|
Michael Tam is a partner at Craft Ventures, an early-stage venture capital fund known for the development of B2B Saas startups.
Based in Los Angeles, Michael sits on the boards of Bbot, Dray Alliance, Route, Trellis, and Vendr. He also works closely with notable investment companies such as Pipe, Salted, Shef, and Sync, amongst others. Prior to joining Craft, Michael was an investor at Crosscut, where he led investments at the seed stage. As an operator, Michael managed Uber's business in Southern California markets and launched L., a direct to consumer brand acquired by Procter & Gamble. Michael also serves on the investment committee of the USC Marshall Fund, which invests in startups in the Southern California tech ecosystem. In this episode, Michael and Aaron discuss how to break into venture capital, his investments in Shef & Pipe, and much more. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Michael Tam’s Challenge; Reach out to someone you’re afraid to. Send a cold email w/ intention. Connect with Michael Tam
Linkedin
Craft Ventures Website Michael@craftventures.com If you liked this interview, check out episode 466 with Matt Harbaugh where we discuss founding a venture fund. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680
0 Comments
Dave Fink is the CEO and cofounder of Postie, a platform for making direct mail marketing campaigns as sophisticated as elite digital marketing.
Dave Fink has been building companies for the consumer internet for over 15 years. Over the last decade Dave has launched and scaled over 20 consumer-internet businesses. During the early part of his career he created performance-marketing platforms helping brands as diverse as Walt Disney World, Procter & Gamble and The Gap adapt to the rapidly changing digital media strategies available in the internet world. Dave also established the customer acquisition strategy that successfully launched consumer brands with celebrities including Kate Bosworth, Jessica Simpson, Rachel Bilson, and Mary- Kate and Ashley Olsen. In this conversation, Dave and Aaron discuss some basic marketing definitions, the mission behind Postie, and how Dave coaches marketing clients to success. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. David Fink’s Challenge; Find a new hobby to get a break from work. Connect with David Fink
Linkedin
Postie Website dave@postie.com If you liked this interview, check out episode 386 with Jon Shanahan where we discuss YouTube marketing, men’s fashion, and much more.
Joe Percoco could not stand the idea that the best financial products were inaccessible to the common person, so he co-founded Titan. Titan is a fintech startup that aims to be this century’s Fidelity Investments
The startup is growing rapidly with 500% growth in the last 12 months, 30,000+ users, nearly 1 billion in assets under management, and a recent valuation of $450 Million. Their investors include Andreessen Horowitz, Kevin Durant, Odell Beckham Jr., and Will Smith. Joe has been able to build this company so quickly thanks to his pedigree at some of the world’s top business institutions; Wharton business school, Goldman Sachs, and McKinsey. In this interview, Joe and Aaron discuss the building blocks of a fintech startup, why index funds & day trading aren’t right for everyone, and the near-death experiences Titan has survived. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Joe Percoco’s Challenge; Answer the question; What is your personal KPI for the week? Connect with Joe Percoco
Linkedin
titan.com If you liked this interview, check out episode 231 with Andy Rachleff where we discuss Wealthfront, index investing, and a framework for successful venture investing. 
TJ Fairchild started Commonplace in 2003 with his wife in Indiana, Pennsylvania. Today, Commonplace has nine locations and TJ is consistently hired to consult with other coffee shops to help get their business established.
In addition to operating coffee shops, Commonplace also roasts their own beans which they sell directly to consumers and wholesale to other coffee companies. TJ did not have a business background before starting his company, he majored in philosophy and avoided a career in academia to start his firm. In this episode, TJ and Aaron discuss the equipment needed for a coffee shop, how to develop a soulful environment, and the shortcomings of ‘free trade’ coffee sourcing. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. TJ Fairchild’s Challenge; Be Grateful. Connect with TJ Fairchild
Linkedin
Commonplace Coffee Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 455 with Michael Mayer where we discuss his smart scales that automatically ship customers fresh coffee whenever they start running low.
Howie Choset is a robotics professor at Carnegie Mellon University and a serial entrepreneur. With his students, Howie has formed several companies including Medrobotics, for surgical systems, Hebi Robotics, for modular robots, and Bito Robotics for autonomous guided vehicles.
Further, Choset co-lead the formation of the Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing Institute, which is $250m national institute advancing both technology development and education for robotics in manufacturing. He is aksi a founding Editor of the journal ‘Science Robotics. In this conversation, Howie and Aaron discuss the series of startups he has founded, how to delegate & develop teams, and the patience required to see technological innovation turn from idea to reality. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Howie Choset’s Challenge; Have good students actively teach students that are further behind. Go into fields that seem too difficult. Find applications for snake robots. Connect with Howie Choset
Linkedin
Biorobotics Lab Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 306 with Bryan Salesky where we discuss raising billions of dollars to develop self-driving cars. 
Charles McIlvaine is an effective operator and financier who is in the midst of a significant rebrand for Coen Oil.
After acquiring the company in the 2000s, Charlie and his brother Andy have built and spun off the company’s Energy and Transport businesses, in order to focus on their convenience store and gas station business. In this conversation, Charlie and Aaron discuss business strategy, company culture, and how to differentiate a company’s brand. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Charles McIlvaine’s Challenge; Evaluate your business through people, process, and technology. Also, remember you are not alone. Nobody succeeds alone. Connect with Charles McIlvaine
Linkedin
Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 415 with Bill Sarris where we discuss building a family business and candy empire. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680
Will Weiner is the CEO of Xpogo, the association focused on the growth of extreme pogo sticking.
After taking over in 2018, Will has focused on expanded the sports media reach and developing a more robust event strategy. In this episode, Aaron and Will discuss media, business models, and the athletes that make it possible. Connect with Will Weiner
Eli Harris is the cofounder and President of R-Zero Systems. R-Zero has raised $60 million to re-design hospital-grade disinfection solutions for day-to-day life.
In just fifteen months, R-Zero has raced to over $20 million worth of revenue and finds itself at the right place, at the right time, to take advantage of the cultural changes taking place post-pandemic. Eli has been named a Forbes 30 under 30 and previously founded the portable energy company EcoFlow. EcoFlow has raised $100 million and has been valued over $1 billion in private markets. In this episode, Eli talks about disrupting the disinfectant industry, his past failures as an entrepreneur, and the discipline requires to build something great. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Eli Harris’s Challenge; Ask for help. Connect with Eli Harris
Linkedin
R-Zero Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 453 with Brock Blake where we discuss PPP loans, equity vs debt financing, and how to build a company in Utah. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680 
Barbara VanKirk is the CEO and founder of IQ Inc. She has spent the last 28 years creating company value by providing the vision, leadership, strategy, and general management skills necessary to grow IQ Inc into a dominant player in Pittsburgh’s tech ecosystem.
IQ Inc helps its clients with expert consulting, staffing, project management and software development services. They serve clients across financial services, transportation, and medical device with Software Design & Development, Software Q/A Testing, Product Development, System Integration, Technical Writing, and Database Design. In this episode, Barbara and Aaron discuss how she bootstrapped the company, how to hire tech talent, and why her company has stood the test of time. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Barbara VanKirk’s Challenge; Learn something new, Give back, Seek feedback, Stay hungry Connect with Barbara VanKirk
Linkedin
IQ-Inc Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 438 with Ben Wilson where we discuss building a computer software consultancy. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680 
Jeremy Searock cofounded Advanced Construction Robotics in 2016, aiming to bring robotic technology to construction sites around the country.
As President and Chief Technology Officer, Jeremy has overseen the development of ACR’s first two products, TyBot and IronBot. The machines dramatically enhance workforce productivity and safety by aligning and tying rebar for reinforced concrete on heavy infrastructure projects. Prior to starting a company, Jeremy managed the autonomous systems engineering group at Carnegie Mellon University's National Robotics Engineering Center and ran tactical leadership of a U.S. Submarine, including the detailed management of the submarine's nuclear powered propulsion plant. In this conversation, Jeremy and Aaron discuss his military experience, why construction is ripe for disruption, and his leadership principles. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Jeremy Searock’s Challenge; Don’t underestimate yourself. Connect with Jeremy Searock
Linkedin
Construction Robotics Website If you liked this interview, check out our interview with Steve Muck where we discuss buying a construction company, developing young talent, and starting new business lines. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680
Gabriela Isturiz has founded two different high-growth SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) technology companies that were ultimately sold to Fortune 500 companies.
Her first company, eBillingHub, was a pioneering electronic billing solution for law firms around the world. Her product development, sales, and business strategy acumen allowed for eBillingHub to be acquired by Thomson Reuters (NYSE: TRI) in 2011. After that, Gaby founded Bellefield System, which rose to be a global leader in time tracking and compliance technology for lawyers. Their product was recognized as the #1 legal timekeeping solution for 5 years in a row worldwide and she led the firm to over 3,500% growth within 6 years, positioning it among the top fastest-growing companies in Western Pennsylvania. In December 2019, Bellefield was acquired by Roper Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ROP) (Aderant division) a constituent of the S&P 500. In this conversation, Gaby and Aaron discuss building a Saas company in the early 2000s, how to recruit talent, and how wisdom compounds. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Gabriela Isturiz’s Challenge; Read about Stoicism. Especially Seneca’s Letters & Marcus Aurelius. Connect with Gabriela Isturiz Connect with Gaby Isturiz
Linkedin
If you liked this interview, check out our conversation with Flori Marquez where we discuss her fast-growing crypto startup BlockFi. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680
Shea Murtaugh is the founder and president of Hoffmann Murtaugh, the largest media-only agency in Pittsburgh.
Shea started her company in 2004 with no capital and now leads a team of 30 people. Prior to funding Hoffman Murtaugh, Shea broke into media via broadcast sales. She’s sold every major form of media over her decorated career and blends that experience into a cocktail that delivers wins for clients. In this conversation, Shea and Aaron discuss how she got her start, when to hire vs train new talent, and the degree to which she has to be the “banker” of marketing. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Shea Murtaugh’s Challenge; Journal for 5 minutes each day your ideal day one year in the future. Connect with Shea Murtaugh
Linkedin
Hoffmann Murtaugh Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 418 with Marco Marandiz where we discuss how to market in the modern age, what makes an authentic brand, and the future of commerce. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680 
Dr. Dietrich Stephan is a geneticist, entrepreneur, and CEO of NeuBase Therapeutics. Neubase is biotech startup focused on developing precision genetic medicines.
Dietrich previously founded or co-founded 14 biotechnology companies, was the chair of the Human Genetics department at the University of Pittsburgh, and was the CEO of LifeX Labs, a biotechnology incubator. Neubase, his latest company, is developing technology spun out of Carnegie Mellon University that aims to address genetic diseases at the DNA or RNA level by combining the highly targeted approach of traditional genetic therapies with the broad organ distribution capabilities of small molecules. In April 2021 Neubase went public, trading under the ticker symbol NBSE, and has raised over $100 million in less than three years. In this conversation, Dietrich and Aaron discuss why Neubase went public earlier than most biotech startups, the vicious diseases they are fighting against, and the impact of the Human Genome Project on society. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Dietrich Stephan’s Challenge; If there is someone out there in the world that your admire, find a way to reach out and connect with them. Connect with Dietrich Stephan
Linkedin
Neubase Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 340 with Craig Markovitz where we discuss business building, university technology transfer, and life after a successful startup.
Underwritten by Piper Creative
Piper Creative makes creating podcasts, vlogs, and videos easy. How? Click here and Learn more. We work with Fortune 500s, medium-sized companies, and entrepreneurs. Follow Piper as we grow YouTube Subscribe on iTunes | Stitcher | Overcast | Spotify 
Jonathan Steckbeck is the founder of Peptilogics, a biotechnology platform company that develops best-in-class novel peptide drugs for unmet medical needs. He also has a PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics from the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine.
Amongst other problems, his company Peptilogics is focused on developing a new category of antibiotics. It has been 20 years since there was a genuinely new class of antibiotics, yet bacterial cells have continued to evolve and develop into drug-resistant infections. In this interview, Jonathan and Aaron discuss the founding of Peptilogics, why they’re focused on this new modality of medication, and the FDA approval process. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Jonathan Steckbeck’s Challenge; If there’s something that you want to do that doesn’t exist, go do it. Connect with Jonathan Steckbeck
Linkedin
Peptilogics Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 456 with Pete DeComo where we discuss the long, arduous process of developing a medical device and episode 443 with Blake Dube where we talk about better oxygen tanks. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680 
Euan Guttridge has spent the last 7 years working in the self-driving car divisions for some of the world's largest technology companies.
Between these two roles, Euan developed an angel investing syndicate under the banner Reinforced Ventures. The syndicate differentiates itself for the technical proficiency of its limited partners, bringing a fresh perspective to the companies it invests in. Euan’s portfolio includes a number of past Going Deep podcast guests including; Gridwise, Locomation, UpContent, Fifth Season, Edge Case Research, and Honeycomb Credit. While not geographically exclusive, Reinforced does focus on Pittsburgh because of its over $10 billion of academic research funded and $6.6 billion of private funding in technology over the past decade. In this conversation, Euan and Aaron discuss a career developing autonomous vehicle technology, how an AngelList syndicate works, and how to do thorough due diligence. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Euan Guttridge’s Challenge; Follow your curiosity. Connect with Euan Guttridge
Linkedin
Reinforced Ventures Website euan@reinforcedventures.com If you liked this interview, check out some of Euan’s portfolio companies like Locomation’s Çetin Meriçli, Edge Case Research’s Mike Wagner, and Gridwise’s Ryan Green. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680 
Steve Muck is the CEO of Brayman Construction, a heavy civil and geotechnical contractor that builds bridges, dams, and other large infrastructure. Steve is also the cofounder of construction-related robotics startups TyBot and Advanced Construction Robotics.
Steve has started or acquired twenty businesses and currently operates a portfolio of entities that in construction-related endeavors alone runs approximately $200 million in revenue annually. Steve acquired the company over 28 years ago in a leveraged buyout and has since acquired a number of companies as he has expanded his business empire. In this episode, Steve and Aaron discuss how Steve got started in construction, the company’s ‘Dragon Slayer’ ethos, and how he has upskilled his team in order to escape competition. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Stephen Muck’s Challenge; Take a risk. Connect with Stephen Muck
Linkedin
Brayman Construction Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 412 with Jake Loosararian where we discuss industrial robotics and raising one of Pittsburgh’s biggest Series A financings. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680 
Jon Pastor is the SVP for Consumer Solutions at RealPage, a leading global provider of software and data analytics to the real estate industry. RealPage was trading publicly at over $10 billion market capitalization before being taken private by Thoma Bravo.
Jon’s entrepreneurial career started when he cofounder RentJungle with previous guest Geng Wang. That company was acquired in 2014 and Jon chose to stay on and lead the acquiring company as President. Four years later, that company was acquired by RealPage. In this conversation, Jon and Aaron discuss the lessons from all these acquisitions, the challenges facing the real estate industry, and the incentives that guide successful organizations. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Jon Pastor’s Challenge; Create a list of ideas for projects or businesses that you could start. Connect with Jon Pastor
Linkedin
Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 474 with Geng Wang where we discuss three startups, social enterprise, and where to find motivation. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680 
Jorge Mazal is the Chief Product Officer for Duolingo. Duolingo is a free language-learning website and mobile app with over 500 million downloads, 40 million monthly active users, and a valuation over $1 billion.
