First Cook

These things keep coming to me.

About 6 years ago, I was having chai with a friend from Palestine, Sayyed.

While talking about culture, I ended up saying: Roots and Wings

I have to admit I did not know what I was talking about. It was pure gut. In fact, even I was surprised. Just one day. I lived with hundreds of people and saw thousands from almost every possible cultural combination in the world. Petri dish of humanity. But what could one infer from this eccentric group of travellers?

——-

Today, after tens of thousands of data points, travelling through many cultures, living in polar opposite cultural configs, generating Values for 100s of people, and writing and thinking through Base Spectrums, I finally saw it in action.

My thesis (last 2 years) has been that there are 7-15 Base value spectrums that every human being falls on for a long time. And we got here. It is working pretty well—everyone who saw it confirmed it and was mind-blown.

I can’t stop staring at this picture. I can’t stop doing this analysis with everyone I know and/or observed for a while. It is so beautiful! A map of human psyche. An explanation for all their actions.

In a regular day, I can’t stop my mind from boiling every cultural data point to a Base Spectrum.

I’ve been doing it for so many years.

Now, I’ve actually made it tangible.

——-

Today, while Dharmi asked deep questions about culture in Ahmedabad, I realised that while there may be many spectrums, and while an academic mind might be tempted to create one more redundant framework, for all practical purposes, it boils down to only ONE spectrum: Roots and Wings.

I could discuss Individualism vs. Collectivism and map everyone and every culture in the most nuanced way.

But the practical frame for looking at anyone is: Roots and Wings.

Everything else is a derivative.

——-

Feeling today:

Why do people work with assholes like Elon Musk?

The guy in the video provides a plausible answer, but it is anecdotal, and I don’t think it is right.

Let me tell you what I think.

Two reasons consistent to ALL of his companies (except Zip2 is not well-documented):

First: When 80% of Twitter staff is fired, and such events happen, the brilliant people understand this is the right move. The ones who want to take individual responsibility instead of falling towards the safety net of collectives (MBA/Big4 cultural virus that seeped into the business world in the last 50 years) love this. They understand that this means all of their lesser talented, less motivated colleagues would go in such a firing.

On the other hand, this scares the shit out of those who want to do things “together”! So they stay away.

This is a great filter!

Second: Because he is all-in!

See if the strategy I explained in the first reason is so simple. Can the CEO of Google fire 80% of its employees and suddenly expect it to get better like Twitter did? Hell no!

You know why?

Coz Elon puts in more work than anyone else first. This is leading from the front.

Without satisfying these two conditions, you cannot be the asshole who still attracts top folks!


I am increasingly convinced that individualism works so well in capitalistic environments that it beats every other system.


Maybe this deserves a corollary about why talented socialists end up as frustrated journalists. (PS: coz they can’t move the needle on anything)

From strength to victimhood

Something in our culture is making many people behave in polarised ways. One of the spectrums on which polarisation is happening is self-image.

I have seen multiple friends go from strength to victimhood and back in seconds.

“I am tired of being strong” <——> “I was born/raised in bad circumstances.”

This skips the most important state – vulnerability.

There is a thin line between vulnerability and victimhood.

Vulnerability is where I accept where I fucked up. Victimhood is where the world fucked me up.

Without vulnerability:

  • there is no scope for a connection
  • no scope for feedback and hence no growth

Loneliness epidemic is only going to grow because some thing in our culture is pushing people towards the extremes.

Base Spectrum: Holistic vs Reductive

Mostly self-explanatory but i’ll jot down where i think the magic happens here:

  • When a holistic person starts “operating” with a reductive mindset, they boom. This came from Larry Eliison’s video describing Steve Jobs as someone who did not code himself but understood the system holistically really well. In another video, he also said Jobs was the most focused operator (reductive)

Wait for more on this

Trusted vs Transactional relationships

This may be a derivative of Base Spectrum: Collectivism vs Individualism.

Trusted relationships can be frustrating. Having neighbourhood aunties checking on who visited my house was my regular complaint.

However, on the other end of the spectrum, where you are truly independent, neighbours won’t even lift a finger to help you.

The choice is not simple. I am collecting a bunch of examples to show the entire spectrum of transactional vs trusted relationships.

Consensus in Startups

If your startup is making consensus-driven decisions, it is ngmi.

Too much consensus kills creativity. In fact, the more disagreements and open name-calling, the better. Founders and early teams (the first 10 people) that cannot take brutal truths aren’t going to make great startups. After all, all startups aren’t equal.

