Why Anointment Decides Who Really Rises, with Toby Stuart

AI systems, I would make the argument that they will make more fair choices. So on the one hand, there's a theoretical possibility that AI could lead to a lot more equality and outcomes that made choices without factoring in things like age and race and gender. On the other hand, AI creates a second problem which I think is at the moment just a giant problem that we're just starting to talk about, which is that it suppresses the amount of information that's available to us when we're trying to evaluate human beings.

Good morning everybody, it's Guy Kawasaki. This is the Remarkable People podcast and we have found another remarkable person to inform you and inspire you. His name is Toby Stewart. He's a professor at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, and quite frankly, he's one of the world's leading experts on innovation, entrepreneurship and social networks. His latest book is called Anointed and I read it, I loved it. He's quite critical about, shall I say, some of the decision making process of Silicon Valley. So his work challenges the myth of self made founders and reveals what it really takes to rise in today's innovation and digital economy. Welcome to the show, Toby.

Thanks, Guy. Thrilled to be here with you.

Ah, Toby, here we go. First of all, just out of curiosity, what school did your daughter end up going? Because you, you mention her in the book.

Yeah, she went to Barnard College, affiliated with Columbia in New York City.

Wow. Wow. So you know, what's 3, 400,000, right?

Yeah, give or take. Give or take, but that's about right.

I know Haas professors make a shitload of money, so.

Good. So we can say I'm glad we got, glad we got that out of the way.

Just to give people more of a context here, the book is called Anointed and most of it is talking about the positive effects or the at least the advantages of being anointed. But you mentioned a very interesting case with your daughter, which was kind of reverse anointment. Right. The college admissions advisor says she's got five strikes against her. She's like, she's white, she's from a prominent academic family, she went to a private school. Like five things working against her. And so it wouldn't be easy to get her into school. So can you just tell us that story because we're going to start with the reverse of anointment.

Yeah, it was a funny story in my life. I'm a career academic and I'm the kid of academics. I've been around universities all my life and so let's just say It's a family that really values education. And my daughter, she's an only child and she had sort of spent her life in the private, the independent schools throughout her whole childhood. I bounced around between a number of different universities, so we moved between places. Anyway, she ended up graduating from high school at a private school in Oakland. And there's this moment when like most any parents of kids this age have many, many of them have been through it, where you go meet the guidance counselor and you're given sort of the state of the state with respect to what's gonna happen with college. And the school my daughter went to is actually called College Prep. So a very original name. And so that meeting is kind of like if you go in and you feel like you're about to hear your kid's future. And I mean, we'll come back to why, because the book is about why that is so, so important for one's future. But I went into this meeting and I had sort of had a sense of how well she was doing in high school. But I wasn't anticipating what he said, which is he described her as a five striker. And those were the five strikes. The five strikes were she's female, she attends high school or lives in the Bay Area, New York, Boston, Chicago, Louisiana. I think those five areas were the five listed. She's from well educated, upper middle class family and she went to a private school. And kind of what he said is at this moment, and so this would have been, it'd be different probably this year, but this was 6, 7, 8. This would have been, I'm trying to do the math in my head, but eight, nine years ago, and at that point college admissions were looking to create a little bit more equality. So there was, there was something of a hesitation about what looked like over privileged kids from affluent families, but maybe not affluent enough to name the buildings, let's be clear. Like it, there's a range of affluence which is still good, still works for you. And so that was going to make admissions difficult. Now the two surprises to me at the time were one, that she was a girl. And the reason for that is because girls consistently have better grades and better test scores than boys do at this age. So if you were to use, use those two dimensions to make admissions, you'd end up with heavily gender skewed classes. And most every place is trying for a roughly 50, 50 mix. So actually makes it harder for girls to get in. They need higher scores and then private schools because there was a little bit of A backlash against these elite private schools in admissions decisions.

First of all, I would debate, like, what's so wrong if girls were overrepresented in college. Why don't we flip it for a while and give them the advantage? But. But let's not go down that hole. So let's back up here. Will you just define anointment beyond the biblical sense of putting oil on somebody's head? What do you mean by anointment?