Jorge previously worked on the product for Zynga, MyFitnessPal, and Kleiner Perkins. Today he blends skills in design, gamification, and leadership to manage a product team that has 10xed in size since he joined the company. In this episode, Jorge and Aaron discuss how Duolingo makes product decisions, the importance of interpersonal skills, and how Jorge’s background has prepared him to excel in this role. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Jorge Mazal’s Challenge; Find some time to go help someone, with no expectation of anything in return. Connect with Jorge Mazal
Linkedin
Duolingo Website If you liked this interview, check out our conversation with Jason Wolfe where we discuss tech products, leadership, and entrepreneurship. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680
Underwritten by Piper Creative
Piper Creative makes creating podcasts, vlogs, and videos easy. How? Click here and Learn more. We work with Fortune 500s, medium-sized companies, and entrepreneurs. Follow Piper as we grow YouTube Subscribe on iTunes | Stitcher | Overcast | Spotify Watson: So thanks for coming on the podcast, man, I'm really excited to be talking with you. Mazal: Thank you, Aaron. Thank you for having me. I'm excited to be here with you. Watson: So I want to start off. I have to imagine that almost everyone that might be listening to this is aware of what Duolingo is. But maybe we can just start off, you know, this is an app with over fifth, I'm sorry, 500 million downloads, 40 million monthly active users, that has taught just loads of people, how to speak all sorts of different languages. Can you talk a little bit more just about what the apps mission is oriented around and the role that you play as chief product officer? Mazal: Sure. Yeah. So what the app does, is it's just languages and you can basically pick up Duolingo and just, even if he's just used Duolingo to learn a language, you can replace up to four, maybe even five semesters worth of college credit, worth of language education, which we're super proud of. And the reason why we do that. Well, we teach languages -- there are actually several reasons. We're a very mission-driven company. So we care a lot about the impact that language learning has on the world. And the truth is that the impact is different depending on who you are. So for a lot of people learning English, It's very transformational so they can access better jobs, better educational opportunities. And that's kind of, my lived experience has been bad. And also Luis, the CEO, has a similar life experience as well. And then also for a lot of people who maybe already know English, learning another language helps them connect with the world better. We have lots of users who are learning a language because that's the language that their in-laws speak, or maybe they want to learn Japanese so they can read manga in Japanese, or learn Korean to listen to K-pop or something. So there's this many reasons why people learn a language and we're excited to support all of those reasons. Watson: Yeah. I mean, those are exactly the two things I was just thinking about before we hopped on was number one, economic opportunity. We actually at Piper just hired our first international team member who just blew me away with his proficiency in English, despite that not being his native tongue. And that is, you know, part of how things get done. You need to be able to communicate, but at the same sense, you travel different places. And obviously that's usually--if it's a tourism related type of company-- that's part of the job, is to be able to bring people in and have that multi-lingual skillset. But it's also a way to connect. You know, there's a difference in walking through Tokyo and reading the signs in Japanese versus having someone translate it to you. You're getting that kind of layer of distance before you can really connect with the place. Mazal: Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, it's impossible to have an authentic experience when you travel unless you know some of the language at least. Watson: A hundred percent. So I'm super curious to learn more about the role of chief product officer. And later on, we'll talk kind of about how you've built up your skills and experiences to land in such a cool position. But, I guess maybe as a starting point, I think that, you know other roles, I think it's very legible how one is evaluated as an executive. So if you're a chief revenue officer, you need revenue to go up, right. If you've got maybe like a head of HR, it's are we hiring adequately? Do we have the kind of diverse team that we're pursuing with product that there seems like so many different kinds of lanes and avenues that it can go down. Particularly for something like we said, over 500 million, half a billion downloads of the app, all these different languages being taught. You could be, and I'm not saying this is the case, but just as an example, you could be killing it at teaching people Turkish. And maybe it's not as effective at teaching people French or whatever the thing may be. So how are you as a chief product officer evaluated, and then maybe we can connect that to how you actually spend your day in order to accomplish those goals. Mazal: Yeah. I mean the, the role of chief product officer, I think it's not standardized. I think it means different things in different companies. And at Duolingo, what that means is I lead three functions, which are product management, data science, which is kind of like early advanced, sophisticated product analytics that we do here and also UX research. So understanding our users and what makes them tick and all of these functions together are focused on really driving product market fit and constantly improving that fit. And also we know what's unique about Duolingo, and we have founders that are very technical, very product minded. So, you know, they're very involved in product, especially the recent CEO. And it's a very collaborative kind of way to make decisions with him, with chief designer, with our SVP of engineering, Natalie. So basically all of us together and our teams come up with a roadmap. Right. And execute on that in terms of, how am I evaluated in terms of performance? I swear it's different each time I get it back evaluated, it just depends on what matters at the time. Right. So, there's basically everything matters and whatever is not working well. That's the thing I need to be focusing, you know, next. So it's a matter of how well the business metrics start doing, and we care about, you know, user growth. We care about revenue growth and we care about teaching better. So we're always doing those three things. And at this point we're lucky that all those things are going really well. And we're just getting better and better at those things. And then there's also all of the people's side. Are we hiring the right people? Are they happy? Are they growing? And are they working well with others and creating the culture that we want? So, as my job has evolved, when I joined Duolingo, I came in as director of product and it was a very small team and that team has grown almost 10 X than it used to be. And so now a lot of my focus is on ultra, and how they make sure that people have the guidelines, have the principals, have the tools, the support system, so they can be increasingly more and more autonomous and more effective on, us teams. Watson: Yeah, I think we, in the pre-interview we talked to, when you joined, it was like 90 people and now it's over 500 people on the team. Mazal: Part of the whole company. Yes. Watson: Yeah. Crazy. So I was trying to guess, like some of those metrics, we referenced the monthly active users. And I guess the reason it's such a kind of moving target and those metrics changes, you know, something that maybe conventionally people understand for a Tik Tok or a Facebook or some of these other super apps that are at the top of the charts, because they are advertising based, more time on the app going from 30 to 40 minutes on average--it's time, someone spends on the app-- is really impactful because that increases the ad load that they can be shown. But at the same time, if you're also evaluating like the efficacy of people continuing to come back, you know, if it becomes this thing that eats up more and more of their day, maybe their kind of consistent habit of actually going and even making a daily practice of learning the new language is at odds with that. So that's a kind of a really interesting tension to kind of be playing with as a product lead. Mazal: Yeah. There's always a lot of different tensions and between the metrics that we care about, right. You could do something that helps with revenue, but hurts retention. You can do something that helps retention, but hurts the number of minutes per day they spend on the app and then those learning, going to the mix as well. So the way we balance that is we have teams that are -- some teams that are kind of metrics driven and they have like a goal to optimize revenue, for example, and that's the target metric revenue. And then we have guard rail metrics, which tend to be the target metrics of other teams. So if you run an experiment, cause everything we do gets AB tested and ran an experiment that helps you target metric, you gotta make sure that it doesn't hurt any of the guard rail metrics. So they have to be the velvet intuition. Teams have to develop an intuition of how other teams metrics move. So they know not to mess up with them and not to bring them down. So we basically create a system where everyone's incentivized to move everything up and not at the expense of something else. Watson: Gotcha. That makes a ton of sense because yeah, you're juggling all those metrics, but if we're talking to down to like the team level or the individual level, you can't have everyone looking at all things. They need that element of focus. So tell me a little bit about, you know, you joined the company a few years ago, it's been growing like a weed and there's a lot of excitement in Pittsburgh in particular about, you know, a potential future IPO. And that love what that means just for the Pittsburgh tech scene. But can you paint a little bit of a picture of where the product was when you got here, changes that have been made, that kind of take us to the present and then maybe we can talk a little bit about where it's going in the future. Mazal: Sure. Yeah. I mean, the product has made tremendous strides. Since I joined-- I don't want to take credit just because I joined is like correlation or share has custody, but it has been a tremendous amount of progress on the product side. Cause I mean, it's very collaborative. Everyone's involved in this, but you know, we were struggling in many fronts, honestly. Like we were trying to figure out a way to monetize. We weren't exactly sure how to do that, growth was a little bit like stagnating. And we were kind of stuck on how to teach better. Honestly, we were like trying to figure out all of these problems and everyone that tremendous amount of effort to turn all of these things around a little by little. So first on the morning, on the morning, the station side, we landed on the subscription business that has been very successful and we're able to continue to grow, on a consistent basis. On the growth side, we came up with-- I won't get into the details too much, but we have a fairly sophisticated growth model, that has a bunch of different metrics that we identified. We run modeling on it and identified a metric that turns out to be super high leverage, which is called CRR, CRR is the retention rate. And we put a team just optimized on that, to focus on that to optimize that metric. And that has resulted in people just staying with a product a lot longer. So when they come into the product, they get hooked on having like a Duolingo streak. And those, the number of people with a streak of seven days or longer, used to be about 20% of our DAUs and now it's about 60%. So people are just a lot more engaged with the products. They stay longer telling their friends more about it. And that has really super-charge our user growth. And what's cool about it is that it's growing faster than ever. It's growing super fast, but it's growing with better users, better and more engaged users. Right. Which is really a really healthy way to grow. So that was a lot of research by a lot of people and just a lot of creativity and problem solving. And then on the learning side, I think probably about half of our product teams in the company, work on learning. And that is really challenging because it's hard to measure learning. So we have to use a lot of just learning science research, intuition of the product ourselves, and coming up with kind of proxy metrics, provoke, believe your percents learning, and combining all of that together. And also being very systematic about how we think about languages and what is the language and how do you break up a language into its components and different levels of proficiency. So you can think about languages as vocabulary, a combination of vocabulary and grammar for enunciation, understanding sounds and being able to have skills like with that, like speaking, writing, reading, listening, and able to do that different levels of proficiency from beginner to advanced. And then we've systematically basically thought about that matrix of skills and levels of proficiency. And targeted each of those cells and just got better and better at all those things. And that has made a tremendous difference in how well we teach, where I think Duolingo is known for as the way to get started with a language and over time, we have more and more people say, wait, you can go a lot more, you can go a lot further with your language to Duolingo, than people in the past thought of or realized. Watson: And so as we kind of chart into the future, it sounds really like that ramp up from beginner, moderate, into really high level proficiency is the aspiration for where the product is going? Mazal: Yeah, that's a big part of it. We want you to be able to pick up Duolingo and get all the way to proficiency, to full proficiency, where you can go to a country and study there, or work there, travel there, and just feel like you're fully prepared, just using Duolingo. We're like maybe three quarters of the way there. Maybe I'm being a little bit generous on myself, but we're getting close. Watson: All right. So in terms of where the product falls, as we think more from like a business standpoint, this is very much in the category of like a consumer facing app individuals downloaded. They kind of have their own personal goal and that's where the interaction lies. But we started this off talking about the economic opportunities and the, you know, the potential, I would imagine for things more aligned at a kind of enterprise or B2B type of level. Is that-- how does that come into the consideration for Duolingo? Where does that kind of fit into the whole product framework? Mazal: It's a great question. And I'll answer it. Sorry to run it that way a little bit, but we have another product called the Duolingo English test. And this is a computer adaptive, fully online, AI proctored and human Proctored two test that you can take. It measures your English proficiency and that is accepted as as a sign of language proficiency in over 3000 universities and colleges. So it's become a significant part of our business now. It grew in the thousands of percent during the pandemic, which was pretty cool, because our competitors, you have to go to a testing center and you have to sign, and all those shut down. And it just became basically the only way you could demonstrate your English proficiency in the whole world for, for a few weeks. So, we believe that, how this connect to your question is, people who need to learn English, they need to also be able to demonstrate, certify that they know English. That needs to be in the resume, that needs to be when they're talking to employers or potential employers. Right? So them doing an English test, plays a big part on that economic opportunity angle. And what we're trying to do is that we call it," closing the loop," basically teaching well enough on the Duolingo app, that you can take the Duolingo English test and do very well on it. And we're just beginning getting to that point. Watson: So, I want to now kind of hone in on this role that you find yourself in because, you know, feedback that I've heard from listeners of the show is man, I love, you know, understanding what it takes to be the founder of a office, furniture wholesaler, or a tech startup, or what have you. To be chief product officer-- I keep saying the number, cause to me, this is just, almost anxiety inducing when I think of the scale of it-- but to be teaching languages to tens, hundreds of millions of people is an immense responsibility and a really kind of, I'd imagine, fantastically, intellectually stimulating role in which to be. So I I'd like to unpack a little bit and you can start wherever you know makes sense to you. But to me, you know, you have this background, you worked at Zynga which was a digital game company, MyFitnessPal-- I've used that to track a few runs, back when I was more into running, I haven't had the consistent habit, like you're aspiring to with Duolingo. But, and that's more a me thing than the product thing, can you talk a little bit about these past experiences and, you know, if chief product officer was the goal, like how did this come together to make you capable of filling this seat? Mazal: Yeah, so definitely a chief product officer was not the goal. And I was actually surprised when Louis said, Hey, I think I want to promote you to chief product officer. And it's like, really? Same thing happened with VP of product. I was like, what, you want to do this? So the--but to get to your original question of, how did it get here? It was just so many different things in life that build up to this. And I think it's just great coincidences in a way, you know. You can go as back as like, high school. I was learning English, I didn't grow up speaking English. And I was lucky enough to go to a school that did a pretty good job teaching English, and came to the US and realized I didn't understand. I could understand actually pretty well, but I couldn't really say much. And so I had that experience as an adult, of really being able to empathize with people who are learning a language and how hard it is and all the things that kind of catch you by surprise. Like, you know, for years, I could not understand the difference between a bag and a bug. I was just like, to me, it was the same word. It was like, people were just making fun of me. So anyway, I could empathize a lot with that experience. Then after I graduated from college, I ended up working in nonprofit, in the education sector, eventually leading an education program and coming up with curriculum and mentoring programs and just really diving into how people learn. Then went to grad school, discovered this thing called product management. Also, I did a master's in decision science. So I'm always being curious about how people think, how people make decisions and how you can influence people's decision-making for their own good. And so I studied kind of public policy and decision making together. But I got into product management somehow. This company, Zynga, that makes video games, I thought, I was like, oh, what an interesting laboratory of how people make decisions. And so I went to work there, really enjoyed the aspect of making games and how collaborative and creative it could be and how cross-functional, right. We had a team of, like, I remember for one feature, it was probably like 10, 12 people and everyone did something different. There was no two of the same. And, you know, you have artists and illustrators and animators and engineers and game designers. And it was just so fun. And then at some point, I remember people-- they brought to the office, some of our most valued users, which were people who had spent probably like over 50,000 to a hundred thousand dollars on this game. And I was like, to be able to spend that much money on a free to play game. This has to be consuming their entire lives. And I felt really terrible about it. I felt like, oh, I can't, I don't know that I can be part of this and feel good about it. As much fun as I was having making games, just seeing the impact that a very addictive thing could have on someone just didn't feel right. It wasn't what I wanted to be doing in my life. So soon after that, I quit and I went to work at MyFitnessPal, which you mentioned. And that was again, trying to use behavior change and decision science to make people have habits. But I wanted to make sure that these were habits that were good for them. So that's how I got into that job and enjoyed it. It felt like I learned a lot there. Then, you know, eventually moved, worked at a different company. I helped them build a PM function at that other company. And then Duolingo reached out, out of the blue and my mom was using Duolingo at the time to learn English. I was like, sure, well, let's chat and, it was like, I came here to Pittsburgh. I really liked the city, you know, coming through from the tunnel from the airport into Pittsburgh at night. And it's just like the lights. It was like, wow, this is like really cool. And the people are super nice, you know, it made me think a lot of just, east coast city, in terms of things that are available culturally. But the niceness and kindness of the people is very kind of Midwestern. And, it was like just the perfect combination. So yeah, I like the city, and I also felt like you brought everything together, right? That the language learning experience, dedication experience that I had, the gaming experience, experience building a PM function, product management, function, everything into one. So a lot of the things when I joined Duolingo came really intuitively. I just understood a lot of the things that people were talking about because I had lived them myself. And I think that has really helped being able to have impact at the company. And I would say--so I may be like rambling way too much, you can stop me at any time. Watson: I mean, the way you told that story, it reminds me a lot of the Steve Jobs' Stanford commencement address, when he talks about how you could have never planned it as you were moving forward. But looking in reverse, there's this very kind of obvious sequential interrelated amount of lily pads that kind of landed you at this current Lily pad. And I think that the, you know, I'm thinking about some different things: I'm thinking about habit building, I'm thinking about just like good design principles generally, and then I'm also really thinking about, you know, the human side of this. Which is there's the human users that you kind of had this experience at Zynga, seeing the effect on the humans in that regard. But then there's also the humans that work with you that work kind of on your respective teams and learning how to really get the most out of them, because it's very different than an entry level product role, where you're kind of got your little corner of responsibility. And now overseeing everything, it's much more about how do I coach, how do I incentivize, how do I recruit so that these product goals that I'm responsible for basically get fulfilled by the team members there. They're doing most of the heavy lifting. So tell me a little bit about that, tell me about the development as a leader and kind of how you've added that realm of skills. Mazal: Then how I help others become leaders, how I grew as a leader, or- Watson: I mean, I would say your growth as a leader is your ability to help other people become leaders and take that responsibility on. Mazal: Yeah, absolutely. That's a good point. So I think to be a good leader, you gotta be authentic to who you are. And for me, I'm someone who is very reserved and introverted. Someone who thinks a lot about feelings, and also very driven and ambitious, which is I think like a weird combination that throws people off. But so my approach to leadership is to basically understand what makes, well, what people are, what makes people tick, right? Why are they here? You know, why they're showing up to work to get what? And help them get that, whatever that is. Some people they-- and I do that because I care about them and I just, don't judge what it is they're here for. It's like, whatever it is that matters to them, I help them get there, because, you know, I care about them. And I think that makes people keep showing up at work and keep doing