non-linear polynomial lives
NYC, February 8th 2026
From podcasts and being in the space, I have heard multiple VCs and their firms dig for signals from someone's childhood and that these are a good indication of whether this person would end up in tech or perform well in tech. This at first sight could make sense, but the issue I see with this is that this assumes the following thought process "people achieve y because x happened in their life/because they did x in their childhood"- it is true that this line of thought explains a set of people, but this becomes an issue if seen as an absolute, because I have met incredible folks that wouldn't fit this linear function. With 8bn walking and breathing on planet earth, many fit instead the reality of "people achieve y despite z happening in their life/ despite x not even being a possibility or existing at all in their life's function/ despite t was half or less than average".
Back in Italy when I was practicing piano professionally, my very first piano teacher, Valeria, a retired opera singer, used to tell me what you would least expect from a upper-middle class white woman. "There are so many Beethovens, and Bachs and Chopins that were born at the wrong place, and the wrong time. I wonder how many Beethovens could have been born in rural india and all they were allowed to do was to sow day and night Nike shoes- we are playing scores of geniuses, but also of geniuses that were graced by god and put in a situation to bless us with their genius". I owe everything I am to that woman, and I can't help but to see such a clash from the traditional VC thought process and my classical piano upbringing that shaped my own personal values.
What about looking for outliers? What about chasing the unexplainable? When did looking for clean cut explainable lives, become such a thing? Yes, it is safer. But isn't venture capital as an asset class supposed to be about taking risks? Isn't tech a field where people are supposed to be enabled to take risks, aim higher, and at what is today considered unachievable? I am fascinated and drawn to the un-explainable. The unexplainable often also somehow comes to me. There are so many wonderful and exceptional people I have met last year, from designers to engineers to actors and filmmakers- and they all couldn't be explained with a linear regression; that would even be an insult to their life's work.
As an example: recently I met an incredible young person, who didn't have access to the internet till 16, and started coding only in college. Few years in, they are already running their own company automating calls for small businesses in the nyc area. This person didn't have access to wifi till 16 and was born and raised around farms- there is no signal that this person would have made it according to the firms that look for people doing gaming in their childhood or flipping sneakers online in their teenage years. I am not saying that these (gaming, flipping stuff online etc.) are bad or poor signals, all I am saying is that they are not the only ones- thinking so leads to omitted variable bias and in my opinion a sad and less colorful way to explore a world with 8bn realities happening in parallel.
Excellence manifests itself in different ways, through different phenomenons and declensions. And reducing excellence to a few chosen variables, is lazy at best and a disrespect to said excellence.
Ugh- I do not know who ends up reading these. This is the internet, anyone could click and read this. I just want you to know that if you are young and you feel the pressure to conform to a narrative to attract people's attention, you are doing your unique self a disservice. We are all wandering in a floating ball with fire inside. So if you want to have a coffee, or tell me your thoughts, feel free to email me! In the meantime, happy wandering.