Tag: naval ravikant

Posted on

Paying Attention Vs Paying Proper Attention

magnifying glass, pay attention

Earlier this week, I was listening to a fascinatingly thoughtful conversation between Tim Ferriss and Kindred’s Steve Jang, where Tim said one line that stood out in particular: “I’ve been paying a lot of attention, but I’ll be honest, I don’t know how to pay proper attention.”

And well, it got me thinking. About the difference between knowing what to look at and knowing how to look at it.

One of my favorite TED talks is by Will Guidara (quite honestly I think it deserves more views on YouTube than it has). Will is probably best known for co-founding one of New York’s hottest fine dining restaurants, Eleven Madison Park, and for writing the book, Unreasonable Hospitality. And in it, he talks about how just listening to the conversations that are happening at the tables and delivering these small, unexpected pockets of joy can create experiences that transcend money and time.

In the afore-mentioned talk, he talks about how there are four diners at Eleven Madison Park. That they went to all the top restaurants in NYC. Le Bernardin. Per se. And so on. And Eleven Madison Park was the last on their to-do list. But the only regret they had was that they never got to try a New York hot dog. Of course, upon hearing that, Will storms out the door to buy a $2 dog, brings it back to the kitchen and convinces the chef to serve it over the aged duck that took years to perfect. And when he finally delivered the next course on the menu as the hot dog he just bought, the four guests went bonkers. That despite on the multiple courses and the brilliant food, that their favorite dish was the NYC hot dog.

That it was because Will paid proper attention to his guests that he was able to deliver a truly unforgettable experience.

The truth is how to pay proper attention to anything that deserves our attention is the million-dollar question.

Paying proper attention

There’s the famous selective attention test, where viewers are asked to count the number of times the ball is being passed between the players, only to fail to realize that there is gorilla that walks across the screen. We’re told to pay attention to the ball passes, but only by paying proper attention to the purpose of why the test is being administered, do we catch what is hiding in plain sight.

Similarly, Raymond Joseph Teller (or better known for being half of the dynamic magic duo Penn & Teller) did a fascinating talk a decade and a half ago about the illusion of expectation. That magic in all of its novel facets feeds off of the expectations of its onlookers. When one tries to pay attention to the coins that are “magically” jumping from one hand to the next, you might fail to catch the sleight of hand in between. But only after he reveals his secrets is the simple magic act all the more impressive. In other words, in the second half, he teaches you how to pay proper attention.

If you have eight minutes in your day, would highly recommend watching the below video.

I can’t speak for every topic, industry, relationship, and so on out there, but at least for the cottage industry of venture capital, why I choose to write an angel or an LP check is similar. I don’t really look for what will change. ‘Cause damn, it’s so hard to predict what will change and how things will change. If I knew, and if one day, I know, please invest in my public markets fund, which will be the best performing fund of all time. But I don’t. We, as pundits sitting around the table, might draw predictions. But even the smartest of us (not sure why I say us, ’cause not sure if I can put myself in that category yet) would be lying if we knew what would happen in foresight.

Instead, I look at what doesn’t change.

What doesn’t change?

The great Charlie Munger passed away last week at the age of 99. And without question, a great loss to the world we live in today. Just half a year prior, he and Warren Buffett were hosting their 2023 annual meeting. And just two weeks prior, he was still doing CNBC interviews. And one of my favorite lines from that May annual meeting was:

“Well, it’s so simple to spend less than you earn, and invest shrewdly, and avoid toxic people and toxic activities, and try and keep learning all your life, et cetera, et cetera, and do a lot of deferred gratification because you prefer life that way. And if you do all those things, you are almost certain to succeed. If you don’t, you’re going to need a lot of luck. And you don’t want to need a lot of luck. You want to go into a game where you’re very likely to win without having any unusual luck.”

In reducing the requirement to need luck, one of the most effective ways to find what is constant in life. That despite changing times and technologies, these stay true. Or as Morgan Housel and Naval Ravikant put it, If you lived your life 1000 times, what would be true in 999 of them? In investing jargon, pattern recognition. Across my investments and more, where have I seen outperformance? What characteristics do they all share? What about human nature won’t change?