Yeah, so the book is a quite broad treatment of social status and status dynamics across economic markets, workplaces, social contexts, Silicon Valley art. So it's a quite broad book. And anointment refers to the act of transferring status. And, you know, it is biblical. And I couldn't tell you exactly why the title popped into my head one day, but it did. On a Covid walk on a beach in Southern California, I thought of the title and actually that's what cinched it. That's when I decided I'm going to do the book is when I thought of the title and probably hearkens back to my Catholic school upbringing. But anointment is the act of transferring status from one party to another party. And it happens in small ways and large ways all of the time. So in our world now, I want to take you to Silicon Valley ex. Apple guy. The exvc. The ex. You know, the longtime Silicon Valley marketer and veteran of nearly everything. Anointment is when Sequoia Capital decides to invest in a company or when Y Combinator decides to admit founders. Right. These are acts of anointment. Or when UC Berkeley or Stanford graduates a new class and prints a whole bunch of degrees. It is the act of changing somebody's status through a transfer from party A to B. So the party might be YC and the recipient might be a budding founder. And there you go. And it happens every day, everywhere, every place.

I have to admit, Toby, that as I was reading your book, I was simultaneously disgusted with how anointment works. But I was also convicted because. Because I work for Apple. I went to Stanford. I started a company that was funded by Sequoia. I know Jane Goodall. I mean, I had a lot anointment going on in my life. And so I was conflicted. And the first thing I thought of, to pardon my French, do you think anybody would give a shit about RFK Jr. If his last name wasn't Kennedy?

Yeah. I mean, that's so right. There's been politics I've been trying to stay away from, but the answer is probably not a lot of Shits, you know, and we've been living in like dynastic world. Look at the Trump family and what the kids are up to and look at the Bushes and look at the Clintons. We live in a, in a family, in a dynastic world. Now there's a quote in the book about this which I just love. I found it in the course of writing the book and it's by Thomas Paine, or at least that's the attribution. And the quote goes, if Homer's kid wrote a novel, I'm not really sure I'd want to read it. I thought, that's so good.

On the other hand, there must be a reason why anointment and the transfer of social status works. What's the upside of it?

That's a super nuanced question. Eventually we'll come to the fact that we, the world without social status is a much more complicated world. That is, we rely on status queues all of the time to curate the world for us and to get us from like options to decisions like always, all day long, always. We rely on social status like we don't even think about it. And that's why I think folks should read the book and why it's important is because there is this kind of force that operates in the background. And most of us, we're not cognizant of it, but it operates on us. It does in myriad ways, all the time. But then behind that is sort of set of social mechanisms. So let's take you're a Stanford graduate and you're an alumni of Apple, and you're a veteran Sequoia founder. And the sort of core economic logic of it is that Stanford doesn't admit just anybody. And Sequoia doesn't just choose anybody to finance and Apple doesn't just hire anyone. So these are in our world, yours and mine, and in the world, these are three very prestigious institutions. And when they make a choice to hire, to admit to finance, we interpret that as evidence of quality, right? They're super smart, they're super successful, they chose you because you're amazing. And the thing that misses is there's a set of reasons why they chose you and not somebody else that maybe aren't 100% merit based. And the second is in academia we call this selection versus treatment. So these very distinguished institutions not only choose you, but they treat you. And by treatment we mean they give you a huge boost in status and then that helps you with everything that you do subsequently. Right? So then it looks like they made wise choices. Right. Apple may be ashamed of a few things over its career, but hiring you isn't one of them.

I don't know about that. I guess I'm living proof of the Matthew Principle and like I should have been more successful, now that you mention it that way. Just to set the record straight, Toby, the way I got into Apple is nepotism. My college roommate hired me. The way I got Sequoia investment is that back then in the dot com days, Sequoia funded anybody. If you had a room temperature IQ and a PowerPoint pitch. And then Stanford. I am so old Toby, that as a Japanese American, when I applied to Stanford I was considered an oppressed minority. So there's nothing about anointment. There's mostly dumb shit luck in my anointing anointments just to set the record straight. All right.

I mean, I love the modesty, but I think also Stanford, when you went was mostly Stanford. Sequoia, when they financed your company, wasn't Sequoia and Apple maybe wasn't quite Apple yet. Right. I mean, so these institutions themselves have gained a great deal of prestige over the years. But you know what you said as an intro into that actually, and it was funny, so thank you. But I also know it's quite serious, which is nepotism. Social networks that are elite contacts and contacts that get you into places that other people don't have. These are all the ways in which opportunities are distributed. Yeah.

Let me just say that if Apple did not recover and become the $2 trillion most successful company in the world, I would not exactly hold myself out as the former chief evangelist of Apple. Right.

And you clearly didn't hold your stock because we're up to 3 trillion.

I don't want to get into it, but I don't have any Apple store. I think I have four shares. But anyway, so as I was reading your book about this anointment and, and, and I kept coming back to like. I find it very difficult to find an example where an offspring is anointed and really lives up to the name and the potential. You wouldn't say that Paris Hilton has outdone Conrad Hilton. You wouldn't say that Eric Trump say that really took advantage and did something. Hunter Biden. I don't know if I'm pushing back on your concept, but I find it difficult to convince myself that anointment has really guaranteed success for people.

