iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 08/09/2026

Uncertainty can be fun: In a mystery novel. In live sports. In gambling. AI can make serious decisions feel like harmless conversations. It reassures you calmly. It’s tempting to stop checking. But your stakes haven’t changed. Stay sceptical.

001

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 07/09/2026

A longer AI answer can make you more confident in a mistake. Longer explanations raise confidence. They don’t help people catch wrong answers. You read more. You feel surer. But you still need to check its assertion. Read the research: www.nature.com/articles/s4...

nature.com

What large language models know and what people think they know

Nature Machine Intelligence - Understanding how people perceive and interpret uncertainty from large language models (LLMs) is crucial, as users often overestimate LLM accuracy, especially with...

010

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 07/09/2026

A stranger skims your 300 papers in one word: Teacher. WTF. You're holding office hours. You're rerunning the methods with a student. You're 15 years into the claim they hear in 5 seconds. Conduct the research they skipped over. Win the decade they booked as teaching.

000

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 06/09/2026

We chase certainty to avoid regretting our decisions. Turn to political promises. Read another paper. Ask AI. Eventually, you must choose based on what you know. It's uneasy. It's awkward. It's uncomfortable. Behind the painful distress lies satisfaction.

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 05/09/2026

How to turn any published paper into a writing template: 10 minutes. ~600 words. 1 highlighter. 1. Find a best paper in your field. 2. Look for 1 sentence that describes: • Context (C) • Problem (P) • Method (M) • Result (R) • Contribution (K) 3. Get the skeleton and the style.

110

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 02/09/2026

Instead of watching one hour of Netflix tonight, watch… NO! Just take the time off and watch/read/do whatever you want. Your work is hard enough without influencers telling you what dumb video will make you more intelligent. Enjoy your well-deserved break.

000

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 29/08/2026

Content mass production is killing creativity. AI has made us excellent at producing content. Chattie just lurves to help out. And we gobbled it up. The thing is: You don't understand the sh*t you didn't do. You cared about the artifact. You ignored the process. Two ways to fix this:

110

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 28/08/2026

AI development is exponential. Our committees slowly review policies. AIs rapidly ingest entire libraries. And now, AI companies are mass-buying, scanning, and destroying old books. All to gain an edge. The Internet is full of slop.

A chaotic assortment of vintage leather-bound books stacked and scattered, highlighting concerns over their destruction by AI companies.

110

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 28/08/2026

Your drafts prove you have the time to write. Time lets you write those drafts. Permission lets you publish them. Grant yourself the second one.

000

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 27/08/2026

Research is not coding. Writing is not an algorithm. Research is writing is thinking. Thinking needs creativity. Thinking needs friction. Thinking needs space. You can’t optimize this.

010

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 27/08/2026

Richard Feynman once wrote on his blackboard: "What I cannot create, I do not understand." He didn't mean abstract theory. He meant building physical, testable systems from scratch. → 1965: Won the Nobel Prize in Physics for reconstructing quantum electrodynamics using visual diagram

A blackboard displays a handwritten quote about understanding and creation, alongside other text and markings.

101

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 26/08/2026

Bad AI lit review: • Generic prompt with automated review • Cherry-picked old studies randomly selected • Ignoring 20 years of theoretical debate in between Good AI lit review: • 50 hand-annotated PDFs from your private library run w/ a local model

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 26/08/2026

It took a 5 years to master your discipline. It only took 3 anonymous reviewers to bury it. The institution trained you to impress them. Yet, you lack the clarity to feed your work to the world. You write to: • hide behind passive verbs. • cover every edge case. • avoid peer criticism.

110

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 22/08/2026

When you hit tenure: What did the month after feel like?

000

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 21/08/2026

Where do you personally draw the line on what AI is allowed to do in your work, and what already crosses it?

000

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 12/08/2026

How anyone can get over the fear of criticism (this is what I did): 1. Publish about something you have a real opinion on 2. Collect the criticism that you get 3. Notice how little of it draws blood 4. Compare that sting to another year of keeping your knowledge silent Simple but powerful.

