Kevin Vogelsang

Image via Wikipedia

“We are the middle children of history, raised by television to believe that someday we’ll be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars, but we won’t.  And we’re just learning this fact.”–Tyler Durden, Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club

Fight Club is the literary classic of my generation.   And this quote hits it right on the head–even more than I thought when I first read it.

In school, if you had some talent, we were praised as being “very smart”, as a “leader”, as someone that will be successful.  Our parents were educated, worked a  job, took care of their parents, and took care of us.  They found a way to make sure we got to every extracurricular and had everything we needed to excel.  We then brought to light the “stressful” competition to get into the best colleges.  We had instant access to the world’s information through the internet and instant access to people through mobile phones.  Those of us who didn’t take to academics had ADD.

We had everything we needed, and now we want to change the world and have an impact……

How exactly do we do that?

These are strokes so broad that they’re annoying, but I think this does describe the dilemma of my generation.  We’re a group of people built on stability, technology, and great expectations–which is incredible. But, the culture got something wrong.  And I think this has helped create a group of people that are talented, but even more lost.

This sounds a bit pessimistic (I prefer to be realistic.) I’ll end with this: we will undoubtedly change the world.

-Kevin
7.27.2010

When you’re in school, and you like playing basketball (or any sport for that matter), you constantly get told to focus on school because you won’t make it as a professional basketball player.  It’s very unlikely that you’ll make it to the big leagues.

I think a similar thing happens to people that are into art.  You better focus on real school work.  You aren’t going to make a living as an artist.

But, if I were to say, “I want to be an engineering Professor,” I don’t think many people would say, “you should probably shoot for something else, not many people make it to being a Professor, and it’s very hard to get there.”

Why is it this way?  Well, first of all, becoming a Professor entails a lot of schooling, and school is always a good thing, right? The second reason is that most people don’t realize how hard it is to become a Professor, particularly now that there are so many PHDs out there looking  for a position in academia.

The truth is, it’s very unlikely/difficult to “go pro” and be really successful in any given field.  It’s very hard for an entrepreneur to build a moderately successful company.  It’s very hard for a salesman to continually close deals. It’s very hard to become a DI college football coach, and so on.

So what to do?  I think the main thing is to be really fucking good at whatever it is you do.  Success transfers.  And eventually you’ll find yourself going pro at something that fits.

-Kevin
7.14.2010

Vogel Labs will be up and running on July 1st.  To make this happen, I’m constantly talking to people about it, why it’s completely different than anything that exists in Boston, why Boston needs it, and why it’s the ideal working environment.  Vogel Labs isn’t about space.  It’s about atmosphere.  Vogel Labs is about community, energy, love.  I kid you not.  Vogel Labs is much bigger than what you’ll find within its walls.

Communicating fluffy concepts like energy and community isn’t easy.  It’s even more difficult too convince someone why it’ll be at a certain place.  It’s also hard to tell someone how valuable it is before they feel it at such a magnitude.  Consequently, I’ve decided to give tangible examples of why the Lab will produce such intangibles and will be bigger than what is within its walls.  Here’s the first one:

Starting February 11th 2011, Vogel Labs will start taking applications for the “Vogel Labs Fellowships.”  The concept is simple: give an ambitious and creative individual (AKA someone who is entrepreneurial)  ~$2500 to pursue whatever it is that matters most to them. They don’t necessarily even need to know what exactly that is, but you can spot passionate people, even if they don’t quite know what the object of their passion is. They would then work in the Vogel Labs space and be exposed to a lot of startups and entrepreneurs at the ground level, meet a lot of people in the Boston community, and build real skills that they are personally motivated to use. (And hopefully they’ll begin the road that leads to a $50 Billion dollar home run.)

Anyone can apply.  Age doesn’t matter.  It’s never to late to start working on something you love.  However, by design, it’s more suitable for students and younger  people.

So how valuable can such a thing be by only supplying such a small amount of money?

The best thing I ever did in the course of my education was to take a summer to pursue what I cared about most.  I didn’t even know what that was at the time, but I had some ideas I wanted to get started on.  Before I even really knew it, I started being an entrepreneur.  I had no clue what I was doing, but I started building valuable skills by just pursuing a wild idea I had that I cared about.

In order to make this happen, I searched high and low for grants at MIT that would allow me to work on what I wanted.   I got lucky.  I was somehow able to get $1500 bucks from the MIT Political Science department.  I then got a part-time job teaching 4th-8th graders at the MIT Edgerton Center math/science stuff for $9 an hour. This was enough to live on.

