They fit into much larger buckets, this division is for granularity. Some of these are causal, ex: compassion leads to love, or fear leads to overcoming insecurity, or understanding leads to compassion. Logically there is strong causality, but there are nuances between them when experienced emotionally. I find overcoming insecurity, hustle, euphoria, flow, status, love, and compassion the most fulfilling experiences based on scenarios I've lived in the past. My experience bucket is relatively dry though, I'm probably ignorant to true fulfillment.
We live and perceive in the 3rd dimension. When you think of a hypothetical population of people living in the second dimension, you think "how naive that they can't see volume". They can only see vertical segments and are unaware of the beauty that is space. But we're in that same situation. We're stuck in a single point in time: the present. We like to think we exist in the future and the past, but we don't. We're always in the present, and we can't escape it. Time is always passing us by and it's difficult for us to realize it cause we're derivatives on the larger graph. Imagine a 4rth dimensional society that could experience time and live in the past and present. They would find it so trivial that we can only the present and can't experience all of time as once.
“Do I really look like a guy with a plan? I’m a dog chasing cars — I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught it”
- The Joker
I think it’s really easy for us to invent problems, then invent solutions to those imaginary problems. Here’s an example: instagram is great for sharing pictures with your friends and exploring what other people are sharing, but it’s difficult to find curated content. Why isn’t there an instagram specifically for animals? That way, all the pet owners could connect and create social circles with each other. There could be an “ask me anything” live stream feature where dog owners could ask experts on how to train their dogs. Plus, all the animal food / service companies would hop on and pay the most popular animals’ owners to promote their content. It makes sense right?
Not really. If you were really interested in animals, you could just follow specific pet own accounts on Instagram. Pet product promoters already exist, you wouldn’t be adding value to those companies. Plus, you can already reach out to people and create your own mini pet communities if that’s what you’re into, it’s not like instagram blocks all pet owners from coming in contact with each other.
“But it makes things so much easier… With Instapaw, you don’t need to go through the trouble of curating your own content and reaching out to communities of owners, we do that for you!”
That’s often the argument for any shitty idea. It “makes things easier”, “gives people more options”, “is curated for XYZ consumer instead”. In the end, it’s usually either an incremental improvement for a specific use case or just an over complicated feature for a market that isn’t interested.
Other times, we like to come up with ideas cause it’s fun. “Man imagine if I could do this! That would be so cool! I have to start building that right now”. We jump quickly into execution mode without being smart about how our time is being invested. I’ll give you an example: I built a CRM to track my meetings over the year the valuable information I learned from specific people. Seemed like a great idea, so I just started building. What I realize now is that a good indicator of a real problem is if you’ve actually tried a bunch of solutions before but they didn’t work. If I had tried spreadsheets, other tools like Dex, Notion, etc. and never found the right fit, then it would probably have been something worth pursuing. What I realized after I built it was that I was like a dog chasing cars, once I actually got to the car I didn’t know what to do. In the end, I didn’t end up really using my product. I was too excited by the process to focus on the outcome.
When it comes to figuring out if an idea is low quality or high potential, the best thing to do is to ask objective questions to figure out if there’s a market or not. “What is the problem?” for ex, shouldn’t hard to answer. There should be a very clear response to all of the questions below (stolen from Paul Graham, Sequoia, and Peter Thiel).
After building a few products that I never used, that didn’t work, and that didn’t have a proper market to gain traction, I thought I’d go one by one and figure out why each question is so important.
If it takes you too long to describe your company, usually the vision isn’t clear. “We’re a SaaS company that provides this service to allow for this thing but that also does this as a side effect to help that kind of person do this better…” When you can’t even properly explain your product in less than 50 characters, usually you don’t have a proper problem pinned down and are thus unclear on what your core value proposition is.
If you’re company isn’t solving some kind of problem, most likely people won’t go out of their way to use the product. It might be a cute “add-on” that gains some traction but won’t be a sustainable business model.
A good indicator of if something is a problem or not is how much it emotionally affects people. If people spend 1hr a day on this thing, but it doesn’t bother them, then there’s less opportunity vs people spending 10min a day, but being super annoyed that they have to. Anger is always a good metric of how bad an experience is. If your core users are very angry with what they have to use today and you’re providing a better solution, than that’s usually a good sign.
Snapchat is pretty easy to build. If you asked me to build it today, I could probably give you something pretty similar in 3–4 weeks. Same thing applies to instagram, twitter, facebook, etc. The reason they’re still around is because they pioneered the space of ___ (social networking, blogging with pictures, chatting with images, etc.), but if they went out of business tomorrow, you would see hundreds of other companies reabsorbing their users. The only reason people aren’t switching away from facebook today is because they already have a bunch of friends and communities on the platform and couldn’t leave unless everybody else was on another platform.
If you have very specific domain expertise in the field where you’ve found an opportunity, you’ll have a competitive advantage over anyone else trying to solve the same problem. You’ll also have a much better grasp on the problem and how to fix it since you’ve probably experienced it first hand.
Goes hand in hand with the last question. What domaine expertise do you have on this industry that your competitors don’t? What places you at an advantage vs competitors? What makes you capable of scaling this product?
If you’re re-creating a product that already exists, you’re chances of success are much lower. 1) If the company has been around for a while and has a solid team but doesn’t have many users, then they probably just don’t have product market fit in which case you should pivot away from that idea. 2) If the company exists and has had previous growth but isn’t growing any more, then they’ve probably reached the majority of users in that niche market and you need to figure out a better way to solve the problem that expands the market. 3) If the company is pretty young and has had some pretty good success already (user retention, revenue, NPS, etc) and isn’t showing signs of slowing down, then you might want to be the competitor if you can execute better and have a higher chance of bringing your vision to fruition.
But as a general rule, you want to avoid recreating a product that already exists. You need to have some sort of unique form of value add to the user. If users are using shitty products as substitutes, like Excel or Drive, and are frustrated, then you’re probably on to something.
Why is today the best time to pursue this idea? Why couldn’t it have been done before? Why couldn’t it be done in the future? Maybe before code wasn’t open source, or there were no APIs for XYZ, or whatever it might be. If the product is easy to build and has never been attempted in the past, usually thats a bad sign. Low hanging fruits are collected 99% of the time. If it could have been built before but wasn’t, it’s probably because someone tried and failed. In which case, maybe they sucked at executing, scaling the business, recruiting talent, or whatever it might be and that’s why they failed. But usually, someone with the right skill set would have identified the problem and stepped in.
