Podcasts about Abraham Wald

Leitura Bíblica Do Dia: Provérbios 4:20-27 Plano De Leitura Anual: Números 1-3, Marcos 3 Já fez seu devocional hoje? Aproveite e marque um amigo para fazer junto com você! Confira: Em 1938, o matemático húngaro Abraham Wald mudou-se para os Estados Unidos e cedeu suas habilidades às Forças Armadas deste país durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial. Wald e seus pares da equipe de pesquisa foram solicitados a pensar como proteger melhor as suas aeronaves para defender-se da artilharia inimiga. A equipe examinava as aeronaves que voltavam das batalhas para ver onde tinham sido mais afetadas; mas Wald percebeu que essa abordagem apenas revelava onde o avião era atingido e ainda podia funcionar. Percebeu que as partes que mais precisavam de reforços seriam evidentes apenas nos aviões abatidos. Esses aviões atingidos na parte mais vulnerável, o motor, tinham caído e não poderiam mais ser examinados. Salomão nos ensina a protegermos a nossa parte mais vulnerável, o nosso coração. Orientou seu filho a guardar o “seu coração, pois ele dirige o rumo de sua vida” (Provérbios 4:23). As orientações de Deus nos guiam e nos conduzem para longe de decisões ruins e nos ensinam a focar a nossa atenção no essencial. Se protegermos nosso coração ouvindo o conselho divino ficaremos firmes em nossa jornada com Deus, sem permitir que “[nossos] pés sigam o mal” (v.27). Pisamos em território inimigo diariamente, mas com a sabedoria de Deus nos cercando, podemos continuar focados na missão de viver para a glória do Pai. Por: Kirsten Holmberg

Welcome to the 400th episode of The Brainy Business podcast! In this milestone episode, Melina Palmer delves into the intriguing concept of survivorship bias, a critical thinking error that can significantly impact decision-making in business and personal life. Through engaging storytelling, Melina takes us back to World War II to uncover the origins of this concept and how it played a crucial role in military strategy.  She then brings the concept into contemporary contexts, illustrating how survivorship bias leads us to overvalue success stories while ignoring the vital lessons from failures. This episode not only celebrates our podcast's journey but also equips you with practical insights to recognize and overcome survivorship bias in your ventures. Join Melina as she explores this bias's profound implications on entrepreneurship, business strategies, and everyday decisions, helping you make more informed choices.  In this episode: Understand how survivorship bias impacts business success and decision-making. Explore the powerful influence of behavioral economics on shaping strategic choices in business. Discover effective strategies to overcome survivorship bias and drive more informed decision-making. Differentiate between correlation and causation in business strategies to make more impactful choices. Uncover the success factors that extend beyond survivorship bias and drive sustained business growth. Show Notes: 00:00:00 - Introduction Melina introduces the concept of survivorship bias and its relevance to business decisions. She emphasizes the impact of this bias on entrepreneurs and its influence on decision-making in various roles across industries. 00:04:08 - Abraham Wald and World War Two Melina delves into the story of Abraham Wald, a mathematician who discovered survivorship bias during World War Two. She highlights the significance of Wald's analysis of bullet holes on planes and the crucial insights it provided on reinforcing strategic spots. 00:09:16 - The Fallacy of Survivorship Bias The discussion focuses on the fallacy of survivorship bias in seeking advice for success. Melina provides examples of how survivorship bias leads to misconceptions about causation and correlation, using narratives of successful individuals as illustrations. 00:11:31 - Business Applications of Survivorship Bias Melina explores the business applications of survivorship bias and its implications for decision-making. She emphasizes the complexity of success and the dangers of assuming a one-size-fits-all approach based on survivorship bias. 00:13:56 - Correlation vs. Causation The conversation delves into the distinction between correlation and causation, highlighting the misconceptions that arise from survivorship bias. Melina illustrates the importance of discerning causation for making informed decisions in business and life. 00:15:46 - Survivorship Bias in Conclusions Not all successful CEOs wake up at 05:00 a.m. Correlation doesn't imply causation. It's important to consider all data points and not draw conclusions based on one aspect. 00:16:21 - Success and Failure in Publishing For every popular book, there are a million unsuccessful books and authors. It takes trial and error and hard work to succeed. Learn from others' experiences and determine what works for your goals. 00:18:07 - The Illusion of the Best Product The best products don't always lead the market. Being the best or first doesn't guarantee success. Look at all possible data points and consider what's missing for your business venture. 00:19:55 - Customer Feedback and Satisfaction Customer satisfaction surveys may not capture all feedback. Consider the concerns of those who didn't choose your business. Look beyond extreme examples and aim for a complete data set for feedback. 00:23:49 - Openness to Unexpected Findings Be open to the things you aren't looking for. Anomalies and unconventional ideas could lead to valuable insights. Consider reframing questions and exploring untested areas to avoid survivorship bias. 00:24:48 - Conclusion What stuck with you while listening to the episode? What are you going to try? Come share it with Melina on social media -- you'll find her as @thebrainybiz everywhere and as Melina Palmer on LinkedIn. Thanks for listening. Don't forget to subscribe on Apple Podcasts or Android. If you like what you heard, please leave a review on iTunes and share what you liked about the show.  I hope you love everything recommended via The Brainy Business! Everything was independently reviewed and selected by me, Melina Palmer. So you know, as an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. That means if you decide to shop from the links on this page (via Amazon or others), The Brainy Business may collect a share of sales or other compensation. Let's connect: Melina@TheBrainyBusiness.com The Brainy Business® on Facebook The Brainy Business on Twitter The Brainy Business on Instagram The Brainy Business on LinkedIn Melina on LinkedIn The Brainy Business on Youtube Learn and Support The Brainy Business: Check out and get your copies of Melina's Books.  Get the Books Mentioned on (or related to) this Episode: How to Change, by Katy Milkman What Your Employees Need and Can't Tell You, by Melina Palmer Alchemy, by Rory Sutherland The Invisible Gorilla, by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons Nobody's Fool, by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons Top Recommended Next Episode: David McRaney Interview (ep 336) Already Heard That One? Try These:  Hindsight Bias (ep 167) What Your Employees Need and Can't Tell You (ep 225) Jonah Berger Interview (ep 301) Warren Berger Interview (ep 340) Cass Sunstein Interview (ep 371) Other Important Links:  Brainy Bites - Melina's LinkedIn Newsletter What Every Founder Needs to Know About Survivorship Bias Why It's So Hard To Succeed – The Survivorship Bias You are missing something! – Survivorship bias 7 Lessons on Survivorship Bias that Will Help You Make Better Decisions How the Survivor Bias Distorts Reality Survivorship Bias: The Tale of Forgotten Failures Missing what's missing: How survivorship bias skews our perception The College Dropout Problem Hilarious Graphs Prove That Correlation Isn't Causation The 10 Most Bizarre Correlations

One of the giants of 20th century statistics died a few weeks ago. He was Indian. His name was CR Rao, and he was the finest product of the Bengal Renaissance. Welcome to Episode 15 of Everything is Everything, a weekly podcast hosted by Amit Varma and Ajay Shah. In this episode, Ajay tells us the story of his great hero, CR Rao. The love for statistics is infectious, and so is the storytelling, as Amit follows up with stories about Abraham Wald, PC Mahalanobis, JBS Haldane, the Bharat Sadhu Samaaj and the urbane finance minister who did WHAT to a tree? Magnificent entertainment. Paisa wasool. This episode was first published on YouTube on October 6, 2023. For magnificent, detailed, juicy show notes, click here.

In honor of Oppenheimer coming out this weekend, I figured I'd cover another nerd who used science to help the war effort during WWII. The survivorship bias is based on work done by Abraham Wald, a mathemetician who consulted with the US military on how to effectively protect planes from being shot down. The bias still impacts us to this day, and contributes to why we believe in things like the "American dream." ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sources⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ NAMI HelpLine: 1-800-950-NAMI (6264) or info@nami.org ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.nami.org/help⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ NEW mental health crisis number: 988 Trans Lifeline: US (877) 565-8860 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://translifeline.org/hotline/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow me on Twitter ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@PsychMindedPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Hungarian-born mathematician Abraham Wald lent his skills to the World War II efforts after coming to the United States in 1938. The military was looking for ways to protect its aircraft from enemy fire, so Wald and his colleagues at the Statistical Research Group were asked to figure out how to better protect military aircraft to defend against enemy fire. They began by examining returning aircraft to see where they were most damaged. But Wald is credited with the keen insight that damage on returning aircraft represented only where a plane could be hit and still survive. He realized that areas most in need of additional armor would be found on planes that had crashed. Planes hit in the most vulnerable part—the engine—had gone down and therefore couldn’t be examined. Solomon teaches us about protecting our most vulnerable part—our heart. He instructs his son to “guard [his] heart” because from it everything else flows. (Proverbs 4:23) God’s instructions guide us through life, steering us away from poor decisions and teaching us where to focus our attention. If we armor our heart by heeding His instructions, we’ll better “keep [our feet] from evil” and remain steadfast in our journey with God (v. 27). We venture into enemy territory every day, but with God’s wisdom guarding our hearts we can stay focused on our mission to live well for God’s glory.