In fairness, pattern recognition gets a bad rap. And for a lot of investors, that’s because they choose to only invest in their comfort zone, and what they know best. Their former colleagues. Their Stanford GSB classmates. People who look like them, think like them, act like them. But recognizing thematic threads stretch across all facets of our life. We learn that not brushing our teeth well can lead to cavities. We learn that after stubbing our toe on the kitchen counter numerous times, we take a wider turn before turning into the kitchen. And we learn that eating piping hot foods kills your tastebuds for the next few days.

The venture corollary

In venture, we’re always taught to look at the team, product, and market. And that all are important. But if you tell a new grad or an ex-founder or an emerging angel to do just that. To them, that means nothing. They wouldn’t know how to judge. They have no benchmarks, nor do they know what’s right versus wrong. Now I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but I do believe previous blogposts like this and this are quite comprehensive for how I pay proper attention as an investor.

Emerging LPs are not immune to the lack of perspective as well. My hope and my goal is for how to be just as important if not more than the what. And for the why to be just as or more important than the how. It’s because of that, I write essays like this and this. And of course, it’s why I started Superclusters because I, too, am looking for how to pay proper attention to the next generation of venture investors. (Stay tuned for the coming Monday for episode four where we unpack the bull and bear case of early distributions in a fund!)

Photo by Shane Aldendorff on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

Posted on

DGQ 18: If you lived your life 1000 times, what would be true in 999 of them?

luck, clover, serendipity

I first heard this question from Morgan Housel quoting a Navalism (for the uninitiated, that means has its source tracing back to the one and only Naval Ravikant). And it makes you think, that in the multiverse, where each version of you lives a different life and makes different choices, what would stay constant?

These are things that are not attributed to luck. And as Morgan mentioned, “those are the things you want to focus on in life.” When predicting the future, many try to predict what will change, but the best bets with long time horizons are on those that don’t change. Things that aren’t attributed to luck. Or chance. In this world we live in, you’d be quite surprised the number of small, accidental decisions we make that lead to life-changing events.

Like you being 10 minutes late to a party meant that you somehow just showed up at the same time as your future spouse. And it was because of that, that led you to have a two-hour long conversation with him/her. Otherwise, you’d have spent the entire party hanging with your college friends.

Or because you forgot to bring your umbrella on a day it rained, it made you run into a hotel for shelter, where you stumbled upon the investor who led your Series A round. Because he/she too forgot to bring an umbrella.

Of course, I could play hypotheticals forever. Although I find it’d be a fun exercise to really examine how much of your most life-changing moments were due to serendipity.

As someone who makes their living on attempting to predict the future, that means we have to go back to first principles. For instance, human nature. Reid Hoffman’s framework that all great consumer products tap into one of the seven deadly sins. Something that despite innovation is timeless. Anecdotally, I do find some of the greatest investors — LPs and GPs alike — to be avid students of history, philosophy or psychology.

In the same interview I alluded to above, Tim Ferriss mentions another line once written by Don Knuth when he was quitting the use of email:

“Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things.”

In life, while catchy and interesting and the talk of the town for that brief moment, sometimes it’s better to get to the bottom of things than to stay on top of things. After all, you only have so many letters on your tombstone.

Photo by Yan Ming on Unsplash

The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. It’s an inside scoop of what goes on in my noggin’. My hope is that it offers some illumination to you, my readers, so you can tackle the world and build relationships with my best tools at your disposal. It also happens to stand for damn good questions, or dumb and garbled questions. I’ll let you decide which it falls under.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

Posted on

Why It’s Important to Disagree with Your Co-Founders Early

While I don’t always ask this question, when I do, it provides me enormous context to how the founding team works together. What do you and your co-founders fundamentally disagree on? Over the years, I’ve heard many different answers to this question. “We disagreed on which client to bring into our alpha.” “On our last hire.” “Our pricing strategy.” And so on. As long as you contextualize the point of friction, and elaborate on how, why, and what you do to resolve it, then you’re good. There’s no right answer, but there is a wrong answer.

