[Is There Such a Thing As Founder Syndrome?: Testing a New Idea for Entrepreneurship]
As a lover of language, I often will obsess and delight in a phrase or a word that I think offers unique insight into humanity or experience.
Language can sometimes open up doors into understanding, not simply because a definition is precise, or taken literally. Used in an inventive way, you can see the world differently and perhaps understand something for its unique traits.
I find this to be the case with understanding and learning about founders. Founders tend to break the mold, as we say, but we tend to see them -- I say "we" meaning the general VC and startups ecosystem -- through a really traditional business lens, contrary to how unique they are.
In fact, I am not so sure you can see a founder's traits through a business lens, because what founders do is much different than simply running a business. I think you have to creatively see them in a new way.
This idea struck me deeply while I was in Japan, where I was relaxing with a memoir about the late neurologist Dr. Oliver Sacks, while my colleagues skied and snowboarded on a cloud-covered mountain in the snow. Sacks died in 2015, but spent a career curing neurological diseases by taking a unique approach.
I came across the word "syndrome."
It has a nice ring to it, but first, the context.
First of all, Sacks is famous for a medical experiment that "unlocked" patients who were frozen in a kind of living coma situation. You may have seen this in a movie called "Awakenings."
These patients would be frozen in a state of hibernation, awake, but not able to move. Sacks came up with the idea of dosing them with a chemical called L-DOPA, and the results were extraordinary. Almost overnight, these "vegetables," as he empathetically described him in his memoir, awakened. In one case, Sacks took a red ball he kept in his pocket and threw it at a seemingly unmovable patient, who immediately snapped to and caught the ball, threw it back, and then resumed his catatonic state.
Sacks was also something of an eccentric, who was notorious for doing things that probably a normal sane person would never do.
For example, as a medical intern in California, he once drank a vial of blood, washing it down with a glass of milk, simply because he felt compelled to understand what it tasted like. A lover of motorcycles, he quite recklessly "stepped off," as he put it, his bike traveling at 80mph, just to see what would happen. What happened? A few bruises and a torn leather jacket and pants. But nothing horrible.
In certain circles, he is still considered to be notorious and misunderstood. But his view of diagnoses centered on finding the "syndrome," and treating the syndrome as a kind of identity.
And here is our word of the day!
I am not suggesting that founders are sick people. I am saying that they are different, because they present a type of syndrome that other humans do not possess.
Syndrome, in the Greek etymology, means "a running together."
Often we look at disease as this kind of failure of the system. Something has invaded. Something has harmed the corpus of the human. But Sacks looked at syndrome issues quite literally as a grouping of things that made the patient unique.
Instead of instantly diagnosing and medicating neurological patients, he would sit and talk to them for hours, trying to understand the unique syndrome of their identity.
In one instance, he talked for four hours to a raving manic dementia patient, later concluding that there was something "inherently human about that identity in there."
Can the same be done with founders? Do they present a syndrome of entrepreneurship?
What are the characteristics of this founder syndrome?
I won't spend this whole post describing my idea, but I think a central and core attribute of a Founder Syndrome is that the discomfort that founders experience with reality is also the impetus and the catalyst that moves them to "solve" reality with their own attributes.
This syndrome manifests itself in an overarching belief that they can change the world. They are somewhat delusional and even maniacal in their approach to reality solutions. The world doesn't work for them, and rather than mire themselves in depression and disappointment in it, their syndrome rather creatively enables them to, in an expansive way, impact the lives of other people, and create things that shift reality.
Steve Jobs once said that you can only understand your journey by looking backwards, and connecting the dots after you have completed them. This is quite symptomatic of a founder syndrome.
There are no dots to connect, until you make them. A consciousness that sees the world for what it can be can seem to some like crazy talk. Just look at Elon Musk. For how long has he heard that his ideas are stupid, crazy, not worth the paper they are printed on?
Or Nikola Tesla, who died in poverty, not being believed?
Or Marie Curie, who obsessively hunted down invisible radioactivity, which killed her, but without whom we would not be able to treat cancer, or plausibly have nuclear energy?
All of these people have something of the Founder Syndrome, an ability to see what is not seen by others, and to manifest it into reality, creating incredulity until the new reality is undeniable.
Are you suffering from a syndrome, friend? If you would like to be part of our accelerator and invent what has not existed before, and if you would like to be around other unique people like you, track our application process at https://appworks.tw/accelerator
Our next cohort will start in the summer.
We would be glad to take your application when they launch later in the year. We will be accepting founders working in AI and Blockchain.
