The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck | Michael Mauboussin | Talks at Google
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 июл 2014
- Description:
What role, exactly, do skill and luck play in our successes and failures? Some games, like roulette and the lottery, are pure luck. Others, like chess, exist at the other end of the spectrum, relying almost wholly on players' skill.
In his provocative book, Michael Mauboussin untangles the intricate strands of skill and luck, defines them, and provides useful frameworks for analyzing their relative contributions. He offers concrete suggestions for how to put these insights to work to your advantage in business and other dimensions of life.
About the author:
Michael J. Mauboussin is a Managing Director and Head of Global Financial Strategies at Credit Suisse. Prior to rejoining CS in 2013, he was Chief Investment Strategist at Legg Mason Capital Management. He is also the author of three books, including More Than You Know: Finding Financial Wisdom in Unconventional Places, named in the The 100 Best Business Books of All Time by 800-CEO-Read. Michael has been an adjunct professor of finance at Columbia Business School since 1993, and received the Dean's Award for Teaching Excellence in 2009. He is also chairman of the board of trustees of the Santa Fe Institute, a leading center for mulch-disciplinary research in complex systems theory. 
Кино
5:00 There's a really interesting test which I learned from the poker people about figuring out if there's any skill in an activity.
And that is, ask if you can lose on purpose. If you can lose on purpose, there must be some skill.
If you can't lose on purpose, it's basically all luck.
11:50 The more interesting line is the blue one, which is the difference between the guy who won the gold medal and the guy who came in 20th.
Now mind you, this is supposed to be some of the best, fastest runners in the world competing on the same stage.
That difference was 39 minutes in 1932. Now just take that in for a second.
This is the Olympic marathon. The guy has won the gold medal, has taken a shower, is eating a sandwich, and this other guy is still on the course finishing up.
That time is down to about five minutes, seven minutes today. And I think we can confidently say if we meet in the future, that will be an even shorter amount of time.
37:30 And by the way, if you read this split-brain patient research, it's absolutely-- it's all quite humorous, because these people basically go to no ends to explain what they're doing.
So pronounced is this capability that neuroscientists call this the interpreter. The interpreter is part of all of our brains, resides in our left hemisphere. If I give you an effect, you will come up with a cause. And by the way, it's like an itch that demands to be scratched. I throw an effect at you, you come up with a cause.
So here's the thing I think is so fascinating about this broader discussion is if the paradox of skill is true-- absolute skill never higher, relative skill never narrower-- means luck is determining more outcomes.
That's colliding with a mind that really struggles to understand the role of luck. So that's one that hopefully is something that can be helpful as you think through these basic issues.
Now what's related to that is our love of stories.
51:30 There's a quote which I love by a guy named Seth Klarman at Baupost, who is one of the great value investors.
And he says, "value investing is at its core the marriage between a contrarian streak and a calculator."
So what does he mean? The contrarian streak, I think, is the first element, which is the ability to go against what everybody else is doing. So Buffett's got this great line.
It is, be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.
Let me just say this-- investing is inherently a very social exercise. Very social. And it takes a very unusual person who's willing to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing.
So that's the first element. The problem is being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian is not a very good idea because sometimes the consensus is right. In other words, if the movie house is on fire, by all means run out the door.
So the calculator is the second component, which says as a consequence of everybody taking one view, that means a gap between price and value opens up.
And so that becomes an opportunity to invest. So the great value investors I think are people with certain personality characteristics.
In part, they are people who tend not to care about what other people think about what they think.
And that's very rare in the regular population. Most people are very sensitive to what other people think about them.
59:30 You know, JK Rowling. You guys know this story. Harry Potter was turned down by nine or 10 publishers before someone grudgingly willing to publish it. It's the greatest selling novels of all time, right?
I feel liberated by it, actually. I think it's the other way. I feel the opposite, which is if I do-- and this is what I say to my kids all the time.
If you work as hard as you can, the outcome doesn't really matter. You've done all you can do.
The fates of the gods.
interesting point about the 'superstars' and cognitive surplus, and the fractional difference between them and the next. I hadn't thought of luck and talent in this way and look forward to reading Michael Mauboussin's book.
outstanding michael - thanks so much - I daresay, the new age charlie munger of the psychology of luck and skill
god bless
He distills the complex to manageable bites that all can understand. Just bought the book.