If you take those three people, Hunter is a complicated one because for all the sort of legal accusations, the criminal accusations, in that case but so take Paris Hilton. She may not have outdone Conrad Hilton. She had a in which she probably earned hundreds of millions of dollars and became a global celebrity. And so whether you outdo your parent who's like dynastic is one thing. The anointment dynamic is like the way that I think about it and I'm always thinking about these things with my academics hat on it. But the way that I think about it is suppose you could take Paris Hilton and assign her at birth to some random family and then you had two Paris Hiltons. One was Conrad's daughter and the other was the same human being, identical, everything the same, but just assigned to like an average lower income family in America. Like is, is the second Paris Hilton going to make hundreds of millions of dollars and become a global celebrity? Right. And so that's the thought experiment. The thought experiment isn't do you outdo your parents? It's that did you succeed far beyond you would have had you not have been anointed with the Hilton name.

Wow. When you put it that way, you know, you're absolutely right.

Let me take you back to our world. Right? So let's take Y Combinator because that's always a fun one to think about each time Y Combinator admits a class these days it's only AI, but in the past it was blockchain companies and it was SaaS companies and it was consumer companies and it was health tech companies and it was whatever companies they were looking across the spectrum. Okay, so they're going to admit a class and let's say there are a hundred startups in a class. It doesn't matter what the number is, but there's a hundred seats, right? And so, so if you think about the selection process, what you're doing is you're comparing apples to oranges to begin with because you're comparing some fintech founder to some PhD in biochemistry who's got a molecular target that they're working on. So already you're in a very apples to oranges comparison when you're looking at startups. And so imagine you could run this experiment where you have the hundred company, you take the 100 companies that Y Combinator admitted and you find the one, that last one, okay, so it was the last slot they allocated. And then you find the founder who started the company that we'll call it the 101st company, like it was the closest to make the cut that didn't actually make it. Now what I would argue is that there's no quality difference between those two companies, like on a different day, the 101st company would have been admitted or there was some meeting dynamic. But it's random. Them, it's effectively random. Like these are very hard decisions to make. Like, I don't admire the YC admissions committee, but if you then compare the fate, the future of the 101st founder to the hundredth founder that was admitted, I think you're going to see super different outcomes. But you had the same quality to begin with. And that's a status dynamic that then unfolds because the hundredth company was anointed and the 101st company was not.

And so are you saying that this is inherently an unfair or at least random process and we should fix it, or you're just describing the phenomena and say, this is how it is, boys and girls. You should work at being anointed, even if it doesn't necessarily reflect your merit.

This is how it is, boys and girls. The book's a lot about how the world works and not strongly a moral judgment. I'm much more concerned that people kind of understand how things happen. And if you want to then reverse engineer about how to acquire more status, you can certainly do that based on the information that's in the book. But it's really about, this is how the world functions. And we should all understand that. And I think it's part of the cultural heritage of the United States. And look, if you take 2025America and you compare it to almost any place at any time besides 2023America, I think that you find that this is like a more merit based society than we've seen nearly all places, all times, all of history. But that doesn't make it merit based. So we're doing better than I think we've seen historically. But there's lots of things that distort the connection between merit and achievement or outcomes. And social status is one of the biggest things that does that.

Wait, let me make sure I understood that. You're saying that even today, where someone ran a wrestling entertainment company is now Secretary of Education. You're saying even today 2025, if because your last name is Kennedy, you're running health, you're saying even today we are more merit based than most societies ever.

Yes, than most societies in the history of the world. Remember? I mean the history of the world is caste systems and monarchies and feudalist societies. And by history of the world, I mean the broad spectrum of the history of the world. And there's still a large part of the sort of inhabitants of the world today live in somewhat oppressive societies. In the broad sweep of history 2025, America is certainly there's more opportunity to get ahead through merit and hard work than there is historically. But that isn't all or in my view, really most of the story.

Why do I not feel any better?

But I don't want to. I don't want to. I don't want to bring you down.

Starting a business comes with its share of ups and downs, which is why staying true to your vision is essential. A non negotiable for Romeo and Milka Bregali, Capital One business customers and co owners of ra's plant based restaurant in New York. Romeo and Milka took a leap of faith when starting their own restaurant, gutting an empty space and building it from the ground up. Every pipe, every wall, every detail. But building from scratch came with a heavy financial burden, which is when they turned to their Capital One business card. With the flexibility of the card's no preset spending limit, they were able to spend more and earn more rewards while bringing their vision to life. Today, Roz's success is proof that with passion and the right support, it's possible to make your dreams a reality. Learn more@Capital1.com BusinessCards you're listening to Remarkable.

