Tag: ted

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

Where Does Implicit Gender Bias In The Startup World Come From

Last Thursday, I had an extremely thought-provoking conversation with an attorney-turned-investor. Out of the incredible array of topics our open-ended exploration on the topic of diversity – geographically and demographically – led us to, there was one thing in particular that I had to double click on.

She shared, “Men typically get asked promotion questions. ‘What does your upside look like?’ Whereas women and other underrepresented founders get asked prevention questions. ‘How do you prevent your startup from going out of business?’ And promotion questions begets more promotion questions. Similarly, prevention questions leads to more prevention questions. Founders who are typically asked prevention questions raise less capital than those who are asked promotion questions.”

I found that inextricably fascinating. I’ve never thought about investing through those lens before. It makes complete sense. The more an investor asks how are you not going to fail, the more they has convinced themselves this won’t be a good investment. On the flip side, the more an investor asks how awesome will you be, the more they’ve convinced themselves that this will be an investment worth their time.

And subsequently, I ended up reexamining the way I ask questions. I’ve never tracked the way I ask questions by demographic. But I fear that I may, in the past, have done something along the same veins.

When we closed out our conversation, she left me with one name: Dana Kanze. And well, if you know me, I had to look into her.

Lack of Venture Dollars

Dana Kanze is an assistant professor of organizational behavior over at London Business School. She wrote a paper titled We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Closing the Gender Gap in Startup Funding back in 2018 that won her the Academy of Management Journal’s Best Article of the Year award, which she inevitably did a TED talk on that I highly recommend checking out.

She cites in that research that “although women found 38% of US companies, they only get 2% of the venture funding.” While that metric is a few years old, recent trends echo the same notion. Despite the increase in conversations to include diversity at the table, in board rooms and as decision makers, Crunchbase found in a study back in August that women still only get 2.2% of venture funding, which is actually lower than any of the previous five years.

Source: Crunchbase

And despite larger round sizes, we don’t see a rise in round sizes to female-only and mixed-gender teams either.

Source: Crunchbase

Cynthia Franklin, director of entrepreneurship at Berkley’s Innovation Labs at NYU, did say, “The bets are being made, but they’re smaller.” Which accounts for the fact that 61% of total funding for female founders happens at the early stages. Frankly, it might be too early to tell. Nevertheless, Dana has a point.

Why female founders raise less capital

Originating from E. Tory Higgins‘ regulatory focus, Dana shares the bifurcation of questions that male and female founders get. Promotion and prevention questions, respectively. “A promotion focus is concerned with gains and emphasizes hopes, accomplishments, and advancement needs, while a prevention focus is concern with losses and emphasizes safety, responsibility, and security needs.”

After analyzing nearly 2,000 questions and answers asked at TechCrunch Disrupt to presenting founders, she found that investors often ask male founders promotion questions. And investors ask female founders prevention questions. Specifically, 67% of questions to males were promotion questions. And 66% to females were prevention ones.

Yet I found one notion Dana shared particularly fascinating. “All VCs displayed the same implicit gender bias manifested in the regulatory focus of the questions they posed to male versus female candidates.” That both female and male investors had the exact same implicit cognitive biases against females.

Promotion questions beget promotion answers, which beget more promotion questions, reinforcing favorable opinions. It becomes a virtuous feedback loop, which culminates often times in a “yes”. On the other hand, prevention questions beget prevention answers. Which leads to more prevention questions. This, subsequently, leads founders down a negative feedback loop, reinforcing loss-correlated opinions. When it came down to it, “startups who were asked predominantly promotion questions went on to raise seven times as much funding as those asked prevention questions.”

The silver lining, as Dana shares, is that if founders respond to prevention questions with promotion answers, they raise 14 times more funding than those who answer prevention with prevention. The lesson is reframe your answers positively, betting on the long term potential and vision. Or in Alex Sok‘s words, focus on a strategy to win rather than a strategy not to lose.

In closing

Investors invest in lines, not dots. And often times, VCs don’t realize they’re spending more time analyzing the y-intercept than the slope. And that mentality actualizes in the form of questions founders get.

As a founder, understand your investor intention – subconscious and conscious. Playing off of Matt Lerner‘s language/market fit, find your fundraising language/investor fit. Once you understand their intention, capture their attention. In a saturated market of information, attention is your audience’s scarcest resource. Frame the dialogue with a promotion focus to get your investors over the activation energy to book the next meeting.

As an investor, pay attention to your cognitive biases. Most of the time, and often the most detrimental, are the ones we don’t realize. If anything, this blogpost is me pinching myself to wake up.

Photo by Garrett Jackson 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 #11 What I Learned About Building Communities through Social Experiments – Touching Jellyfish, Types of Social Experiments, The Thesis, Psychological Safety and Fairness

jellyfish, social experiment, psychological safety, how to build a community
Are these jellyfish friendly or not? Will they “bite”?

As colorful and as beautiful jellyfish are, we are still scared of the possible danger that each possess. So, most of us only admire them from afar. And for many of us who have seen some, we’ve watched them float gracefully in dark blue aqueous solutions across a sometimes distorted film of glass. These beautiful mysteries of the deep blue.

To Touch the Jellyfish

Much like my fascination every time my parents brought me to the aquarium as a kid, I’ve been fascinated with the people around me. Especially about the thin, sometimes distorted, film between these exceptionally fascinating souls and me. The distortion created as a function of society’s, as well as their own, efforts.