their best work. And that requires listening with empathy. It requires not judging. It requires honestly trying to help. So that's kinda my approach. Also, I think it requires taking care of their feelings, right? Like when you got to say something hard, you got to make people change their mindset or something. Some managers will be like, "Hey! You know, you got to change. This is not--you're not getting what you want, like deal with it." And I was like, well, what can I-- I don't go and do that. I just take some time and think, how can we turn this into a win-win situation? Right. And I was like, "hey, you're not, maybe you're not getting the thing that you wanted, the win that you wanted, but can we create another win that can help you grow in other ways that you also wanted to grow? So. That's one part, right? And then the other part now is helping managers to be able to do that for the people that they're managing and encouraging them to really get to know the reports and listen to them and to understand not just how they feel, but why they feel the way they do. How are they seeing the world, that the facts are being interpreted in a way that generates the feeling that they're having, and help them understand where in that needs to be worked on. And we're like, well, maybe we need to change the facts. Maybe we need to change the way the facts have been interpreted with, with new facts that they're not aware of. And we need to help them and understand that the feelings they are having are reasonable, but there's other feelings that could be reasonable to have as well, right? And focus on the thing that makes you happy, right, and grow from there. So anyways, that's like a bit of a rambling answer, I apologize, Aaron, but happy to dig into any of those things more deeply if that would be helpful. Watson: Yeah. But it really, you know, what I'm hearing again, is one of your metrics for the app is retention, right? And part of retention is predicated on being deeply empathetic to the user. If you understand what they're actually looking for, and you're able to give it to them, then that's going to keep them coming back cause you're delivering the goods. And it's the same idea where, you know, the empathy for those team members. And that's a huge topic of conversation. I feel like it's been that type of conversation for a decade now, but it's like people are job hopping. People are, you know, going from thing to thing. And one of the biggest advantages or levers, or kind of points of opportunity for a company, is the ability to recruit and then retain great talent. It's part of how you beat your competition, is we were a team with chemistry that had been thinking about this problem for three, four, or five, six years, as opposed to six months, 12 months, 18 months. It's just going to lead to better decision making. And, you know, it's the same. Those two things are obviously interrelated, but it requires the same kind of core skillset of empathy. Mazal: Absolutely. Yeah. And, I'll tell you something that I've learned at building in terms of that. I never really grasped this before working here, and it's: my imperfections generate some sort of pain or discomfort or problems for other people, and then having empathy for the pain I generate on them, and being humble about that. It's something that I've been learning, and it's been very transformational for me to like just lean in into that uncomfortable situations, like, oh, I am the cause of your pain. I'm the cause of your discomfort -- and listening to change. And that's been something really great about working at Duolingo where I felt like they--Louis has had patience with me, as I worked through the things that I need to work on. And I realized that at some point I have felt like embarrassed or wanting to hide those things, but it actually doesn't help. Like the more open and transparent you can be by the things you're working on, the better others feel about sharing what they're working on, the more they feel they can share it. And also they're going to have more patience with you, because they know at least you're working on it, right, and that really helps keep a team together. Watson: Beautiful. I have one more line of questioning and then we can kind of aim towards wrapping up here. And that's the idea of constraints. We've been-- we've explored this in so many different ways, you know, a nascent startup they've got every constraint in the book, but you know, all the way up to people making geopolitical decisions. There's always some sort of constraint that's in place for a company like Duolingo. And more specifically for someone in the role that you are as chief product officer, your team, like you said, has grown 10 X. Since you've joined the team, I don't know the exact number, but you as a company have raised tens of millions of dollars. How would you list or prioritize or explain the constraints that are facing you, in the present, as a company that has, you know, more funding than 99% of, of startups out there? And, you know, these kind of other obvious resources that unlock some constraints, what are the constraints that face the org and maybe you as the chief product officer generally? Mazal: Hmm. Great question. So the major constraint almost in a way, it's like what-- your mission, right? Like the, who you're trying to be and what you're trying to do. You could think of it as a constraint as well. That tells you lots of things you cannot do, because you don't want to do them because they're against who you want to be and why you want to achieve. The next step, there, I think is we're constrained by the amount of information that we have. And that's something that I've been very proactively trying to work on at Duolingo, by building new functions, like data science and UX research, and really being an advocate for like our learning science team as well. Because the more information we have... at the beginning, it really felt constrained by, we don't know a lot. We need to learn more faster. So information I think is key, and making sense of that into frameworks, into strategies, into plans, et cetera-- so processing that information too. The next big constraint is people, right? Getting the right talent on the right seats at the right time is obviously extremely challenging, and there's lots of things that we would want to do more of, but maybe we can't because we haven't found the right person for it. So hiring is key. And I think-- that's it, yeah. Watson: Interesting. Yeah. I mean-- one of the lessons of life that I've slowly come to realize is everyone has the constraints. There is no kind of boundless entity, God, that that's walking through the world in some way or shape or form unconstrained-- maybe Bezos, maybe one day I'll get to ask Bezos what his constraints are-- but the planet earth, perhaps with the blue origin, rocket or whatever. But, yeah, it's an interesting kind of thing to reflect on. And, I I'm guessing that you won't make any sort of comment on this whatsoever, but I do suspect that there is a kind of next chapter for Duolingo as a company, generally hitting the public markets at some point in the future, that I know that the folks in Pittsburgh are very excited for, and what that will mean as for the city of Pittsburgh, for the company, Duolingo, for all the constraints that you guys continue to face and hopefully unlocking some of those. Mazal: Sure. I hope so, yeah. Watson: Cool. Well, before we ask our standard last two questions, is there anything else you were hoping to share today that I just didn't give you the chance to? Mazal: We're hiring? Yes, Duolingo's always hiring. So check out our job post on our website. Watson: Right on. Well, that's the next question-- digital coordinates where people can connect, learn more, follow along with what you're doing. Obviously, download the app and start learning another language if you aren't already doing so, but what other coordinates can we point people towards? Mazal: Yeah. I would say download the app and find me and follow me, I'm Jorge Mazal on the Duolingo app, you can find me there. Watson: Right on. We're going to link that in the show notes. I'm actually not quite sure how to link that one, usually I'm like, oh, it's just a LinkedIn profile or something, but I'm going to try to figure out how to do that with the Duolingo profile, if I can make an external link or not. But, that's all going to be linked, going to put their.com/podcast for every single episode of the show. Or in the app, or you're probably listening to this right now, but before I let you go, I want to give you the mic one final time to issue an actionable personal challenge to the audience. Mazal: Hmm. So I had a wonderful experience last week where I really took like a significant amount of time to help someone with something that they really needed. And it was-- It was great. It just felt so good, especially if they're being isolated for so long in the pandemic to do something that-- we're just helping someone feel better. And the challenge that I would have for the audience is can you block three hours, half a day to do something that will make someone else feel really good, without having any expectation of return. And just getting that perspective again, that we're all in this planet together. Service is what makes us human and it makes you feel best at the end of the day. So that's my challenge. Watson: Yeah. Have you ever heard of the book, the five love languages? Mazal: I have. Yeah. Watson: Yeah. So acts of service, I'll go to the grave saying it's the most underrated one in terms of being able to convey love. Not that there's anything wrong with gifting or words of affirmation or any of those other ones, but it definitely takes I would argue more of a lift than some of the other stuff .And so I absolutely love that challenge and I hope that a bunch of people will take it right. Well, thank you so much for coming on the podcast, Jorge. I really, I learned a ton and I am excited for the future, you and the company. Mazal: Thank you, Aaron. It's been a pleasure. Anytime--happy to come back anytime. Watson: Awesome. We just went deep with Jorge Mazal, hope everyone out there has a fantastic day. 
Marko Papic leads the strategy team at Clocktower Group, an alternative investments firm. Clocktower offers long-term strategic investment strategies to their clients, investment managers and institutional allocators.
Marko brings his constraints framework, outlined in his book Geopolitical Alpha, to analyzing the geopolitical trends of the day. His ability to accurately forecast major political events has enormous ramifications for portfolios. In this episode, Marko and Aaron discuss how the future of China-US conflict, Turkey’s geopolitical prospects, and how to break into the geopolitical analysis field. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Marko Papic’s Challenge; Spend time around people with the opposite political and cultural perspective of you. Connect with Marko Papic
Linkedin
Geopolitical Alpha book If you liked this interview, check out our interview with Mike Green where we discuss Bitcoin and index funds. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680
Underwritten by Piper Creative
Piper Creative makes creating podcasts, vlogs, and videos easy. How? Click here and Learn more. We work with Fortune 500s, medium-sized companies, and entrepreneurs. Follow Piper as we grow YouTube Subscribe on iTunes | Stitcher | Overcast | Spotify 
Marko Papic
https://web.descript.com/44dbeb16-3e96-46e1-bb01-baa52650ba66/b33c9 Aaron Watson: Well, Marco, thanks for coming on the show, man. I'm really excited to be speaking with you. Marko Papic: Absolutely! Same here. Real pleasure. Aaron Watson: So, I want to start off just explaining for folks specifically, the, the role that you play at the Clocktower Group, maybe a little context of the Clocktower Group generally. And then, we can kind of move into this really, really good book here, Geopolitical Alpha, the concepts, the, the impetus behind it. But to start off, what's the kind of role you play in this financial firm? Marko Papic: Sure. So I'm a, I'm a partner and a chief strategist at an alternative investment management firm. We're based in Santa Monica, California. And what we do is we specialize in turning macro big picture ideas into you know, relatively illiquid alternative investment strategies. So those would be, for example, seeding macro hedge funds or investing in early stage fintech companies around the world. We've just launched a fund dedicated to Latin America. In that particular sphere. And also we have interesting businesses in China. We're also taking our approach to seeding macro hedge funds, and we're taking that to China. So most people, when they think of macro investors, they think of investors that deal with, you know, public markets that trade copper or dollar these kind of big asset classes. We also think about big ideas, but we didn't articulate it in these kind of illiquid strategies. Aaron Watson: And mostly if folks were trying to wrap their head around the client that you're serving, it is the capital allocators at some form of a large institution, be that an endowment or some sort of, you know, pension system or something like that. Marko Papic: Yeah. So it would be institutional investors, exactly what you're describing. And that's because, you know, you know, retail investors are not going to have the patience and the mandate for something as exotic as these illiquid strategies. But also in the U.S. In particular there's a lot family offices that would be the kind of investors that would do this in family offices, of course, are high net worth individuals that have basically an office managing their assets. They would, they would also be interested in, in private delegation or illiquid allocation. Aaron Watson: Gotcha. So the reason I was so excited to have you on, as we've discussed previous to the recording, I really enjoyed the book, Geopolitical Alpha, and outside the context of how someone might know me professionally, which is, you know, we're helping people with media production and marketing my kind of Intellectual recreation is usually around geopolitics. And so being able to come at the world of investing with this geopolitical lens is a very kind of interesting intersection of ideas that we explore on this show. And just perhaps a framework that people aren't as used to incorporating into their investing strategy. Maybe they'll say, "Hey, I'm going to go into emerging markets," or "I'm going to have a U.S. Centric index fund that I'm investing in," but really having to have a, a sharp edge to the tools with which they are evaluating the geopolitical changes of the day is becoming increasingly more relevant than I think that's why he wrote the book. That's why you've kind of found yourself in this position. Can you talk a little bit maybe give you a little bit of a history lesson as to why that's becoming so salient, and then we can kind of move into the constraints framework that you're using. Marko Papic: Yeah, sure. Well, I think what's happening. I mean, first of all, someone with my background and my skillsets and my methodological bias would likely not have a job in finance, you know, 20 years ago or 30 years ago. And that's not entirely true. Macro hedge funds have always been very sensitive to politics and geopolitics. But for, for a run-of-the-mill, you know, investors, usually do not have to concern themselves with these issues. And why is that? It's very simple, because we adopted the west adopted a set of policies, a set of best practices they had to do with macroeconomic policy. So for example, fiscal policy should be countercyclical. That means you only really stimulate when there's a recession. Or monetary policy became very orthodox, very focused on, you know, a preemptive rise in interest rates, and the first sign that the economy is overheating. Free trade, you know, became kind of a best practice laissez-faire economic system, where the government takes a back seat to regulation or industrial policy. All of these were really established in the eighties. And this is a really important period of time because the 1980s saw the world leave a very turbulent decade where inflation had overshot expectations where policy was largely incoherent. There was a lot of unorthodoxy that led to suboptimal outcomes. You know, we had very high rates of inflation throughout the 1970s. And so the way to curb that, of course, Paul Volcker raised interest rates, which is a very foundational moment for many people's careers in finance. And at that point, 1980s saw this adoption of these best practices that many economists and journalists and kind of professors have dubbed the Washington Consensus. That was a really, really important moment in history. And then from 85 to 90, the Soviet Union collapsed. So as the west is adopting these policies of capitalism, the alternative, which is institutionalized socialism and communism, collapses. And so then the rest of the world says, well, which, which system works, we'll take the Washington Consensus. And that's what the IMF and the World Bank starts propagating the set of best practices around the world. So what's changed? What's changed is that those best practices after 2008, after the great financial crisis and awkward this year have been brought into question. And that means that fundamentally the government got pushed aside by those best practices, the role of government and finance and economics it's coming back. And that's where politics and geopolitics are now. Again essential to being an investor and not just a fancy hedge fund trader, but like if you're an investor, you have to have some understanding of politics and geopolitics. Aaron Watson: And the framework that you introduced in the book, you talked about it being a constraints based framework and on all sorts of previous conversations we've had on the show, we've talked about constraints is very familiar probably to the people listening to this, but usually in the context of their business. So, you know, it's hard to find the marginal additional talented person to employ or cash flow or distribution for their message or all these things that small business owners are very, very accustomed to having to negotiate. It's all constraints informed. Can you talk, you know, that's more of like a micro level. Can you talk about when we take that up to a macro level and evaluate a nation state, how that same idea of constraints is applied to these much, much larger entities? Marko Papic: You know what, I'll, I'll explain it from a different perspective that I don't think I've ever really used to explain this before. There's really two sets of groups of people who analyze geopolitics. There's policy makers, like, who are in the game. They're within the same realm. And so they rarely think of constraints because it's a little bit, like, ego deflating. If you know, you overlook constraints in other policymakers, because you don't want to believe them yourself. So, and what this means is that very rarely is an intelligence agency of a sovereign nation state to say, ah, don't worry about it. You know, they're constrained. They focus a lot on what policy makers want to do, what politicians want to do. So if you go to an, a former member of the intelligence world or a former politician, they're rarely going to talk to you about what they can't do because they've spent their whole lives, trying to overcome that. And you know, like, like that's why we elect many of these people. That's why we hired them. So did they came to do better than your constraints? And so they're wired in a certain way. Then on the other side, you have the investment community that when, when the investment community tries to do approach goepolitics again, because the last 40 years were so clear for many investors, what they needed to learn and they get basically needed to get a CFA. They needed to know how to value things, you know, mathematically, like it became very mathematical routine, kind of a job that very few of them really looked at geopolitics and politics in a systematic way. And so they started to think of geopolitics as a realm of food, where you got to go and find a former politician to tell you what's happening, you know? And so you had this real mismatch in cultures where on one hand, investors are extremely systematic, frameworks driven, objective, quantitative. But when they're faced with geopolitics and politics, these suddenly become like chicken on trail readers, you know, and they, and they visit these websites. And I don't want to name, but are really, really subpar in the kind of information they're giving you. It's basically conspiracy theories. And I found this really fascinating when I joined the financial industry, I was like, "Really?" Like, "You'll read this crappy blog to find out what's going on in the world. And yet you're so focused on systematic framework driven approaches in finance?" That was bizarre to me. And so, what I settled on is just focusing on constraints because they're observable, they're quantifiable. And because in my experience, you know, preferences are both optional and subject to constraints. Whereas constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. And that goes back to your example, which is like, if you're running a business, you can wish to have more cashflow to hire more people. You can desire it, but that's your preference. The reality is the constraint. And then you operate within those constraints. And that is a tool for forecasting politicians, policymakers, as good as we have available to us. Aaron Watson: Yeah, I would love the Nike advertising and marketing budget, but just because I want, it doesn't necessarily mean that that's going to be able to come into being. Marko Papic: Exactly. Aaron Watson: So just to maybe get a little bit more specific, and then I kind of want to go around the world with you and talk about the kind of practical application of this framework to a couple of different elements of geopolitics. Some of these constraints might be, or correct me if I'm wrong. You know, the, the general kind of sentiment of voters. So it doesn't matter if you want to do something wildly to one extreme left or right. If there's kind of a, a median voter or the average consensus of the voters, you can't stray too far from that without exposing yourself to real risk in non authoritarian dictatorships. There's the core geography of the country. There's the demographics, how old or young and the general skill, what other kinds of constraints when you're looking at a country? Not that you're going to discover a new country necessarily, but when you come to it analyzing country, what are the main things that you're honing in on? Marko Papic: You know, it really depends on the question you're trying to answer. So if I'm trying to forecast weather, like, Russia is going to militarily invade Ukraine again, you know, there's one set of constraints specific to that issue. If you're trying to forecast whether India is going to be able to do pro-business structural reforms, there's a set, there's a different set of constraints. And the book kind of like as you list yourself, the good, the book goes through all of these. And I give empirical examples. I give examples of how these constraints work in, in, in reality. I guess what I would say for listeners of this podcast though, I would just kind of like bring you back back to the kind of like big picture and simply simplify it to this. If you can measure it, it's a constraint. You know, if you have to read a book about some politician's views, it's not a constraint. So I'll give you an example of this, like 2016, 2017. I went in, I was working in what's called south side research. I was working at a different firm and I was producing research for investors. And so I would go on these road shows where you go and you basically pitch your, your wares, your, your views and ideas. And I went to Asia, you know, Hong Kong, Singapore China, Tokyo, and I, we were talking about the trade war and everyone told me now we're good. We're not worried. Okay. You're not worried about the trade war? Why is that? Well, because we read The Art of the Deal, the book that, you know, Donald Trump wrote, and we know what's going to happen. It's all good. Don't worry about it. Like, we're good. And I was like, oh, really? So you read a book and that makes you feel confident that Trump is not going to pursue a significant trade war? Like yeah. Yeah. He's not really serious. He's just, you know, trying to get a little bit of better terms. And I was like, "Yeah, this isn't about