The author assumes that because he doesn't know what he's doing, other people also don't.
I disagree. Sometimes people can know exactly what they're doing, and be fairly confident about the possible consequences.
I made a viral hit similar to the author's YT instant, and I very much did not know what I was doing. Then I did it again with different code, without leveraging the existing user base, just to see if it was all luck. It wasn't. I think a better argument would be that "sometimes successful projects are successful by accident", but that would make a terrible post title.
I agree with you completely, but I do think the biggest thing holding people back is fear, either that they won't do the right thing or they will fail.
As I told my kids tonight, be do-ers, not spectators.
"We have to create culture. Don't watch TV, don't read magazines, don't even listen to NPR; create your own roadshow. The nexus of space and time where you are now is the most immediate sector of your universe, and if you're worrying about Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton or somebody else, then you are disempowered, you're giving it all away to icons, icons which are maintained by an electronic media so that you want to dress like X or have lips like Y. This is shit-brained, this kind of thinking. That is all cultural diversion, and what is real is you and your friends and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears. And we are told 'no', we're unimportant, we're peripheral. 'Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that.' And then you're a player, you don't want to even play in that game. You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that's being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world."
Everyone has their own internal FUD generator, we just need to acknowledge our own FUD and ignore it because we all can do amazing things if we don't let it control us.
Sure, and we still research Gravity today. That doesn't mean we're guessing a ball will drop when released the same as it always has, now does it? At some point you do know what you're talking about, to a degree of certainty beyond "winging it", at any rate.
I find it funny someone downvoted my comment above. They must imagine we really don't know anything about anything. Perhaps we should just throw out all scientific experimentation, proofs, textbooks, etc. ever done and pretend the universe is actually working according to Dr. Seuss type principles. It's just as likely, right? </sarcasm>
Don't know why you were downvoted, it's a decent point you make. There are people who dedicated their entire life to an idea or ideal, and succeed _that_ way.
Perhaps it's useful to distinguish between "entrepreneurial" success-stories and achievements like Einstein's
Well, yeah, I might give him some slack if he limited it to entrepreneurial success, although I still wouldn't agree with it. He contends the entrepreneurs behind Club Penguin (sold to Disney) or Mint (sold to Intuit) -- or to go old-school, Berkshire Hathaway -- "winged" their way to success.
But he doesn't stop there:
Even Fortune 500 CEOs, Nobel Prize winners, and U.S. presidents — all are really good at winging it.
Proclaiming Nobel Prize winners in fields like Chemistry or Physics are "winging it" is, frankly, uninformed and insulting.
Yes, I didn't say all entrepreneurs have a clear idea of what they want to do, how they will do it, and how it's likely to come out -- many clearly don't. However, that's not always the case. I believe Club Penguin, a site that clearly targeted a demographic of youth, and Mint which targeted personal finance, are examples of companies set up from day one with a clear idea of what they were trying to accomplish.
I think you're missing the point of his argument. It isn't that we don't know anything, or that we cannot know anything. It is simply that people who are successful do not know how they became successful. Even the work of someone like Einstein is subject to the vagaries of chance; it's entirely possible that had he not been inspired by some trivial incident in his life, he might never have had the insight that led to relativity. The author may overstate the argument, but his fundamental point is sound.
people who are successful do not know how they became successful.
I'm afraid I don't follow. You're saying Warren Buffet, arguably the greatest investor of all time, doesn't know how he became successful? Or that some random chance gave him his uncanny investment insight? If that's the case why should we bother trying to control our lives at all? Why don't we just walk around with our eyes shut and hope luck drops into our lap?
You're saying Warren Buffet, arguably the greatest investor of all time, doesn't know how he became successful?
Yes.
Or that some random chance gave him his uncanny investment insight?
Possibly. The point is neither we, nor he, know.
[W]hy should we bother trying to control our lives at all?
A good question. Without getting into philosophical questions of free will, I suspect the pragmatic answer is that there is at least a weak correlation between the publicized 'formula' for success and actual success, for the same reason that most lottery winners are repeat buyers. By doing something, you expose yourself to fate. And generally, any activity we can afford to keep doing will at least permit us to make a living, which is the outcome for most. After all, we can't all be Warren Buffet---not even the Warren Buffets of the world.