Exactly a year and two months ago, I embarked on a journey to host small-scale social experiments, like:

  • Hidden Questions. A game where no one else knows the question, except for the person answering it. And where the person answering has the choice of sharing the question that inspired the answer or taking it to the grave by taking a shot of hot sauce (about a 700,000 on the Scoville scale, for reference) or a variable number of Beanboozled beans.
  • Brunches with Strangers. Quite literally, Saturday brunches with strangers. Hosting a cast of people from all walks of life. Like founders, street artists, astrophysicists, concept artists, athletes, criminal investigators, filmmakers, college drop-outs, and much more.
  • The Curious Case of Aliases. Where players (strangers to each other) under aliases guess each other’s hobbies, occupations, deepest fears, etc. after only playing in a 30-minute game session. For instance, skribbl.io. Cards Against Humanity. Codenames. And Mafia.
  • And, the most recent addition to my small Rolodex of social experiments, Improv Presentations. A TED talk-like night where people present someone else’s creatively esoteric slide decks, with no context as to what’s in the deck until they’re on “stage”. To the postmortem dismay of my cheeks and core, we saw everything from how to survive a cat-pocalypse to how to master the art of DM’ing using military tactics to how to be a good plant parent.

The Thesis, The Questions

As COVID would have it, the lack of in-person interaction and self-quarantine inspired the last two. Yet, all of which with the same thesis: helping make the world feel a little smaller, a little closer, and a whole lot more interesting. Starting not with the people who bathe in the limelight, but with the people directly around me.

Why is it so hard to be candid with strangers? And sometimes, even harder with family and friends?

Do we need alcohol, drugs, crazy incidents, violence, a lack of sleep, or stress to truly be ourselves?

Though not all-encompassing, people seem to be naturally curious about things, events, status, money, and gossip. Why aren’t people more curious about people – well, as just themselves? Like me, you’ve probably posed and have gotten the question: “How are you?” or “How are you doing?”. And likely, with more times than one is willing to admit, we didn’t really care about what the answer might be. Often times, since we know we’re just going to get a “Good” or “OK” in response.

If you want to have some fun, I highly recommend the next time someone asks you that, say “Terrible”. And watch the computer chip in their brain malfunction for a quick second.

What did I learn?

I won’t claim I found the universal truth or a holistic answer to any of those questions I posed above. Because I haven’t. After all, someone I really respect once told me:

“50% of what you know is true. 50% is false. The problem is you don’t know which half is which.”

So, in my life, my goals are two-fold:

  1. Build a system to help me discern my two halves of knowledge.
  2. Expand the total capacity of what I know.

I will share more on this blog as I am able to draw more lines of regression myself.

But in the context of this post, through social experiments, I’ve discovered that people yearn for psychological safety. Not only does Google’s Project Aristotle share its effectiveness in the workplace, it’s equally, if not more true, outside of it as well. The reason that it’s sometimes easier to share your thoughts and struggles with strangers is that strangers often won’t judge you to the same extent as friends and family do. Frankly, they don’t have much context to judge you from – implicitly and explicitly.

People want fairness. Not in the sense of you get 1 cookie, so I should get 1 too. But a fair system to be judged by. That I will get the same benefit of doubt as you will give to anyone and everyone else. When we all get drunk together, we will all be drunk and we will all relieve ourselves of any filters we may previously have. And though everyone’s drunk personality is different, and frankly everyone will still be judged… For that moment, that night, everyone’s on the same playing field.

The Applications

Let’s take most recent experiment with improv presentations as an example. The initial idea was that everyone should present their own slide decks. As serious or as silly as they might be. But some of my friends were hesitant. In their words, they felt they needed to “impress” or “have better public speaking skills”. Some simply said that they didn’t think they’d “be as good as others”.

Before our first “TED Talks@Home”, I shifted it altogether where we’d all be presenting each other’s presentation. All of us would have no context as to what we’re presenting until we get on “stage”. Whether we were experts on a specific topic or in comedy or deck-making, we’re all jumping into a bottomless pool together. After our second virtual improv night, this past weekend, between muted giggles and visual laughs, one of the presenters told me that it wasn’t as bad as she thought it would be, and that she’d want to do it again.

Luckily, it seems more than 60% of my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances come back to participate in more brunches or game sessions or improv nights. 1 in 4 guests have proactively started friendships outside of the experiments. And about 5% have introduced their new friends to their friend circles. A small handful have also been inspired to start their own. So, maybe I’m doing something right.

Building Communities

The same (psychological safety and fair system) holds true for building communities, creating your corporate culture, and finding and keeping your friend group and your significant other. Although in the context of building communities, but applicable elsewhere as well, I forget who told me this once:

“A strong community has both value and values.”

– The person who told me this, please come claim this quote

Value is why people initially come out to join a community and admittedly, reach out to be a friend. Whether it’s because of who you know or what you can offer or how you can help them pass the time, it’s the truth. Values are why they stay. And safety happens to be one of those values.

In closing

As always, my findings aren’t meant to be prescriptive. But merely act as a guide – another tool in your toolkit – so that you are better equipped for future endeavors.

Like with people, when one day I get to touch a jellyfish, I don’t care about being stung. But I do want to know where I can touch where I won’t be stung. And subsequently, where I will touch where I know I will be stung. The difference between going in blind and not is that when I get stung, I am prepared to be.

Photo by Mathilda Khoo 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!

Proudly powered by WordPress