his preference." The median American had moved against laissez-faire economics, had moved against free trade. And we had the data to back this up. This wasn't about Trump's preferences. He was simply a political vessel for the American media voter to express their desire, to have basically, you know, confrontational view, a much less openly globalist policies. And, you know, he was just the right person for the right time. But yeah, this kind of like a nonchalant, well, don't worry about it. There'll be a little bit of a scaffold and nail here. He'll get a deal with China. Like, turned out to be really wrong. We were headed for a recession, even before COVID, largely because the animal spirits had sapped from the economy. You could see this through numerous of indicators because the trade war had been much more significant than people thought. And that's a great example of how even the smartest people who make a lot of money and they have great education overemphasize the ephemeral, the qualitative, and it really reminds me of that scene from the movie Moneyball I don't know if there's any fans of Moneyball here, but when Billy Bean is sitting around surrounded by these octogenarians you know, baseball scouts for talking about baseball players, based on these completely qualitative indicators, like this ballplayer player is not going to be good because he has an ugly girlfriend. That's literally a scene in the movie. And you're just like, wait, what does that have to do with how, oh, it shows a lack of confidence, you know, like, okay, maybe that flew in 1963, but that is a non-diagnostic variable. And you will be surprised how many people in positions of serious power who manage a lot of assets, make the same kind of statements about politics. It's just not systemic, no framework. Just I read a book or I read a blog. Aaron Watson: Yeah. Speaking of the ephem- of the ephemeral, at least to me, it feels like there is a new headline or something associated with the Strait of Taiwan and some ship sailing through. And that being basically pointed to as the potential flash point or hot point associated with rising tensions between the U.S. And China, but at the same time, one, one thing you did a really great job in the book of talking about was the actual constraints of popular consensus that still affects the Chinese Communist Party, despite a less sophisticated person looking at the, well, either a single party, they've got no competition. Why would they have to worry about public sentiment, but can maybe you bring the constraints framework specifically to tensions in Taiwan and the, you never going to say concretely, but the likelihood of things escalating there in some way, shape or form. Marko Papic: Although I would, I would. You know, like this is what I have to do for a living. So I, I would say overtly what, what the probabilities are. I mean, I think I would say the probabilities of conflict between U.S. and China or let's say co crisis, some sort of a crisis, you know, Berlin Crisis, Berlin Airlift Crisis, or Cuban Missile Crisis are good analogies. I think the probability over the next six months is, is actually quite high. I would say about 20%, which is significant, you know, that's, that's like a, basically a one in five chance that we have some, some crisis that is derived from the, the, the tensions in the straits of Taiwan or, or just South China Sea and so on. Why is this? Well, because I think China is adjusting to a new America and, you know I think it was relatively easy for Beijing to to, to, you know, like interpret the, the, the Trump administration as an anomaly. But now that the Biden administration is doubling down on many of the same sort of pieces of rhetoric, but actually making it even more uncomfortable for China by stressing human rights and stressing geopolitics, which Trump didn't really do until 2020 it's it's going to cause the period of adjustment. And China is adjusting to this new rhetoric and strategy. This reality that the U.S. and China are indeed rivals. And so in the near term, I would say the probability of a crisis is, is elevated, but I think it will dissipate and then we'll have this interregnum. So once we've passed the first six months, all the adjusting to a new administration, I think us and China will settle into some sort of, you know, more stable equilibrium. And then only in the longer curve can the probability of conflict rise again. If, if China does manage to, you know, rival the U S in terms of raw geopolitical power, so it's a U-shape probability. Now, why does it dip? Why doesn't it just increase linearly? Well, because of the constraints that I think many commentators are just completely ignoring. And there's two sets of constraints, what is a mega constraint, which is the fact that we don't exist in a world where only China and the U.S. matter. There's other countries with significant independence in pursuing their foreign and economic policy. And you might say, "Well, I mean, that's always the case." Well, no, it's not in 1945. I can tell you, there were only two countries on the planet. The matter there was Moscow and there was Washington DC, nobody else got asked anything. You know, like us sort of like kindly asked London and Paris what they thought, but not in a serious way. In fact, when France or the United Kingdom tried to pursue an independent foreign policy in the Suez Crisis they were threatened by the U.S. to back off because it was causing problems in its relationship with the Soviet Union. So the bipolar nature of the Cold War, or it's something that's unlikely to be replicated the us and the Soviet Union had incredible hold on their allies. I wouldn't even call them allies. They were really vassal states, you know, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were not alliances of equals. They were. You know, there was the center and then the periphery. Today, China, the U.S. are nowhere near the same level of power in relative terms. And that means that the constraint on the two of them carving up the whole world is that their own allies are not going to abide by their policies. So imagine in a world where the U.S. for example said, "Okay, you know what, we're going to stop trading with China." You know, the Congress Department says to Boeing, "Hey, no more selling airplanes to China." What's going to happen? Like, is Airbus going to follow the United States? Of course not. There's no way. France is going to say like, "Oh, that's a cool story. We're going to go and sell them more now airplanes. Yes, that's awesome." And this is by the way, what happened in the 19th century, precisely the same dynamic happen. And you had this world where Germany continued to trade with the UK, France, and Russia, because those three countries couldn't coordinate on these matters on their own. So that's the first constraint. The second constraint is what you alluded to, which is China itself is constrained in being extremely assertive. A lot of the policies that are emanating from Beijing suggests that they're moving towards a more consumer-based society. And one of the reasons that - economy - consumer based economy. And the reason they want to do that is they want to become more independent. They don't want to rely on the American consumer demand or economic growth, but that's going to take time. And last year, and this year it's exports that have led the recovery in China. The household spending has actually been hit quite a bit. China did not stimulate its economy the way we did. There were no stimulus checks kind of flowing into the Chinese economy. And so if China wants to have economic stability, it's going to have to play ball with the rest of the world because the end consumer, the final demand, is still external to its economy. Even as its exports, a share of GDP has fallen. So China has this real difficult balance. It's not ready yet to become, you know, fully assertive. And I think a lot of the commentary, especially in theU.S. Overstates both Chinese assertiveness and its ability to be as aggressive as people think it will be. Aaron Watson: Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. As a, as you talked about those different analogies, you know, thinking cold war and vassal states either aligned with the Soviet Union in the U.S. I almost thought more like American football where it's kind of the head coach and everyone is just pieces on the head coaches board in terms of where they might move and this multipolar environment where there's maybe two stars. If, if you want to call China and U.S. the stars but all these other capable, independent actors, more like a basketball game where maybe, you know, things rotate around the Steph Curry or the LeBron, or what have you. But, you know, some guy might just decide to go off and do their own thing and, and throw the entire game out of whack just because they have that autonomy. Marko Papic: You know what, like, listen, I'm a sucker for sports analogies, as you know, like you plant, like I can tell - the book is full of them. Some of them were funny, I think. So I would say that you know, soccer is a really good example of what we're collecting. You know, like I think basketball is perhaps a poor analogy itself. Do I see the Coca-Cola - coach point? Basketball is just like five, five dudes with the ball, you know, so like one person really does make a big difference in basketball, but soccer, like you can be the best soccer player in the world as Messi has been for the last, you know, like 10, 15 years. And yet you cannot really contribute to your team as much as Michael Jordan or as a coach in football. And that's the world we're in today. It's a world where the us is going to have to work, to get its allies on board on a number of different things. And I think one of the things that you've seen American commentators really tried to stress is the threat of China. And the problem with that is two-fold. One Japan has been living next to China think forever. And you know, I mean, Tokyo is sitting there and listening to Biden and Trump and like, "Really? You know, like that's really cool story. Yeah. We've been dealing with this for a very long time." So Japan is actually quite pragmatic, even after some serious confrontations with China that almost did lead to the blows, like in 2011 and 12, over to Diaoyu Senkaku Islands, you know, Japan has continued to trade and invest in China. Look, I'll bite that a lower trajectory, but Japan has, has learned to live with a very powerful in a certain China. And so they're not going to freak out over that overnight because suddenly America tells them to. And then you, and the other side Europe, which is so far away from China, you know, I see some of these comments, the theaters in the U.S. talking about debt-traps and so on. And a lot of this stuff is just honestly nonsense. No one, I feel like no one in Eastern Europe is worried about becoming indebted to China and then China showing up with a gunboats and seizing factories. And Europe is so far away that, you know, there's obviously concerns about property rights, intellectual property, about technology theft, all those things, but for Europe, Japan, even South Korea this, this new kind of verbiage out of America is just difficult to agree with. In other words, China would have to do a lot more to prove the U.S. correct in the eyes of the rest of the world. And that's why coordination against China is going to be much different from coordination gives the Soviet Union Aaron Watson: And so, that would kind of lead into people, very familiar with NATO as this kind of way of trying to block in the Soviet Union. And there's this similar noise made about the Quad: India, Australia, Japan, the U.S. kind of coming together to try to form a similar type of containment to China generally. And you would just say that that's not really going to operatein a similar way? Marko Papic: No no way. I mean, you know, like NATO has. Has a mutual defense clause which has triggered automatically Quad is nowhere near being that kind of a level of a military alliance. And so I think, I think it's just going to take a lot more time and it would, it would require China to, to make some severe mistakes in terms of foreign policy. So it's not impossible. For example, trying to reunify with Taiwan militarily would certainly accelerate some of these efforts. And then I think that would, that would change my my view considerably. But short of that, I mean, it's just, you know, there's, there's no level of threats that's equivalent and I'll give you an example of this. The Soviet Union had something like 70 tank divisions ready to burst through the Baltic gap, and take Frankfurt in like half an hour, you know? And there was actually no way conventionally, at least this was the thinking at the time, it was later revealed to have been perhaps a little too alarmist, but the conventional view, in the sixties, seventies and eighties, was that there was no way to prevent the conventional war against the Soviet Union. There was like no way to stop them. And so the United States did not have a no first use policy towards nuclear weapons. Why? Because he plans to use them in Europe who stopped Soviet attack, which tactical nuclear weapons, which were positioned throughout European continent. So the Union on the other hand was very magnanimous and they said, "No, no, no, we will never use first because we, you know, we'll be in Paris in a week." And so this was like not some sort of a theoretical threat. "Oh one day China will have dominance of 5g and then they'll spy on our kids through tick-tock and then our kids will be brainwashed," you know, like, no, no, no, no, no. There was a tank! A Soviet tank, like over there, you could see it and it was going to come over here. And so that's where NATO was born, you know? So like the equivalence here is, is, is honestly. Like comical, I'll give you another one. There were parties like political parties in Europe, in Paris, in Rome, in 1940s and fifties that owed their allegiance to Moscow. You know? So like this wasn't again, academic, this was actual parties. Oh, in loyalty to an enemy. And you know, the Communist Party of France, Communist Party of Italy, like, look it up. They didn't win elections, but they weren't like 20, 30% of the vote. So today, you know, people freak out about China, like you know, using money in different ways to influence people. Of course that's happening of course, but the level of like espionage and influence, which is much different. In fact, that's why the us launched the Marshall Plan to ensure that Italy and France did not turn towards communism as their operating system in the late 1940s and 1950s. And so Europeans who understand history and have experienced these, these geopolitical tensions. It's just going to be very difficult to convince the Italian government that there's this existential risk. Well, when it comes to China, it's basic. What's going to be possible. It's going to be possible to show up in Rome as a member of theU.S. State department and say like, look, China's like critical. You need to stop trading with them. It's just not, it's literally not going to happen. Trump didn't succeed, Biden won, and that's going to then create the constraint that American policymakers in how much they can really be leveraged from their own relationship with China. Now this doesn't mean the war doesn't happen. This is something very important. It sounds like I'm pretty dovish. It sounds like. I think that world's going to basically just sing kumbaya. The problem with that is that I'm absolutely historically empirically, correct? It's like the argument is practically unassailable, but my example from the 19th century, how did it end up. Yes, Germany traded with the UK would France and Russia right up until summer of 1914, and then it went to war with it. So that's something to just keep in mind that, you know, you can still have these nonlinear outcomes, even for the, even if for the next five to 10 years. You know, there may not be economic bifurcation between the U.S. and China, and that's something to keep in mind. Aaron Watson: So I'm going to spin around the globe again and touch on a couple of things you've said. So there's these very capable, other independent actors around the globe. And there's another country that has been a part of NATO, but has kind of been up to their own stuff, which is Turkey. And to me, this is at least in my reading of the news or my perception as an American, the biggest blind spot, generally for Americans, just in terms of influential actors elsewhere on the globe. You know, there's all the, all the drama in the Mid - Middle East with Iran. Obviously we talked about China and have an awareness of world war, you know, Europe because of learning about World War ll somewhat in our history classes, it seems like an enormous blind spot. I, I can't and don't even really know who I would talk to in my life about Turkey in some way, shape, or form. So can you kind of take us from like a rudimentary level up to the constraints and the challenges that Turkey's facing? Marko Papic: I mean, wow, Turkey's facing a lot of different cross-currents. I think Turkey is facing one of the largest mismatches between what it aspires to do and what its actual capabilities are. And so, you know, Turkey has a pretty advantageous geographical position between two key continents. It had great economic relationship with countries like Syria and Iraq to which it provides a lot of services, a lot of you know, manufactured and consumer goods. So it has a potential to be a pretty significant, you know hub of technological, consumer manufacturing, prowess, and it has a lot of potential markets that it could dominate because it understands those markets culturally linguistically in case of, you know, some central Asian economies and so on. At the same time, it has a real problem. And then real problem is that in terms of energy, it's completely dependent on Russia, more or less. It has really no imports, massive amounts of oil and natural gas. And then finally, it, it never really managed to integrate itself into the European economy because it did not really satisfy all the kind of political and sociopolitical, you know, rules and norms that Europe was asking it to do. And it. The fact that it's sort of an advantageous geographically almost as a detriment because it can't decide which sphere of influence to fit into. And it's continuously tries to carve out its own before it reaches a certain level of material wealth. And so that's what I would argue has been the problem with the policy of, of Ankara over the past 10 years, it chose to make a bid or a sphere of influence of its own before he was capable of doing so. It abandoned its bid for the European union, thinking after 2008, 2009, while the West is declining anyways, why do we need them look at them? They're about to collapse. We're going on our own. All of those decisions were probably made even earlier than 2008. And they basically struck out on this view like, well, we're going to carve out our sort of proto sort of Neo-optimum sphere of influence that we had in the past, which is really north Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Caucuses, and the Balkans. And the problem with that strategy is that it upset way too many actors, whether it's the United States, whether it's Saudi Arabia in some of its moves after Arab Spring in Egypt, whether it's Russia and basically all those attempts to carve out the sphere of influence have largely failed through the detriment of its economy. And it's a really good example of why geopolitical power ultimately rests on material wealth. You know, like, and a lot of geopolitical strategists, mis - mistake this. There's this view that economics is irrelevant for some, some, somehow subservient to geopolitics, to demographics, the geography, and Turkey is just a good example that you can have great geography and just be at the mercy of you know, actors around you that have a larger surplus that they can carve out of their economy and dedicated, to geopolitical endeavors. And so Turkey has just been biting off more than they can chew in a world where other powers still have a lot of interests. Aaron Watson: That's so funny. Once again, the analogies to like small businesses and startups, the ability to have focus versus kind of spreading yourself too thin on too many projects. Yeah. I'd argue that Uber was guilty of that, but some of the endeavors that they've pursued and they're kind of learning that lesson painfully now. I have one other question kind of, as we talk about places around the globe, and then I want to talk about this career that you found yourself in, how you got into it and all that good stuff. There's another idea out there, which is the notion of the rise of the city state, and maybe the sterling example of that is a place like Singapore, and, you know, you see attempts at this happening around the Persian Gulf. And, you know, even the, the, some hype, at least in like tech startup circles around Miami versus San Francisco and these other types of places. There's, I guess a somewhat arg- obvious constraint in that these city states usually cannot raise anything, resembling a substantial military to defend themselves. However, they do have some really substantial capacity for wealth generation. And so I'm curious if you kind of buy into that idea of the rise of the city state narrative or if you could maybe just talk as, as you think about those different types of endeavors, if you see them still as either vassals to a more powerful entities or the ways in which those types of frameworks are constrained. Marko Papic: You know, I think every period in history had city states or neutral places to do business. I don't know how to define it because you know, some of them are not necessarily cities, but they're like those little enclaves. So I think that I'm not sure that there's anything unique in history through the current mo - - moment. There are always places that managed to leverage their relevance, human capital, geography, and neutrality to the great benefit. You know, also like you think of Singapore today, you can think of Venice as well in the late middle ages. You know, so there are examples of this throughout history. You have the Switzerlands of the, of the world and by the way, Switzerland and Singapore have a pretty similar population, even though one is a country, the other one is a city state. So I don't think there's anything really unique about this. What's interesting is what gives rise to these entities. And I'm not sure that there's anything you need again about current conditions. You know, like you could argue that Singapore is very much leveraged to globalization. And you might think that in a world where we have de-globalization over globalization has kind of reached its apex. Maybe we won't have as many city states, but I don't, I don't think that's the case. I think that you will always have places in the world that because of their interesting mix of regulation, the human capital become, you know, important in some way. So Miami is a really good example because of advantageous taxation, because, because of a idiosyncratic really issue that most people probably don't think when they think of Miami, but after 2008, the United States cracked down on financial, safe havens on places where, you know, you could do tax avoidance. Where a lot of wealth was basically hidden, whether it was Switzerland, the Caribbean, and ironically, all this money basically flooded back to the U.S. whether consciously or subconsciously the U.S. created this incredible effect and, and a lot of it from the Caribbean and Latin America did go to Miami. And so I would, I would say that was the first step in this latest iteration of Miami that combined with low corporate tax rate would interesting, you know, multicultural scene. I think that's given to Miami, this rise that you're witnessing right now. I think this will always happen. I don't think it's unique to this current period. And, you know, it'll be interesting to find out which ones are the next ones. Aaron Watson: And, and they do to some degree make themselves a target by accruing that wealth and influence perhaps evidenced by the kind of absorption of Hong Kong by China recently, where if you are that kind of economic driver and some particularly powerful geopolitical forces nearby, you, you kind of put a target on your back. Marko Papic: But I'm not sure that Hong Kong is going to dissipate as, in terms of influence. I mean, I've changed my view on this. I've written some reports where I've said it will. I