X Talks: Annie Duke on why quitters win
Summary
TLDR本次对话涵盖了决策、概率思维、证据收集、假设形成和测试等主题。Annie Duke,一位世界扑克系列冠军、作家和沃顿商学院讲师,分享了她如何将扑克中的决策技巧应用于生活和商业中。讨论了人们在面对不确定性时如何做出更好的决策,以及如何识别何时应该坚持何时应该放弃。Annie还探讨了“结果偏见”和“沉没成本谬误”,并提供了策略以帮助个人和机构在面对高风险决策时做出明智的选择。
Takeaways
- 🎯 **目标与决策**:Annie Duke讨论了设定目标和做出决策的重要性,强调了在不确定性下做出选择的挑战。
- 🃏 **扑克与人生**:她通过自己的扑克生涯,类比了人生中的决策制定,提到了如何从扑克中的策略应用到生活和商业决策中。
- 🤔 **认知偏差**:指出了人们在决策时常常受到认知偏差的影响,例如结果导向(resulting)和沉没成本谬误。
- 🚫 **放弃的难点**:探讨了人们为什么难以在适当的时候放弃,包括对改变的恐惧和对现状的依赖。
- 📚 **学习和适应**:强调了从经验中学习,并根据新的信息调整决策的重要性。
- 🔍 **证据收集**:讨论了在做决策前收集证据的重要性,以及如何基于证据形成和测试假设。
- 💡 **创新与风险**:提到了创新需要承担风险,并且解释了为什么人们在创新项目上往往难以坚持或放弃。
- 🔄 **多元化尝试**:鼓励人们在生活中尝试多种可能性,并根据结果调整自己的“投资组合”。
- 🛑 **设定终止条件**:提出了在开始任何项目或决策时,都应该设定清晰的终止条件或“杀伤标准”。
- 🔑 **个人成长**:Annie Duke的个人经历展示了如何从失败中寻找机会,并在职业生涯中实现转型。
Q & A
安妮是如何从世界扑克系列赛冠军转变为作家和决策顾问的?
-安妮在研究生期间因为健康问题被迫中断学业,这成为了她职业生涯转变的关键时刻。在休学期间,她开始尝试打扑克来赚取生活费用,最终在这个领域取得了巨大成功。后来,她发现自己对其他事物也充满热情,于是在2012年退出了扑克界,专注于写作和其他让她感到快乐的活动。
安妮在书中提到了哪些决策中常见的问题?
-安妮提到决策者面临的问题包括结果受运气影响、缺乏全面信息、难以开始和停止事情。人们往往因为害怕不确定性和潜在的失败而不愿开始新事物,而当事情不如预期时,又因为沉没成本而难以停止。
什么是“结果主义”(Resulging),它如何影响我们的决策?
-结果主义是指将决策的质量与结果的质量混为一谈。例如,如果一个决策结果不佳,人们往往会认为这是一个错误的决策,而忽略了决策时可能存在的合理性。这会导致人们在做决策时过于依赖结果,而不是基于概率和逻辑。
安妮如何定义“被迫退出”(Forced quitting)?
-被迫退出是指当外部因素迫使你停止正在进行的活动或工作。安妮认为,尽管被迫退出可能感觉糟糕,但它可以迫使人们进入探索模式,思考其他可能被忽视的机会。
安妮提到了哪些关于风险态度的问题?
-安妮指出人们在决策时往往表现出非理性的风险态度,包括过度风险寻求和过度风险规避。这些问题通常源于人们对不确定性的恐惧和对沉没成本的过度关注。
安妮在扑克生涯中学到了哪些与决策相关的教训?
-安妮通过扑克学到的决策教训包括理解风险、认识到何时退出游戏、以及如何管理不确定性。她将这些教训应用于其他生活领域,帮助她在决策时更加理性和有效。
安妮如何看待创新和坚持之间的平衡?
-安妮认为,创新和坚持之间的平衡是通过设定清晰的标准和指标来实现的。这包括为每个项目设定关键的里程碑和退出标准,以便在项目不再符合预期时及时调整或停止。
在决策过程中,如何避免过度坚持(Over-gritting)?
-避免过度坚持的方法是定期回顾项目的进展,并与预先设定的退出标准进行比较。如果项目没有达到预期的里程碑,就应该考虑是否需要调整方向或退出。
安妮提到了“猴子和宝座”(Monkeys and Thrones)的方法,这是什么?
-“猴子和宝座”是一种决策工具,用于识别和解决项目中的关键问题(猴子)和主要目标(宝座)。这种方法帮助决策者集中精力解决最重要的问题,避免在不必要的事务上积累沉没成本。
安妮对于个人如何管理自己的“项目组合”有什么建议?
-安妮建议个人应该像风险投资者一样管理自己的生活和职业选择。这包括尝试多种可能性,然后根据项目的进展和个人目标集中资源到最有前景的领域,同时不断寻找和尝试新的机会。
安妮如何看待失败和从失败中学习的重要性?