Some major differences in consensus-driven startups vs individual-driven ones:

Consensus-Driven startupsIndividual-driven startups
Approval junkiesAsk for forgiveness rather than permission (means the person is ready to take accountability)
High string of dependencies: “graphic designer to copywriter to editor to founder to publish”Low dependencies: i design the banner in Canva, write it, edit it, get a couple of opinions (maybe) and hit publish
Uncomfortable discussions are avoidedUncomfortable discussions are blunt
Disagreements in private, quietly, soften the blowDisagreements are loud, public, and direct
Diluted responsibility: “we, we, we”Concentrated responsibility: “i, i, i”
Right process matters moreRight outcome matters more

All startups aren’t equal

I was raised on the Dhanda ethos. Quality, margin, and profit were daily thoughts and discussions. It was pleasurable to mechanically do this and see the ‘number go up’ every evening.

But it was also the time when all the woke knowledge was just entering India. Movies were questioning 9-5 and ‘pursue your passion’ was the thing.

My young rebel phase found Paul Graham as a saviour and a mid-ground. I could use business and marketing acumen but build another Facebook? Of course this is the best option.

For years I thought this is what everyone in startup circles understood.

But no, I discovered that people mean different things when they say startups.

Here is what I mean

  • Rails as opposed to wagons: Facebook became the rails on which much of internet data travels. Not one app that would allow for booking of doctors. Nothing wrong with that but making $1mn ARR would make me feel my Gujju dhanda was a better path
  • $1billion or nothing: This is a different mindset. To be in the top club, the thinking changes. Founders who want to do this have to understand the Zero to One mindset. Wagons can afford to slack
  • Thesis / Product innovation rather than rent-seeking: One of the options I thought of in 2009 was to start making software for Iron and Steel manufacturers and stockists. This was a market where I had networks and in 2009, hardly anyone in India understood how to make a B2B software at scale. When I researched this, I landed on SAP and realised I’ll probably just end up tweaking the large companies’ products to fit ‘my vertical’ because I had the gap to seek rent. For some reason, the idea became really unsexy to me. I want to build a product that pushes something forward.

This is the kind of founder that I like to support and work with.

But I do realise not everyone wants to do all of this.

House of cards x6

This is the sixth time I have seen House of Cards properly. It is fascinating, and the art is so great that I can see so many layers every time I watch it again.

Spreading it across ten years also means that i am in different phases of life + different maturity each time.

This time was mindblowing. How wrong I was about so many things, and how I was stuck to so many petty things in the past. One of my friends gifted me a frame with the quote.

i was focused on style, dialogue, and shallow stuff like breaking the rules. This time around, I could see the depths of the character and the society around him. I can write a whole book but I’ve just decided to focus and narrow down so here is a gist of what i thought:

Frank Underwood, a right-wing guy (qualities of a stayer/ roots) in a left-wing party (Democrats/movers), is the right combination. Everyone else gives up so easily, and it is ridiculously right in so many instances.

I cannot help but wonder ‘what if’ he was in the republican party?

This also makes me think how Trump is hated in the republican party. Maybe he would have been loved had he chosen to run with the democrats? Maybe.


Choosing not to have an opinion on the last season because it is not over yet.

On Seers

Kattegat doesn’t end when Ragnar dies. Or Bjorn. It ends when the Seer dies.

Seers are these people with pent-up energy. My hunch is that they are people who saw longer patterns. Who yearned to see longer patterns – fundamental drivers of the world and patterns of 1000s of years – as opposed to those who can hardly see beyond their own pains, days, years, and lives.

These are also people who have somehow detached themselves from world affairs. In a way that nothing can affect them.

Yet everything affects them because they finally see things no one else can.

Seers have also made peace with death. They do not fear it nor possess the existential angst to do something other than sit in a chair in an empty room.

These are troubled people because they cannot stop seeing, but they have such calm inside them, they hold storms without speaking a word. Without pulling the strings of the world to benefit them in the short-term.

They could. They could play the game and get absolutely whatever they want for themselves.

But Seers know the worthlessness of things and shallowness of people around them.

Modern Seers, you cannot recognise them beyond that slight tinge of wisdom that they let out.

If Seers see everything, why don’t they tell everyone about the future?

Because no one wants to listen to it. It comes with a flood of connected dots and most minds do not have the capacity or the desire to hold such amounts of information, pain, or even happiness.

“There is no audience”, one of them said.

Another switched off their connection to the world and holed himself up, probably in the Jungles of Madhya Pradesh.

The most powerful solace for a Seer is that the world does not need them or anyone else. It is true. Everything is always in balance. Humans are the only naive species that thinks the world needs some kind of fixing.

The only thing I have yet to see is: what happens when a few of them come together to talk without talking, listen without listening. And just be. I doubt that is a sight that this planet has ever seen. Maybe a handful of times in history.

Two most powerful men in the world

The only real choice a man has is to be Alexander or Diogenes.

Anything and anyone in the middle is controlled by these two most powerful men in the world.

Most of us don’t have a choice about where we are on this spectrum, so this post does little but provide awareness.

If you are in the middle, leaning one way or the other, know who to support.