Zdravo! Ker prihaja Martinov teden - opozorilo: ne sedajte za volan vesoljske bojne ladje in ne odletite na Bahame z vmesnim bombardiranjem Kanarcev samo zato, ker je tako karta do Bahamov tako malce ugodnejša. Ne bodite kot Ford. Pustite Kanarske otoke pri miru. ☮️ In volan, če pijete, tudi. V predigri o absolutni resnici, verstvih in poganskih običajh v novem podkastu Spoznavajmo verstva - prvem interverskem podkastu v Sloveniji. V tem razdelku razdelamo tudi idejo, da bi lahko naprimer pet (5) dni namenjenim raznim verskim praznikom porabili po izbiri. Če namreč ne verjamete v Marijo in njen upload, bi lahko praznovali Dan zemlje ali pa kaj tretjega. V poglavju in posledično epizodi spremljamo Forda, ki se na poti do Zemlje hote ali nehote udeležuje vesoljskih bitk, ker je očitno polet tako poceni. Kot da bi na ugodnem letu na Bahame vmes malo bombardili Kanarske otoke. Mogoče šala ni dobra, je pa naša. Tudi o opazovalnih zaslonih, preferenčnem glasu, spomninskem čipu (ali USB ključku), zaključimo pa da ima Ford spet v glavi divje štose, … ali pa mu je na tem potovanju res dolgčas.

We get into History in this podcast specifically WW2. Aircraft Bombers were analyzed wrong causing a decision to be made that would have had dire consequences if it wasn't for Abraham Wald!  Read about him here.  Please go to www.abqpodcast.com where you can get show notes, resources, and links to everything we talked about today to help you navigate your journey as an entrepreneur and business owner in ABQ. Follow me on Instagram at @abqjasonrigby or Alexander McCaig on LinkedIn here also sign up for our email list where I drop business & marketing secrets to help your ABQ Business!  

How do we measure the effectiveness of Compliance programs? It sounds like a simple question, but it is actually hard to answer. And it's not just a challenge facing Compliance Officers.If you work in Ethics, Risk or even as a Regulator, you'll recognise the dynamic. You've probably either been asked to demonstrate the effectiveness of your program or had questions asked about your budget or resources. And usually, that's not because they want to give you more.It's equally possible that you might have wondered how good a job you're doing. I know I did when working as a Regulator and as a Compliance Officer.Now, whatever the reason for the question, it's not an easy one to answer. Because part of it involves proving a negative, you can easily show that you've helped make good things happen, but it's much harder to demonstrate that you've stopped bad things. This is why we often turn to input metrics like 'number of hours of training delivered' or the number of times we executed a particular control. That's interesting, but it doesn't tell you how effective the outcome is. Or isn't. Just because someone has been on a course, and done a little exam, doesn't mean the risk the training is designed to mitigate has been reduced. So how can we best do that? That's what my two guests on this episode were interested in. One of them, Professor Benjamin Van Rooij, has been on the show four times — links to his previous appearances are below. The other, Professor Melissa Rorie, is making her debut. Together, they've edited a book called Measuring Compliance: Assessing Corporate Crime and Misconduct Prevention which contains chapters written by several eminent experts. Contributors to the book Todd Haugh, Ricardo Pelafone & Florentin Blanc have also previously been guests on the show. There are links to those episodes below.If you work in a function whose role is to mitigate Human Risk, feel free to substitute the word Compliance for whatever you're responsible for ——–— because it's still relevant — then what Melissa and Benjamin have to say will be of interest. Because if you don't know how to measure the success of what you do, then there's even less chance that anyone else — say someone who sets your budget, someone who is trying to assess the quality of your program or someone who determines your compensation — will be able to.To find out more about the book: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/measuring-compliance/5C1378AB4F9814D0C41198AEF9A5B6D2For more on Melissa & her research: https://www.unlv.edu/people/melissa-rorie-phdFor more on Benjamin & his research:https://www.uva.nl/en/profile/r/o/b.vanrooij/b.vanrooij.htmlIn our discussion, we talk about:Hui Chen & her work at the DOJ: https://huichenethics.com/about/Ricardo Pellafone & his work at Broadcat: https://www.thebroadcat.com/ricardo-pellafoneFlorentin Blanc & his work at the OECD: https://oecd-events.org/digital-security-for-prosperity/speaker/f46fd492-79c3-eb11-94b3-000d3a219024Rita Faria's book (co-authored with Olga Petintseva & Yarin Eski) called Interviewing Elites, Experts and the Powerful in Criminology https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33000-2The research on signing at the top of documents to encourage honesty https://www.wired.com/2012/08/signature-honesty/ & the recent findings that it failed to replicate: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1911695117The story of Abraham Wald: https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/how-not-be-wrong#:Professor JS Nelson on Workplace Surveillance https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3504408Previous episodes featuring contributors to the bookBenjamin Van Rooij on COVID Compliance - https://www.humanriskpodcast.com/professor-benjamin-van-rooij-on-1/ Benjamin on The Behavioural Code - https://www.humanriskpodcast.com/professor-benjamin-van-rooij-on/Benajmiong & Dany Sokol on Compliance 2.0 - https://www.humanriskpodcast.com/professors-benjamin-van-rooij/Ricardo Pellafone on Behavioural Design in Compliance - https://www.humanriskpodcast.com/ricardo-pellafone-on-why-compliance/Ricardo Pellafone on the challenges facing Risk & Compliance under COVID - https://www.humanriskpodcast.com/ricardo-pellafone-on-the-challenges/Florentin Blanc on Regulatory Responses to COVID 19https://www.humanriskpodcast.com/florentin-blanc-on-regulatory-responses/Dr Todd Haugh on Behavioural Aspects of Ethics & Compliance https://www.humanriskpodcast.com/dr-todd-haugh-on-the/

In this podcast episode of My Job Here Is Done we talk about survivor bias where the tendency is to study successful businesses, leaders, or outcomes and ignore the accompanying failures. However, analyzing the failures is where you will find the data you need to consider as you try to grow your own company or ascend the career success ladder. We had planned to do a podcast on failure analysis but we didn't have a great hook or story to tie into it. Out of the blue, our good friend and listener David Yanoshik suggested that we look at Abraham Wald's work during WWII and how he likely saved hundreds of pilots' lives and uncountable amounts of money for the US during the war.Well, co-host Dave is a pilot, and sure enough, that caught his attention, especially after co-host Kelli wrote the episode notes and brought the story to life. So thanks David Yanoshik, we tell you what you won for helping us at the beginning of the episode. Spoiler Alert - don't hold your breath.Abraham Wald, a statistician who worked in New York city was helping with the war effort during World War II, and he was on assignment with the military. Many of the United States military bomber planes were being shot down on missions over Germany.  The naval researchers knew they needed data to reduce the number of planes and pilots lost so they began to analyze the damage done to planes that safely returned from missions.  They painstakingly reviewed and diagramed the bullet holes on these planes and began to see a pattern.  You can see a picture of the data used for this, here.Most of the damage on the planes that were safely returned was done to the wings and body so the naval researchers at the time concluded that reinforcing those areas with armor would improve the likelihood of a safe return, so they began putting reinforced steel armor on those areas.Side note: You might wonder … why not just reinforce the entire airplane? The answer is you can't - aircraft fly by a carefully balanced equation of weight and center of gravity. Add too much overall weight and it won't fly, and add even a little extra weight, but placed in the wrong areas, and it won't fly.   The naval researchers we're thrilled with their scientific work, study, and solving of the problem. Until Wald stopped the process cold in its tracks after he was brought in to double-check the researcher's theory.He immediately pointed out the error in that thinking. The researchers only looked at the planes that returned from missions, not the ones that were shot down.  He looked at the data in a different way by analyzing both the planes that were shot down, and the ones that were not, and he came up with another solution - the successful solution.  Since the returning planes, the ones who survived, did not have damage to the places like the cockpit, the engines, and parts of the tail - he concluded those areas should be reinforced - not where the bullet holes were found on the planes that safely returned and were not shot down.  Brilliant - and it worked - and Survivorship Bias theory was born.My Job Here Is Done takes a look at how survivor bias relates to business and why we don't often look at and deeply analyze failure. We notice it's too inconvenient to study because the data is often hidden and hard to find.  But we also highlight how important it is to create the elusive and hard to define mixture of success we all call secret sauce.Co-host Kelli offers some sobering advice in this episode: “If you're not constantly troubled by the data you're getting, you are looking at the wrong data.”Most businesses and leaders that have failed, either suffered a single identifiable major mistake that is easy to find, or they succumbed to Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts - history shows failures are almost always at those two extremes.To succeed, to grow, to maintain that competitive edge, you must always be reinventing. Think how important that thought is when you look at companies long loved and now forgotten. Toys R Us, Palm Pilot, Pan Am, Woolworth's, Howard Johnsons, Radio Shack. All of these companies could have survived - actually should have survived - but they didn't - ask why? Here are some other links on the subject -  Bullet Holes & Bias: The Story of Abraham Wald Survivorship Bias - The tale of Forgotten Failures. and for the more technical minded - The Mathematician Who Helped Win WWIIHere is a more in-depth article: Why do we misjudge groups by only looking at specific group members?Visit the My Job Here Is Done website to listen to all of the episodes and learn how you can work with us if you like our thoughts and ideas.