010

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 11/08/2026

Your momentum only has 3 bottlenecks: 1. Restart size 2. Restart speed 3. Restart shame At any time, you must shrink one of these (and put every grand comeback plan on a Later list.) Create a smaller first post, get a faster return → zero apologies.

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 11/08/2026

Stop collecting another reading list. Stop bookmarking ways to write faster. Stop watching one more video about deep f*cking work. Stop consuming strategies for the paper you aren't writing. Just open the draft. And if your objection is that you don’t have time,

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 10/08/2026

Most research days fail in a boring way. Not because the idea is weak. Because the first clean hour gets spent on work that feels responsible and leaves nothing behind. A meeting happens. An email gets answered. A form gets filed. The paper does not move.

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 10/08/2026

Anyone who says that clear structure means it was written by AI is announcing they don’t read careful research. They don't appreciate the beauty in the mundane. Topic sentences, signposting, and clean abstracts existed long before chatbots came along.

110

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 09/08/2026

Brutal truth: You can’t write the paper you can’t explain out loud. And yes, you can’t explain what you still only sort of understand. When you can't figure out your methods section, it's not a formatting problem. That is your mind telling you the design is still fuzzy.

110

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 09/08/2026

Your expertise is already expensive to build. It becomes valuable when someone else can find it in time of need. Papers archive your work for a field. Public writing puts a grip on it.

110

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 08/08/2026

The researchers getting real leverage from AI are not prompting all day. They're running agents. Hermes, Claude, Codex. Boring on purpose. Same literature dig on Monday. Same reviewer pushback script on Wednesday. Same clarity pass before coauthor review on Friday.

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 08/08/2026

Clear writing is not the decoration on top of your research. It is the research, made portable. If colleagues outside your subfield cannot repeat your contribution in one breath, the contribution is still trapped inside your head. It never made its way onto your page.

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 07/08/2026

AI makes weak thinking sound finished. That is the real danger. A muddy contribution becomes a smooth paragraph. A wild guess puts on a lab coat and boldly walks into territory where no draft has walked before. So invert your workflow. First: make AI attack your argument.

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 07/08/2026

A better research question is usually a smaller research question. Not smaller in importance. Smaller in what must be true for the claim to stand alone. Write the claim. Write what would kill it. Design the cheapest verifiable test. Ambition belongs in your career.

120

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 06/08/2026

Good research writing needs both: Short lines to make the claim land. Longer ones to carry the reasoning that earns the claim. Most academic drafts do the opposite. They stay bland forever. No pressure. No pauses. No powerful composition. Read your paragraph out loud.

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 06/08/2026

You already know the paper should come before email. The hard part is acting like you know this deeply, intricately, at 8:12 AM. when the inbox feels like duty to serve like your sticky habit demands it, and the draft feels optional at most.

000

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 05/08/2026

Bad (🤷‍♂️): Another day, another second brain in AI. Better: Any writing system that gets your real sentence onto the page before lunch time.

000

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 05/08/2026

The scarce resource in a lab is not intelligence. It is uninterrupted attention aimed at one hard question.

000

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 04/08/2026

Write the short public note that explains why the work matters. Write the conference talk in plain language. Write the grant one-pager. Write the paper abstract. Write the lab update. If an idea only works in one format, it is not clear yet. Clear research thinking gets translated well.

000

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 04/08/2026

If your lab’s AI use still feels clumsy, good. That means you are early enough to build shared workflows before bad habits harden: • One methods consistency check • One figure/table explanation pass • One literature deep research prompt • One pass to figure out what Reviewer 2 would say

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 03/08/2026

My default AI workflow before I trust a draft section: 1. Ask AI to attack it like a skeptical reviewer. To find the weak claims, missing baselines, fuzzy contributions, overfit conclusions 2. Only after that, ask for a tighter rewrite that preserves my argument and citations