-安妮认为失败是学习和成长的重要部分。通过分析失败,我们可以更好地理解何时应该坚持,何时应该退出。她鼓励人们从失败中寻找教训,而不是将其视为终点。
Outlines
😊 欢迎和介绍
主持人向观众和嘉宾Annie问好,感谢她的参与,并简要介绍了她的背景,包括她的扑克冠军经历、作家身份以及在沃顿商学院的教职。提到她的新书《Quit: The Power of Walking Away》。
🎉 职业转变的关键时刻
Annie分享了她从学术界转向职业扑克的经历。她谈到由于健康问题被迫暂停学术生涯,随后通过扑克来维持生计,并最终在这一领域取得了成功。这次经历使她不再害怕放弃,并更愿意尝试新的机会。
🃏 从认知科学到扑克
Annie解释了她如何从认知科学的研究转向职业扑克,并分享了她哥哥对她的影响。她提到在90年代扑克还不普及,而她的认知科学背景帮助她在扑克中取得快速进展。她也谈到在男性主导的扑克界作为女性的独特经历和挑战。
🔍 决策中的困难
Annie讨论了人们在做决策时面临的主要挑战。她强调了运气和信息不完全对决策的影响,并指出人们往往害怕开始新事物和停止当前的事情。她以扑克和生活中的实例解释了这些概念,并提出了应对策略。
🛑 停止做事的时机
Annie深入探讨了人们为什么难以在适当时机停止做事。她提到人们通常会容忍状态不变所带来的失败,因为这种失败比改变带来的失败更容易被接受。她还分享了一个有关职场决策的案例,说明了人们如何陷入当前状态而难以做出改变。
🏈 NFL的例子和结果化
Annie通过分析Pete Carroll在2015年超级碗中的决策,解释了“结果化”的概念。她指出,决定的质量不应仅以结果来衡量,因为运气在其中也起到作用。她详细讨论了Carroll的决策,并说明了为什么这个决策在理论上是合理的。
🚀 创新与风险
Annie探讨了创新过程中的风险管理。她提到X公司在进行创新项目时面临的挑战,并讨论了如何在保持创新精神的同时,避免个人的例外主义思维。她强调了在风险和预期收益之间找到平衡的重要性。
💼 项目投资与放弃
Annie解释了如何评估项目的价值并决定是否继续投入。她指出,个人在生活中应像投资者一样管理自己的时间和资源,尝试多种选择,并根据新的信息不断调整决策。她以自己的职业经历为例,说明了这一策略的应用。
🏗️ 阶段性目标与调整
Annie强调了在项目管理中设定阶段性目标和调整的必要性。她指出,项目的成功与否应根据是否达到预定的关键指标来评估。通过设定明确的目标和调整策略,可以更好地管理资源并提高项目的成功率。
🔄 从失败中学习
Annie讲述了如何从失败中吸取教训并找到新的机会。她以Stuart Butterfield的经历为例,说明了在一个项目失败后,如何通过重新评估已有资源和技术来找到新的发展方向。她强调了全面放弃一个项目的重要性,以便更好地发现潜在的机会。
📊 投资组合思维
Annie建议个人应像投资组合管理者一样管理自己的时间和精力。通过尝试多种选择并不断评估其价值,可以更有效地实现个人目标。她强调了在生活和工作中保持多样化选择的重要性,以应对不确定性并抓住新的机会。
🙏 感谢与总结
主持人感谢Annie的参与和分享,赞扬了她的见解和工作对观众的启发。她总结了讨论的主要内容,并表示希望观众能从中受益,做出更好的决策。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡决策
💡认知偏差
💡风险
💡机会成本
💡创新
💡退出
💡多样性思维
💡概率思维
💡结果偏差
💡沉没成本
💡预期价值
Highlights
Annie Duke分享了她如何通过思考概率、收集证据、形成假设和测试它们来进行决策,这与X公司的思维模式高度一致。
Annie Duke的职业生涯从世界扑克系列冠军转变为作家和决策顾问的关键时刻。
讨论了被迫退出(例如被解雇)如何成为探索新机会的契机。
Annie Duke如何通过认知心理学背景和扑克经验来提高决策能力。
Annie的新书《Quit: The Power of Walking Away》探讨了何时以及如何放弃的重要性。
讨论了人们如何因认知偏差而难以停止事情,以及这如何影响决策。
Annie分享了她如何从扑克转向写作和教学,并最终成为沃顿商学院的讲师。
讨论了风险态度问题,以及人们如何因害怕失败而难以开始或停止事情。
Annie解释了“结果主义”(resulting)的概念,以及它如何影响我们对决策质量的判断。
讨论了如何通过建立清晰的退出标准来克服决策中的难题。
Annie强调了在决策中考虑机会成本的重要性。
讨论了如何通过多样化的思考来建立更广泛的视角和创新。
Annie分享了她如何使用“猴子和宝座”(monkeys and pedestals)的方法来识别和解决问题。
讨论了沉没成本偏差以及它如何影响我们继续投入已经不成功的项目。
Annie解释了如何通过预设“杀伤标准”来避免在错误的道路上走得太远。
讨论了如何在个人和机构层面上处理具有重尾分布结果的项目。
Annie建议我们像风险资本家一样对待自己的生活,不断尝试新事物并专注于最有效的选择。
Transcripts
hi it's great to see you how are you I'm
in the camera I can't excuse
me uh hi nice to see you how are you
nice to see you it's been a it's been a
while awesome all right Alex uh Annie
thank you for doing this I'm excited uh
exer to be talking about this I think
that this issues that Annie has looked
at and written around written about on
sort of thinking in probabilities
Gathering evidence um forming hypotheses
and testing them is super aligned with a
lot of how we think here I think I
appreciate the women of x sponsoring
this and I think this is a particularly
great way to sort of like build some of
the diversity of thought that we're
interested in in an X so thank you for
doing this with us Annie it's wonderful
to see you and uh take it away Alex and
Annie
thank you Astro and thank you Annie
again for joining us today we're I'm
very excited to talk to you and I know
everyone here is really excited to hear
from you um so for those of you who
don't know Annie um she is a World
Series poker player um extremely
accomplished author and now teaches over
at Wharton um and I heard recently
completed her PhD and is doing some
other amazing work in the last um few
years since we last spoke to her so for
those of you who haven't caught it Annie
actually spoke with Astro here a few
years ago so I'll put that recording out
for those that that missed that talk um
and since the time that Annie came back
she's actually released her most recent
book quit the power of walking away um
which there's a few copies out for
distribution so grab yourself one um and
Annie you have had a fantastic Journey
as a World Series poker Champion to
becoming an author and a lecturer um and
a consultant on
decision-making what was the pivotal
moment that inspired that career
transition for
you oh gosh
uh you know what one of the things that
one of the things that I talk about in
the recent book quit
is the lessons that we can learn from
Forced quitting so
um about quitting like if I quit my job
I'm quitting but also if if my employer
fires me they're quitting they're
quitting
me from their perspective but then I'm
being forced to quit from my perspective
yeah yeah so um so what happens is that
once we start things there's a lot of
there's so many cognitive biases that
kind of like pile up on top of us to
make it really hard for us to stop
things
and that's really bad because a lot of
times you learn things after the fact
that tell you you shouldn't keep doing
the thing that you're doing um and you
kind of stop exploring other options you
don't really think we're not good at
thinking about the opportunity costs of
other things that we could be doing and
we're forced to quit um it's a moment
where uh you know as bad as it feels and
and it's not that it turns out well
every single time obviously but it does
force you into an exploratory mode it
starts making you think about well what
are the opp other opportunities that
I've been forgoing because I've been
pursuing this other thing and that
happened to me very early on in my adult
life so I uh right out of college I went
to upen for graduate school uh to study
cognitive psychology I was there for
five years and uh in my last year I was
on the job market I had lots of job
talks lined
up uh I was on the my way to the first
one and i' had been struggling uh for
quite a while with a sort of chronic
stomach illness that became quite acute
and I was unable to go to the job talks
I actually ended up in the hospital for
a couple of weeks and it became clear
that I I needed to take time off so this
is a forced quitting event for me so I'm
you know in the academic route in
graduate school for five years on my way
to go give my job talks because I'm
going to go get an assistant professor
position and
you know life got in the way my health
got in the way and said nope you have to
take some time off and once that
happened I I didn't have my fellowship I
was there on a National Science
Foundation Fellowship so that money went
away I I grew up in a household where my
dad was a school teacher my mom didn't
work so I didn't really have the option
to just hang out and I needed to make
money and I started exploring ways that
I could make money that would fit in
with some constraints that I have like
you know I'm going to go back to
graduate school I'm going to go back out
on on the job market um and poker kind
of fit the bill as you know flexible
hours I if I didn't feel well I didn't
have to work that day um it seemed like
a good way to make money whatever um and
I did that and obviously that particular
career path at the time worked out
really well for me but I think that at
that having happened to me in my
20s it made the idea of quitting not so
scary to me anymore um that there's
always other things you could be doing
and and what you're choosing to focus on
uh might be great but it's also taking
Focus or attention or time or whatever
away from other things that you could be
doing um and I started being much more
willing to engage in other opportunities
sometimes in parallel and sometimes I
would figure out that the thing that I
was trying out I liked better and I
would ditch the other thing so uh I
retired from poker in 2012 because I was
getting more joy from other things that
I was doing and I really trace it back
to that very early lesson of something
that felt so horrible and disastrous and
derailing my life and all of these
things at the time that turned out to
open my eyes to the fact that that you
could actually view that as an
opportunity yeah that's amazing um and
actually the first thing that crosses my
mind is how how did you go from like I'm
I'm heavy in my academic study for
cognitive clients to Poker so that's a
very good question what was that jump
like okay so first of all let me just
set the table for a
second uh this is in the 90s so there is
no internet poker and poker is not on
television so poker is quite ubiquitous
on television starting in
2002 um it's everywhere but this is
before that happen so it's even more
unusual than you think so I was lucky