In the eighty-ninth episode we explore Survivorship Bias, starting with Trump talking to literal survivors of coronavirus about using hydroxychloroquine, and telling people not to be afraid of Covid after he survived it, and South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace citing a study on natural immunity that relies heavily on this fallacy.In Mark's British Politics Corner we look at MPs on both sides of the aisle claiming victory following the votes of no confidence against Theresa May.In the Fallacy in the Wild section, we check out examples from Pirates of the Caribbean, QI, and The Wrestler, and the real life story of Abraham Wald.Jim and Mark go head to head in Fake News, the game in which Mark has to guess which of three Trump quotes Jim made up.Then we talk about the many conspiracy theories right-wingers immediately came up with when the Omicron variant emerged.And finally, we round up some of the other crazy Trump stories from the past week.The full show notes for this episode can be found at http://fallacioustrump.com/ft89You can contact the guys at pod@fallacioustrump.com, on Twitter @FallaciousTrump, or facebook at facebook.com/groups/fallacioustrumpAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Show Summary:In this episode of The STEM Space, Natasha and Claire return to answer the much anticipated question: did Natasha get to eat her sandwich in class? Her professor had some very specific instructions (including but not limited to: don't eat breakfast, bring a sandwich for lunch, and also bring a 1 pound bag of M&M's) which left both Claire and our listeners scratching their heads. Listen now to find out what happened and how you can apply the thinking to your classroom!P.S. Sadly, we could find no studies proving Claire's statement that M&M's taste differently.Links from the Show:STEM Drag Device Parachute Challenge (Digital & Printed STEM Journals) M&Ms “Blending In” ActivityTexas A&M University (Claire and Natasha's alma mater as well as their “Aggies” reference)Introducing Kids to STEM Concepts Abraham Wald and Survivorship bias (WWII planes returning with bullet holes)How to Plan a STEM Curriculum THE STEM SPACE SHOWNOTES: https://www.vivifystem.com/thestemspace/2021/42-how-do-you-chewTHE STEM SPACE FACEBOOK GROUP: https://www.facebook.com/groups/thestemspace/VIVIFY INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/vivifystemVIVIFY FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/vivifystemVIVIFY TWITTER: https://twitter.com/vivifystem

Subscribe to the podcast!  https://podfollow.com/everythingeverywhere/ During World War II, the US Army assigned statistician Abraham Wald the task of statistically figuring out where extra armor should be added to American bombers. After analyzing the evidence and sharing it with the Army, he recommended the exact opposite of what the Army assumed. The reason was that the Army had engaged in a logical fallacy. Learn more about survivorship bias and how it manifests itself into everyday thinking, on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Visit Scottevest.com and use coupon code "EverythingEverywhere" to get 15% off! -------------------------------- Associate Producers: Peter Bennett & Thor Thomsen   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere   Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh   Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/EEDailyPodcast/ Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/

There’s an important bias to avoid: Survivorship bias. Unfortunately, people who might otherwise do something with their lives hide behind survivorship bias. Just as important as knowing when survivorship bias matters is knowing when survivorship bias does not matter. Survivorship bias has a fatal flaw. Example: Abraham Wald avoided survivorship bias to bring back more survivors In WWII the US military was trying to improve their planes. Each time a plane came back from a mission, they made a record of the bullet holes. Since most bullet holes were on the wings and tails of the planes, the military concluded they needed to add more armor in the wings and tails. But statistician Abraham Wald said, No – that’s not where you want to add more armor. You want more armor around the engine. That seemed weird. Their map of bullet holes showed very little damage to the engine compartment.   What Wald noticed that the military hadn’t noticed is they were only seeing bullet holes on planes that returned from missions. The bullet holes they weren’t seeing were the bullet holes on planes that did not return. And the bullet holes on planes that did not return were the ones bringing the planes down. Abraham Wald was cleverly taking into account what would become known as survivorship bias. Example: How survivorship bias can be used by an investing con artist In his book, Fooled by Randomness, Nassim Taleb tells a story of a con artist. He’d send out 10,000 letters. Half the letters predicted the stock market would go up in the next month. Half the letters, down. The next month, the con artist would send not 10,000 letters, but only 5,000. The following month, 2,500. Then 1,250, and on and on. Why did he keep sending fewer and fewer letters? Because he only sent follow-up letters to those who had received correct predictions. After enough letters, he had 150 or so victims hanging on his every word, eager to have this mystery genius invest money for them. Of course once the con artist received their money, they never heard from him again. They had been “fooled by randomness.” They had been fooled by survivorship bias. Survivorship bias doesn’t account for ergodicity Both these stories are useful examples of survivorship bias. In the first case, Abraham Wald used an awareness of survivorship bias to avoid getting a false signal from the data. In the second example, the recipients of the letters didn’t realize they could be getting a false signal from the letters. Survivorship bias is an important phenomenon to understand, but survivorship bias has a fatal flaw: Survivorship bias doesn’t account for ergodicity. What is ergodicity? What is ergodicity? Imagine you enter a dimly-lit bar just as it opens. A table of patrons across the room light up cigarettes. You can see the cascading trails of smoke rising. When they’re done with their cigarettes, they don’t smoke anymore the rest of the night. When you get home, you realize your clothes smell like smoke. How could this be? You were nowhere near the trails of smoke. Well, after the trails of smoke rose from the cigarettes, they dissipated around the room, until a faint haze of smoke filled the entire room. Randomness eventually touches everything That’s ergodicity. The smoke was rising from the cigarettes in a random pattern. But when a random pattern continues for long enough, that random pattern eventually fills the entire space it could have filled. The smoke spread randomly, until it filled the whole room. Ergodicity is why it’s not only 1% of Americans who are in the top 1% of income. As time passes, people enter and leave the top 1% of income. In a lifetime, 10% of Americans spend a year in the top 1%. More than half will spend a year in the top 10%. Ergodicity is why – even though life expectancy is about 76 – a 76-year-old only has a 4% chance of dying. The small risks of dying each year of life accumulate over time. Not every game is do-or-die Next time some entrepreneur or creative gives advice, or is profiled in an article, look at the comments or responses. You’ll probably see something like this: Don’t forget about survivorship bias! You didn’t hear from the thousands of others who followed that same advice, but didn’t succeed! Sometimes this is useful. More often than not, this is as damaging as survivorship bias itself. Example: Survivorship bias in Russian Roulette Imagine Russian Roulette was a spectator sport (thank God it’s not, but imagine). Chances are, there would be some “Michael Jordan” of Russian Roulette. Through mere chance, this person has survived hundreds of Russian Roulette matches. It just so happens that of the thousands of times this “champion” has spun the cylinder on the revolver, pointed the gun at their temple, and pulled the trigger, the chamber hasn’t had a bullet in it once. If there were millions of Russian Roulette players in the world – playing college Russian Roulette and little league Russian Roulette, hoping to make it to the Russian Roulette big leagues – a person like this would probably exist. Just like there is today in entrepreneurship and creativity, there would be an entire cottage industry of journalists and courses and Russian Roulette podcasts, all touting the advice from this Russian Roulette champion. How to spin the chamber, what thoughts to think while pulling the trigger, how much pressure to use, what gear like like gloves and jerseys to wear, and exercise programs for strength and conditioning. That would be survivorship bias at its finest – or worst. It’s all random. This “champion” has no skill. All their advice is useless. The Queen’s Gambit was not a “survivor” – then it was In 1983, Walter Tevis published a novel. He soon after optioned the screenplay rights to Jesse Kornbluth. Then Tevis died, and the project was cancelled. Nine years later, in 1992, Kornbluth could no longer afford to keep the option. Allan Scott bought the screen rights. Fifteen years later, in 2007, plans were underway to make a feature film out of this novel. Then the director died. (That director, Heath Ledger.) Finally, in 2020, the story from this novel was released as a Netflix series. At least 60 million people watched it. It’s Netflix’s most popular limited series ever. That series: The Queen’s Gambit. For the first time, the novel, The Queen’s Gambit, became a New York Times bestseller. This overnight success was almost 40 years in the making. For 37 years, The Queen’s Gambit was one of the “thousands of others who never made it.” In 2011, Kornbluth – who had the screenplay option before Scott had rights – said the rights had been bought by “people who will never get the film made.” The Queen’s Gambit was not a “survivor.” In fact, it went out of print. Not to mention at least two people literally did not survive to see it on the screen. Creative work is not Russian Roulette When you play Russian Roulette and lose, you are out of the game forever. Fortunately, as creatives, we are not playing Russian Roulette. If you build a company that fails, you can try again. If you write a blog post that falls flat, you can try hundreds or thousands more times. Creative work happens in Extremistan When someone says “Don’t forget survivorship bias,” what they’re really saying is, “Show me the exact steps to follow that guarantee success.” In creative work, there are no exact steps that guarantee success. Those only exist in Mediocristan. Even The Queen’s Gambit, which was wildly successful, wasn’t guaranteed success. It could have just as easily stayed out of print. Creative work happens not in Mediocristan, but Extremistan. No failure will come from pure lack of skill. No success will come from pure good luck. Creatives are like poker champions I have a friend who is a professional poker player. He knows if he plays poker online eight hours a day, he’ll average 100 dollars an hour. But he also knows for long stretches of time he’ll be losing money. It will look as if his career is over. On the contrary, he’ll also sometimes be flush with cash. It will look like he’s making way more than 100 dollars an hour. His career only works if he has one critical thing: “bankroll.” He needs a certain amount of money – a certain amount of padding – to help him weather losing streaks. If he goes bust, he’s out of the game entirely – he’s lost Russian Roulette. He has tremendous skill. That’s how he can survive as a professional poker player. But there’s no fighting randomness. His bankroll allows him to let randomness run its course long enough for ergodicity to even things out. The creative career is riding randomness Your results in creative work are not a direct reflection of your skill. Even if you’re “So good they can’t ignore you,” you could be toiling in obscurity for a while as you wait for your big break. If you aren’t cut out for that, fine. But admit it to yourself and don’t use survivorship bias as your scapegoat. Stay in the game long enough to survive But if you’re willing to try something that, as Seth Godin says, “might not work,” go ahead and try that advice. Maybe it will improve your odds a little. What’s important is you stay in the game long enough to let ergodicity give you more shots at a win. That could be literally having the bankroll to stay in the game. That could be making sure you make small enough bets – with high enough potential upside – that you don’t go bust, but have a chance to hit the jackpot. You have to watch your eggs long enough for a Black Swan to hatch. My Weekly Newsletter: Love Mondays Start off each week with a dose of inspiration to help you make it as a creative. Sign up at: kadavy.net/mondays. About Your Host, David Kadavy David Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative. Follow David on: Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on Patreon Put your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »     Show notes: http://kadavy.net/blog/posts/survivorship-bias/