So why not offer more money?  Part of learning to be an entrepreneur is learning to scrap and claw; a big part of it is learning to be a hunter out in the wild.  This is why you can’t learn how to be an entrepreneur while in school.  You’re too safe.  It’s also why I’ve seen big shot consultants fail when they try to found a company.  Resources are scarcer in the wilderness.  (But this doesn’t mean there isn’t support to take advantage of, you just have to go hunt it down ….or build it yourself.)

So through MIT, the Boston entrepreneurial community acquired an entrepreneur for $1500. Will this be a good investment of community dollars?  I’d say so.  Why did it work?  Because I was able to take this money and use it to find and pursue something that was important to me.  And that’s at the root of it all.

How often in your life have you been able to focus primarily on finding and pursuing what you care about?  But at the same time, would you say having some time to do this is very important?  It was a full-time endeavor for me that came with heavy costs and a lot of perceived risk. Let’s lower that a bit.

Now, why does this make  “good business sense” for Vogel Labs (which is the only way to make such things sustainable)? Well, it comes down to the spirit of these Fellowships and what the Fellows will embody: ambition, energy, passion, pursuit of something that matters.  Are there people out there willing to pay an extra 50 bucks a year to be around these things and what these people represent?  I think so.  In fact, I know so.  People are already agreeing to pay to be a part of an atmosphere filled to the brim with these intangibles.

-Kevin
6.1.2010

Vogel Labs is located in Porter Square and opens July 1st. You can have a full-time dedicated desk for $350 a month.  If you’d like to come and go and work part-time, it’s a $100 a month.  There is also more traditional office space (dry wall, carpet, sectioned rooms) available on a square foot basis.  We’re working towards delivering free space to the people that really need it.  Come by this Friday at 9:30AM or 3PM to see it.

In the education system, students are primarily measured by grades and diplomas.  Consequently, the education system–teachers, counselors, parents–equate success to good grades and big diplomas.  Education’s advice: “If you get good grades and you get big diplomas, you’ll be all set.  And you’ll be able to do whatever you want.”

This is completely misguided.

How many students do you see finish school, and then say to themselves, “so what am I going to do now?” It then turns into a crisis.  They simply have no idea what to do.  They’ve been operating largely under the assumption that they just needed to focus on getting good grades and big diplomas.

I’ve seen this “What to do” crisis hit graduates of all levels–college students, graduate students, even medical school students.  I’ve met med school students that go through the long tumultuous road of becoming a doctor, to only end up asking, “Do I actually want to spend my life being a doctor?”

One of the problems is that students end up setting a degree as a goal: “I’m going to get my PHD in Public Health.”  School is just a tool to help you get what you want.  Not an end in itself. Students should be asking, “What do I love? And how can I use my education to get there?”

Apparently, we even have a phrase for this now, The Quarter Life Crisis.  And the education system plays a role in this.  Classrooms only help bolster what you already do.  Classrooms in themselves are tangential to the world outside of education.

It’s easy to complain about any system.  But I’ll offer a solution that I’ll be implementing once it’s time to educate my own kids: Students should be directly measured by their portfolio of work. Making this change, changes the whole game.

-Kevin
5.25.2010

I think it’s completely wrong that people tell students that they should study one subject over another: “don’t do art,” “don’t do music,” “don’t try and do theoretical physics.”

There are many reasons why these statements can be detrimental. Here’s the main reason: You’re wrong. The world (especially their world) will be completely different in 5 years. Consequently, anything specific you tell them (like what subject to study) will be wrong. We can’t predict the future; we shouldn’t advise like we can.

Unfortunately, our education system does exactly this.

More on this, as well as how I think we should advise students, tomorrow.

-Kevin
5.23.2010

Posted from my iPhone, bitches!

In “Learning is About Building Mental Models for Interpreting the World“, I stated a case for education focusing on allowing students to work on whatever they’re really motivated to learn, and pushing them to learn that really well.  We should optimize for motivation–not for specific material. Furthermore, by learning something really well, you learn conceptual models for interpreting the world that are applicable to all fields and situations. I’ll be writing a series of posts on these conceptual mental models  that will hopefully show that this is true and to further the case for optimizing for motivation.

Since I’ve already alluded to it in my previous post, I’ll start with what I’ll call game dynamics.

First, let’s think of what a game is.

A game has rules. These rules could be explicit (“a player that is fouled during the act of shooting within the 3 point arc will be awarded two free throws”) or be more implicit (“you can’t spit on the other coaches shoes”).  The rules set the framework in which the game is carried out. (The framework also defines what happens when players break rules.)

A game has one or more prizes (desired outcomes/incentives.)

A game has players (or agents).  There could be different types of players competing with each competing for the same prize, different prizes, or multiple prizes all within the same framework of rules.

Breaking the rules leads to various outcomes, which could have a variety of outcomes.

