal to feel anxiety when we're faced with uncertainty...our brains are designed for [uncertainty reduction]...there is sometimes a lot of uh self-lame around the uncertainty where we feel like how come everybody looks so comfortable and I'm so scared. So, I think that's the first step, knowing that that's normal and it's probably the case that other people around you are just a bit better at hiding it, but we're all feeling scared when we're uncertain.”
Public accountability—sharing experiments and results openly—can be powerful for completing experiments, especially when facing resistance, and sharing both successes and failures has social value because telling others 'I tried this, it doesn't work' saves them time and energy.
“You can run your experiments on your own. You don't have to share them with anyone, but it can really help to add this layer of learning in public, especially if it's something where you have quite a bit of resistance around it...learning in public and having this accountability can be helpful to actually stick to it and collect the data...What's really important is to remember that it's not about sharing all of the experiments that worked, but also the ones where you got an unexpected result. There is a lot of value in saying, 'Hey, I tried this thing. It doesn't work. Don't do it.' You're saving people a lot of time and energy by doing this.”
Running too many experiments simultaneously is counterproductive: you're unlikely to complete them all, and if you change multiple variables at once, you can't isolate which experiment is actually having an effect; best practice is one experiment at a time, with limited exception for experiments in completely separate life domains (e.g., work productivity and health simultaneously).
“there is such a thing as running too many experiments. Yes, absolutely there is. So I highly recommend running only one experiment at a time. And there are several reasons for this. The first one is that you actually want to complete the experiment. And so if you run five, six, seven different experiments at the same time, it's very unlikely you're going to be able to stick to it and finish collecting the data. So it's better to just have one experiment. And the other reason is that if you're changing everything in the way you work and you live, it's going to be really hard to know which experiment is actually having a positive impact, which one is not working. The only exception to this I would give is if you really want to run two at the same time is to run them in very separate areas of your life.”
Cognitive scripts are standardized behavioral patterns that most people follow in the same situation; examples include scripts for visiting a doctor (wait in waiting room, get called, go to office, get undressed in private), and while useful for societal coordination, we also follow cognitive scripts subconsciously in career choices, how we dress, how we speak, and academic subjects chosen, often limiting our exploration.
“This is a fascinating study that's from the late '7s, 1979, where scientists, it's a very simple, elegant study. They basically ask people if you're put in that specific situation, how do you act? How do you behave? What do you do? And what they found is that most people when placed in the same situation with the same scenario end up all acting in exactly the same way. That is useful in lots of scenarios...We have all of these scripts that are very useful to function as a society. We have scripts for going to the doctor, for going to the restaurant, for all sorts of interactions. The problem is that scientists discovered that we also follow these cognitive scripts in lots of other areas in our lives. how we choose our jobs, our careers, how we dress, the way we talk, the different studies that we do.”
The crowd-pleaser script is the tendency to make decisions based on what you think will make people around you happy or impressed, limiting yourself to decisions that will garner praise, admiration, and recognition from others rather than exploring options that interest you but might not impress.
“The second script is the crowdleaser script and that's the one where you make decisions based on what you think will make people around you happy. Those people could be your team members, could be your friends, your family, your spouse, and you make decisions because you want them to react like saying like, 'I can't believe you did that. That's amazing.' Or, 'This is so cool.' Or, 'You're working on this project. You made this decision.' And sometimes we limit the scope of our decisions because we only go for things that are going to be praised or that are going to lead from to admiration and recognition from other people.”
The epic script (inspired by Hollywood narratives) is the belief that whatever you do must be big, impactful, world-changing, and anything less is failure; this script is particularly insidious because society has collectively decided everyone should follow it ('follow your passion, change the world'), leaving many people miserable because they haven't found their passion, while others put all eggs in one basket and collapse psychologically when that bet doesn't work out.
“The last one is the epic script. So that's inspired by the Hollywood script. That's the idea that whatever you do, it needs to be big. It needs to be impactful. It needs to save the world. And anything less than that is failure. And that one is particularly insidious because as a society, we've decided that this is a script we should all follow. Follow your passion, follow your dream, change the world. Because of that, a lot of people are feeling miserable because they feel like they haven't found their passion yet. Why has everybody around me figured it out and I haven't? Another problem with this script is that a lot of people put their eggs in the same basket. And so when that thing doesn't work out, their entire sense of selfworth and identity collapses. We see that a lot with startup founders when their startup doesn't work out and then they end up being depressed for months and years sometimes.”
