Video Of The Week: My Chat With Jason
I’ve known Jason Calacanis for twenty years. We met when he was in his early 20s and I was in my early 30s. A lot has happened in those twenty years and Jason and I sat down to talk about that at his Launch Festival last week in San Francisco. It’s a long talk, almost 60mins, with no Q&A from the audience. We cover a lot of territory and I was as candid as can be with Jason. I think this chat reveals a lot about where my head is at right now, which is a credit to Jason and our long friendship.
The Zen interview…There was a certain serenity to this video. It started slow, easy going, and included a number of your philosophical reflections.
i was lying on the couch at times, figuratively and literally
Fred with an edge is the the best Fred.
You were *comfortable* …and very much so figuratively and literally 🙂
I watched the second half of this live last week. It was excellent… great dynamic between the two of you. Hope to watch the first half later.FYI, NYC is defrosting. Get back, get back to where you once belonged…
we are coming back on march 27th. looking forward to it.
Been a brutal winter.Freezing rain today–although I shouldn’t complain as I’m about to jump on the lift at Cooper for some runs.
So I won’t see you at WF…
Luli is demoing 3-7 there so stop by and say hello to Pete for me and have a tasting across the 8 products.It’s a perfect day for a Chia X.
Sorry I missed this — though I have to vote for Fresh over Chia X…
Love Fort Mason (God, I miss SF right now). Looks like California is working its magic on you (aided by Jason’s disarming personality). You must be able to do these interviews in your pajamas at this point.Brad was right about net neutrality. In government/legislation/activism, you have to hold out for the best/full solution because it will only be eroded after that. It doesn’t work the other way; you don’t lay the foundation and build up (it works that way in the grassroots lead up to the actual moment of truth, but not after). I learned that a long time ago from very seasoned democracy activists.Some day the lighting people at these events will discover that stage interviews are getting video’d and provide some key lighting so it doesn’t look like Phantom of the Opera.
You saying Fred’s the Phantom to Jason’s Christine? Or other way around?
Ha! Most stage lighting at these things:
Does that guy work in VC?
LOL. I love a good rhetorical question 🙂
Fred, maybe you should accept #7 – there are many great #7s – Mantle, Elway, Esposito, Beckham, Ronaldo, Cantona, Maravich.
i’m not big on counting and listing. this was an email exchange yesterday:———-As in prior years I would ask you to keep me off this list and all lists you publishI dislike lists because they are elitist and suggest that there is a hierarchy of talent and quality that I don’t believe exists in lifeFredOn Friday, March 13, 2015, Huet, Ellen <….> wrote:Hi Fred,I’m a reporter at Forbes working on the Midas List package this year. You’re currently a finalist for the list. While unfortunately we cannot make any guarantees of who made the list before it goes live on March 25, we need to update biographical and deal information for all finalists in preparation for launch. For return members, we need to confirm the following information. We are hoping to have this data by TUESDAY, March 17. Please let us know any issues or concerns.
yea, I get that – you’ve been pretty consistent on that point – so I was sort of teasing you about it. I do like your response in the exchange – “off this list and all lists you publish…” – that’s pretty clear. In fact, I might put your response in the Top 10 of all responses about lists!
“off this list and all lists you publish…”The media, like people in general, is attracted to things that they can’t have. If anything a response like that makes it more likely to be mentioned on a list and it’s obvious that many people will do things out of spite.  Say, put someone on the list, but at the last position and then add some story copy such as “past his prime”.
Stuff like this makes me puke as well. But you know marketing wise it makes sense, even if it makes one uncomfortable. Besides no matter what Forbes is doing with their “Midas” list, it will in no way match the harm that has been done to the world by US News and World Report et al. Think about it like a women getting cat calls in NYC from construction guys should. Sure it’s gross but when you are older and it’s gone you are going to look back and miss some of that attention and adulation.
 Well, actually, you don’t.
N=1 (but I do appreciate your perspective).In all seriousness doesn’t that depend on the particular person or woman?Besides, I don’t consider you (from your photo) to be the “older” that I was referring to.
Ha 🙂 Sure, it does depend upon the particular person.But I think cat calls are little like cocaine. At first you might think it feels great, but it isn’t long until you realize it’s doing real damage. Some people respond by trying to get that initial buzz back. Some are lucky enough to respond in a healthier way.I hesitated to leave the comment because I didn’t want to throw the discussion off into a different area. It just reminded me that I don’t miss that stuff at all. In fact, I feel quite liberated now that it doesn’t happen so much as it used to. Believe it or not, it’s way more fun to think of yourself as a person rather than as an object.