Another aspect of a game is “information flow.”  You may have a certain or variable amount of information regarding the actions of the other players (and even the rules).

If you understand a game, the way players will interact within a framework, you are much better able to analyze a situation, intuitively react, and understand a situation.

Games are everywhere.  If you can identify the players and the framework, you’ll not only be much better suited to learn, you’ll be more able to get what you want.

You’ll find games in sports, in the politics of institutions, in business, in biology, ecology, physics, the office, economics, math, and others. Try and name a field or concept that doesn’t have a game somehow touching it.

With game dynamics, you might be tempted to say we should be learning mathematics (game theory in this case).  This is not the case.  Mathematics offers a rigorous language for describing and analyzing things.  It is certainly not the best or only perspective for learning an abstract model.  This same temptation may occur with many of the mental models I’ll present due to the fact that math is about abstract concepts used for analyzing situations.

-Kevin
4.23.2010

In a recent study (Creativity: Asset or Burden in the Classroom?), researchers looked at how personality traits associated with creativity were perceived by teachers.  In short, while teachers claimed to value creativity, they did not like students that exhibited characteristics associated with creativity.  Jonah Lehrer has a good discussion of the paper here: “Classroom Creativity.”

Here’s another article discussing the topic that came to me over an email list that I’m a part of: “Creativity: A Crime of Passion“.

Below is my response to the article (complete w/ politically incorrect language!), answering the question “is Creativity actually valued?”:

This is interesting.  And, as usual, I have some strong opinions on these things. Main points are highlighted.

I’ll first state my perspective:
I think it’s fair for me to claim that I’m a creative type since I do retarded/tight things like write books, do startups, keep a blog on abstract and esoteric topics, draw, and create free workspaces for creative, ambitious types.

First of all, the author isn’t really talking about just creativity. She’s talking about a bag of characteristics that she for some reason automagically appends to creativity.

Nonetheless, I think we understand the people she’s talking about. And although I don’t really like buzz words and don’t use them too often,in order to humor RWB, I’ll use a buzz word for creative types she’s talking about–”Creatives”.

The level to which we value and reward creativity depends on the context of course.

In art, music, and literature, we tend to be more receptive to new ideas, at least in contemporary culture.

In large institutions (including education), unproven Creatives are extremely disliked. They threaten the way things are done and people’s jobs.  It’s also annoying when someone says, “we should do it this way”.  It’s fucking hard to get things done as it is.

Proven Creatives are very highly regarded and extremely influential (Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell, Richard Branson, Picasso).

It’s obvious why teachers/authorities hate Creatives.  Creative people have their own ideas on how things should be done, and teachers don’t want to justify themselves or or have to herd sheep.  (Creatives have to act on their ideas or it drives them nuts.)

Consequently, Creatives hate big institutions and the education system overall.  It takes a lot of energy to budge them.  The exceptions are the few successful founders/entrepreneurs that maintain control of their companies.

Steve Jobs is the prime example of these things. He didn’t complete much of any college because it’s worthless to a Creative, did retarded/tight stuff like wander through India and become a Buddhist, founded Apple, got fired from Apple for being too much of a rogue, and later returned to Apple to completely change the company and disrupt entire industries.
I’ve met other entrepreneurs that share this same story (founder of MFG.com is one example, his company will likely IPO soon)

I think the way most educational institutions treat and react to creativity is unfortunate.  Unless you’re a talented artist of some sort at an early age, there are very few ways to fully realize and identify yourself as a Creative, [and until you discover this you feel as if you have some sort of disease].  If there was a better way to fulfill the self-discovery process for Creatives, the resistance would be fine….

The world resists and chastises new ideas.  I think this is a good thing. It’s a great filter. Everyone has ideas, but most ideas people have are actually terrible.  Good and bad comes with the creation process, no matter who you are.  Creativity is a skill that is honed with practice just like any art, craft, or profession.  Yes, a Creative has to learn how to cause a ruckus and sell their ideas.  And that’s fine, otherwise we’d end up in total anarchy if they didn’t have to do this.

My stance: Leave it to the professionals. The best ideas come from people that are experts in their domains and from a select few that are exceptionally skilled in the craft of creativity (which is more than just having an idea). And if institutions don’t innovate fast enough, we should recognize this and get rid of them, or let them fail.

[People are naturally resistant to change.  This will not change.  When it comes to large institutions, people protect their jobs and engage in the politics of not doing something that will be criticized instead of building real value.  Measurement is difficult in large institutions. Eventually big corporations come to state of gridlock unless they're exceptional.
Since the resistance to change will not change, we're better off having Creatives go off and do their own thing if they cannot achieve their means within an institution.  They take the knowledge and contacts with them, if they are capable, and start anew--without the heavy baggage of rebuilding a broken system and culture.] This of course is why government sucks: as a monopoly, it’s not very good at getting rid of itself.