This has been a big road block for me in the past. For example, I built a platform for daily updates, basically a way to keep yourself and your close friends accountable on their progress updates. I was the target user, since I always hated sending daily updates on slack and other mediums. I built a bot that would automate sending for me, but then I was thinking “why doesn’t everyone use a bot like this?”, so I just built a centralized platform. Problem is, since it’s a very social app, people won’t use it unless others do, and it’s quite a pain to convince all your friends to move to another platform, so may as well just stay on slack. Paypal had a similar chicken and egg problem where they wanted people on ebay and craigslist to use paypal as their form of payment, but no one would sign up unless the person they were selling to or buying from signed up. To hack this, they bought a bunch of random small stuff on ebay and craigslist and asked the sellors to get paypal so they could make the exchange. That created a domino effect that kept on growing as people would ask other people on the platform to use paypal too.
Depending on your product, usually it makes more sense to go for a small share of a big market if the market is relatively empty of competitors. That way, there’s a much higher potential for growth.
If you can’t figure out a way to monetize the product, that’s usually a sign that you’re not really solving a big problem. Think about it this way, if someone gave you a cure for aging and you were able to stay forever young, you would probably pay a shit ton of money for it. On the other hand, if someone gave you an app that let you put funny filters on your pets, you probably wouldn’t pay anything for it. If you can monetize your product without drastically shrinking your user base, usually that’s a good sign that you’re solving a real problem. The best way to figure out if people will actually pay for what your making is to go out and ask them. Ex: “Would you pay 20$ a month if I could reduce your time spent on XYZ by 1hr a day?”.
Vision is a good indication that the founder is tackling a real problem and is dedicated to solving it. If the product vision is 1–2 years, that’s OK, but it probably won’t have much effect on its users. Imagine if Google had a 2 year timeline, they would’ve never scaled and made the product what it is today.
Peter Thiel likes to invest in startups that are solving really challenging problems, like climate change, poverty, etc. He asks this question as a measure of how impactful the product / problem your tackling is. Climate change with 99% still be a problem in 10–20 years. Aging with 99% still be a problem in 10–20 years. Instapaw probably won't, which is why that idea would never get a penny from the Thiel man.
This was an accumulation of some of the stuff I learned over the last few months listening to smart founders and failing myself. Usually if these questions are hard to answer, the product / company couldn’t sustain long term growth.
Thank you to everyone who supported me throughout the year. From Elevate, to TKS, to Mannlabs, to everyone in between — a huge thanks for investing your time and energy into helping me throughout the year. I really couldn’t have worked with super smart people on crazy projects without your help.
Thank you :)
To wrap up this year...
I thought it would be cool to go over some of my highlights of 2019. This year has been the most interesting and event full so far, and it’s only going to get crazier.
TL;DRs of what I've been up to:
Meaning > Happiness
Happiness is short, it comes and it goes. Meaning is long lasting and fills you with excitement. I would rather wake up every day filled with excitement and meaning then feel spikes of happiness throughout the day. I also think that sometimes we’re so hard set on “solving problems” and “making a mark on the world” that we forget to enjoy the present moment and feel excited about things. I also think a lot of meaning comes from feeling a sense of belonging with a close group of people. After visiting poor countries, it’s obvious that monetary wealth doesn’t have as much impact on your level of happiness as community and belonging.
First principles thinking
Nearly all our thoughts and actions can be boiled down into fundamental truth if you reason logically through consequentiality. I got to learn a lot more about Socrates and the way he thinks by reading “Plato’s Republic”. Reasoning by analogy means reasoning from what has already happened in the past. The problem is that whatever happened in the past isn’t necessarily the optimal outcome, so if you base everything on a poor outcome instead of the objective it’s trying to achieve, you end up stalling progress. Ex: “If I asked people what they wanted, they would’ve said faster horses”.
Taking ownership
Meaning comes through adopting responsibility. When your actions have little effect, you feel empty and without meaning. When your actions drive big decisions and growth, you feel a deep sense of meaning. It’s why mothers feel their lives are very meaningful when they have kids — they adopt a large responsibility (aka a large risk) and perform the best they can. It’s also why fathers often feel a lesser sense of meaning for their children if they aren’t providing for them financially. Taking ownership of my shortcomings and seeking growth gave this year much more purpose.
Building something people want is hard
I thought based on all the startup blog posts I’ve read and talks by famous CEOs that “building something people want” would be pretty easy. It’s not. There’s a lot of ambiguity and there’s no guarantee of success. It’s really fun and exciting though, and it’s something I want to keep doing until I nail it.
Take a step back.
When there is a paper deadline in 48 hours, and you’re trying to do something with brain computer interfaces that’s never really been done before, and you’re balancing a whole lot of other work on the side, things get stressful. I learned it’s important to take a step back. To ask “why am I doing this? what is the outcome I want from this?”. I’ve done a lot of things to impress other people. To boost my ego. To make other people like me. Those things make me feel weak, and avoiding that feeling of weakness means taking a meta perspective on the actions I take and understanding the “why”.
Don’t be arrogant.
The more I talk to people, the more I realize how many smart and experienced people there are out there. My life experience is a sliver of what some people have done. The person I’m talking to will always have some knowledge that I don’t know yet, or that I don’t know that I don’t know yet. If you pay close attention, they’ll always drop knowledge on you.
Mental strength is a magnet.
There is something about having a strong capacity to persevere in the face of uncertainty / uncomfort that is inspiring and beautiful. Willingly facing danger is the only way to truly be free from social shackles.
Building things
I learned a lot about linux, app dev, web dev, apis, cloud infrastructure, random hardware components, and a bunch of random software things along the way. I built 2 apps, and feel much more confident in my ability to produce and figure things out.
Research
I worked in a tech research environment for the first time and co-authored my first research paper. Because it’s tech, content is relatively easy to produce so paper cycles are pretty short 1–5 weeks. I like the fast pace build-or-die type environment.
Adding value through tech
Adding value to other people makes me feel very good. Building a product that people use often and enjoy makes me feel happy and excited to keep building.
That’s a wrap. A huge thanks again to everyone who supported me this year. Happy new year! :)
Resources are finite. The value of a resource is determined by its utility and affluence. It’s something like:
Put it all together...