Some people respond by trying to get that initial buzz back.Aha!but it isn’t long until you realize it’s doing real damage. What are examples of the damage?I hesitated to leave the comment because I didn’t want to throw the discussion off into a different area.Fred has stated in the past that the AVC bylaws allow. And he likes that. He’s not Paul “Harvard Yard” Graham. Plus think of it as making the blog seem popular. Because it has many comments. If there was a law against forking, I probably wouldn’t tune in every day. So it’s a loss leader. Just like milk in the supermarket.Believe it or not, it’s way more fun to think of yourself as a person rather than as an object.True story here. Back in the day I had a guy working for me “Jeff” who wasn’t jewish. But he seemed jewish (I call that “jewish style”) and so, in the words of an Irish Salesman that we dealt with “Leo”, well, Leo told Jeff “use it to your advantage”. And Jeff did. Leo was envious of jews and thought of them highly apparently.So to any woman that thinks it’s bad to be thought of as an object rather than a person I say “use it to your advantage”.Why? Because the fact that you are viewed as an “object” if you want to call it that, helps you get your foot in the door and deliver your message. Of course that doesn’t matter with construction workers (unless your car is broken down and you need their help) but it definitely matters in other situations. You know if an attractive woman comes cold calling a man is more likely to take the time to hear her message simply because she is pleasing to look at. And if he takes the time to hear that message he might actually end up buying something. Sexual harassment doesn’t enter into it as much as women would like to think. That any time men act like this it’s a “shonda”. Not all men are pigs. In fact, most aren’t is my feeling. My guess is women act in a similar way. In fact from my experience they do.
Your last sentence is the money line. People joke with me all the time about my last name. As much as I travel, 1 in 4 times a flight attendant greets me by last name. TSA is about the same. But they are joking with me as a person, not as an object.You know on the traditional scale I would not be considered anywhere near a “feminist” but I think calling somebody you don’t know a name is disgusting.
Your name is instantly unique and memorable which can be a great advantage.
Uh, no.But I guess that’s a perfectly “logical” notion.
(Did you mean to include her email address in that snippet? Just in case…)
I don’t think that there is anything wrong with including her email.It wasn’t particularly well written (to parental, to much like something a school teacher would write) and there is no expectation of privacy.That said it’s an “area of concern” getting on the wrong side of someone who can bring publicity to your investments, no matter how you don’t like that process. Fred knows this of course. <– I will keep hammering my points.
Yeah, it’s probably a publicly available email address already. Nonetheless, most people I know default to not including email addresses (without permission) in public forums like this. So, I wondered if it was accidental (and that he might like to know in case he wants to edit).
Could have been an accident or could have be a Freudian slip of sorts. And he also did mention her name. You could argue that is the bigger “crime”.That said for someone like Ellen who posts an email address publicly I wonder if that “not to include” matters. Plus since she is writing and wants page views the mention of her name could be seen as a positive.
great catch. i edited it out. i did not mean to do that
You’re in very distinguished company on that one Fred.https://www.youtube.com/wat…
You’re in very distinguished companyThat’s ironic. Because people view Feynman as important primarily because of the effusive things that others say about him (example: you saying “very distinguished company” ) rather than having any personal knowledge and coming to that conclusion independently. Until I started reading HN (where they drool over Feynman – he’s one of the legacies there that commenters love) I had never heard of him.
With all due respect, I can’t see how your not having heard of him interferes with him being widely regarded as distinguished.
Good point. I should have said “many people” not implied “all people”. And it doesn’t mean that he isn’t distinquished.
“the prize is the pleasure of figuring the thing out”i love that
I believe this short clip of RF talking about a flower is one of the most simple and convincing arguments in favor of studying science.https://www.youtube.com/wat…
I think (after watching 1 min of this) that I agree with what he is saying. But the truth is that if someone else said this nobody would impart any particular brilliance on it. Many people have the same type of thoughts. In this case would you have posted this if an unknown had said the exact same thing?I am almost sure that this effect has been tested by psychologists in the past. Take things that important people have said and then have them said by less important people and see how people react. It’s also one of the reasons that people will allow a wealthy person to be “eccentric” but a poor person is “crazy”. Reminds me of my discussion with an artist years ago and being able to convince her of the beauty of heavy duty well constructed steel shelving and how it’s an art in itself to be appreciated.
