Thursday, December 19, 2013

2007 and 2009 interviews with Peter Bevelin

Below are the combined 2007 and 2009 interviews I did with Peter Bevelin, which I thought might be good to combine in one place, and to post in case any new readers have yet to see them. I seem to notice something new every time I read them, just as I do anytime I open Seeking Wisdom or Poor Charlie’s Almanack. I also created a PDF of the interviews HERE.

2007 Interview with Peter Bevelin

Q: In the introduction of your book, you mention that you owe a great debt to Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger and that if you had listened to them earlier in your life, you would have avoided many expensive mistakes. Could you elaborate a bit on how you first came across Warren and Charlie, how your process of learning from them began, and maybe even mention a couple of the mistakes that you may have avoided had you come across them earlier?

I first came across the name of Warren Buffett in 1986, when I was on a plane between New York and Miami and picked up Fortune Magazine in the seat in front of me. Back home in Sweden I immediately ordered Berkshire’s annual reports. But I was a slow learner. I didn’t really pick up his and Charlie Munger’s wisdom until I went to my first Berkshire annual meeting in 1994. What did I learn? – How to think about businesses and investing, how to behave in life, the importance of ethics and honesty, how to approach problems but foremost how to reduce the chance of meeting problems. As Munger says: “All I want to know is where I’m going to die so I’ll never go there.” When I hear them at the annual meeting, I am thinking about Einstein’s reply to a student. The student had challenged Einstein’s statement that the laws of physics should be simple by asking: “What if they aren’t simple?” Einstein replied, “Then I would not be interested in them.” 

They have a unique ability to distinguish masses of trivia from what is really important – to filter out situations, and find what’s at their core. They tell the simple, blunt truth rather than say things that sound good.

In the past, I complicated things too much, I put too much trust in people that really shouldn’t be trusted, I wasn’t skeptical enough , I bought into things merely because they were cheap etc. In short, I wasn’t thinking and I was lacking the Munger ability to un-learn my own best-loved ideas. The stock certificates of some of my earlier investments in private businesses are now used as lining in my old overcoat; at least they had a nice color. And is there really any other way to approach investments than their way? Turn it around and ask what are the effects of investing in things we don’t understand, lack advantages and have a dishonest and incompetent management and that can be bought at a high price.

I found that I could increase my chance of making better judgments if I could learn what works and not, if I adapt what I do to my personal situation, and if I could establish some values and preferences. If I then could set up some avoid-rules and filters/tests to judge what make sense or is important or not, life could be improved (even if I still do some mistakes; but hopefully I am less of a fool now). Also remember that all decisions aren’t important. Some people spend more time making a judgment on what TV to buy or where to go on vacation than a life-changing decision like marriage.

Q: Charlie Munger has mentioned that a great way to learn Adam Smith’s ideas is to first learn about Adam Smith. Do you believe that this idea of learning about the “teacher” before the “lesson” is truer in some disciplines than in others and do you have any examples when this method of learning was especially useful to you?

Experiments have shown that we learn better if information is tied to a vivid story. So, I would say, it depends. In some cases the “Smith-model” is superior and in other cases I may learn better in some other fashion. For example, I learnt a lot from reading The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. But I also learnt a lot of Einstein’s ideas by reading Mr. Tompkins in Paperback by George Gamow. See also what I wrote about Reason-respecting (20 in the book). On the other hand, when reading, we must constantly watch out for the sensemaking trap (19 in my book) since we are so easily influenced when we are told stories or given information in a “story-format.”

Q: As you state in the introduction, “This book is for those who love the constant search for knowledge. I have focused on explaining timeless ideas. The number of pages I have devoted to each idea does not reflect on its importance. My goal is to lay the foundation.” Once readers acquire the foundation they receive by reading Seeking Wisdom, where should they go next? Specifically, what is the first thing that you would recommend they should pick up to start learning more about the big ideas in the discipline of Math? Psychology? Physics? Biology? Chemistry? Economics? Engineering? Philosophy?

Look around you – observe reality. What can explain this? Learn some core concepts that account for reality. Start from the basics for each discipline and emphasize the understanding of general principles and use simple real-life examples to illustrate principles. Read, read and think about what you have read. Look for understanding. What is going on here? What is the core idea? What is the evidence that it is right? Also remember what Richard Feynman once asked someone who remarked that he had read a book. “But, did you learn anything?” Understand an idea’s meaning and applications. Focus on useful and obviously important and correct general ideas, concepts and principles. What does it mean? What happens? What is the effect?


