00:00we really are the products of change and
00:02we forget that we we're actually the
00:04argument for change because the things
00:06that we grew up with were the things
00:07that people had previously opposed
00:09welcome back to the a16z podcast and
00:12welcome to 2023. it's hard to believe
00:14we're here but if the last few years
00:16have been any indication we are in for a
00:19lot of change and that's why for our
00:21first episode back we brought in someone
00:23who literally studies change and that is
00:25Jason Pfeiffer you might recognize Jason
00:28as the longtime editor-in-chief at
00:30Entrepreneur magazine the host of
00:32several popular podcasts and the author
00:34of his recent book build for tomorrow
00:36but in today's episode Jason is sharing
00:39his six Frameworks about how people
00:41understand and adapt to change or how
00:44sometimes they fail to adopt a change
00:45and he does this through studying and
00:47interviewing some of the world's most
00:49influential people both past and present
00:52so I'm gonna give Jason the floor but I
00:54did want a flag that at the very end I
00:56think we play a very fun game where I go
00:58through a bunch of current technologies
01:00that are facing some degree of pushback
01:02and Jason shares how they might fit into
01:04his framework so that includes things
01:08bass autonomous vehicles AR and VR
01:12biohacking and lots more so if that
01:14sounds fun make sure you stick around to
01:16the end I hope you enjoyed this episode
01:18and have a great 2023. the content here
01:22is for informational purposes only
01:23should not be taken as legal business
01:25tax or investment advice or be used to
01:28evaluate any investment or security and
01:30is not directed at any investors or
01:32potential investors in any a16z fund for
01:35more details BC a16z.com disclosures
01:48we have Jason Pfeiffer on the line Jason
01:51thank you for being here thank you for
01:53having me people listening we had to go
01:55through a lot of roadblocks to get this
01:57recording on the books and then now I
02:01um so Jason thank you for your patience
02:03why don't you just give everyone a super
02:05quick background on who Jason Pfeiffer
02:07is and what you've done over the many
02:10years you've been involved in technology
02:13I have to say by the way I kind of love
02:15when things break like this this was not
02:17a bad experience for me because the
02:18thing is that when something breaks
02:21it gives you an opportunity to
02:25fix it or to do something nice and then
02:29people are kind of more grateful to you
02:32than if you had just been a normal
02:34person and things worked fine I think
02:36about that a lot at work about how
02:38oftentimes as I Advance my career the
02:41moment that mattered the most was when
02:43there was a crisis and I was able to
02:45step into it and then afterwards I was
02:46like I'm really glad that that thing
02:48went wrong so that I could be the one to
02:50step up and fix it so anyway that's not
02:52to say totally which is what you did by
02:54the way that's right people listening
02:55like you fixed the solution well I
02:57didn't fix it you fixed it but you but
02:59fixing it involved inviting me uh into
03:02your Riverside account and then me
03:04setting up this room and hitting records
03:06um you know I have a weird amount of
03:08power in the a16z world right now that
03:11um temporarily drawn from me the second
03:13this is done uh so uh anyway who is
03:16Jason Fiverr I am the editor-in-chief of
03:19Entrepreneur magazine and that means
03:22that I have the unbelievable pleasure of
03:24spending all my time talking with and
03:26learning from uh just the most
03:28Innovative and smartest people in the
03:30world I am also the author of a book
03:33called build for tomorrow which came out
03:35of a a lot of work that I've done both
03:39with entrepreneur and then also in this
03:41podcast that shares the same name though
03:43originally started as pessimist archive
03:44I know you guys at a16c customer service
03:46and I used to be a part of that project
03:48and um launched a podcast unfair that I
03:51then evolved into my own thing so anyway
03:53what am I I'm a guy who gets to learn
03:55from incredibly Innovative people and
03:57then turn around and teach
03:59Innovative people how to be more
04:01adaptable because I think that that's
04:03the most important thing in success
04:05that's amazing and I want to get to your
04:07book that you recently wrote and
04:09published build for tomorrow so we will
04:11talk about that and talk about the many
04:13themes and lessons from it but I want to
04:17why do you think that skill is important
04:19that skill of adaptability seems to be
04:22something that you've kind of geared
04:23your career around now your recent book
04:26why is that important today and and why
04:29of all the things that you could
04:30possibly focus on or write about why
04:32have you chosen that well so I chose it
04:34because when I became editor-in-chief of
04:36Entrepreneur magazine and to be clear I
04:38didn't have a business background per se
04:41I really have a media background so I've
04:43worked at a lot of different brands only
04:45some of which were business but when I
04:46started an entrepreneur I would go out
04:48I'd be interviewed on podcasts or I'd be
04:50speaking at events and I got this
04:52question over and over again the
04:53question was what are the qualities of
04:55the most successful people or most
04:57successful entrepreneurs and I kept
05:00thinking why am I getting this ques it's
05:02like a weird coordinated attack that all
05:03these people are asking me the same
05:05question and and then I I realized you
05:07know if you listen to the questions that
05:11you discover that what they're really
05:13doing is telling you what they think
05:16your value is to them and so I started
05:19to think well why are people asking me
05:21this specific question I realize the
05:22answer is because people see me as a
05:24pattern matcher I I get to talk to a lot
05:26of people and therefore my value is that
05:28I can see patterns across lots of
05:31different experiences so I thought well
05:34if if I am to seize the opportunity here
05:38and be really useful to people and match
05:40their expectations of me I should have a
05:42good answer to this question I spent
05:44years thinking about it and talking to
05:49what I came to was that the one thing
05:52that seems to define success is that
05:56people hang on through enough failures
05:59to get there because the Journey of
06:03anybody in business I mean you know this
06:06is sort of we're talking specifically to
06:08a tech audience but it is certainly not
06:10just specific to Tech you are absolutely
06:12not going to have the right idea at the
06:15start but by just putting something out
06:18into the world you can start the
06:20iterative process of developing
06:22something that is something people
06:24really want and that Saul's real
06:26problems hopefully an incredibly
06:27innovative ways and that requires a
06:32personal adaptability because it's not
06:38keep revising the product you yourself
06:42have to be able to rethink Who You Are
06:46and what your company needs from you and
06:49how to relate to the people you're
06:51trying to serve and then to just
06:53overcome the emotional
06:55like battering that is things not
06:58working out and I have spent years and
07:01years running various theories like this
07:06game Global game-changing folks and they
07:10all say you know what that sounds about
07:12right and that made me feel confident to
07:14put it out in the world that
07:15adaptability is the most important thing
07:17I love that you said that it happens on
07:19both the micro and macro scale and we're
07:21talking as you said to a tech audience
07:22but this applies everywhere in life
07:24right you wake up one day and you have
07:26certain plans and then it rains you're
07:28like oh I guess I have to adapt and it's
07:30funny because even in those micro
07:31examples there is a huge Spectrum in the
07:34way that people respond right some
07:36people get very upset some people say oh
07:37well this is an opportunity for me to
07:39stay in and work and then if we extend
07:41that to the macro lens which I'm very
07:43excited to talk to you about today this
07:44has happened throughout history right
07:46you see this new technology arise and
07:48you're like oh man that thing that I've
07:49worked on that skill that I've developed
07:51for 10 years no longer matters or soon
07:54will not matter and it's it's again it's
07:56it's an opportunity to understand that
07:58you do have a choice in the way that you
08:01respond and that adaptability is
08:02something that impacts us at the daily
08:04level the weekly yearly decade-long
08:07level so I'm excited to talk through
08:09that and you were one of the most
08:12prepared guests I've ever had you sent
08:14me these six different would you say
08:16their Frameworks or theories around how
08:20miss the opportunity to adapt or don't
08:23really recognize some of these larger
08:24themes that have happened throughout
08:26history in the changing order why don't
08:28we just start there what what are these
08:30six different Frameworks or theories
08:33that you've developed and how would you
08:34kind of package them yeah um so I
08:37appreciate that yeah I sent you a very
08:39very long document that I like pecked
08:40out at midnight in a hotel room that
08:43comes out of you know me me
08:46seeing how people kind of convince other
08:50people to work with them and the answer
08:52is often that they just they come with a
08:54solution it's like you know like if you
08:56go to somebody with a solution how do
08:58they turn down good Solutions uh it's
09:00like you know don't ask for an
09:01opportunity be the opportunity so anyway
09:03when we were first in touch I was like
09:04I'm just going to show you a whole lot
09:06of stuff uh and hope that you will read
09:08through it so so look I
09:14both how entrepreneurs solve problems
09:16today but also about how change happened
09:19throughout history the reason I really
09:21love the history stuff is because
09:23you know how the story ended whereas we
09:26don't know how the story ends now or
09:28anybody who's working on anything right
09:30now you have truly no idea what's going
09:32to happen and uh despite your best
09:34efforts to control it and yet when you
09:37look backwards you can see how decisions
09:42played out and I think that those are
09:45really instructive if we can find the
09:46patterns across all of this what we can
09:51change and Adoption of change goes right
09:55and goes wrong and so I have throughout
09:59my work on all this many years
10:03been just trying to make sense of all
10:04the data right I mean how can I draw