mean, you know, it depends. I actually think, you know, Hong Kong could continue to be relevant, especially in a world where, you know, investors want to access China, but they require interlocutors to which to do it. So I understand the argument that China of course has, you know, like interest in boosting Shanghai of Guangzou or Hainan island. Some of their latest measures are really focused on Hainan, which is really interesting. Maybe that's the next, you know, kind of a city state. But, you know, it's, it's, it remains to be seen what happens to Hong Kong. And I think the human capital aspect of this is, is really, really relevant. I don't think that city-states are possible without human capital, and that's what Singapore got right really well. Aaron Watson: Right on. ???: The going deep podcast is underwritten by Piper creative shooting, editing and publishing quality content is overwhelming. We make it easy. So you can save time, build your brand and grow faster. Say hello@pipercreative.co. Aaron Watson: I could probably talk about these different types of places with you forever. But I do want to spend some time because this is a show that it's categorized as a careers one, and how you found yourself in this role with the Clocktower Group. You're very candid in the book about how you were going down the conventional PhD professorship type of track, and then have taken all sorts of different diversions. I wanted to start basically, just talking about your time at Stratfor and explaining for a little bit about people, what Stratfor is was, and how you kind of found yourself there. Marko Papic: Yeah, so Stratfor is in the political risk industry. Just like you raise your group as well. And so when I got disillusioned with academia and said, well, I should probably learn how to, you know, I should probably have a real job at some point before I decide to go into academia. It was just obvious. It just made a lot of sense. And so I joined it. This industry is not that big, you know, that's, what's interesting about it. It's it's actually really small. And so, you know, getting a foothold in, in the kind of a political risk space, it's much more difficult than people think. And so it doesn't really exist as a profession. And so I was very fortunate to be able to, you know, spend some time at Stratfor, and, and learn some of the ins and outs of how one actually, you know does political risk analysis. And what I found while I was there was that it was kind of useful for a lot of CEO's and a lot of corporates as a background, but I didn't feel like it was really you know, it was nice to have, not a need to have, the political kind of analysis that we were doing. And I felt that there was a way to do it in a way where it could actually generate alpha. That's the name of the book, which is returns above a certain benchmark in finance. I felt that there was actually a way to use political analysis to beat the markets in certain, you know, cases. And so that's why I decided to cross over more specifically into finance. But I definitely get a lot of questions all the time from people in LinkedIn or young people studying international relations and political science, like, "Hey, how do you actually enter this industry?" Aaron Watson: And yeah, you mentioned it being such a small world. I didn't even quite realize it. I first saw one of your interviews on RealVision, but you know, the Stratford that's where Peter Zion's come out of George Friedman. It seems like an exceptionally, a small circle of characters that you know, have the ears of those decision makers and have done the work to kind of prove that they can make a call. You can have some confidence in it know that it's it's well researched. One of the other parts that was interesting to me in the intro was I, I believe it was your partner there, the Clocktower group, Steven, who said that you were this nihilist. You had this nihilistic approach to analysis and in different interviews, we've kind of talked about that in, in, in a different context, not in geopolitics is potentially being harmful, but can you talk about how general nihilism about geopolitical analysis has behooved you in this profession? Marko Papic: Yeah. And I think that's the, if I, if there's one thing that I would take from the book and proselytize, it's that we need more, nihilists. Now not in your behavior as a human being, but in your profession. Why? Well, even if you're running an NGO and it's trying to fundamentally change the world, you can't be blind through the constraints that face you, you know, and in fact, I think the way to be successful in any endeavor that has to do with the real world, which is messy and doesn't obey Newtonian physics. And so you can't just outsmart it through math. So whenever you're dealing with societies or humans, I think it's really important to separate the analysis from your action and agents. And so I talk a lot about this. I call it a loop in difference, my partner, Steve calls it nihilism, and I mean, I do too, but the idea behind it is that in order to forecast where the world is going, you need to really wash away all the biases that you have. And that's a really difficult thing to do. And very few places will teach you how to do that. And once you do that, once you can kind of forecast where the world is going indifference to, whether that's good or bad, you know, putting passion aside only then can you actually figure out, well, how do I change that? But if you go into the analysis already biased or already focused on changing the world, you're just going to fail in my view. And you see this a lot, you see this in politics all the time. You have the zealots. Yeah. illogically committed zealots who basically come in and say, this is how we're going to do it. And they faced oposition because obviously they do .Now from their own personal self-interest and many of them want. They admit this they're really not trying to change the world. They're just trying to make themselves feel better by kind of washing themselves with their own preconceived biases and views. But if you want to change the world, you have to understand the constraints you're operating inside and then try to change those. But that, that starting point of a loop in difference, I think, is most critical in this analysis or really in any endeavor that has to do with, you know, human agency. Now the reason this is very difficult to acquire is because while we're humans and we're biased. But the second reason is that again, the political risk industry is very, very small. So most people who've been international relations or political science, or are interested in this. They either go into government, you know, we're obviously they don't get trained in nihilism. We'll loop in different. I think it'd be, I think they should be, you know but they don't. Or they go and go into kind of the international organization NGO world, whereas you definitely don't get instructed on this method. Or you go into business or you're in finance where you would think where you would think that people are instructed in how to think analytically and separate themselves and their own views from their analysis, but they actually don't. And so there's still this kind of indignance and just kind of you know judgmental quality, even in finance to viewing the markets as right or wrong, or what policymakers are doing is stupid. You know, things like that. Then, you know, you get faced with this, even if finance where it's like, it's not stupid, it's just is, so act accordingly. And I think that it's very difficult to train this. How do you train it? I think the way you train it is you try to use empathy a lot in your analysis, and you try to put yourself in the shoes of those who you even really disagree with. This is really critical. To becoming desensitized to yourself and to be able to start looking at concrete data and objective facts in forecasting where the world was going. That's where it starts. Aaron Watson: Well, it sounds like you are though optimistic about the ability to train someone towards that because I would, I would struggle almost with differentiating, you know, the right team culture, where leaders and the, the norms have been set, that we're all gonna, you know, point out each other's biases and kind of correct when someone's being too ideological and a view that would be one kind of arena where you can hopefully develop other people to operate that way. But then there's also like my mind goes to almost just like, you know, they have a different kind of psychological personality profiles and someone that just is oriented around disagreeableness is going to be much less likely to land in an environment where everyone's kind of nodding along. So if you kind of have that, that disagreeableness off the bat, you're more comfortable being like, well, that's a ridiculous tape that doesn't have any sort of grounding and the actual facts on the ground. Marko Papic: I'm not sure if it matters if you're disagreeable or not, you know, maybe even make an argument that disagreeable people are more likely to have a counterintuitive view. Like I think it comes down to this. I mean, I've, I've worked with disagreeable people and agreeable people who both equally were unwilling to think outside the box. It requires several things. I think, one, it requires you to have, at some point in your life, been the other. I do think you cannot do this without it is extremely difficult to have a level of aloof indifference that's required for forecasting the future without having been othered at some point. Whether that means that you grew up in Arkansas and then you will land in Manhattan. Like that's good enough for me. I'm not asking for you to live abroad or something like that, but you have to have sometimes been out of, like, out of place. Because that act of sort of cultural and social, social, you know, otherness gives you the necessary level of a now analytical capability to then understand that everything is relative and how somebody can act under constraints in a certain way. I think that's, that's like the starting point. You have to have felt that at some point, or maybe you were born just different, you know, you're, you're a kid in a family full of football fans. You're like you're rebelled and you're like ice hockey. Like that's good enough for me, you know, but the point is that at some point you'd like, you have to have felt that. Once that's done, then you have to kind of seek it out because the, the critical point of analyzing societies and then making a difference is being able to forecast correctly, policymaker moves without thinking that they're stupid or that they're driven by this or that. You know, once you're there, you can then focus on the objective facts. And that's why I keep saying, like, even if you're running an NGO, that's, you know, focused on climate change, even if you're, even if you're extremely like focused on normative and value-driven issues, you can still be pretty nihilist in your analysis right up until the point where you then have to act on your analysis of how to change the world. Aaron Watson: Right on. Well, my last question before we ask our standard ones for wrapping up is precisely the opposite of nihilism. You mentioned being a basketball fan, a soccer fan as well. Where do your fandoms lie and what are your expectations for the 20 21 NBA season? Marko Papic: Well, I'm a huge Laker fan. I had this before I could speak English growing up in Serbia, huge basketball fan. And so I think, you know, The Lakers will probably win again. I guess I'm hopeful of that, but but you know, it's, it's a great season and it could go either way. That's that's what's interesting about this. We'll see. Okay. Aaron Watson: Yeah. If we get a, a, another Katie-LeBron showdown in the finals, that would be absolutely stunning. Marko Papic: Right? That will be awesome. I think, I think that would be really good. Aaron Watson: Cool. Well, before we ask the, in the last few questions, Marco, anything else you were hoping to share today that I just didn't give you a chance to? Marko Papic: I guess you know, one thing I would say, just in terms of this, this industry political risk industry I do want to spend maybe just a little bit more time on that because I do think it's a growing industry. I just think that a lot of people who tried to get into it go about it the wrong way. And the reason I say that is that, you know, they see someone like Ian Bremmer or someone like George Friedman or Peter Zion or myself. And they say like, "Oh, I want to do that." But the issue is that you're looking at the end of the line, you know, like you're looking at the end of the assembly line and what you should be thinking is how do I enter the assembly line? And the only way to really enter the industry of political or geopolitical risk analysis is to become an expert on something pretty small. Don't think big picture, you know, don't try to become a global strategist on day one gain an expertise, especially in parts of the world that are not. You know, interesting right now. So you know, like learning Mandarin in 2021 is the wrong time. You know, if you're an American student, you know, it'd be like learning like Arabic in 2011, like bad time to do that. So start thinking about, you know, where the world is going, what matters. For example, climate change is something that I think is a really big issue. I think that policy makers are reacting to it. And I think that that's going to require a level of investment in commodities that we haven't really seen in awhile. And we're starting suddenly going to start caring about things like nickel or cobalt or lithium, and guess what the good news for someone who's young is that a lot of these things are found in places that no one's really spent any time studying for a very long time. So if you're interested in Latin America or Africa, I think that your time will come. And so, you know, Focus on developing an expertise in a skillset, in something that's digestible that you can study. And from there, you can eventually become, you know, someone who has a global purview. But thinking that you're going to start off with a global perspective, you know, right out of university or right after a master's even is just, it's not feasible. It's not realistic. I mean, as I write in the book, I started off as a European analyst, which was about as interesting as being an Admiral of a Swiss Navy know, always make fun of myself for that, but it ended up being really fortuitous. I got lucky that the EU crisis hit, but I developed a competency in something that nobody else really wants to touch to be quite Frank with you. So I, that would be my advice for a lot of people trying to get into this field, find a niche and the niche doesn't have to be a geographic. It doesn't require language study necessarily all the time. It might be something in, you know in technology that's emerging, it might be something in a policy that's emerging. That's cross-regional cross-country but focus on developing an expertise first and then thinking about branching out to more regional and global issues. Aaron Watson: I love it. We've hit on focus twice. It's one of the most important ideas. Marko, if folks want to learn more about all the work that you're doing we're going to link to the book in the show notes for people, if they want to check that out, but any other digital coordinates that you want to provide for folks that want to learn more? Marko Papic: No, I actually don't have any. If I had any advice, it would be stop listening to people like me. There's this, you know, like there's this huge obsession would following the right people. Ultimately anything that you get from me in the, in the sort of ether of the internet, is going to be not really that useful to be, to be quite honest with you. I think. Focus on learning from yourself. And I think my book was written specifically to empower, you know, mainly investors, but it can be anyone with this idea that you yourself can do the hard work. So I actually am not available anywhere outside of the book all the research that I produced is really for a select group of institutional investors. And so, yeah, I mean, and, and what I would say is like, you know, maybe whatever, however many people you're following, cut it in half and do more deep reading and deep analysis yourself. Aaron Watson: I take that. Can you talk about some of the sources that you go back to most frequently when you're trying to get to that ground truth? Marko Papic: Yeah, that's a great question. Always primary, primary, primary, primary, primary, primary documents. Always! I don't know what they teach history classes, but it's not how to go to the primary document. Like I can tell, you know, like this is key. This is key. You cannot go to a blog post. You cannot go to New York Times. You cannot go to Financial Times. It's not research. It's just not. You know, it's entertainment first and foremost. The only place where you can find true truth is the primary document. So if you are trying to figure out what's going to happen with the fiscal stimulus in the United States of America, don't go and read what New York Times says about it or Axios or Politico or The Hill. Although those are especially The Hill, very good sources of information, you want to go and actually read them. And if you're starting out and, you know, like the reason I really love this podcast Aaron, and the reason I want to do it is because I do want to talk to young people trying to get us into in this industry. What I would say is like, read less of stuff that's easy to read. Read more of stuff that's really difficult to read. And you know, it's difficult to read? A bill! A c- c- congressional bill. A House or a Senate bill. Oh my God. It's one of the most boring things you can do in your life, but that's where you're going to start, you know, like, can you read like five of them, you're going to start seeing like interesting tidbits, interesting knowledge that other people have not picked up. And that's something that a lot of, of my mentors, like my partner here at Clocktower, Steve Drobny have said, I mean like, you know, the median person you're competing with is lazy and they're not going to do the hard work of going through the primary documents. And so put in the effort to do it. So how do you collect information? How do you become more aware of what's going on in the world? I would say there's like, there's three levels. One is read the news you know, just headlines. I prefer to use Reuters for that or the wire services, like a AFP or AP, like the, the less analysis there is in the news, the more I liked it. I don't need someone to pre digest the news for me and give it to me a little slices. I just want the actual thing that happened. So that's first. The second is talk to people. Get a group of friends that you really admire. Get people who can, you know, where you can talk out ideas and what's going on in the world where you can have this iterative dialogue, because that's where you're going to get great ideas. So basically you get the news, you hear what happened, you run it through a filter of really important people that you admire. Hopefully some that are older, different perspectives, more experienced, whatever the case is, then you come up with ideas and you pursue those ideas by doing deep, deep knowledge and deep analysis in deep breathing. That means academic papers. It means books, and it means primary sources. When you read academic papers and when you read books, read the footnotes. Occasionally there'll be funny if you read my book, for example, there'll be many in there that are funny and some that are not. Why do I have funny footnotes? Because I want you to hope that every footnote is worth reading. And most of them are because that's how you get to other sources of information. Some of the best thinking that I've done in my life, in some of the things that have made my career were found in footnotes. Where you read an article about why an academic piece, about why issue Y and then you get to issue X because of that footnote, and it blows your mind. So that's what I would say. I mean, the questions that you are posing, Aaron I get it a lot. What do you read? And my answer is I don't read anything that can really be read very quickly. I don't read any of the things that you would expect, like the economist, foreign affairs, foreign policy, all that stuff is not useful. I think obviously if you are, you know, building a company, that's doing something specific where you don't have to be a geopolitical risk strategist, right? Definitely. You should read the economist. Like that's my favorite. Like for sure if it's just something you want to have on your mind, that makes sense. But if you want to do this professionally, what I'm doing, this is the only way to do it. Aaron Watson: I dig that. Well, part, part of my game is to try to get around really smart people. And I'm not afraid to say something that's probably not correct and let them correct me on it. That's one of the ways I like to go to the source as well. But I I really, really appreciate you taking so much time to talk with me and share your stuff with the audience. I prepped you for the challenge at the end. I feel like we got a couple here. So if there's still another challenge that you want to shoot the audience this is your chance on the mic. Marko Papic: Yes, definitely. So my whole thing is the hardest part about this job, the toughest part of this job is to really try to be as, as unbiased as possible. And I've tried to do that in my life by surrounding myself, by people who I disagree with, you know, On on some important issues. Although I don't have anyone in my life was a Clipper fan and I never will, no, I'm not. No, but so what does that mean? What's the challenge? Well, I think there's two parts of the challenge. I think one is trying to do what I said and I mean, this is, this is so important, whether you are, you know, hoping to have a geopolitical risk kind of analysis career or finance career or not. But I think spending time abroad is really useful. And I know that's been said before, and I'm sure I'm probably not the first or the last, who will say that as a challenge. But I would say that right now, I mean, this summer is a really good time. Spend some time abroad. If you were at a university, do it for sure. Like, this is probably the most useful thing you can do at the university. The second thing I would say is, you know, if that's, it's like too big, like I can't do that tomorrow or this weekend then do something different. You don't like go to a, like a political meeting. Or go and talk to someone who is on the exact opposite political spectrum from you and spend some time to listen to that. And don't really just ask questions, you know, like spend like as much time as you can just listening. And if you can't find anyone, which would be really sad, if you can't then just watch the TV channel you deeply disagree with for like a week, make it like almost like a medicine you take before you go to sleep every night. And the reason I say that is because you really need to learn. I think in life, you put yourself in the shoes of those who think differently and act differently than you, because that act in of itself will make you a much better analyst. I mean, that's that, that's kind of the core. I mean, my book has a bunch of pants, examples of finance and all this stuff, but fundamentally speaking, if you're going to be in the industry of analyzing politics or geopolitics for living. You have to be able to have a baseline level that's analytical and in order to produce outcomes and produce forecasts, then you can, you know, what you do with that is obviously what you want. You can change the world with that. You can be extremely non nihilist with it, but the analysis itself has to be done from that baseline level of a loop difference. And it's impossible to do that unless you practice. Aaron Watson: Right on. Well, hopefully many listeners will take the challenge, practice it and have a bunch more nihilists walking around. Marko Papic: Well no! Not necessarily nihilists. Just analytical nihilists. But then what you do with that - please I'm not trying to say... Aaron Watson: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm just joshing you. Marco, this has been great. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Marko Papic: Okay. Awesome. Thank you for the opportunity, Aaron. And I hope that you know, I hope it was helpful. Aaron Watson: It absolutely was. We just went deep with Marco Popic. Hope everyone out there has a fantastic day.