Q: As many value investors have been taught, it is more important to focus on the process of doing something instead of solely focusing on the outcome of that process. Do you have any tips that may help people along the process of “seeking wisdom?” Should someone focus their attention on learning many ideas from one or two disciplines at a time, or by learning many disciplines one or two big ideas at a time?

There are principles, which apply to all different kind of phenomena. For example, JB Williams’s definition of value is applicable for all financial assets. Personally, I started with biology and psychology since knowing some human constraints and “brain traps” I could avoid some things by for example using some “avoid-rules.” Why can’t we all be nice, honest and rational? (And why can’t we all have wings and thus eliminate department store escalators?). I favor ideas that explain a whole range of phenomena. For example, biology (evolution and natural selection) explains why people: fear losses but take big risks when threatened, fear strangers, trust similar people, cooperate, imitate, fear social disapproval, make fast judgments, and overreact to vivid information.

Also, some disciplines are more reliable than others. For example, disciplines describing experimentally tested ideas, concepts and principles.

Some other examples on disciplines and ideas that explain a lot: Mathematics (scaling) explain how living things are shaped and constrained by basic mathematical principles. For example, why: no giants exist, a mouse can survive a big fall but not a human, some animals have short and thick legs, larger plants have leaves, small animals can’t live in cold countries, ants can lift such a big load, and grasshoppers can jump so high relative to their body sizes. Mathematics (combinatorics) and Physics (systems theory) explain why: we can’t predict the economy, it is hard to make money on new ventures, most projects take more time and money than we anticipate, nuclear accidents happen, we will have more electrical black-outs, coincidences occur, and some mutual funds beat the index.

Q: Are there any books in which you believe the models presented within those books are so important that you make it a habit to re-read them every year or every couple of years?

All of Charles Munger’s speeches. Most of them can be found in Peter Kaufman’s Poor Charlie’s Almanack. I also re-read Hardin’s Filters Against Folly.

Q: Charlie Munger once said that he can’t afford ($) to have too many friends like Peter Bevelin because when you recommend a book to him, it is so good that Charlie feels compelled to buy a copy for all of his friends and family. So, have you made any recommendations to Charlie or read any of those “need-to-send-everyone” kinds of books recently?

No comments.

Q: Can you give a Top 10 list of books that really changed the way you view the world?

Some books that I really learnt a lot from (in no order of preference):

Dawes Robyn M., Everyday Irrationality: How Pseudo-Scientists,Lunatics, and the Rest of Us Systematically Fail to Think Rationally (it really introduced me to the value of always asking: Why should I believe this? – Show me the evidence + Compared to what?)

Montaigne Michel de, The Complete Essays

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan 

Q: Can you talk a little about the process of writing your book? I think you did a magnificent job of pulling things together into a logical and understandable order and I imagine it was quite the experience organizing all the models that you have acquired over the years from your mind down on to paper.

Gene Fowler once said: “Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead.” Most people can do what I did. I am not especially smart or talented. It just takes curiosity and real interest. After being inspired by Charles Munger’s lectures on worldly wisdom (from Outstanding Investor Digest), and after reading Darwin, I took some time off business and started reading books in biology, neuroscience, psychology, and physics. As Warren Buffett once said: “I think you can learn a lot from other people. In fact, I think if you learn basically from other people, you don’t have to get too many ideas on your own. You can just apply the best of what you see.” Then I wrote down what I learned – I put together some key thoughts as a crude working model (what I found was that I couldn’t really synthesize things sitting in front of the computer. Like Arthur Schopenhauer said: “Thoughts die the moment they are embodied by words.” I could only see various connections between things and the big picture when I was out walking thinking about something else). Since sorrow feels worse than happiness feels good, I concentrated on learning causes of what I wanted to avoid – things with huge consequences.