As a nonfiction author, retaining what I read is my job. Through the process of writing three books, I’ve experimented with different ways of reading, remembering what I read, and using that knowledge to develop my own thoughts. I’ll share today my note-taking system. I hope it serves as a good example of a digital “Zettelkasten” or slip box. Listen to My Zettelkasten: An Author’s Digital Slip-Box What is a Zettelkasten? I talked about Zettelkasten in my How to Take Smart Notes book summary on episode 249, but here’s a quick review. Zettelkasten is German for “slip box.” In the analog form, a Zettelkasten is a box filled with slips of paper. On each slip is an idea, notes about which other slips that idea is related to, and keywords used for organizing the slips. Wikipedia: Kai Schreiber The Zettelkasten method originated in analog, but is being adapted to digital Much of the original Zettelkasten techniques were developed to adapt the limitations of physical paper to non-hierarchical organization, like today’s internet. Now, writers are adapting the Zettelkasten method to digital software. “Zettelkasten” is a “slip box” and “note-taking system.” A “slip” is a “note” A note about terminology for this article: I’ll be using the terms Zettelkasten, note-taking system, and slip box interchangeably. They all mean the same thing. The same goes for “slip” and “note.” They’re the same thing. What do I use a Zettelkasten for? The Zettelkasten method is most commonly used by academic writers. That use case has its own unique demands. I, however, am a blogger and nonfiction (self-help) author. Here’s what I aim to do with my Zettelkasten: Retain what I read: I want to be able to put interesting things I read into my own words. Access my knowledge: I want to be able to quickly access quotes, facts, figures, and story details, when I don’t remember them perfectly. Direct my curiosity: I want to have options for things I can read that will drive my knowledge more-or-less toward learning something useful. I call it strategic curiosity, which I talked about on episode 184. Develop my ideas: I want to guide ideas through the four stages of creativity, which I talked about on episode 218. Ship writing: I want to mix my knowledge and ideas into shipped tweets, weekly newsletters, articles, and books. Four misconceptions about note-taking Like many things I’ve come to love, I was resistant to the idea of note-taking at first. Some misconceptions I had: 1. Note-taking does not take the pleasure away from reading Note-taking doesn’t have to take more mental effort than reading. It can be broken into low-effort activities that build into something great. Additionally, you can still read “for pleasure.” Not all my reading goes through my note-taking process. 2. Note-taking is not mindlessly writing down everything you read Note-taking connects your consumption of knowledge with your creation of knowledge. If you mindlessly write down everything, there’s no room for creativity. Only take notes on the parts of your reading that interest you, or that you otherwise want to retain. 3. Note-taking is not boring Some parts of note-taking look boring. For example, looking at a highlight you’ve made, then writing it in your own words, looks boring. But it’s fun. It’s just enough of a challenge to keep you engaged. 4. Google is not a substitute for notes Your notes are not simple records of facts and figures. You would not get the same results by Googling anything you’d like to reference. Inherent in the system is your own thoughts. My Zettelkasten notes are plain-text Markdown files I have a lot of notes in Evernote, but those notes are distinct from notes in my Zettelkasten. Evernote is mostly for project-related or operational things. After using Evernote for ten years, and watching it get slow and bloated, I didn’t want to get locked in to any software. A lot of Zettelkasten practitioners love Roam Research, which is very powerful. But I like the portability, simplicity, and offline-capability of plain text. My plain-text Zettelkasten notes are synced through Dropbox I love writing in Markdown, which is a simple, human-readable way of adding formatting and links to plain-text. My notes are text files (with the extension .md) sitting in folders on my hard drive, and are also synced to Dropbox. I edit my plain-text Zettelkasten notes through Obsidian, 1Writer, and Ulysses Since my notes are plain-text files, I can access them on a ton of different software. I mostly work through Obsidian on desktop, and 1Writer on iPad. I also sometimes use Ulysses, because I like how it allows me to preview the contents of many files at once. The structure of my digital Zettelkasten As I covered in my How to Take Smart Notes book summary, the general structure of a Zettelkasten is: Fleeting Notes Literature Notes Permanent Notes I have three additional categories: Inbox Someday/Maybe Raw My Zettelkasten folder structure, as viewed through Ulysses. A flow chart of my Zettelkasten process. Partly inspired by Getting Things Done. Fleeting Notes I take in my tiny Moleskine Volant, or on the Drafts app, or in any of my other paper notebooks. Literature Notes are any condensed notes I’ve made of an entire piece, such as an article or book – more on that process in a bit. Permanent Notes are single ideas, facts, or stories. This is the real “slip box” or Zettelkasten, where I connect ideas to one another to sprout new ideas or build them into larger works – I’ll give you an example later. The Inbox is where I put notes that need to be processed. This could be highlights from a book that I need to condense and summarize – as I’ll describe soon. This is where Fleeting Notes go next. This also might be a link to an article that I may want to summarize. I don’t always want to deal with everything in my Inbox, so if not, I put the note in my Someday/Maybe folder. I borrowed this from the GTD “Someday/Maybe” that I talked about in my Getting Things Done summary on episode 242. This folder is for things that seem interesting to me, but are either not interesting enough to motivate me to give them the attention I’d like to, and/or they’re not relevant enough to any topics I’m working on. Raw is where I store my exported highlights after I’ve condensed and summarized a book or article. This folder keeps me from cluttering the system, but I can still quickly search if there are details I want to retrieve that aren’t covered in my literature notes. I name my Zettelkasten files in plain English An ongoing debate amongst Zettelkasten users is how to name files. Niklas Luhmann, whose physical Zettelkatsten is being studied at the University of Bielefeld, used a branched numbering system. One could make a case for why his naming system is still relevant. Still other users insist every file should have a unique ID, so they use the date and time. I personally name my files with a plain-English description of what the note is about, such as “The Queen’s Gambit took 37 years to become a bestseller.md”. The main argument people have against this method is if you decide the note is about something else, you have to change the name of the note, and that breaks your links. But with modern technology you can easily do find/replace, and Obsidian handles name changes for you automatically. How you should name files in your slip box depends upon your workflow and preferences. Files are linked using “WikiLinks” I link my files within my system using a feature called WikiLinks, aka FreeLink. Basically, any filename I put in [[double brackets]] is automatically linked to, even if that file is in another folder in my database. WikiLinks isn’t native to Markdown, but Obsidian does support it, and makes it easy with auto-suggest. On 1Writer for iPad, these links only work for files that are within the same folder, which limits the tasks I can do on iPad. Arguably this is a form of lock-in to Obsidian, but other plain-text editors support WikiLinks. Evan Travers has a nice breakdown of Zettelkasten-supporting features in various Markdown plain-text editors. I manage my Zettelkasten through a series of comfortable habits/rituals You aren’t going to maintain your Zettelkasten if it feels like a slog. This is why I’ve carefully designed my system so I manage it through a series of comfortable and easy habits and rituals. Comfortable contexts for managing my Zettelkasten There are four main contexts around which I’ve designed the habits and rituals for managing my Zettelkasten. Active: I might be cooking, taking a shower, or having dinner conversation with friends. If an idea comes to me, or I hear something great on a podcast, I want to capture it. Lying down: I do most of my reading lying down, and I do the initial stages of book summaries lying down (more in a bit). Reclining: I do as much of my writing as possible slightly reclined, with my iPad and keyboard on an over-bed table, over my recliner. Upright: I have a standing/sitting desk where I work at my computer sparingly. https://twitter.com/kadavy/status/1288883415153094659 As you can see, I’ve designed my contexts to be as comfortable as possible, so maintaining my system doesn’t feel like a chore. Now what do I do in all these contexts? I’ll cover that as I talk about processes. My process for reading and summarizing a book One of the main sources of notes in my Zettelkasten is books. When I really want to absorb and document my learning from a book, here’s the process I follow: Read the book: I do this on my Kindle, lying down on my couch or in my hammock. I highlight as I read, and I will occasionally take a quick note – which is hard to do on a Kindle. Unlike some people, I do not take Fleeting Notes in a notebook while reading. That would make the context uncomfortable. Export the highlights to Markdown: Readwise makes this easy, though there are other ways, if you search around. Highlight my highlights: Like my reading ritual, I highlight highlights while lying on my couch. On 1Writer for iPad, I bold the most interesting parts of my highlights. I can also do this on my phone during “in-between” time, such as waiting for friends to arrive at a restaurant. Tiago Forte calls highlighting of highlights “progressive summarization.” Condense my highlights: I look at the highlights I’ve bolded and re-write the interesting ones in my own words. I’ll also pull out any interesting quotes. I may also brainstorm my own thoughts about the implications of what I’ve learned. This is all a “Literature Note.” I do this in my recliner, with iPad and keyboard. Break my condensed highlights into notes: I make individual “Permanent Notes” in my slip box – one idea per note. This is when I add relevant tags, link my note to any existing related notes, and add thoughts I have about how the individual note relates to my work. I do this on my desktop computer, using Obsidian. I follow this process for only the best books This may sound like a boring and arduous process for reading a single book. But it’s not. First, I don’t do this for every book. Whether or not I follow all these steps depends upon my interest in the book. I only do this for books I really want to absorb, such as when I wrote my summaries of Understanding Media or The Black Swan. Readwise helps me review books I don’t fully process If a book isn’t compelling enough for me to follow these steps, I still get a chance to review the highlights. Readwise sends me three random highlights each day – from my database of 20,000+. I review these highlights when I check my email. If I see a highlight I’d like to develop into a Permanent Note, I copy and paste it into Drafts, from where I will process it later. My process for academic articles and web articles I do most of my reading in books. I also read some academic articles. I do the least reading of all on the web. For both academic articles and web articles, my process is the same: I save the PDF in a “toread” folder on Dropbox (yes, I make PDFs of web articles!) I then read the PDF on LiquidText for iPad, where I highlight it. I export my highlights to plain text, and follow the same process as for books to make Literature Notes and Permanent Notes. My web-article process is inefficient Yes, my process for web articles is inefficient, but I rarely read web articles. If I read on the web more, I’d probably use Pocket and have Readwise manage those highlights. I have begun experimenting with using ePub.press to read web articles on my Kindle, but to get the highlights I have to connect my Kindle to my computer to dig them out. Capturing ideas Probably more so than an academic writer, my writing as a self-help author is driven by my own ideas. When I get an idea, I either capture it in my Moleskine Volant with collapsible Zebra mini-pen, or I capture it with Drafts. In my shower, I keep an Aqua Notes pad and pencil. I use Zapier to save my own tweets Also, many of my ideas I soon turn into tweets. If I want to put something I’ve tweeted into my Zettelkasten, I “like” my own tweet. This triggers a Zapier automation that collects the tweet and basic metadata, and saves it as a text file in my Inbox on Dropbox. An Automator script on my computer then changes the file extension to .md. I liked my own tweet, and Zapier imported it to Dropbox for me. (If I want to capture someone else’s tweet, I copy/paste it or share it to Drafts.) Clearing the Inbox As I describe in the final chapter of my book, Mind Management, Not Time Management, my ideas initially go into one of several inboxes. Currently, that’s mostly my pocket notebook and Drafts. I then have to clear those inboxes. I try to spend a few minutes each day looking through my inboxes, while at my computer. Not all notes that end up in Drafts are for my Zettelkasten, but for the ones that are, I have an “action” in Drafts that sends those notes to my Zettelkasten Inbox. I’m far from having “Inbox zero” in my Zettelkasten. It’s full of book or article highlights that need to be progressively summarized, or tweets that need to be tagged and turned into Permanent Notes. My Zettelkasten Inbox, with some examples of the types of notes in there. Idea-driven keywords for tags (and examples!) Choosing the right keywords or tags for your Zettelkasten allows it to work as a non-hierarchical database of your knowledge and ideas. This is an important piece many Zettelkasten practitioners miss. This quote from How to Take Smart Notes captures how to choose keywords: The way people choose their keywords shows clearly if they think like an archivist or a writer. Do they wonder where to store a note or how to retrieve it? The archivist asks: Which keyword is the most fitting? A writer asks: In which circumstances will I want to stumble upon this note, even if I forget about it? It is a crucial difference. I avoid generic keywords such as “Psychology.” Instead I create keywords based upon patterns I see, which inform theories I’m working on. Not #writing, but #IcebergPrinciple For example, one note I have is based upon the advice of screenwriting instructor Robert McKee. In Story, McKee says: A finished screenplay represents, obviously, 100 percent of its author’s creative labor. The vast majority of this work, 75 percent or more of our struggles, goes into...creating the climax of the last act. For my Permanent Note, I of course re-wrote McKee’s advice in my own words, but what tags did I use? The generic approach would be to tag it “#writing” or “#screenwriting.” But how would that help me? Instead, I think about how this advice supports (or refutes) an idea I’m working on. It reminds me of other writing advice, this time from Ernest Hemingway: I’ve seen the marlin mate and know about that. So I leave that out. I’ve seen a school (or pod) of more than fifty sperm whales in that same stretch of water and once harpooned one nearly sixty feet in length and lost him. So I left that out. All the stories I know from the fishing village I leave out. But the knowledge is what makes the underwater part of the iceberg. An iceberg? In another passage, Hemingway explains: The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. This Hemingway advice is so beautiful, I’ve made it the basis of one of my keywords. I call it the #IcebergPrinciple. Basically, any creative work you see is the tip of the iceberg. There’s much more work and knowledge going on behind the scenes. McKee’s advice is about how 75 percent of the work on a screenplay goes into the climax. This advice is connected to Hemingway’s advice about most of an iceberg being underwater. So, my Permanent Note for the McKee quote is not tagged #writing, nor #screenwriting, but #IcebergPrinciple. Should related notes share the same tag AND be linked? The two notes from Hemingway or McKee could be not just tagged with the same thing, but also linked to one another. Should they share the same tag, and also be linked? There’s no right answer. On one hand, it’s redundant to link them to one another and also have them share the same tag. On the other hand, does it really hurt to do both? This is the kind of internal debate I honestly haven’t resolved yet. I do whatever seems right in the moment, and if I run into problems, I’ll formalize my approach. Linking helps spawn ideas (with example!) The act of linking two notes serves a different purpose from the act of choosing the right tags for a note. As I’m making a Permanent Note, I take a moment to think of whether there’s a connection between this and any of my other notes. This is when ideas you never would have thought of otherwise come to mind. For example, I’ve been collecting some notes on survivorship bias for an upcoming article. I tag these notes with #SurvivorshipBias. (Admittedly this is a generic-sounding tag, but I have my own personal ideas about it.) But while I was creating my note about The Queen’s Gambit, and the fact that it took 37 years for it to become a best-seller, I wasn’t thinking about survivorship bias at all. I tagged it #LongNights, my personal tag for stories about “overnight successes” many years in the making. As I thought about what to link this note to, I realized this note was related to a note about survivorship bias. It’s a counter to the popular understanding of survivorship bias. For 36 years, The Queen’s Gambit was one of the stories that “didn’t survive,” but in its 37th year, suddenly it was a survivor. That may not make sense in that short example. A further explanation will have to wait for the article. But this is how linking notes makes you think about the meanings of those notes differently. Tag Indexes build completed work Once I have many notes collected related to a particular tag, I develop a Tag Index. This is a note, stored in my Slip Box or Permanent Note folder, with an overview of my thoughts on that topic. I link to the various notes I have under that tag – as well as any other related notes – then arrange them as a list in an order that makes sense to me. I write short phrases next to each link to add any thoughts that give structure to this logical progression. For example, a #SurvivorshipBias Index may start off with a link to a note called “Abraham Wald overcame survivorship bias to armor planes.” Next to that, I could write a brief phrase, “Wald realized he only saw bullet holes on planes that returned. Survivorship bias is useful for interpreting misleading data.” After that, I could link to the note about The Queen’s Gambit. I could write next to that link, “Not all who haven’t ‘survived’ are dead.” After collecting notes together in this way, I now have an outline, with source material, I can use to build into a completed article, or even a book. And if you’d like to hear how that article turns out, make sure you’re subscribed for the next article. There’s your example of an author’s digital Zettelkasten I hope you found helpful this example of using the Zettelkasten or slip box method with digital, plain-text software. I know writing it improved my own note-taking system. If you’d like to know more about the principles behind this system, do check out my How to Take Smart Notes book summary on episode 249. Mind Management, Not Time Management now available! After nearly a decade of work, Mind Management, Not Time Management is now available! This book will show you how to manage your mental energy to be productive when creativity matters. Buy it now! My Weekly Newsletter: Love Mondays Start off each week with a dose of inspiration to help you make it as a creative. Sign up at: kadavy.net/mondays. About Your Host, David Kadavy David Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative. Follow David on: Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on Patreon Put your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »     Show notes: http://kadavy.net/blog/posts/zettelkasten-method-slip-box-digital-example

