Ambition, Validation and the Multipliers That Matter
Why Do People Seek Validation Through Big Companies?
One thing I’ve never fully understood is why so many people seek validation by working at large companies like Apple, Google etc.
It makes sense if the goal is to work on meaningful problems or be surrounded by people who are at or above your level. That’s a solid reason. But for most, that’s not the driver. The goal is the brand. The validation that comes with saying “I work at X.” I’ve never connected with that.
For me, progress has always been a function of direction, effort, and time. That’s it. Pick a direction, and your current circumstances define how long and how hard it’ll take to get there. That includes everything - your environment, your experience, your personal bandwidth. But the equation holds. It’s not magic. It’s not legacy. It’s math.
The Progress Equation
At the heart of how I look at growth, there’s always been a simple equation:
Progress = Direction × Effort × Time × Context
Each of these variables matters:
- Direction is your vector. It tells you where you’re going. If you’re moving fast in the wrong direction, you’re still off-track. Clarity here is underrated.
- Effort is what you’re putting in, day after day. You could be on the right path, but if you’re not showing up with real output, you’re not going anywhere.
- Time is what allows compounding to kick in. It’s the most underestimated variable because most people want things quickly. But nothing meaningful is instant.
- Context is your multiplier. It includes your environment, access, family responsibilities, education background, geography, financial debt, even your mental bandwidth. It decides how steep or flat the slope is.
This is important: most people don't start from zero. Some start from -1. Some start from -10. You might have to spend years just clearing your education loans, taking care of family, or rebuilding confidence from a broken system. That doesn’t make the equation false - it just makes it slower. The inputs are still valid. The formula still applies. But your baseline shifts.
I’ve always found that grounding gives structure without illusion. Instead of looking sideways and comparing output, you start focusing on inputs you control. Have I picked the right direction? Am I showing up consistently? Can I give it more time? What constraints am I operating under, and which ones can I slowly change?
That’s why I’ve never looked at brand or titles as indicators of value. A logo doesn’t change your input. It doesn’t do the work for you. If you’ve picked the right direction, and you're putting in consistent effort over time, you’re progressing - whether the world notices or not.
People chase visibility instead of velocity. But the work compounds either way. The equation doesn’t care where you work. It just works.
On Confidence and Culture
Another pattern I’ve noticed - especially among middle-class South Indians - is how often we optimise for predictability. Play it safe. Take the stable route. Avoid downside. When I’ve worked with folks from Western India, I’ve noticed a different mindset. More upside-driven. More appetite for risk. More belief in backing yourself.
This is anecdotal. My exposure is limited. But it still makes me wonder how much of this is shaped by our environment, and not just personality. Most of what we call “confidence” is conditioning. You grow up around people who speak big, dream big, take big shots - it feels natural to do the same. You grow up in a system that says “don’t lose what you have,” and that becomes your default wiring.
India doesn’t have enough behavioural data to study this at scale. Most of the frameworks we borrow are built on Western samples - calibrated for a completely different society. Here, things are more layered. People are juggling too many invisible weights. Our decisions aren’t just economic, they’re emotional, cultural, familial. And yet, most of our policies or even startup products assume we all think and act the same way.
That’s the gap I keep seeing.
What Shapes Ambition?
I keep coming back to this - ambition is mostly proximity.
If you grow up around people who chase hard things, you start believing you can too. If you’re always surrounded by people who play not to lose, that’s the ceiling you build for yourself.
So what happens when AI becomes part of that circle? When your closest influence is not a person, but a system that nudges you, answers your questions, never gets tired of your curiosity, and pushes you to think and do more every single day?
If AI can sustain curiosity and shorten feedback loops, it might change how ambition evolves. Maybe not for us. But for the next generation - the kids growing up with these tools - their slope could look very different. If curiosity stays alive long enough, the compounding becomes inevitable.
The Equation Always Holds
Validation, safety, ambition - they’re all connected. Most people seek external proof because no one taught them how to build internal signals. Culture shapes confidence. Proximity shapes ambition. Curiosity sustains it.
But beneath all of it, the equation holds.
Progress = Direction × Effort × Time × Context
That context part? It’s real. It’s not an excuse - it’s a variable. Some people start at 0. Some at -10. That changes the duration, not the outcome. If you stay in motion, if you keep adjusting your inputs, the output will eventually reflect it.
It’s predictable. It’s math. You just have to stay in the game long enough to let it work.