The anxiety people feel when faced with uncertainty is normal and biologically driven; people who appear comfortable are usually just better at hiding it, so the first step to comfort with uncertainty is acknowledging this normality rather than self-blaming.
“the first step is to acknowledge the fact that it's completely normal to feel anxiety when we're faced with uncertainty. Again, that's what our brains are designed for”
Most people find it uncomfortable to observe their own internal states (feelings, tension, uncertainty, anxiety) compared to external observations, and daily journaling or regular conversations with trusted others where you verbalize what's happening internally forces you to understand and articulate your emotions more clearly.
“We're usually better at observing the outside world...but it's a bit more uncomfortable to just observe how we're feeling, the the tension, the uncertainty, the anxiety that we can have when we're navigating challenging moments at work and in our personal lives. So something very simple that anyone can do is just taking a little bit of time every day to write a few notes and just observe how was today how did you feel...by practicing doing this you'll become a lot better at just by default observing how things are around you.”
The brain operates via a perception-action cycle where it perceives environmental data, formulates a hypothesis or prediction based on that data, and when predictions are wrong, uses the new data to refine future predictions—this is how natural learning works and mirrors the scientific method.
“The way your brain works is based on something neuroscientists call the perception action cycle. It's fairly simple. So first, you're going to perceive some information in the environment, some data. Based on that data, your brain is going to formulate a hypothesis, a prediction. Sometimes that prediction is correct, and it's great. Sometimes the prediction is wrong. And that's okay, too, as long as you're still alive and you're not dead because of that wrong prediction. Your brain is going to use that new data, that new information, and make a new prediction. And this is how you learn through experimentation.”
Metacognition—the ability to think about your own thinking, to observe your own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors—is a uniquely human capability that most animals lack, and turning this observational eye inward on yourself (rather than only outward on the external world) is an underutilized starting point for developing observation skills.
“There's a uniquely human capability that's called metacognition. And uh scientists love jargon, but it really just means thinking about thinking. So we know that most mammals are able to think. If you anyone who has a pet here would know that you look at a cat or a dog, you know they can think, right? But as humans, we're able to observe our own thoughts, observe our own emotions, observe our own behaviors. And I think this is a great way to start with observation by turning that eye towards yourself, that attention towards yourself.”
The most important factor in reflection is consistency and doing it in a way that works for you, whether journaling, coffee conversations with colleagues, or other modalities; research shows journaling benefits mental health and creativity, but if it doesn't work for you, any form of active observation and articulation (including verbal) will serve the same purpose.
“The better way is the way you actually do. So, uh I know a lot of people journaling is great. There's so much research showing how good it is for your mental health and your creativity. But the fact is lots of people don't like it. And so that's why I tell people if that's not working for you, there are lots of other ways to engage with active observation...find either a friend or a colleague you feel quite close to and say, 'Hey, once every couple of weeks, let's grab coffee together and this is just to share how we're doing and that's it.'...Whether you do this through writing in a journal or through talking with someone, it doesn't really matter as long as you do it.”
When people say they don't have time for reflection, the barrier is usually not time scarcity but failure to find a modality that works for them; even two minutes of weekly reflection on important things that emerged that week, or five minutes redirected from phone scrolling, can provide substantial benefit.
“For some people that might look like taking only two minutes a week to reflect on the important things that came up in the past week. So I don't I don't believe that nobody has time for for it. We also know that we spend a lot of time doing other things that are not so good for us. If you took five minutes out of scrolling on your phone and use that for self-reflection, you would probably benefit a lot from it. So it's rarely a matter of not having enough time. It's more a matter of not having found the right way for you to do this.”
One of the most powerful things a leader can do when facing uncertainty is to say 'I don't know, but let's figure it out together,' which opens a space for public experimentation, learning from failures, and unlocks 'social flow' where information flows between team members.
“one of the most powerful things that you can do as a leader when faced with uncertainty is saying, "I don't know, but let's figure it out together." This is how you open a space for experimentation and for learning in public”
Knowledge workers are hired for their capacity to deal with complexity and uncertainty, yet paradoxically respond to uncertainty by seeking control and certainty, sometimes pushing themselves to harmful extremes in the name of productivity.
“As knowledge workers, we are hired for our capacity to solve problems, to think creatively, to deal with complexity. But somehow when we're faced with uncertainty, we have this tendency to want to feel in control, to seek certainty.”
The barrier to self-reflection is rarely lack of time but lack of the right method; reallocating even five minutes from phone scrolling to self-reflection would yield substantial benefit, and finding the right approach requires experimentation rather than reading.