Doug Crets
Communications Master, AppWorks
Photo by Franck V. on Unsplash
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「type of nuclear energy」的推薦目錄:
- 關於type of nuclear energy 在 AppWorks Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於type of nuclear energy 在 每天努力Hack國家!士修的17時間 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於type of nuclear energy 在 黃土條 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於type of nuclear energy 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於type of nuclear energy 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於type of nuclear energy 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於type of nuclear energy 在 Science 101: What is Nuclear Energy? - YouTube 的評價
type of nuclear energy 在 每天努力Hack國家!士修的17時間 Facebook 的最佳貼文
【以核養綠,竟然還要四成燃煤?因為你被反核騙了!】
9月26日,張善政院長的國政顧問團,直播氣候與能源政見,再度引來反核利益團體的攻擊。
韓國瑜總統參選人環保與生態政策政見 國政顧問團109.9.26
https://www.facebook.com/SanCheng624/videos/807298756334856/
綠盟/「善政減煤,煤更多」 綠能減煤才是解方
https://e-info.org.tw/node/220398
綠色公民行動聯盟Green Citizens' Action Alliance宣稱,2015年馬政府的能源規劃是:一、低度電力需求成長,核四運轉,2025年燃煤43.8%。二、核四運轉,核一二三延役,2025年燃煤39%。都比蔡政府非核家園,2025年燃煤27%,還要多。
等一下,大家不覺得奇怪嗎?為什麼多了兩成核電可用,燃煤竟然比非核家園還要高?因為這是一個民進黨和反核利益團體聯合編織的謊言。
■ 非核三成燃煤是假的,空污五成燃煤才是真的
2017年,彭博能源財經研究團隊(BNEF)發布專業分析指出:蔡英文政府的2025年非核家園,其「5320」能源配比不可能達成。
Taiwan Lays Plans for $59 Billion in Renewable-Energy Finance - Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-18/taiwan-lays-plans-for-59-billion-in-renewable-energy-finance
BNEF預測實際情況應為,再生能源由5%增為9.5%、天然氣由32%增為37%、燃煤由45%增為54%,核能降為0%。蔡英文政府宣稱的「三成燃煤」根本達不到,而是「五成燃煤、九成火力」的空污家園!
2018年,馬英九前總統提出「1234」能源配比,即是再生能源10%、核能20%、天然氣30%、燃煤40%。如此可確保六成基載,又有三成潔淨能源。
同年,我們推動以核養綠公投,主張廢除2025年非核條款。馬前總統的主張,是恢復續用核電,將蔡政府「五成燃煤」的現況,先降回「四成燃煤」的平衡點。
我們也認同,只要將兩成核能放回來,加上發展再生能源,我們一定能夠大幅降低火力發電,未來真正達成「三成燃煤」甚至更低的減煤目標。
公投後半,民進黨和反核利益團體不斷抹黑以核養綠「(先務實回到平衡點的)四成燃煤」,比非核家園「(被美國打臉做不到的)三成燃煤」還要骯髒。
殊不知,骯髒的,是政客和利益團體的心。
我們的以核養綠公投,和盧秀燕的反空污公投相輔相成,最後獲得全國六成民意支持通過,包括核電廠所在的新北市和屏東縣。
■ 非核家園 vs 續用核電,相差一兆元GDP
綠盟作為民進黨御用打手,宣稱資料來源是「能源開發政策評估說明書(2015)」,這是經濟部能源局經過10年整理研究,針對未來20年提出六大能源開發情境分析。
那個年代的經濟部官員,是敢說真話、敢做實事的。
「非核家園」的C2情境在社經面、能源面表現最差,且因提高火力發電比例,導致空汙累計潛在傷亡人數346人。反觀「核四商轉、核一二三延役」的C5情境對GDP貢獻多一兆元新台幣,在環境面與能源安全上表現最好。
經濟部能源局評估:全核能GDP貢獻比非核家園多1兆 環團痛批荒謬
https://www.storm.mg/article/75877
時任綠盟副秘書長、現任行政院能源辦委員的洪申翰,當年痛斥「荒謬!」卻拿不出任何可信的資料反駁。你是忘記了,還是害怕想起來?
