e really does equal mc squared
why every startup wants to be a cult
imagine abraham lincoln had an iphone in 1863 and asked his supporters to download his app. what percentage would do it? probably 100%. what percentage would have died for him? probably 30% actually did die for him.
now imagine trump asks his 75 million voters in 2024 to download his app. what percentage actually do it? maybe 8%. maybe.
same basic thing (political leader with mass support) wildly different commitment levels. and that difference isn’t linear it’s square and that changes everything.
curtis yarvin has this smart idea where he says E=MC (human energy equals mass times commitment). mass of people times their commitment equals actual energy output. this explains why trump’s 75 million voters at 0.08 commitment = 6 million units of energy while lincoln’s 500,000 guys at 0.9 commitment = 405,000 units of energy. the ratios matter more than the raw numbers. fake numbers, point still holds.
but yarvin misses the most important part which is commitment doesn’t scale linear it scales quadratic. it’s not E=MC it’s E=MC² and that’s why lincoln’s committed guys beat the confederacy’s bigger-but-less-committed army.
einstein’s squared term wasn’t decoration it was the thing. tiny mass becomes bomb because c². same with commitment. committed people make other committed people more committed (network effect). committed people spend more hours AND better hours (quality × quantity). committed people think about it 24/7 even when not working which means subconscious processing which means paradigm shifts. committed people attract other committed people which creates more commitment. a different word for committed is fucks given.
it’s not 1+1=2 it’s exponential feedback loops compounding. if commitment is 0.3 (normal company) ur getting 0.09 energy per person. if commitment is 0.9 (cult company / lincoln’s boys) ur getting 0.81 energy per person. that’s 9X more energy.
but what even is commitment? i say love is mutual information maximization which means when u really care about something ur integrating more information about it and it’s integrating more information about u and that feedback loop is what we call love.
high commitment is love. and love produces good things because love is information density going up which means better decisions which means better outputs which means more love which means more information density. that’s the square. that’s why it compounds.
this is why best companies feel like cults. and that is why the low key best run org in us is scientology. why best relationships feel all-consuming. why best art comes from obsession. why lincoln’s guys would die for him and trump’s guys would maybe download an app. the square is errything. u can’t half-ass the square. u either commit enough for it to activate or u don’t.
every startup wants to be a cult because cult is just an organization that got C above 0.7 and kept it there. C² needs proximity. when u see someone working hard next to u ur commitment goes up when they see u theirs goes up that’s the square. remote keeps commitment linear because no reinforcing feedback loops. coworking space keeps commitment low because other companies’ fields interfere. dedicated office lets commitment square because everyone radiates same frequency and it compounds.
startups think either headcount is weakness (stay lean forever) or headcount is strength (scale fast hire hire hire). both WRONG because they ignore commitment coefficient.
the equation is e = m × c² so:
if c is low (0.3) more m makes things worse. 10 people × 0.09 = 0.9 energy. 100 people × 0.09 = 9 energy. scaled 10x energy only up 10x coordination costs up 100x. u lose.
if C is high (0.9) more m is good. 10 people × 0.81 = 8.1 energy. 100 people × 0.81 = 81 energy. scaled 10x energy up 10x coordination costs up way less because everyone already aligned. u win.
so “stay lean” people right if commitment low. “scale fast” people right if commitment high. if c above 0.9 scaling headcount great. if C below 0.5 adding people just coordination debt. it’s not headcount it’s commitment squared. if a mothafucka is that committed he will add value.
this means that focus is physics not discipline. same C² math applies to individuals. u can’t split commitment and get squared returns: 100% committed to one thing: E = 1 × 1² = 1 unit energy 50% committed to two things: E = 0.5 × 0.5² + 0.5 × 0.5² = 0.125 + 0.125 = 0.25 units energy
u lost 75% energy by splitting focus. this is why side projects fail. this is why “i’ll work on my startup nights and weekends” means 0.2 commitment means 0.04 energy means nothing. meanwhile someone who quit their job 0.9 committed getting 0.81 energy which is 20X more.
this is peter thiel’s 1 person 1 problem rule. people think time management but nah it’s maximizing c². focus on one thing commitment goes to 0.8 or 0.9 energy output goes to 0.64 or 0.81 u finish things u build momentum commitment goes higher squared returns compound more. focus on five things commitment 0.2 each energy 0.04 each nothing gets done no momentum feel scattered commitment drops death spiral whatever whatever.
this is why relationships where someone texting their ex never work. why polyamory is hard mode. why “work life balance” is lie sold by people who don’t want u to win. u can’t balance u can only choose what ur going to square.
this thing explains a lot.
why lincoln’s 500k beat confederacy’s 1M
why trump’s 75M voters convert to maybe 6M app downloads
why u should charge more from ur customer
why cults beat companies
why in-person beats remote
why focused beats scattered
why scaling works sometimes fails other times
why side projects don’t work
why love wins
why operational excellence requires paradigm shifts early (
most people optimize m (get more users employees customers votes whatever). yarvin saw that commitment matters. but c² is where leverage is. if ur not thinking about how to maximize c and keep it above threshold where squaring matters ur not thinking about how things actually work.
get ur commitment to 0.9 on something that matters. probably like me wit da blog. goodnight.
Curious the basis of the Abe Lincoln app speculation! Are there analogous events that give you that sense? My impression, too, is that the Confederacy was far more committed than the North, morale-wise. They just had a quarter of the North's industrial capacity and half the population.
I don't love the Civil War analogies—maybe I'm just too nitpicky, since I've loved and studied the war since I was a kid. But I think the overall idea is important, and I hadn't come across Yarvin's appropriation of Einstein, it's a very elegant means of expression.
I myself have come to believe that war is ultimately a form of communication: A means of discovering and demonstrating. What are being discovered and demonstrated? (1) Your country's capacity, (2) Your country's resolve, or will to fight. I think this is very similar to the E=MC^2 notion.
Scott Atran wrote about this recently too; I wonder if it's on folks' mind because of China-US escalation:
Link to Atran: https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.70113
The first 2/3rds are a bit dull, but the meat is in the final sections. One of the questions raised is whether liberal individualism is capable of summoning the necessary war resolve to defeat religious, fundamentalist, nationalist movements. The "rationality" of liberal cosmopolitanism is strategically inferior to the "irrational beliefs" of its enemies.