You see it take shape… So guys, which shape is called “Kiki” and which shape is called “Booba”?
Synesthesia is a very cool phenomenon, it’s where people get blended senses, i.e. “see #8 as Green or taste chocolate as red”. This is much more common in artists and “creatives” but is thought to be exhibited in all of us. One piece of the brain – implicated in this phenomena is the angular gyrus which is 8x bigger in higher primates than other species. It’s the cross roads of vision audio and touch and it’s here that very cool things like metaphor are thought to stem from… ps: 98% of people agree that the right shape is called “Kiki” and it’s thought to be due to the audio/visual similarities “synesthesiastic links” that we experience.
Vilayanur Ramachandran: A journey to the center of your mind is a classic Ted Video and sets some this out… but my interest is in its links to our “seeing of patterns” in seemingly unconnected areas.
One theory about entrepreneurs is that they see deep patterns in the world, but perhaps more importantly, they see deep dislocations. They can carry these around with them, seemingly unable to express them to others and in no way clutching at trivial (anyone could do that) solutions. It is then their profound fixing of these profound dislocations that become the great breakthroughs…. We like to hang around with and back these guys. Tough people to deal with but the impact they can have on markets is profound.
It’s also said that creative types see all the problems in the world, and that creativity is the urge to make the world work differently and perhaps better.
For my part – seed investment is SUCH a gloriously risky pass time that I would really like to know how the world would be different and better should a proposed venture succeed. I’d like some deep and profound thought, layered on top of much ambition and a layer of getting it done.
So, to seed investment models – I ask the open question, if the bar is lowered, will more or less profound change and subsequent value be created. Darwin allowed massive parallel experimentation that resulted in wonderful “us”… however, the survival of the fittest is a brutally high bar. Do we expand Y-combinator models or do we demand more and keep the bar higher – and if the latter – how much higher.
Hi, Laurence. (The image isn’t showing for me, but saw it up on Wikipedia.)
I’m curious how you plan to link synesthesia to seed investing…
As for Y Combinator, I’ve been thinking about it more and think it succeeds in particular for two specific reasons.
1- They have a philosophy of throwing around lots of small amounts of cash, and expect to have a good number of “misses.” Which is a bit different than even what I understand most other investors are willing to do.
2- They’re physically located in the heart of their market: San Francisco. (Assuming their market is generally web-enabled software.)
No other city can “re-create” Y Combinator because they don’t have both parts. But there is a potential to leverage a particular city’s expertise to transform the model a bit. For example, you could create a Y Combinator-like program in Seattle where your defined target market is software/hardware built off the Microsoft platform. I think there’s the possibility to do the same thing in Cambridge with some really high-tech hardware & software developments. (Like your #camrev line… go into the labs, steal their stuff.)
Perhaps food for thought…
Pingback: blog.jedchristiansen.com » Blog Archive » Amir Nathoo, WebMynd, Cambridge & Y Combinator
Startups need to be around other startups, this is almost a fact — we thrive under pressure, we buzz whilst other founders are giving us ideas, and the network of contacts is a massive bonus too.
The money, as YC proved, is irrelevant. There is a major point a lot of people appear to miss. “Is $15K a lot? is it enough?” the difference between $15K and $0K is enormous to a couple of university graduates wondering what to do next. The difference between $15K and $150K? Nowhere near as different to (poor) founders.
You’ll probably scare a few startups off if you toss big “$100K” digits at them — hackers are hackers, not managers.
Yes, if you *want* to found a startup you’ll *eventually* save the money to startup. But why not solve that problem for the founders? take the worry and time spent saving money up out of the loop. If, in 4 months, I can’t blow an investors minds, I’m probably wasting my time. And your time. I don’t want to be labelled that, so I’d better be fucking efficient.
Do investors want founders with background in this stuff? Expect a massive salary then, maybe they can’t even code. They’ll run away from your $15K and crack jokes at you. A lot of them can’t “fuck shit up” [as the YC startup proved at Red Gate] because they’ll probably go bust and lose their mortgage. What does Doug Richard say? No risk no reward, Huge risk huge reward… QED
Do you want driven founders just out [or still in] university, that can code, that live on ramen anyway and want to change the world? $15K and a day or two of advice a fortnight is gold to them. Literally.
Both models work perfectly. If you’re lucky.
Are the economics of having 10 companies at $200K better than 100 companies at $20K? I have no idea. Those $200K investments are probably safer, which your fund manager will appreciate. A hacker won’t, though.
I probably should have added that I only know about software/web stuff. I literally have 0 knowledge outside those areas.
It’d be really interesting to see what the various barriers to entry are for other stuff, as I type this I remember a startup I meant to show Laurence … friend angel invested, hardware thing, uniquely low barrier to entry, totally game changing. You guys should remind me next OpenCoffee, OK?