You’re upside down on this. People pay attention *precisely* because it’s Feynman talking. You don’t appear to realize just how smart this guy was. Here’s a quick example: he was hopeless at remembering things that didn’t interest him and this extended to many mathematical proofs. During lectures, instead of recalling a proof from memory, he would derive it on the fly from first principles. People had dedicated their lives and had won Nobel prized for stuff that Feynman couldn’t even be bothered remembering. He was avoided by numerous famous physicists so as not to look stupid beside him. Yet he was very approachable and had a great sense of fun.
People pay attention *precisely* because it’s Feynman talking.(He calls the artist “nutty” btw..for his opinion on a flower..)In Physics, agree and makes sense. No argument there. What Feynman says matters. What he thinks of the Manhattan Project matters.What he says about flowers is interesting. Why science is important to learn he gets his point across not because of the words or idea but primarily the way he is able to convey them with enthusiasm and excitement. Which is a great skill in itself “raconteur” and I’m sure added to his likeability, right? The professor in college that you want to listen to that inspires. That you don’t fall asleep or get bored with.I watched it again. And another time. I’m not seeing anything so remarkable that any educated (or world knowledgeable person) couldn’t have, and probably has, come to similar conclusions.But back to Feynman.You don’t appear to realize just how smart this guy was. He was avoided by numerous famous physicists so as not to look stupid beside him. “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”I think it’s hilarious that someone can be a “famous physicist” but have such low self esteem. Imagine where this world would be if people like Martin Luther King had those weak “balls”. That’s the type of behavior I would expect out of a 14 year old in high school, not a “famous” physicist.
It’s all relative 😉
This is terrific.He reminds me of my father honestly. Dinner table discussions were the bookends of the world through the views of physicist and on the other side of the table, the world through the view of my grandfather, no education, mixed English/Yiddish, union organizer, sweat shot worker.Lucky me!
+1, List are so 1-dimensional that it compresses any meaning into something for fast consumption. Figuring something out inherently is N-dimension modelled.
Industry rankings, awards and other accolades, such as Best Movie of the Year, Best Song of the Year, MVP of the Year, VC of the Year, etc., always ring hollow to me as the criteria often is so, so subjective, while simultaneously and unintentionally they diminish the success of others in their respective fields.They all seem silly, vanity directed and a very unveiled way to extrapolate a buck on the back of others.
Works with the masses, the lemmings or it wouldn’t be done.And as much as anyone thinks that it would have no effect on them if all the sudden they started to see “This Name” on lists, especially at the top, they would then be almost certainly more likely to view that person as important in any subsequent mention.
I get that they’re a “badge of honor,” but honestly, should they be when the criteria often is so lame?
“Should they be”No laws will be passed to prevent this.It’s strictly a business decision. Whether it is right doesn’t enter into the discussion. Same as US News and World Report and the college rankings or food marketing in supermarkets isn’t about what is right for society. Or what Hillary Clinton does. Sole factor is “is it good for Hillary”.I will circle back to my comment where I said “makes me puke” to illustrate what I think of these types of unscientific beauty contests. But I will also say that if I had a chance to make money from ordering a list (after checking it twice) I would do that no question about it. Practicality over principle. Other far worse examples are lists of “Top Doctors” which are total jokes (I’ve been watching these for years” or “Super Lawyers”. Fact is they seem to help draw attention to professionals who, in the past, couldn’t advertise now we are totally in the other direction. Legal advertising in my state was allowed about 1977 or so approx. iirc. and you can see what happened after that with personal injury. Almost ditto for medical advertising.
I remember my very first Geocities website I wanted to drive traffic to it so I would go to other forums that had similar content and give them an award I made in Photoshop. Forum members would all put it in their signature and my site was linked in tons of posts. Great marketing, if only my 13 year old self had figured out how to monetize.
Never underestimate teenage creativity and ingenuity :). When I was in high school I printed up stationary for a faux magazine similar to Rolling Stone. I think I called it “Rock World.” I mailed an introductory letter to every major record label and attached tear sheets of album reviews sourced from other local pubs. My whole M.O. was to get on the comp list and receive free stuff from these leading record labels. It worked quite well. I must have received 100 free LP’s my senior year.