■ 綠盟不告訴你,Google就知道的世界趨勢
綠盟引用史丹佛大學Mark Jacobson教授的說法,認為重啟核四跟不上世界趨勢,國際大廠Google、Facebook等都急著搶綠電。
容我提醒:
一、美國能源部(DoE)定義的綠能(Clean Energy),明確包括核能和再生能源。2018年,聯合國潔淨能源部長會議(CEM)將核能列為潔淨能源作為追求永續發展目標SDG7的選項。
Clean Energy | Department of Energy
https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/clean-energy
Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future (NICE Future) | Clean Energy Ministerial
http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org/initiative-clean-energy-ministerial/nuclear-innovation-clean-energy-future-nice-future
二、美國環保署(EPA)在歐巴馬時期推出的「Clean Power Plan」計畫,將核能和再生能源皆列入綠能。EPA另一個「Green Power Partnership」計畫,則是鼓勵市場投資的再生能源子分類,而非環境觀點,不需要包含核能。
Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants | Clean Power Plan | US EPA
https://web.archive.org/web/20160325042337/https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants
三、Google官方的「Moving toward 24x7 Carbon-Free Energy at Google Data Centers: Progress and Insights」計畫,其潔淨能源包含核能和再生能源。Google會直接購買再生能源電力和憑證,同時強調電網上核能的重要性,列舉在多個國家使用核能電力的實例,最後更主張必須積極發展先進核能技術。
Moving towards 24x7 carbon-free energy at Google data centers: Progress and insights | NICE Future
https://www.nice-future.org/resources/moving-towards-24x7-carbon-free-energy-google-data-centers-progress-insights
■ 史丹佛的反核教授也反蔡英文的天然氣政策
最後多講一下這位Mark Jacobson教授。
2010年,TED首度舉辦的辯論會,就是Mark Jacobson和Stewart Brand的「這個世界需要核能嗎?」,身為教授的Mark Jacobson,反覆強調100%再生能源,卻被環保人士Stewart Brand拿出大量數據和資料痛電。
Stewart Brand 與 Mark Z. Jacobson: 辯論:這個世界需要核能嗎? | TED Talk
https://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy?language=zh-tw
2015年,Mark Jacobson發表論文主張美國可100%使用再生能源,受到世界各國反核團體大量推崇。
2017年,包含Christopher Clack教授在內的21位氣候專家,發表論文反駁Mark Jacobson的研究充滿「重大缺陷」,包括「無效的模式工具、理論錯誤、不可信和不充分的理論、充滿漏洞的假設……」
科學議題法庭解決 綠能教授告氣候專家誹謗
https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20171214005717-260408
然後,Mark Jacobson反而控告刊登論文的美國國家科學院(PNAS),以及該論文的第一作者Christopher Clack,求償1000萬美元,引起學術界譁然。因為Mark Jacobson拿不出學術分析辯護,卻把這件事鬧上法庭。
2018年,Mark Jacobson主動撤告。
對於反核團體來說,史丹佛大學的Mark Jacobson教授,也只不過是個頭銜好聽且可以利用的棋子,剛好反核罷了。真正了解他的人都知道,他就是個為了發展再生能源,可以用盡所有錯誤數據,詆毀各種能源的人。
以他的觀念及研究,蔡政府目前的能源政策絕對也是爛透了,因為Mark Jacobson大力反對提高天然氣比例,作為所謂過渡能源!
Mark Z. Jacobson PhD on Natural Gas as a "Bridge Fuel" - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FGrTAdB80s
■ 核四公投正是與時間賽跑的氣候行動
民進黨近期強力宣傳綠能減煤,我們完全贊同,因為綠能有兩種,核能和再生,風光不可控,唯核可減煤。綠能減煤,實務上就是核能減煤。我們支持「重啟核四,核能減煤」,我們反對「以風養火,火滅藻礁」,更反對「非核增氣,國安斷氣」。
假如2025年台灣核電機組全面運轉,將可迴避約2400萬噸~4800萬噸的碳排(以600億度電取代天然氣或燃煤估算),相當於台灣淨碳排放的10%~20%左右。
說說能源 Talk That Energy:有無核電影響10%碳排,地球不會再給你時間
https://www.facebook.com/talkthatenergy/photos/a.1804635893093808/2404831113074280/?type=3
有了10%,我們可以更快達到自提的減碳目標,可以更接近阻止氣候變遷的轉捩點。意識型態的紛爭是一時的,而此時,我們的時間正一點一點流逝。
支持台灣續用核電,啟用核四,提供潔淨電力,減緩氣候變遷,友善生活環境,這是以核養綠最根本精神。懇請支持核四公投,這也可以是你的氣候行動。
--
重啟核四公投緊急倒數,9月底前立刻將連署書寄回!