(New & Old likelihood being the likelihood of achieving XYZ goal)
We subconsciously make this calculation when we assess the value of a resource. Each resource has a different value based on the individual and the assessment of their condition, but in general we have pretty similar hierarchies of value.
Here’s a thought experiment:
Under these assumptions (bellow), we can calculate the value of gold vs water in each scenario:
[likelihood increase scale = 0–1]
[time scale = 0–1]
[resources spent scale = 0–∞]
[quantity available scale = 0–∞]
(affluence is 0–∞ for reasons outlined later. Time is restricted, 1 being all your time, 0 being none. Likelihood is restricted, 1 being 100% 0 being 0%. Resources spent aren't restricted).
In the first scenario:
(Time to acquire resource and physical resources spent are very low [0.1] because it is given to you by the witch, you didn’t have to work hard to acquire it).
In the second scenario:
(Time to acquire resource and physical resources spent are very low [0.1] because it is given to you by the witch, you didn’t have to work hard to acquire it).
Which is why you chose the water in the first scenario, and the gold in the second. We subconsciously pick the items with the highest value.
The equation outlined is pretty basic and doesn’t consider the balance between long term objectives and short term objectives. Short term is prioritized by default over the long term — so if you plugged these into an equation it might look like this:
This is just a guess, I’m not sure how accurate that is (that equation would require the long term value to be >5x that of the short term to prioritize it. It also rises exponentially the more value there is in the short term).
So what happens when there is no limit to quantity?
No limit to amount of resources it takes to acquire?
The net value of all things shrinks to 0 when there is an unlimited amount of resources. It grows to infinity when the resources it takes to acquire the object of value scales infinitely. Because the difference in likelihood is fixed (0-100%), it doesn't impact the final outcome when you have an infinite quantity or an spend infinite resources trying to acquire.
Gold is worth $1,481.67 per ounce. Silver is worth $16.92 per ounce. Copper is worth 23 cents per ounce.
Gold isn’t that useful. Silver and copper are much more conductive (if you’re building hardware) and can replace gold at most things. There really isn’t much utility for gold compared to silver, yet its price is 87x higher. Why?
Number of tonnes on the earth:
Despites its lack of utility, gold is much rarer than other metals and thus has a much higher price tag. With unlimited tonnes of each, all metals would lose their value.
Another factor is ease of collection. Diamonds for ex are very difficult to extract compared to a common metal like copper. If copper was near impossible to acquire, even though it's abundant, it's value would be very high.
Recap: we subconsciously create hierarchies of value based on the resources we invested and the affinity of the item. With unlimited resource, there would be no hierarchies of value. Everything would be worth noting.
Affiliation to action: our actions are thus based off that subconscious value assessment.
In a podcast featuring Vinod Khosla, he talked about how all forms of education (in our current institutions) stem from a handful of core principles. The 1st implication: we don’t need to to teach students everything about everything, we only need to teach them the core principles and they’ll be able to learn the topics of their choice on their own. The 2nd implication: if we train a ML model on these principles, then it could absorb knowledge quickly and teach all students.
I think you could boil all things down to core principles - even something as large as the accumulation of all human behavior. Here are the fundamental laws that I think dictate every one of our actions.
I’m going to write a post on each.
In September and early October, I spent most of my time building a relationship management tool (RMT). It was supposed to be like linkedin but more personalised and less social (you couldn’t interact with other people). I just wanted a tool that could keep track of the people I’m meeting with, what I’m learning from each meeting. and how I could add value to that person the next time I meet them. This post is an accumulation of the things I learnt over that month and a half. (PS: you can sign up to use the RMT it here).
TL;DR
How do you know if an idea is a good one? If it’s something you think you would love to have, build it. An objective metric for evaluating ideas is:
If users are spending a lot of time using the product (it could be actively using, like reddit, or passively using, like adblocker) but the product isn’t storing large amounts of data, that’s fine. If it’s storing lots of data but isn’t taking up a large portion of the user’s day (like notion), then that’s also fine. If it’s doing none of these, then it’s probably not great.
This applies mostly to SaaS products. I consider companies like AirBNB and Uber in a whole other ball park. Their metrics are based on saving money or time.
Every feature should boil down to accomplishing one thing. That could be “facilitating the maintenance of relationships and maximizing their mutual value” (for me) or anything that aligns with your vision for the product. If a feature doesn’t align with the main objective, it’s probably not a priority.
I think the #1 most important thing to build out at the beginning is the functionality. If you complete the functionality and stop using the product after a week, ask yourself why. It might be just not rewarding enough to use because the UI is crappy, in which case you try improving the UI. If you still don’t use it, why? After 10 iterations, you might realise you just don’t like the fundamental principle behind your product. At that point, drop it and do something else.
Building a foundation of rock [in 20hrs] > Building a foundation of sand [in10hrs]
Most of the time, being lazy with a piece of code will bite you in the ass later on when you’re trying to quickly iterate and everything is falling apart. You’ll try and change something, but realize too late you broke XYZ thing in the process, and then try and fix XYZ thing but that breaks this other thing… It’s a big headache that ends up taking you 3x longer to fix than it would have if you spent more time on building good fundamentals.
I say “avoid” instead of “don’t” because there are times where shortcuts make sense. If you’re product seems like a great idea but turns out to be pretty bad after 100hrs of work put in, sure it’s a learning experience but it’s still a waste of time you’ll never get back. Ideally you can build a foundation of rock while executing quickly, but if you can’t and you want to make sure the product is a right fit ASAP, I’d say take the shortcut.
I started building the RMT with raw HTML/CSS/JS. It was a great learning experience for understanding fundamentals, but I think this should be avoided once you get the hang of it. A little later I tried bootstrap studio and felt kind of icky using it cause I could ship an entire website in a couple hours with drag and drop design, but I don’t think that’s the right way to look at tools that drastically reduce shipping time.
Things don’t have to be extremely difficult. We used to program in binary, until we made low level languages and finally high level interpreter languages. It’s easy to put down quick solutions like bootstrap studio because they make things 10x easier, but the reality is we’re already unconsciously living with 10x, even 100x solutions compared to 40 years ago. No one complains about people not using G-Code, or coding neural nets in binary. Optimization is a beautiful thing and should be celebrated not shamed.