10:09why people through rocks at early
10:13Automobiles and you know why people uh
10:17are uncomfortable with lime scooters on
10:19the streets and I think that we can
10:21learn a lot by trying to compare all
10:23these things and so I came up with these
10:24six Frameworks which are really ways to
10:27understand why people are uncomfortable
10:30with or outright resist some kind of new
10:34innovation and we could be talking about
10:36big Global changing things like social
10:39media but we could also be talking about
10:41individual innovations that you are just
10:44trying to introduce to a client
10:46basically uh so why are people
10:48uncomfortable with these things and then
10:49what does it take to get them to
10:53Embrace or understand this newness right
10:57how do we get them to
11:00a disarchive which you've been a part of
11:02is that it really is anything from the
11:05automobile to the mirror right there are
11:07some of these things that people
11:09um think are very very commonplace today
11:12but we're faced with resistance when
11:15they were first introduced and we'll go
11:17through the different reasons for those
11:19but I think it's important to note that
11:20this isn't just like yeah social media
11:22or this big airplane it could be the
11:25mirror it could be the teddy bear it
11:27could be jazz music there are many
11:28things that people have faced
11:31with resistance that you would not
11:33expect today and I think the lesson that
11:35will get you is that you know we see
11:37many parallels so why don't we dive in
11:39why don't you introduce the first
11:41framework from the six number one is we
11:45fundamentally do not believe in our own
11:50and if you look back through time and
11:52this even won't be unfamiliar to
11:56listeners of the a16z podcast because I
11:58know that Mark was talking about it not
12:01that long ago which is that you find
12:07incredible concern that is repetitive
12:10about new things so the number of things
12:12that have been claimed to be addictive
12:14or it goes on forever right you know you
12:16the things that people say about social
12:18media you heard about the radio but it
12:20also you know it gets kind of funny and
12:21time specific the spinning wheel of the
12:24bicycle in the early days of the bicycle
12:25people thought would make people go
12:26insane novels were believed to make
12:28women infertile among many other things
12:31but what I think you're seeing and I'll
12:34tell you this one story that really
12:36captures it that we generally believe
12:38that we exist in a kind of balance and
12:42that that balance is very easily upset
12:46and so when something new comes along we
12:50tend to process it as a loss we see some
12:53new way of doing something and then we
12:56instantly identify the thing that we
12:59will no longer have access to or that
13:01the thing that we're very comfortable
13:03with that maybe we won't be able to do
13:04in the same way and that feels like loss
13:07and then because we I we cannot imagine
13:09what the gain will be and maybe don't
13:11even believe that there will be gain we
13:13start to extrapolate the loss so we say
13:16because I lost this thing I will then
13:17lose this thing 1877 Thomas Edison
13:21invents the phonograph or he might not
13:23have called it the phonograph but anyway
13:24it was the very first record player
13:26originally a cylinder and then it became
13:27a flat record like we know today and
13:32people's minds were blown I mean just
13:34consider how until that moment the only
13:37way that you could listen to music is if
13:41a human being was playing an instrument
13:43in front of you there was just there was
13:46no other way to do it and then suddenly
13:48there was a machine a machine that had
13:50captured sound and could play it back to
13:52you people didn't believe it at first
13:53they had to be shown that there weren't
13:55like alive there wasn't a live band
13:57hiding behind a wall somewhere and then
14:01did come to believe it they were amazed
14:04and fascinated by it and they wanted it
14:07you know who really hated that the
14:11answer is musicians musicians really
14:14hated that because they saw themselves
14:16being replaced and the leader of the
14:18resistance was a guy named John Philip
14:19Souza so John Philip Souza you may not
14:22know his name today but you certainly do
14:24know his music because he wrote all the
14:26military marches that we're still very
14:30John Phillips he wrote this article he
14:33was the champion the champion against
14:35recorded music he was leading the
14:37resistance for his fellow musicians
14:39and he wrote this piece called the
14:41Menace of mechanical music in 1906 I
14:44think if you can go look it up and it is
14:46this string of article a string of of
14:48arguments against recorded music and my
14:51favorite of which goes like this so he
14:53says that if you introduce recorded
14:54music to the home right if the recorded
14:57or the photograph a record player enters
14:59the home it will replace all forms of
15:02live music all live music now gone
15:04because you know why would anybody
15:05perform live when there's a machine that
15:07could do it for them and then the
15:09mothers will no longer sing to their
15:11children why would a mother sing to her
15:14children when a machine could do that
15:15and then because children grow up to
15:17imitate their mothers John Philip Souza
15:19says the children will now grow up to
15:21imitate the machines and thus we will
15:23raise a generation of machine babies now
15:25that of course didn't happen but you can
15:28see the logic you can see where he's
15:29going that there's some kind of very
15:32specific balance here that we are
15:34performing live in the home which
15:36inspires mother just mothers to sing to
15:38their children which inspires children
15:40to grow up to imitate the mothers and
15:41therefore kind of find their humanity
15:43and that one little change to that very
15:46important shame breaks everything but of
15:49course that's not what happens what
15:52is that we find gain in in totally
15:56unexpected ways you think about what
15:59happened with John Philip Souza and
16:00recorded music and as it turns out
16:02recorded music enabled musicians to
16:05reach people that they couldn't
16:07physically reach John Phillips lived in
16:11geographically based world where the
16:14only way that he could
16:16he could have people hear his music and
16:17make money off of that as if he traveled
16:19to them but now he had the ability to
16:22scale I like the analogy of something
16:24breaking because that really does seem
16:26to be the emotion that arises when
16:29people visualize certain new
16:30technologies where it's really like
16:31there is a current world order and
16:35something about this is going to break
16:36maybe all of it some sometimes it gets
16:39that far and it reminds me actually of
16:41the Douglas Adams quote that Mark you
16:43mentioned Mark's interview he brought up
16:45there which is really this idea that
16:46when you're brought into the world do
16:48you think that everything is normal and
16:50ordinary and just a part of the way the
16:54um and you basically live that way until
16:56you're I think that the quote says
16:57around your around 15 and then between
16:5915 and 35 everything's new and exciting
17:02and revolutionary and actually probably
17:04something that you can build a career
17:05around and that you can be a part of and
17:07then anything after 35 is just
17:09fundamentally against the natural order
17:11and then that's where you see you know a
17:13parallel from the music example you you
17:16gave you see AI coming into play right
17:18now a lot of dispute between artists and
17:22the people creating the AIS and the
17:23other people building technology on top
17:25and so yeah I think one of the reasons
17:28it's so interesting to learn these
17:30stories from history is because you can
17:32apply them or you can see the parallels
17:34today but I think that's a great example
17:36of just that idea of breaking Society
17:39meanwhile the society that we live in
17:42today broke the society from 100 years
17:44ago which broke the society 100 years
17:45before that there's no like true way
17:48that humans are supposed to live
17:50that's right we really are the products
17:53of change and we forget that we we're
17:54actually the argument for change because
17:57the things that we grew up with were the
17:58things that people had previously
18:00opposed the belief in in a kind of
18:02easily breakable Humanity I think is
18:05also a belief in fixed opportunity uh
18:08economists have this this theory that I
18:11love which is called the um uh the lump
18:14of Labor fallacy are you familiar with
18:16it I am not so the fallacy is that
18:18there's a lump of Labor so the idea is
18:20that that there are a fixed number of
18:23jobs and a and a roughly fixed number of
18:27people to do those jobs and anything
18:30creates an imbalance
18:33in one way or the other
18:34will create kind of unfixable disharmony
18:38right so this is this is what would
18:39drive for example a lot of fear that
18:42uh new immigrants to a country will take
18:47the jobs from the people who already
18:48live in that country and therefore there
18:51will be a lot of unemployment from the
18:52people who used to have the jobs right
18:54but that that that's not what happens of
18:56course because when immigrants come in
18:57they are also consumers themselves and
19:00so they create more jobs uh right so so
19:03the the there isn't a lump of Labor it's
19:05it's totally flexible similarly there's
19:07always been the belief as John Philip
19:08Souza had that new technology will
19:12reduce the work available to the same
19:15labor pool so you know he's he's
19:18believing that recorded music will
19:20replace live music in many instances and
19:24therefore there will just be musicians
19:26out of work and to be to be fair to him
19:28that was true for for a while because
19:31musicians used to for example they would
19:34uh perform live the scores for all
19:36movies you went you went to see a movie
19:38and the movie was silent and there was a
19:40live band playing the score from the
19:42movie and then that wasn't necessary
19:43anymore and it was a it was a difficult
19:45transition every time that there was a
19:47shift we adapt to it and it creates new
19:49opportunities it isn't to say that it's
19:51easy it's not it will be disruptive and
19:54there will be losers in that disruption
19:55but I think what we need to do as a
19:58whole as a society is be alert to how
20:02and where those new opportunities come
20:04from and then how we can start to help
20:07people realize those new opportunities
20:10and then kind of create new value out of
20:13yeah I think something that uh people