enough to have a brother who I guess at
the time you might have called a
degenerate I mean he wasn't I'm I'm
saying that lovingly so my brother when
he was in high school uh got really uh
enamored with chess he actually became a
master um and he would you know go and
play in chess tournaments and he was
studying you know big huge volumes of
chess openings and things like that um
and he got into Columbia and then
deferred a year because he wanted to
stud with a Grandmaster because he was
he loved chess he really he his goal at
that time was to become a Grandmaster
when he was 18 so he goes off to New
York he defers Columbia for a year he's
playing chess and the games worlds in
New York are quite intertwined this is
in the uh 80s the very early 80s they're
quite intertwined and it turns out that
if you go to places where there are
chess there's chess there's also like
back Amon and poker so he starts playing
poker and he had a small a modest
college fund and he immediately lost all
of it because he was very bad at poker
um but he um he you know I think he like
we always played a lot of games when we
growing up and so I think he really
liked the game and he found a couple of
kind of at the time obscure poker books
they're not so obscure now but the time
they were and he started reading them um
and he started thinking much more
strategically about the game and he
ended up doing really well so he never
really did I think he maybe went to
college for six months or something but
by the time 1983 rolled around he had
already been he was the youngest person
to have ever made the World Series of
Poker Final Table Main Event not anymore
at the time he was 23 now 21 year olds
have done it but um so he was very good
so the whole time I'm in college I went
to college in New York I I went to
Columbia actually also and um I used to
go and like watch him play I would like
sit behind him and watch him play and uh
so I knew you know quite a bit about
about the game just from watching the
game so when it turned out I need to
take time off I moved to Montana with my
then husband um because he had a house
there and you know I'm just going to
take a year off and like relapse in
Montana I guess but I was like oh no we
need money uh and my brother suggested
he said you know I there was there's
poker in Montana why don't you play um
and I was like sure this was now in the
90s and um I was like all right I'll
give it a try and I remember I I have a
book that has like I wrote down like my
p&l and the first month I made $2,300
and you need to understand that the
professor positions that I was applying
to paid $23,000 a year so that
$2,300 seemed like a whole lot I was
like what will I ever do with all this
money I I'll never be able to spend this
um and so that's how that happened is
that my degenerate brother who is
responsible for anything that I did that
was ever
maybe you know skirting like what you
would want your child to do also was the
one who made me play poker which turned
out to be a good thing ah okay so then
did you find that your um I guess
research in cognitive science made you I
guess a combination of having watched
your brother for so many years and also
your experience of like studying
cognitive science did you find that you
accelerated through the poker World
quickly uh I know also being a woman in
poker was really unique at the time too
it's actually still quite unique
now it was unique uh in some ways good
some ways bad um I it was unique in the
sense that uh there's a lot of
stereotypes that people have that the
men who were playing poker had and um
they're very sticky and mostly they
amount
to some combination
of I would like to I'll use the nice
word I'd like to date you um I I don't
respect your intellect in any way shape
or form um and uh I want to uh dominate
you in some way um all three of those
things are good if you're trying to play
poker for the person who's for me right
because it means that they're going to
not play the way uh they play against
other people against me and this is not
I want to be very clear in no way shape
or form is this 100% of men who treated
me this way I have many very good
friends who are male poker players it's
just like there's just sort of like in
general like a lot of the people playing
poker kind of come in with these very
big stereotypes towards you and that was
the good stuff the bad stuff was there
was no HR
department yeah and so that I mean it
was there were it you had to have a very
very very thick skin uh it there was
this was way before me
too this was way before nobody would
dare say certain words to a woman way
before that um and that was on a daily
basis yeah to me so um so you know so it
was like so yes I was a but but I
Advanced very quickly I think that that
was also part of the reason why they
said such mean things to me because I
was taking their money right away as I
said my first my first um my first month
I made it was actually $2,800 now they
think about it my first month it was
$2,800 and then I just kind of went from
there and by the first time I played in
the World Series of Poker I cashed in
four events I made it to the final three
tables of the World Series of Poker I
made a final uh table so the question is
like why right and um I think you know
certainly I had incredible Mentor so as
I said my brother lost his college fund
before he became very successful so I
got to not lose my college fund before I
learned what he learned right so he
there was a lot of knowledge transfer
occurring but the other thing is that I
I think that the work that i' done in
cognitive science you know much of which
was really familiarizing myself with um
issues of decision-making and and and
learning under uncertainty was
incredibly helpful for me because a lot
of the things that we that I studied in
graduate school are just like front and
center out loud at the poker table so
it's this lab where you get to see these
things that you studied like in theory
in practice under high stakes conditions
and so I I could identify those things I
think and think about them and then
understand like how would I give myself
structures and and kind of rules and
policies that will allow me to
overcome a lot of the problems that I'm
seeing at the table and from from other
players and and myself as well and I
would put those into sort of two
categories that actually can be put
under an umbrella but one is a failure
to quit and the other is but they go
hand inand is um risk seeking
risk-seeking the reason why they go hand
in hand hand is if that you if you don't
quit you're being
risky if that makes sense uh but there's
a little bit of a difference because it
has to do with like increasing your risk
um and so and then sometimes you got the
Opposites where someone decreased their
risk because they were so afraid of ever
losing and so you sort of see these risk
attitudes problems happening that I knew
about from my uh schooling and then also
the the sort of failure to to walk away
problems um both of which I tried to put
a lot of structure around in order to
address them and I think that certainly
helped me to be more
successful yeah no for sure um and
actually with
um
[Music]
the you know with all of that you kind
of you you touched on a few things that
I would almost call like kill criteria
of and also this thinking in bets
and as you said kind of having the
structure around yourself of knowing
kind of what the the human inclination
is for some of those situations yeah
though what do you think are the sort of
main struggles that a lot of folks have
in sort of these decision-making whether
high risk or low
risk yeah so we can think about the the
broad problem that we have as decision
makers um and I can relate it to poker
but it's any decision you make yeah uh
the first is that when you make a
decision uh how that turns out is going
to be influenced by
luck so um I can think about playing a
poger hand against you where say I have
Aces and you have two fives um and I'm
going to win that hand 81 and a half
percent of the time right so it's
clearly like a good decision for me to
play this hand against you but if I'm
going to win 81 a. half% of the time
what it means is that um you know
obviously 18 and a half percent of the