I also think at a such an early phase of product design it makes more sense to copy what has already been successful than to completely reinvent the game, especially when it comes to design.
Example #1 — one of the core features of the RMT had to be meeting tracking, and I thought github had a really cool calendar, so I just stole that.
Example #2 — Notion has a sweet sidebar layout for managing your pages, so I just stole that too.
Example #3 — even this “Connections” page layout is strongly based on Notion’s.
I realised early on I would need to learn a few things to build an RMT:
The most effective thing for learning was trying to build things in 2hr sprints. JS is pretty similar to python in a lot of ways, so it only took a few sprints before I felt confident in making a site interactive. Flask was based in python, so it was pretty easy to pick up. I used firebase for my db, which I could also fiddle with in python. The active hosting part was annoying because I kept on getting errors after uploading and couldn’t figure out why, but google app engine ended up working fine.
The point: if you need to move fast, learn topics that lie on the edge of your circle of competence. Everything I learned was tied to python. You don’t want to jump into a completely unknown territory — you’ll lose motivation quickly.
Like I said before, the best way to understand how useful your product is is by using it yourself. If you’re not in love with it and don’t use it every day / store a lot of data on it, figure out why and iterate on that.
I actually still use my RMT, but I don’t have meetings every day so it’s not always useful. I initially thought I’d use it obsessively and always by trying to get back in touch with people who I haven’t talked to in 30+ days, but I just don’t. A big part of that is missing features I wish I could have, but it could also just be the fundamental idea that maintaining relationships with an app just doesn’t have enough payoff.
I don’t really touch it anymore, right now my priorities are elsewhere. But I think the experience of building and launching a product from scratch was really valuable. I hope you learnt something!
1% of the population averages 6.25 hours of sleep a night.
They don’t choose to sleep less — they have a mutation(s) that allows them to naturally wake up at 5am feeling well rested.
A 10 year study lead by Ying-Hui Fu and Louis Ptáček uncovered the cellular level processes that lead to the condition. There are three known mutations.
MyoD1 is a gene that encodes a protein that promotes orexin production. Orexin is a neuropeptide that regulates arousal, wakefulness, and appetite. DEC2 is a protein that binds to MyoD1 to inhibit transcription by RNA polymerase.
When DEC2 functions properly, orexin inhibition is in sync with the circadian rhythm. As it gets dark outside, your brain produces melatonin in the pineal gland, which basically inhibits certain parts of the brain when you fall asleep.
Flux of DEC2 production is very similar to that of melatonin’s. During the day, production is low. During the night, production is high.
But for the 1% of people that have the mutation, their DEC2 proteins don’t bind very strongly to MyoD1, meaning RNA polymerase can still synthesize the protein that increases orexin production. This effects orexin production closer to dawn, when DEC2 production starts to decrease.
The ADRB1 gene encodes the protein beta-1 adrenergic receptor. Beta-1 adrenergic receptors act as neuron inhibitors — when they receive agonist chemical signals, they inhibit major processes in the neuron. When ADAB1 is mutated, beta-1 adrenergic receptor degrades much faster. As they degrade, they lose their ability to inhibit function, meaning neurons function longer, and a person can stay awake longer.
They had discovered DEC2 and ADRB1 mutations in most patients with the condition, but couldn’t find it in some. So they took a family that all had the condition but didn’t have DEC2 or ADRB1 mutations and looked at their dorsal pons brain tissue. They found a mutation in NPSR1.
NPSR1 encodes a G protein-coupled receptor that binds to neuropeptide S (NPS). NPS is mainly produced in the amygdala and spreads within the Thalamus region. It induces wakefulness and arousal.
Those with the mutation have more sensitive receptors, meaning they feel more awake with low levels of NPS. They inflicted mice with the mutation to validate that it had something to do with sleep. They found that those mice slept 59min less on average (52min less deep sleep and 7min less REM sleep) while still waking up rested.
Sleep deprivation effects cognitive performance and health poorly.
1) It reduces cognitive abilities. There are lots of studies showing decrease in performance the longer the cumulative deprivation. Here’s a graph taken from this paper. (Black squares = 0hrs, Circles = 4hrs, White squares = 6hrs, Diamonds = 8hrs).
2) Increases mortality rate by 13% (if you want to look more into this, I made a paper here).
You would expect people with these mutations to have terrible cognitive abilities and be riddled with health conditions, but they’re not.
There isn’t as much research in this space, but Ying-Hui Fu and Louis Ptáček claim these mutations don’t cause any significant health defects. Some studies even show they increase life span (although sample sizes are small).
If these mutations are only beneficial, why wouldn’t we all have them? The leading theory is that it they only came up a few thousand years ago. Because of technological progression, it hasn’t had large effects on evolution (we aren’t struggling for food, we aren’t struggling to survive, reduction of sleep doesn’t effect us as much as it would have 200K years ago).
Inducing a mutation is very invasive. It’s also pretty much impossible to do in all neurons in the brain of a full grown adult. Alternatively, one of the most popular non invasive ways to influence neuron activity is transcranial stimulation.
If we could reduce the inhibitory effects of DEC2, reduce the level of inhibitive capabilities of beta-1 adrenergic receptors (involved in ADRB1), or increase the sensitivity of NPSR1 G protein encoded receptors to NPS, we could reduce sleep time without harming cognitive processes or long term health.
When I was younger, I was a trouble maker.
I think it came from prioritising my happiness above other peoples’ and being curious to see what the outcomes of my actions would be. For ex, in kindergarten my parents would meet with my teacher every day after school because I started a fight, wasn’t raising my hand to talk, didn’t focus on activities, etc.
I was too focused on being happy right now to think about the outcomes of my actions. After the damage was done, I would feel horrible but forget about that feeling and do it again the next day. My mom figured out a way to make me reflect on my actions — she would ask:
I wanted people to say that I was:
And none of those reflected my actions, so I started to change. I started to pause before doing mischievous things to think about the outcome on peoples’ perception of me. It wasn’t long till I changed my habits completely.
Today I don’t think there are only 3 things I want people to say about me when I die — I think there are a lot more. I made a list of all the things I think make an ideal person.
Which can be generalised as:
Understanding what I want to become -> understanding how I'll become.
Your character is the result of an accumulation of experiences. Your experiences are interpreted by your desires. A positive experience is the outcome of experience aligning with desire. A negative one is the outcome of experience not aligning with desire.