People with Guy Kawasaki.

You know, theoretically, do you have ways that one can recognize and discern genuine expertise from the assumption of expertise?

Yeah, that's a really interesting and really challenging question. So generally I don't know that we work that hard to, to do that. Right? I mean, because we're ready to conflate achievement and merit rather than going back and trying to explain how achievement happened. So I think we all could do better with that than we do. And we all could think more about status dynamics and how people get to where they are. And we could all also think about some reflexive responses that we have to status queues. And I think if collectively if we did that, we would have a less status based system. But the benefit of status that we should talk about is that it really does help you come to evaluations. It makes it much easier to make choices about things and it in fact really quite dramatically even curates the choices in front of you in most contexts. And that's super helpful because we live in a world that's got, got just an overabundance of options for nearly everything and we need to make a constant set of choices.

But basically, Toby, are you not refuting the concept of the wisdom of the crowd? Are you saying, you know, it's the stupidity of the crowd.

So the crowd has wisdom about certain things. So if you have what I think of as the classic wisdom of the crowd problem, which is if you have an urn and it's filled with red and blue balls and you want to know how many red and blue balls are in the urn, a good way to get there is to ask 10,000 people and take the mean or the expected value of those guesses, and the evidence shows you're probably going to get pretty close to how many actual urns. So people will be too high, people be too low. Some people get it right on. But the crowd has wisdom that the individual does not. And prediction markets work the same way. So there are many examples in which crowds have wisdom system. I'm just not sure that crowds are wise with respect to status processes.

So are you saying that if you see a big line of people in front of a restaurant, that is a reasonable way to estimate the quality of the restaurant because of the wisdom of the palette of the crowd?

That's so funny, because this is one of the classic quality signals about restaurants. We're all told, like, you're walking, you're in a city, and you've never, ever been in that city, and you're walking down the street and you want to know where to eat. And there are four restaurants on the block, and one of them's full, and two of them are half filled and one of them's empty. And from that information, we are to deduce the full restaurant is probably right. And I actually am totally on board with that one. I think that's probably generally true, like, particularly if you're in a place where there's lots of locals. But the line out the door is a different thing. Right? The line out the door is typically manufactured, so I love lines out the doors. Like, there's this ice cream shop. I forget what it's called in south berkeley. There's always 50 people waiting for ice cream. And of course, I wait in the line because I had a kid at the time and she saw the line and then wanted to wait in the line. So I wait in the line and I get there, and I realize when I get into the store that the line's intentional. Either it's like the laziest staff ever, or they've been told to take their time to make, like, the perfect round scoop or whatever. Because the line out the door makes it seem like it's the it place. And that gets to, like. I think one of the central mechanisms about Anointment, which is that it's reflective. Is the hot restaurant hot because it's amazing? Or is the hot restaurant hot because, like, the fashionable, the cool, the high status, the people you admire go to that restaurant, and then you want to go because they want to go, right? And then more people want to go because the restaurant's hot. So you end up just in a circle, right? This reflective circle where the restaurant's hot because the in crowd's there. And the in crowd goes because the restaurant's hot, but the restaurant's hot because the in crowd goes. But the in crowd goes because the restaurant's hot. And that tends to be less a quality signal and more a status signal. And the reason people go to those places, all of us can imagine the place I just described, like, wherever you live, whatever you do, we all can imagine that place. People don't tend to go to these because they think it's the most amazing culinary experience, right? They go precisely because it's the hot place.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Like, so Marilyn Monroe is sitting in the front row of my performance for two weeks. And because Marilyn Monroe is there, because she's so famous, I must be a good singer. Or, I don't know, LeBron James endorses a car, or I don't think Matthew McConaughey really drives the Lincoln Navigator. I could understand if Matthew McConaughey was recommending something he really knew a lot about, or LeBron James was recommending a basketball shoe or something, but why do people think that Marilyn Monroe is now my music expert? What translates transference, does that occur?