time I'm going to lose and when I
observe that 18 and a half percent I
have no control over because that has to
do with like a random deal of the cards
right like if a five hits you're G to
you'll have three of a kind and I'll
just have two Aces and I lose um uh you
know if um if I uh am using ways and and
I take a particular route on a road um
while I'm on the road in between exits
an accident could happen at some point
in front of me and all of a sudden I'm
just stuck right and that's going to
happen some percentage of the time but I
just I have literally no control over
that so like people say you know you
hear this phrase a lot where people say
I make my own luck um and it's actually
a phrase that makes literally no sense
because you you luck is something you
have no control over I what people
actually mean is I make decisions that
lower the chances that I have a bad
outcome right but the influence of luck
is the same no matter what right like
literally it's it doesn't change it's
just that you've you've adjusted the set
of outcomes that are available to you
that luck could have an influence over
in terms of which one you actually
observe okay so that that's kind of
problem number one as decision makers
problem number two as decision makers is
that when we make a decision we don't
have all the facts um we know very
little and comparison to all there is to
be known um and so uh so we're making
decisions the way that I would put it
like is we're not omniscient we don't
have a time machine so that's hard um
okay so this is if we take that as a
problem this is where all of our
problems as decision makers stem from uh
and it stems from that on both the
starting do we choose to do something
right and the stopping so let's start
with do we choose to do something this
is where you get um these weird weird
risk attitudes um changes so uh one of
the things that you see is that people
are afraid to start things because
they're afraid that they won't work out
again because we don't have a time
machine people um won't start things
until they've built a case beyond the
point at which it was already correct to
start um so uh you'll see people for
example like here's a very simple
example it's kind of trite but also deep
at the same time um um ordering I I go
to a restaurant I see stuff on the
menu and I ask everybody at the table
what they're ordering I ask them what
they think about what I'm thinking about
I tell them I'm having a hard time with
it the weight staff comes over and I'm
saying to them what would you order if
you were me right and it's like 15
minutes later I'm just like having this
agonizing situation over what to order
like why is that happening to me why am
I doing that because I'm afraid that I'm
going to get my food and it's going to
be yucky and I'm going to feel like I
made a
mistake so I'm I'm doing decision work
well beyond the point at which I should
be right because I'm afraid I'm going to
get a bad outcome and feel bad feel like
I I made an error so what I want to be
able to say is what could I do I got
consensus I got information from
everybody uh you know everybody agreed
with me or I look at this I have a 200
Page brief on why it was correct for me
to order the chicken um so so I think
that you know we're just very
uncomfortable with uncertainty on the
start because we know that at minimum
we're going to observe the outcome and
if the outcome doesn't go our way we're
going to feel bad and uh most of the
time we're also going to like learn new
information so that makes it hard for us
to start things it slows us down on the
start so that's problem number one
problem number two is that we don't stop
things enough because the solution to
that first problem how do you speed up
your decision- making how do how are you
willing to make more decisions under
extreme uncertainty it's GNA make you be
more Innovative it's G to make you move
faster all these things well how do we
actually allow ourselves to do that well
because when we find out new information
whether it's just observing that the
outcome isn't going our way like oh no
the dealer Delta 5 or I learn new
information right you act in a certain
way that tells me more stuff about the
cards that you're holding that I was
previously guessing at because they're
hidden from me um
then we can change our minds but the
problem is we don't do
it because that decision is also made
under uncertainty the time that it's
right to quit is before you're certain
that you should quit Because by the time
you're certain that you should quit it's
no longer a choice anymore you're out of
money you're you've fallen into the
crass already right like the hand is
over like all so so the time to quit is
much earlier than that and we're just
really bad at it because we're afraid of
like but what if it it worked out like
you know what if the new thing that I
tried doesn't work out either you know
there's all these things that happen and
so we can kind of divide the world into
those problems both of which you see in
decision- making and at the table Yeah
you touched on so many things there I
know sorry no that's great it's great
actually once you wind me up it ties
into all of my questions um one of the
things that you mentioned in your book
that I really um had a big shift for me
was uh this term resulting um and
specifically you brought up the example
of Pete Carol with the Super Bowl um
could you for the uninitiated could you
explain what resulting is yep so when
you're deciding between the chicken and
the fish and you order the chicken and
it turns out yucky and you say oh I made
a mistake that's
resulting um so it's essentially just
tying the quality of the outcome back to
the quality of the decision when
actually those two things are
correlated but only correlated uh and
somewhat Loosely so depending on how
much luck there is in the equation um so
how we actually figure out decision
quality is not based on one particular
outcome that we might observe you would
have to have a large enough data set in
order to reach statistical significance
to say something to say that the outcome
is determinative of the quality of the
decision and it's not so the the the
particular instance that you're
referring to that um is throughout the
my my first general audience book
thinking and abouts is you know Pete
Carroll in the Super Bowl in 2015 he's
uh his team the Seahawks is um playing
the New England Patriots they're on the
one yard line they're down by four
there's 26 seconds left in the whole
game and it's second down so uh in this
particular situation there's an accepted
play which is to hand the ball off to
the running back and try to you know or
do a quarterback sneak something but to
try to plow through the defense but P
Carroll actually does something I'd say
Innovative uh because it's unexpected
it's not something that most people
would do here and he calls for a pass
play so uh the ball is passed Russell
Wilson will the quarterback passes the
ball it's intercepted by Malcolm Butler
and the game is over and everybody
freaks out um and the headlines are
that's the wor mostly the worst play in
Super Bowl history um I think it was USA
Today called it the worst play in NFL
history it's pretty strong um okay so
this is a really good example of
resulting right because we don't have
any data on the play itself all we know
is it didn't go well and it's very easy
for us to to do the thought experiment
really quickly which is well what if it
had been caught for the game-winning
touchdown would the headlines have been
the same and it's like no obviously not
the headlines would not have been the
same in any way it would have been what
a brilliant called he's going to the
Hall of Fame he out bellich bellich he's
a genius best play call in Super Bowl
history all right so we know that
there's a problem here right which is
that we're not actually thinking about
the quality of decision we're just
substituting in the quality of the
outcome for the quality of the decision
now obviously that's bad because when
we're trying to close those feedback
loops um that's what's going to inform
our future decisions the future
decisions that we make um just really
quickly uh an amazing decision um 26
