High Agency: The Operating System Behind Capital Builders

What separates founders who build serious capital from those who drift with markets?

Watch how people respond to "this can't be done" and the answer becomes clear. Some accept the verdict. Others start calculating how to do it anyway.

Eric Weinstein calls this second response high agency—the belief that outcomes bend to effort, not luck or circumstances. It sounds like motivational poster material until real money is on the line. Then it becomes the operating system behind every serious wealth creation story.

High agency isn't optimism. It's not positive thinking. It's a fundamentally different way of processing obstacles.

What is High Agency

Psychologists have studied this phenomenon since Julian Rotter developed the locus of control theory in 1954. The research consistently shows that people who believe their actions shape outcomes—those with an internal locus of control—outperform in nearly every measurable domain.

A 2023 study published in Frontiers in Psychology found that internal locus of control indirectly affects venture outcomes through entrepreneurial competency. The researchers concluded that "beliefs based on internal attributions—rather than external forces, define entrepreneurs' destiny." An external locus of control showed no such relationship with success.

Meta-analyses across decades of research tell the same story: people with a strong internal locus of control demonstrate better academic performance, higher job satisfaction, improved health outcomes, and greater wealth accumulation. Research from Harvard Business School identified that traits most strongly correlated with entrepreneurial success include a proactive personality (.27 correlation) and an internal locus of control, alongside a need for achievement (.30) and generalised self-efficacy (.25).

This isn't semantics. People with internal orientation take corrective action after setbacks. Those with external orientation blame circumstances and stagnate.

High-agency individuals share several distinctive patterns:

• They treat obstacles as puzzles requiring creative solutions, not walls blocking progress
• They take ownership beyond formal job descriptions or expected responsibilities
• They question default assumptions rather than accepting "how things are done"
• They act before perfect information arrives
• They believe direct correlation exists between their effort and outcomes

Paul Graham described the best founders as "relentlessly resourceful." Shreyas Doshi considers high agency non-negotiable for leadership. These aren't personality observations—they're identifying the same psychological architecture.

Math of Agency in Competitive Environments

Here's the thing: most people default to low agency when facing obstacles.

Evolutionary psychology offers one explanation. Conserving energy and avoiding uncertain outcomes helped ancestors survive. But in modern competitive environments—markets, business, and career-building—this default programming creates an asymmetric disadvantage.

When most participants in any system accept default paths, those who consistently seek non-obvious solutions gain a compounding edge. The opportunities exist precisely because others assume they don't.

Reality turns out to be more negotiable than advertised. Most "impossibilities" are simply strong preferences or untested assumptions waiting for someone willing to probe them.

George Soros story

September 16, 1992. The Bank of England believed sterling's position in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism was defensible. Billions of pounds in reserves, interest rate hikes, and explicit government commitment—these should have been enough.

George Soros believed otherwise.

His Quantum Fund had spent months building short positions against the pound. By September 16th—Black Wednesday—Soros had assembled a $10 billion short position. He wasn't just betting the pound would decline. He was betting the entire system's assumptions were wrong.

The Bank of England raised interest rates from 10% to 12%, then to 15%. They spent an estimated £27 billion of reserves buying pounds. It didn't matter. The fundamental mispricing Soros identified was structural.

When Britain withdrew from the ERM that evening, the pound fell 15% against the German mark and 25% against the dollar. The Bank of England lost £3.3 billion. Soros made over $1 billion in a single day.

The trade wasn't gambling. Soros had studied the economic fundamentals methodically. Britain's inflation ran triple Germany's rate. Interest rates were already damaging asset prices. The ERM exchange rate was simply too high for economic reality to sustain.

Everyone else accepted the government's stated position. Soros asked whether the position was actually tenable under sustained pressure. He then applied that pressure.

John Paulson: Questioning Consensus

In 2006, hedge fund manager John Paulson noticed something strange. Housing prices kept climbing while subprime mortgage underwriting standards were collapsing. The math didn't work—but markets priced these securities as nearly risk-free.

When Paulson tried to raise a dedicated fund to short the housing market, most institutional investors dismissed him. The government would intervene before any crash. The contracts were illiquid. Everyone knew housing only went up.