That's such a good question. And I'm, like, looking at you, and I almost want to turn that one around because you're the marketer and I'm not. So you know way more about whatever decision the Ford Motor Company made to hire Matthew McConaughey to represent the Lincoln brand. Like, that was the marketing department who made that decision. But let's take those apart. The Marilyn Monroe stories in the book, I have always loved that one. So I think a lot of cultural tastes are also status processes. Most of us don't know the difference. If we do blind tests and bottles of wine, we're not going to do well in terms of identifying which one's expensive, which one's high quality, according to the experts. Like, we're poor at making judgments in cultural markets. And that's probably to a lesser degree true in music. We understand what we like and what our own preferences are. But The Ella Fitzgerald Story. And I like it because she's arguably, like, the greatest female vocalist ever in my mind. But I'm jazz. I love jazz. I think she has one of the greatest voices I've ever heard. But to build her career, Marilyn Monroe turned out to be a huge fan of hers when she was young. And she got a sort of breakthrough gig at an LA nightclub because Marilyn Monroe agreed, who was already a megastar. Marilyn Monroe agreed to go every night Ella played and sit in the front row. And the club owner was like, that's a deal, I'll take. And then Ella got a couple weeks of performances at this club. And that is one of many things in addition to an amazing voice that led to the stardom that she eventually had. But what you're getting at is it's just central in the marketing world, right? Which is think about the products that celebrities and athletes endorse. And the big spenders are Adidas and Nike and Babylot and Titleist, right? They're the brands that are sports relevant. But those athletes or celebrities then become spokespersons for Lincolns and for Mercedes and for Rolexes and for all the brands that you can think of. And ask yourself, like, why would you care? Do you want to wear a Rolex? Because Roger Federer wears a Rolex. Obviously, it was expensive for Rolex to hire Roger Federer, and they paid a lot of money for that. And they did it with a whole bunch of math on. And I'm looking at you like, when you go pitch, like the Roger Federer endorsement at a Macintosh and you show up in John Jobs office, you damn well better have ROI math to show him that's the best definitive investment that he's looked at in a long time. And this happens because the status actually successfully transfers, right? It's somebody we hold in high regard. And when we associate them with a product, not all of us, maybe not you, maybe not me, but many of us accept that as an endorsement of the product, and it elevates the brand and our willingness to pay in our minds. Now, I think it's important to say that they're breaks on this process, right? Matthew McConaughey endorsed every brand you've ever heard of. You'd be like, yeah, forget it. So there needs to be some selectivity in representation, and if there isn't, you're going to end up dissipating your credibility as an endorser.

All right? So now let's get out of the discussion of celebrities and stuff, and let's flip it and say, now I could make the case case that artificial intelligence has the ability to truly judge the genuine quality of something. And so AI could be the ultimate meritocracy when you want to do searches about what's the best minivan to buy, what's the best basketball shoe to buy. On the other hand, the corpus and the data that goes into two large language models reflects whatever the large language model has read. So now do I trust AI or not? Is AI just reflecting what all these influencers said or is AI thinking for itself?

Yeah, I mean, that's the $50 trillion question. Now we're way past Apple's market cap, but I love the question and this is what I think about all day, every day. If we get started on AI, then I won't stop because I'm AI obsessed. And that's a terrific question. So take like one of the classic cases where there's status dynamics, which is like in the job market. And the job market is also where a great deal of kind of merit inequality unfolds because work is how we earn income and create wealth. And compensation in the job market determines like economic outcomes in this country at least non inherited wealth is often created through that which, which then of course is where if you make money investing, you earned in the first place to be able to invest it. The book dives into this a little bit. Like it's not the central topic in the book, but if you take for example, like the classic audit studies, what they did, which was super clever, is there's this classic study that takes a whole bunch of resumes. Like imagine this experiment, like you take 10,000 resumes, but you create pairs. So you create two of the identical resume. And by identical, I mean, mean literally identical. Like every job is the same, every job description is the same, every degree is the same, every word is the same, every font is the same, the paper is the same quality. Like everything's identical, but there's just one change, and that is we're going to take the first resume and we're going to call it John Smith's resume. And we're going to take the second resume and we're going to call it Tyrone Washington's resume. Okay, so there is no other difference besides the name on top of the resume. And it turns out when you do this, this experiment was like, okay, so we create these resumes that are paired and then we send them out to actual hirers. Like we send them out to companies that have posted jobs. And it turns out that the resume with the white sounding name gets Called back something like 50% more than the resume with the black sounding name names, but they're the identical resume. Okay? And so that's the experiment. And so what does that tell you? That tells you that there's some kind of bias in how people are thinking about this. Like people aren't evaluating just the skills and qualifications of the person because there is literally no difference in terms of the documented skills and qualifications at this stage of the process. They're making an assumption about the candidate's ability or their reliability or, or their merit or the likelihood that they'll fit in or something based on the identity cue of their name. And that's the core thought experiment that you want to think about. That's the core status dynamic. You can imagine it with brands where you take the same product and you call one like literally the identical product and you call one a logo that's prominent and one a logo you've never heard of. And it has a very different value even though, oh, it's the identical product. So in principle, we can build AI systems that don't give a shit what the name is. All they do is they read the skills and qualifications and make inferences about that and that system, which. And without getting into the technical aspects of this, there's been a ton of super interesting, very clever work on how to debias AI systems because you're absolutely right. If you train an AI to make decisions that what it will do is it will mirror the decisions that humans have made. That's exactly what the system does in supervised learning models. It learns from the past decisions that humans have made about what the right choice should be. But if those are biased choices, like we often see in labor markets, there are lots of different ways people have thought about to create AI systems that are one, auditable, right? So you can actually look a little bit under the hood and see how their decisions are made and the second are de biased. So, so if we gave a bunch of decisions to de biased AI systems, I would make the argument that they will make more fair choices. So on the one hand, there's a theoretical possibility that AI could lead to a lot more equality in outcomes if we used audited, debiased, carefully constructed systems that made choices without factoring in things like age and race and gender and whether you're a Japanese American or just an American or, or a French American or Hispanic or anything. So we could have systems that do this. On the other hand, I've been thinking a lot about this recently and AI creates a second problem, which I think is at the moment just a giant problem that we're just starting to talk about, which is that it. It suppresses the amount of information that's available to us when we're trying to evaluate human beings. Okay, so now imagine like it's 2027. You're the admissions officer at Stanford University or the University of California at Berkeley at 2027, and you're reading college essays. What's going to happen?