Dagens avsnitt är en återblick på 2020 där vi analyserar våra portföljer, fondroboten LYSA och börsen i allmänhet. Vi diskuterar även vad som är en rimlig jämförelse. Även om vi alla förstår att sociala medier inte är verkligheten är det ju svårt att inte känna sig dålig med 3 % avkastning när den genomsnittlige Avanzianen gör 11 % och #finanstwitter ligger på i genomsnitt 60 %. Börsåret 2020 var ett väldigt annorlunda år på många sätt. Vi såg den snabbaste nedgången på börsen någonsin, -30 % på mindre än 30 dagar, samtidigt som året slutade på plus på många börser. Vidare fick vi i Sverige inte njuta av uppgången fullt ut till följd av kronans förstärkning. Väldigt positivt var att portföljerna och fondrobotarna gjorde sitt jobb. Den viktigaste lärdomen att ta med sig till 2021 tror jag vi kommer kunna lära från sönderskjutna amerikanska bombplan under andra världskriget. För en snabb överblick över graferna rekommenderar jag att bläddra i artikeln på bloggen: https://rikatillsammans.se/borsaret-2020/ Jag rekommenderar även artikeln: "Genomsnittlige Avanzianen borde bara köpa en indexfond…" https://rikatillsammans.se/avanzianen-2020/ Där hittar du både graferna och lite fördjupade resonemang som inte kom med i poddavsnittet. Lite data för dig som snabbt vill ha koll: ======= LYSA Bred - Aktier slutade på 2,98 % LYSA Bred – Räntor slutade på 0,18 % LYSA Hållbar – Aktier slutade på 3,90 % LYSA Hållbar – Räntor slutade på 1,10 % Länsförsäkringar Global Indexnära slutade på 2,35 % Amerikanska börsen (S&P 500 TR i SEK) slutade på 3,11 % Stockholmsbörsen (SIXRX) slutade på 14,8 % Våra portföljer: ======= RikaTillsammans-portföljen: +6,9 % Nybörjarportföljen: 1,5 % Globala barnportföljen: +3,0 % Försiktiga portföljen: -2,2 % Innehållsförteckning ======= 00:02:00 - Vad var bra med 2020? 00:04:30 - Drawdown av Stockholms- och den globala börsen under 2020 00:07:40 - Den svenska kronan stärktes 2020, det är viktigt att komma ihåg 00:10:15 - Därför underpresterade globalfonder 2020 00:14:30 - Så gick den svenska kronan 2020 00:16:15 - Börserna gick åt olika håll 2020 00:19:30 - Köp alla aktier, för du vet inte ens vilket land som kommer att gå bra 00:21:45 - FAANG har gått otroligt bra under året men Tesla har gått bättre 00:27:05 - Det finns ett par reella problem med Tesla 00:29:00 - Guldet gjorde vad det skulle förra året! 00:30:30 - Så gick LYSA i jämförelse med länsförsäkringar global 00:32:10 - RikaTillsammansprotföljen gjorde precis vad den ska göra under det oroliga 2020 00:34:00 - Så gick det för de andra modellportföljerna 00:38:10 - En titt på modellporföljernas utveckling sedan start 00:42:30 - En snabb koll på hur det gick för våra vanligaste investeringar 00:44:20 - Så analyserar vi ett börsår 00:45:15 - Problematiken med Mitt Avanzaår 00:51:30 - Jans uträkning av den genomsnittliga avanzianens avkastning 00:56:00 - Hashtagen #mittavanzaår 00:58:00 - Abraham Wald har svaret på varför #mittavanzaår inte är någon bra måttstock 01:02:00 - Så funkar Survivorship bias, både för fonder och för småsparare 01:04:50 - Hårt arbete lönar sig fortfarande inte på börsen 01:08:30 - Beslutsprocessen är det viktiga, inte resultatet 01:11:25 - Det kan vi lära oss av Nordnet smart 01:15:15 - Tur är inte en strategi 01:19:30 - Människor som du upplever är dummare än dig kommer att tjäna mer pengar emellanåt 01:23:20 - Glöm inte att realisera vinsten 01:25:30 - Tack och avslut

