The following is a curated except from my personal diary. These next few months, I am reading a bunch of books around MBA/marketing/business etc., and after I wrote in my journal, I felt this could have a wider view, hence sharing!
….
In Zero to One, there were certain concepts which were interesting for me. In the book, Peter talks about indefinite pessimism (Europe – high savings, low investments), definite pessimism (China – high investments, low savings), definite optimism (America of 50s-70s, high investments, high savings), indefinite optimism (Post 80s America, low savings, low investments). Of course, he’s critical of the current American position (I think we tend of be most self-critical and favourable of others’/our glorious past). But this overall concept was new for me.
Definite pessimism indicates growth is possible but cannot potentially keep on increasing (future can be known, but it is bleak)
Indefinite pessimism indicates no further growth is possible (future is going to be bleak and there’s nothing one can do about it), so just chill (apparently indicated by the vacation-mode of Europeans and that they make savings for savings’ sake as money is important).
Indefinite optimism indicates growth/hypergrowth is possible, but no one knows exactly how. There is no plan.
Definite optimism indicates growth is definitely possible, but one must plan towards the future we want to see.
I think from my own investment style, I tend to fall in the definite optimism side, but from a career perspective more leaning towards indefinite optimism. Or rather, in my career at least, I don’t think this is yet that pronounced.
The other thing that stood out was the opening question of the book, “What is one important truth that no one agrees with you on?” When I think of this question, it makes me think I am not having enough intellectual discussions to really answer this question. So I have to keep going back to this question. But off the top of my head, I think this is what it would be: no matter how sophisticated our technology gets, we will stay animals at heart. Hence, mankind on the whole will continue to be competitive. Something which Peter Thiel however suggests companies shouldn’t be doing.
His recommendation is that capitalism and competition don’t go hand-in-hand. Companies should collaborate more (that is what I think he is trying to say, but not explicitly).
He also says, monopolies try to hide they are monopolies (Google doesn’t advertise itself as an search engine company where it’s a monopoly, rather calls itself a technology company to not be labelled as a monopoly and save itself from a lot of legal hassle). On the other end of the spectrum, you have industries from very competitive markets call themselves as unique/differentiated, because they think that’ll help them in the market.
What I didn’t like about the book was the portion that was spent in discussing founders’ eccentric styles (be it about Richard Branson or descriptions of Lady Gaga). I didn’t understand why in a book about building the future such chapters merit a presence. I don’t get the American obsession with showiness. But in the end, I think the book reclaims itself, by talking about how to think about the future might look like, It made me think about how I think the world might look like in the future:
Recurrent collapse or an equal amplitude sinusoid of progress and decline (potentially unlikely accordingly to the author, I partially believe this)
A plateau where all poor countries become like the America of today (I don’t believe this is going to be the reality either and neither does the author)
A complete destruction (which the author doesn’t subscribe to and neither do I). I feel collectively, the people that define history are also learning from it. I don’t believe for all we have achieved, we’ll blow the Earth up.
Exponential takeoff – Singularity – (which the author believes we’ll reach and probably I agree too. I think it’s hard to be a technologist and not believe this way)
However, I don’t think the models are going to be as simplistic as this. I think it’s going to be a sinusoid with a constantly reducing amplitude before it takes off to something really radical.
I think that is probably the most realistic view because we will make mistakes in the process and there will be periods in which there will be stagnation. Progress cannot be constantly unidirectional. This world is too large and there will be great opposing forces cancelling progress out and for periods, generations will try to find themselves and then get back on track.
I see parallels of this in my life. Up until now, I had been craving a certain work-life balance. But after couple of years of this, I feel I can push myself more and I want to do it. I want to push myself to the extreme and really find out for myself what I am capable of.
On another note, what was interesting to see was that Peter Thiel seemed to agree with Byron Sharp that selling the product (marketing/sales/customer development) is as important as the product, if not more. I am not sure if Peter Thiel read Byron Sharp (How brands grow?). Probably he did, but I love when different things I read all converge to the same fundamental truths. Byron’s book did teach me a bunch of new things this December.