Did I get 500 million from the Department of Education or not? I need to know how much am I dependent on federal funding?

Yeah, I don't think there is a Department of Education anymore. Didn't we close that?

Okay, federal funding, but are you saying that.

Well, what I'm getting at is there used to be a ton of variation in the essays that high school students wrote. And the reason that. And to go back to where we started off when you asked me about my daughter, my daughter was very likely to apply to college with a very good college essay, right? And she actually, my kid turned out to be a comparative literature major and just fought with me when I wanted to make, like, minor modifications to her essay because she's probably right, but she thinks she's a better writer than me, and she probably is. But if she were. Not that I'm a career writer because my job is to write scientific journal articles. So I've spent my whole life writing, so I'm probably going to help my kid. So there are these advantages that kids coming out of families like my daughters have, which is that I've spent my whole life in universities, in very good universities, like teaching, working there, writing, thinking. So I understand what looks like a good application package, and that in theory, is going to be very helpful to my child. But now everybody understands that because it's just a prompt to GPT5O or Gemini 2.5, or Claude 4.1 or, or Grok or Deep Seek or Quinn, you know, on and on and on and on and on and on. And those systems today are beautiful writers if you prompt them well, and if you prompt them poorly, they're very good writers. Right? And that means that everybody shows up with a high quality essay, which makes it much harder to evaluate the person's contribution. So in most work now, the use of AI systems is incredible, and that's because they are absolutely incredible. But they make it very difficult to decouple human work from outcomes or output. So I'm teaching a PhD course now. When I read submissions, essay submissions each week, it is very hard in the modern world to know whether a student really understands is really thoughtful and has done really good work. Because the thing is, if you give the papers to Gemini, it does the work in about half a second. It's incredibly thoughtful and topic modeling the concepts of paper. So it's incredibly thoughtful at understanding papers and it's incredibly good at writing down ideas for novel extensions or for criticisms or something like that. It's amazing, it's extraordinary. But what that means is when you have a student write something, how do you know whether it was the student or the machine? And that's a writ large problem right now. And to take it back to status, I've been editorializing on this, but the argument that I would make is what it's going to do is it's going to make us rely even more on pedagogy degree. Because I have to give up and say I can't evaluate the work product. But that kid went to this high school and this college and did this and that. And I know that like I can see those signals, but I can't make a decision based on the output. So I'm going to rely more heavily on the signals than I would if I could just read the essay and decide whether the student's good or not.

Holy shit. Talk about unintended consequence. Right?

That's it. A huge. I think and AI is going to like it there. It's a world of unintended consequences. This is the most important technical development ever. It's going to affect most things about most things and it is going to have endless unintended consequences.

Wow. But if you think about it for a second, so if it depends on pedigree, and pedigree in the first generation, generation depended on something not exactly necessarily causative. It just perpetuates the whole flawed system.

Right.

