Mediocre you: Difference between revisions

Mediocre you (view source)

Revision as of 16:41, 1 May 2017

187 bytes removed , 1 May 2017

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,975

edits

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 :''But if you aim at the top of the tree you may never get off the ground”’’
 ::It’s not so bad on the ground. And what good are you to anyone stuck in the top of a tree?
+[[The Banker and the Fisherman]]
+===Organising principles===
+*[[Mean reversion]]
+*[[Never mistake luck for talent]]
+**The investment manager who beat the Dow nineteen years in a row]]
+**Promotion by random
+*[[Ten thousand hours]] buys you a ticket to the raffle.
+**You need to have innate skill
+**You need to be lucky
+***To catch the light at all
+***To be in the right place in the first place.
 === ''Statistically'', it won’t be you. ===
@@ Line 13: / Line 27: @@
 *If you stack all the
-=== Ten thousand hours? It’s nonsense. ===
+=== [[Ten thousand hours]]? It’s nonsense. ===
-*Ten thousand hours won’t guarantee you world leadership. You might not even be very good.
-*Almost every example of outstanding success has a significant element of being in the right place at the right time. You might have been the greatest flanker in the history of rugby union, but if you were three years younger than Richard Hugh McCaw, you would never know it.
-*So much of outsized success has nothing at all to do with pure talent. See: the sex pistols. See: Fund managers - whose success may be as likely to be a product of random chance as deliberate strategy to beat the market.
 ===Looking at existing success stories is a waste of time. ===
 *We are brilliant at fitting known facts to our narratives - confirmation bias.