Generally something along the lines of 'work hard, work smart, be persistent.'
Why is Warren Buffet the only one with his level of investment success?
No one knows; that's the point of the article. It could be pure chance. Put 1000 people in a room and have them each flip a coin for double or nothing, and in the end you will likely have a person who has made 1000x their original investment. Should we laud the winner's coin-flipping ability?
So, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that before Warren Buffet was even born, he was destined to become the successful investor we know? Further, that he shouldn't take any credit for thinking through all his decisions and coming up with the more profitable choice enough to substantially beat out millions of other investors?
To answer your question, no, we don't laud the winner's coin flipping ability, because, in the absence of cheating, the person's actions and decisions don't influence the outcome. All participants have an exactly equal chance at being the end winner, and nothing will change that. However, some savvy investors, like Warren Buffet, are able to ensure they win over others using the stock market; the difference being that their decision making does directly influence whether they "win" or "lose".
It seems to me you're suggesting investors could use coin flipping to make all investment decisions, and that makes as much sense as trying to decide by other means, since they don't know what they are doing anyway. Correct?
I said nothing about pre-destination, and Warren Buffet is free to take as much credit as he likes. I'm supporting the gist of the article, which is that complex phenomena like economic systems are much more like coin flipping than they are like dropping an object and predicting it will hit the ground. Contrary to what you say, the coin-flipper's actions and decisions do influence the outcome: he has to decide to keep playing, and he has to decide whether to call heads or tails. The difference is that the system is comparatively simple, so we easily see that chance alone determines the outcome. Barring cheating or a systematically biased coin, we can't imagine how it could be anything other than luck. On the other hand, investments are wrapped in much more complexity, and it's easier to imagine that there are skills that could confer an advantage, even if there aren't.
[Y]ou're suggesting investors could use coin flipping to make all investment decisions, and that makes as much sense as trying to decide by other means...
I'm not suggesting it, but now that you mention it there are some studies that do. I suspect there are real investment skills that can be learned and applied, much the same way a blackjack card counter gains a small edge that can be exploited over time.
Warren Buffet is free to take as much credit as he likes
Let me rephrase the question: Would you give Warren Buffet credit for his investment success?
he has to decide to keep playing
You said "in the end" which I took to mean the coin flipping would continue until only one winner remained of the 1000.
and he has to decide whether to call heads or tails
To ensure we are imagining the same crucial parameters let me clarify these points: first, the coin itself is not biased in any way; second, the flipping action is not biased; it could be carried out by a mechanized flipper, for example; third, the choice of heads or tails is always made before the flip. Under these circumstances the actual calling of heads or tails does not matter. The caller will always have exactly a 50% chance of winning and losing.
I suspect there are real investment skills that can be learned and applied, much the same way a blackjack card counter gains a small edge that can be exploited over time
Well, that's the first thing you've said I can easily agree with. Yes, I certainly believe, given enough time, Warren Buffet could teach someone to follow his methodology to have nearly identical success. So which is it? Is Warren Buffet someone who knows what he's doing or not?
Would you give Warren Buffet credit for his investment success?
For making a good living, yes; I think that much was in his control. For becoming a billionaire? No, there were far too many variables involved that were not within his control.
I certainly believe, given enough time, Warren Buffet could teach someone to follow his methodology to have nearly identical success.
I think Warren Buffet could teach someone to have some success, I don't believe he could teach someone to be a billionaire because becoming a billionaire depends in large part on chance. Most professional card counters never became rich either, they just made a good living.
You seem to be viewing the article as discouraging, while I see it as encouraging. While it means that much of our prospects for success are beyond our control, for the most part we have as good a chance as anyone, so get out there and do something.
For becoming a billionaire? No, there were far too many variables involved that were not within his control.
Well, yes, I can agree nobody can completely know or control the future. One may become terminally ill, or the Earth may be hit by a meteor at any time. However, that was not the argument made by the author. It was that none of us knows what we're doing. He seems to suggest we have little control over the outcomes which we do see, saying things like Nobel Prize winners are "winging it", as if they have the same understanding as anyone else (in this case none) when it comes to their expertise. I find that highly disconcerting.