The answer that scares me the most is: “We agree on everything.” Or some variation of that. While people may share a lot of similarities, even potentially the same Myers Briggs personality type (although I do believe people are more nuanced than four letters), no two people are ever completely the same. Take twins, for example. Genetically, they couldn’t be any more similar. Yet, to any of us, who’ve met any pair of twins in our lifetime know they are vastly different people.

Priorities lead to disagreements

One of my favorite counterintuitive lessons from the co-founder and CEO of Twilio, Jeff Lawson, is: “If your exec team isn’t arguing, you’re not prioritizing.” He further elaborates:

“As an executive team, we never actually argued — which is a strange thing to bother a CEO. But in fact, something always felt not quite right to me when we always agreed. Clearly, we must not be making good enough decisions if we all agree all the time.

“What I came to realize was that the reason why we didn’t argue is we weren’t prioritizing. One person says, ‘I like idea A,’ and the other person says, ‘I like idea B,’ and you say, ‘Great, put them both down, we’ll do it all!’ And in fact, when you look back on those documents at the end of the year, we rarely got around to very much of anything in those documents.

“Be vigorous not just about what makes the list, but the specific order in which priorities fall. “We realized it’s not just about all the things we could do, but the order of importance — which is first, which is second. Now you get disagreements and a lot of vigorous, healthy debate.”

Starting the tough conversation

Admittedly, it’s not always easy to have these tough conversations with the people you trust most. In fact, often times, it’s even harder to have these conversations because you’re scared about what it can do to your relationship. Arguably, a fragile one at best. At the end of last year, Yin Wu, founder of Pulley, shared an incredible mindset shift when building an all-star team, which led to my conversation with her.

You’re a team driven to change the world we live in. And to do so, you need a system of priorities.

One of the best ways I’ve learned to address conflicts – explicit and implicit, the latter more detrimental than the former – is taking the most obvious, but the one that most people try to avoid. Address the elephant in the room at the beginning.

I love the way Elizabeth Gilbert approaches that elephant, “The truth has legs. It’s the only thing that will be left standing in the end. So at the end of the day, when all the drama has blown up, and all the trauma has expressed itself, and everyone has acted up and acted out, and there’s been whatever else is happening, when all of that settles, there’s only going to be one thing left standing in the room always, and that’s going to be the truth. […] Since that’s where we’re going to end up, why don’t we just start with it? Why don’t we just start with it?”

When it hasn’t happened yet

If you haven’t disagreed with your team yet, you either haven’t established your priorities or one or the other or both has yet to bring it up. A mentor of mine once told me, “Whatever you least want to do or talk about should be your top priority.” And the goal is to sit down with your team and figure it out. To come into the conversation suspending immediate judgment and trying to see where your other team members are coming from.

As the CEO of a startup or a leader of a team, you don’t have to use every piece of feedback or input you get from your teammates. But you should make sure your teammates feel heard. That you’ve put thought and intention behind considering their ideas and opinions. Whether you choose to deviate from your teammates’ opinions or not, you should clearly convey the rubric that you used to make that decision. And why and how it aligns with the company’s mission.

In closing

And of course, the follow-up to the first question about disagreement would be: How often do these disagreements happen? And how do you move forward after the disagreement comes to light?

I go back to a line Naval Ravikant, co-founder of AngelList, once said, “If you can’t see yourself working with someone for life, don’t work with them for a day.” Indubitably, you’re going to be working with your co-founders for a long time. And if you haven’t dissented with your co-founders – or for that matter, other team members, investors, and customers – yet, you will. And knowing what, how and why you disagree with others can be invaluable for your company’s survival and growth.

This past weekend I heard a new phrasing of disagreement I really liked from a friend of mine. “Creative conflict.” I’m adding that phrase to my dictionary from now on. And well, this is my preface to you all before I do.

Prioritize. Communicate. And embrace creative conflict.