20:15fight against sometimes is the
20:18amount of abstraction that exists in our
20:21lives and that is really a macro theme
20:22if you think about many hundreds of
20:24years ago humans as you said they were
20:27focused on like how do I have enough
20:28food to live how do I make sure that I'm
20:30not getting diseases and dying at age
20:3320. they're really focused on like the
20:35nitty-gritty of how do I survive and
20:37over time we've abstracted that from
20:39people's lives and that for the most
20:41part is a good thing so we can focus on
20:44things that are enjoyable that are
20:45discretionary just this idea of this
20:48different skills that humans quote
20:49unquote should have I think one great
20:52example is people saying well Google is
20:54removing our memory spans right like we
20:56can't even remember things anymore we
20:58just Google it but again coming back to
21:00this idea that the way we've operated
21:02for a period of time does not mean
21:04that's inherently correct it doesn't
21:06mean that you know you being able to
21:08recall all of these historical dates or
21:11all of these names from the past are all
21:13of these random facts and you know Ace a
21:17that's not necessarily good or bad it
21:19just is changing and so I think that's
21:21another important perspective yeah
21:23that's right I'll credit that to Lee
21:25Rainey of the pre Pew Research Center
21:27who had originally put that to me and um
21:29and I I was really struck by it he you
21:33know he was saying look a sign of
21:34intelligence decades ago would be the
21:37ability to be able to easily retain
21:42information so the ability to read
21:44something and retain it the quick recall
21:47of that information that was a sign of
21:48intelligence now uh a sign of
21:51intelligence would be the ability to
21:54quickly find and process information and
21:57is that to say that one is better than
22:00the other no it's just to say that it's
22:03different and that intelligence takes
22:05different forms based on the needs and
22:08the resources of the time in which
22:10somebody needs to be intelligent and we
22:12shouldn't be weighing these things
22:14against each other as if one thing is
22:16better or worse because
22:18progress just simply doesn't work that
22:22progress doesn't wait either let's book
22:24in that and move on to number two what
22:26is the SEC framework that you
22:29yeah so the second one is that we don't
22:30often know what things are for and if we
22:34don't know what something is for
22:36then we will either be alarmed by it
22:41because it seems like it's uh you know
22:43to go back to what we were just talking
22:44about kind of breaking something that we
22:46were familiar with or we just think that
22:48it's it's frivolous so oftentimes I'll
22:49go and I'll speak to crowds and I'll
22:52talk about change in adaptation and
22:53technology and then somebody will raise
22:55their handle and say but you make a
22:56print magazine why are you still doing
22:57that and the answer is
23:00well look I think that it's important to
23:02ask if I'm in the content business and I
23:04am what is content for what's it for
23:07decades ago content was for monetization
23:10so you could sell ads against your
23:12content you could sell subscriptions to
23:13your content now you can you can do that
23:16but it doesn't make you nearly as much
23:19money and I'm not just talking about
23:20entrepreneur talking about the entire
23:21media ecosystem so I look at content I
23:24think well what is this for
23:25content is for relationships that's what
23:28it's for why does Red Bull pour a ton of
23:30money into content if you like extreme
23:32sports then Red Bull's your place they
23:35got a magazine for you they got videos
23:36they got events they make money off of
23:38that I have no idea probably not they
23:40probably lose money off of it you know
23:41where they make money energy drinks and
23:43the reason that people buy the energy
23:44drinks is because they feel really good
23:46about Red Bull because they developed a
23:48relationship with Red Bull because of
23:49the content content builds relationships
23:51and then you can monetize the
23:53relationship with products or services
23:55that people trust you to provide because
23:57of the content that is why we do it
24:00because a print magazine is an
24:02unbelievable way for people to feel
24:03really good about entrepreneur or media
24:06we do still make money on the print
24:07magazine to be clear it doesn't lose
24:09money just doesn't make the kind of
24:10money that I probably did 30 years ago
24:11but that's how I think we need to think
24:13about the entire media ecosystem what
24:16products or Services can we build that
24:18people will trust us because of the
24:19content stop thinking about the content
24:20is monetization what is it for it's for
24:23relationships so anyway I think that
24:25people fundamentally misunderstand
24:27oftentimes what the new thing that
24:29they're looking at is for and as a
24:31result they think that it is either bad
24:33or frivolous and therefore they make
24:35incorrect conclusions I think they also
24:37maybe struggle to see what it can be for
24:40eventually right when you're met with a
24:42new technology it's not the perfected
24:45version of that technology and there's
24:47so many examples of this where there was
24:50an 1865 newspaper editor that I found
24:52that said well informed people know that
24:54it is impossible to transmit the voice
24:56over wires and that where it would
24:57possible to do so the thing would be of
24:59no practical value and I could see how
25:02when that technology is either
25:04inexistent or nascent you're like what
25:06on Earth would I use this for but with
25:09Millions if not billions of people who
25:11are using a technology there is so much
25:13creativity that goes into
25:16building out the use cases and sometimes
25:19it does take some time that is also very
25:21similar to something that Henry David
25:22Thoreau wrote in Walden which is we are
25:25in great haste to construct a magnetic
25:27Telegraph from Maine to Texas but Maine
25:29in Texas it may be have nothing
25:30important to communicate and you know
25:32the funny thing is that Maine in Texas
25:34possibly back then didn't have anything
25:35to communicate but as soon as you give
25:38them an ability to communicate they will
25:40find something to talk about they will
25:42find Commerce they will find information
25:44to exchange that's the thing things
25:46aren't fixed once you introduce
25:47something new people find ways to use it
25:50that's right Ken Olson was also famously
25:52quoted as saying there's there was no
25:55reason for an individual to have a
25:57computer in his home and to your point
25:58at that time there may have not been
26:01because there weren't connections
26:02between computers there weren't certain
26:04jobs certain information that this
26:06person had access to that would make
26:08that valuable but with time with more
26:11people who are integrated into that
26:13technology with the evolution of that
26:15technology The increased Speed The
26:17increased access things change and I
26:19think I think it is important to focus
26:21on what something is used for and
26:23remember that your first encounter with
26:25the technology likely won't be the
26:28version that you encounter as it grows
26:30and progresses and just a final note
26:32there I think it's very common for us as
26:34humans to we basically encounter things
26:37and skeuomorphically apply something
26:40that already exists so I mean email is
26:42the perfect example of this where
26:43literally it was like there's mail and
26:45then we're just going to call it email
26:47but now it's a fundamentally different
26:49thing and I think you see the same thing
26:50where people jump on Zoom calls and
26:52they're like let's have a happy hour and
26:54they just apply what we do in the quote
26:56unquote physical world but these things
26:58will evolve on their own into completely
27:00new things and I think that's also
27:01important to keep in mind very hard to
27:03predict but just it's worth having that
27:05lens of this will change
27:08so if you're an if you're on the
27:10innovator side of that what we need to
27:13asking what what is this for maybe of a
27:16nascent technology or something that
27:17we're developing and then running um you
27:20know is it running experiments uh seeing
27:24hypotheses through because ultimately
27:28the reason why we were able to get to
27:30you know what you're describing there
27:32a a nascent technology that maybe is
27:35really frankly for nothing right now but
27:38becomes something that's transformative
27:40is because someone or a series of people
27:42had an idea of where this thing should
27:44go and of course you know when you look
27:45back at time it's not like these things
27:47are pre-ordained oftentimes people had
27:50lots of different ideas and directions
27:52for you know for for Technologies there
27:54were all sorts of funny designs for the
27:56bicycle that turned out to not be the
27:58final one that we have now but what
28:00people were doing was was
28:02carrying a hypothesis out into the world
28:05and seeing how people react to it and
28:06then reacting to that that's ultimately
28:08how Innovation happens and so the
28:10winners the people with the competitive
28:12advantages are the ones who are
28:14constantly asking what is this for and
28:16then are willing to see if they're right
28:18and if not be adaptable enough to take
28:22the data that they're learning and build
28:24it back into something better
28:27that's a perfect segue into
28:30which is that innovators don't always
28:33build a bridge can you speak more to
28:35that yeah right so here's here's the
28:39challenge that innovators often have
28:43it is that they are so familiar with the
28:47value of the thing that they have
28:52do not realize that other people
28:56do not see that value or do not
28:59understand it or don't understand how it
29:01fits into their lives I mean I I think
29:03that Silicon Valley is guilty of this
29:05all the time of introducing very
29:10without doing the groundwork of
29:16this new idea to something that people
29:19are already comfortable and familiar
29:21with so to play that out I'll take you
29:24back on another historical story so
29:27in the uh in the 1800s the car was
29:30introduced people didn't call it the car
29:31they called it the Horseless Carriage
29:33and that of course is if they were being
29:35generous if they were not being generous
29:36they would call it the devil wagon
29:38because they totally
29:39um thought these things were the devil
29:40wagon and they would throw rocks at them
29:42and if you drove down the street in one
29:46of these early cars somebody would
