Let’s get this blog machine dusted off and humming again with a simple observation that I’ve found to be true:

It’s very easy to come up with reasons why something won’t work.  It’s much harder to figure out a way to make it work.

This is important to understand if you’re interested in new ideas and new ways of doing things. Think about the implications.

-Kevin
4.27.2012

Image by epSos.de via Flickr

I was talking to an active angel investor not too long ago, and he was telling me about different pitches he’s seen and why they failed.

To paraphrase the key points relevant to this post:

Sometimes we have people that somehow get into talk to us that just don’t really have anything.  The can’t talk in real terms about what they’re trying to do.

I’ve also heard a lot of good ideas that there is no way the team could deliver on.

I’ve seen teams that had an experienced team and a good idea, but their lead founder couldn’t answer a relatively simple technical question, which shows they aren’t living and breathing this stuff.

And then there are some really good teams with a good product…..but they lose interest after people see them present…..

I was intrigued by this last statement.  A lot of times investors cut founders some slack as they’re not always expected to be slick presenters, particularly if it’s a technology startup.  But it sounds like these guys weren’t, and I agree with their stance.

If you want to do something unique, if you want to sell something, you’ve got to get people up out of their chairs and inspired.  This takes energy and charisma. And if you can’t move people, how are you going to drive the necessary motion for a new a business?

I suppose this begs the question: where does this “energy and charisma” come from and what is it?

-Kevin
9.22.2011

The Abyss

Many years ago, there was a man who lived in a village.

One evening, after a long day of work, he ventured out of the village into the forest, unsure of what he was looking for.

Every night, he continued this.  Each time going farther and farther.  Until one night, he came out of the forest and onto a stretch of rock.  He hurried forward stumbling across the uneven surface of the stone, until he came to a sharp ledge.

He stopped, stood up, and found himself overlooking an immense, vacuous space–miles and miles of unknown darkness.  He looked out into the vast Abyss and saw visions of what could be out there, what could be achieved, what could be discovered within its depths.

He ran back to the village, told everyone he knew, and begged his friends to come with him to see it.

They wouldn’t come.  They didn’t believe he had even found such a thing.  He asked others.  None would come.

He tried to forget the Abyss. He tried to go on with his simple life–work, food, friends–but it felt empty now too.  He had lost his simple life forever.

Then one evening approximately one year after his first discovery, he returned to the Abyss, and stared out into the vast darkness.  And as he stared out into it, the Abyss stared back at him.  The emptiness, the loneliness, filled his mind, “I will always be alone. They will never understand.”

He began to climb down into the Abyss, and the Abyss consumed him.  No one ever heard from him again.

Perhaps this Adventurer discovered wondrous treasures after journeying down into the Abyss.  Maybe one day we’ll re-discover what he found.  As much as I want to believe that this Adventurer learned and discovered much, in all likelihood, he probably took a fall in the darkness, fractured his leg and shattered his ribs, and was left stranded and awaiting death.  Either way, there are no stories to be told of him, so he is dead in our memories, other than as an example of someone that ventured off only to be consumed by nothingness.

Perhaps there is no meaning behind this story.  But, in recent years, I’ve found meaning in it.

I’ve tried a lot of things, some of which could certainly be viewed as stupid.  I’d ask myself, “What the hell am I doing this for?” But I had my reasons, and I knew the only way I’d learn was to carry on. Additionally, I often found it hard to understand why people were satisfied with just coasting through life.  I could see very clearly why it was a good route, but nonetheless, I couldn’t really understand.  And several times, because of these conditions (me trying unordinary things, and not “getting” the usual life), I found myself feeling very alone.

Some people are compelled to venture off into the strange wild lands through the dark forest.  To some, it’s a gift and a superior way to live one’s life.  To others, it’s a disease.  I think a more even view is that it’s a role.

Eventually, these people will encounter the Abyss.  The problem is, much like the story, they let the Abyss stare back into them and consume them.  No one around them understands. They cut themselves off.  They convince themselves that no one understands.  And they go on living lonely, miserable lives.  And the story of the Abyss plays out.

