Hi all,
Let’s wrap up my series of posts about Annie Duke’s Thinking In Bets with a brief riff off on a few lingering ideas.
The seven ‘dog years’ idea is widely believed yet not based on any verified facts.
I was a little surprised to learn this but when I think about it I suppose the idea that a dog ages in direct proportion to humans was a little silly all along.
Experience is not what happens to us but rather what we do with what happens to us.
I like this definition because it addresses the concern I have that people consider mere exposure sufficient as a way to learn. I think learning requires an active and often deliberate step by the student and the way experience is defined here is an important reminder – learning is what we do with what we are taught.
The introduction of uncertainty drastically slows learning.
I would take this a little further and suggest that uncertainty slows everything.
Habits mean a cue, routine, and reward. To change a habit, keep the same cue and reward but change the routine.
I’m not sure if I wrote this down correctly because my intuition suggests that considering the reward is the most important step. A few years ago, I was worried about how I would go into CVS whenever I was returning home late at night for a candy bar or ice cream. I changed the habit by forcing myself into a CVS anytime I knew I could resist the temptation in the hope that I could deliberately reset the way my mind processed the cue (I see a CVS) and routine (I walk into a CVS). Eventually, I rewired myself to recognize that this cue-routine combination did not always need to result in the same reward (candy and/or ice cream). These days, it’s exceedingly rare for me to walk into any store and feel tempted to buy a sweet.
When two salespeople experience different outcomes, it isn’t good enough to simply say one outperformed the other. We must also account for any factor that might have influenced sales – did they perform in different time periods, did they work in different territories, did they sell to customers with different profiles, etc.
I don’t think this is a major revelation for anyone. My assumption is that most people who make comparisons understand the importance of comparing apples to apples. And yet, I bet people are still judged when the apples to apples comparison isn’t possible. I suspect this is because it’s hard to imagine dismissing data about one salesperson outperforming due solely to the impossibility of a fair comparison. In these situations, it’s probably easier to try guessing what explains the outcome (or simply use the outcome itself as the explanation) instead of making it seem like no effort is being made to understand the discrepant results.
Instead of dismissing others, actively look for the things they do well.
This is another thought that I think many understand but few manage to consistently apply in practice. I think the barrier is a natural tendency to assume people are good at what they do relatively well to others. This might be a good way to define ‘passively look for the things they do well’. I’ve often been accused of doing something well merely because the accuser knows someone else who does the same thing poorly. The task of actively determining what someone does well means determining what is done best within the a person’s set of skills.
The goal of a group decision shouldn’t be full agreement. Agreement is needed after the decision is made (in terms of a commitment to action) but groups that find consensus often fail to make the best overall decision.
I learned when I interviewed with Amazon that one of the company’s stated principles was ‘disagree and commit’. I thought this described one of my strengths. Over the years, I’ve found that it’s far more productive to separate my thoughts on a decision from my commitment to executing the plan. I don’t think this comes easily, however, and I’ve found over the years that many people would prefer to say ‘I told you so’ after something fails rather than pointing out that ‘my full commitment to your stupid idea allowed this to succeed’.
A good combination tends to be setting positive goals and understanding negative futures. The best balance is recognizing that we can handle a bad outcome so that we are not discouraged from trying.
This is a good thought for those whose fear of bad outcomes prevents them from executing good decisions. Often, we consider bad outcomes and acknowledge their unpleasantness without considering how we might handle the situation. In some cases, a closer examination helps us recognize that although a bad outcome is hardly cause for celebration, its possibility isn’t a good reason to avoid trying because we know that we can handle any difficulty that might result from a bad outcome.
If you’ve got a spare half a million, you can knock it down and start rebuilding.
As I noted in a prior post, a critical component of sound decision-making is to consider good alternatives. The more possibilities we are able to consider, the better chance we have of making the best decision for ourselves in a given situation.
What?
Fine…
That thought isn’t from the book, it’s from Courtney Barnett’s ‘Depreston’. But you know, when in a riff off…
Thanks for reading.