“If you took five minutes out of scrolling on your phone and use that for self-reflection, you would probably benefit a lot from it. So it's rarely a matter of not having enough time. It's more a matter of not having found the right way for you to do this”
Metacognition—the uniquely human capacity to observe one's own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors—is the foundation of observation, and people are better at observing the external world than the uncomfortable internal experience of their own tension and anxiety.
“There's a uniquely human capability that's called metacognition... it really just means thinking about thinking... as humans, we're able to observe our own thoughts, observe our own emotions, observe our own behaviors.”
Research shows that approaching challenges with curiosity in a more experimental way not only helps you find solutions faster but also produces less anxiety and stress in the process.
“there is research showing that when you approach challenges with this curious way, in a more experimental way. Not only you're going to find solutions faster, but you're also going to experience less anxiety and stress in the process”
Success as commonly defined—reaching a desired outcome, reaching a destination—implies that you need to know where you're going and have a clear plan, and this creates a binary outcome structure where either you succeed (reach destination) or fail (don't reach it).
“If you open a dictionary, the most common definition of success you will find is something like this. Reaching a desired outcome. Now please indulge me while I break down this definition...there's the idea of movement progressing towards something towards what something we desire something we feel like is positive and that thing is an outcome which implies that in order to be successful you need to reach a specific destination.”
The experimental mindset is especially suited to neurodivergent people because they tend to think in a more nonlinear way that makes rigid step-by-step curricula uncomfortable, and they often have high curiosity that the experimental approach leverages.
“This experimental mindset is actually perfect for neurody divergent people... something you find with neurody divergent people is that they actually have a more nonlinear way of thinking and it can actually feel quite constraining and uncomfortable for them to follow the more curriculum like approach”
Tiny experiments—structured as: observation of current state, formation of a hypothesis about what could be different, a protocol specifying what action to test and for how long, and reflection on results—can be applied to any challenge in life and work, from skill acquisition to health to dating, and do not require a laboratory or expert oversight to run effectively.
“The nice thing about this experimental cycle that I just showed you is that you don't need a lab to use it. You can actually run your own tiny experiments for any challenge that you're facing in your life and in your work...I want to show you how flexible this approach is. You can use tiny experiments for literally anything. You can experiment with acquiring new skills, with trying new tools, with doing new research, with connecting with new people...you can actually use tiny experiments in literally anything. I've seen people run tiny experiments to experiment with their health, with meditation, with creative hobbies, and even with dating.”
Three major cognitive scripts limit people: the sequel script (decisions must follow logically from past decisions, e.g., choosing jobs aligned with one's degree), the crowd-pleaser script (decisions made to win others' admiration and praise), and the epic script (everything must be big, world-changing, leading to misery and identity collapse when it fails—seen in depressed startup founders).
“the first one is the SQL script. That's the one where you make decisions based on the decisions you made in the past.”
An experimental mindset is an operating system built from three principles: knowing failure is inherent to learning, believing curiosity always beats certainty, and always pairing action with reflection; using all three lets you navigate uncertainty while staying less stressed and anxious.
“these are sorts of like equations that form an operating system for how to develop an experimental mindset. So first knowing that failure is an inherent part of learning. Believing that curiosity always always beats certainty and always pairing action with reflection”
Tiny experiments are not a productivity hack but can help find gentler ways of working that produce the same results without sacrificing mental health; one should run only one experiment at a time (exception: two in very separate life areas) to ensure completion and to isolate which change has impact.
“I don't see tiny experiments as a productivity hack, but I do think tiny experiments can help you figure out ways to be more productive without sacrificing your mental health.”
It is irrational to commit to a new habit for life before ever trying it; instead one should run a tiny experiment first to see if it works and only then convert it into a habit.
“with habits I find it completely crazy that we pick a new habit and we say I'm going to commit to this for the rest of my life and we've never tried it before. So you can actually run a tiny experiment first, see if it works and and if it does then turn it into a habit.”
A tiny experiment needs only two ingredients—an action to test and a number of trials (a duration)—committed to in advance; committing to the duration up front prevents stopping early and avoids confirmation bias by withholding judgment until all data is collected.
“You only need two ingredients. First, you need to know what you're going to test. And second, you need to know the number of trials. So, you need to know the action and the duration.”
An experimental culture would value people not based on the quantity of answers they provide but on the quality of the questions they ask, creating more space for innovation and imagination.