29:47literally yell get a horse say get a
29:50horse they would go get a horse at you
29:51and um and when people tell the story
29:55now of how cars became the dominant mode
29:58of transportation what they tell is the
30:01story of Henry Ford the Henry Ford
30:03revolutionized manufacturing and
30:04therefore made cars cheaper and more
30:06accessible to the masses and though that
30:09is true it skips over an important point
30:10an important part of the story that I
30:13heard from a car historian
30:15um and it was something that Henry Ford
30:16was the beneficiary of goes like this so
30:19in the earlier days of the car people
30:21are calling the devil wagon they're
30:23throwing rocks at it and um and the Auto
30:26industry is trying to understand what on
30:28Earth is wrong and they start to look at
30:31the way in which they're advertising the
30:37they realize that they are advertising
30:40as a replacement to the horse
30:43they're saying Get rid of Dobbin Dobbin
30:45being the generic name of you know a
30:47horse like spot for a dog get rid of
30:49Dobbin and get this car or this car is
30:53so much better than your stupid horse
30:54but here's the thing people hated that
30:56they found that offensive and they
30:58should have because they loved their
31:00horse their horse was a member of the
31:01family and as far back as they knew
31:03every generation of their family had a
31:05horse and now here come these people
31:08saying I have a totally better way for
31:12you to be and your old way is stupid
31:15people hate that because people hate new
31:19what they like is better versions of old
31:23so what we need to do as innovators is
31:27what I like to call the bridge of
31:29familiarity and that bridge goes not
31:31from us the people with a great new
31:34thing to the people who we want to have
31:36that great new thing that is not the
31:38direction to build the bridge you build
31:39the bridge the other way around you
31:41start with where they are and you build
31:44towards you so back then the shift that
31:49the Auto industry made
31:52was that they stopped talking about the
31:57as a replacement to the horse and they
32:00started talking about the car as a
32:02better horse so they started
32:04popularizing terms like horsepower and
32:06naming cars after horses which we still
32:07do today with the Bronco and Mustangs oh
32:10it's kind of like my horse and I can I
32:13can sort of respect it like and use it
32:15like my course well that that makes a
32:16lot more sense to me than someone just
32:17coming along and telling me to get rid
32:19this is what we always need to keep in
32:22mind and what I find I was just talking
32:24about a guy who um and he had a um a
32:27product that was called they were
32:30calling it chicken chips chicken chips
32:34chips chips like out of bat like out of
32:37a bag like potato chips but but chicken
32:39chips now um does that sound appealing
32:42to you no I was gonna say I'm not sure
32:44where you're going with this but I would
32:45definitely not grab that off a shelf
32:47yeah and and that's the thing it did
32:50really well in taste tests people really
32:52liked the product nobody was buying it
32:54because chicken chips sounds disgusting
32:56so after a after a bunch of kind of
33:00consumer insights research they changed
33:03from talking from calling it chicken
33:05chips to protein chips
33:08why because people are already familiar
33:11with protein bars and protein packs and
33:14protein shakes so the idea of it being
33:18protein first now signals to an existing
33:21audience and where's the protein coming
33:24from well you can find out that it's
33:27and that little shift
33:30completely unlocked sales for this
33:33company I love that you brought up a
33:39so many cases where there's pushback
33:42and in many cases rightfully so whether
33:44it's web 3 whether it's autonomous
33:45vehicles whether it's different versions
33:48of space there's a lot of pushback in
33:50some of these new emerging perhaps
33:53exciting Industries and I think you're
33:55right that there is that familiarity Gap
33:57where people are just like why why do I
33:59care if people are going to Mars like I
34:01have problems on Earth or like why do I
34:03care if something is decentralized like
34:05tell me why that matters and so I think
34:09it's important to use those those frames
34:12of just like why does this matter that
34:13simple question why does this matter to
34:16someone today and even like you said
34:17using like simplistic terminology can
34:20completely shift and and I think another
34:22area that this reminds me of is as I
34:25mentioned AI is you know we went through
34:27AI summer things are still trucking
34:29ahead very quickly but it's like how can
34:31you reframe something to not sound so
34:33scary right like someone who's a
34:35designer is like oh this artificial
34:38bot is creating art based on my artwork
34:42that sounds really bad and in some cases
34:45I can see how there is a negative
34:47consequence but yeah just thinking
34:49through how this can be framed as
34:50something new and I I will I just add
34:53one more thing there which is your um
34:56your examples of cars and applying uh
35:00horses to them reminded me of a
35:02conversation I had recently which is
35:04someone basically saying I want to get
35:06an electric vehicle but man I just love
35:09hearing the sound of my car they just
35:12love that familiarity and I was like huh
35:14I wonder I mean I could see an electric
35:16vehicle company one day maybe just like
35:19adding in that sound for familiarity
35:21it's not creating the same emissions but
35:23again giving someone that bridge that
35:24you talked about that familiarity Bridge
35:26of what they like and what they love and
35:28what they're familiar with and then just
35:30giving them almost like a little step
35:32towards the next totally elevators used
35:34to be obviously hand operated and then
35:37by the time we got to the 1950s
35:39automatic elevator technology existed
35:41but people didn't want to get in them
35:43because they were used to having a human
35:46um operating it and you think consider
35:50it there's literally no other example
35:53in the world or at least that the
35:56average person will use in which you
35:58walk into a completely enclosed space
36:00with no windows and no human operator
36:03and it moves you there's nothing else
36:06like it and uh and so people weren't
36:09getting into these things now there were
36:10also all these kind of interesting
36:11fear-mongering um campaigns happening
36:13from elevator operator unions that were
36:15also contributing to it but anyway you
36:16know one of the ways that
36:18one of the ways that the elevator
36:19industry found could get people inside
36:23the doors was by recognizing that what
36:25people needed wasn't necessarily a
36:27actual human what they needed was the
36:30feeling that there was a human involved
36:31and that there was a human
36:35touch there was a human that would be
36:37there to their aid if something went
36:39wrong and simply adding in a soothing
36:43female voice that said things like going
36:46up going down floor one floor two that
36:50that by itself helped a lot of people
36:53feel comfortable getting into the
36:54elevator so that reminds me a lot of
36:56your example with the you know with the
36:57electric car making that noise I mean we
36:59do things like that all the time potato
37:00chips are engineered not just for flavor
37:02but for crunch and there's a reason for
37:04that it's because things people are
37:05looking for those kinds of things as
37:07signals of quality so you have to
37:09understand where people are and then
37:10start to build from there I love that
37:13example because it is one of those
37:14things that I have just taken for
37:16granted in elevators I have never
37:18thought about the fact that there would
37:20be an elevator without some of those
37:22things and now there are but I never
37:23noticed how that might influence people
37:26today because we're so used to elevators
37:28and just accepting the fact that they're
37:29part of our everyday lives but there was
37:31a time where I guess that really
37:34mattered that's so fascinating let's
37:36move on to number four what sure
37:38framework number four right so framework
37:41number four is we mistake a one percent
37:44problem for a where's the problem so
37:46let's say another story from history
37:48which is um which is that the waltz when
37:51it was first introduced centuries ago
37:54was people talked about the waltz in uh
38:00the way that people talked about Miley
38:04Cyrus twerking at the VMAs a few years
38:07ago right like it was this incredibly
38:09scandalous awful destroying the youth
38:13kind of thing Society had all sorts of
38:14reasons why they hated the waltz it was
38:16it was it was sexual it involved too
38:19much too much physical contact among
38:23um but doctors were saying that the
38:28physically harmful that dancing the
38:32walls would take years off of their
38:34people's lives now this is something
38:37that comes up all the time I I you know
38:39mentioned a little earlier you know
38:40there were doctors who said that the
38:42bicycle made people insane and that
38:44novels made women infertile but I talked
38:47to a historian of the waltz and he made
38:50this really interesting point which was
38:51that in that case the doctors were
38:55the waltz was actually very bad for
38:57People's Health but the thing was that
38:59they thought it was the dance that was
39:02harmful the spinning the contact
39:05it wasn't the dance it was literally
39:07everything around the dance so how did
39:09people dance the waltz and the in like
39:12the early 1800s well here's what they
39:14did first of all they were in buildings
39:16that were enclosed so didn't have modern
39:19ventilation they were being lit
39:22generally by um you know oil candles so
39:24you have the lighting is pouring noxious
39:28fumes into a unventilated unventilated
39:31space then they were all dancing on top
39:33of these particular uh these particular
39:36um kind of rugs and the rugs would kick
39:39up all this dust and other particles
39:42that people would then be breathing in
39:44and of course they're wearing these
39:46incredibly tight like corset like you
39:49know clothing so you better believe that
39:51was a pretty unhealthy environment to
39:54dance in the waltz wasn't the problem
39:57all these other things were the problem
39:58now the reason I tell you this story is
40:01we often mistake a one percent problem
40:04for a 100 problem people thought that
40:07the waltz was the problem the waltz
40:09wasn't the problem the circumstances of
40:10the waltz were the problem this really
40:12goes to in a way that one percent again
40:14which is to say people see the 99 they
