Lord777
Professional
- Messages
- 2,578
- Reaction score
- 1,515
- Points
- 113
Are you constantly flipping through Instagram, Tiktok, YouTube, following the example of local "opinion leaders"? Stupid question. You're hanging out on my channel right now. Do you want to be as popular as me? Well, wanting isn't bad. I don’t want to upset you, but statistics are strict and you most likely will not succeed. That's why.
Introduction
Most of you have probably tried to start your own blog by aligning with already successful media personalities and copying their style, manner of presentation, format. Perhaps you wanted to start your own business, read a bunch of books with success stories and watched all the videos on popular business channels. Yes, take the same sport. If you dream of becoming the world champion in MMA, you urgently need to copy McGregor's signature workout. Each business has its own role models, the success story of which every now and then try to copy naive enthusiasts. But it doesn't work. You can't just repeat the algorithm of a successful person's actions and achieve the same heights. It's all about the survivor's mistake.
Happy coincidence?
This concept was first recorded in ancient times. Then the ancient people believed that worshiping the gods would save them from the storm and allow them to survive on long voyages. One wise philosopher Diagen provided a convincing counter-argument to this theory. "How can we know that those who died in the shipwreck did not pray to the gods in the same way that all the survivors did?" Good question. Only during the First World War, the Hungarian mathematician Abraham Wald was able to clearly formulate this idea.
At that time, the war was going on and he helped in the development of strengthening military aircraft. All surviving aircraft returned to base with a bunch of shell holes and needed additional armor. The nuance was that only part of the aircraft could be strengthened, since too much metal would increase the weight and weaken the aerodynamic properties. Local engineers immediately decided that it was necessary to strengthen those places where the most holes from enemy bullets were found. Wald had his own opinion on this matter. Since planes with such damage were able to return to base, it is necessary to strengthen those places, the damage of which led to the crash. From this emerged the actual wording of the survivor's error. During the analysis of a situation, a selection bias occurs when there is a lot of information about one subgroup (“survivors”), and on the other ("lost") - almost nothing. Because of this imbalance, researchers of a certain problem are looking for common indicators precisely among the "survivors", but ignore the fact that equally important data can be found among the "dead". In short, this is taking into account the known and neglecting the unknown, but existing.
Incorrect lighting
An analogue of the survivor's mistake is the paradox of information accessibility. It is that people may think that an outcome is more likely only because more of the reported outcome is. It's all about subjective assessment. Media figures and disseminators are more likely to cover events that they believe are more important, which gives most people a misconception about the real picture. The most popular example is murder and suicide. What do you think happens more in a year? Suicide, although it seems the other way around. But in fact, murders are simply given a greater emotional color. And so it works with everything. Often, the mass of people who use only popular open sources overlook a huge amount of more important information from scientific research and publications.
Random success and no coincidence failure!
Let's go back to the success story. What is the survivor's mistake? It's simple! It is logical that, according to statistics, there will be much less successful people than losers. Each of these lucky ones had their own unique situation. Economic circumstances, right place, right time, etc. Think of those people who bought bitcoin in 2010. Now some of them have become billionaires and popular media personalities. And what happened to those who sold, say, in 2011? History is silent about this. The bottom line is what. Simultaneously with those people who will succeed, many more people take similar actions, who will eventually lose. This was the case with many scientific discoveries. Whoever opened it first is on a horse. Although both the path and the train of thought of the two conventional scientists were most likely similar. In the early 2000s, many people thought about creating social networks. But everyone knows only Mark Zuckerberg and thinks that only by studying his path of success and personal qualities can you reach such heights. It's just useless. But analyzing other people's mistakes is much cooler. This is where we can pinpoint exactly what factors contributed to the failure.
Outcome
Don't be limited to success stories alone. Perhaps these people are just lucky, and they already think they can teach others. Think with your own head, look into the future and analyze the mistakes of those who failed. That's all for me. See you in new issues.
Introduction
Most of you have probably tried to start your own blog by aligning with already successful media personalities and copying their style, manner of presentation, format. Perhaps you wanted to start your own business, read a bunch of books with success stories and watched all the videos on popular business channels. Yes, take the same sport. If you dream of becoming the world champion in MMA, you urgently need to copy McGregor's signature workout. Each business has its own role models, the success story of which every now and then try to copy naive enthusiasts. But it doesn't work. You can't just repeat the algorithm of a successful person's actions and achieve the same heights. It's all about the survivor's mistake.
Happy coincidence?
This concept was first recorded in ancient times. Then the ancient people believed that worshiping the gods would save them from the storm and allow them to survive on long voyages. One wise philosopher Diagen provided a convincing counter-argument to this theory. "How can we know that those who died in the shipwreck did not pray to the gods in the same way that all the survivors did?" Good question. Only during the First World War, the Hungarian mathematician Abraham Wald was able to clearly formulate this idea.
At that time, the war was going on and he helped in the development of strengthening military aircraft. All surviving aircraft returned to base with a bunch of shell holes and needed additional armor. The nuance was that only part of the aircraft could be strengthened, since too much metal would increase the weight and weaken the aerodynamic properties. Local engineers immediately decided that it was necessary to strengthen those places where the most holes from enemy bullets were found. Wald had his own opinion on this matter. Since planes with such damage were able to return to base, it is necessary to strengthen those places, the damage of which led to the crash. From this emerged the actual wording of the survivor's error. During the analysis of a situation, a selection bias occurs when there is a lot of information about one subgroup (“survivors”), and on the other ("lost") - almost nothing. Because of this imbalance, researchers of a certain problem are looking for common indicators precisely among the "survivors", but ignore the fact that equally important data can be found among the "dead". In short, this is taking into account the known and neglecting the unknown, but existing.
Incorrect lighting
An analogue of the survivor's mistake is the paradox of information accessibility. It is that people may think that an outcome is more likely only because more of the reported outcome is. It's all about subjective assessment. Media figures and disseminators are more likely to cover events that they believe are more important, which gives most people a misconception about the real picture. The most popular example is murder and suicide. What do you think happens more in a year? Suicide, although it seems the other way around. But in fact, murders are simply given a greater emotional color. And so it works with everything. Often, the mass of people who use only popular open sources overlook a huge amount of more important information from scientific research and publications.
Random success and no coincidence failure!
Let's go back to the success story. What is the survivor's mistake? It's simple! It is logical that, according to statistics, there will be much less successful people than losers. Each of these lucky ones had their own unique situation. Economic circumstances, right place, right time, etc. Think of those people who bought bitcoin in 2010. Now some of them have become billionaires and popular media personalities. And what happened to those who sold, say, in 2011? History is silent about this. The bottom line is what. Simultaneously with those people who will succeed, many more people take similar actions, who will eventually lose. This was the case with many scientific discoveries. Whoever opened it first is on a horse. Although both the path and the train of thought of the two conventional scientists were most likely similar. In the early 2000s, many people thought about creating social networks. But everyone knows only Mark Zuckerberg and thinks that only by studying his path of success and personal qualities can you reach such heights. It's just useless. But analyzing other people's mistakes is much cooler. This is where we can pinpoint exactly what factors contributed to the failure.
Outcome
Don't be limited to success stories alone. Perhaps these people are just lucky, and they already think they can teach others. Think with your own head, look into the future and analyze the mistakes of those who failed. That's all for me. See you in new issues.
