The Full Nietzche Quote I used as inspiration for this note: A traveller who had seen many countries and peoples and several continents was asked what human traits he had found everywhere; and he answered: men are inclined to laziness. Some will feel that he might have said with greater justice: they are all timorous. They hide behind customs and opinions. At bottom, every human being knows very well that he is in this world just once, as something unique, and that no accident, however strange, will throw together a second time into a unity such a curious and diffuse plurality: he knows it, but hides it like a bad conscience why? From fear of his neighbour who insists on convention and veils himself with it. But what is it that compels the individual human being to fear his neighbour, to think and act herd-fashion, and not to be glad of himself? A sense of shame, perhaps, in a few rare cases. In the vast majority it is the desire for comfort, inertia – in short, that inclination to laziness of which the traveller spoke. He is right: men are even lazier than they are timorous, and what they fear most is the troubles with which any unconditional honesty and nudity would burden them. Only artists hate this slovenly life in borrowed manners and loosely fitting opinions and unveil the secret, everybody’s bad conscience, the principle that every human being is a unique wonder; they dare to show us the human being as he is, down to the last muscle, himself and himself alone even more, that in this rigorous consistency of his uniqueness he is beautiful and worth contemplating, as novel and incredible as every work of nature, and by no means dull. When a great thinker despises men, it is their laziness that he despises: for it is un account of this that they have the appearance of factory products and seem indifferent and unworthy of companionship or instruction. The human being who does not wish to belong to the mass must merely cease being comfortable with himself; let him follow his conscience which shouts at him: “Be yourself! What you are at present doing, opining, and desiring, that is not really you.”… 

As much as i’m a student of philosophy, I find many of Nietzche’s thoughts hard to relate to due my unfamiliarity with the time period he is writing in, but I found the above paragraph rich with enduring ideas.

Nietzsche’s basic argument here is that human beings are fearful and lazy. They hide behind tradition to disguise their lack of individuality. They look to blend in it to hide their laziness for in a sea of laziness they can’t be picked out. Men know they only have this one life to live, yet they are scared to make the most of it. They are afraid of taking an honest look at themselves for fear of what they might discover. The philosopher despises mankind for opting for this life of convention rather than a life of individuality. Only the artist seeks to reveal man as he truly is. It is not hard for man to break this cycle. All he must do is find dissatisfaction in conformity and dare to be different, dare to be himself.

The scary thing is that this rings almost as true as when Nietzsche wrote these words over a century ago. There are signs we may be on the verge of a creative awakening. But currently a very small population attacks life with a fervent passion, seeking self-discovery, self-improvement and a life of creative contribution.

What fear could be so strong that it represses our individuality?

This fear must cut deep to deprive us of the only thing we’ll ever have. Everyone knows we have only this one life, yet most choose to live as if this wasn’t the case Nietzsche is confounded that so many are persuaded by a little discomfort to abandon the pursuit of individuality. Failing to individuate is failing to live. You’d be living a life that has already been lived. We are all given our own unique genetics and our own experiences. We all have the capability to dare to be different and carve out our own unique identity in the world. Why do so few make the most of this truly once in a lifetime opportunity?

Our paralysis comes from our fear of rejection. Many of our biological instincts evolved when the sole goal of life was to survive. In tribal culture, where humanity existed for so long, the best way to ensure survival was to stick with the tribe. If you were ostracized your chance of surviving went down drastically. Naturally, we evolved an aversion to putting ourselves in situations where others might reject us and kick us out of the tribe. But times have changed. Few would argue today the sole purpose of life is reproduction. Organized human society affords us something new. A life that transcends basic survival. A life where meaning is created by what we do with our minds. A mind with boundless potential if only given the chance to explore. And this what causes Nietzsche to have so much disdain for man. Everyone is given this gift, redeemable only once, yet so few embark on this journey.

Read More

•  16 August 2011  •  1 note

I realized I never published this note that I wrote in March (2011) in response to 

a project that was inspired by Seth Godin’s ‘What Matters Now’. The idea was to gather perspectives from 25 young scholars about the emerging trends they see changing the world over the next decade. I picked picked Engagement.