seconds left with only one timeout is a
problem on second down because uh you
want to be able to run a play on second
third and fourth down three downs and um
pretty hard to do that when you have 26
seconds left and only one play uh but
there is one way to do that which is to
call a pass pass play in one of the
first two downs and the reason is that
when you run the ball and you don't
score the clock keeps running but when
you pass the ball and you don't score in
the normal way which would be an
incomplete pass the clock stops on its
own and it acts like a timeout so if you
run a pass play um then you you can get
three Downs instead of two which I think
everybody would like against the New
England Patriots um the cost of the play
is the interception
rate oh and also by the way they'll
score 50% of the time giving it to the
running back but it the the simple thing
is the the cost buying that the cost of
buying a third down is the interception
rate Which is less than 1% so it's
actually like one of the most brilliant
plays in Super Bowl history but nobody
wants to do it now because of resulting
and that's the problem is he did
something very out of the box that was
incredibly smart and got soundly
criticized for it uh in a way that would
make people not want to make that
decision going forward yeah no I really
um I I love this idea of separating a
good and bad decision from independent
from a good and bad outcome because I
think it puts a lot of empowerment in
people to okay what is what is the
information I have right now what are
the resources I have right now what's
the best decision I can stand by right
now independent of how the outcome turns
out um which I think in some ways you
know and you brought up kind of this the
what if question what if I had done this
and yeah it I think helps us do
that foresight and hindsight back and
forth a little bit better of okay well
you know this is where I am now what can
I do um
the what do you think is sort
of like it's independent from resulting
um because I know in your new book you
talk a lot about quitting um and sort of
the the unique struggles there um and I
was I was pleased to see that uh X made
an appearance in your in your most
recent book so that was great um what
well in general what do you think are
the sort of the biggest obstacles to
people quitting on time and I know that
that has its own yeah okay oh my gosh
all right me think about this um because
there's a
lot well I'm gonna I'm gonna give two
things three three quick bullets let me
relate it back to what I just said about
Pete
Caroll so I'll do the thought experiment
um with you actually
um imagine that Pete Caroll had handed
the ball off to marshan Lynch like
everybody wanted him
to so he does the play that everybody's
expecting which is to run the ball and
let's imagine that Marshon Lynch doesn't
score and then you go to the next
down and he hands the ball off to
marshan Lynch which is what everybody's
going to want him to
do and marshan Lynch doesn't score
again how do the headlines change the
next
day well I guess probably maybe instead
of being the worst play in history still
that it was a poorly played game um well
maybe I mean they got pretty close
against the
Patriots do you think they would have
talked about do you think they would
have called Pete Carol an idiot and said
that it was the worst play call or do
you think they would have praised the
Patriots
defense oh that's a good
point
um probably a mix of both but yeah I
mean praising the Patriots defense um
well you know actually I think generally
people jump to criticism more quickly
than they do praise yeah a little I mean
I think that what would have happened is
I don't think there would have been a
single let's put it this way there would
be no headline that said it was the
worst play call in Super Bowl
history there wouldn't have been
anything that said Pete Caroll is an
idiot there would have been because
there was actually a headline that said
that nobody would have said it was the
worst play call in NFL
history I think that what would have
happened it would would have been uh
Seahawks failed to take advantage
in the last 26 seconds of the game as
the Patriots defense
holds I would argue that Pete Carroll's
name would not be
mentioned right it would be like the
defense held they didn't
convert Marshon Lynch couldn't convert
you know something like that but
nobody's going to say like why on Earth
did Pete Carroll run the ball all right
so what does this have to do with
quitting I'm I'm gonna bring it back to
that um so I just want to set that up so
so what we can see is there's a
difference in the reaction that people
have to doing something that's status
quo and doing something that is changing
the Status Quo so the status quo is
handed off to Marsh on
Lynch the Innovative that the change
would be to pass the ball and you can
have an equally bad outcome you lose the
Super Bowl it's the same outcome right
but the way that people process that is
very
different nobody's when I put a picture
up of this play the whole audience
starts talking I mean this is now worth
eight years later everybody knows it
nobody would know what it was they'd be
like what is that what's that situation
that's happening there okay so let's
think about how this is one of the
biggest impediments to quitting is that
the status quo is very
powerful um because failing by doing the
status quo quo doesn't really um put you
at
risk was less open to criticism then yes
we will tolerate a lot of failure from
sticking to the status quo from sticking
to what we're doing in a way that we
won't tolerate failure from
changing what we normally do okay so i i
t i remember talking to somebody who
like was thinking about quitting their
job and I asked them they had another
job in the offing and they came to me
and they were like can you help me
decide whether I should quit and I asked
them about their job and it was
basically I'm paraphrasing I hate it
I've hated it for five years nothing
ever changes nothing is g to change it's
the most terrible job ever and I said so
now I'm just
confused and I was like okay why don't
you want to
switch and she said what if I hate the
new job
too that's how much and you know that's
happened to you you've had that
conversation right
why why so I said to herw what's the
probability in a year you're going to be
happy in the job you're in and she said
zero I said what's the probability you'd
be happy in the new job and she said I
don't know 50% and I was like % greater
than zero so notice what happens is that
we get what's called it's loss ofers and
we get very loss averse on the
Innovative choice on the non-consensus
the switch that kind of thing right we
get very loss ofers so for ourselves
we're so worried that it's not going to
work out that we won't switch and we
tolerate the losses that are curing by
sticking to a path that we already know
is not working that is one of the
reasons why we want if we switch we want
to be able to say to people I had no
choice I see so that so that if it
doesn't work out when we go to something
new it it doesn't feel quite as bad to
us um and I think that's like a big top
thing that makes it really hard for us
to switch and it's what makes Innovation
so hard so we can be thinking about well
we really want to be Innovative right we
we super duper want to be Innovative and
so we start something but the minute
that we start an Innovative
project it's very very hard for us to
stop that thing even when all signs
point to this isn't working it's not
going to get to commercialization fast
enough it's not going to actually make
the world 10x better like all the signs
are there we're going to be late to the
switch because we what if the new thing
we go doesn't work out right like what
if that happens and there's other things
and we we can go through the bullets in
a second but so so what we can be
Innovative on the start but once we
start something we stop exp we don't
want to explore new things we won't
switch We Won't Give Up the thing that
we already started because we're afraid
of like what if it doesn't work out and
then I'm going to feel bad I'm going to
feel like it's a mistake but only on the
switch yeah not on the stick you know