Andy Norman is a researcher focused on studying how ideologies short-circuit minds and corrupt moral understanding.
His studies have led him to develop a toolkit of methods for improving reasoning and share them in his book, Mental Immunity. His hope is that a collection of academic research can be lassoed together to serve as the foundation of a new scientific field, Cognitive Immunology. Cognitive immunology would explore the ability of researchers to develop a mind vaccine to inoculate individuals against dangerous ideas. In this conversation, Andy and Aaron discuss the dangers of loneliness, the importance of dialogue, and the future of viral ideas. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Andy Norman’s Challenge; Learn to treat your ideas as houseguests. Perhaps one day they will depart, and you will be glad. Connect with Andy Norman
Linkedin
Andy’s Website CognitiveImmunology.Net Books Mentioned Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind-Parasites, and the Search for a Better Way to Think by Andy Norman Tribe by Sebastian Junger The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins If you liked this interview, check out episode 472 with Demetri Kofinas where we discuss epistemic truth, geopolitics, and. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680 
Geng Wang is the CEO and cofounder of Civic Champs, a software startup focused on creating s seamless and rewarding volunteering experience for both volunteers and service organizations
This is Geng’s third commercial venture. He’s previously co-founded two companies; RentJungle.com, an apartment search engine which sold in 2014 to The Rainmaker Group and Community Elf (rebranded as Cosmitto), a social media management firm which we sold in 2017 to a PE firm, Topanga Partners. Given his past successes, Geng is looking to both create financial and social impact with his latest company. He has leveraged a number of startup incubators, including TechCrunch’s Startup Battlefield, Elevate Ventures, Innovation Works, TechStars Iowa, and Mass Challenge, to get it off the ground. In this episode, Geng and Aaron discuss how motivation changes through an entrepreneur’s career, the nature of product development, and how to design a startup’s culture. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Geng Wang’s Challenge; For National Volunteering Month, get out there and go find an avenue to help your community. Connect with Geng Wang
Linkedin
Civic Champs Website geng@civicchamps.com If you liked this interview, check out episode 12 with Scott Rogerson where we discuss Community Elf, social media management, and their software spinout UpContent. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680 
Sanjiv Singh is CEO and cofounder of Near Earth Autonomy, a technology company focused on autonomous flight.
Sanjiv has 25 years of experience working on autonomous ground and air vehicles. He came to Pittsburgh 30 years ago to participate in the DARPA challenge and has spent decades exploring different applications for self-driving and self-flying robots. Near Earth Autonomy started by developing self-flying technology for the United States Government and has expanded to bring their technological capabilities to a variety of enterprise customers. In this conversation, Sanjiv and Aaron discuss applications for self-flying vehicles, the origins of the company, and the difference between working with the military and the FAA. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Sanjiv Singh’s Challenge; Imagine a world in which you could autonomously fly from point A to point B. Connect with Sanjiv Singh
Linkedin
YouTube Near Earth Autonomy Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 306 with Bryan Salesky where we discuss autonomous vehicles. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680
Demetri Kofinas is a media entrepreneur and host of Hidden Forces, a podcast devoted to exploring the underlying forces driving the most powerful changes we see in the world.
His show covers a qide range of topics, including culture, philosophy, economics, technology, social science, and the hard sciences. Demetri has previously co-founded Guerilla Gaming Concepts, an interactive entertainment company focused the middleware of gaming. He has also reported on financial news and told stories to hundreds of thousands of people around the world. In addition to his show, Demetri consults blockchain and distributed ledger technology companies, helping them anticipate security vulnerabilities by building theoretical attack frameworks against token-based systems, and he consults hedge funds and venture capital firms on how to invest in and around these same emerging technologies. In this episode, Aaron and Demetri have a far reaching conversation about truth, technological progress, and geopolitics. Mentioned The Meaning of Human Existence by Edward O. Wilson Peter Zeihan Ian Bremmer Grant Williams Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Demetri Kofinas’s Challenges; 1. Hold yourself to a higher standard. 2. Put space between your thoughts/emotions and actions. 3. Try not to judge people Connect with Demetri Kofinas
Twitter
Hidden Forces Website If you liked this interview, check out episode 463 with Jeff Booth where we discuss the deflationary nature of technology. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680
Underwritten by Piper Creative
Piper Creative makes creating podcasts, vlogs, and videos easy. How? Click here and Learn more. We work with Fortune 500s, medium-sized companies, and entrepreneurs. Follow Piper as we grow YouTube Subscribe on iTunes | Stitcher | Overcast | Spotify
Demetri Kofinas
Aaron Watson: Demetri, thanks for coming on the podcast, man. I'm excited to be talking with you. Demetri Kofinas: My pleasure to be on Aaron. Thanks for having me. Aaron Watson: So there's a bad habit in, in podcasts generally, where hosts kind of have to figure out a novel way to blow smoke up the butts of their guests and you know, say these different nice things to them, but I can very earnestly and genuinely say that your show is one of my absolute favorites. It is one of the podcasts that I look to as a model, really from an interviewing and a topic standpoint for people to explore. And so one of my, you know, hopes or goals with this conversation is that if anyone is listening to me, aware of me, and not yet aware of Hidden Forces that they'll at least give it, give it a try. And I think that maybe the kind of best entree here into a conversation I want to have with you is just the name of the pod itself, Hidden Forces. This idea that, you know, generally, if you've taken a civics class, if you've read a headline, you could articulate the very apparent frontline forces that seem to be acting on people. But the exploration of those that are less legible, less right there in your face, but having an enormous impact is a kind of really cool intellectual pursuit. So take me to the audience a little bit deeper into that name specifically of the show and how you came up with it. Demetri Kofinas: Yeah. I mean, I think that's, it's kinda right. It was just a recognition that most of what we experience in our life is, is surface layer phenomenon. So that's absolutely true in financial markets, which is where I experienced it most in my media career, because I started with on radio and in TV, on the finance media side. But it's true across the board. I mean, all these conversations that are sort of in vogue lately around simulation theory, deal with that as well. The, the idea of being that, we really don't know whether or not we, we don't know really what reality is. We sort of approximate it through the use of models or so we could be living in a simulation and not know it. So it's the kind of map and the territory. But the underlying reality, if, if you believe this does influence what we experienced on the surface. So the idea is what are those deep down the vector forces, which are, which if you move them slightly. Cause massive changes in our experience of the world. And so the idea of Hidden Forces was to apply the kind of framework that I had been using in financial markets to everything else, which is why when I started the program, the episodes that I started with were episodes on postmodernism, philosophical mathematics, television history, and culture. I mean, television history is a really fascinating one because. We don't realize just how much impact, let's say movies like Rambo or shows like not Murphy brown, I'm confusing Murphy Brown with someone. Aaron Watson: Cheers? Demetri Kofinas: No, it was that - it was a movie with a working woman that was very popular. I can't, I'm blanking on it now, but, or like, you know, Night Rider, for example. Night Rider. What it told us about our relationship to technology and what we were, we felt the future was going. But anyway, the reason I brought up Rambo is cause Rambo, even though it's not TV, it's a, it's a movie, is that it reframed our relationship to the Vietnam War. Like if you look at the movies and, and a program that came out in the seventies around that, again, I'm talking now movies and not television. Apocalypse Now, Platoon came out in the early eighties. Our relationship to the war was very dark. And if it was seeped very much in the language of the 1960s late sixties, early seventies, and the anger against the government for the war for bombing, Cambodia, Laos, et cetera. And what you saw later was that through Hollywood, the culture telling itself a new story about its role in the war. You know, we went from being the bad guys who were bombing Vietnam, Vietnam to being the good guys who were going to rescue our POW's. Who were being held captive by these, you know, really awful communists. And so it's, there's an interesting, it's an interesting example of the interplay, both what we want, but then also what we tell ourselves and how we can move so far away from actually what we knew to be empirically true. Right, which was our role in the Vietnam war. That's just one example, but it's true across the board. And that it's sort of, it's another way of talking about taking an epistemic approach to truth, to fact finding, to understanding the world. And I think this is more important than it's ever been in my lifetime because the world feels more propa - my, my world. So to speak, the world that I inhabit. It feels more propagandized than I ever remember it. And it feels like a giant battlefield of narratives where you're constantly getting hustled. And so I think it's more important than ever to be an independent thinker and Hidden Forces started as a show that was meant to give you the tools that you needed in order to come to your own determination of what the world was. To be able to differentiate between the map and the territory. And that was up to you. What I wanted to do was bring the tools to make that happen. And to, to help you challenge consensus narratives about what I now call the structures, the power, the powers that structure our world. So the forces that structure our world. So that's what Hidden Forces is. That's sort of the origin story of the name. Aaron Watson: Right on, and it has the capacity to splinter into so many different directions. So you start with the economics and I've always been of the mind that, you know, often, particularly for folks that, that kind of don't focus on that side, that field of study, that it's actually influencing way more than one might suspect. So I started with a degree in political science and we're breaking apart. Like how did this war, you know, get set off? And so often there were these just kind of like fundamental economic realities, underpinning those which drew me away from the political study of political science to economics. And so, you know, to me, just even being able to point at, to use another, you know, metaphor, the signal versus the noise in the sense of what is actually the catalyst for something. What is actually, the driver is exceptionally hard to do because in addition to being propagandized, it's exceptionally complex between the digital revolution. The, you know, the dangerous kind of footing that certain, you know, bellwether blue chip, historically companies find themselves on in the present day. Globalization. Geopolitical unraveling. An arguably new cold war, at least in narrative between U.S. and China. There's, there's an immense amount of complexity to try and absorb which it, like it basically creates the scenario for that propaganda to happen because there's so many people just trying to make sense. It scales so far beyond what we're biologically optimized to be able to deal with when our biology is like, hey, 120 person tribe. Do I trust these people? Are we okay? And kind of looking outwards. And now that's being scaled to these just numbers that don't really make sense in a human. Demetri Kofinas: Yeah, that's a really great point. So, I mean, a few thoughts, one in terms of the economic reasons for war that's absolutely true. The civil war is a great example. It was a war that, that it was founded on a moral quandary between slavery and abolition. But there were economic forces that made the war possible. That actually pushed the north towards outright confrontation with the South where I would argue it wouldn't have either wanted to, or been able to do that, had it not been industrialized. So there were, there were very different economic interests that were diverging, and tariff policy reflected that us tariff policy reflected that. So there were economic components of the war. So I totally agree. In terms of what you're getting to, which is the complexity of the world, it's a really interesting observation. I mean, it makes the thing that immediately came to my mind was because I'm havingSergey Nazarov on the show, or Nazarov . I don't know how you pronounce his last name. The founder of Chain Link, which is a decentralized oracle that's used, it's the primary oracle that's used in DeFi applications and other smart contracts. And it made me think of the world of blockchain and decentralized computing because, I do think that there's this desire to bring simplicity and order to the complexity of the world. And, you know, I think what's important there, and I'm still in the process of meditating on this cause I just started prepping for this today. Again, you know, I'm of the view that you can never know what reality is like in an ontological sense. You can never actually be clear on it. Perhaps it's possible to know it, but you won't know that, you know it. So you won't have an epistemic view of it. So what I, I sort of, I think what it's important for the con - one of the things that I think is important to develop clarity around this in the blockchain community is to recognize that when we talk about truth, when we talk about these centralization or the truth machine, Michael Casey's great book. What we're really talking about is and I think this comes across sometimes in the conversation, is consensus. It's a consensus view of reality. It's not reality. I said, do we agree that this is the map of reality? So I think what we're struggling with right now is because the world is changing so rapidly, our models of the world no longer work as effectively. And so we need new models in order to understand. We've seen this in the field of economics. I mean, you know, how many more people talk about behavioral science today than they used to? You know, Daniel Conaman was nowhere 20 years ago. I mean, I took economics in college. We didn't even. There were like no banks. Like we didn't learn about the financial system. We didn't know. I mean, when we were taught interest rates, it didn't make sense. You know, I had a huge aha moment in my life. I've talked about this before on the show, I think, I was failing intermediate macro. Failing. Right to the final. I was heading into the final, like the night before the final with that wasn't failing. That's not correct. I was, I was gonna fail, because I had no clue what, like the course was about the teacher was this, it was also awful because the teacher had the worst Italian accent ever. Every time he said focus to the class, he would say, fuck us. And everyone would laugh because we're teenagers, we're not teenagers, but we're in college, so. And then I got it. He came to me and I saw interest rates where the price of money and boom, everything just made sense. So you know, and post financial crisis, this there's been so much work on this front right? And you've seen like the rise to celebrity of people like Nasim Caeleb and others. So I think that's kind of where we are today. We have this, the world is changing rapidly. We're one of those in one of those periods of, of rapid change and the models that we've used, the structural reality artificially in order to make sense of it so that we can move through it, aren't as predictive. They don't work as well. And so again, bringing it back to Hidden Forces. One of the reasons that I started Hidden forces was because I felt that we were in a world where those models are less valuable. The education that you get from college are less useful. And so you need to rely more on yourself and you have the tools to do it. People are far more intelligent and able to learn than they realize. So so yeah, that's, that's kind of what I was thinking about in response to your question. Well, your comment. Aaron Watson: Right on. So, the other part here, you mentioned TV, you mentioned this previous time and talk about a model. There were just a couple of channels, just a couple of airwaves and the just sheer girth of the attention that could be funneled across a narrative in that kind of very concentrated way was exceptionally powerful. And you've, I don't know the exact percentile of the Hidden Forces show, but you are at the very least in the top decile. Who knows exactly where that lands, just in terms of an audience that you can reach - Demetri Kofinas: Decile, like that. Aaron Watson: - within the landscape of podcasts, but we know that, you know, even the biggest podcast is a fraction of the scale that could be reached with a story that's being told. So it's simultaneously this amazing opportunity for the individual to influence the narrative, to contribute for bad actors, all sorts of other stuff. Taking it back to Hidden Forces and where with this, you know, on a relative basis, smaller hosts and the old TV channels, radio stations of yore but in the context of today, an exceptional power and candidly responsibility, where are you most drawn to bringing people's attention and having them be aware of in the context of these Hidden Forces, the things that, you know, I don't know how you sleep, if it's something that keeps you up at night, or if it's something that, you know, you feel a sense of responsibility. I know for me, I just feel like the conversation around deep fakes is not happening to a degree that I would like to see, but I'm much more interested in, in you, the conversations that you're hoping more people will latch on to. Demetri Kofinas: Well, I mean, you know, today could even further down the vector, you know, when you bring up deep fakes, what you're really talking about is truth. And epistemology, and how do we know what's true? But how can we know if Joe Biden came out and told the country that we're under cyber attack or that were, or whatever? I mean, how do we, how do we validate content today? Or how do we know something was said today when the way in which we've definitively been able to prove it is through let's say video or audio? You know, like, like go to the videotape. Was that the broadcast or used to say that in sports, let's go to the videotape. I mean, that is deeply embedded in the culture. So to your point, I agree. I think questions of truth and reality. What is truth? What is real? I think that is very fundamental to where - so one of my deepest sort of interests, I think even deeper than that for me, I think has I realized looking at the episodes that I've done and where I think I've done some, my best work with the show and where I think we've led both in terms of quality and in terms of lead time over others, is at the intersection of humanity, humanity and culture, and technology. So our, how our brains. We're like incredible builders and in this way, I've also, it's why I love - I am Greek and I'm not one of those Greeks that's like, Greeks are the best at everything. I hate when people do that. I really do. I hate it. But I do, you know, I do value the Greeks in a way that I don't value the Romans. The Romans were incredible builders. They were incredible architects. The Greeks couldn't match that. Of course, the Romans also came after that, but the Romans imported so much of what's the, what of what ancient Greece created culturally. And so what I, what we're really great at, and there's another great quote by, I wish - I need to start anything, actually grabbed the book and have it here cause I've been thinking about it a lot recently. Edward O. Wilson, the entomologist. The scientist who developed a theory of use sociality, wrote his most recent book. Maybe his last will be able to turn out to be his last cause he's in his eighties. The book was called on the mea - I think it was called the Meaning of Human Existence. And in the book he talks about how, if an alien