What is Prosilience, and how can organisations ensure their people provide it? That's where the discussion between my guests on this episode, Gerald Ashley and Rory Sutherland, begins. Where it goes from there, is a joyous adventure in which two great thinkers explore a range of Human Risk related topics. * Listener Warning: the episode contains adult language * This episode is the 100th in the Human Risk podcast series and is a continuation of a discussion which began in the 99th episode. I recommend listening to that first before exploring this one.You'll find my earlier discussion with Rory here: https://www.podpage.com/the-human-risk-podcast/rory-sutherland-on-compliance/and Gerald here: https://www.podpage.com/the-human-risk-podcast/gerald-ashley-on-uncertainty/As with the previous episode, I'm providing more detailed show notes given the breadth and depth of issues covered. 05:18 Rory refers to Seeing Like A State by James C Scott. More on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State05:54 Gerald talks about the metrics used to measure Soviet bicycle manufacturing. This article doesn't feature bicycles, but covers the idea and features a wonderful cartoon from a Soviet magazine: https://econlife.com/2015/08/the-incentives-that-metrics-create/09:32 Rory talks about his appearance on Bloomberg TV. You can watch that here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-03-25/advertisers-becoming-too-obsessed-with-tech-sutherland11:50 Rory mentions Rod Liddell in the context of a story about the BBC's travel policy. To learn more about Rod: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle12:34 Gerald mentions Peter Turchin, who Rory explains is a Cliodynamicist. You'll find Peter's website here: http://peterturchin.com/ and a guide to Cliodynamics one that website here: http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamics/14:10 A rare intervention by me to mention David Graber's book Bullshit Jobs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs14:30 Rory refers to 14th Century Middle Eastern Historian Ibn Khaldoun - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ibn-Khaldun15:04 Gerald talks about The Great Wave by David Hackett Fischer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Wave_(book)18:25 Rory talks about Daniel Kahneman's research into risk appetites of CEOs and division heads. You can read more about that in this HBR article: https://hbr.org/2020/03/your-company-is-too-risk-averse19:40 Gerald talks about the Lockheed Martin Skunkworks. You can read about the history of that unit here https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/history/skunk-works.html and its current role here: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/business-areas/aeronautics/skunkworks.html22:59 Gerald talks about Nudgestock, the annual Behavioural Science festival hosted by Rory. You can read about that here: https://www.nudgestock.co.uk/The presentation he refers to is by Jules Goddard called The Fatal Bias and can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNlzl37GLdA 24:46 Rory highlights the story of mathematician's Abraham Wald intervention in the Second World War. It is explained in this excerpt from Jordan Ellenberg's excellent How Not To Be Wrong: https://medium.com/@penguinpress/an-excerpt-from-how-not-to-be-wrong-by-jordan-ellenberg-664e708cfc3d25:56 Rory talks about IBM's Thomas Watson and his desire to have Wild Geese. In actual fact, Watson talked about Wild Ducks (https://www.mbiconcepts.com/watson-sr-and-wild-ducks.html). Interestingly, the Duck story actually comes from an original fable by Søren Kierkegaard about a Wild Goose. For some reason Watson preferred Ducks! You can read the Kierkegaard story here: https://www.maxelon.co.uk/2015/01/domestic-geese/26:18 Rory refers to James C Scott's idea of an Anarchist's Squint. You can read more about that in his collection of essays called Two Cheers for Anarchism: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/james-c-scott-two-cheers-for-anarchism32:33 Gerald talks about how the British government sold Rolls Royce engines to the Russian government. You can read about that here: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-british-turbojet-allowed-russias-mig-15-fight-the-air-2638532:50 Rory explains how penicillin was passed by America to supposedly neutral countries during World War Two, against British instructions. It ended up saving Adolf Hitler's life after a bomb plot on 20th July 1940. More on the research behind that here: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/154-1.17501840:05 Rory references British supergroup The Travelling Wilburys. Find out who they are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_Wilburys. You can hear them on Spotify here: https://open.spotify.com/artist/2hO4YtXUFJiUYS2uYFvHNK?si=eqMFhifpSIai03kZPFHOVQ

Abraham Wald is one of the unsung American heroes who was not even born in America. He should be talked about in the same conversation as Albert Einstein. What can he teach us about what we don't see in sales and how we should be protecting. Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/brokensalespeople)

Comedian and a student of Applied Mathematics, Matthew Broussard (@mondaypunday/The Tonight Show/Comedy Central) joins IAMericanized and shares how he uses Math in his comedy. This episode, we explore a brief timeline of Math in America, and how the second world war was pivotal for increased funding in Math education, the genius of Abraham Wald, and much more!

David Dylan Thomas David Dylan Thomas can help you tame the unconscious biases that can undermine your design decision-making. These biases are strong. You may never conquer them all. But recognizing them and accounting for them in your content strategy and design work can mitigate the hazards they present. You need to be on your toes at every turn to account for these cognitive biases. They can affect the products and experiences you design, your collaborations with your team, and your own behavior. Dave's new book shows you how to deal with each of these challenges. Dave and I talked about: the importance of understanding how people make decisions and how much of that process is unconscious and irrational how his Cognitive Bias Podcast led to the insights that inform his book an example of using anonymized resumes to remove bias from hiring processes how to re-introduce friction into design processes to slow down your thinking so that you have chance to make less-biased decisions the importance of adopting design practices that check your biases - e.g., "Red Team, Blue Team" or speculative design the hazards of focusing on the positive outcomes of our design work and ignoring the many possible negatives outcome the story of Abraham Wald and how he brilliantly figured out where to put armor on warplanes, leading to insight about "survivorship bias" how cognitive biases manifest in general, in end-user designs, in internal design processes, and in your own personal behavior how the fear of loss is twice as powerful as the prospect of gain, illustrating the bias of "loss aversion" how the design of real-life and virtual spaces prime people for different behaviors the three key biases to consider when looking at your personal behavior: notational bias confirmation bias déformation professionnelle, the bias of seeing the world through the lens of your job Dave's Bio David Dylan Thomas, author of the book Design for Cognitive Bias from A Book Apart, serves as Content Strategy Advocate at Think Company and is the creator and host of the Cognitive Bias Podcast. He has developed digital strategies for major clients in entertainment, healthcare, publishing, finance, and retail. He has presented at TEDNYC, SXSW Interactive, Confab, LavaCon, UX Copenhagen, Artifact, IA Conference, Design and Content Conference, and the Wharton Web Conference on topics at the intersection of bias, design, and social justice. Follow Dave on the Web DavidDylanThomas.com Twitter Cognitive Bias Podcast Links Mentioned in the Podcast Design for Cognitive Bias book Design for Community, Derek Powazek Joyful: The Surprising Power of Ordinary Things to Create Extraordinary Happiness, Ingrid Fetell Lee Video Here’s the video version of our conversation: https://youtu.be/KLEetglYvrc Podcast Intro Transcript We human beings like to think that we're rational creatures, carefully looking at an array of objective factors before we make a decision. In a professional setting like a content strategy or design practice, we may feel like we're at the pinnacle of this rationality. In fact, we're operating on auto-pilot about 95 percent of the time, making decisions based on biases that are hard-wired into our thinking. Dave Thomas can help you understand and tame these cognitive biases and make better design and business decisions. Interview Transcript Larry: Hi, everyone. Welcome to Episode Number 80 of the Content Strategy Insights Podcast. I'm really happy today to have with us Dave Thomas. Larry: David Dylan Thomas was with us two years ago, shortly after Confab 2018, where he and I talked. So welcome back, Dave, I'm excited to see your new book. It's called Design for Cognitive Bias. So tell us a little bit about the book, and what folks can expect from it. Dave: Sure. Well, first off, we're really happy to be back. I can't believe it's been two years.