People need differentiation, particularly the ambitious and creative (the Creatives). Consequently the idea of playing a role can be very discomforting.  But, this must be reconciled for the Creatives, we all need integration and connections to others.  The Abyss is vast, and there is an infinite amount of unknown for everyone to look separately on, and therefore plenty of room for differentiation.

So I would propose a different ending to the story of the Abyss:

He returned to the Abyss, and stared out into the vast darkness.  The Abyss stared back at him.  The emptiness began to fill his mind, and just before the Abyss was about to consume him, in an instinctual flash, he looked to his left.  And in the distance, he could see the faint outline of someone else, gazing out into the immense unknown.

-Kevin
9.18.2011

Image via Wikipedia

I’m going to attempt a series of posts entitled “What they taught me.” In this series, I’m going to write about how someone in my life taught me a very important lesson, as I think this is a subject that is very worth reflecting on.   Maybe it will also help me get back in touch with some people.

Prior to going into the 6th grade, I moved from the hills of Appalachia in eastern Kentucky to a place called Versailles in Central Kentucky.  (The county is Woodford County, which you’re actually familiar with if you’ve ever drank Woodford Reserve bourbon.)

I went to a new school, another small catholic school, called St. Leo’s.  And in my class was a guy by the name of Zach Sellers who became one of my good friends.

After 6th grade, Zach went to the county public middle school.  So I didn’t see him as much after that.  But, I would run into him on occasion at various events.

And no matter how long it had been since I’d seen him last, he always made it seem like I’d talked to him just yesterday.  He’d greet me, and often ask me if I wanted to come over to his house that weekend, as if it was the usual thing we did.

Very thankfully, Zach made clear to me fairly early on that personal relationships, to an enormous degree, are defined by how you interact with the person.  This contradicts quite sharply with the commonly held belief  that the atrophy or even building of relationships is highly dependent on time.

Time can dominate your relationships if you let it.  If you haven’t seen a friend in a long time, and you feel you don’t know them anymore because of the passage of time, and you consequently act awkward and distant, you’ve redefined the relationship to add greater distance.  Your actions have done this, not time.

Upon meeting someone you haven’t seen in a long time, you may discover that things have changed that do in fact create distance.  This distance is created by a misalignment of goals between the two of you.  (Your friend that wanted to do something that mattered becomes apathetic and reckless and just sits around smoking all day, for instance).   If this happens, so be it. Just don’t let time create this distance when it really isn’t there.

Thanks, Zach.

And Robbie Riddell, you deserve credit for this one too.  Thanks, man.

-Kevin
7.10.2011

*The professional context is a bit different and there are some other dynamics that get added to this I think.  But, overall, it’s still true.

For some reason, we tend to feel we’re not supposed to do something unless we’re good at it.  It seems to me this sentiment gets worse as we get older.

Perhaps we’re embarassed by our first shaky steps.  Perhaps we’re scared we can’t really do it.

Whatever the reasons are, I don’t like this! We should reserve the right to try things when we’re 80, and have just as much right to do it as we would when we’re 8.

Here’s my advice: declare yourself to be a researcher.   And like a  researcher, you’re required to delve into new areas.  It’s your job to experiment and uncover things.

Personally, I’m always experimenting with something.  This blog is an example of a continuous set of experiments.  The original incarnation of this blog was a goddam’ joke, but now, it has turned into something that has done me (and maybe a few people out there) a lot of good.  I’m quite proud of it.  And I suppose I’ve been blogging long enough and learned enough that I’m now a blogger in addition to being a researcher.

There are many things I have yet to experiment with on this blog.  One of them is the visual arts.

So, let it forever be known, at some time in the near future, I’m going to post some of my art on this blog.  It’ll be an interesting experiment to run.

Exercise your right to run your own experiments.  And tell me about them.  I’m interested to see what you’re up to.

-Kevin
5.24.2011

*Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for any outcomes that may happen due to your following of this advice.  So if you get arrested, smacked, or injured, it’s your fault!  But, by god, I’m sure it’ll due you some good in the long term.

Image via Wikipedia

Disclaimer: I know some of the contributors personally.

I’ve been around startups in some form for about 5 years now and have participated in a Techstars-style funding program, so much of this book was a rehashing of what I think of as common startup advice. But, to be honest, I’ve got effectively more experience with “zero-stage” startups than 99% of the population that would  be interested in this book, so I’m not the primary audience for this book.