40:17the hardware they see the processing of
40:19credit cards but they miss that one
40:21percent and sometimes they miss that one
40:23percent and they think that the one
40:24percent problem represents a a hundred
40:27percent problem in the case of like lime
40:29scooters these are all terrible and
40:30dangerous and let's get them off the
40:31street or sometimes that one percent is
40:33actually the thing that makes it work
40:35that you only understand and that your
40:37competitors don't the more that we can
40:39focus in on that one percent and make
40:41sure that we're maximizing it the more
40:43in which we are able to create things of
40:45value and also protect things of value I
40:48think that reminds me of something I
40:49love about digital products in
40:52and it's that you get data on all of
40:54this right so if you were to compare the
40:56lime example to bicycles well you could
40:59go and have a bunch of bicycles sold and
41:02then people distributed throughout the
41:04country are crashing and getting hurt or
41:06using them for purposes they shouldn't
41:07be but really it's it's extremely hard
41:09to get that information and to really
41:12act on what that one percent problem is
41:14because those distributions are not
41:15foreign in many aspects of life right
41:18people have heard of the Pareto
41:21there often is something smaller that is
41:24accounting for a larger issue and that's
41:26what's so beautiful about these digital
41:28products is you can get that information
41:29to really tease out yeah how do we
41:32improve this product how do we fix
41:33something that might be a one percent
41:35problem that people are viewing as a 100
41:37problem and I think you're also right
41:40that it's just so hard and we've kind of
41:42spoken to this throughout the
41:43conversation just so hard to understand
41:45how Technologies manifest and often I I
41:48find that people's reservations or fears
41:51early on about those problems just don't
41:54end up being the very real problems that
41:57exist later so just a quick example that
41:59many people would be familiar with is
42:01just the phone a lot of people worried
42:03about the radiation from phones early on
42:06and that was like the big thing like can
42:08we have phones near us it's you know
42:09it's going to impact our health in these
42:11ways and no one back then could ever
42:13have imagined the very real consequences
42:16of phones today and I'm not saying that
42:18phones are net negative but you know who
42:20could have imagined that these phones
42:22that we were worried about in terms of
42:24radiation would be the talk of the day
42:26in terms of you know like upending
42:29democracy or like that these social
42:31networks would be you know kids spending
42:32too much time on this
42:34I'm not taking a side on either of those
42:36topics but more so just saying like no
42:38one could have ever predicted that those
42:40would be the quote unquote issues of the
42:43day with that piece of technology yeah I
42:46totally right and uh just a really
42:48useful quick framework
42:49to try to think through those exact kind
42:54you know people often ask the question
42:56is this perfect sort of that's at the
42:58heart of the the 99 their problem is
43:02people are seeing an imperfection and
43:05then they therefore they say well this
43:07whole thing has is is damaging or
43:10dangerous and has to be removed
43:13um but you know the problem with asking
43:14is this perfect is that the answer is
43:16the same every single time the answer is
43:17no it's not perfect it's never perfect
43:19nothing's perfect so the better question
43:21to ask is is this new problem better
43:25than my old problem because once we
43:29start tracking progress through problems
43:31one we just create the space for
43:34problems which are inevitable and
43:36therefore when a problem arises it
43:40but also that it keeps us focused on the
43:44task at hand which is not to create Some
43:46Kind of Perfect Balance like you know we
43:49were talking earlier about people
43:50believing that we're all in some kind of
43:52Perfect Harmony that gets easily
43:54disrupted but rather that we are a
43:56Non-Stop rolling series of problems and
43:58everything that we ever create just
44:00creates other problems and so the
44:01question that we must evaluate is do we
44:05have better problems I would say that
44:07for all the problems and certainly there
44:09are many of them of a let's say just
44:12interconnected world that the amount of
44:15prosperity uh um and um and access to
44:18information just to just for two things
44:20to start the things that come out of
44:22that which is all sorts of problems I
44:24remember like you know large and small
44:25uh but I think that we have better
44:27problems now than we did back then when
44:29we when we didn't have those same levels
44:31of prosperity and access to information
44:33well you'll have a plus one there for me
44:35I know not everyone agrees with that but
44:37let's move on to number five which I
44:40think relates to what you're speaking to
44:41which is that people not only
44:43resurrect or dig up problems with these
44:47new technologies but they also tend to
44:49map them to other problems within
44:52society which may be removed or
44:54overlapping to the new technology yeah
44:57so you're right so right that we imbue
44:59our Innovations with our own cultural or
45:00personal anxieties so I'll tell you
45:02about the um you know we've been talking
45:05technology in a more traditional sense
45:09um you know here's something that was
45:10Innovative all the same which is the
45:12teddy bear so the teddy bear was
45:14invented in Germany right around the
45:17turn of the century and then it made its
45:18way over to America around 1906 1907 it
45:22became popular enough to trigger its own
45:25moral Panic there was a national moral
45:28crisis over the teddy bear in 1907 it
45:31started in Michigan with a priest named
45:35Michael G esper who had given this
45:37sermon about how damaging teddy bears
45:41are and how dangerous they are it sounds
45:44so ridiculous for there to be a moral
45:46Panic around teddy bears and it always
45:48just reminds me of the fact that people
45:51probably will look back 100 years from
45:53now and there will be something like the
45:55teddy bear I don't know what it'll be
45:57but it always just reminds me that like
45:59this oh it's totally true so ridiculous
46:01today and something parallel will happen
46:03tomorrow right it started with a
46:05reverend named Michael G asper in a
46:07little Church in St Joseph Michigan and
46:09one day he gave this fiery sermon about
46:12Teddy Bears he said this is an actual
46:14quote from the sermon when your little
46:16girl asked for a doll and you gave her a
46:19teddy bear your action was fraught with
46:22a consequence that is only excusable on
46:24the grounds of your ignorance he called
46:26the Bears bundles of horribleness he
46:29said they are the most harmful and
46:31repulsive nature fakes ever perpetrated
46:34now what what is going on How could
46:37somebody be this worked up about a teddy
46:39bear and he here's what well first of
46:42all I should say that it wasn't just um
46:43you know kind of one crank in in
46:46um what happened was that he gave that
46:48sermon that sermon was then reprinted in
46:51newspapers around the country kind of
46:531907 version of going viral and then it
46:57uh also he triggered other churches
47:00um uh kind of giving their own sermons
47:02it triggered schools Banning teddy bears
47:05a national crisis slash conversation
47:07took place as a result
47:09um here is what he was concerned about
47:12he was concerned if girls play with a
47:16teddy bear instead of a doll you heard
47:20then they are going to do lasting damage
47:23not just to themselves but to the family
47:25why because girls of course have one
47:27purpose in life in 1907 and that is to
47:29grow up and become mothers and when they
47:33play with a doll they develop a maternal
47:36Instinct and that enables them to then
47:38grow up and be mothers but
47:40if they set aside the doll and play with
47:43a teddy bear instead they will not
47:45develop a maternal Instinct they do not
47:47develop a maternal Instinct they will
47:49not grow up to be mothers and thus we
47:51will have you know the end of the human
47:52race that was that was his real concern
47:54now without you know you you listen to
47:56that and you think well that's a real
47:57logical leap like what what could
47:59possibly be going on here and the answer
48:01is that if you look at what was
48:03happening in the culture of the time
48:05women were becoming educated in a way
48:08that they had never been before and they
48:10were also entering the workforce in a
48:11way that they had never been before and
48:13that was very alarming to the
48:15traditionalists of 1907 and they were
48:18distilling all of that anxiety down into
48:20the teddy bear oftentimes
48:23and then what we see here is we see our
48:26own concerns about either shifts in
48:30culture or sometimes our own fading
48:33relevance and we we therefore
48:38treat something new as if it can only be
48:41bad because it is upsetting the delicate
48:46control that we like to have on things I
48:48mean I will tell you as a as a uh as a
48:52long-standing member of the traditional
48:54media uh right um we we don't you know
48:57you don't get a a membership card to
48:59traditional media but um but I started
49:02my my career in community newspapers and
49:05then I've I've worked in National
49:06magazines ever since
49:08um you know I'm often deeply frustrated
49:12I see traditional media cover technology
49:17um I and you know the the kind of
49:19alarmist look for the worst possible
49:22outcome and then report it as if it is
49:25uh as if it is uh you know a fact or at
49:28least certain outcome
49:31um I mean just one example was that a
49:33completely absurd New York Times story
49:35from earlier this year in which they
49:38found out that LinkedIn was doing some
49:39like basic a b testing and then they ran
49:42this story about how LinkedIn was
49:43actually conducting a gigantic uh hidden
49:47secret experiment on on whether or not
49:49people get jobs I mean it's just like
49:51guys do you not know that a b testing is
49:53like a really basic thing that actually
49:56yes that the New York Times does it as
49:58well I mean this was just really nuts
50:00but anyway what's driving this I'll tell
50:02you I think that it and I don't think
50:04that people are doing it consciously but
50:05I think that generally speaking
50:07um people in traditional media are very
50:12um the the systems that um kind of drove
50:15the relevance of the organizations that
50:18they work in and therefore the
50:19structures that people work in