Experience is easier to control than desire. Desire arises naturally as an outcome of emotion, but experience is usually voluntary.
So, understanding what you desire is the best way to understand what your experience should be. Right now, I’m at a crossroads. Should I go to XYZ university, take a gap year, work at a startup, get a PhD, etc? There is a seemingly infinite amount of choices I could make, but only a finite amount of choices align with my desire of an ideal person — I just need to figure out what those are.
Desire shapes the interpretation of experience, but is also the outcome of experience. Your emotional response to an experience dictates how much you desire it.
As you experience more, desire reaches a local minimum where you understand what your priorities are relative to your environment. If you could experience everything there is to experience, you could theoretically reach a global minimum.
Experience passed on through many millennia of generations (through stories and genetic influence) have conditioned us to desire things hierarchically.
Lower level needs tend to give quick and intense feelings of happiness. They are priority #1 so our bodies have evolved to make us feel especially happy when we accomplish them, but only for a short time. When focusing on primary needs, we have a large margin of potential happiness and a low general state.
Higher level needs increase our happiness state, not just our current level. They also lower the margin for positive and negative emotion, making us emotionally stable.
The traits I outlined for what I think is an ideal person fall into the hierarchy like this:
I'm lucky enough to be born in Canada. The first 3 blocks have pretty much always been satisfied.
I'll base my next long term experience off how it aligns the last three, not off how it makes me or feel in the moment.
If you don’t know who you are and who you want to be, you’ll become what other people want you to be. Your desire will be out shined by other peoples’ desire for you. Use a top down framework to figure out what you should do. Let me know if it works.
We wanted to take this concept further, and visualize what the human eye sees from EEG data. You can read the paper we published here, but that’s not the point. I noticed that all the projects we were working on were time crunched and were never replications of other neuroscience papers.
Our lab operated on “90 minute sprints”, a method inspired by MIT’s lab (Our boss was a professor at MIT before this).
If any results came out of a project before 90 min, we would keep working on it in the next sprint. If there were no results, we would abandon the project and move to something else.
This high intensity work flow was great for developing deep CS + hardware understanding, but there was always a voice in the back of my head that would question how valuable they were.
Microsoft wasn’t built in 90 minutes, Tesla wasn’t built in 90 minutes, PayPal wasn’t built in 90 minutes, CRISPR wasn’t discovered in 90 minutes. We were trying to 1) Make breakthroughs 2) Make them quickly, which seemed impossible.
So I started looking into the incentive structure for research facilities and the outcome on the quality of research generated.
What I found was that research facilities across North-America have an incentive structure that doesn't promote good quality research.
Scientific Status
Replication
Validation
Criticism
As a result, the current research space has become saturated with short term projects with inflated results.
The number of faculty positions in the research space has remained in proportion with population growth, but cumulative PhDs awarded has not remained in proportion to faculty positions.
More PhDs are being handed out then ever before. This could either mean that 1) Researchers are getting much better at picking interesting topics to pursue and are finding much more concrete data supporting their thesis’s (could be due to technological advancement). 2) Researchers are inflating results to get their hands on PhDs.
The first could be true in an economy that’s rapidly growing with tech. The more competent the tech, the more data could be gathered supporting a hypothesis. Plus, the more economically incentivized research would become due to it’s high demand, which could explain the significant rise in PhDs.
GDP is the best measure of economic growth.
But growth is shrinking over time, which disproves the first hypothesis and further proves the second.
More than 50% of researchers have use >1 questionable work practice (QRPs)
Examples of QRPs
This has had major cumulative effects on the ability to replicate other papers:
“According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist’s experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments).”
It’s especially present in fields that fall subject to pseudo-science, like psychology and neuroscience (I remember altering some of the sample data I was gathering to make it fit my hypothesis back at the lab. I only did it for one test, but it was definitely tempting later on).
Replicating trials in 2012 were done to see if older psychology papers could be replicated.
Another set of replicating trials in 2015 examined the reprehensibility of the top 100 psychology papers from top science journals.
When you look deeper into psychology, different sub-fields have different replication results.
Papers with multiple researchers on board yield better replication results
Basically, older authors have more legitimacy and have a reputation to preserve, newer authors don’t. Plus, fields that rely on low amounts concrete data to make assumptions are probably not replicatable.
When there are multiple researchers on board, they keep each other accountable and their work yields more accurate results.
Like mentioned before, the incentive structure for researchers doesn’t encourage paper replication and exhaustive or long term studies. The current “Publish or Perish” mentality is synchronised with the “Move fast and break things” mentality of startups.
The field is saturated with ideas and hypothesis’, but no one’s willing to put in the long hours to validate or invalidate them, so shortcuts are taken (inflated results and false positives).
This wasn't a problem 50 years ago. It only became a problem because:
There doesn’t seem to be one solution. But, if you break down how a research paper is made, you can identify key areas where researchers throw in their biases.
Here are a few ways to tackle the problem:
I see pre-registration of studies and sharing data online in large repositories as some of the best ways to face the problem right now. I'm not sure how we'll get around it, but faulty research is laying down a foundation of sand and will cause huge long term problems if we don't find a way to restructure incentives.
If you want to learn more, check out this podcast with Peter Thiel and Eric Weinstein.
What if I told you every bad experience you’ve had is your fault.
If you’re like me, you probably got defensive when you read that and usually blame most things on circumstance instead of on your own free will.
That idea is one that Carl Jung struggled with throughout his life as a psychiatrist. He dealt with thousands of patients who were depressed, anxious, scared, and needed help.
Person after person, after talking to the same types of people for years, eventually he found a pattern in their attitude: They all tried to take the least amount of responsibility for their suffering and they thought of themselves as highly virtuous.
It was almost like they were stuck in a bubble where everything was everyone else’s fault and they were just a victim to an unlucky circumstance. They even blamed “God”, or being itself for purposely creating all this evil against them.
The problem with blaming the world for your problems is that it puts you in a position where you can’t do anything to improve your current state. If it’s your fault, at least it means you’re the problem and you can improve yourself to improve your life circumstance.
But if it’s the universe’s fault, well then guess what, you’re screwed. How are you, 1 person gonna change the fate of the universe? Impossible, and it’s one of the reasons why people get flooded with negative emotion, because the possibility of change becomes hopeless.