Nonetheless, it was still valuable for me to read.  Reading sound advice and (re)synthesizing your own relevant experience is very valuable to do once in a while.

The book is full of good stuff, and it’s formatted to deliver the content in small packets (1 – 2 page chapters by different authors) that are easy to digest. The pages go fast. I like that.

One chapter in particular stood out: Dharmesh Shah‘s “Avoid Co-founder conflict.” I think largely because I felt it relevant to relationships in general. In this chapter, Dharmesh goes through the key questions that founders should ask each other:

• How should we split the equity?
• How should decisions get made?
• What happens if one of us leaves?
• Can any of us be fired?
• What are our personal goals for the startup?
• Will this be a primary activity for each of us?
• What part of our plan are we each unwilling to change?
• What contractual terms will each of us sign with the company?
• Will any of us be investing cash in the company?
• What will we pay ourselves? Who gets to change this?
• What are the financing plans for the company?

These are relevant to any sort of working relationship (many directly, others in an analagous form.)  So if you’re having trouble with your significant other, perhaps you should consider talking to Dharmesh :)

The Techstars team did a great job compiling and synthesizing a lot of valuable experience.  If you’re interested in startups (particularly internet startups), this book and the Y-Combinator essays are the first resources you should check out.

-Kevin
3.16.2011

Image via Wikipedia

I was at a talk by an entrepreneur a few years ago, and he made an interesting statement:  ”Some of the most talented people I’ve met are sales people.   We tend to think sales people just ‘wine and dine.’ But really they have to have an incredible breadth of skills and knowledge, both technical and not.”

As he alluded to, this is a very uncommon statement that, particularly in the world of technology-driven businesses, many people would argue.

This got the crowd going a bit.  I could feel a ripple go through the audience as if they all wanted to say something.

Once questions were taken, one attendee asked, “I agree completely with your points about sales people, and that it’s an undervalued discipline. I mean, why aren’t there any PhD programs in sales?….”  He went on to ask another question, but the recording of my brain turned off at that point, and I had to bow my head and rub my brow in dismay.  He was exemplifying a common mindset that I consider to be very corruptive: you need to get a degree in order to gain competence or to learn, and that you need a degree in order to be qualified.

Degrees are over-valued in general**.  And this is an astonishing display of it.  If you want a PhD is sales, go start selling something.

Getting a degree can provide access to resources, which is valuable.  For instance, it’s quite hard for me to get access to a mass spectrometer right now.  But, in time, we’ll see the lack of access to resources continue to fall.  We’ll also see that the way we invest in our “human capital” is inefficient and that the education and credential’ing system has broken.

-Kevin
3.12.2011

**This is a loaded statement with a lot of parts I can’t clarify here.  If you have any questions or disagreements, you should leave a comment.

**I should also state that I think education is very important. We just don’t have it right.

I did it.

After nearly a year of persistence, I finished Ayn Rand’s greatest work, Atlas Shrugged.  I hadn’t finished a book in years, and my ability to conquer this 1000 page beast even impressed myself.

There are plenty of summaries, so I’ll leave you to wikipedia to better understand the content.  Here’s the 5 key insights I found in this book:

1. “The industrialist is the perfect mixture of the technical genius and the philosopher”. I found this statement intriguing.  This is the best characterization I’ve found of the person we refer to as an entrepreneur/industrialist/Creative.  Corollary: the best leaders are often the best thinkers.
2. The meaning and purpose of Money. Too many people don’t understand money and don’t seek to understand it, which is problematic considering how much it effects our lives.  Rand drives home the point that money is repayment for the value you create (admittedly, this isn’t an absolute). See this post by Marc Fleury for more insight into money.
3. The role of purpose. My favorite word.   I must say, Rand masterfully exhibits the role of purpose, particularly through her discussion of creation and human expression.
4. Man as a heroic being, whose greatest gift is his mind.
5. Objectivism is a very good framework for longterm thinkers. I’m not so sure why Objectivism is regarded as so controversial, but then again, it can seem in direct opposition to many common social norms–which causes it to immediately be a candidate for ostracism.