Paulson raised just $147 million for his first Credit Opportunities fund—modest by hedge fund standards. Then he doubled down, building positions through credit default swaps against both subprime securities and the financial institutions holding them.

By February 2007, his fund was up 66% in a single month. His investors called, assuming it was a typo—they thought he meant 6.6%. This was a manager known for modest, consistent returns who suddenly hit what looked like impossible numbers.

By year's end, his flagship fund had gained 590%. His firm netted $15 billion in profits. Paulson personally earned nearly $4 billion—more than George Soros made breaking the Bank of England.

One trade stands out: a $22 million position in credit default swaps against Lehman Brothers. When the government didn't rescue Lehman in September 2008, that single position paid out over $1 billion. That's $45.45 return for every dollar invested.

The structure of this success matters. Paulson didn't have better information than Wall Street's biggest banks. He had better questions. While others asked, "How high will housing go?" Paulson asked, "What happens if the fundamental assumptions are wrong?"

Gregory Zuckerman's book on the trade captures the asymmetry: everyone else drank the Kool-Aid because challenging consensus felt uncomfortable. Paulson found the discomfort tolerable when the math supported his conviction.

Stewart Butterfield: The Double Pivot

Stewart Butterfield's story offers a different angle on high agency—what happens when a post-exit founder faces repeated failure and has to rebuild.

Butterfield grew up in a log cabin without running water or electricity on a commune in remote British Columbia. His family had fled there to avoid the Vietnam War draft. The early years taught him something important: conventional paths are optional.

After studying philosophy at Cambridge, Butterfield co-founded Ludicorp in 2002 to build an online multiplayer game called Game Neverending. The concept was ambitious—a persistent online world where players interacted rather than competed. The venture ran out of money before the game could launch.

Most founders would have walked away. Butterfield noticed something interesting: the photo-sharing feature built into the game was surprisingly popular. He pivoted the company to focus entirely on that feature and launched Flickr in 2004.

Yahoo acquired Flickr for a reported $35 million in 2005. Butterfield stayed on as General Manager until 2008, then left to pursue his original dream.

Here's where high agency becomes visible. Butterfield raised $17 million to build Glitch—essentially Game Neverending 2.0 with improved technology and user experience. The game launched in September 2011.

It failed again.

Glitch couldn't attract a large enough audience to sustain itself. The game shut down in November 2012. Butterfield had now failed at the same concept twice, spent years of his life and investors' money, and had to lay off most of his team.

What he did next demonstrates agency in its purest form.

During Glitch's development, Butterfield's team had built an internal communication tool because existing options were unsatisfactory. Rather than viewing the shutdown as defeat, Butterfield recognised that this internal tool might solve a real problem for other teams.

He pivoted Tiny Speck (the company behind Glitch) to focus on the communication tool. Slack launched publicly in February 2014.

The growth was unprecedented. Within two years, Slack had over 1.25 million daily active users and became the fastest-growing business application in history. In June 2019, the company went public with a market capitalisation of about $19.5 billion.

In December 2020, Salesforce acquired Slack for $27.7 billion—one of the largest tech acquisitions ever.

The lesson isn't about luck or timing. Butterfield faced the same opportunity landscape as thousands of other entrepreneurs. The difference was how he processed failure. Rather than accepting that his game concept was simply wrong, he asked what byproducts of his failed ventures might have independent value. Both Flickr and Slack emerged from that question.

Two failed games. Two billion-dollar pivots. The same high-agency operating system is running underneath.

Building the Life OS

High agency isn't genetic. Like any operating system, it requires installation, configuration, and ongoing maintenance through deliberate practice.

Start with Ownership Architecture

The foundational move: make "What can I do to change this outcome?" the default response to every obstacle. Not occasionally. Every time.

Blame and excuses create learned helplessness—the psychological state where people stop trying because they've convinced themselves nothing works. Ownership creates the opposite feedback loop. Every problem becomes practice in influence.

Elon Musk sleeping on the Tesla factory floor during Model 3 production hell wasn't theatre. It was ownership architecture in action. The problems weren't supplier failures or market conditions. The problems were his problems, requiring his solutions.

Reprogram Default Language

The words people use shape the thoughts they can have.