My whole M.O. was to get on the comp list and receive free stuff from these leading record labels. It worked quite well. I must have received 100 free LP’s my senior year.I love stuff like this great comment.
What are your feelings of “tiered lists”? Like, instead of ranking the midas list 1 – 100.. maybe they make 4 tiers with 50 in each. I think that would actually be VERY helpful for the average entrepreneur which is trying to understand “how legitimate” someone is. And I don’t mean from an ego standpoint at all. I guess being from the Midwest and knowing the venture capital landscape real well it pisses me off how many investors here try to describe themselves. I worked at a nearly a $100 million VC firm in ohio, but really in Ohio right now there is one legitimate “traditional” VC firm, Drive Capital (a $250 million firm). Also many of the angel groups here leave MUCH to be desired. A list like the midas list can help sort out legitimate investors (at least based on past track records). Then investors not on it would have to admit “yeah, haven’t had a huge track record in the past.. but I will help you for reasons x,y,z”. Which is totally believable. But my original point is a midas list that puts you into the top 50 tier is obvious, and then we don’t bicker over little numbers, but still provide substantial value for most economic actors in the entrepreneurial space. Any feelings on that?
A tiered list still needs order in it. How would you do that? Alpha (unfair advantage to “Andressen”). Random? Won’t work.But more importantly nobody is going to put in the effort (given what advertising dollars are) to do it right. I would argue that even if the task was given to a phd at a University it would be flawed and have bias. And the record gathering would be quite onerous.Can be done but very difficult and what benefit and who funds it?
Sure a tiered list by alphabet would work. People are not stupid. If made clear that tier 1 was all the same tier, but by alphabetizing that part would work. I guess part of me wonders why / how Forbes with their midas list makes money… but are you saying the economics would be worst if they didn’t have 1 -100 but instead tiers 1-4 ? maybe so.. idk
People are not stupid.It has nothing to do with intelligence. It’s human nature. Brain is trained to give more importance to first mentioned for whatever reason. Not the same but similar to why in the supermarket you want to be eye level.With respect to Forbes I mean the issue is they don’t have the incentive to do a better job of making a list other than what would typically amount to a beauty contest.
My undergraduate institution had heavily quantized grading (A, B, C, NR). Big problem with it is large ranges mean that the margins make world of a difference in your GPA. 49 is qualitatively closer to 52 than 5, but in a scheme like that it gets lumped with the 5.
Valid point. I mean always going to be some arbitrariness, but assuming we are going tier 1 -4 (with 50 in a tier) if everybody is within 1 tier of the “true skill”, then a ranking scheme has some probabative value. If someone is tier 1 then maybe there are some legitimate values between 1 and 2, but if many people think there investing skills are tier 3 then perhaps the measure is off. The taxonomy and design of any system is only as strong as their weaknesses, and I think a multi-tiered list has more value than a list of 1 -100 that is literally almost impossible to make sense of if number 15 or 40 is really “better” by any demonstrable practice. Again, not really a huge issue in the grand scheme of life here of the midas list etc.. but I think tiered lists are usually better for this purpose (or hurdle rate systems like the hall of fames for respective sports leagues. people pretty much only care ifthey are in the hall o not… not what exact number of votes they got)
i dislike all lists. they are about ranking people. i just don’t like that.
Fair enough. I respect that (I really do, because you are genuine. many others on the midas list would not say that genuinely as you do!). My only quibble would be is they are ranking peoples as “venture capitalists” not as “people”. Being a venture capitalist is obviously the reason you are semi- famous, but the reason I would hazard to guess that you are most proud of is the relationships you have with family,friends and co-workers that you got to know. Not sure if that point is clear or not, but I think ranking people for a specific skill is ok, its just that our culture tends to reduce that to ranking people as a whole, which is just a fools game. but you appear to be doing pretty well in both (VC and as a person… so that is great!)
facts are better than lists. Like this one:1) USV made 3 of only 21 Dragon Deals between 2004&2014 – http://techcrunch.com/2014/…
Your business biography, This was incredible and the best interview (conversation) you have ever done.
thanks for that… it’s easy when you have time and a great guest .