actually that brought up one question I
had um having watched your your talk
with Astro on this um personal
exceptionalism you know I'm you know
things are nuanced enough I you know I
know things look bad but I've got this
Ace up my sleeve or I'm going to be the
exception you know and kind of to your
point of like there's the mix of like
well the deviating from the status quo
but you do run into individuals and
especially here at X because we're doing
a lot of groundbreaking work of sort of
striking this balance between looking at
the probability of you know expected
value versus well we're in the business
of
moonshots and we have
to we have to have a bias towards like
where we can find exceptions because
that's what we're looking for we're
trying to find the unique the unique
Tech or the Breakthrough Solution that's
going to enable us to go to you know go
for the long mile um but how do you how
do you keep how do you not let the
exceptionalism overpower the probability
there with expected value for
quitting yeah
so look so first of
all there's a there's a really big
problem with survivorship bias which is
just that you hear about the successes
so one of the things I hear all the time
is like well people shouldn't quit
because of
Dyson the number of times people have
mench Dyson to me I I wish I had a
dollar for every time they did it I
would be very rich I don't know we
developed like 22 vacuums or something
before I I don't know um you know or or
like another example would be um notion
so you know notion was down to its last
250 I think was completely unable to
raise around was totally failing and
then um Ivan went into to a room in
Japan or something and you know recoded
the whole thing and it happened to work
right but I think that objectively we
can say we don't want to do that right
it's not a good plan in life to get down
to your last 250 unable to raise a new
round right like that yes he did that
but that doesn't mean that that should
be your plan so let's just just let's
just start there I think that's very
important we want to be very careful
because we're very good at
cherry-picking but that person did it I
saw something on Twitter once where
when the when the market contraction
occurred uh somebody was trying to
encourage people they said um it took us
16 months to raise our a so don't ever
give up and I was like oh my gosh that's
the worst advice I've ever heard like
that's terrible um and the reason is
that I don't care if it took you 16
months that the the advice is don't give
up it's don't give up if it's still
worthwhile and we have to remember this
word worthwhile right so how do we
approach this it turns out that when we
approach these quitting problems um
really well or starting and you know
sticking or quitting problems really
well it helps us both to not abandon
things that are worthwhile too soon just
because things got hard but also to not
stick to things too
long uh because you know we don't want
to switch or because we don't want to
give up what we've already put into it
so that would be the sunk cost bias
which I think is the number two thing
that makes it really hard for us to quit
is that we we take into account what
we've already spent in deciding to
whether to continue and spend more so
here's what we're trying to
do whether we're talking about grit or
or quit we're trying to align our
Behavior having started something to the
way that we would behave if we had never
started it in the first
place so we're pursu we're trying to
develop something we have a project
going um we want our Behavior to be the
same in terms of would we start this
knowing what we know
now as it is would we continue this
knowing what we know now so we want
those two do things to
align now we know that people are
sticking with things too long because
all the data shows that those two things
don't align and they align in a very
particular way which is that we stick to
things that we would not
start given the information that we have
today okay and we know that that's the
problem of most adults that is not to
say that grit grit is not a worthwhile
feature to develop in yourself it
certainly is it helps you to stick to
things when they're hard it's
particularly good for kids because kids
are are not particularly gritty we want
them to be grittier but every single
person at X has has too much
grit I guarantee it I don't need to talk
to any of you I know you're all too
gritty um because I'm too gritty I get
it like we're all too gritty that's why
we're here right okay so but the good
news is that dealing with the too gritty
problem helps you to also not quit too
soon so that's the good news so we want
to not quit too late and not quit too
soon and the way that we do that is by
putting on a Cadence two things one
which you're very familiar with which is
monkeys and pedestals it gets you
focused on what is the actual bottleneck
to us solving it um and how are we going
to attack that and then you have to aair
that pair that and don't build any
unnecessary pedestals because then you
accumulate sunk costs which is really
bad right like but I built all these I
can't quit right I put so much time and
energy into those and I don't want to
have wasted it okay well you shouldn't
have built those in the first place so
stop it um but but then what we do is we
pair monkeys and pedestals with really
good kill
criteria so what we say is it's the
equivalent of doing this you sort of
combine it with a premortem imagine it's
a it's a year from now and this project
has totally
failed looking back we realized there
were early signals that that was going
to happen it was very clear looking back
we realized early on we we the signals
were there we knew that this was not
going to succeed what were
they I mean it's it's a simple exercise
right so um you know there's a lot of
projects where you can say we're over
budget and behind timeline from two
years right like clearly that's a really
good signal that things aren't going
your way but there's just particular
things that you have to solve like so
for an example like let's say that
decided to pursue the hyperloop and you
knew that there was going to be a
regulatory issue well if you do if you
do monkeys and pedestals you know you
have to address the regulatory issue
right and so now you attack that first
before you build anything you have to go
talk like what's this route going to be
how are we going to deal with right away
and you know going through populous
areas and track and you know so on so
forth um and then you have a list of
kill criteria we're going to go and test
certain places and ask them particular
questions and see what whether we could
actually build this thing and there's
you would just set up kill criteria
around like uh if it goes this way we'll
continue and if it goes this way we're
gonna kill the project before I put a
whole lot into it um and so that that's
actually the way to do it because if
you're meeting the benchmarks it doesn't
matter if it's
hard right it's still what you've
determined in advance that it's worth
it's worth
pursuing yeah I'm assuming that you're
not comparing it to other options and
then but if you're not meeting those
benchmarks then have a set of kill
criteria which which are a set of either
I'm killing it if I observe this or I'm
seeking more information and depending
on that
information then I will kill it right so
I may need to go find if I see this I
need to find something else out or I
need to look for it and then obviously
that stuff morphs over
time right so you might think about what
are the monkeys in Phase One what are
the kill criteria associated with those
monkeys uh and then as you start to
solve for those things now you redo the
exercise so you're consistently putting
it on a new Cadence and that gets you to
both stick to things long enough and
also quit things soon enough or sooner
than you otherwise would have yeah no
that makes sense the um one of the
examples that you brought up was a
Stuart Butterfield um from Tiny glitch
to flicker a Yahoo to what became slack
and through multiple instan
of him and you noted that he's a great
example of someone who who quit early
who was able to look at and Salvage the
