X Talks: Annie Duke on why quitters win

Summary

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

00:00

😊 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》。

05:02

🎉 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。

10:04

🃏 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。

15:08

🔍 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。

20:09

🛑 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。

25:12

🏈 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。

30:13

🚀 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。

35:13

💼 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。

40:14

🏗️ 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。

45:16

🔄 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。

50:17

📊 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。

55:17

🙏 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。

Keywords

💡决策

决策是指在多种可能性中做出选择的过程。在视频中，Annie讨论了人们在面对不确定性时如何做出决策，以及如何通过认知偏差来评估决策的质量。例如，她提到了'猴子和宝座'的方法来识别和解决决策过程中的主要障碍。

💡认知偏差

认知偏差是指影响我们判断和决策的心理误差。视频中提到了多种认知偏差，如结果偏差（resulting）和沉没成本偏差（sunk cost fallacy），这些偏差会影响我们对何时开始或结束某事的判断。

💡风险

风险涉及到在不确定性条件下可能发生的不利结果。Annie在视频中讨论了人们如何评估和管理风险，以及如何通过建立结构来克服风险寻求或风险规避的问题。

💡机会成本

机会成本是指为了追求一个选择而放弃的最有价值的替代选择。视频中提到，人们往往在坚持某事时没有考虑到放弃其他机会的成本。

💡创新

创新是指创造新的或改进现有的想法、产品或服务。Annie强调了创新的重要性，并讨论了如何通过改变现状来实现创新，例如Pete Carroll在超级碗中的有争议的决策。

💡退出

退出是指停止或结束某项活动或项目。视频中讨论了退出的困难，包括沉没成本和对改变现状的抗拒。Annie提供了关于如何识别何时退出的见解。

💡多样性思维

多样性思维是指在思考问题和做决策时考虑多种不同的观点和方法。视频中提到，多样性思维有助于构建更全面和创新的解决方案。

💡概率思维

概率思维是指在评估不同结果的可能性时使用概率来指导决策。Annie强调了在不确定性下进行概率思维的重要性，以及如何通过收集证据和测试假设来形成决策。

💡结果偏差

结果偏差是指根据结果的好坏来评价决策的质量，而不是决策过程本身。视频中Annie用Pete Carroll的超级碗决策来说明结果偏差如何影响我们对决策的评价。

💡沉没成本

沉没成本是指已经发生且不可回收的成本。视频中讨论了沉没成本如何影响人们的退出决策，即使继续投资可能并不合理。

💡预期价值

预期价值是指在决策中考虑所有可能结果的加权平均值。Annie在视频中提到，即使面对重尾分布的结果，也需要评估预期价值来决定是否继续投资于某个项目或想法。

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