"I can't do this" closes neural pathways. "How might this get done?" opens them. This isn't semantic tricks—it's literal cognitive restructuring.

Reed Hastings, watching DVD rental decline, didn't frame Netflix's situation as "disruption happening to us." He asked, "How do we become the disruptor?" The question determined the answer space.

Replace passive constructions with active ones:

• "We have no choice" becomes "What options haven't we considered?"
• "That's impossible" becomes "Under what conditions would this become possible?"
• "The market won't accept this" becomes "Which market segment might we be missing?"

Flip Assumptions Systematically

Every industry operates on assumptions most participants never question.

"Real estate requires huge capital." Airbnb built a global hospitality business without owning property.

"Rockets can't be reused." SpaceX proved otherwise, transforming launch economics.

"Shapewear requires industry expertise." Sara Blakely started Spanx with $5,000 from selling fax machines and zero fashion industry experience. No outside investors. No business degree. No manufacturing contacts.

When every hosiery manufacturer told her the idea was destined for failure, she kept calling until one factory owner showed the prototype to his daughters. They said it was brilliant. That single yes launched what became a billion-dollar company.

The key practice: when facing "that's impossible" or "that's just how it's done," stop and ask—is it really? What would need to be true for the opposite to work?

Act Before Conditions Perfect

Waiting for certainty is a low-agency trap.

Fighter pilot John Boyd developed the OODA loop—Observe, Orient, Decide, Act—specifically for situations where perfect information never arrives. The loop cycles continuously: gather information, position it in context, choose a direction, execute, then immediately restart observation with new data.

Boyd's insight was that decision speed matters more than decision perfection in dynamic environments. Anyone waiting for complete information gets overtaken by those willing to iterate.

The OODA framework works beyond combat. In investing, business building, and career development, the ability to act, learn from results, and adjust beats paralysis waiting for certainty.

Sara Blakely again: "I did not have the most experience in the industry and I did not have the most money. But I cared the most." She started without waiting to become qualified.

Convert Constraints into Forcing Functions

Constraints aren't barriers. They're creative catalysts.

Airbnb nearly died in 2008. The founders didn't have millions to survive the downturn. Instead of giving up, they designed and sold custom cereal boxes—"Obama O's" and "Cap'n McCain's"—during the presidential election. The stunt generated enough cash to survive.

Capital constraints, time constraints, knowledge constraints—each force creative solutions that wouldn't emerge under abundance. This is portfolio diversification applied to problem-solving: the constraint removes obvious approaches, requiring the discovery of non-obvious ones.

Build Voluntary Hardship Capacity

Psychological resilience functions like a muscle. Unused, it atrophies. Deliberately stressed, it strengthens.

Simple practices build tolerance for discomfort: cold exposure, difficult conversations previously avoided, physical challenges outside normal capacity, extended fasting, public speaking opportunities that create fear.

Each small victory against discomfort rewires neural predictions. The brain learns that discomfort is survivable and often productive. This capacity proves essential when business or investment stress arrives unexpectedly.

Curate Environment Ruthlessly

Environment shapes behaviour more reliably than willpower. The people and information sources surrounding daily attention either amplify or suppress agency.

High-agency individuals demonstrate what's possible. They normalise ambition and action. Their presence raises standards automatically.

Low-agency environments—people who rationalise inaction with sophisticated excuses, who normalise blame, who reinforce default paths—drain potential invisibly. Like high-fee investment products, they compound against growth without triggering awareness.

Practical application: audit relationships quarterly. Note who consistently acts and takes responsibility. Note who consistently rationalises and blames. Curate exposure accordingly.

Roger Bannister and Reality of Limits

On May 6, 1954, Roger Bannister became the first human to run a mile in under four minutes. His time: 3:59.4.

The four-minute barrier had stood unbroken for nearly a decade. Commentators treated it as potentially impossible—a fundamental human limitation.

Bannister was a medical student training for just three half-hour sessions per week. He designed his own training program because established coaching didn't exist for what he was attempting. On race day, winds reached 15 mph and he twice considered calling off the attempt.

He ran anyway.

Here's the remarkable part: just 46 days later, John Landy broke Bannister's record with a time of 3:57.9. Within the next few years, multiple runners accomplished what had seemed impossible. Today, over 2,000 athletes have run sub-four-minute miles.