David Dylan Thomas David Dylan Thomas can help you tame the unconscious biases that can undermine your design decision-making. These biases are strong. You may never conquer them all. But recognizing them and accounting for them in your content strategy and design work can mitigate the hazards they present. You need to be on your toes at every turn to account for these cognitive biases. They can affect the products and experiences you design, your collaborations with your team, and your own behavior. Dave's new book shows you how to deal with each of these challenges. Dave and I talked about: the importance of understanding how people make decisions and how much of that process is unconscious and irrational how his Cognitive Bias Podcast led to the insights that inform his book an example of using anonymized resumes to remove bias from hiring processes how to re-introduce friction into design processes to slow down your thinking so that you have chance to make less-biased decisions the importance of adopting design practices that check your biases - e.g., "Red Team, Blue Team" or speculative design the hazards of focusing on the positive outcomes of our design work and ignoring the many possible negatives outcome the story of Abraham Wald and how he brilliantly figured out where to put armor on warplanes, leading to insight about "survivorship bias" how cognitive biases manifest in general, in end-user designs, in internal design processes, and in your own personal behavior how the fear of loss is twice as powerful as the prospect of gain, illustrating the bias of "loss aversion" how the design of real-life and virtual spaces prime people for different behaviors the three key biases to consider when looking at your personal behavior: notational bias confirmation bias déformation professionnelle, the bias of seeing the world through the lens of your job Dave's Bio David Dylan Thomas, author of the book Design for Cognitive Bias from A Book Apart, serves as Content Strategy Advocate at Think Company and is the creator and host of the Cognitive Bias Podcast. He has developed digital strategies for major clients in entertainment, healthcare, publishing, finance, and retail. He has presented at TEDNYC, SXSW Interactive, Confab, LavaCon, UX Copenhagen, Artifact, IA Conference, Design and Content Conference, and the Wharton Web Conference on topics at the intersection of bias, design, and social justice. Follow Dave on the Web DavidDylanThomas.com Twitter Cognitive Bias Podcast Links Mentioned in the Podcast Design for Cognitive Bias book Design for Community, Derek Powazek Joyful: The Surprising Power of Ordinary Things to Create Extraordinary Happiness, Ingrid Fetell Lee Video Here's the video version of our conversation: https://youtu.be/KLEetglYvrc Podcast Intro Transcript We human beings like to think that we're rational creatures, carefully looking at an array of objective factors before we make a decision. In a professional setting like a content strategy or design practice, we may feel like we're at the pinnacle of this rationality. In fact, we're operating on auto-pilot about 95 percent of the time, making decisions based on biases that are hard-wired into our thinking. Dave Thomas can help you understand and tame these cognitive biases and make better design and business decisions. Interview Transcript Larry: Hi, everyone. Welcome to Episode Number 80 of the Content Strategy Insights Podcast. I'm really happy today to have with us Dave Thomas. Larry: David Dylan Thomas was with us two years ago, shortly after Confab 2018, where he and I talked. So welcome back, Dave, I'm excited to see your new book. It's called Design for Cognitive Bias. So tell us a little bit about the book, and what folks can expect from it. Dave: Sure. Well, first off, we're really happy to be back. I can't believe it's been two years.

很多人崇拜成功者，所有人都覺得馬雲很成功並且去模仿，開始去瞭解馬雲的過往，去研究馬雲說的每句話，去探索馬雲成功之道；但為什麼那麼多人學著去成為馬雲最後卻都失敗收場，都變成了浮雲？。 這就是心理學當中的倖存者偏差(Survivorship Bias)。 今天好葉就來給大家講解：為什麼人總會系統性的高估了成功的幾率。 在這個資訊爆炸，瘋狂創業的時代裡，你總是會看到某某科技公司上市了，創辦人成為了億萬富翁。 YouTube，抖音，各種社交平台的崛起，造就了許多成功的網絡紅人。 感覺只要我在這個適當的時機加了YouTube，製作影片。 現在的我一定會很紅，月入過萬，甚至幾十萬。 現在只要我投入創業，等幾年後我的公司上市了，我馬上就變成了千萬億萬，富翁。 但真的是這樣嗎？只要跟著成功的人做，是不是就比較容易成功了？ 1941年,第二次世界大戰中,哥倫比亞大學沃德博士(Abraham Wald)就應軍方要求, 利用其在統計方面的專業知識，來提供加強飛機防護的相關建議。 他對轟炸機遭受攻擊的資料分析後發現:機翼是最容易被擊中的位置,而機尾則是最少被擊中的位置。 沃德博士的結論是「我們應該強化機尾的防護」,但軍方指揮官就認為「明明機翼是最容易被擊中的，就應該加強機翼...

--Episode 25 - How Survivorship Bias Distorts Our View of Successful Entrepreneurs--Sam McRoberts, CEO of VUDU Marketing and the author of Screw the Zoo, and Jayson DeMers, CEO of EmailAnalytics, discuss How Survivorship Bias Distorts Our View of Successful Entrepreneurs.With many decades of combined business and digital marketing experience, Jayson and Sam will walk you through everything you need to know as you go through your own entrepreneurial journey.Links to things mentioned in the podcast:Abraham Wald and the Missing Bullet HolesHow Survivorship Bias Distorts Our Views of Successful EntrepreneursThe Decline and Fall of Flowtab--New episodes go live every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 8am Pacific--

During WW2 American bombers were taking heavy losses over Germany. Abraham Wald, a Jewish immigrant put his analytical mind to work to help solve this problem and save countless lives.

Abraham Wald fue un matemático Era especialista en estadística, que participó en un programa científico militar durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial que trataba de mejorar la resistencia de los aviones que participaban en combates. Fue el primero en tener en cuenta el llamado 'sesgo de supervivencia' e indicó que había que blindar la parte de los aviones en la que probablemente habían sido alcanzados los que eran derribados, y no la parte en la que registraban impactos los que volvían a la base.

Abraham Wald fue un matemático Era especialista en estadística, que participó en un programa científico militar durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial que trataba de mejorar la resistencia de los aviones que participaban en combates. Fue el primero en tener en cuenta el llamado 'sesgo de supervivencia' e indicó que había que blindar la parte de los aviones en la que probablemente habían sido alcanzados los que eran derribados, y no la parte en la que registraban impactos los que volvían a la base.

¿El big data es actual? Sí pero no. Hoy contamos cómo ya en la segunda guerra mundial, estadísticas que tendían ya a big data se utilizaban para intentar minimizar la pérdida de recursos. Bueno, por decirlo suavemente. En realidad eran pérdidas humanas, además de materiales. Fé de erratas: el estudio del que hablamos es estadounidense, no inglés. El responsable es Abraham Wald. Y ya sabes, si quieres contactar nos tienes en: carloszr.com/contacto laurabrechadigital@gmail.com brechadigitalpodcast@gmail.com

For more insightful comics visit xkcd.com My strange education was purchased with tens of millions of dollars of other people's money.This is how it happened. When I turned 20, I spent the next 2 years asking business owners 3 questions: “Have you ever done any advertising that you felt really worked? Tell me about it.” “Have you ever been excited about an advertising plan that you later felt was a waste of money? Tell me about it.” “Are you still doing the thing that you felt really worked? Why not?” I crafted those questions because the things I was being taught about advertising made no sense to me.When a 20-year-old says he is “studying advertising” and asks if you will share your observations and experiences with him, most people are happy to do it. Within two years, the advertising mistakes everyone was making became blazingly obvious. Most people had followed the same logical path to arrive at the same wrong answer. We study successful businesses because we believe we can become successful by doing what they did. We ignore failures in the foolish belief that they have nothing to teach us.When failures become invisible, the seductive mistakes that caused those failures become invisible, too. This is why everyone tends to make the same mistakes in advertising. Important lessons are learned from failure, not from success. As a young man, I harvested the lessons of hundreds of business owners whose collective experience totaled dozens of centuries and tens of millions of dollars. Does it surprise you that the mistakes made by those business owners are just as common today? When we focus our attention on those who succeed – and ignore the lessons of those who failed – we tumble headlong into “survivorship bias,” a dangerous but invisible fallacy of logic.Study only those who survive the selection process. Ignore those who did not survive. Congratulations. You just tumbled into survivorship bias. When the Center for Naval Analyses evaluated the bullet holes in aircraft returning from missions during WWII, armor was recommended for the areas that showed the most damage. An engineer, Abraham Wald, popularized the term “survivorship bias” when he pointed out, “These are the planes that were able to return to base. The areas we need to reinforce are the areas that are undamaged on these planes, because those are the areas where damage makes it impossible to return.” Most of us unconsciously do what everyone else is doing. But what if everyone else is wrong?The reason history repeats itself is because we paid no attention the first time. Traditional wisdom is usually more tradition than wisdom. When you insist on being normal, you condemn yourself to being average. Break away from the pack. Conduct an experiment. No matter how it turns out, you will have learned something you didn't know before. Or you could save yourself all that and just come to https://www.wizardacademy.org/classes/on-site-classes/ (Wizard Academy.) We'll work hard all day and then sit together 900 feet above the city on the David McInnis Stardeck and howl at the moon. If that last sentence frightened you, you probably wouldn't like it here. But if you instinctively knew I was kidding and it made you laugh a little, what are you waiting for? Aroo, Roy H. Williams