50:20um are going to get upended I completely
50:23agree and I think in some cases it's not
50:25just anxiety it's really protecting an
50:27investment of some sort and that could
50:29be an investment in a skill like a
50:31journalism degree that could be an
50:33investment in a taxi Medallion that is
50:35no longer as relevant or is less
50:38you know worth less literally than it
50:41was Prior and so yeah I think it's
50:43important for people to keep that in
50:44mind on both sides I like that you
50:45pointed out it's not just important for
50:47the person who might be anxious or
50:49scared or protecting what they've
50:50invested in it's also important for the
50:52people who are developing these
50:53Technologies to understand that
50:56Technologies especially if they're game
50:58changing will upend power they will
51:00upend structures that already exist and
51:04there's Beauty to that but it's also
51:06very scary for someone on the other side
51:07and so figuring out how to bring that
51:11technology into the masses in a way
51:14that's understandable in a way that's
51:16clear in a way that's perhaps if
51:19possible less scary is important so why
51:22don't we dovetail that into the final
51:26um yeah I think is related we
51:29oversimplify problems and when we
51:33oversimplify problems we inhibit our
51:36ability to come up with meaningful
51:38Solutions because you cannot create a
51:41meaningful solution to something if you
51:43do not really understand
51:45the underlying problem
51:47so my story for this is again more of a
51:52after the 2016 presidential election you
51:56know there was all this
51:58concern about how Russia had interfered
52:01and pundits and politicians all had this
52:05word for it which was unprecedented I
52:06mean you know you would just doesn't
52:08matter what cable network you turn on
52:09you would hear them talk about on this
52:11was an unprecedented attack on Democracy
52:17um they all they all blamed in one way
52:19or another social media and particularly
52:20at the time Facebook
52:22um and through a lesser degree Twitter
52:23on on the problem and um I you know I I
52:27had I I started to wonder as I was
52:29hearing people talk about this being
52:31unprecedented if it was unprecedented
52:34because it just seemed it seemed maybe
52:38it seemed to maybe too simplistic to say
52:40that Russia interfering with American
52:42elections was unprecedented and so I I
52:45found this this guy named David shimer a
52:48historian and foreign policy analyst who
52:50had just written this book called rigged
52:51about the Hundred Years of Russian um uh
52:56interference in American elections and
52:58uh and called them up uh to ask him
52:59about it and he said I I'm just going to
53:01read you what he said to me because I
53:02just thought it was really powerful he
53:03said if you treat something as
53:05unprecedented what you're saying is
53:06there's no history behind it what you're
53:08saying is it's never happened before and
53:10that it makes it and that makes it much
53:12easier to create rumors myths and even
53:14lies about this subject now then he went
53:17on to basically explain to me how for
53:20Russia had run the same exact Playbook
53:23on American elections and that was to
53:25utilize the dominant mode of
53:27communication at the time which could
53:31either be newspapers or radio or
53:33television or social media to exacerbate
53:37existing tensions in American culture
53:39and that was that was the Playbook now
53:42of course in 2016 social media played a
53:47a larger role in American life than it
53:50ever did before and it you know I mean
53:52it was it hasn't been around that long
53:54but what Russia did with social media
53:57was not really any different than
53:59anything that else it had ever done and
54:02the I asked I asked David
54:06okay that's a really interesting
54:07academic point but what are we supposed
54:10and he said we'll look at you know as a
54:13starting point it's this
54:15right now the conversation is entirely
54:17about social media and that's not to say
54:19that social media is blameless you know
54:21Facebook for one could have certainly
54:24had a smarter approach to this problem
54:26and more proactive approach to this
54:28problem but if we simplify the problem
54:32of Russian interference in American
54:35elections down to it's a social media
54:38problem well then look you could throw
54:40Mark Zuckerberg in jail and you could
54:42shut Facebook down today and you
54:43wouldn't solve that problem because that
54:46problem is bigger than social media so
54:48if everybody is focused on only one part
54:51of a problem then you are not solving
54:53the problem we need to have smarter
54:56conversations about exactly what is
55:00underpinning the problems and the
55:02challenges that we Face either
55:03culturally or at an individual company
55:06and then start to really develop
55:08meaningful comprehensive Solutions
55:11yeah I think you're right about that I
55:13also wonder sometimes
55:16whether as I mentioned before we're
55:18we're becoming so abstracted from the
55:20things in our lives how that plays into
55:22all of this and what I mean by that is
55:24you know social media is one example
55:26that you give but you could also give
55:28like self-driving cars as another
55:30example or some of the other things that
55:33we engage in that we just don't
55:35understand even you and I on this call I
55:39cannot explain to you the technology
55:41behind this call like the really
55:43nitty-gritty like what bits are moving
55:45where and why and and how this is so
55:48much faster than 20 years ago I can kind
55:50of speak a little bit to it
55:51um and and we're involved in technology
55:53we interview people who create these
55:55Technologies and then I just think back
55:57to people who you know they I mean the
56:00New York Times example that you gave
56:01earlier where someone doesn't know that
56:03a b testing is happening well there are
56:05people who are even further from the
56:08technology than that right who just
56:09don't understand the world that they are
56:11now placed in and so I do Wonder
56:14um I think you're correct that people
56:16simplify these problems because that's
56:19the only tool they have they don't know
56:22the nitty-gritty about how these
56:23algorithms are working they maybe don't
56:25have the historical perspective to
56:26understand like the scholar you spoke to
56:28about all of the different you know
56:31pieces or ways that Russia was involved
56:33in the past and so I don't know if I
56:35have a solution do you have any thoughts
56:37there like we are becoming more
56:39abstracted and then simultaneously these
56:42Technologies are becoming more complex
56:43and so it's hard for people not to
56:47simplify if that makes sense
56:48yeah well I think that's absolutely
56:52people will and must simplify
56:57and I think on an individual basis
56:59there's just kind of little that you can
57:01do about that it'll be a kind of chaos
57:04of noise and out of which will come use
57:08cases that make sense to people right I
57:10I think about AI right now and the way
57:13in which people are using these new
57:16tools to to do every random thing from
57:20create I mean I was like laughing today
57:23at uh this these AI images as somebody
57:26had had created of um Avengers
57:28characters if they were in a Wes
57:30Anderson movie like it look it's so
57:32funny what and then you're seeing then
57:34you're gonna start to imagine all the
57:35ways in which this could be used for for
57:37bad or for good and people will try all
57:40sorts of things and it'll be noisy and
57:42chaotic and and I think when you put
57:43something out into the world in a way
57:44there's kind of nothing that you can you
57:51if you are an innovator then if you're a
57:55a sort of an entrepreneur then find the
58:00use case that is going to solve people's
58:03problems and really focus on it and then
58:07tell a story that is so compelling that
58:09it breaks through that noise or it helps
58:11clarify to people why this is useful to
58:14them you know of all that we've talked
58:15about so many things today that
58:17that um that were incredibly disruptive
58:21and that were feared and resisted you
58:23would think that electricity would be
58:25this thing that people
58:26people just I mean you know here's this
58:29thing that's going to invade my home and
58:31animate my objects and what a terrible
58:34um but the thing was that at the very
58:37beginning electricity for the average
58:40resident of the home
58:42had only one use case only one
58:46and that was safer lighting people were
58:49lighting their homes by by gas and they
58:52understood that that was incredibly
58:54dangerous because if the flame goes out
58:55and the gas keeps coming in you could
58:57get poisoned to death
58:58electricity was an ability to re to
59:02remove that danger in your lives by
59:05bringing in safer lighting
59:08for that reason people welcomed it in
59:10their homes largely there wasn't the
59:12kind of mass panic over electricity
59:13there was and then once we had that we
59:15could start to build and create new uses
59:18for it there was a new familiarity of
59:21this thing in our home and now of course
59:22we wanted to see what else it could do
59:24and you know I think that in a way what
59:27is that that's that's problem solving
59:30that's storytelling that's also being
59:35and building into the very foundation of
59:38the thing that you're building if you're
59:40a company if you're creating something
59:45and where the shifts are in their needs
59:48I was talking to this disruption expert
59:51his name is Hamza madasia and he was
59:54um about this really interesting theory
59:55of what killed Kodak
59:57and you know the story of course is that
59:59the digital camera killed Kodak
01:00:02and there's a good reason for that you
01:00:05know the Kodak very famously they
01:00:07developed the digital part of developing
01:00:08the digital camera they basically put it
01:00:10on the Shelf they saw it as irrelevant
01:00:12or or competitive and whatever they
01:00:14thought and then of course somebody else
01:00:16many other people came along and created
01:00:18a digital camera and the business was
01:00:20gone but he says no no that that's
01:00:22that's not what killed Kodak what killed
01:00:27the digital camera
01:00:31why because when the digital camera
01:00:33first came out people saw it as a
01:00:35novelty but they didn't see it as a
01:00:37replacement to the camera film yeah you
01:00:39know the photos were grainy and even if
01:00:42they were good what were you going to do
01:00:44with them people were used to printing
01:00:46printing photos out and putting them on
01:00:47their refrigerator or putting them in
01:00:49albums and you had really nothing to do