…………………………..

I have news for you: The world’s biggest problem is probably not on your radar. It’s not disease, poverty or climate change.

The world’s biggest problem is that not enough people are working on the world’s biggest problems.

Human drive and ingenuity is the lever that moves the world, but the complexity of the challenges we face has grown, and we need a longer lever.

But increasing the number of people working on solving the world’s most important problems is no easy task. Even the most developed societies are pervaded by apathy and escapism.

I think escapism is our unconscious response to dissatisfaction with life in the status quo, when people are unaware of any options for improvement. This rampant disengagement in workplaces and educational institutions is characterized by two primary symptoms: 1) people doing work they don’t care about just to pay the bills or get a good grade and 2) hating Mondays because they live from weekend to weekend. The culprit is immersion in organizations that haven’t adapted to the 21st century, engendering learned helplessness by putting impressionable people in roles that systematically stamp out inspiration, creativity and passion. The urgency of solving disengagement is such that we cannot wait for incremental change. Rather than trying to improve old systems our best bet is to make something new that makes them obsolete.

The solution to disengagement lies in the cultivation of innovation, entrepreneurship and encouragement of entrepreneurial lifestyles. Entrepreneurs can create highly idiosyncratic, meaningful lives, by making an impact on problems that matter to them. Additionally, entrepreneurs aren’t dependent on bureaucratic approval, so new organizations can be erected quickly and thrive in any place where there is a big enough need.

Entrepreneurship in a broad sense is the process of seeing a problem in the world, coming up with an idea about how to solve it and turning that idea into reality. Problems can be solved through technology, organizations or even a piece of art that triggers reflection. What’s important is working on something that matters to you, because then you have motivation, then you want to learn, then you enjoy putting in the hours so that you can become all you can be, to contribute all that you can.

Read More

•  16 August 2011

“I believe what the world needs most is a large crop of motivated lifelong learners who are capable of seeing big problems in the world and solving them. I would like to see in the next year, these people go out and make their transformative ideas a reality. I would like to see these people fully supported with all the tools they need to be successful. The world needs to rediscover its innovative roots. If you don’t feel like you can change the world yourself then find the people who you think can. Devote your energy to accelerating their ability to make an impact. Offer the skills you have to remove their roadblocks and reveal their blind spots to them. Everybody must find some way to be a part of the innovation cycle. I would like to see everybody committed to creating something the world needs!”

— Paul. A

•  16 August 2011  •  1 note

Its been a crazy couple of weeks travelling around the world #MediciMasters , especially with the just ended tour of Latin America, and just got home in readiness to head out to Asia in a few days, only to find there’s an interesting blog post kicking around the internets this week titled “why i quit my job to start a tech company”. It follows the path to start-up success taken by a former wall streeter who, at age 25, decided to change his career after seeing the power mark zuckerberg wielded in a room full of media executives.

The blog post has been particularly popular with stanford and harvard MBAs, many of whom hope to follow a similar path. i agree that we need more capable people actually building companies that solve problems as you might have noticed in my earlier postings, but i’m troubled by what appears to be an obvious omission from the story.

Although i appreciate the post’s sentiment, let’s not overlook how much easier it is to embrace this type of advice (“be bold! take risks! follow your passions!”) when you have savings from your private equity job to fall back on. The luxury of start-up capital is a very real factor in one’s ability to pursue a dream.

There’s a saying that it’s easy to hit a home run when you’re born on third base. Similarly, many of the struggles that crush budding entrepreneurs (like overwhelming debt and limited access to talent and partnerships) are greatly ameliorated by access to capital.

I don’t mean to diminish the writer’s accomplishments, well especially since he happens to be an aquiantance— i admire his drive and tenacity, and it sounds like he created a lot of his success through hard work like most of entrepreneurs do. but in the viral frenzy to share this feel-good story, i don’t want the nuances of reality to get lost: starting a company is hard work, but it’s even harder if you truly start from nothing.

