Every AI tool just waits for you to type a prompt. For the last year we built the opposite: an assistant that already did the thing before you wake up.
Here's what that looks like in a real family. Mine. π
on not becoming your father:
Luke Skywalker's relationship with his father's identity is one of denial. the first words Luke says after the famous "I am your father" line are "no, that's not true, that's impossible". he cannot accept who and what his father is
over the next film, Luke is haunted by the possibility of becoming like Vader. he sees the similarities between them, symbolized by his artificial hand. the climax of Return of the Jedi, the throne room scene, is predicated on the Emperor trying to turn Luke to the dark side; that is, to allow his Vader-nature (his father-nature) to take over, to become just like his father
now, a more superficial film would have resolved with Luke saying, "no, I'll never be him!" and then killing Vader and the Emperor; cue big celebration. but that's not what we get. we get a more complicated and archetypal resolution
Luke overcomes Vader, but refuses to kill him; he resists the *total* rejection of his father. instead, he turns to the Emperor and throws his lightsaber away. "you've failed," Luke says, "I am a Jedi, like my father before me"
Luke doesn't say, "I'll never be him." he implies instead, "I AM like him." the climactic moment then becomes an acceptance of his father-nature
but of course, in accepting his father, he transcends him. Vader wouldn't have made that choice, but Luke does, and so by saying, "I am him", he is showing he is quite different.
by owning the Jedi-nature of his father (the Anakin-nature), Luke is also owning the fallibility. it is not "I am him but better", but simply, "I am him, with the same potential failings, and I own that". it is a rejection of the path of Vader, of pure violence, but because the path of Vader IS a path of rejection, the rejection of that path must be through acceptance
this is the paradox of "what you resist persists." when we deny parts of our nature, when we try to reject or destroy them, they grow stronger. by saying "I am not that" we become MORE like that
I have a client who has a father who never finishes a project. he's a perpetual tinkerer, which was a source of stress in the family household. my client, in the past, had a fear of being like that, so he's tried to force himself to finish projects he wasn't really inspired by... and because it was this forceful, gritted-teeth thing, he ended up abandoning them before the finish line... and thus became a perpetual tinkerer
by trying to escape his father he moved closer to becoming him. and let me tell you, this happens *all the time*. it's one of the strongest patterns in the human psyche. rejection of a certain dynamic strengthens that dynamic
transcendence happens through acceptance and inclusion. when we *include* what we are afraid of in our sense of self, then we necessarily *enlarge* our sense of self. an enlarged sense of self = transcendence
when he says, "I am like my father", Luke becomes a larger version of himself in precisely the way Vader could not. that's the movement. that's the opportunity. it can be extraordinarily difficult... but it's available
This came up twice today, so figured I'd tweet it.
People, internally and externally, talk [read: complain] to me that their product isn't growing, or isn't growing enough.
100% of the time they are missing at least one of the following minimum requirements for success:
(A) A *burning* user problem [not a "it'd be nice if" problem]
(B) Users with that problem, each in a [Slack] room [I'll accept WhatsApp or iMessage, but it can't be email]
(C) Narrow the problem such that you can build a 10X better solution than the current alternatives [you are very likely biting off too much to early and then you can't quick make a wow-better solution]
(D) A chart with _daily_ counts of users using the product [do not kid yourself into measuring weekly or monthly]
(E) At least 2 people, but probably under 5, working on it full-time, that like each other and meet at least once per day [new things are just more fun together than solo]
In terms of order of operation: it's first (E), then (A) which begets (B), then you just have to daily iterate back and forth between (C) and (D) unless it's growing faster again.
All leaders know they need white space in their calendar so they can think strategically about their business. But how many actually do this in practice?
A client once came to a session saying how much he desperately need more time to think through his company's direction, only to show me a calendar with over 30 meetings (not kidding). I asked him when the thinking was supposed to happen and he simply said "maybe on Sunday."
The thing about a calendar like this is it's self-perpetuating. Meetings beget next steps beget more meetings beget next steps. All the while, there's never a chance to wonder if the steps they were taking were the right ones.
Of course, stopping to consider that question is scary. After all, what if you find out that the strategy you're pursuing needs changing? That might require a lot of hard conversations and decisions. But at the end of the day, that is the job of a leader.
All startups eventually become a reflection of the founding team's psychology. Whatever habits and beliefs run the founders become the culture of the company. Founders who must always have an answer lead to teams that can't admit when they're wrong. Those that believe emotions are dangerous create cultures where honest feedback is impossible.
If you look around and wonder why there's drama or dysfunction on your team, the first place to look is within. Investigate how the behavior you're noticing is a reflection of your own, whether it's explicit or implicit. Your first reaction might be that you have nothing to do with the unwanted behavior on your team. Don't trust this, it's not only a defensive posture, but it blocks agency. Only when you can accept that you have something to do with the circumstances can you reclaim your agency in changing them.
Introducing Roughdraft!
A new open source project designed to make collaboration with agents better.
The idea is to bring commenting and suggested changes to markdown (e.g. plan docs) in a nice interface.
Free, local, etc.
π https://t.co/J3YOOpL5ES π
The easiest mistake to make in any interpersonal conflict is to expect the other person to change by getting them to buy your story. People think "if only I better expressed myself so they truly understood me and my frustrations, then our problems would be solved."
This rarely works because you haven't spent time making them open to even listening to you. They're too stuck on being misunderstood themselves.
The pro move is to set your own feelings down for a moment and move to their side with genuine humility and curiosity. Only when they feel sufficiently respected and cared about will they become open to hearing you too.
Is it fair? Maybe not, but it's what works.
I strongly do not agree. This populist messaging is counterproductive. AOC teaching people that wealth = immorality is in opposition to the American dream.