01:00:50with the digital camera but then
01:00:53Facebook comes along and Facebook is
01:00:56really the first major use case for
01:01:00sharing and storing digital photos now
01:01:04people know what to do with these things
01:01:06and as a result they know what to do
01:01:08with their digital cameras and as a
01:01:10result they like their digital camera
01:01:12more than they like their camera they're
01:01:14their film camera
01:01:15and that's what killed Kodak now what's
01:01:17the moral of that story the moral of
01:01:19that story is that Kodak was so busy
01:01:24thinking of itself as a camera film
01:01:27that it fought all of its competitors
01:01:29were companies that made camera film and
01:01:31therefore the way to compete against
01:01:32those companies was to make camera film
01:01:35better faster and cheaper but as a
01:01:38result of that they didn't see
01:01:40disruption coming from a completely
01:01:42different space but they could have if
01:01:45they didn't think of themselves as a
01:01:48camera film company and they thought of
01:01:50themselves as a memories company
01:01:52and if they did that then what they
01:01:54would be obsessed with was their
01:01:58and how their consumer shares memories
01:02:03and captures memories and what they want
01:02:05to do next and they would have seen
01:02:08Friendster and they would have seen
01:02:10Myspace and they would have anticipated
01:02:12that eventually somebody's going to come
01:02:13along and make a much better version of
01:02:15those two platforms that were pretty
01:02:16buggy and and and and eventually
01:02:19um people are going to want to share
01:02:21memories in different ways I guess the
01:02:23reason I tell you that story is that we
01:02:26need to build into the way in which we
01:02:29operate the assumption that there will
01:02:33be problems and that there will be
01:02:34change change not just that we are
01:02:37introducing into the world but change
01:02:39that we are navigating ourselves that
01:02:41change will constantly come for the
01:02:43thing that we make even if what we made
01:02:45changed things for others and if we are
01:02:49aware of and alert to that change is
01:02:53always going to come to us we will start
01:02:55to build structures and approach the
01:02:58world in a way in which we are
01:02:59anticipating that change or at least
01:03:01operating in a belief that the thing
01:03:02that we do today is not the thing that's
01:03:04going to happen tomorrow that's really
01:03:06the only way to solve these problems
01:03:08that's how to make things seem complex
01:03:09is by never allowing us to simplify to
01:03:13oversimplify but to realize that
01:03:15everything that we do is just part of a
01:03:18complex structure and that whatever
01:03:21balance we find if we find that it all
01:03:23is going to be very temporary you're so
01:03:26right to say that balance is temporary
01:03:28we always find these like temporary
01:03:31states of the world but that is just
01:03:33subject to change and I think the six
01:03:35different Frameworks that you've
01:03:36provided today are really helpful as
01:03:39we've talked about for someone who is
01:03:40the innovator or someone who is part of
01:03:42this wider world that is being innovated
01:03:44on so why don't we just quickly wrap up
01:03:46by you sharing the six different
01:03:49number one we fundamentally do not
01:03:51believe in our own adaptability number
01:03:53two we often don't know what new things
01:03:55are for number three innovators aren't
01:03:58building a bridge to the people that
01:04:01they're trying to reach number four we
01:04:03mistake a one percent problem for a 100
01:04:05problem number five we imbue our
01:04:08Innovations with our own cultural and
01:04:10personal anxieties and number six we
01:04:13oversimplify problems now you know it's
01:04:15funny Steph we've been calling these
01:04:16Frameworks the whole time as I read them
01:04:18back I realize that really what we're
01:04:19talking about here is major problems but
01:04:22of course if we think about what's
01:04:24driving those problems then we drive
01:04:26solutions and that's really where the
01:04:28Frameworks come from so if we are
01:04:30grappling with why is something not
01:04:33working or why are people not
01:04:34understanding or valuing this new thing
01:04:37that we have spent so long creating with
01:04:42such care that I think thinking through
01:04:44those problems will help us identify
01:04:46maybe where we have gone wrong and where
01:04:49are the beginnings of solutions are for
01:04:51people and ourselves I couldn't agree
01:04:53more and I know we only have a few
01:04:55minutes but I want to play a
01:04:57six to make this as you're saying
01:05:02so we're not going to be able to get
01:05:04through all of these but I have there's
01:05:06me two parts to this very quick game the
01:05:08first part is looking at a couple pieces
01:05:11of technology and we're using that broad
01:05:13sense of Technology
01:05:15um where I'm going to read you a
01:05:17headline from the past for a particular
01:05:20piece of technology and you're going to
01:05:21tell me which different
01:05:23problem or framework as we were using
01:05:26before applied so let's just let's go
01:05:29with the mirror which I mentioned before
01:05:31yeah we have the mirror here
01:05:33okay the quick headline is little aids
01:05:36for vain women and then there is a much
01:05:39longer paragraph which basically talks
01:05:41about how a woman no longer has to go
01:05:43into a store or go back home in order to
01:05:46fix up her makeup or see her face she
01:05:48now has it on her she can now see
01:05:51herself at any point in the day little
01:05:53aids for vain women where do you think
01:05:55this fits in okay so that's definitely
01:05:58number two which is that we don't often
01:06:00know what new things are for because
01:06:01they're describing something very
01:06:04similar to how we talk about selfies
01:06:06today right which is that um these
01:06:09mirrors uh are exacerbating and playing
01:06:11into people's vanity and I mean those
01:06:14those old articles about the mirror
01:06:16would talk about women who um who will
01:06:19like literally not pull their faces up
01:06:22from the mirror there were concerns that
01:06:24women would be wandering out into
01:06:25streets and get hit by cars because
01:06:27they're looking at their mirror uh the
01:06:29whole time and of course now we talk
01:06:31about that with our cell phones and um
01:06:33and with with selfies but what people
01:06:35didn't understand was that you know the
01:06:36mirror wasn't going to override our
01:06:41um the mirror was going to be a
01:06:42wonderful new tool that people used in
01:06:45certain circumstances is and that
01:06:47frankly everybody would be happy to have
01:06:49one exactly I also think it plays into
01:06:50you I think is it number four or five
01:06:52where basically I think people were just
01:06:54a little worried that women would have a
01:06:55new tool to use in ways that they they
01:06:58didn't like but with that said let's
01:07:00move on to something else we've talked
01:07:01about the camera all right this actually
01:07:05relates to the prior point so maybe
01:07:07actually we'll move on to the next one
01:07:08but basically this headline says people
01:07:09who photograph their vanity and it goes
01:07:11on to talk about how but now a stroll
01:07:13down Broadway reveals hundreds of
01:07:15unknown faces taken in the Imperial
01:07:17style of photo so much in Vogue so
01:07:20basically now not only could Rich
01:07:22wealthy famous people be photographed or
01:07:26painted but now everyone could yes so
01:07:29this is I'm slotting this into number
01:07:32five which is that we imbue our
01:07:33Innovations with our own cultural and
01:07:34personal anxieties possibly what those
01:07:37writers at the time were reacting to was
01:07:40um you know when when America was a was
01:07:43a far more dominantly religious country
01:07:46there was a belief that uh you know
01:07:49vanity is a sin is one of the sins and
01:07:52um and people were really taught that
01:07:54any focus on themselves you know this is
01:07:57we're kind of rewinding back to a to a
01:08:00like a 1700s 1800s um um time frame that
01:08:03any focus on themselves was Vain and you
01:08:08know therefore uh an insult to others
01:08:10and an insult to God when the camera
01:08:14people were actually often very
01:08:16concerned about photographing themselves
01:08:18and sending the photo to others because
01:08:20it was it was such a sign of vanity and
01:08:24so there were these really interesting
01:08:26like Emily post style
01:08:30um etiquette guides explaining that you
01:08:34you taking a photo of yourself and
01:08:36sending it to someone else is not vanity
01:08:38it is a gift because you know this
01:08:42camera's coming out at a time in which
01:08:43people are moving but in which moving
01:08:45around the country but in which
01:08:46Transportation options are are not that
01:08:49great and it's possible that a family
01:08:50member of yours would move away and then
01:08:52you would never see them again and the
01:08:55best that you ever had was these little
01:08:59photographs that was the way in which
01:09:01you could look into your brothers or
01:09:04sisters or aunts or whoever's eyes and
01:09:07um and that was a gift that wasn't
01:09:08vanity and that was a real tension
01:09:11around the camera and I think it's a
01:09:14tension that we're seeing play out now
01:09:16in the way in which we we share things
01:09:17from our own lives today I agree there's
01:09:19a level of judgment
01:09:21both all right yes final one in part one
01:09:24of this game is the airplane all right
01:09:27okay I like this one because it's a
01:09:28little different and the headline says
01:09:30no chance for the airplane
01:09:33um and interestingly enough this one
01:09:34also relates to uh women it says it can
01:09:38never have the support of the feminine
01:09:40sex and that alone is all that is needed
01:09:42to relegate it to an inescapable and
01:09:44dingy obscurity and this is one of many
01:09:47headlines that took many different
01:09:48forums I think I read another headline
01:09:50that said it would take over a million
01:09:52years for the airplane to be successful
01:09:55only to which I believe the Wright
01:09:56brothers took flight two months later so
01:09:59what do you think what do you think
01:10:00about the pushback against the airplane
01:10:01oh that's a really interesting one
01:10:05okay I'm gonna slot this one into this
01:10:07is a complicated one but I'm going to
01:10:09slot it into we don't often know what
01:10:11new things are for
01:10:13and the reason I'm going there is
01:10:15because this is really about the dawn of