Hey Fred, this was the first interview of yours/podcast of Jason’s I listened to. Definitely added to my conviction in the importance of building a great product above all else…helps cut through the noise around everything else.
Apple watch: Necessity or Vanity Item?The Apple watch is inextricably linked to the iPhone, but at launch it seems far, far more an accessory than a product w/ it’s own distinct merits. Of course, that likely will change w/ watch apps that deliver strong, meaningful use cases. However, as a mere accessory, which again it Is currently, I think it’s an indulgence purchase that likely isn’t ripe for mass indoctrination (and by mass I mean a high conversion rate w/ current iPhone users.) Perhaps mass acceptance isn’t exceedingly important financially to Apple, but it certainly is from an image standpoint. The launch watch doesn’t deliver a strong price/value equation and the product seems far more vanity than an item of necessity.In sum, there’s just not a lot of bacon w/ all that sizzle!
This was a cool video because it seemed to cover things that others did not. A few things stuck out to me:1. You criticized Apple for their lack of openness in their ecosystem, but I wanted to point out that twitter has been suffering from the same thing with their developer APIs and they seem to be doing ok. I will agree that Apple has been mediocre in the software department though. Shamefully I still use the default calendar app but have replaced most others.2. It seems the consensus is bearish on the Apple Watch. I completely disagree. I think you should go read this article on the Disney Wristband: http://www.wired.com/2015/0… and then rethink it. I believe Apple Watch (and Android Wear) are going to be the Disney wristband for modern cities. I am so excited about this that I’m planning to purchase one the day it comes out (probably the cheapest one), sign-up for an Apple Developer account, and teach myself Swift so I can write an app for it.Loved the discussion on the mesh networking. I agree and look forward to having my Apple Watch 2 on the mesh network ;).
Openness vs security/privacy/autonomy is a complex tipping-point/trade-off that is just starting to bite into the mass consumer’s visceral consciousness as a prioritized need.We are all just now begin to accumulate enough experience in a world of abstracted digital persona/agency to appreciate the personal impact of this pivotal openness-vs-security/privacy/autonomy trade-off within a new visceral reality evermore dominated by our own individualized internet of biologically extended things/processes/agency.Apple has been biding their time by cultivating this trade-off as yet another very important layer of their repeatable trade-craft systemic-integration approach to product design/disruption.Their watch is yet another long-play investment in their uniquely formulaic trade-craft systemic-integration approach to product design/disruption. The watch is their viscerally transparent central control/monitor for orchestrating all our emerging private/personalized internet-cloud of abstracted/distal things and processes as well as our digitally extended persona/agency.Apple’s systemic-integation disruption target, this time around, is nothing less than ownership of everyone’s vitual-digital-exoskeleton for navigating this brave new world of abstracted everything all delivered with a modicum of ergonomically-transparent wetware-interface and a balanced load of integrative openness/comfort/security/privacy/autonomy.HOW APPLE WILL MAKE THE WEARABLE MARKET- BY BEN THOMPSONFred is such a big picture integrative-genius in the world of social software it really surprises me that he does not embrace the possibilities inherent in an ergonomically-transparent vitual-digital-exoskeleton navigation-system as an inevitable integrative-disruption product! It feels like this is such a classic step and repeat Apple modus-operandi at this point !As for superficial consumer-software like calendar, isn’t that targeted at instant ease of use for average consumer rather than the deep feature needs of people like Fred. Apple does put out more robust wares when targeting specialized markets like Garage-Band and Final Cut ?
Impressed by the candor and no BS approach — this is a classic interview.I was also blown away by the interview with the co-founder from Kickstarter — integrity galore this guy has.Was thinking of throwing something negative in my comment just to make you happy, as I know you don’t like compliments — just kidding, ha, ha, ha!
Yancey and his co-founder Perry who was the original CEO of Kickstarter are both super high integrity people
It’s most genuinely coming across, and it’s inspiring.
i am continually astounded at how much deception there is in the VC/entrepreneur industry.
Unfortunately deception is a cornerstone of the sales process in many industries and marketing to a certain extent. Business is not medicine, and for that matter medicine is not medicine the same way it was.The consumer (or the purchasing agent in a business) is not an angel either. Google “buyers are liars” and you will see many references.But what exactly constitutes “deception” anyway? It means different things to different people and depends on the circumstances. (And NYT Magazine just enhanced one of their popular features “The Ethicist” to deal with some of these issues.)