species were to visit earth, you know, what would they find interesting in our society? You know, you could think about this as a thought experiment. Like if we were going to go to a different planet and we're going to visit a society that was supposedly inferior to ours. Right. At least technically. What would we find valuable? Well, you know, his point was, it certainly will not be our mathematics or our science because this species will have, you know, progressed far beyond anything that we have, but they will find value in our arts and our culture. And yeah, if you think about it, this is also what fascinates us about other species. And aboriginal societies were not interested in our technology. And it's like, oh, they have a really great bow and arrow. Like, did you see just how tightly they want while on that string? How did they do that? That's not what interests us, what interests us is what makes them who they are and all the, the, those, the, the cultural aspects of it. So for me, to me, it's really, we're so exceptional at building things or using our minds to create a world around us. That's different than the one that we inhabited just prior. And then that world begins to influence us. And so for me, the question is how has that influence happening? Well, who are we, what do we value? What makes us who we are? What do we value in ourselves? And what is worth holding onto is who we are so that when we get through this cycle of innovation, we go through constant cycles of innovation. Is there something that's central that's important that's not, that's too important to lose under any circumstances that we want to hold through that transition? And I think that that's what comes across to me when I, when I do different episodes, whether it's digital minimalism with Cal Newport, or especially with my episode on surveillance, capitalism was Shoshana Zuboff. What does it mean to be a human being? What do I value? What am I unwilling to give up? And what am I willing to fight for in the face of people telling me that the future is that we're all going to become digital avatars. That we're going to transcend our bodies and upload our brains to the cloud and that this is the future of humanity. And that, that the soul is really just a network of connections that can be replicated into a virtual space. And they're all really as the brain. And I think that's, you know, my personal view is that sort of view of immortality that you just upload your brain. You've created a virtual version of it, is Hell. I mean, a horrible movie is that there's a movie called Transcendence with Johnny Depp. It's a horrific movie. It's a movie that I only watched in part because I was on an airplane. But there is that one part where, you know, he uploads to the cloud and he has changed. He's a different person. There's also a great, great scene, similarly, also that captures this, and this is why movies and stuff like this is so valuable because it really, it captures something that can't be expressed in words that the culture isn't even fully able to understand, but it's coming out like Black Mirror. But in the HBO series, Westworld, have you seen the series? Aaron Watson: Yeah, loved it. Demetri Kofinas: Okay. Okay. So, I mean, remember the Scottish guy who was the father of William's wife? Aaron Watson: Mmhmm. Demetri Kofinas: Short barrel chested guy? Guy was amazing. He said he amazing actor. Did play that role perfectly. And he dies unbeknownst to him. And he had said that he wanted to be brought back and he's brought back and I was in this little glass, you know, case or whatever, basically a room. And he wakes up every morning and he goes through the same thing and he plays that, you know I think it was, he was the song that he played. It was a Role, not a Rolling Stones. Yeah. Was it Rolling Stones? Yeah. It was a Rolling Stone song and he's like, that guys living in Hell. You know, he's like living in Hell. He can never actually, because he was changed. So anyway, that was a long winded response to what you said about what started as a question about deep fakes. Aaron Watson: Yeah, but I think that the, you know, the other analogy is, you know, the, we shaped the tools and then the tools shape us is another one of the little pillars of what you were saying there. And so to me, what I'm always struggling with is, yes, there is, there is real capacity at the individual or the small community or the team level to go make your impact, make your debt on the universe, a whatever kind of metaphor that you and speak. If you can be really focused and, and patient and disciplined, what have you. But there are these. You know, goliath shifts in the tools and the things that we're interacting with. So, you know, whether that be the deep fakes or just the existence of blockchain based cryptocurrencies or these other things that they're now part of the world. There's not something that, you know my parents, my parents had their own things that they were navigating in the seventies that were their own shifts of the time. But these are the shifts and the changes. That are in front of us today. And, you know, without getting into the argument of like, is there like an ultimate kill switch that could take that stuff down. We need to just have an inventory of the things in front of us. And I am, I'm struggling to, to bring it to the question there, but the idea that, you know, even having legibility into those things that are happening right now in the present, I don't know. I think that that's, it's getting, it feels like it's getting rarer. Demetri Kofinas: Legibility into the things that are happening in the present. What do you mean exactly? Do you mean just do you, are you basically expressing a sense that reality feels hazy, that the world feels hazier than it used to, and we need to just have a more deterministic sense of what's happening. Aaron Watson: Yeah, not that maybe need is, is not the right word there, but yes, there there's, there's a haziness in like the feeling of you use the map and the train analogy. I'm talking to the people and I don't even think they have the same models. Like I can maybe kind of like insinuate our guests, the model that they're bringing and kind of see how that's maybe, you know, tied to a complete lack of understanding that this force is here in the present right now today. It's not, it's not futurism. It's not, hey. Imagine if there was an artificial intelligence that could perfectly differentiate every single image in a photo, that's here today in the present right now. Like, are we even just cognizant of where we are, where we currently stand? Demetri Kofinas: Yeah. That's a great point. I mean, I do. I said hazy. You didn't say it, but I did say it and it does. I mean, there does seem to be a fog. And that does, that's something that makes me nervous. I mean, I've become increasingly nervous when I started the show. Like it was way more embracing of the future and excited, and I would, you know, call it optimistic. I mean, I always liked doing those shows that were meant to scare the shit out of my audience. Like I did an episode on cyber warfare, like episode eight. I had an editor before Stianos came on, who's my amazing editor who I love to death. I think he came on an episode, a firmly, he came on episode 10, I think. So he was almost the very beginning, but they had another editor who had said that he was doing my shows and he said that he, the way he understood what my show was about was that it was, it was meant to, it was basically meant to terrify my audience, which I don't think is true, but it was true for some episodes. So like I was, you know, I started this show in part because I had been, you know, I had. As I said, I had a radio show and a TV show. My TV show ended in 2013, both were financial and I had a brain tumor that I had been diagnosed with years before that, that eventually became just really, how do we say highly symptomatic. And I had no choice, but to undergo surgery in 2013. And so I kind of just went into this long hiatus from the world of media and technology and finance and, and actually before finance, I'd gotten my start in tech. I had started a video game company that was a middleware skill gaming company for the console game industry. And then I moved into application development and design for the television industry, developing on the set top box environment. So I had some interest in tech to begin with. And so what I was really not interested in getting back in finance and around 2015, I started going to meet up groups. So I was going to all these, like, you know, do it yourself, like IOT stuff or like machine learning or AI or blockchain or whatever. And it was getting me excited again. And so when I got, when I really started Hitting Forces, they didn't start it with the, with the thing of like, I want this to be a financial program. It was actually much more drawn to the philosophy, neuroscience, technology and science. But as it's progressed, I've become more and more focused on the social dimensions, political, economic, and the whole thing about, you know, the fog and the haze. I see it and it worries me and I, I also see kind of a mob mentality on social media and elsewhere where people just can't seem to agree on anything. Everyone's hustling, everyone's pushing their own agenda and there's no unified sort of narrative about anything. And that I think does contribute to part of this sort of sense of haziness. We're just kind of, not sure, like who are the authority figures. You know, whether or not for example, you are, I'm a, I'm a sort of someone who I've always been very, I've always really not taken well to authority, but it still matters who the authority figures are to know who they are. So we're in a period of dramatic change when it comes to authority. You know, whether it's at the international level with the U.S. led global order or whether it's domestically people are challenging norms, everything again is changing. And in that change, it's almost like the world that was so clear, begins to break apart into smaller and smaller pieces that sort of float in front of your face and it's coming together. And as it's coming together, that's an enormous opportunity because an opportunity to influence, and shape the world. Which is why you see so many people out there pushing their agenda and hustling. And there's so much propaganda. And at the same time, it's a very risky world because in those, in that sort of period of change, a dramatic change can occur. For example, a dictator of sorts can emerge in the society because there's a huge vacuum for that, or very huge, very big decisions can be made that are going to impact, you know, the next a hundred years. And if we're not really prepared to take them correctly, that can be dangerous as well. I guess I don't know what I was responding to. Exactly. But yeah. Aaron Watson: I'm riding with you. I like this. So in that same sense, you know, the crumbling of the U.S. led global order. Once again, it's something you're either, you know, you're reading, Peters Zeihan. You're, you know, following Ian Bremmer. You're, you're listening to these folks that have kind of laid out that framework, so, to make it legible. Or it's just not, you know, that there's a whole universe of headlines and media outfits that that's not the, that's not what the missionaries are pushing forward. That's not the kind of core discussion that's being had. And yet, if you're able to take a more global view, and I think I'm particularly guilty of this. You know, born and raised here in Pittsburgh, have done some traveling and to try and expand my mind, but to even just see things globally, as opposed to seeing them through, you know, an overly U.S. centric lens. lends itself to being able to appreciate not just China, but you know, Greece is immediately adjacent to Turkey. Turkey is, you know, going to have an immense influence on the coming decades. Talk a little bit about, you know at a geopolitical level, the narratives forces that you think people need to be paying more attention to. Demetri Kofinas: Yeah. Great, great observations. First, I do want to say this is the one area where, I mean, I loved. I majored in both political science and economics. And I loved political science. I mean, in my us foreign policy class, I've talked about it so many times on the show. It was my favorite class at NYU. I just loved it. And and I studied it so much on my spare time, but there came a point in time where I, I made this realization, which was that if I really wanted to talk about foreign policy and make this my career, would I be willing to do that if I were not someone who had spent ample time on the ground in conflict zones. And I realized I didn't. I didn't. Because I felt that I couldn't sort of speak about it in a way that felt credible. You know, I just didn't, I, I, everything was secondary, right. I wasn't actually experiencing the conflicts for myself. And so I decided that as much as I loved it, I would move into other fields that would be, you know, where I could, where it wasn't as important to sort of get that external data that said, it's a way of saying, you know, take everything I have to say in context with a grain of salt. But, given all the time and attention that I spent trying to understand the world through secondary sources or primary sources, but not through my own sensorium. Yeah, I would say again, to this point, it is changing dramatically. The world is changing dramatically and you know, Greece is a perfect example, Greece and Cyprus and their security Cyprus, especially, but Greece as well, this, their territorial security threatened by a NATO member. This is you know, up until a few years ago, maybe 20 years ago, the conversation was really even 10 years ago, the conversation was really about how quickly can we get Turkey into the union? Greece wants Turkey into the European Union. Other countries in Europe didn't. Me, as a Greek citizen, I certainly understood the case for Turkey being part of the union geopolitically. And it was increases national interests. I actually didn't think it was a good idea because I do think Europe should have borders. And if you were to allow in Turkey, well then, what stops Syria? What stops Lebanon? Why is Turkey? Is it just because Constantinople was there? So that's a larger point, I guess, about you know, it kind of fits in. I mean, so the world was moving in this direction that was still being driven by the forces of the end of World War II. The European Union expansion enlargement. That's been on hold now. No, one's enlarging anywhere. They're just trying to keep it together. So that's like obviously a great example. Where's that going to go with Turkey? Not clear. My, my hope as a Greek citizen, again, is that Turkey ends up getting sucked into and bogged down in conflict. On their Eastern and, and Southeastern fronts in the middle east, basically. And that's perfectly possible. The alliances in the region are changing. Israel has forged a much closer relationship with Saudi Arabia now. That's both a political and an economic relationship. Well, the Israelis and the Saudis do a deal with the Turks to create a new economic zone? To pipe oil and natural gas into Europe. How will that impact Greece? So there's a lot. I mean, Greece is in a tough situation geopolitically, you know, you mentioned Ian Bremmer and Peter Zeihan. Ian Bremmer is someone whose work I studied as a college student, I believe. I think senior year, perhaps. Well right out of college, I was watching tons of, yeah, it was probably in college. I was watching tons of shows like C-SPAN all the time. For years actually I did this and there was a great feed that would come on every now and then. It's actually amazing to think about this now. It's so I'm feeling very fortunate that I grew up in this intersection of growing up without internet as a little kid, but more importantly, not having mobile internet until I was out of college and not having social networks until I was out of college. I mean, that's really, to me the difference, it wasn't the internet. It was the switch to ubiquitous connectivity that has transformed society in a way that is, you know, good and bad. But it's funny. Cause like CSPAN would, you know, you'd get like the guide function would drop on the screen and say like, you know, this is what's going to be coming up in the next, you know, 24 hours on C-SPAN and the Nixon Center would broadcast their meetings for the National Interest Magazine. And Ian Bremmer was there with Demetrius Sams and and, and lots of other people. So I first became aware of his work. Then he was, he's always been a brilliant thinker and he's been remarkably successful. He's very interesting how we've now seen. We had it during the Bush era, the celebrity financial policy thought leader. But we didn't have what Ian Bremmer has done. And now Peter Zeihanis doing, which is building this really powerful business around, you know, providing analysis to foreign policy issues and geopolitical issues. So you know, Peter Zeihan’s view, you know, Ian Bremmer's view is, is less I think, developed or definitive on this front. But Peter Zeihan’s view on this and it's compelling is that in this new world that we're moving into where America really takes a back seat, and the world becomes more multipolar America is going to thrive. And America's going to thrive in his view because America benefits from all the strategic advantages it has. And also it also has besides all the strategic geopolitical advantages, it has an exceptional body of legal history. A culture that embraces freedom and privacy. Again, these things have been challenged, property rights, and so it'll become a destination for capital. I think that's a very compelling argument. I would tend to agree with it. And I, but I think in - to Zeihan’s point, because I think Zeihan’s theories and people like, but basically a view of view of geopolitics that really puts geography front and center. Which again, this will go, this, this is strongly opposed by one of my recent guests, Balaji Srinivasan, whose view of the network state is that actually it's going to be the opposite that borders don't really matter. Geographies matter less and less. And eventually we're all just going to be our digital relationships that are going to be primary to the physical world. So, but I think that, you know, areas like the middle east are in trouble. Border areas, traditional frozen conflicts, whether it's in Azerbaijan and Armenia, or whether it's in Kurdistan or weather or Kashmir or in Taiwan, the Taiwan Strait. These are gonna flare up. But I think these are the, these are the canaries in the coal mine. That's where you need to look for, for the beginning of, and it's already happening. So I think security is going to become increasingly important and citizens are going to demand a higher premium on security may have been putting on it, which I think empowers governments, which is why I've also said that in this new century, I'm actually bullish on government's. Contract - I suppose this is - strongly opposed to the block, to the blockchain writ large and particularly Bitcoin community, which believes that the power will now move towards the merchant classes and towards an independent monetary sovereign. And I actually think that misses the larger point that people will feel more insecure today than they did under the U.S. global order. And the reason why we've been able to have all these experiments around money is because the U.S. has provided this umbrella of safety. So that's sort of my initial answer to your question. Aaron Watson: And, that security generally has all sorts of ramifications. So in a, in a more or less peaceful, series of decades because of that global order you take for granted that that has become so sublimated behind the narratives, behind the stuff that we're consuming on the surface. It's hard to really consider all the assumptions of something like that. Switching, something like that, changing, which, you know, someone like Zeihan does a great job of, or at least, you know, pointing to, and then articulating what the potential ramifications of that could be. But the hard, hard thing to do is to number one, we're all mimetic creatures. You hear a great story. It's really hard not to just latch onto that and be like, hell yeah, give me more of that. I'm going to completely adopt that. And be someone who is taking information from high quality sources, how do you, how do you even judge that? I don't, I don't wanna get into that, but like taking permission from high quality sources so that you can start to make some conclusions. And I find myself having the instinct to be more globally aware. Partially because of the pandemic, it's a great catalyst for something like that, but that also is a kind of awakening that needs to happen. And not just because, you know, I have a family friend that's being deployed to Okinawa and is going to be right there by the Strait, you know, near Taiwan. If something happens, I'm going to be involved in some way, shape or form. You know, there's stuff that pulls you like a magnet that you must pay attention to it. But then there's the opportunities to just actually, you know, bring your head up and try to have that larger, more global view. Demetri