01:10:22and it took some time not just obviously
01:10:24to perfect the technology but then to
01:10:26develop it out into a way in which it
01:10:28was really commercially viable so at the
01:10:31time I could imagine that people would
01:10:33look at the airplane
01:10:36and they would wonder well even if you
01:10:41what am I going to do with you right
01:10:42it's sort of in the way that like right
01:10:45um you know uh Richard Branson can send
01:10:48people into space but there isn't really
01:10:51a point to it at this point right it's
01:10:53just a kind of Joyride for wealthy
01:10:55people uh but it's very possible that at
01:10:58some point in the future there will be a
01:11:00a true purpose for going into space I
01:11:03can't anticipate what it would be but uh
01:11:06for the average person that is for the
01:11:07average like random person to go into
01:11:09um but uh you know in the same way that
01:11:12when the car was introduced people often
01:11:13didn't know what to do with it because
01:11:14the the very idea of a commute didn't
01:11:17really exist people didn't they weren't
01:11:19commuting long distances so they were
01:11:21mostly joyriding with these things and a
01:11:23lot of people were saying well this is
01:11:24obnoxious I don't need this like thing
01:11:25to Joyride so I think that people just
01:11:28didn't know what it was for because they
01:11:29couldn't imagine how it could develop
01:11:31into something that served a purpose and
01:11:35in a world that was so connected that
01:11:37there would be reasons to be flying
01:11:39around all over the place
01:11:41I think you're right I think that was
01:11:42one of those you know exponential
01:11:44Technologies where
01:11:45if you're early on in that curve it's
01:11:47just so hard to see how this could
01:11:50um okay second part of this okay is to
01:11:53share things today that people are
01:11:57pushing back on or maybe as we're we've
01:12:00been talking about maybe our earlier on
01:12:01and their adoption curves so one of them
01:12:03that I'm gonna Skip by but I'm just
01:12:05gonna call out because it relates to
01:12:06what you just said is space so I think
01:12:09part of that is it's just really hard to
01:12:11imagine a future where people the
01:12:14everyday person is engaging with space
01:12:16let's go to one that's a little
01:12:18different that I think you might find
01:12:19interesting which is remote work yeah so
01:12:22again this is not like a like a specific
01:12:24piece of technology like a phone or a
01:12:27laptop or a camera but I think it's kind
01:12:30of like some of the other things we
01:12:31talked about maybe like more cultural
01:12:34um so remote work is something that many
01:12:36of us are doing now we certainly are
01:12:38leveraging the technology there but
01:12:41there's a lot of pushback a lot of
01:12:42people want to send people back to the
01:12:43office what do you think this fits into
01:12:45the current pushback around remote work
01:12:48so I am slotting this one firmly into we
01:12:52mistake a one percent problem for a
01:12:53hundred percent problem I think to the
01:12:56companies that I have called who have
01:12:58shifted to four day work weeks
01:13:01um who are generally always remote and
01:13:03uh and they tell me this really
01:13:05interesting thing which is that if you
01:13:07know if you get it right if you can
01:13:08implement the four day work week then
01:13:09productivity Remains the Same people are
01:13:12working one day less they're they're
01:13:15much happier it's a great retention and
01:13:18a recruitment tool but here's the
01:13:20problem after about a year people start
01:13:22to say I'm starting to feel disconnected
01:13:24from my colleagues because the problem
01:13:27here of course is that how do you get to
01:13:29a four-day work week
01:13:31well what you do is that you eliminate
01:13:33meetings and colleague Chit Chat and
01:13:36basically anything that feels
01:13:37inefficient so that everyone's just
01:13:39focused on efficiency but it turns out
01:13:40all those inefficiencies had a purpose
01:13:42and that purpose was building the fabric
01:13:44of a company culture so you could ask to
01:13:47go to this point that I said a second
01:13:49ago is this perfect and the answer is no
01:13:51and then you must ask well is this new
01:13:54problem better than the old problem and
01:13:56here I think if you if you asked is this
01:14:00perfect and said no and then got rid of
01:14:01the four day work week or any other form
01:14:04of remote work right that that oh well
01:14:06you know now um my managers don't feel
01:14:09like they're able to properly oversee
01:14:12their you know direct reports and so
01:14:14that's a that's a problem and we need to
01:14:15get rid of this whole thing possibly
01:14:17what you have is a one percent problem
01:14:18possibly you have a management training
01:14:20problem possibly in this case what you
01:14:22have is a you know in in the case of
01:14:24employees not feeling connected to each
01:14:25other in four day work weeks what you
01:14:27have is that you haven't figured out how
01:14:29to replace those longer meetings and
01:14:32ways of people communicating with other
01:14:34ways that are more efficient but that
01:14:36are still building those kind of those
01:14:38kind of bonds right that is a one
01:14:40percent problem that can be solved
01:14:42rather than 100 problem that you have to
01:14:44get rid of I think that remote work is
01:14:47uh is is fantastic I work from home uh
01:14:51that's not to say that it is not without
01:14:52its problems and we need to be solving
01:14:54those problems but I think that we have
01:14:55better new problems than we did before I
01:14:59completely agree let's see if we can fit
01:15:00in two more although I have a bunch more
01:15:02so maybe we'll do it okay then I'm gonna
01:15:03I'm gonna separate shorter answers okay
01:15:08right now there's a lot of hype people
01:15:10talk about this term the metaverse what
01:15:12do you think where does this fit in uh
01:15:14to your different set of Frameworks
01:15:16either this is this to me is very
01:15:18clearly a we don't know what things are
01:15:21for I don't think that the killer use
01:15:24case for AR VR or the metaverse has been
01:15:27introduced yet and so what people are
01:15:28hearing is a lot of hype and then if
01:15:32they get the Oculus which I I got an
01:15:34Oculus you know where it is it's in my
01:15:36closet and the reason is because I
01:15:38didn't really know what to do with it I
01:15:39couldn't find enough
01:15:41ways to integrate this into my life I
01:15:44think the technology is incredibly
01:15:45impressive and I just don't think that
01:15:47the use case for Mass adoption is there
01:15:49yet so we don't know what this is for
01:15:52and I think it's incumbent upon the very
01:15:54very smart people who are building these
01:15:55things to make that argument to the
01:15:57consumers who are waiting for the answer
01:16:00great this one's a little different
01:16:02biohacking or you could say longevity
01:16:05science you could say genomics I know
01:16:07those are all slightly different but
01:16:09they all overlap there's some concern
01:16:10around people doing certain things to
01:16:13their bodies also I don't know there's
01:16:16there's also cultural issues with you
01:16:18know changing what babies you might have
01:16:21and what genes they have what do you
01:16:23think about this whole Space of maybe
01:16:24biohacking yeah I mean incredibly
01:16:30intersects with the million moral-ish
01:16:33you know moral questions
01:16:35um but I'll slot it into we imbue our
01:16:37Innovations with our own cultural and
01:16:38personal anxieties
01:16:41um I I think that the the the the the
01:16:45big disruptive potential of biohacking
01:16:49leads to just unbelievably large
01:16:53um uh fundamental questions but are we
01:16:56gonna get there is is that is that where
01:16:59this is really headed I you know I don't
01:17:01know I have a hard time parsing what is
01:17:03realistic and what is uh you know
01:17:06somebody's kind of hyperbolic fever
01:17:08dream but I do think that
01:17:11I do think that as we introduce these
01:17:14and and anything else it's worth having
01:17:16really intelligent serious conversations
01:17:19about you know the the the world that we
01:17:22want to build and and um how the
01:17:24innovations that we have can help us get
01:17:26there I can agree more I know we're out
01:17:28of time I'm just gonna quickly share for
01:17:30listeners or Watchers at home I think a
01:17:32good exercise would actually be to go
01:17:35through the six different Frameworks
01:17:36that Jason has shared here and just
01:17:39think about where this might fit so
01:17:40we've got nfts which we didn't get time
01:17:42for we've got autonomous vehicles or
01:17:44cars right and then this is similar so
01:17:48it's cars but ride sharing so we're kind
01:17:50of over the hump for this one to a
01:17:52um but maybe think through what some of
01:17:54the pushback there was and there's the
01:17:56train something that also had pushed
01:17:57back when it was being introduced into
01:18:01um but Jason I want to say thank you uh
01:18:02for taking the time here and for sharing
01:18:04all of these thoughts through your many
01:18:06years of research and talking to
01:18:08different people within this field if
01:18:10anyone does want to find you or your
01:18:11book uh where should they look
01:18:14um yeah so Steph thanks this was so fun
01:18:15I really enjoyed it and really I'm just
01:18:18honored you had me on I've been a long
01:18:20time listener to the show so
01:18:22um my book where a lot of this comes
01:18:24from and much more is called build for
01:18:26tomorrow you can find it audiobook ebook
01:18:29uh hardcover wherever you get books and
01:18:32uh it's really it's it's designed to be
01:18:33a guide to adaptability
01:18:35um to help people think through great
01:18:37changes in their careers and their lives
01:18:39and otherwise get in touch with me my um
01:18:42my website is Jason pfeifer.com
01:18:44j-a-s-o-n-f-e-i-f-e-r.com
01:18:47um there you can get links to my social
01:18:48media accounts my newsletter that I
01:18:50write um on this subject and uh and I
01:18:53know I'd love for people to reach out
01:18:54and I promise I will respond to anyone
01:18:56who does wow that's a big big big
01:18:59commitment I find it hard to keep up but
01:19:02um Jason thank you so much we'll include
01:19:03all of those links in the show notes and
01:19:06yeah we'll have to do this again
01:19:07sometime I would love it
01:19:10thanks for listening to the a16c podcast
01:19:12if you like this episode don't forget to
01:19:15subscribe here on YouTube to get our
01:19:16exclusive video content
01:19:18we'll see you next time