To be clear, people like Fred are not deceptive. But I have seen a lot of shit that is and really causes leakage to the community. When we were floor traders, “Your word is your bond” was our code. I have carried that along, but was surprised at how many grinfuckers there were out there.
As LE said, it’s widespread. I personally think the best approach is to lead by example, otherwise we become just another one of them. I usually look at someone right in the eyes and let them know that I would rather take a bullet than break my word. That’s why I don’t give my word out lightly. And hopefully I won’t never have to be taken literally.
speaking of Yancey, he was interviewed a couple of days later…. and it’s a nice bookend… might be video of week next week! :-phttps://youtu.be/PDBTqT2FaLE
excellent interview. Thoughtful and well reasoned except the commets on Apple which sounded a bit irrational.
Your on fire!! As to the Apple watch , check out the wrists of a young early 20ish Korean teacher who recently gigged for me at a tech conference in Seoul . – it’s an early generation Samsung watch , she & all her friends are wearing them
You seem really comfortable doing this type of fireside chats, it almost feels like I’m present in the room. These type of open discussions are incredibly cool…
The fun part is when you quote your dad telling you “what did you get wrong ?” after getting a 98 on a test and say that this is what you should absolutely NOT do with your kids. I would take that as sound advice if you turned out a total failure !! It probably pissed you off at the time, but maybe that’s (at least one way) to push your kids to keep learning, improving, and doing great things…
So Fred now that you’re a big success with a proud papa, no doubt, was your dads strategy to “criticize first” actually the optimal one? Albeit not the most fun for a kid?
might disagree about making money in the VC business (but wouldn’t disagree about valuations) I think we are on the verge of an amazing technological renaissance that will affect every single industry with greater magnitude than the internet did back in the early 90s, or industrialization did at the turn of the century. That means there will be multiple opportunities.
Wow. Non-Jason Spotted On Stage With Chamathhttp://fakevalley.com/non-j…
Interview was amazing – use of Drake beat for intro and exit also dope
Finally got a chance to watch the first 20 min of this, hoping to watch the rest soon.I have had the same exact thought about movies and music, especially living here in LA. It solves every problem that artists have been complaining about for the last half century and yet people are still running towards these broken models. It virtually solves piracy as well. Pre-sell the content (nothing to pirate if it doesn’t exist) and have the money go directly to the artist.
Stole some time away to finish it. Potential bubble thesis: valuations were historically under market due to inefficiencies in the funding process. As funding is becoming more efficient, i.e. the world getting more open, more people with voices, access, etc, valuations are going up to where they should be. The loss, then, is for the VC’s and other capital providers who had almost exclusive access to most of the good investments. They’re profits are going more to the companies themselves.I’m not saying it’s true or not, but when you mentioned that it’s harder for investors to make money than it was 5-10 years ago, it made me think that perhaps that’s just a marker of the market becoming more efficient which could support the notion of higher valuations without a “bust” in the future.
that is one of the many reasons why i don’t want to use the word “bubble” the only thing i know for sure is that valuations have gotten to a place i have not seen sustained before
Totally. There are so many variables at play and so much change in the field, I am always shocked by how flippantly people form strong opinions based on one or two sets of data. I think your approach of being willing to see the whole market and find the area in which you are still comfortable without necessarily having a steadfast opinion on the rest makes a lot of sense.
Amazing interview. I watched it live and then again here. It’s amazing how much knowledge each of these men have and how much one can learn just from listening. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Amazing interview, Fred, congrats! The best I’ve seem from you (or any other VC). And so truthful: you are probably the most honest (and nicest) VC ever, or the greatest lier in the business! LOL…BTW, do you regret firing Jack Dorsey? (I wish Jason asked you that)
That’s right Carl. Everyone has value and is important. Ranking people is awful.
I see a key difference between ranking performance and ranking people.An Olympic gold winner WAS best on the day – its a fact – but It does not make him a better person.Certainly very well prepared, perhaps better trained (you have to admire winners that rose from lesser circumstances), mentally and physically disciplined, feeling well on the day (most likely) and perhaps some good forttune.But not (necessarily) a better person.Better people are found by other measures (to teach, give, be gentle, wise and slow to anger are good examples) – These measures are qualities and harder to measure.I hope to achieve and offer qualities – quantities are just partial side-effects.