“that would also be the kind of culture where we value people not based on the quantity of answers they provide, but based on the quality of the questions they ask”
The SQL script (or sequencing script) is the tendency to make decisions based on decisions made in the past—what you do today must make sense based on what you did yesterday—which explains why graduates only look at jobs aligned with their major and why people rewrite CVs to create a coherent narrative rather than showing the actual nonlinear path of their career.
“So the first one is the SQL script. That's the one where you make decisions based on the decisions you made in the past. You feel like whatever you decide to do today needs to make sense based on what you did yesterday. This is why a lot of people when they finish university, they only look at jobs that align with their studies instead of considering a lot of other options. This is also why we actually all rewrite our CVs when we're applying for new jobs because it needs to look like we knew what we were doing. There's a a nice narrative.”
To design a mini protocol for experimentation, you only need two ingredients: (1) knowing what you're going to test (the action), and (2) knowing the number of trials (the duration), forming a 'pact' or commitment to curiosity that requires deciding the duration in advance before starting to avoid confirmation bias and the temptation to stop mid-experiment if you're not seeing desired results.
“When you want to experiment, you don't have to have a full complicated experiment like a scientist would in the lab. You only need two ingredients. First, you need to know what you're going to test. And second, you need to know the number of trials...And it's very important to commit to the duration before you get started.”
To embed experimental culture in a team, a leader should ask each team member to design a tiny experiment around a shared theme, product, or challenge; set them to report back at the end of the month with what worked and what didn't; and frame the results as a research question where the team collectively learns from the data rather than judges success/failure.
“I would actually ask your team, each person on your team, to design a tiny experiment. You could pick uh a theme, a product, a challenge that you're facing as a team and say for the next month, let's all run an experiment and let's all report back. At the end of the month, everybody can share what worked and what didn't. when you have this uh kind of scaffolding for experimentation, what's great is that you're really creating a sandbox, a playground for experimentation where it's okay, encouraged even to share the unexpected results. And so instead of saying this is success, this is where we want to go, you can start from more of a research question, again, a hypothesis saying we think this might work, we don't know. Let's try it. let's collect the data and let's regroup and learn from each other.”
Lula recommends a simple reflection tool called 'Plus Minus Next' with three columns: (1) Plus: everything that went well, (2) Minus: everything that didn't go well, (3) Next (with arrow): what you want to tweak or implement in the next cycle; this is typically done as a weekly review but can be done daily for intense experiments.
“There's a tool that I really like that is actually in the book that's very simple to that is very helpful to track your experiments but also to reflect on them and to decide what you're going to implement in your next experiments. I uh maybe if I had named it at Google, the name would be better, but I did that on my own. It's called plus minus next. And uh it really describes what it is. It has three columns. In the first column, plus you write everything that went well. Second column, everything that didn't go so well. And in the last column, next with a little arrow, what you want to tweak next, what you want to implement next, what you learn and that you want to use in the next cycle. I usually use that as a weekly review for my experiments. So I do that on Sundays or Monday morning.”
Running experiments 'in public' adds accountability that helps you finish experiments you might otherwise abandon, and sharing unexpected/failed results is as valuable as sharing successes because telling others 'I tried this, don't do it' saves them time and energy.
“learning in public and having this accountability can be helpful to actually stick to it and collect the data.”
The 'plus minus next' tool uses three columns—what went well, what didn't go well, and what to tweak/implement next—as a weekly (or daily for intense experiments) review that closes the learning loop and provides material for an annual review.
“It's called plus minus next... It has three columns. In the first column, plus you write everything that went well. Second column, everything that didn't go so well. And in the last column, next with a little arrow, what you want to tweak next”
Reflecting on results and closing the loop—implementing what you learned into the next experiment—turns repeated cycles into 'growth loops' so you grow through the cycles rather than going in circles.
“This is what is allowing you to not just keep going in circles but really grow through the cycles. And this is what people call growth loops.”
A tiny experiment does include a hypothesis, but framed loosely as 'this is going to work' or 'this is not going to work'; productive experiments can even start from the expectation of failure, as when Le Cunff disproved her own fixed-mindset belief that meditation didn't work for her.
“there is a hypothesis when you run an experiment and usually the hypothesis is more along the lines of this is going to work or this is not going to work.”
Teams develop an experimental mindset when leaders provide scaffolding—picking a shared theme, having everyone run a month-long experiment, and regrouping to report what worked and what didn't—reframing a project from a fixed destination into a shared research question where the only goal is to learn together.