I mean it's the system and we need a system. And the short answer to your question is perfect. Yes. Thank you. You describe the world, you know, that's a good description of how the world works. I want to not be so quick to jump to it's all just dog and everything's a problem. Because the truth is true, meritocracy is a little bit of a myth. I don't think we're ever going to get there. We need some kind of system for allocating resources and for making decisions. And right now this data system is how we do those two things. And we are going to need some way to do that. And so the book does point out like the inequities that are associated with making the choices these ways. But it also makes the argument which I think is the overriding one, which is we need a system. Whatever system we have is likely to not be 100% fair, but a system is far better than none. Up next on Remarkable People. So I think most people don't see this now, but give it 12 to 24 months and they are going to see a radical change. And that's, that's all A.I. right, because now there's a new way to find information that isn't your typical Google search or Instagram ad, which are of course all about producers selling things who are paying to be recognized or trying to manipulate the algorithms to appear up top.

Meet Nicole Nicholas, Capital One business customer and co owner of Anset Uncle, a plant based restaurant and community space in Brooklyn, New York that got its start from a need for unity.

The inspiration, it was born from the desire to create a space that felt like home, where we can connect community, culture, good food, and come together with family and friends. That's how we birthed aunts and uncles.

Nicole and her husband Mike were fulfilling their dream of bringing people together out of their home kitchen. But they soon learned that the demand for community was greater than they knew.

It became overwhelming and we were like, we need home, but not in our actual home. We realized that there was also a need in our community for something bigger in our neighborhood. So we had to find a place.

Moving from a home operation into a storefront was a huge next step, but Nicole and Mike were able to take it on with the help of Capital One Business.

It's not for the week. As a small business, finding resources is super important because that's the way you'll be able to manage and scale. We would have never done that without having Capital One to be able to help us along the way. The cashback rewards are very helpful. You know, it just gave us that Runway to be able to breathe a little bit. Then you get to focus on the cooking of the food and making the experience great.

To learn more, go to capitalone.com businesscards.

Become a little more remarkable with each episode of Remarkable People. It's found on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

Welcome back to Remarkable People with Guy Kawasaki.

I must say that this is one of the rare episodes of my podcast where I end up thinking I know less than when I started. That is a rare distinction. Toby, you've really scrambled my brain.

I mean, now I'm speechless. For what it's worth, I didn't intend to do that.

On a very tactical level. Let's say that you needed a tree trimmer to cut down the eucalyptus trees in your property. So do you go to Chat GPT and depend on what Chat GPT says when you say, I need the best eucalyptus tree trimmer in the hills of Berkeley, or do you. You go only to Yelp or Google. What does Toby do when she has a tactical decision like that, if only.

I had property in California on the peninsula with eucalyptus trees. If only. But I'll tell you, like, the one that I had, that's my version of that is I just, I don't ever shave. I have this little beard, like, clipper thing that I just go like I'm looking at your nicely shaven face. So I stopped doing this. I have this little clipper thing and I needed a new one a couple weeks ago. And so I normally have this process for doing that. Like it's the same as you. Like I read Wire Cutter, which is like a lot, which is just gonna say that, which is, despite being the New York Times is 95% paid affiliations. No. Yeah, yeah, it is. Yeah. Yeah. So. So this is the thing.

So many decisions that I make wrong then, right?

I mean, so you think that it's New York Times and it's Wire Cutter, and therefore it's reliable information. But I think if you look more carefully, there are affiliate links behind nearly all of the wire or recommendations and that that can't be a coincidence. So, you know, so. But you can go do that and then you go onto Amazon and well, one costs like 90 bucks and one cost 60 bucks and that's a big difference. So then you spend I don't know how much time thinking about whether you need the $91 or the $61. And there's 7,000 pages of the damn things for some reason, like, they just go, go on forever and ever and ever. So I have this decision to make. I hate making decisions like this. I find them confounding like an inordinate amount of time. And so try this, because I've confused you and now I want to unconfuse you. So I went the other day and I'm going to stop. Like, I mean, I love three of the AI systems equally. Like I switch between them all the time. But I went to one of them. I'm not going to say which name it is. And I said, I need a beer Clipper. I don't give a shit about what the brand is. I don't care about Any features besides that. It works. I don't want to get mangled. So don't make it like dirt cheap. Recommend. What fun.

And.