If you look at things from a biological perspective, what advantage does a lack of responsibility give humans? We’re hard wired to dislike change once we’ve figured out a way of doing things that works.
If using a spear to kill a fish works really well, then I’ll be less likely to try using a rock instead. That’s just the way we’ve evolved. It can be helpful in certain cases to be stuck on one way of doing things, but also unhelpful if the habit or belief doesn't make sense (like someone trying to convince you the flying spaghetti monster is real).
And that sense of avoiding change get’s worst as we age. Your brain loses it’s neuro-plasticity and can’t form new neural connections as easily. It’s why a bunch of old people hate the way we’re headed with computers and technology — because they are adapted to a different time and physically can’t understand current progress without extreme effort and openness.
Adopting the lack of responsibility mindset means not being open to change. Blaming everything else for your suffering means tricking your brain into thinking it’s right and not adapting your physical brain structure.
But with that mindset you’re stuck in the past and can’t accept the future. Everything changes while you stand still. It means you’re suffering to keep up while everyone’s having a good time, further making you feel like the universe is to blame.
Carl Jung understood this, and constructed a theory explaining the 3 parts of our psyche.
Also know as the “gatekeeper”, this part of the psyche is made up of memories, thoughts, and emotions.
Thoughts + emotions + experience = complexes. Those complexes are like mental models we use to classify the information and stimulus we get on a daily basis.
There’s no way we could interpret everything we hear or read as truth - we’d be flooded with paradoxes. Instead, we use those complexes to decide whether we should take something at face value or not.
That bias gives us our individual identity. I wouldn’t be Luke without being sceptical and questioning things that don’t make sense to me. But that just comes from my experience of frequently finding flaws when I look deep enough. Other people have very different mental models based on their experience, each good and bad under different circumstances.
This part of the psyche is just like the ego — it’s formed from a bunch of different complexes— but those complexes are forgotten and are hidden in the unconscious.
The more memories and emotions associated with a complex, the stronger it becomes.
In Hitler’s case, his negative experiences and negative emotional responses associated with foreigners made him idealise the German race and want to eradicate any signs of impurity in others.
That subconscious complex had kept getting reinforced and validated by new experiences and emotions to the point where his ideology spiralled out of control.
It’s a good example of how dangerous complex validation can be — especially when that complex has already been established. If you already have a cognitive bias against something, it’s likely your bias will fit the thing you’re judging and will hence further validate your bias.
“If you’re looking for negativity, it’ll come to you. If you’re looking for positivity, it’ll come too”
-me
Sigmund Freud was a prominent figure in crafting Carl Jung’s philosophy. Jung worked under him for years until they diverged paths when he denounced some of Freud’s theories publicly.
Freud stressed a lot on the impact a child’s experience has on their adult life. His big thing was that all problems we deal with are a result of not being raised right as children and being exposed to childhood trauma.
Jung didn’t really think that was enough, and thought the present and the embodiment of the future into the current self + our deepest unconscious complexes had a much more to do with it.
It might be hard to think of the future embodying the present, but Jung believed that who we could be and who we strive to be directly transforms us into that person in the present — a much more optimistic view over Freud’s.
But that isn’t all they disagreed on.
Paradoxically, Jung also put a lot of stress on the past and it’s effect on our current complexes. But instead of our complexes being a product of our childhood traumas and experienced past, he believed some were ingrained into our DNA through evolution.
He called them archetypes, fundamental ideas that are found across all societies.
According to him, there were many archetypes that are uni-present across all human beings because they universally apply to everyone’s life. Here are the 4 major ones:
Freud thought this was mumbo jumbo, and stuck to his theory on childhood trauma.
But I think that was Freud’s biggest mistake — he was too stuck up on his ideas and didn’t question them enough. He would come up with a hypothesis and be convinced it had to be the truth vs Jung who was constantly questioning his ideas.
After looking deeper into his hypothesis on the collective unconscious and into ancient and recent societies across the world, Jung realised all of them shared these same archetypes. It’s how he validated his hypothesis, will hard historical evidence.
Stories are a way of reinforcing certain actions by showing hypothetical positive or negative outcomes.
In Cinderella, Cinderella finds true love and happiness because of her good character whereas the evil step sister get their eyes picked out by crows (sorry, didn’t wanna draw this one).
These stories are a way of showing people the right way of conducting yourself in the world and the benefits you’ll get from acting in that way.
Jung looked into ancient myths, old stories across societies all over the world that would have never had contact with each other, and he found similar archetypes among all of them. Other than the 4 I mentioned earlier, here are some others:
These would take a while to unpack, but out of all of them The Hero myth seems super interesting to me. No matter where you go, there’s always stories of a hero who concurs evil, and creates order out of chaos (known out of the unknown).
Jung used that textual evidence to validated his hypothesis on fundamental complexes we all have ingrained deep into our DNA.
In a previous article, I talked about “Why you should stop expecting things”, basically explaining how expectation leads to betrayal and negative emotion that’s meant to force us to change our habits.
What do I mean by that? For ex: getting cheated on by your best friend makes you terribly sad and forces you to re-evaluate your trust in people and adjust it to fit that negative experience.
Jung believed that when it came to high neuroticism and overcoming negative emotion, a big piece came from a lack of responsibility and courage to face your mistakes.
We know that deep pain comes from betrayal, so Jung argues that taking responsibility for that betrayal and realising you could equally do the same is the cure for negative emotion.
It’s the acceptance of the shadow, understanding that you could do terrible evil, that gives you humility and makes you less prone to betrayal and more aware of your true motives.
“Your visions will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.”
- Jung
That comes with understanding that under the right circumstances, you could’ve even been a Nazi concentration camp guard — and enjoyed it.
Basically admitting you could’ve been Hitler is completely against your human nature.
But being good only comes with the potential of evil. You can only be moral if you could do unmoral things. Being scarred of punching someone vs deciding not to punch someone are 2 completely different things. Same outcome, but completely different motives.
Everything is relative, and there wouldn’t be good without evil.
Until you take responsibility and understand you could do horrible things, you can’t be a fundamentally good person.
“The reason modern people can’t see God is that they won’t look low enough”
- Jung
That’s his most important message. Take responsibility. Understand how flawed and evil you could be, and you’ll be aware of when you’re doing evil and find it much easier to stop. The alternative is hiding that part of you and not realizing till it’s too late.