Photo by Ming Jun Tan on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

#unfiltered #41 Pondering Purpose and Passion – Notes from Naval Ravikant on Clubhouse

fire, passion, purpose

I’ve been a long time fan of Naval Ravikant, so when he went on Clubhouse recently to share his thoughts, despite not having an iPhone (I know ?), I had to find a way to tune in. While Clubhouse is designed to be the ephemeral demystification of the broader world, there are a rarified few conversations I believe are and should be evergreen. Naval’s happens to be one of them. Whether Clubhouse itself compiles these knowledge banks or through some third-party service, we already have listeners and Clubhouse users recording these conversations. A temporary hack that paves the way for a broader solution.

Over the weekend, I found Naval’s definition of purpose to be one of the best I’ve heard to date:

“You have to live up to your own moral code. Your life is an eternal single-player game. You’re not competing against anybody else; you’re competing against yourself. You set your own desires and your goals. You have your own perspective. You have your own morality. And you have to live up to it.

“There is no standard meaning or purpose. If there was a single purpose or meaning for all of us, then we’d all be slaves to that single purpose. We’d all be robots – every one of us fighting each other in conflict to get to that one purpose. And there’s not even a single purpose for you necessarily, other than the one that you create. So, you get to create your meaning and purpose. You get to craft your own story here. […]

“It is a race, but you’re just running against yourself. You pick the finish line; you pick the goal line; you pick the meaning; you pick the purpose. So you can pick a meaning or purpose that is antithetical to happiness, or one that aligns with it.”

A month ago, my friend and I watched Pixar’s Soul. In it, the writers illustrated a powerful lesson on life’s inspiration. As Jerry enlightens Joe, that distilling your whole life into a singular purpose is “so basic”, Joe enlightens Soul 22, “your spark isn’t your purpose. The last box fills in when you’re ready to come live.” To live means to enjoy and savor every minute, every second, the entire 24-hour day, all 365 days of the year, and every year we are alive and breathing. Not just, and I’m generalizing here, the 40-100-hour workweeks. Joy and purpose, after all, was never meant to measured as a unit of time alone.

Many of us live life looking for our purpose in life – a singular destination. A singular raison d’être. We compartmentalize our entire lives into self-prescribed labels. In high school, it was either by our grades or our extracurriculars. In college, by our majors. In our adult life, by our job title. I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m willing to bet that most, if not all people, are more robust than just their full-time roles make them out to be. Just like I’m more than a VC Scout. That’s why I’m so fascinated by polymaths in our society.

In opening our minds to a world beyond a single degree of freedom, we give ourselves more surface area to find inspiration and happiness. As Tim Ferriss once said, “It is not that beauty is hard to find; it’s that it is easy to overlook.”

Equally so, his rhetoric on passion is equally as provocative. Or specifically, the relationship between your passion/obsession (more on obsession here and here) and domain expertise. The latter, as Naval calls it, “specific knowledge”:

“How do you gain specific knowledge? It’s almost a catch 22. Specific knowledge is built up by you through your passions. So, when they say follow your passion, it’s kind of what they mean. It doesn’t always lead to money, but it can. Because if you’re obsessive about something and learning it for your own genuine intellectual curiosity – not to get a degree, not to make money, not to impress your friends – you’re going to end being better at it than anybody else. So, I really believe that you should only read and engage in activities that you genuinely enjoy. And you should cultivate your intellectual obsessions without any goal that you may be surprised when you look back and connect the dots later that one of them developed into a goal. One of the hallmarks of specific knowledge is that it will feel like play to you, but it will look like work to others. So, anything that fits that model, you should develop. […]

“You get what you want out of life. You just have to want it badly enough. If it’s your all-consuming desire, you will get it. You will create the path to the destination no matter what it takes.”

Naval’s encyclopedic answers asked underscored once again a question I ask myself when I am the most lost:

What would I do if, at the end of the day, I would be only one applauding myself?

Photo by Almos Bechtold on Unsplash

#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Proudly powered by WordPress