the pieces that he had already made and
spin that into something new um and I
know you know when we talk about kill
criteria it's the actualizing the entire
loss and I'm I'm curious if if you've
seen a lot
where
there's that if people can acknowledge
or
recognize or if you have tips for how to
do this to recognize what it is that
you've already built such that it's not
an a complete loss but hey we've built
up these other things and we're able to
salvage or recoup the and spin that into
something else I wonder if that would be
if you've seen that as a trick or maybe
that people can use to make the the idea
of ending a project or killing anything
not be so so hard
yeah so there's there's two things in
there one is the Stuart Butterfield
thing and the other is the question that
you asked so let me start with the
question that you asked and then kind of
circle back to the Stuart Butterfield
thing um so when we start
something uh we create a Finish
Line so uh if I start a race if I start
a marathon um there's now a Finish Line
uh which is 26.2 miles that is different
than the Finish Line than if I start a
half marathon which would be 3.1 month
um when we start a project we have goals
right so we're creating Finish Lines
with those
goals when we buy a
stock we we now have something that
we're measuring against in terms of our
mental accounting right if we're above
if we're above uh what we bought it at
we're what we were call in the gains uh
if we're below we're in the losses and
the the Finish Line would be the break
even point and then that can change
depending on if the stock goes up we'll
create a new Finish Line why am I
bringing this up so because the the way
that we process
um where we are isn't in comparison to
our distance from from the Finish Line
not our distance from the starting point
so that's what you're referring to right
so when we when we're doing a project
there's all sorts of things that we
create along the way but they don't
count for anything because we haven't
reached the finish line so so we only
judge ourselves as short of the finish
line so you could you can you can
imagine this pretty easily right if you
run 24 miles of a marathon you will feel
like a
failure even though you run 24 mil
that's 24 miles more than zero that's a
lot but
interestingly if you were running a half
marathon you would have stopped at 13.2
miles anyway like you wouldn't just run
the 24 miles because we're always
measuring ourselves in comparison to the
finish line so what we want to start
doing is thinking about ourselves as
progress from the starting
point so you have to reframe so you have
to just say what's our progress from the
starting point as opposed to oh we're
short of our goal um and that's where
that's where that can be incredibly
helpful um in terms of recovering
technology now you can also reverse
engineer that and say if we're going to
start a project then we ought to prefer
projects that have things that are that
we're where we will get things that are
useful along the
way so um either technologies that might
be useful and be able to be repurposed
or we're going to learn a lot about what
types of projects we might prefer what
might end up being successful along the
way um so uh you should have not have a
preference for something that's all or
nothing so this would be um something
that would be a tiebreaker now obviously
there might be an all or nothing project
that has just a much higher expected
value go do that just understand that
there you know you may not recover
something out the way but if you have
two if you're trying to decide where to
put your resources between two things
and they feel sort of like close to each
other um am I is there going to be stuff
that I'm going to get along the way
that's going to be useful regardless of
whether I succeed or fail should should
be a very strong tiebreaker there now I
just want to Circle back to Stuart
Butterfield for a second because there's
a really important lesson in
here when Stuart but so just for
background Stuart butter butter field
was uh creating a game called glitch
which was a big massive multiplayer
online role playing game and um had $6
million in the bank from Excel Andre and
Horwitz some other big VCS um so lots of
money in the bank and 5,000 really
DieHard users and uh but he did not feel
it was going particularly well because
um you needed a 100 eyeballs to get like
one sticky user uh and he just thought
like CAC was pretty bad in that case and
maybe maybe it wasn't going to be so
good so they did this big marketing
campaign over six weeks and um they
actually grew uh daily active users um
week over week by 6% which so everybody
thought it was a huge success and they
ought to keep going but a day after that
marketing campaign closed he wrote a
letter to his co-founders and investors
saying I woke up this morning with the
dead certainty that glitch was over all
right so what was he seeing this has to
do with this idea of like well how would
you set kill criteria right and um for
him it had to do with like is this a
ventor scale business and he realized
that if you continueed to grow customers
at the rate that they were that it would
be 31 months before they were break even
and it was an impossible assumption that
you could continue to grow at that rate
because obviously you're going to
saturate the core gaming market and CAC
is going to go up and you're going to
start getting to people who don't really
care or to people who've already seen
your ads so that's that's why he shut it
down much to the surprise of everybody
now you mentioned oh but it was really
good because um you know he he had stuff
that he could use anyway which was this
internal messaging tool that ends up
becoming
slack the reason why I wanted to Circle
back to that is that he didn't know
that so they had had slack and they had
been using slack or what was the pro you
know the sort of uh primitive version of
slack um for for a couple years in the
company internally it was just an
internal internal communication tool he
quit two days later was when he said hm
people like this internal communication
tool like maybe that could be something
that we could actually
develop and then he you know the
investors rolled their money back over
into slack and we know what happened
right I I can't remember what it got
sold to Salesforce for but it was a lot
of money um so so the lesson there is
that and I I alluded to this earlier is
that
be careful about what you
start and be careful about how like
really be careful about sticking to
things too long particularly in the face
of signals that you ought not to because
when we once we started something once
we're in it we are not good at seeing
other
things even when they're right under our
nose so we're not good at seeing other
opportunities that are even like far a
field from us I certainly never saw
poker as an opportunity when I was doing
graduate schools Stuart Butterfield
didn't see the thing that everybody was
using every single day and that the
employees loved he didn't think about it
as a business he never thought about
developing it or selling it he had to
fully
quit he had to say this is the end I am
shutting it down for him to be able to
see the other opportunity so we have to
remember that that's a that's a hidden
cost of the stuff that we're sticking to
so you need to be sure that the stuff
that you're sticking to is worth it it's
going to get you to your goal because
it's preventing you every one of you
brilliant people from doing other things
that you could put your Brilliance to
that might end up being
slack yeah no that's a really good point
um and I like that I like that lesson
that it's just that you you won't really
realize it until you kind of have you're
forced now to sort of look at the other
opportunities that are available right
um we've got a few questions here and I
know we're running short on time
um uh Emmy go ahead and ask your a
question I'll jump over to our Dory yeah
Annie thank you so much um really
quickly it seems like when people take
the kind of lens of looking at things
through bets it can very quickly become
Zero Sum and I was wondering what your
advice is on navigating um sort of away
from zero some thinking to be able to