What are your reactions?

And while I touch up on it here, who exactly are these ‘Creatives’? and what does this word really mean?  Next post.

-Kevin
4.15.2010

Technological advancement leads to more widespread and inexpensive access to technology. Computers eventually made their way into our households and gave people access to new capabilities and tools.  The same thing is happening with fabrication technology, biology, hardware, and so on. Additionally, the interface with these technologies becomes better suited to our use (ex. we no longer have to program computers in assembly language.)

One of the most aspects of this (which we’re closing in on) to me is the implications for education.

The metric for a student is primarily grades; society emphasizes grades and tests scores more than anything for a student.  If anything, grades are a metric for a student’s ability or penchant for academic learning, as well as a metric for “doing as you’re told.”

This is all well and good (or not), but it’s only one scale for measurement.  In my biased opinion, it’s also not the most important scale.  In fact, I think it’s pretty clear that there is a huge disconnect between education’s measurement system and the “real world.”

What we need to emphasize to students is the importance of real skills.  However, this message will never get across as things are now; the metric and culture for comparison is the synthetic system of grades and test scores.

To prove the disconnect and problem: universities, particularly the top universities, don’t focus on grades and test scores.  It’s secondary; “well you did well enough in school, but what did you really do? what’s the evidence that you’re capable of producing real value? “  However, the measurement system for students causes the culture to not focus on building tangible value and skills.  Consequently, many students are very confused when it comes to building and presenting a solid application to admissions offices (I used to work in MIT’s admissions office, I spoke to a whole lot of them).  Universities are much closer to the “real world”, and thus have a better perspective on the scales for assessing an individual.

Due to the developments I’ve listed above, students are capable of doing real work.  They are able to gain access to technologies that allow them to learn and use real capabilities.  Scalable access enables the development of an educational culture that focuses on a student’s portfolio of work. Personally producing something of value is a totally different set of skills.

-Kevin
4.5.2010

I’ve alluded to Hunter vs Farmer Theory somewhat before.  It’s time I brought up the concept directly.

The basic idea: at some point, humans diverged.  Some became farmers.  Others remained hunters.  This created an important dichotomy of characteristics found in people.

Of course, people aren’t simply one or the other.  An individual’s characteristics exist within a multi-dimensional, continuous spectrum of possible characteristics. However, the Theory provides an excellent framework for thinking about the neurological differences in people.

The Theory is particularly interesting because it highlights society’s failure (particularly our education system’s) to understand the neurodiversity of humans, and how society often only admires a limited set of characteristics, while disregarding other valuable traits that are naively considered to be “deficiencies”.

The wikipedia page is a good primer.  Here’s Hartmann’s illustration of the Theory by placing ADD “deficiencies” in juxtaposition to their value when placed in a different perspective/context.

On a similar topic, also check out Sir Ken Robinson’s TED Talk on society’s failure to make use of the full potential of the vast array of intelligences humans exhibit.

Think about it.

-Kevin
3.3.2010

Education through athletics is incredibly undervalued.

In school, I played varsity basketball, ran track, and played football.  I started playing because it’s what my friends did, I thought I could be good at it, and I wanted to compete.

Eventually in college, I realized athletics was the most important piece of my overall education.  I didn’t fully realize this until a sales class that I took at Sloan.  Bill Aulet was talking about hiring, and one of the main things he wondered about people was “did they play competitive sports?”

In US high schools, class room learning just isn’t that good.  You learn next to nothing about yourself, teamwork, leadership, politics, and performance. You certainly don’t learn toughness.

In the US, athletics is the only arena where performance is closely measured.  There’s stats on everything.  Through the entire education system, it’s also the only arena where you’re judged on your performance.  If you aren’t performing, you lose your job or your starting position.  This is important.

For nearly 20 years, I poured the majority of my energy and focus into athletics.  And it took me 20 years to realize the educational value–the value of understanding the athlete’s mindset.

It always pains me to hear people tell kids that they need to focus on classwork.  Our education system is full of flaws.  But I think one thing we need to value more is motivation. If a student enjoys something (anything) and is willing to work hard it, push them forward.  They’ll learn more doing that than half-ass reading Great Expectations and Frankenstein.  When it comes to valuable experience, my time as an athlete is the most important experience I’ve had, even more important than MIT or any work experience.  It’s where I learned all the core skills everyone should learn.

For business, particularly for startups, the competitive sports team is the closest experience you can get in school: You pick your team and go find a way to win.

-Kevin
2.2.2010