And it recommended the Wahl Peanut. I bought it and I loved it and I spent zero time thinking about it because I asked it for one recommendation. I didn't look for any more. But the question is a great one. So already there are somewhere between 5 and 500. I can't tell. Startups that are building shopping agents. You're a marketer, so you are trained in all of the psychological quirks and all of the heuristics that lead to consumer decision making. So when you're a marketer, you're thinking forever about how a customer makes choices and you're trying to reverse engineer those choices and then present your product and brand in the way that appeals to the customer. Right? But we are going to move into a world where we all have the choice if we wish to have our who have agents represent us that aren't subject to those heuristics and biases and that have the capability of literally reading every review ever written, looking at every price, mapping out the history of prices and telling you, like, you should buy this, but you should wait three weeks because it's going to cost 25% less on these three websites, like all of that already exists. Commerce is about to enter a new phase. Now, of course, on the other side of that, companies that sell things are going to try not to cut prices because they're up against a bunch of bots, but the way in which consumers make choices and the way in which we shop for machines to cut down beautiful eucalyptus trees in your backyard and guy, just leave the trees. They're amazing eucalyptus trees, but that's all in the process of changing. So I think most people don't see this now, but give it 12 to 24 months and they are going to see a radical change. And that's all AI, right, because now there's a new way to find information that isn't your typical Google search or Instagram ad, which are of course all about producers selling things who are paying to be recognized or trying to manipulate the algorithms to appear up top.

Well, Toby, if I ever meet Matthew McConaughey, I'm gonna ask him what beard clipper he recommends. Just for you. Just for you.

Toby, that's amazing.

My very last question for you. It may be the hardest question I'm asking you. So let's say by just some magic, magical touch that now you're in charge of creating a New status system for society. So this is the Toby Stewart status system. How would this work?

God, yeah, that's quite a question to end on because not only do I need to answer that question, but I need to somehow unconfuse you in the last minute of this. What I would probably say is so I'm not smart enough to know how to replace the statuses. The argument that I would make in the book is that it's something of an obligation if you have it and you do, you have it, Guy. And I feel like I do. I feel like I've had tremendous good fortune in my career and I've had the opportunity to be at five of the 10 most amazing universities in the world and have had brilliant students and had tons of resources. And I believe I'm super lucky for that to have happened. But what I don't think is I earned it all. Like I never think I'm the smartest person in the room when I'm with my colleagues. I don't think that way. I think I got super lucky at various points and that that then led to this sort of accelerating, call it a status advantage. That was a benefit to me. And if people just recognize that. Or to go to probably my favorite quote in the book which, which people usually attribute to Barry Switzer and you've probably heard this one where he says the guy was born on third base but he thinks he hit a triple. So I'm going to answer that way which is if you were born on third base or if a bunch of things happened in life that were just good fortune to get you to third base that wasn't all you're doing. You shouldn't think you hit a trip ripple. Right. You should understand like what led you there. And then that understanding tends to lead us to think and behave a little bit differently and to pay a lot more attention to fairness and merit and how we distribute opportunities. And I think that's the important message in the book.

Yeah, but Toby, I would make the case that the further you are on the base path path, the less likely you will have the self awareness to realize how you got to that base.

And barren is the problem. Yeah, but we can all think and we can all reflect on things. As I learned these concepts which started in graduate school, I mean it really radically changed how I think about and see the world. There was one paper I read my first or second year of graduate school that just like it was transformation, it's about the Matthew effects. It's where this line of research began. For me. And it completely changed the way understand the world.

Wow, I feel like the world shifted under me today.

Toby, if you're still confused, then I think we just have to find a time and place and we're going to have to do part two.

For you listeners. Just understand that because I work for Apple and I went to Stanford and I was funded by Sequoia, don't necessarily attribute any skill or intelligence intelligence to me. Don't think I'm stupid either, but don't make that leap. I would not say you should be pessimistic. I say you should be skeptical.

That's a great way to put it. And just my response would be yes, but it's not that there's a correlation, it's just not a perfect correlation. So Sequoia doesn't randomly choose founders, Apple doesn't randomly choose employees. And so Stanford definitely doesn't randomly choose the 3% of the kids that apply. That it admits. It's just that merit is a little bit hard to detect and that the anointment dynamic is self propelling. Right. So on average the Anointed people are very good at what they do, but they're often less good than their status would imply. And that's really the message. It's not that anybody could do what you've done in your career, but it's that you got a lot of boosts along the way from these prominent affiliations and from other things that led to the status that you have today and that that combines with your work, your work ethic and your merit to create your life outcomes.

Toby, I think I'm gonna go to my LinkedIn profile and wipe out all those right now. Alrighty, let's wrap up this up before my head explodes. Toby, thank you very much. For you listeners, the name of the book is called Anointed and if you want to read about how people think and then how the status system works, a very, very interesting book. It's going to make you question a lot of the things you've decided in your lives. Toby, thank you very much for appearing. I'd like to thank my staff, that remarkable people team, which would be Madison Nismer, producer Tessa Knysman, researcher Jeff C co producer, and Shannon Hernandez and Matthew McConaughey for endorsing the Legal Navigator. And luckily I don't need to shave, so I don't need a beard clipper. There's going to be a lot of people in the Pentagon who now need beard clippers. But I digress. This is remarkable.

People.