💧以核養綠官方募資正式上架!限定回饋品僅此一檔!
https://green-nuclear-vote.azurewebsites.net/Home/Donate
✅現在就加以核養綠小幫手LINE好友
https://line.me/R/ti/p/%40yyy2460i
⚡️重啟核四公投連署書:擴散性百萬連署王!
https://tinyurl.com/y445gkxw
108-49 台北市萬華區康定路105號26樓之2
以核養綠公投領銜人 黃士修 先生收
type of nuclear energy 在 黃土條 Facebook 的最讚貼文
【以核養綠,竟然還要四成燃煤?因為你被反核騙了!】
9月26日,張善政院長的國政顧問團,直播氣候與能源政見,再度引來反核利益團體的攻擊。
韓國瑜總統參選人環保與生態政策政見 國政顧問團109.9.26
https://www.facebook.com/SanCheng624/videos/807298756334856/
綠盟/「善政減煤,煤更多」 綠能減煤才是解方
https://e-info.org.tw/node/220398
綠色公民行動聯盟Green Citizens' Action Alliance宣稱,2015年馬政府的能源規劃是:一、低度電力需求成長,核四運轉,2025年燃煤43.8%。二、核四運轉,核一二三延役,2025年燃煤39%。都比蔡政府非核家園,2025年燃煤27%,還要多。
等一下,大家不覺得奇怪嗎?為什麼多了兩成核電可用,燃煤竟然比非核家園還要高?因為這是一個民進黨和反核利益團體聯合編織的謊言。
■ 非核三成燃煤是假的,空污五成燃煤才是真的
2017年,彭博能源財經研究團隊(BNEF)發布專業分析指出:蔡英文政府的2025年非核家園,其「5320」能源配比不可能達成。
Taiwan Lays Plans for $59 Billion in Renewable-Energy Finance - Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-18/taiwan-lays-plans-for-59-billion-in-renewable-energy-finance
BNEF預測實際情況應為,再生能源由5%增為9.5%、天然氣由32%增為37%、燃煤由45%增為54%,核能降為0%。蔡英文政府宣稱的「三成燃煤」根本達不到,而是「五成燃煤、九成火力」的空污家園!
2018年,馬英九前總統提出「1234」能源配比,即是再生能源10%、核能20%、天然氣30%、燃煤40%。如此可確保六成基載,又有三成潔淨能源。
同年,我們推動以核養綠公投,主張廢除2025年非核條款。馬前總統的主張,是恢復續用核電,將蔡政府「五成燃煤」的現況,先降回「四成燃煤」的平衡點。
我們也認同,只要將兩成核能放回來,加上發展再生能源,我們一定能夠大幅降低火力發電,未來真正達成「三成燃煤」甚至更低的減煤目標。
公投後半,民進黨和反核利益團體不斷抹黑以核養綠「(先務實回到平衡點的)四成燃煤」,比非核家園「(被美國打臉做不到的)三成燃煤」還要骯髒。
殊不知,骯髒的,是政客和利益團體的心。
我們的以核養綠公投,和盧秀燕的反空污公投相輔相成,最後獲得全國六成民意支持通過,包括核電廠所在的新北市和屏東縣。
■ 非核家園 vs 續用核電,相差一兆元GDP
綠盟作為民進黨御用打手,宣稱資料來源是「能源開發政策評估說明書(2015)」,這是經濟部能源局經過10年整理研究,針對未來20年提出六大能源開發情境分析。
那個年代的經濟部官員,是敢說真話、敢做實事的。
「非核家園」的C2情境在社經面、能源面表現最差,且因提高火力發電比例,導致空汙累計潛在傷亡人數346人。反觀「核四商轉、核一二三延役」的C5情境對GDP貢獻多一兆元新台幣,在環境面與能源安全上表現最好。
經濟部能源局評估:全核能GDP貢獻比非核家園多1兆 環團痛批荒謬
https://www.storm.mg/article/75877
時任綠盟副秘書長、現任行政院能源辦委員的洪申翰,當年痛斥「荒謬!」卻拿不出任何可信的資料反駁。你是忘記了,還是害怕想起來?