A couple of months ago, I thought it would be fun to set a challenge for myself: write a page a day on something, literally anything.
It ended up giving me some forced reflection time where I could materialise my thoughts down on paper. After a couple days, I started thinking about emotion and how it drives people to do strange things.
From there, I went down a rabbit hole of questioning why we have emotion in the first place, and how we could control our emotions without external factors.
Envy is the state of toxic desire. Desire can be broken down as the absence of fulfilment in a goal, and the state of craving that results.
When you envy a state of being, your brain is trying to telling you that the goal is achievable, but that you’re not fulfilling it.
You don't envy things that our out of your reach. No one envies superman, because we realise it's impossible to shoot lasers our of your eyes. We (especially children) admire his courage and honesty, values that we can practice too.
People talk about envy as “poison” because it stays with you until you either
You become stuck with this toxic feeling of dread and jealousy until you achieve your goal. Once that goal is achieved, your mind restructures itself to desire something that is even harder to achieve, always pushing your to your limits. Elon Musk went from
The other option is to change your goals. But goals are mostly subconscious and can't be changed on command. Once you do change them, you're still stuck in a state of envy.
The solution lies in expectation.
Humans need goals to function. Without direction, we wouldn't have incentive to move or to perform any basic function.
These goals are deeply ingrained in our brains, and are often understood after we act. We can figure out why we're doing things on a surface level, but if I keep asking you why? why? why? it'll reach a point where you no longer understand why you exist.
Expectation — what you think will happen.
Reality — what actually happens.
Every second, we’re making millions, if not billions of assumptions (actually, I'm not sure you could put a count on the number of assumptions you make. Space is theoretically infinite, and assumptions rely on spaciality, so it could be infinite. But how can a confined brain make an infinite amount of assumptions?). For example, when I’m writing this article, I need to assume that my heart will keep pumping 24/7, that my eyes will blink, that my head won’t explode, and that some guy won’t break into my house and tackle me.
Assumption leads to the expectation of some outcome, where as reality might not actually align with that expectation. Since assumption relies on experience, when assumptions are wrong, it's because we don't have enough experience to make a proper assumption.
It doesn't help that humans don't think statistically. When thinking about dying next year for ex, we either think that we're going to die, that we're not going to die, or we're unsure. We don't think in probabilities, only in binary.
As a result, we're often wrong and suffer the emotional consequence.
Betrayal — the worst of all pains — comes when that expectation is broken. The pain and sadness you feel is your body telling you “that false reality you’ve been living in, yeah not the best idea to keep living like that”, so you adjust your view of the world to fit whatever data point you’ve just learnt.
It makes sense that we often feel sad and betrayed. We subconsciously rely on what we know, and that’s not much considering how vast human knowledge is.
Why do we feel guilty about lying?
Because just like expectation, you’re fabricating a false environment around you — and there’s nothing life hates more than false realities.
When I say I did my homework when I really didn’t, I’m actually creating a false expectation of reality in my teacher’s mind that I’m a good student, when really I’m not.
Knowing the absolute truth lets us make better decisions. Not knowing the truth skews our decision making and can actually make us less likely to survive in the long run.
Ex: I'm a homo sapien living in the year 50 000 BC. If I tried to gain admiration and credibility by telling my tribe that there was this place I found that had a bunch of good food, people would respect and follow me. But once they get all the way out and realise there isn’t actually any food, we end up wasting a bunch of time and resources and now we might all die because of it.
That uncomfortable gut feeling you feel when you lie is probably something we developed to stop us from skewing reality and risk harming the entire community.
Validation is truth without facts. You feel like your belief is right because other people say so, but that doesn’t hold up to objective reality.
You’ve only lived 0.0001% of all human experience. If someone else validates your beliefs, that still only 0.0002% of all experience.
Validation gives us way more confidence because it was an extremely useful in hunter-gatherer tribes. Validation is synonymous with cooperation, which would have lead to growth and perpetuation of the species.
But, validation puts you in the same spot as the liar. You’ve created a false reality around yourself that’s fundamentally rooted in experience, not fact. So again, we become prone to betrayal and suffering.
Humility — low expectation.
Entitlement — high expectation.
Since we’re goal oriented, it’s hard to feel humble, because it implies a satisfaction with the current state and a low expectation for future states.
We’re wired to self improve and propagate the human species. But not only that, we’re wired to increase human potential.
Tons of sex is only valuable if humans know how to collaborate. Polygamy is only valuable if humans can still learn and self improve — which is hard when you have one parent. We need to act in a way that guarantees survival and propagation in the present, but also maximises our potential for the future.
It could be that our brain doesn’t let us feel humble and devoid of all expectation. But by reducing that expectation, you can reduce suffering.
Buddha believed that there were 3 universal truths:
Suffering is universal and dissatisfaction is the default human state.
Our pain is caused by our goal oriented nature, and constant striving to fulfil our desires.
Removing yourself from desire will limit your negative emotional response from not fulfilling those desires.
The three universal truths can be summed up as:
"Things don’t happen to you, they just are."
Most of his philosophy ties into what I said before about expectation and reality. When we willingly put ourselves in a state of desire, we rely on expectation an hence feel dissatisfaction.
The fulfilling of that desire is the expected outcome. When we don’t achieve it, we become sad — a sign that we aren’t well conditioned to reality, and that our expectations based off previous experiences were actually wrong.
It comes down to understanding your goals and the expectations you’re tying to them. Embrace humility and lower expectation.
Over the march break, I built 4 houses for poor families in Riverton city, Jamaica’s municipal dump, with a Canadian mission group. Here’s what I learned.
TL;DR
You are born a soup of DNA. That DNA dictates how competent you are at certain things.
Einstein learned math like any other kid, but other than dedication and extreme curiosity, what made him exceptional was the structure of his brain. He had a less voluminous but denser brain.
Your social and physical environment builds your decision making circuits. You learn what works and what doesn’t based on the outcome of action. You’re not born knowing fire will burn you, it takes time for you to learn.
Your environment It also shapes your morality and sense of justice. Negative and positive experiences show you what works and what doesn’t. Over time, you build a sense guilt when you hurt people, because it hurts your chances of having positive future interactions with them.
From that morality, you develop a will to do some things, and avoid others. I probably won’t want to push my grandma over, but I do want to work hard to make my own company so that I can impact people positively… All from the interactions and positive feedback loops I’ve had with my environment.