“I would actually ask your team, each person on your team, to design a tiny experiment. You could pick uh a theme, a product, a challenge that you're facing as a team and say for the next month, let's all run an experiment and let's all report back.”
Self-anthropology—studying the way you think, live, and work as if you have no preconceptions about how things are done, asking why we do things the way we do—is an exercise in paying attention that plants the seed for a hypothesis by helping you imagine how things could be different.
“I like to call this selfanthropology because just like an anthropologist goes and studies a new culture with no preconceptions whatsoever. You can actually study the way you think, the way you live, the way you work, and pretend that you don't know anything about the way things are done. And really taking notes and asking yourself why are we doing things the way we are? This is really an exercise in paying attention. paying attention to how things are so you can start imagining how they could be. And this is what will help you plant the seed of a hypothesis.”
Cultures that value people based on the quality of questions they ask rather than the quantity of answers they provide create more space for innovation and imagination.
“that would also be the kind of culture where we value people not based on the quantity of answers they provide, but based on the quality of the questions they ask. And this this is the power of an experimental mindset.”
The experimental mindset is particularly well-suited to neurodivergent people because neurodivergent individuals tend to have more nonlinear ways of thinking and experience curricula and step-by-step approaches as constraining and uncomfortable, whereas the experimental approach leveraging curiosity (which is high in neurodivergent people) and allowing exploration rather than following prescribed paths is naturally aligned with how neurodivergent brains work.
“This experimental mindset is actually perfect for neurody divergent people. U my job at the at King's College London is actually at the ADHD research lab. So although this book is not about neurody diversity that was something that was always on the back of my mind while writing it and something you find with neurody divergent people is that they actually have a more nonlinear way of thinking and it can actually feel quite constraining and uncomfortable for them to follow the more curriculum like approach where you have step by steps kind of steps that you need to take. So this is actually perfect in the sense that you start with curiosity which is also something that we know is very high in neurody diversion people and you leverage it in order to explore experiment and figure out what works and what doesn't.”
Tiny experiments must be small enough to start with but can grow larger if something is working well; Lula's own example was a 10-day experiment recording one-minute videos unedited and posting to Instagram, which after completion led to a larger experiment of monthly online workshops, which after completion led to a larger experiment of quarterly in-person speaking.
“So an example of tiny experiment that I actually run myself. So I I used to be terrified of public speaking...And so I asked myself, what is a tiny tiny tiny the tiniest of experiment I could run around this? And so I said, 'For the next 10 days, I'm going to record myself with my phone for one minute and I'm going to post it on Instagram unedited.'...After that I finished that experiment...I said okay actually I think I kind of liked it...what is a slightly more ambitious version of this experiment? And so, for this one, I said every month I'm going to find an online workshop that I can present...And I did that. Once I completed that duration, I said, and I'm currently doing this one where I said once a quarter, I need to find something quite big and scary where I need to be on stage in person.”
Lula herself was severely overcommitted while working at Google (saying yes to everything, overplanning, overcommitting), and experienced a medical crisis (blood clot in her arm) that required surgery; despite the severity, she checked her calendar in the doctor's office to ensure the surgery wouldn't conflict with product launches, which became a turning point forcing her to reconsider the relationship between work and wellbeing.
“I also was constantly worried that someone would figure out that they had made a hiring mistake that I didn't belong there with all of these smart people. And as a result, I responded to that uncertainty by saying yes to absolutely everything and by desperately seeking a sense of control...I was also trying to time box every single gap in my calendar...I was dangerously dancing with burnout...I went to the hospital and there the doctor said, 'We need to perform surgery as quickly as possible. you have a blood clot in your arm that's threatening to travel to your lungs. And what did I do in that moment in front of the doctors? I said, 'One second, I need to check my calendar.' And right there in the doctor's office, I opened my calendar and I proceeded to thoroughly check that the moment we would schedule that surgery would not conflict with any of the product launches I was working on.”
During her book tour, Lula realized she had days where she was inside from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. in back-to-back meetings without breaks; she hypothesized that taking walks would help and committed to 20-minute daily walks for 20 days; this reduced the risk of her being 'proven wrong' (unlike the meditation experiment where she was pessimistic), but it significantly improved her mental health.