Referring to the first question I'd say that most of the narrower excess returns among money managers can be explained by index hugging. A lot of instituational investors hold either the index or a portfolio close to the index, for example 100 stocks out of the S&P500 with no stock making up more than 3% of assets. In such a world you would expect small SD of excess returns. That is a world where money managers manage their career risk first and dont want to be the best at delivering risk adjusted performance. Someone who truly cares about performance goes for a proven quant strategy like Joel Greenblatt, concentrated "deep value" like Seth Klarman, concentrated "compounding machines" like Warren Buffet, concentrated special situations (old school Joel Greenblatt), concentrated small cap stocks... or a mix of those.
This is great, thanks Michael, will look into the book! Tremendously interesting and informative talk on skill vs luck.
I read his book and it's inspiring. Love the talk and grateful for this video. Thanks!
Excellent talk, thanks!
Love the 'interpreter' analogy, explaining things after-the-fact is not understanding them
So how did he calculate the ratios of luck and skill for the major sports? I'd like to know how to do that.
fantastic talk! thank you
outstanding,outstanding&outstanding
Wonderful presentation..
Excellent presentation!
Since this talk, a tennis grand slam has been won 26 times by somebody over the age of 30!
Fantastic
Exellent for mind
Michael has rare SKILLs. Excellent talk as always
Brilliant Talk
Classic
Great talk!
I have one question how do you know that we have given it all. From my point of view I think there is always some point of improvement. I agree that luck plays a role but how do we define that we have done everything and at the end it just came to luck and I was unlucky. It might be the case that I did not do everything and put too much emphasis on luck..?
Love the talk and grateful for this video
Great talk listened in one go. Listen to what he said at 1:00:00, what 'Lord Krishna' said thousand of years ago.
which value investor he mentions during the Q&A? ... Seth Chloreman?
Seth Klarman from Baupost Hedgefund
3:55
gary kildahl = wally pipp= drew bledsoe, you get my drift?
Lang
Kind of a depressing speech, but at the same time, true.
Retro Tv Game Room u want it is the 8
is he wearing casio or timex ironman watch?!! (respect, whatever it is)
We can always work harder. Isn't the idea that luck plays a big role in our success inherently demotivating?
At least at first glance, yea, I agree, it is. So my system 1 says yea. But I'm not sure about my system 2. Maybe it adds that on the other hand, when you're not successful, it's not necessarily your fault which is maybe also good. Maybe looking forward it is demotivating but looking back it is calming. :)
Is the idea that failure is not your fault motivating? "If you don't get this bonus, it's not your fault!" His core idea has limited value when applied to different domains.
Isaac Darche No, I didn't say motiviating because I was only referring to looking back on the past. You can't be motivated for the past, it's over. But what it could do is prevent depression if you acknowledge that you did your best and the failure was not entirely your fault. How many people regret things and are disappointed with themselves and how many of them actually know how much of a role luck plays?
You're right, you didn't say motivating. I did. In my first comment. And my 2nd comment. Motivation is the subject of my comment, to which you are replying. Easing depression has some value, I guess. This talk is good for people who would like to ease their depression. It is descriptive and negative. Mauboussin shows us "things we think we control, are up to chance". He is taking away, "correcting," our belief in our own control. That's nice. But he doesn't offer any alternative or solution. At the core of his concept, there is a quasi-Buddhist, nihilistic void, bereft of positive values. He doesn't try to justify or show the value of this void. His talk is a literary exercise, dressed up in the garb of statistics and business- speak. He is a warm, engaging speaker. But the content is of little value.
Isaac Darche I know. With my reply I just added a possible advantage of this situation after you outlined a disadvantage, which I think is also allowed. I never disagreed with you on the disadvantage because I think you are right. But to your last comment: I don't think it's his duty to offer a solution to this problem. He just outlined the problem which is in itself informative because you wanna know that there is a problem in the first place. It's still better to know this than not to as it helps you see the reality and analyze it more objectively. However, as success mostly requires skill *and* luck, it still pays off to work hard. So that fact doesn't change.
It's always luck, it's always been luck and will always be luck
All of his books are worth reading, including this one amzn.to/2wLX7tS
text
it takes over an hour to explain some very simple observations - not terrific insight here
If he summarized it into a couple of paragraphs his presentation would be over in a few minutes. Who would watch or remember that?
text
text