■ 綠盟不告訴你,Google就知道的世界趨勢
綠盟引用史丹佛大學Mark Jacobson教授的說法,認為重啟核四跟不上世界趨勢,國際大廠Google、Facebook等都急著搶綠電。
容我提醒:
一、美國能源部(DoE)定義的綠能(Clean Energy),明確包括核能和再生能源。2018年,聯合國潔淨能源部長會議(CEM)將核能列為潔淨能源作為追求永續發展目標SDG7的選項。
Clean Energy | Department of Energy
https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/clean-energy
Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future (NICE Future) | Clean Energy Ministerial
http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org/initiative-clean-energy-ministerial/nuclear-innovation-clean-energy-future-nice-future
二、美國環保署(EPA)在歐巴馬時期推出的「Clean Power Plan」計畫,將核能和再生能源皆列入綠能。EPA另一個「Green Power Partnership」計畫,則是鼓勵市場投資的再生能源子分類,而非環境觀點,不需要包含核能。
Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants | Clean Power Plan | US EPA
https://web.archive.org/web/20160325042337/https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants
三、Google官方的「Moving toward 24x7 Carbon-Free Energy at Google Data Centers: Progress and Insights」計畫,其潔淨能源包含核能和再生能源。Google會直接購買再生能源電力和憑證,同時強調電網上核能的重要性,列舉在多個國家使用核能電力的實例,最後更主張必須積極發展先進核能技術。
Moving towards 24x7 carbon-free energy at Google data centers: Progress and insights | NICE Future
https://www.nice-future.org/resources/moving-towards-24x7-carbon-free-energy-google-data-centers-progress-insights
■ 史丹佛的反核教授也反蔡英文的天然氣政策
最後多講一下這位Mark Jacobson教授。
2010年,TED首度舉辦的辯論會,就是Mark Jacobson和Stewart Brand的「這個世界需要核能嗎?」,身為教授的Mark Jacobson,反覆強調100%再生能源,卻被環保人士Stewart Brand拿出大量數據和資料痛電。
Stewart Brand 與 Mark Z. Jacobson: 辯論:這個世界需要核能嗎? | TED Talk
https://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy?language=zh-tw
2015年,Mark Jacobson發表論文主張美國可100%使用再生能源,受到世界各國反核團體大量推崇。
2017年,包含Christopher Clack教授在內的21位氣候專家,發表論文反駁Mark Jacobson的研究充滿「重大缺陷」,包括「無效的模式工具、理論錯誤、不可信和不充分的理論、充滿漏洞的假設……」
科學議題法庭解決 綠能教授告氣候專家誹謗
https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20171214005717-260408
然後,Mark Jacobson反而控告刊登論文的美國國家科學院(PNAS),以及該論文的第一作者Christopher Clack,求償1000萬美元,引起學術界譁然。因為Mark Jacobson拿不出學術分析辯護,卻把這件事鬧上法庭。
2018年,Mark Jacobson主動撤告。
對於反核團體來說,史丹佛大學的Mark Jacobson教授,也只不過是個頭銜好聽且可以利用的棋子,剛好反核罷了。真正了解他的人都知道,他就是個為了發展再生能源,可以用盡所有錯誤數據,詆毀各種能源的人。
以他的觀念及研究,蔡政府目前的能源政策絕對也是爛透了,因為Mark Jacobson大力反對提高天然氣比例,作為所謂過渡能源!
Mark Z. Jacobson PhD on Natural Gas as a "Bridge Fuel" - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FGrTAdB80s
■ 核四公投正是與時間賽跑的氣候行動
民進黨近期強力宣傳綠能減煤,我們完全贊同,因為綠能有兩種,核能和再生,風光不可控,唯核可減煤。綠能減煤,實務上就是核能減煤。我們支持「重啟核四,核能減煤」,我們反對「以風養火,火滅藻礁」,更反對「非核增氣,國安斷氣」。
假如2025年台灣核電機組全面運轉,將可迴避約2400萬噸~4800萬噸的碳排(以600億度電取代天然氣或燃煤估算),相當於台灣淨碳排放的10%~20%左右。
說說能源 Talk That Energy:有無核電影響10%碳排,地球不會再給你時間
https://www.facebook.com/talkthatenergy/photos/a.1804635893093808/2404831113074280/?type=3
有了10%,我們可以更快達到自提的減碳目標,可以更接近阻止氣候變遷的轉捩點。意識型態的紛爭是一時的,而此時,我們的時間正一點一點流逝。
支持台灣續用核電,啟用核四,提供潔淨電力,減緩氣候變遷,友善生活環境,這是以核養綠最根本精神。懇請支持核四公投,這也可以是你的氣候行動。
--
重啟核四公投緊急倒數,9月底前立刻將連署書寄回!
💧以核養綠官方募資正式上架!限定回饋品僅此一檔!
https://green-nuclear-vote.azurewebsites.net/Home/Donate
✅現在就加以核養綠小幫手LINE好友
https://line.me/R/ti/p/%40yyy2460i
⚡️重啟核四公投連署書:擴散性百萬連署王!
https://tinyurl.com/y445gkxw
108-49 台北市萬華區康定路105號26樓之2
以核養綠公投領銜人 黃士修 先生收
type of nuclear energy 在 Science 101: What is Nuclear Energy? - YouTube 的推薦與評價
Argonne's Science 101 series takes you back to the basics, with plain-language explanations of the scientific concepts behind our pivotal ... ... <看更多>