“Another one that I did recently that's going to sound very simple, but that was extremely good for me. So, while I was on my book tour for this book, I had to record a lot of podcasts. And at some point, I realized that there were days where I was inside from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. backtoback meetings without taking any breaks. And so I said maybe taking some walks is going to help and there's the commitment again that is really helpful with the tiny experiment format. So I said I'm going to take a 20 minute walk every day for the next 20 days and we're going to see if that helps or not. So I did that for the last 20 days of my book tour and this what time I was not proven wrong. really really really helped. And uh even if it was just 20 minutes a day, that was really good for my mental health.”
Begin with 24 hours of 'self-anthropology': pick a typical weekday and take notes throughout, asking what gives versus drains energy and when you feel curious or excited; patterns emerge quickly and become the seed of a hypothesis for a tiny experiment.
“That exercise of self anthropology I recommend doing for 24 hours... just like an anthropologist, start taking little notes throughout the day... what is giving me energy? What is draining my energy? When do I feel particularly curious and excited?”
Tiny experiments can be scaled up incrementally: Le Cunff overcame a terror of public speaking by progressing from recording one-minute unedited videos for Instagram for 10 days, to monthly online workshops, to quarterly in-person stage appearances, with anxiety decreasing at each stage.
“I used to be terrified of public speaking... For the next 10 days, I'm going to record myself with my phone for one minute and I'm going to post it on Instagram unedited.”
The book is called 'Tiny Experiments' because you don't have to start with something big and scary; you can start with small experiments and build the muscle of playing with uncertainty over time, gradually shifting your relationship with it so that it becomes similar to how scientists feel when encountering something they don't understand—with excitement rather than fear.
“This is why the the book is called Tiny Experiments. I think we don't have to necessarily go for something really big and scary straight away. We can start with something very small. And this is how you start building that muscle of playing with uncertainty and having this relationship with it which is more similar to a scientist when when they see something they don't understand they actually light up. They actually feel like ooh juicy there's something interesting here.”
The paradox of knowledge work is that knowledge workers are hired for their capacity to solve problems, think creatively, and deal with complexity, yet when facing uncertainty, they have a tendency to seek certainty and feel in control, which contradicts their core professional capability and often pushes them to extremes like overcommitting and burning out.
“As knowledge workers, we are hired for our capacity to solve problems, to think creatively, to deal with complexity. But somehow when we're faced with uncertainty, we have this tendency to want to feel in control, to seek certainty. And because of that, we sometimes push ourselves to extremes such as checking your calendar when someone is asking you when you can schedule your surgery.”
Active observation can be practiced through writing or talking; verbalizing what is going on in your mind forces you to understand and articulate your emotions, and the best method is simply whichever one you actually do consistently.
“when you verbalize what is going on in your mind with your emotions. It really forces you to understand them and articulate them. Whether you do this through writing in a journal or through talking with someone, it doesn't really matter as long as you do it.”
Success is something we praise and admire, and we often measure our own success based on the success of others, as if looking at a giant leaderboard.
“We also very often measure our own success based on the success of others. It's as if we were all looking at a giant leaderboard constantly asking who's doing better, bigger, faster work.”
A simple 20-minute daily walk for 20 days during a back-to-back meeting schedule significantly improved Le Cunff's mental health, demonstrating that valuable tiny experiments need not be complex or groundbreaking.
“I'm going to take a 20 minute walk every day for the next 20 days and we're going to see if that helps or not... this what time I was not proven wrong. really really really helped.”
She started her career at Google in the role of APM and later worked as an executive on digital health projects such as Wear OS apps and Google Fit.
“Previously she worked at Google as an executive on digital health projects such as where OS apps and Google fit.”
Lula's personal favorite tiny experiments are those where she starts thinking 'this won't work' and is proven wrong, which she describes as 'the best feeling' as a scientist both in and out of the lab.
“I love the meditation one. I actually love the experiments where I start thinking that this is not going to work. And when I'm proven wrong, this is the best. And as a scientist in the lab and outside of the lab, this is the best feeling.”
At Google, Lula worked on digital health projects including Wear OS apps and Google Fit, and many of the principles in her book (tiny experiments, observation, experimental mindset) were informed or influenced by her experience working in an innovative corporate environment.
“Previously she worked at Google as an executive on digital health projects such as where OS apps and Google fit.”
Allison Parin (the host) opened the talk by crediting Lula with a transformative gift through her work: by experimentation and vulnerability, she gave the audience access to knowledge and growth opportunities they wouldn't have had if she had remained paralyzed by fear.
“I appreciate the fact that you've experimented in that way because by doing that you shared with us a gift of your knowledge and we would never have that had you not have um been able to have done that. So thank you.”