Another interesting part of Atlas Shrugged is how history speaks through Rand.  The influence of Communism on her thinking sheds light on how Communism effected the world, and why Rand regards its value system as so dangerous.

Atlas Shrugged is essentially a narration of Rand’s philosophy.  Both can be summed up by the following powerful statement:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.  –Ayn Rand

-Kevin
1.18.2011

Image by Chee Chin via Flickr

Today, I watched the movie Kick-Ass.  In the movie, the heroes are more violent than the “bad guys.”  This got me thinking.

In books and movies, “evil” is almost always represented by a villain whose values (and goals) are in opposition to the values of the story’s hero–the character we most connect with.  In reality, outside the constructs of the narrative, the villain and the hero are interchangeable characters; if the story is retold from a different perspective, we feel differently and quickly change sides.  Thus, the literary terms “antagonist” and “protagonist” offer a better categorization for characters than morally charged words like “good” and “evil.”

We might take this to believe that Evil (in the moral sense), is simply relative to our value perspective.  This is incorrect.   When things appear to be relative, you should always check your premises, as relative definitions easily lead to contradictions.    Furthermore, relative views are dangerous. (I better dash on to the next topic quick…otherwise I’ll get stuck in one of the many philosophical vortexes already surrounding me….)

Image via Wikipedia

Evil isn’t mass murderers, crimelords, or even psychopaths.  These could be agents of Evil, but they are not the true enemy. Our greatest foe is Entropy.

The pervasive power of Entropy

By definition, Entropy is essentially “disorder”.  And without directed action, the world moves towards higher states of Entropy.  We can observe this at many levels.

Anyone that has ever taken care of anything understands Entropy at some level.  Imagine you have a small vegetable garden in your back yard.  Through your purposeful actions, you are able to cultivate the land and command it to provide nutritious (and delicious) food items.  But, imagine you get sick and can no longer tend your garden.  Entropy immediately begins to set in.  Weeds start to grow.  The plants begin to wilt.  Pests take hold.  Eventually, there will be no remnant of the garden.  It will have been consumed by Entropy’s nothingness.

The destruction of a vegetable garden may not be particularly convincing of the role of Entropy.

Cancer is entropy.  As the cells of your body grow, divide, and repair themselves, errors occur and unwanted by-products start to be produced.  Cellular machinery starts to wear out.  And eventually, the harmonious interactions between the cells are disrupted so much that cancerous cells develop.  Entropy sets in, cells no longer act purposefully,  and the body starts to destroy itself.

Pollution is entropy.  Pollutants are molecules that leak out into the environment and disrupt purposeful processes.  If purposeful environmental processes are disrupted enough, we will be overtaken by these pollutants.

Poverty is entropy.  Wealth, what provides us the opportunity to live and live happily, is generated by purposefully combining chunks of the world into a form that functions in a beneficial way.  Without the directed actions of those with purpose, entropy sets in, and we eventually have nothing that functions for us.  We live in squalor.  And if things continue this way, we die.

Creation is Entropy’s opposing force

You probably noticed the frequent appearance of “purpose” in the previous sections.  Purpose derived from the careful use of our intellect is the weapon for fighting Entropy.   Purpose combined with intellect allow us to create.

Image via Wikipedia

Intellect and the danger of unquestioning minds

Intellect plays an important role. If one does not use their own intellect to develop their purpose, they’re merely an agent of mindless ideas and philosophies.

And this is how morally reprehensible ideas and actions are able to spread.  Throughout history, dictators and corrupt organizations have been able to meet their ends by dominating the unquestioning minds that have abandoned Intellect and Purpose and, consequently, have submitted to Entropy.

Final Thoughts

Things will far apart if we let them.

-Kevin
9.19.2010

Image via Wikipedia

“I am America. I am the part you won’t recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky — my name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me.”–Muhammad Ali

Ali was an incredible physical athlete, but he was also an innovator of the sport.  He changed the way people fought.

Not only that, his charisma was strong enough that he changed the way people thought.  He was in the head of his opponents and his audience.  He was a champion that people wanted to see win.

He dominated through his feet, hands, and mind.

There are lessons here for any market, not just boxing.

-Kevin
8.6.2010