[chiefalchemist]

"Thinking in Bets" Annie Duke. Changed how I feel "bad" decisions because, per Duke, bad outcomes can happen to good decisions. I also enjoyed how she framed truth seeking as the preference over groupthink.

Finally, it was fact that she was speaking from experience (as a professional poker player) and just some idea she researched.

[edmundsauto]

Warning: this book can make it difficult to communicate with other people, if you expect them to think like you do. So many people evaluate the quality of decisions based on results, and so many of them are outright hostile to the ideas suggested herein.

Further, in any given situation, variance swaps all - so don't expect to be able to say "i told ya so".

I firmly believe this book helps make my life better in terms of making better decisions, but it is not a book you want to trot out at cocktail parties unless you enjoy arguments. And I will also say - people get offended when you ask them to put money down on their perspective, even after you disagree. So it appears to be true, people know it's true when money is on the line, but will still argue with you.

Let it change how you think, but if you want something to discuss with others, go with Gladwell or Freakonomics.

[chiefalchemist]

Yes and no. But ultimately ironic. Duke's position on truth seeking is rock solid. Any disagreement is, in the eyes of Duke, is a positive. I would take names, and then buy them the book. If they choose not to read it then self identifying groupthinkers might be best avoided going forward.

As for Gladwell. That's the problem, isn't it? Beige ideas and slanted research, etc. Yeah, I read him to see what the "average reader" is slurping down, but he's a candy coated pop star to Duke's Radiohead ideas.

[edmundsauto]

It’s a bit of a paradox. While a lot of Gladwells work is a broad brush and not generalizable, it has opened people’s minds to a new way of thinking. I have found those people are open to discussions with more rigor, but it’s possible that is selection bias at work.

I also don’t think Duke is saying all disagreement is good. She specifically says you need a small trusted circle of people who agree to basic rules. Even then, it’s difficult to keep people inside the lines. That’s why her recommended way of rigorous thinking wouldn’t work on Twitter or in a general public sphere, for instance.

It’s not that people are dumb or willful, it’s that our brains are wired for different circumstances. And it takes constant effort to swim against the stream, which is tiring and not scalable.

In the end, I have concluded that humanity is better off for having a Gladwell - someone who can connect and clearly communicate with the masses. We need these mass communicators, even if they aren’t precise, because they open people’s minds to alternative ways of thinking.

It’s like a funnel - gladwell gets more people to the top of the funnel. You end up with folks who take pop music conclusions, and some percentage will dive deeper. Without Gladwell, I would have never discovered Duke or been receptive to the message.

[pivo]

Just started reading, "Quit: The Power of Knowing When to Walk Away" by her so can't confidently recommend it, but so far I'm really enjoying it. Again, poker experience, knowing when to fold, is relevant.