If we imagine a chess match, where we know the duration will be a few hours, and the fitness of the players will not be compromised for the game duration, we can understand the winning or losing outcome is entirely in the hands of the players. If we further imagine the best chess player in the world accepts this match, and both players fully intend to win, if the best player wins would you agree it is because he (or she) does know what he (or she) is doing?
I do think the author overstated the case; I think when he says a Nobel prizewinner is 'winging it', I interpret it to mean in their process of coming to understanding. By definition, people like Nobel prizewinners or billionaires had multiple turning points in their careers where they made decisions under uncertainty. And by definition, uncertainty means chance is involved. At those points they were winging it and could easily have been wrong. Just like our coin flipper.
Similarly, in a championship chess match there will be points where even the most skilled player in the world may be uncertain as to which move is best. At those points, they too are winging it. If they intuitively make the best move without being able to fully explain why they are making it, does that not prove the author's point?
Aha! I think I've identified where our primary contention lies. First, as to the author overstating the case, I agree. If he really meant nobody is 100% certain of any given decision I can see where he is coming from, although I still wouldn't entirely agree. People who get off the freeway and drive home are not winging it. They are quite certain of the way (even if never guaranteed to survive the trip). This is just one of many instances which clearly does not agree with "none of us knows what we're doing". We clearly do a lot of the time.
Now, the place where I believe we are in discord is those instances when we are less certain we are making the right choice. If I walk up to a roulette table and choose black rather than red, and happen to win, I am certainly winging it and agree with you and the author entirely. However, I say the best chess player in the world would be able to tell you exactly why he (or she) made every move. They won't know with 100% certainty whether any given move is best, but they do know the logical mental progression taken to arrive at their choice, since they know strategy and likely outcomes. Similarly, Nobel Prize winning economists or physicists in large part know exactly what they are doing, for example, when driving home, and when working mathematical calculations. Our disagreement is over those rarer occasions when they are less certain of the correct choice. You seem to say it's the same as a 50% coin toss in these cases, and they are winging it. I firmly disagree. While they can't know with 100% certainty which choice is correct, they can know what is more likely correct (and why they believe so), and that is what separates them -- and Warren Buffet, and chess masters -- from everyone else.
So you would be OK with crediting our coin flipper if the coin had a 60/40 bias? It was his consistent skill in picking the 60% side that made him 1000x richer?
First, we have to look at the game. Let's say I'm one of the participants, and we are all told there are 1000 of us which will play a winner takes all coin toss game. There is one coin and each pair of players walks up to the coin, decides who will be the caller then watches for the result of the flip. We must all play until one person holds all the money. The first thing I'm going to do is casually head to the very back; that way I don't get eliminated until I reach the last person holding everyone's money, minus mine. At that point, if the coin was fair at 50/50 I would be happy to allow fate to decide whether I won very big, or lost my small stake. However, if the coin was biased at 60/40 favoring heads, and me being the astute observer I am noticed this tendency while awaiting my turn, when I reached the coin I would be sure to be the caller and firmly call heads. If I won, yes, I would give myself substantial credit for knowingly tipping the results in my favor.
The shorter answer to your question boils down to whether or not the winning caller used known information about the bias to his advantage. If he did, yes, he deserves some amount less than full credit -- fate will ultimately decide -- but more than zero credit, which would be in the case of a non-biased 50/50 choice. Also, I feel compelled to say I do believe Warren Buffet made the majority of his investment decisions on a mental certainty of far greater than 60% (unless the stake was quite small). One of the things about Warren Buffet's strategy is he buys for the long term, so, even if he's wrong in the short term, he won't sell. The company would practically have to go out of business for him to lose. The chance of that for companies he invests in is very slim.
Then I did it again with different code, without leveraging the existing user base, just to see if it was all luck.
Did you post it under a different name and account that none of your friends or contacts knew about? Just curious how you were able to be sure none of the existing user base or any of the notoriety you gained from the first hit contributed to the second.