•  15 August 2011  •  1 note

(SWITCH: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard by Chip Heath & Dan Heath)

In a world that is becoming increasingly complex, it was a welcome beacon to read the title of Chip and Dan Heath’s new book: Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard. With great anticipation I turned to the introduction, where the authors promised to teach me how to change things at the individual, organizational, and societal level.

The book’s premise is straightforward—successful change occurs when people change their behavior. A person’s behavior is driven by three factors: his logic and rationality (what the authors call the “Rider”), his emotions (the “Elephant”), and his environment (the “Path”). The best way to create change, say the authors, is to “Direct the Rider,” “Motivate the Elephant,” and “Shape the Path.”

Most of the book is divided into three sections, each exploring one of these principles. Although the introduction provides the logic behind the principles, I sometimes found it difficult to bring them together into a coherent whole. For example, I found the second principle of change, Motivating the Elephant, insightful, but felt the need to return to the first section on the importance of Directing the Rider so that I could get a better perspective on the dynamic relationship between the two principles. Once I understood where the Rider was taking the willing Elephant, I found that unless I also focused on the barriers in the environment—the Path—neither the Rider nor the Elephant would see the change happen. Is it any wonder that most change efforts fail to deliver their full value?

After having gained an understanding of the three principles of change and seeing that there were only a few pages left in the book, I thought I was going to read a concluding chapter that would tie the thesis into a neat knot. Instead, I found myself reviewing 11 common problems people face when driving for change with advice on how to overcome them. Although this last chapter provides several insightful suggestions, I was disturbed that the authors chose not to bring together what is a very creative and insightful perspective on change.

Read More

•  28 June 2011

“They’re telling you questions, Asking me lies”—The Replacements

“Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.”—Henry Adams

With the most punishing economy since the Great Depression, and severe budget challenges at the federal level and in 48 states, now is a critical time for nonprofits seeking to protect the vulnerable and to promote a fairer, more just society to win people to their cause. Unfortunately, appeals to caring for the needy or increasing fairness are likely to backfire unless advocates are careful to acknowledge and avoid inflaming passions that stem from other powerful moral values.

Our attitudes on issues and situations are affected instantaneously by intuition and emotion, as Drew Weston in The Political Brain, Malcom Gladwell in Blink,and others have taught us. There is tremendous potential power in understanding such “intuitive primacy.” Indeed, putting our pre-rational selves to work may be the key to effective change, as Chip Heath and Dan Heath convincingly argue in their book Switch: How to Change When Change is Hard. InSwitch, they make the point that big changes can start with very small steps, provided that we can align people’s aspirations—speak to their emotions—and help direct them with simple, clear directions. Their framework for change is built on research from moral psychology and is framed around a metaphor posed by Jonathan Haidt, a professor at the University of Virginia. Haidt illustrates the primacy of intuition by describing our rational minds as a rider sitting astride an elephant. The rider may be able to control the elephant with reason for a brief while, but eventually the rider gets tired or paralyzed by too much analysis, and the elephant in the end is only going to move when it is ready, toward what its gut wants. The Heaths provide a persuasive theory of change: 1) Direct the Rider, 2) Motivate the Elephant, and 3) Shape the Path (set up the environment to make doing the right thing easier). Switch is a fantastic, inspiring book and should be read by anyone concerned with changing communities and organizations for the better.

The primacy of intuition and emotion can be so strong that it determines what people see as a fact. A recent article by Chris Mooney, “Rapture Ready: The Science of Self-Delusion,” provides an excellent overview of moral psychology. Mooney concludes: “You don’t lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.” (emphasis added).

But which values? And how do you speak to people who hold values different from than the ones you are trying to advance?

Read More

•  7 June 2011

In this chapter of the book, i have laid bare the gaps in our knowledge of poverty, but we must go much further to fill those gaps. i use data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in eighteen countries to show that many of our assumptions about the poor and poverty are incorrect. I call for a “enduring understanding” and argue that we must “listen to poor people themselves and force ourselves to understand the logic of their choices.”

