Is The Cat Worth Be Saved? or
1. An email to Dr. Ito;
2. A discussion on the correlation between curiosity and take-risking.
The parts are not really related :) the first one was just a spark for thoughts leading to the second.
Dear Yuko Kobayashi Barnaby,
MIT Media Lab
75 Amherst St. E14-245
Cambridge, MA 02142
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov
BU, Physics Department
"I hated physics before taking this course, and now after taking both 105 and 106 with Mr. V, I actually really enjoy it. He is one of the best teachers I've ever had. Thank you" (http://www.gomars.xyz/vvcvres.html)
Dear Prof. Ito,
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov
Some ideas, which I didn't mean to discuss but could have been of interest, too.
"Free business ideas from Dr. Voroshilov: part 1"
"Free business ideas from Dr. Voroshilov: part 2"
The word goes “Curiosity killed the cat”.
I like sentence: "In order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive" by Jordan B. Peterson, because ability to take risk is correlated with curiosity: only curious people are capable of taking risk; people who play it safe have no curiosity; only truly curios people who are not afraid of making a mistake ask "What if I'm wrong?".
Curiosity is one of the strongest motives for inventors and discoverers.
An entrepreneur often starts from being fascinated by something.
The stories of Apple (Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak) or McDonald's (brothers McDonald and Ray Kroc) illuminate the difference between being an inventor and being an
There is also a common expectation that an entrepreneur has to know and do everything, from book-keeping, to product design, to advertisement.
Another effect of the absence of curiosity is arrogance.
"Nah, there is nothing he/she can tell me I wouldn't already know or couldn't easily figure out".
And then the Barbarians take over Rome.
Or the Chinese take over AI (at least according to the Forbes).
BTW: does "he is extremely busy" implies that we all are not? Business/Busyness is about how we distribute our time, not about having or not a lot of free time.
Since the existence of a social hierarchy, people at the bottom of the pyramid tried to reach out to the people at the top (for many reasons). It has never been easy, and the technologies have not made it easier. On the contrary, the easy access to multiple media resources makes the streams of the bottom-to-top letters with pleads, ideas, requests overwhelming. Of course, that is what an assistant is for. But even for an assistant the incoming informational flow is way too much (BTW: an opportunity for an AI assistant; in my case, though, my letter when through an assistant to the boss). However, the most important reason for a "bottle neck" is the reason an assistant is an assistant. He or she simply does not have such skills, or abilities, or intuition, or visions, or good luck, the assistant's boss has - otherwise the assistant would not be an assistant. That leaves a boss to make a decision: either make deliberate attempts to step out the usual circle and level of communication, or not. The former, although very rare, but yet was observed, predominantly in politics (e.g. Henry V, at least according to Shakespeare). The latter is ubiquitous (like the "bugs" in PC/Mac/Android software, if only someone could write un-bugged/bugless AI, because bugged AI is pronged to the same mistakes/bugs people make when writing/thinking a code).
A piece on curiosity in hiring.
A piece on curiosity in VC.
A discussion on the role of luck in business.
"The best luck one can get is growing up in a nice family and attending a nice school. The next depends greatly on meeting the right people. I like to say "you can be the strongest magnet, but if you are surrounded by wood, you cannot attract much of attention"."
Here I present an extraction from a long piece on a political matter, but it is related to the question "Should everyone be an entrepreneur?”
BTW: everything we currently observe in politics is just a tip an iceberg. It is just an indication of how deep the process of deterioration went in all social and economic areas, including education, science, healthcare, infrastructure, media. Why? Well, that is a completely different discussion.
A copy of a note from the main page.
I am not an idiot or a reckless person. The reason I can allow myself writing what I think, even if that is perpendicular to commonly adopted and conventional views, is that my financial situation is sufficient and stable. Of course, as a normal person, I wouldn't mind making more money, or being involved in more interesting projects (as described in my generic resume). But I do not have to pretend to be someone I'm not to make my living.