Kofinas: Yeah. You know, what, what I, what came to mind while you were saying speaking was, well, I just love these conversations. I got to say, like, I love engaging and interesting thoughtful discussions about things because it, it, first of all, it really helps me besides the fact that it just is pleasureful. And I, and I'm, and I thought about how wonderful it would be if we just had more and more of these conversations, because there are so many issues to work through. And, again, to something I mentioned earlier on about feeling a bit fearful and dark, sometimes. The cacophony makes me feel anxious. It creates a, and this, this might also have to do with just, you know, the way I grew up. And, you know, I didn't grow up feeling very secure for all sorts of reasons. And I think that when I. The environment today. And I'm going a little bit off of what you said. I didn't mean to sort of go take a tangent, but the environment today that cacophony, the constant arguing, there was a tipping point for me recently with the, or maybe, or maybe around the time of the storming of the Capitol building. I think actually, I think when I think about it now, I'm pretty sure the moment was the day that I had the block works guys. Jason Yanowitz and Michael Ippolito. And we talked about it a bit in the overtime. I think it was around that time. I just, it was a tipping point for me, where I felt like this has just worked in a, too much of an unsafe environment. And they're just, they're not enough adults. There are two people who do many people running around, and this is an issue that I have with the Bitcoin community or with certain elements of the Bitcoin community, which I don't find to be true with like Ethereum people, which is that there's a strong impulse to burn it all down. And you know, I just think that would be a universally awful idea, but at the same time, I kind of get where they're coming from, because when I was in my early twenties, you know, with the Iraq War and everything, there were, I had a strong impulse to say, you know, fuck it. The state is corrupt. You know, we need to burn it down more or less. Cause I wasn't as concerned. I hadn't built so much. I hadn't. Lived so much and learned so much in and created so much in the world that I loved and saw value in what existed and wanted. Didn't want to just, you know, burn it all. You, you mentioned, you know, at the very beginning of your answer about, I think something along the lines of like, trusting sources of data or something like that. Again, that makes me think a little bit about oracle's, decentralized oracles, and chain link and this conversation that I'm going to have. But it also makes me think about how people like me and you and other people with podcasts or television programs or a regular, you know, sub stack destination have grown much more powerful in today's world than we would have been 10 years ago or five years ago. Joe Rogan's a classic example. Although, it's not Joe Rogan's primary function. And I think that's because in this world where the sort of authority, figures and institutions that we had, you know, a consensus view on that we sort of, oh yeah, the New York Times says it. We all more or less agree that that's true. In a world where that's coming apart, ironically, even though the world is becoming more digitized, what we're relying on is more of our more innate biological tendencies to trust other people. And so, we see Joe Rogan was saying, I believe Joe Rogan. If Joe Rogan says something, maybe he's wrong because he doesn't understand it. But I know that he's not lying to me. And I think people are looking for people that they can trust in a world that feels increasingly untrustworthy. And I, and I would argue unsafe. And I think that might also be a little bit why if you'll notice, I mean, I did, I wrestled in school throughout high school and I picked up jujitsu and then Muay Thai when I was in college, and I did it up until my brain surgery pretty much. I - when I was doing martial arts, not many people knew how to fight. And there was a sense that, you know, if you ever did get into a fight, especially if you didn't start it, you can feel pretty safe that, you know, you, you were going to know what you're doing. And the other guy wasn't necessarily going to be like, you know, some expert MMA fighter. That was not like a common thing today. Lots of people know how to fight. And lots of people are interested in martial arts and lots of people are also interested in hunting. There's this whole, you know, thing about hunting and killing your own animal and cooking, skinning it and cooking it, preserving it. And Joe Rogan's at the center of both of those trends. And I don't think that's a coincidence. I think part of it is because people are trying to find, again, some sense of identity and foundation. What does it mean to be a person, a human being in this world is changing. And I think some of it also has to do with safety. And I think I actually, you know, I've had this thought in much more concrete terms because I, I remember when I was growing up watching movies, like, you know, Karate Kids, a great, great example or other movies that took place in the, you know, in the seventies or shows in the seventies or eighties, that's where that's when martial arts really became popular in the U.S. and I think a big part of that had to do with some of the security concerns in urban environments. Cities we're in a safe, like New York is a really scary place. And during the pandemic, when my building was broken into a number of times, I thought I could see now how MMA and all sorts of other self-defense forms and weapons will become more popular than they used to be. So I think that's a really interesting trend that I would keep an eye on, which is self-defense and all the whole economy that can come up around self-defense whether we're talking digitally or physically. Aaron Watson: Yeah. I've - sent me down so many different rabbit holes that you started at the beginning of this conversation as we impose wrapping up on truth too. And the beauty of both punting and self-defense is there's a lot of truth in it too. You can't lie about, Hey, I just got kicked in the head. He can't lie about where did this deer that I, you know, hunted came from. I was in the forest where it was. So I think that that also ties in really nicely to the kind of themes that we've touched on today, Demetri. We're running up on, on the limits of the time that we set aside for this conversation. I'm really hopeful that we can do it again in the future. But before I ask the standard last two questions that I do with every interview, just wanted to check and see if there's anything else you were hoping to share today that I did and give you a chance. Demetri Kofinas: That's a really great, no, that's a really great point that you made. I actually love what you said. One I'll take the one that I liked, but didn't, it just wasn't the one that I loved, but I really like it. And I agree on which one. That you know, where your food came from, it's definitive like theirs. And what does that really speak to? And one of the things that speaks to is trust. I don't need to trust where the food came from. I know where it came from. There's less complexity in the food chain. And to your point, early on about the increase in complexity and trying to wrap our heads around it. But the one I really resonated with me was by getting your ass kicked or getting kicked in the head and you know.... I dunno, I, this maybe is a little too close to home or too literal, but which is that when I was growing up for all sorts of reasons, I moved a lot. I would, there were oftentimes where I would get into fights. And getting into fights with scary for all sorts of reasons. But the one thing that I always liked about it was that it was once it, once a fight broke out, there was a resolution. The resolution was imminent. And what was one of the challenges for me is becoming an adult was that you had to navigate conflict in a much more different way. And which is fine and appropriate. We should not be going around and getting into fights with people, or physical confrontations. But what's happened today is this has gotten, gone to such an extreme today where you can be cursed at, maligned, and ultimately canceled and your life destroyed. All through some words that are also taken out of context or manipulated or whatever. And you feel, and, and people who may have felt strong in their physical space, you know, over the course of their life, or even to this moment. Like if you, if you know that they're, you're not going to get pushed around. We live in a world today where a lot of people who are otherwise strong human beings can be easily bullied. And I think that's a really, you know, it's an interesting observation and, and I think that's for me, the appeal of, I love when I, I, what I love about Joe Rogan. I really love that the most popular show in the world today is a guy who knows how to fight doesn't approach fighting as this thing that he's, you know, I'm sure Joe Rogan has his moments where I certainly had them growing up feeling cocky, but he's humble. And he's been around really, really, I mean the biggest ass kicking people in the world. So like, I just love that that's being introduced into the zeitgeists cause I think it's really, really important. Any ending thoughts? No, I mean, this was a really great conversation. I think it was, this was awesome. I really enjoyed it. Aaron Watson: Enjoyed it too. And I really want people to follow, find some digital coordinates where they can connect with you and, and check out episodes of the show. What coordinates can we provide for folks that want to do so, Demetri? Demetri Kofinas: So I would say first and foremost, you can follow me on Twitter @Kofinas with a K. K - O - F as in Frank, I - N as in Nancy, A - S as in Sam. I learned that - my dad, when I was a kid, he would always be he's the doctor. And he would be on the phone and be like, go finesse with F as in Frank. But I've learned that I had to also do it for N and the S. So @Kofinas also @HiddenForcesPod on Twitter, both of those. And then obviously at our website, hiddenforces.io. There's a pop-up where you can give your name, email, and zip and be added to our mailing list. We're gonna be, I've been saying this for a long time, that we're going to start using that soon, but we really are. I hired a team of consultants to help me sort of build Hidden Forces, to change it, to add structure around it, to make, to really grow it in a way that's more consistent with my vision. Because up until now, it's been primarily kind of like a, it's been run almost like a hobby, even though it's not anymore. So those are my, those are my three recommendations. @Kofinas @HiddenForcesPod both on Twitter, and the website, hiddenforces.io. And then of course, anywhere on any podcast application, you just search Hidden Forces. You'll find, you'll find the show. Aaron Watson: Wonderful. We're going to have that linked in the show notes for this. And every episode of the show at goingdeepwithaaron.com/podcast or in the app. We are probably listening to this episode right now, but before I let you go to Demetri, first of all, I'm going to just reiterate that I, for a podcast junkie like myself, there's like the, you know, the A tier,the B tier, the C tier of shows and the A tiers, when they drop, I know I'm listening to them. I just don't know exactly when. The B tier, once I get through the A tier, I get, I, you know, listen to my B tiers shows. And then the C ones for if it's a particularly, you know, a heavy week of driving or something like that. And yours is firmly in the A tier. I learned stuff there consistently and have my mind experience. So I really appreciate that. And I want to give you that. One final time to issue an actionable personal challenge to the audience. Demetri Kofinas: You know, you told me about this before the episode started. So I actually wrote some stuff down because this is actually, and I was surprised that what came out was not so much, I was surprised at what came out. I was surprised at how much came out. I had a lot of thoughts about this. You know, one of the things that I think is important for people to try and do is. To hold themselves to a higher standard to the, to the standard of their idyllic self when it comes to public interactions. So like, I, you know, I, I can use myself as an example here. I've done all sorts of things in my life that I'm embarrassed of. That I felt like were not magnanimous, were particularly petty. Born out of insecurity. For example, that was, that's always been a thing for most of my life where I've let my insecurity and my emotions dictate my actions. And I see this a lot on social media and other places. People are really dickish. They're mean. They're gross. They're vindictive. They're jealous. They're envious. They're narcissistic. And I think people really need to try and be their best selves in public. Doesn't mean, it doesn't mean that you're, you know, you can't make mistakes, but try to try to keep those for your personal life. And really try to set an example and say, you know, the person that sees what I tweet or the person that hears me on this podcast, what will they think? Who will they think I am? Is that person consistent with who I want to be? And I think there's a difference, there's a difference between being who you want to be versus being somebody else. You Should always be yourself. But you should be yourself, I think at least in public circumstances, the person that you want to be. That you strive to be every day. So I think that's the first challenge I would tell people. The second one sort of applies to that, which is to put space between your thoughts and your actions. Or your emotions and your actions. Because that also will help you be a better person and be more of the person you want. So that means again, when it comes to social media, don't tweet it right away, and ask yourself, why am I tweeting? What is the reason that I'm doing this and is the reason consistent with who I want to be? And that's true not just there, it's true in all sorts of other areas, but it's surprisingly easy to do on social media. If you just implement the practice because you know, it's, there's a digital interface here. Also, I would say put boundaries around your mobile devices, and your connected devices. There are all sorts of ways to do this. I did it when I started Hidden Forces. That was, I wouldn't probably wouldn't be able to do it otherwise. I took an old iPhone. I swapped out the card with my new one. I made it so there was just phone and texts, no internet, nothing else. Just phone and text. And it helped me get unaddicted. I'll lose my addiction within a week. Now I'm back to being addicted and I'm trying to figure that out, but that's because, you know, I'm trying to navigate promoting my show. I don't actually enjoy being on Twitter like I used to, when I was much more self-absorbed. But I was, you know, kinda on my TV program. Now I'd really do it for marketing and I really wish I would, I don't particularly enjoy it. But I do engage, I do enjoy getting feedback and engaging with people. Another thing I thought of, I wrote was. And the last thing is to try not to judge people. You know, I think again, to my point about me having done things or said things in my life, and I'm not proud of, I think one of those things has been to be overly harsh in my criticism and judgment of people. And again, a lot of that has, was, and has been born out of insecurity. I've heard Tim Ferriss talk about this when he says, you know, if someone doesn't get back to you, if you send an email to someone and they don't get back to you. A perfect example of, if you send an email to Tim Ferris and he doesn't get back to you, you know, don't take it personally. Don't like, you know, take everything as an affront against you where it's what it says about you. It doesn't have to do with you. You know, people are busy. They're overwhelmed. You know, that's just one example, but there are all sorts of ways in which you're - that sort of concept of mind mapping, you think, you know what the other person's thinking, where their intentions are, you know, but most of the time you're just projecting. So, you know, try not to judge people and, you know, just focus on yourself, focus on being a better person, focus on being accountable. And I'll, and I want to say there's someone who really does this in a beautiful way. A friend of mine, Grant Williams, who has a podcast that's very successful. He's been in media a long time. I've only started now to become even as even close to as magnanimous. And good a public person as Grant is. Because for years in my interactions with Grant, he was always so giving. And Joe Rogan is like this as well. And Tim Ferris is like this also. They have reputations of being very giving. Joe Rogan transformed the comedy circuit, you know, comedians traditionally have been very selfish. At least that's how they have been described to me. And Joe Rogan and now competitive Joe Rogan has really opened his eyes to that, and it's not surprising. He feels very secure. He's secure in his work. You are secure in yourself. And he's able to do that. Grant is a, is a, is a perfect example of that. He's a remarkably giving individual. And so I often ask myself and I also do this with, with Jim Grant as well, both Grants. Jim Grant is someone who I got to know early on in my career and we've become friends over the years and I, and he's such a gentleman the way he treats people. And so I think it's, you know, and to end it on that point. Look, to look, try to find the people who you think live an admirable life. It's not just about money or success, but whose character and values you, you value that you say, I want people to see me that way and try and measure yourself up to them every day. That helps me. So, you know, that's what I would say. Aaron Watson: Beautiful. Powerful note to wrap up on and a lot to aspire to as we make our way in the world. Demetri, I am very grateful that you agreed to come on the show. I really enjoyed talking with you and look forward to doing it again soon. Demetri Kofinas: My pleasure. Thanks, Aaron. Aaron Watson: We just went deep with Demitri Kofinas. Hope everyone out there has a fantastic day.
Black Tech Nation Ventures is launching its first flagship venture fund in Pittsburgh, PA. The firm is founded by three managing partners, Kelauni Jasmyn, Sean Sebastian, and David Motley have come together to form an investment thesis focused on investing in black and other minority founders who have historically missed out on opportunities to raise venture capital.
As David outlines in this podcast, these represent an underutilized asset capable of creating outsized returns, not a charitable donation. David brings experience from three decades in corporate America, sitting on the boards of multiple public companies, investing tens of millions of dollars into real estate, and a track record of venture investments through the Blue Tree Venture Fund. David has also raised a $207 Special Purpose Acquisition Vehicle (SPAC) called Deep Lake Capital. David Motley has also co-founded 3 enterprises: The BlueTree Venture Fund, DLM-WCM (a real estate development company) and, MCAPS, LLC (a professional services company focused on Managed Services, Staff Augmentation, and Consulting). In this episode, David and Aaron also discuss how to craft a fulfilling career, how to raise money from large institutions, and why SPACs are taking off. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. David Motley’s Challenge; Don’t undershoot. Set a goal and go after it. Connect with David Motley
Linkedin
BTN.vc If you liked this interview, check out episode 265 with Kelauni Jasmyn about Black Tech Nation, episode 290 with Ned Renzi about Birchmree Ventures, or episode 405 with Matt Kesinger about his medical device startup. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680
Paul Martino is a venture capital investor and has raised 5 funds totaling over $350 million in capital. That money has been deployed into FanDuel, Grove, Ipsy, and SpotHero.
Before forming Bullpen, Paul was an active angel investor and personally invested in the first rounds of Zynga, TubeMogul, and uDemy. Prior to his investing career, Paul founded four companies including Ahpah Software (a computer security firm acquired by InterTrust) and Aggregate Knowledge (a big data advertising attribution company acquired in 2014 by Neustar). He is the holder of over a dozen core patents covering social networking and big data. In this episode, Paul and Aaron discuss the FanDuel success, his advice for startups going through tough times, and the different space that venture capital investors make their mark. Sign up for a Weekly Email that will Expand Your Mind. Paul Martino’s Challenge; Start every meeting on time Connect with Paul Martino
Linkedin
Bullpen Capital Website paul@bullpencap.com If you liked this interview, check out episode 231 with Andy Rachleff where we discuss how to find non-consensus investing ideas that work. Text Me What You Think of This Episode 412-278-7680 |
Show NotesFind links and information referenced in each episode. 
Archives
June 2021
|
RSS Feed