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 02/08/2026

Underrated writing tip for researchers: In any sentence, make the last word carry the heavy meaning. Weak: “The main contribution of this paper is a new evaluation method.” Stronger: “This paper’s main contribution is a new evaluation method.” Even stronger:

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 02/08/2026

Most senior researchers don’t lack expertise. They lack a weekly distribution system for it. The Write Insight is my weekly newsletter for researchers and research-origin experts who want: • Clearer public writing • AI workflows that protect rigour

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 01/08/2026

How to use the PASTOR framework in academic writing: 1. PROBLEM: Identify the research gap 2. AMPLIFY: Turn up the volume on that gap 3. STORY: Share a mini-story 4. TRANSFORM: Use testimonials academia style 5. OFFER: Make your contribution 6. RESPONSE: Call for future action Done.

012

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 01/08/2026

Harsh truth for researchers using AI: If your prompt is just "make this sound better," you are asking the model to make its own judgment. Better workflow: 1. Paste the claim, evidence, and constraint 2. Ask for counterarguments, missing citations, and weak inferences

130

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 01/08/2026

If you are just starting to write about your research in public and almost no one is reading it, this is your beginner advantage. It’s like running studies in a private research lab before a big site visit.

120

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 31/07/2026

For whoever needs to hear this: Your first 50 public posts will be uneven. Almost no one will see them. The few who do will not remember the awkward ones. That is your beginner advantage. You get to build the skill while the stakes are still low. Embrace the easy reps.

000

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 31/07/2026

The easiest way to get ahead as a researcher in the AI era is to start producing in public. Every day. 45 focused minutes. Take one idea from your research, teaching, or lab conversations and put a clear version of it into the world. Hit publish before it feels finished.

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 30/07/2026

You should use AI on two kinds of research work: 1. What is now routine for you, but used to take hours 2. What is still hard for you, where better questions would help Use AI to automate the routine work. Use AI to challenge the hard work. If you only do the first, you get speed.

200

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 30/07/2026

It has never been easier for researchers to build a public body of work: • Most 'thought leadership' in your domain is soft, recycled BS • Most good papers get read by a tiny fraction of the field • Most people scroll for hours and still feel behind

130

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 29/07/2026

My deep conviction is that writing your thoughts in public is one of the highest-leverage habits a researcher can build. • You get faster feedback • You become a better teacher • Your arguments become clearer • You build stronger collaborations • Your expertise becomes more visible

120

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 29/07/2026

Most people want the keynote. That sexy recognition. They don't see the work you've put in to get it. They see the citations, the title, the chair position. Many assume public expertise just ships with completing a PhD. Far from true. What they don't see:

An iceberg graphic illustrates the hidden efforts behind expertise, highlighting extensive work, research, and overcoming self-doubt.

110

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 29/07/2026

5 steps to get paid for research expertise without becoming a marketing geek: 1. Find a painful problem your field keeps creating for labs, companies, or institutions 2. Solve it in your actual work 3. Publish short pieces that make you understand why the problem is impossible to ignore

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 28/07/2026

The best AI habit I’ve found for research clarity: Before bed, write down one open research problem in one sentence. Heck, talk it into an app that transcribes it.

100

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 28/07/2026

If the paper is the priority, protect the first hours of the day for it. If the grant is the priority, protect the first hours of the day for it. If the experiment design is the priority, protect the first hours of the day for it.

120

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 27/07/2026

In 2010, my work lived almost entirely inside papers, grants, and closed spaces. After years of publishing, I still kept running into the same problem: People who should have known my work never read it.

110

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 27/07/2026

Time freedom = spending your best hours on work only you can do If your week is packed with work below your pay grade, choose between these two: 1. Change what you are doing, until your calendar matches your expertise 2. Change what you want, until committee minutes feel like the point

110

Lennart Nacke, PhD @lennartnacke.com · 26/07/2026

One business fear I wish more senior researchers admitted: You worry that writing online will make you look less serious. Yet funders, clients, collaborators, students, and conference organizers can only act on work they encounter. Your credibility already exists. Give it a public trail.

000