If there aren’t negative repercussions for harmful actions, which happens a lot more often in poorer countries where there is less authority and emphasis on reciprocity, then my goals and sense of justice could become corrupt.
I’d be motivated by my self interest, and wouldn’t consider the interest of others or the potential from future relationships. This works fine in the short term, but in the long run I screw myself over and loose communal trust.
When you look at the most successful people, most of them come from rich countries like North America and Europe. It’s not only that they have access to housing + food and must prioritise their ambition to feel fulfilled, but they’ve often been taught the value of reciprocity and social validation for doing good.
In Riverton city where ~3000 Jamaicans live, you’d often receive blunt criticism that came off as inconsiderate. Questions like “why are you fat?” or “why is your face bumpy (acne)?” and “your nose is really big” seem disrespectful to us, but to them that blunt curiosity is typical.
It ties back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
For the people of Riverton, the most basic needs like security and shelter haven’t been met, so they don’t value needs like “achieving one’s full potential” and “self esteem” as much.
If we look at life like a role playing game, you could say that every one is trying to optimise their decisions through gaining knowledge on objective realities. To climb Maslow's pyramid, we need to understand our environment and how to manipulate it to acquire resources. We crowd source our experiences and knowledge to mutually improve our state of being. If no one told the truth, we would draw inaccurate conclusions that would harm us when we try and apply them. Ex: a tribe member who cracks walnuts with stones tells the rest that the best way to crack a walnut is by slamming it against your head. The story only goes down hill from there.
In poorer countries closer to the bottom of the pyramid, honesty is valued because it gives you more knowledge on reality, in other words a better chance of understanding the world and getting yourself out of poverty.
But, since we Canadians already have our basic needs met and have lots of freedom and flexibility, we would rather avoid the truth because it makes us vulnerable to reality, and could give us a higher chance of failure.
Ex: an accountant works for a big bank. But secretly, he hates his job and would rather take up a career in music. Because an accountant’s job is more secure, he'll lie and tell himself + his friends that he doesn’t mind his job when really it’s eating him up inside.
The same goes for research, medicine, or any other stem field. Long term or capital intensive projects without any positive results can ruin the reputation of the researchers and executives who approved the project, so often times results are inflated.
If instead he was born in a very poor country and had to find a job or die on the streets, he would probably be taking on a job he doesn't like, but would be transparent about his financial situation with his social circle, because they could help out.
If you’re born into a family with less, you’ll be more inclined to be honest and transparent with other people about your needs and your desires, because you don’t have much to lose.
When you're needs are met, there isn't a pressure to adapt.
The largest and oldest companies in the world (TD bank, BIBC, Ford, etc.) avoid innovation because it increases the changes of failure. They have been successful for such a long time that any new executive with succumb to the pressure of maintaining that success vs trying to increase it.
People who lack resources embrace change because it increase potential for success, whereas people who have abundant resources don’t like change because they enter unfamiliar territory that increases their potential for failure.
For context, If you where living off 1$ a day, it would be easier to convince you to take up something else that could potentially make you more money. But if you’re already set on a 100K salary, it’s much harder.
At the root of decision is emotion, an internal compass that helps interpret external stimulus form the 5 senses.
Emotion is essential for 3 reasons:
→ Logical Shortcuts
If I get punched in the face, it’s probably smarter for me to react with an instant negative emotion than to reason out in my head the implications of why that’s a bad thing. Emotion let’s us skip a lot of the decision making and saves us plenty of brain power.
→ Perception adjustment
The universe can be split up into 2: the objective reality and the subjective reality. We see the universe through a filter of senses, so we have to make a ton of assumptions. I have to assume that no one’s going run me over when I cross the street, that my house will still be there when I come home, that I won't be struck by lightning. When something disrupts our assumptions, we react negatively. It's your emotions attempting to change way you’ve been perceiving the universe.
→ Primal motivation
Sex doesn’t make sense. Emotions give us the incentive to do it, but fundamentally reproducing isn't a rational act. So far as we know, there isn't one purpose that explains why we should reproduce. If we where purely rational beings, it’s not impossible to think that we wouldn’t be motivated by sex, love, friendship, etc. Emotion makes us to want things that benefit our species over the individual.
Emotion is in charge of whether you enjoy or don’t enjoy being. In North America, it’s easy to tie positive emotion to expensive and high quality material, but most of our desires come from mimetic theory.
If that Gucci belt was selling for 30$ and it wasn’t perceived as a luxury item, you probably wouldn't buy it.
Value is subjective, but we act as though the price we see is the objective value we gain. Most of the time it’s not, and when you entangle your reward systems around hierarchies of value (consumerism), it becomes very difficult to feel satisfied.
What makes you happy? In Jamaica, some of the happiest and welcoming people where those in Riveton city.
For 3 reasons:
It’s not that having lots wont make you happy. It’s that endlessly chasing the top of material hierarchy while sacrificing close relationships wont.
We’re deeply driven by emotion. It doesn’t matter if you’ve built a space ship and flown to mars, if you’re a selfish and unlikable person, people wont want to be around you and you'll feel miserable.
This hit me when I was talking to our bus driver.
He drove us around Jamaica during our trip, and was always positive and funny. Turns out though, he only makes about 6K CAD a year, and got a brain tumour a couple months ago (Jamaica doesn't have free healthcare).
Because we had built a strong relationship with him over the trip, and genuinely liked him as a person, we gave him enough money to pay off half of his cancer treatment bills. He wasn’t necessarily an exceptional person (except for being an amazing driver), but because we liked his personality and his values so much, we felt like he was a part of us and that it was the right thing to do.
At the end of the day, it’s the respect you get for your grit, honesty, vulnerability, and humility (to name a few) that makes people want to help you. It doesn’t matter what you’ve done. It matters you you are.
External factors are a great way of tangibly measuring progress. Being able to bench 100lbs when I could only do 70lbs the month before let’s me track how close I am to being on track to success. But the physical world isn’t everything.
I like to think of ambition as 2 things:
Your external ambition is a good way of tangibly proving you're making progress, but it’s the internal satisfaction and feeling of fulfilment you get from internal ambition that gives you the most happiness.
Mind > Matter.
It takes external actions to progress internally, but the key is not prioritising external hierarchy (social status, material value, etc.) over internal improvement.