see a lot of those broader options that
you're talking about when looking at
through the context of bets um because I
find that's often the case yeah so if we
really understand what what betting is
um so I people think about betting is
like I I think the problem is to your
point that people actually don't
understand what a bet is so uh they
think about it as I'm betting against
another person where I win you lose you
you win I lose an equal amounts right so
that's Zero Sum but what a bet is is
actually investing uh resources in a
particular option based on your belie
based on your beliefs right so your
beliefs are informing what options you
choose and what where where you choose
to invest your time attention effort
money and then this is the important
part according to what your goals and
values
are so what we're always trying to do is
pick options that cause us to either
gain the most ground toward goals that
we have or in some cases you have to
choose the worst of many you know the
best of bad options and so you might be
choosing one that will cause you to to
gain uh to lose the least ground but in
general we're trying to get ourselves
moving toward a goal as best as we
possibly can given whatever values you
have and that's where betting becomes
sometimes Zero Sum but actually most of
the time it's positive sum because I
have to make bets for example on on you
know for my children like what school do
I want to go them go to to what
neighborhood do I want to live them I'm
making when I'm making bets about my
life I'm taking into account my kids I'm
taking into account my spouse that kind
of thing when I'm working with clients
I'm trying to help them win and then I
win because that that's now part of my
value set is that I want them to win uh
there's all sorts of ways in which I
coach people on negotiations where it's
good for both of you to win in the
negotiation and so it all has to do with
what your values are if we're measuring
it by money and my value is to maximize
my amount of money no matter what then
it becomes Zero Sum because I'm going to
maximizing my money is going to mean
that I'm taking money from you but most
of the bets that we're making are
actually going to be positive some in
our Liv lives and that has to do with
really clearly understanding what your
goals are and what the values are that
are in you know that you're willing to
go and try to reach that goal you know
in terms of adhering
to awesome thank you Annie um I know
we're at time if uh if you've got a a
minute here' one of the questions in the
Dory I think um we'll be really curious
to get your input on um so question came
for a lot of projects at X have a
potentially very heavy tailed
distribution of outcomes how do you
think about quitting for an individual
versus an institution that's holding a
portfolio of projects are there
heuristic equivalents for individuals
for building anti-correlated portfolios
of
choices that's a really good question so
um let me think about it so so let's
start with the portfolio holder um
so with so I I work I'm a special
partner at firstr Capital Partners their
seed stage we're talking about very fat
tails tail distribution right uh almost
every company fails but some are amazing
um so you know obviously L we're trying
to build a a really strong and diverse
portfolio which will capture enough
winners in there to to end up being
positive expected
value um and then what we do is we
actually do a lot of monkeys and
pedestals and kill criteria and that
kind of thing to try to figure out where
once it's in the portfolio you would
then concentrate your
Capital so you're adding things to the
portfolio but you're actually purposely
saying there's a bunch of stuff in here
that I'm not I'm I'm putting in the
portfolio but then I'm not really going
to do much with it after that right and
then we're we're trying to identify the
things that look like they're reaching
escape velocity okay so so then the
question is like okay so how do we do
that for ourselves as individuals it's
the exact same idea you have to sample a
lot of
things and then be very clear about what
it would mean for that thing to
work and then start to concentrate your
capital on the things that are working
for you
so and never stop adding things to your
portfolio right so we want to basically
run that same thing right so so when we
add something to our portfolio we want
to say how much time and effort should I
put into this what are the questions
that I should ask that are going to get
me an answer the fastest about whether
this is something that I ought to
continue to
pursue and then having decided that you
should pursue it then you would
concentrate more of your treasure time
attention whatever into in into that
thing so you can do that pretty
purposefully yourself so I'll I'll just
give you an example from my own life
having had the the having had the forced
quitting event in my
life um I started playing poker but then
I got asked to start giving talks and I
was thinking about how to intersect
cognitive psychology with poker in a
very explicit way um and so I started
doing that but I didn't quit poker I
kept doing them at the exact same time
um um and then I started I I had been a
teacher and I thought hm you know I kind
of like that maybe I want to go back to
that so now I was giving talks which was
a form of teach teaching but then I also
started teaching poker then I was like
you know I was a writer too so I wrote
some poker books um and then people
started asking me to consult and I'm
literally doing this all at the same
time and then then I start to
concentrate right I say you know what
actually to to emy's point I don't
really like the zero some nature of
Poker anymore so I'm going to take that
out of my portfolio it is not bringing
me joy I don't like taking money from
people where they're not winning
anything to the situation and I'm going
to start doing this other thing and I
start concentrating over there um and
then I'm like I want to write books I
you know my poker books do pretty well I
want to write books about the stuff that
I've been talking to businesses about
then I also want to consult you know so
I've always got a bunch of things going
on and I'm doing more or less of them
but enough to sort of find
out is is this something that's
worthwhile so so that's really we really
want to approach Our Lives as investors
because that's the point right like
we're investing in these different
things that we can do and start and
options that we can do and we need to
start treating that like an
investment because we're investing in
our own happiness and our own
fulfillment and no investor would put
all their eggs in one basket nobody so
start be behaving like an early stage
venture capitalist when you're thinking
about your own life and then those
options are going to move through later
stages as you're going to sort of
develop those options more and you're
going to get more information and then
you can start deciding I'm going to take
this out or I'm going to concentrate
more Capital here but then always be
looking for new things to get into your
portfolio that you get to sample yeah I
really like that idea for us all being
investors for our own time and attention
and energy and finances and um helps
make better decisions yeah of it that
way um well I know we're we're over time
um I want to thank everyone for coming
today and especially to Annie thank you
for joining us this has been an amazing
conversation and I really appreciate all
of your Insight and your work and um
it's all very inspiring and very
educational as well for how to make
better decisions um in our lives thank
you so much for having me again I love
coming and talking to this
group
関連する他のビデオを見る
GG撲克|翻牌中順,為何不慢打?如何在不同情況下選擇平跟或3-bet,做出合適的決策!
Supply chain network design and inventory management for cost-efficient, in-time, perfect deliveries
Case Interview Question & Answers (Part 10 of 12) | caseinterview
Data Analytics in Supply Chain Management Canada🍁 Tools to use🎒 Pay Range🚛Roles & Titles & Companies
Webinar - Supply Chain Optimization: A Robust Supply That Minimizes Costs
Supply Chain and S&OP Challenges in 2024
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)