They were fairly different demographics- for the second one I did post a link to it from a small site I made that shared the demographic a tiny bit (ragecaptions.com), and that seeded it with like 100 visitors a day, but that was it. Also, I obviously told my friends about it, but I have just a modest social network. For the curious, the first site was mylifeisaverage.com, the second was mylifeisbro.com. I never connected the two in any way (other than obviously playing off of the "My Life Is..." meme that had begun, but anyone could do that. See my life is twilight, etc.)
And fear not, I have no more 'mylifeis...' sites in production. I think a third one would just be sad.
Is it just me or is this perhaps taking the story of YouTube Instant a bit far?
I mean ya, I guess it got some press and got him a job offer, but it's not like he invented cold fusion or something. It was a cute idea. Can we really draw any kind of real conclusions from it?
Seems like that type of success, of a cute meme taking off is actually rather common, it is the longer term, build a sustainable company, king of success that is much more difficult.
He's excited about how successful he can be when applying himself to an idea for a few hours.
Scale it to 10,000 hours (Gladwell's Rule for success).
And that to >100,000 hours (lifetime devotion to an idea by the hyper-successful).
The importance of learning enough to recognize an opportunity, searching for it, finding it, then tenaciously applying oneself to it for decades, is something not taught in schools (at least not well) - most have to figure it out or fall into it.
"PS. Hate the font formatting, ugh."
Guess you meant the formatting on feross.org?
At first I also thought 'ugh', but as UI it is great because it is very readable.
I'm surprised no one's brought up the counterexample of Steve Jobs. He turned Apple from an unknown garage startup to one of the industry's most powerful players in just a few short years.
When Jobs was ousted, Apple went to the dumpster. When he returned, Apple once again rose to great success. Jobs was directly responsible for enough wildly successful products to make probably any other company or inventor in history green with envy.
It would be silly to claim that Apple's success is due to blind luck. Jobs' relationship with Apple and Apple's products appears causal and has been repeated in different market environments with vastly different product lines, which flatly contradicts the idea that _all_ successful people wing it and succeed based on luck.
Sure, some people succeed on accident. Some people succeed because they have real talent and just happen to get publicity at the right time. But some people succeed on purpose.
Your claim that most people who hit success dont have product vision may be true. Even though this might not be quantifiable, I get a similar idea from what I read. But I definitely think that it is not as uncommon as you think among Fortune 500 companies. I would think Bill gates( controversies/ethical questions apart) had a great vision. The reason why I say this is, I could say cancel a trip to Bahamas hoping to build something and see if I make it big. However, I would probably not drop out of a prestigious school to build something unless I am dead sure it will be a success. Obviously I am talking about Bill here.
The grammar of this headline really bugs me. The author correctly remembers that "None of us" is singular, but then spoils it by throwing in the plural "we're".
The correct version would, I think, be "None of us knows what he's doing", although both the feminists and the languagelog folks would complain about that.
Are you sure about “none” being singular in that context? I agree that the title is inconsistent, but I'd have written “None of us know what we're doing” (if I couldn't just pick some other phrasing).
gcide defines “none” as “No one; not one; not anything; – frequently used also partitively, or as a plural, not any.” and also offers “None of their productions are extant. –Blair”, both purportedly from 1913 Webster. So it seems that the pronoun can be interpreted in either number as needed.
Yep, "none" is not always singular. For example: "None of them are coming today" instead of "none of them is coming today". It is generally considered unidiomatic to use the latter.
“USAGE It is sometimes held that none can take only a singular verb, never a plural verb: : none of them is coming tonight, rather than : none of them are coming tonight. There is little justification, historical or grammatical, for this view. None is descended from Old English nān, meaning ‘not one,’ and has been used for around a thousand years with both a singular and a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed.”
You’re right though that it’s weird to mix both singular and plural verbs for the same subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_bias
The author assumes that because he doesn't know what he's doing, other people also don't.
I disagree. Sometimes people can know exactly what they're doing, and be fairly confident about the possible consequences.
I made a viral hit similar to the author's YT instant, and I very much did not know what I was doing. Then I did it again with different code, without leveraging the existing user base, just to see if it was all luck. It wasn't. I think a better argument would be that "sometimes successful projects are successful by accident", but that would make a terrible post title.