The inspiration for innovation takes all forms. For some its music. For others its art. And for others its data. When I was CTO, Mark Hurd, the CEO at HP at the time, had a quote that was ingrained into everything the executive team did. “If you stare at the numbers long enough, they will eventually confess.”  Mark Hurd  The expectation was that as an executive you knew “your numbers”. It was not unusual to have Mark stop me in the hall and ask about the R&D investment levels last quarter for the top three competitors, customer net promoter scores for our top 5 products or the reverse supply chain levels from retail returns. While Mark’s focus on the numbers was well-meaning, I always felt that it caused blind spots when it came to understanding the shift, changes, and unspoken needs and wants of our customers. It looked at numbers as single elements to be managed individually. It also had the built-in assumption that the numbers were fact and that they never misled. Years later, I came across this story that caused me to reflect back on these times at HP. Misleading Innovation Decisions During WWII, the Navy tried to determine where they needed to armor their aircraft to ensure they and their crew came back home. They started tracking each and every bullet hole from each plane in the navy. With this data, they ran an analysis to see if there were any trends of where planes had been shot up. Based on the analysis, the conclusion was that they needed to increase the armor on the wingtips, on the top of the central body, and around the elevators. That’s where the data told them their planes were getting shot up.Abraham Wald, a statistician, disagreed. He thought they should put more armor in the nose area, engines, and the underside of the fuselage. Everyone immediately thought his proposal was crazy. That’s not where the planes were getting shot.Except - Mr. Wald realized what the others didn’t. What the Navy thought it had done was analyze where aircraft were suffering the most damage. What they had actually done was analyze where aircraft could suffer the most damage and still make it back. What about the places where the planes in their analysis were not shot? Put simply, planes that had been shot there crashed. They weren’t looking at the whole sample set, they only looked at the planes, and crews that survived. Did The Data Lie or Just Mislead? The data didn’t lie. The planes did get shot in the locations identified during the analysis. The data, however, did mislead. It was only part of the entire data set that should have been looked at. While data can be incredibly helpful when developing ideas that will become future innovations, we need to apply human insight and skepticism. Throwing in your gut feel may also be a good idea. If something seems incredibly obvious, that begs the question as to why and what is missing.  Rarely are things that cut and dry. That obvious. Go beyond the obvious and use your curiosity to ask that next question so that you can dig deeper and uncover some insight that others are not seeing. Be careful of assumptions. Be careful of using past experience or even what we think we see and then filling in the missing data. Impact on HP So what happened with the Mark Hurd approach at HP? With the emphasis on your numbers being compared to your competitors, it became clear that if your numbers were not “better” than theirs’ then you weren’t running your part of the business appropriately. The result was some bad business decisions such as cutting HP’s R&D spend to match the R&D spend of our Asia Pacific based competitors. I always found it interesting that the focus was always on cutting. Why wasn’t the decision made to increase the R&D spend to match that of Apple? That is a story is for another time. While I pushed back hard on this approach and specifically what was being done to R&D spend, my one regret was not pushing back even harder or finding a way to convince Mark and others on the folly of the approach. I didn’t find a way to play the “Abraham Wald” role at HP. One key lesson that I did learn from this experience was that the context of the information you are using to make innovation decisions is just as important as the data. Killer Question How could you challenge yourself and your team to take the “Abraham Wald” approach with the aircraft analysis?  How can you go beyond the obvious and uncover an insight that is not obvious?

Big Data means you have lots of information that you can use to predict and manage your systems.  Big data has been an amazing advantage for our organizations.  We need data, lots of it, to tell where we are and where we need to go But, just but, could there be so much data that you are biased towards using the data no matter what it means to your organizaton?  Data at all cost?  Data first?  We only get what we measure?  You must be able to account for everything. ... or should you? Here is a quick story about what the data did not show and how important that was to the future of the free world.   You will love this podcast. Best Safety Podcast, Safety Program, Safety Storytelling, Investigations, Human Performance, Safety Differently, Operational Excellence, Resilience Engineering, Safety and Resilience Incentives Give this a listen. Thanks for listening and tell your friends.  See you at the an airport or bus station.

En fallskjermoppklaring! Den ungarske matematikeren Abraham Wald. Lurk og bjørkenever (eller Utslagsnes Transport & Skarv da. Vi driver jo å forkler denne spalten med andre navn nå om dagen.) Helgemat: Brødskiva! Radiogram: Reis til Bhutan! Radiogram: Fredagsgåte fra Roy! Radiogram: Svar på fredagsgåten fra Roy FREDAG, GUT! I dag: Mats Wawa med 'Smoke On The Water'! Takk for oss! Hele FREDAG GUT-spillelista finner du her: https://open.spotify.com/user/borkhus/playlist/55PBA802bYuNX3i9dougwq Velbekomme! Legg igjen din beskjed til Lønsj på 73881480 Lønsj på Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lunsjnrkp1 Epost: l@nrk.no

During WWII, there was a mathematician named Abraham Wald. Wald had an idea about allied bombers. Essentially, bombers were coming back after bombing runs with a lot of damage. Engineers were saying "okay, there's a lot of damage in the wings and tail, so that's where we should put the armor." Right? Not so much. Wald's analysis of where they should really be putting armor became the fundamentals of Operational Science. Jeff and Anthony discuss this idea and what it means today. GET BONUS EPISODES, VIDEO HANGOUTS AND MORE. VISIT: http://patreon.com/wehaveconcerns Get all your sweet We Have Concerns merch by swinging by http://wehaveconcerns.com/shop Hey! If you’re enjoying the show, please take a moment to rate/review it on whatever service you use to listen. Here’s the iTunes link: http://bit.ly/wehaveconcerns And here’s the Stitcher link: http://bit.ly/stitcherwhc Jeff on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jeffcannata Anthony on Twitter: http://twitter.com/acarboni Today’s story was sent in by Jonathan Lawson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald If you’ve seen a story you think belongs on the show, send it to wehaveconcernsshow@gmail.com or leave it on the subreddit:http://reddit.com/r/wehaveconcern

The problem with sorting out failures and successes is that failures are often muted, destroyed, or somehow removed from sight while successes are left behind, weighting your decisions and perceptions, tilting your view of the world. That means to be successful you must learn how to seek out what is missing. You must learn what not to do. Unfortunately, survivorship bias stands between you and the epiphanies you seek. To learn how to combat this pernicious bias, we explore the story of Abraham Wald and the Department of War Math founded during World War II. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The book discussed in this interview is How Not To Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking (Penguin Press, 2014), by Jordan Ellenberg.  This is one of those rare books that belong on the reading list of every educated person, especially those who love mathematics, but more importantly, those who hate it.  Ellenberg succeeds in explaining the value of mathematical reasoning without ever needing to go into technical detail, which makes the book ideal for those who want to learn why mathematics is so important.  What makes the book doubly delightful is Ellenberg’s writing style; he intersperses the math with amusing anecdotes, dispensed with a sense of humor rarely found in books such as this.  The book is chock-full of OMG moments; the introductory anecdote about Abraham Wald and the missing bullet holes absolutely whets the appetite for more and Ellenberg never fails to deliver. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The book discussed in this interview is How Not To Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking (Penguin Press, 2014), by Jordan Ellenberg.  This is one of those rare books that belong on the reading list of every educated person, especially those who love mathematics, but more importantly, those who hate it.  Ellenberg succeeds in explaining the value of mathematical reasoning without ever needing to go into technical detail, which makes the book ideal for those who want to learn why mathematics is so important.  What makes the book doubly delightful is Ellenberg’s writing style; he intersperses the math with amusing anecdotes, dispensed with a sense of humor rarely found in books such as this.  The book is chock-full of OMG moments; the introductory anecdote about Abraham Wald and the missing bullet holes absolutely whets the appetite for more and Ellenberg never fails to deliver. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The problem with sorting out failures and successes is that failures are often muted, destroyed, or somehow removed from view while successes are left behind, weighting your decisions and perceptions, tilting your view of the world. That means to be successful you must learn how to seek out what is missing. You must learn what not to do. Unfortunately, survivorship bias stands between you and the epiphanies you seek. To learn how to combat this pernicious bias, we explore the story of Abraham Wald and the Department of War Math founded during World War II, and then we interview Wald's modern-day counterpart, Megan Price, statistician and director of research at the Human Rights Data Analysis Group who explains how she uses math and statistics to save lives and improve conditions in areas of the world suffering from the effects of war. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This paper grew out of a lecture presented at the 54th Session of the International Statistical Institute in Berlin, August 13 - 20, 2003, Schneeweiss (2003). It intends not only to outline the eventful life of Abraham Wald (1902 - 1950) in Austria and in the United States but also to present his extensive scientific work. In particular, the two main subjects, where he earned most of his fame, are outline: Statistical Decision Theory and Sequential Analysis. In addition, emphasis is laid on his contributions to Econometrics and related fields.