CS183 Class 1: The Challenge of the Future
As promised, this post is the first in what will be a 19-part series on Peter Thiel’s CS183 class taught at Stanford University.
The essay-form notes from this class can be found here (I recommend reading this before continuing through this post as it is necessary for context - roughly a 5-8 minute read).
“0 to 1" versus “1 to n”
A central principle to the Class 1 lecture, and ultimately the entire CS183 course for that matter, is this notion of 0 to 1 versus 1 to n. In fact, Peter places so much value on it that it has become the namesake for his upcoming book, set to be released in early 2014.
This is certainly a dynamic worth examining in more detail because I believe it is critical to understanding the historical narrative of civilization and our collective advancement as human beings.
If we look back as recently as only 600 years ago (i.e. pre proto-globalization), we see a time of very little to no sustained progress whatsoever. Most significant advancements prior to then, with the exception of agriculture perhaps, had been made in geographic isolation and failed to have any real impact on society because they botched the 1 to n challenge.
That said, in order to be equitable, it is not so much that they botched the 1 to n, but rather that there was no real infrastructure in place to enable the dispersion of ideas and inventions at the time. In fact, globalization wasn’t really even a “thing” yet.
Perhaps not surprisingly, this infrastructure came soon thereafter through a series of 0 to 1s including Gutenberg’s invention of the movable printing press, which enabled the mass-distribution of thought, as well as advancements in ship-making, which allowed for the global exchange of goods and services.
Much more recently, the creation and widespread accessibility of the internet and numerous methods of high-speed mass transit have made this distribution almost instantaneous.
Looking around today though, 1 to n examples are abundant. And there is no arguing that there isn’t money to be made in this capacity. Just ask the Walmarts and the Starbucks of the world. Hell, it’s not much of a stretch to say that the vast majority of our global economic output is driven by 1 to n’s.
But frankly, 1 to n is boring. And while it may be the ultimate goal of virtually every business in the long-term, the 1 to n is fundamentally nothing more than innovation arbitrage, where ideas and technologies are plucked from their nascency and diffused globally through imitation and duplication.
Profits are squeezed out through a continuous cycle of process improvements, efficiencies of scale, and incremental change until companies are reduced to waging price wars to maintain competitiveness in the market.
This then begs the question as to why are we all so focused on the 1 to n? Peter provides some great insight with regard to this question, offering a myriad of explanations, each with their own merit. He cites the ease of replicating a known model (“I can do what they’re doing, but better”), a widespread belief in indeterminism (“If the market follows a random-walk, there’s no sense in me trying to calculate for it”), and a fear of embracing exceptionalism (“What makes me so special that I could offer this world something that nobody else has already?”).
Now, before we crash land into Dystopia, I think there’s a way around each of these ‘faux-cuses’, or at least a perspective that marginalizes them to the extent they don’t appear quite as menacing.
Progress versus Proliferation
In the lecture, Peter suggests that, reduced to their simplest forms, the 0 to 1 is essentially just “Technology” and the 1 to n is “Globalization”. But for the non-econ people out there, and to be able to apply the concept in broader contexts, I think more appropriate labels might be “Progress” and “Proliferation”, respectively.
By this definition, there are really only two criteria that need to be met in order to achieve Progress: 1) whatever is created needs to be the first of its kind and, 2) there needs to be at least one other person who finds value in it.
Failure to meet criteria #1 results in mere duplication. Failure to meet criteria #2 means all you have created is waste.
After pondering this idea a bit further (and much to my dismay, I might add), I realized that there is a group of people who have long since discovered this empirical truth - Creatives.
I mean, it’s even implicit in the word itself. The word “creative” comes from the Latin verb “creare” meaning “to make, produce, bring forth, or beget.” That just about says it all.
I stumbled across a documentary while surfing around Netflix this weekend that encapsulates this very spirit called Beauty is Embarrassing. The documentary chronicles the life of living legend Wayne White, the critically acclaimed artist and brain behind Pee Wee’s Playhouse, among many other things.
In it, the eccentric and, at times, indignant creative shares the story of his life and the viewer is provided an intimate look at what drives him to do what he does, which is to create things. Watching the documentary, you get the very real sense that whatever idea pops into the man’s mind turns into an unstoppable compulsion that won’t cease until he breathes life into it. It’s really a fascinating thing to witness.
What Wayne says he discovered very early on in life, however, is that when you create something new or different you open yourself up to criticism from the outside world. Things that are completely new are alien, unfamiliar and nonconforming, and that can draw scrutiny at a very personal level.
Hence the title of the documentary, Beauty is Embarrassing.
To embrace this mindset can be a very powerful and invaluable asset to us all, not just in the art or business worlds, but in nearly any facet of life. Because without the courage to risk failure and criticism through creating something new, we cannot truly have progress - whether on a personal or a societal level.
To this day, Wayne continues to create things to push the boundaries of the art community; he’ll likely continue to do so until the day he dies. And he has a simple message for those who take exception to what he does or, worse, dismiss him as being an amateur…
Touche, Mr. White.
Making a Habit of Making Things
There was a nice post here on Medium a couple weeks ago called “Create Something Everyday” by Stef Lewandowski where he shares his own personal habit of creating something everday. It’s something he says he’s been doing for nearly 15 years.
Now that’s a pretty amazing feat, but it can also be a bit intimidating. Making things is hard. And to do it every day?!
Fortunately, Stef lets us in on a little secret: what you choose to create does not have to be a monumental achievement.
Taking a photograph, sketching out an idea, or writing a blog post like this one can all qualify as “creating something.” These are all things that did not exist in this world when the sun rose this morning, but do now.
So, thinking back to the two conditions I laid out earlier as being necessary to satisfy a 0 to 1, we can safely check off Criteria #1. And with respect to Criteria #2, well, I’m sure you can find a friend, family member, or significant other who would love to see what you made. If for some reason they don’t, share it with a grandparent. They’re a sure-fire way to get your Criteria #2 checked off.
Later on in this series of posts when we get to Class 11: Secrets, we’ll explore a bit more into how we know which 0 to 1 ideas are truly worth pursuing to maximize impact, but until then, how will you be progressive and what will you create?
What will be your 0 to 1?
If you’re interested in continuing the discussion, get at me on Twitter (@mattgierl). If not, see Wayne White’s painting above. Just kidding ;)