My achievement is two-fold. First, i present the behaviors of the poor with minimal interpretation. By contrast, previous characterizations of the poor have been used to critique social welfare programs, as in the case of Scott Beaulier and Bryan Caplan’s finding that the judgment errors described by behavioral economics are especially pronounced among the poor. Second, i challenge the argument against doing for the poor what they should do for themselves by suggesting that the poor lack the “mental space” to take a longer view of their lives. At first glance, this resembles Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs,” in which meeting a low-level need (such as shelter) frees one up to pursue a higher-level need (such as intimacy). But “mental space” may go further. As i write, “Perhaps [the] idea that there is a future is what makes the difference between the poor and the middle class.”

This insight becomes more powerful when placed within a larger framework that includes developmental psychology, which describes the stages through which people pass as they go through life. Psychology also tells us that people raised in unsupportive environments may be constrained in this development. Interestingly, the behaviors often observed among the poor—such as impulsiveness, passivity, and short-term thinking—are also associated with the early stages of children’s development. Harvard psychologist Robert Kegan echoes this  statement when he writes that at early stages of development the future can only be conceived of as the “present-that-hasn’t-happened-yet.” I offer countless examples of poor children who are stunted physically, medically, and even economically. Might they be stunted psychologically as well?

Read More

•  1 June 2011

The T Model is a framework I made to describe how to most effectively approach learning, work, and non-linear career progression.

In the T Model you alternate between a broad, horizontal phase and a deep, vertical phase, (though it’s actually an upside-down T because starting with the horizontal phase is a must) . In the broad, horizontal phase the goal is to try as many things as possible, and in small doses to maximize variety. You want to continue experimenting until you find many things you are passionate about and also accumulate many reference frames to better categorize and make sense of new experiences and information.

Once you have a huge pool of things that excite you, look to switch to the vertical phase, where you will hone in on a few specific passions and combine them, to do something tangible. (This tangible thing should be something you can point to quickly and say, “I did this” and the word “project” could be considered loosely accurate).

Going through this cycle is very simple conceptually, but rarely executed. But if you look at most successful people they’ve usually followed a path similar to this. This is because in order to be really successful at something you need to be passionate, you need to be able to focus, and increasingly you need to be interdisciplinary. Success without passion exists, but those people are usually severely unhappy and prone to burn out.

Often completing this cycle even once sets off a positive feedback loop, marking the start of a lifetime of engaged pursuit and contribution. On completion of the first cycle an internal flame is lit, that once ignited is very difficult to put out. John Seely Brown former head of Xerox Parc describes this phenomena as such, “Very often just going deeply into one or two topics that you really care about lets you appreciate the awe of the world … once you learn to honor the mysteries of the world, you’re kind of always willing to probe things … you can actually be joyful about discovering something you didn’t know … and you can expect always to need to keep probing. And so that sets the stage for lifelong inquiry.”

Read More

•  30 May 2011

Every few months, I get obsessed with the idea of happiness and planning for the future.  What do I want to do when I grow up?  Throughout my entire life, I’ve seen school as simply a means to an end.  Graduate from 2nd grade, move onto 3rd grade.  I would be one year closer to becoming a real adult, and one year closer to making real money running a real company and completely changing peoples lives

Now that I’m doing just that, my idea of progress has been turned onto its side.  I no longer live my days as means to an end.  A few years ago, I thought that selling a company for millions of dollars would be the ultimate dream.  But I’ve since realized that finding liquidity probably wouldn’t make me happier.

I was having dinner with my partner-in-business Morgan this evening, and asked him how likely it was for us to be running AMPG Group and iPhilanthro 10+ years from now.  He suggested to me something among the lines of, “Most entrepreneurs go into business thinking they’re going to build something huge.  You have to be naive to think that there isn’t a chance that we’ll end up selling.”

My next thought to myself was “would I actually be happy being a serial entrepreneur?”  Investors continue to assume that I’ll build numerous companies over the course my lifetime, and at one point, I did too.  But I’m sick and tired of thinking that everything I do has to lead to an ultimate outcome, and it’s taken a toll on the way that I think about my own happiness.  Why does there have to be an end-goal when I find myself enjoying life day-by-day?

Read More

•  18 May 2011