The limit was never physical. It was psychological—a shared assumption about the possibility that collapsed once someone demonstrated otherwise.

This pattern recurs across domains. The "impossible" often represents collective belief rather than actual constraint. Someone questions the assumption, proves it wrong, and suddenly others see what was always available.

High Agency Applied to Wealth Building

Most investors operate passively. They follow conventional wisdom. They blame markets when returns disappoint. They wait for perfect setups that never arrive.

High-agency investors play differently:

They question consensus. When everyone agrees that stocks only rise, they model what breaks. When panic floods markets, they identify what's being overlooked in the fear.

They conduct primary research. Rather than following tips or talking heads, they dig into actual financials. They understand positions and the reasoning behind them.

They structure opportunities. While passive investors wait for setups to appear, high-agency investors negotiate terms, find arbitrage in inefficient markets, and create deals others can't see.

They manage risk actively. They don't hope for favourable outcomes. They hedge specific exposures, maintain cash for opportunities, and size positions so single losses can't compound into disasters.

They systematise learning. Both wins and losses contain extractable lessons. They maintain decision journals, review performance patterns, and continuously update mental models.

Warren Buffett didn't achieve returns by following Graham's value investing orthodoxy unchanged. He questioned pieces of it, evolved the approach, and built Berkshire through decisions others wouldn't make.

Ray Dalio didn't accept that markets were unpredictable. He systematised decision-making, developed explicit principles, and built Bridgewater into the world's largest hedge fund through codified high agency.

Practical moves for high-agency investing:

1. Learn to read financials independently. Don't outsource understanding entirely to analysts. Know what positions contain and why.
2. Build decision frameworks in calm conditions. Document buy rules and sell rules when thinking clearly. Reference them when emotions run high.
3. Test assumptions behind "everyone knows" statements. Markets regularly prove consensus wrong. Find where conventional wisdom breaks down.
4. Start small in unfamiliar areas. Take calculated risks in new domains. Build competence through action, not just study.
5. Keep decision records. Track investment theses and outcomes. Build a personal database of what works specifically for individual patterns.

The difference shows most during chaos. Low-agency investors panic or freeze. High-agency investors act—buying when others sell, protecting downside before disasters arrive, positioning for outcomes others refuse to imagine.

Environment Compounds

The people surrounding daily life either accelerate or undermine the development of agency.

High-agency people catalyse action. They demonstrate initiative in real time. They normalise ambition, resilience, and creative problem-solving. They set execution standards higher.

Time with high-agency people feels energising because their optimism, discipline, and action orientation make expanded possibilities feel tangible.

Low-agency people rationalise why action won't work. They normalise complaint and helplessness. They drain momentum through sophisticated scepticism. They reinforce default paths of passivity.

This isn't about judging character. It's about recognising that environment shapes behaviour more reliably than intention.

Follow people who demonstrate agency rather than discuss it: Naval Ravikant, Shreyas Doshi, and George Mack. Curate information feeds as carefully as investment portfolios. Join communities where execution is assumed, not celebrated.

Ethical Boundary

High agency without integrity creates dangerous recklessness.

Watch for warning signals:

• Manipulating rather than positively influencing
• Taking credit without appropriate attribution
• Prioritising personal gain over group outcomes
• Burning relationships for short-term advantage

The best leaders elevate others through their agency, not just themselves. This builds trust—the most valuable asset for sustainable success. Relationships compound positively only when agency serves a broader purpose.

Installing the Upgrade

High agency isn't talent discovered. It's a decision repeated.

The difference between "that's just how things are" and "let's find a way" compounds over time. Each obstacle processed through agency strengthens the pattern. Each acceptance of default weakens it.

Start small. Pick one situation that is currently stuck. Apply one high-agency question: "What would need to be true for this to become possible?"

Then act on whatever that reveals.

Capital isn't just built through investments. It's built through the operating system running behind every decision.

Survive first. Thrive later. That's part of the game.

But the game only starts when the agency gets installed.

I write when there’s something worth sharing — playbooks, signals, and patterns I’m seeing among founders building, exiting, and managing real capital.
If that’s useful, you can subscribe here.