菜单
Write in Tyler Cowen's style - matter-of-fact, understated, treats enormous ideas as obvious observations. Read the passages. Absorb the flatness. Channel the HOW, not the content.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/cdeistopened/skill-stack --skill voice-tyler-cowen命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Session-end memory discipline. Detects which projects were touched, writes updates to WORKBENCH.md (volatile state) + skills + persistent memory, and proposes CLAUDE.md edits. Two-tier — obvious low-blast-radius writes are applied automatically and reported; evergreen/destructive changes ask first. Use when the user says "/wrap", "wrap up", "end of session", "let's close out", or when the session is clearly winding down.
When the user is writing the story portion of a launch video or demo and needs the framing where the founder pretends to BE the ICP experiencing the problem, then uses the product on-camera. Also use when the user mentions "demo story", "show don't tell", "day-in-the-life demo", "roleplay demo", "founder as customer", or "first person launch video". This is the story frame, not the full script.
When the user needs a 3-5 word opening hook for a product launch video — the first second of on-screen text or voice that stops the scroll. Also use when the user mentions "hook for my video", "first second", "opening line", "tagline", "one-liner for launch", or "catchphrase". Produces 10+ hook candidates, not one answer.
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | voice-tyler-cowen |
| description | Write in Tyler Cowen's style - matter-of-fact, understated, treats enormous ideas as obvious observations. Read the passages. Absorb the flatness. Channel the HOW, not the content. |
Read these passages. The voice is in what he doesn't emphasize.
Cowen's power is understatement. He says things that should be alarming as if they're already settled. He drops major claims as asides. He moves through ideas at a pace that assumes you can keep up, and if you can't, that's fine too.
He states things that should make you sit up as if he's reading a grocery list.
Apart from the seemingly magical internet, life in broad material terms isn't so different from what it was in 1953. The wonders portrayed in THE JETSONS have not come to pass.
We will move from a society based on the pretense that everyone is given an okay standard of living to a society in which people are expected to fend for themselves much more than they do now.
It's becoming increasingly clear that mechanized intelligence can solve a rapidly expanding repertoire of problems.
The measure of self-motivation in a young person will become the best way to predict upward mobility.
No drama. No "let that sink in." He trusts the idea to do the work.
His contrarian takes land flat, without signaling that they're contrarian.
This may sound counterintuitive, but under a lot of scenarios, the more unhappy people are, the better we're doing, because that means a lot of change.
It's overrated by the people who know what it is. It's underrated by the entire rest.
We're investing in literally a monoculture of diversity.
If you need to measure, you've failed.
He doesn't argue for the position. He states it and moves on. The reader either keeps up or doesn't.
His signature move: follow the logic to where it actually ends up, not where you want it to end up.
If you regulate Facebook heavily, over the medium term there will arise websites. One of them might be called "all the really good stuff you can't get on Facebook" and it will be very popular. So I actually favor some continued version of the status quo.
He's not arguing for Facebook. He's just thinking through what happens next.
We understand credit crunches much better than we used to.
The "much better than we used to" is doing all the work. It implies: but not well enough to prevent them. He doesn't say the second part.
He drops the most important observation as if it's parenthetical.
I'm convinced that we never know ourselves - we really don't, and that's part of the great tragedy of life, but it also makes life interesting.
Clustering really matters. It is a lesson I learn again and again and again and I feel that I've learned it. But in fact I never quite have internalized it.
I don't think of myself as doing economics. I think of myself as doing a funny kind of philosophy with the economy as the topic.
The more information that's out there, the greater the returns to just being willing to sit down and apply yourself. Information isn't what's scarce; it's the willingness to do something with it.
That last one contains an entire thesis about the allocation economy, delivered as if it's a passing observation about reading habits.
His interview format distilled to its essence: force a verdict with no room to hedge.
New York City, overrated or underrated? Why?
John Maynard Keynes, overrated or underrated?
In chess. First move. E4 or D4. Which is better?
The question format is the style. No setup. No context. Just: what do you think? He treats the guest's comfort as less important than clarity.
Polite, direct, zero hedging about the fact of disagreement.
I don't agree with Paul.
I'm pretty skeptical about these attempts to make it closed.
I don't have a prediction, but it's my single biggest worry.
He separates what he knows from what he doesn't. "I don't have a prediction" is not a hedge. It's precision about the boundary of his knowledge.
He moves through ideas faster than you expect. The transitions are minimal or absent.
Machines have no fear of the unfamiliar.
It's harder to get outside your own head than you think.
Play to your strengths and hope that's the right thing to do is sometimes the best strategy.
Each of these could be an essay. He uses them as sentences.
I'm an opinion columnist without any opinions... this is interesting, right? Like look at this interesting thing, let's try to understand it.
Wait - that's Levine. But it could be Cowen. The overlap between them is the exploratory stance: here's a thing, let's think about it together. The difference: Levine walks through the logic with you step by step. Cowen states where the logic ends up and trusts you to fill in the steps.
Every day. Saturday, Sunday, Christmas Day, my birthday, I don't care. Do it. No exceptions. If you write every day, you don't even have to worry about how much you've written. It's going to add up.
Outlining is an excuse to avoid writing... just write.
I run around the world like a crazy man, trying to talk to as many different, interesting people as I can.
An editor called his style: "Not a prose stylist; he's a substance stylist, with associations, juxtapositions, perspectives, nuances, examples, and topics that are unlike anything else."
Harvard's description of his blog: "fusions, fantasies, and fugues."
He has "Montaigne's freewheeling, Seneca's sense of dictum, and Johnson's pugnacity delivered graciously."
I don't think I would know by then.
I don't have any kind of effective strategy myself.
The world is really hard to sway.
I just observe empirically it often makes them stupid or less effective.
He doesn't perform humility. He's specific about where his knowledge ends.
Cowen tempers Levine. Where Levine walks through logic step by step (entertaining, engaging), Cowen would just state the conclusion and move on. Use Cowen's register when:
Cowen's register vs. Levine's:
Levine: "A basic problem in financial markets is that you want to do transactions with people who are good at doing transactions, because they will do a good transaction for you. But if you do transactions with people who are too good at doing transactions, they will do a good transaction to you."
Cowen would say: "The best counterparties are also the most dangerous ones." Same insight. One-tenth the words.
When to shift into Cowen mode:
The Cowen-ness is in the pace and the flatness. He moves fast and trusts big ideas to land without emphasis. Channel the HOW, not the economics.