I also spent some time visiting the Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla where I got some real understanding of how our anatomy, physiology and biochemistry constraints our behavior. I also interacted with a lot of science people via the Internet. Remember, I did this not to write a book, but to improve my own thinking and as a kind of memorandum to my children. I had no time constraints. And I loved it! Exploring and learning new things give me great satisfaction. When I started to read and write some of my friends said: what’s that good for? Why do you waste time studying that? How can that help you make money? Usually I don’t like to answer these questions, not because I don’t believe that the basic insight into how things work will not pay off at some time, but because I believe that acquiring insight is in itself a worthwhile effort. As Benjamin Franklin said: “ If a man empties his purse into his head, no one can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.”

Q: Finally, is there anything people may be surprised to know about you? Any unique interests?

People immediately assume that merely because I have written a book containing a lot of science, I must be a professor or an academic. I am not. Regarding any unique interests – nothing that would interest your readers.

I wish you and your readers a happy day – Everyday!


**********

2009 Interview with Peter Bevelin

If we make the assumption that Warren Buffett is going to be running Berkshire Hathaway for another 20-30 years, what advice would you give a 20-30 year-old today in regards to what he or she needs to learn over those years to be capable of taking over the job for Warren when he retires? And what qualities will be especially useful for seeing those risks that are important, but have never happened before? And why did Munger once say that Warren is a better investor than him?

I always try to remember what Munger once answered to a question: “I don't have any special competence that would enable me to answer that question." And I can’t answer your question on Buffett. Buffett is what Munger calls a Lollapalooza. If you go back and read the notes from the Wesco annual meeting in 2007, you get some clues on what factors contribute to his greatness (also by reading Poor Charlie’s Almanack, created by Peter Kaufman).

I may be wrong, but I don’t think I am totally wrong, but I believe there are some general characteristics that are important to reduce investment sorrow (no order of importance and not considering the eternal virtues of price, management and moat). Some examples:

1. The importance of knowing what you know and don’t know. There is a lot of wisdom in this remark from Eitan Wertheimer: “I had a very big lesson from Warren: the use of the word discipline…We learned very quickly that our most important asset is our limitations…The second thing we understand is that when we respect our limitations we don’t suffer from them anymore.”

2. Not putting all your trust in checklists (causing a false sense of security and control, just like wearing a seat belt makes drivers feel more secure, making them drive faster or more recklessly). Trouble often comes from the direction we least expect. I like this fable by Aesop:

“A Doe who had had the misfortune to lose the sight of one of her eyes, and so could not see anyone approaching on that side, made it her practice to graze on a high cliff near the sea. Thus she kept her good eye toward the land on the lookout for hunters, while her blind side was toward the sea whence she feared no danger. But one day some sailors were rowing past in a boat. Catching sight of the doe as she was grazing peacefully along the edge of the cliff, one of the sailors drew his bow and shot her. With her last gasp the dying doe said: "Alas, ill-fated creature that I am! I was safe on the land side, whence I looked for danger, but my enemy came from the sea, to which I looked for protection.”

Montaigne said: “Death can surprise us in so many ways.” For example, recurring revenue streams may stop or long-term customers may disappear. Remember what has happened to newspapers. As Alice Schroeder wrote on Buffett in The Snowball: “He tended to extrapolate mathematical probabilities over time to the inevitable (and often correct) conclusion that if something can go wrong it eventually will."

3. Related to the above is the importance of resilience and redundancy. Let me exemplify by some quotes from our heroes:

Munger: “'Of course you prefer a business that will prosper even if it is not managed well. We are not looking for mismanagement; we like the capacity to withstand it if we stumble into it... having a margin of safety running through the whole system.. All our super-cat policies have limits – meaning the maximum we can pay under a single policy. We can add up all those maximum limits. And when we get to a number that would make us squirm in our seats, we stop writing it… We try and operate so that it wouldn’t be too awful for us if something really extreme happened – like interest rates at 1% or interest rates at 20%… We try to arrange [our affairs] so that no matter what happens, we’ll never have to “go back to go.”

Buffett: “We want to always keep a lot of money around. We have so many extra levels of safety we follow at Berkshire…. in financial markets, almost anything that can happen does happen. And it pays to conduct your affairs so that no matter how foolish other people get, you’re still around to play the game next day.”

Try to follow the advice of Confucius: “The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved.”

4. Pascal’s lesson as told by Buffett: “If we can't tolerate a possible consequence, remote though it may be, we steer clear of planting its seeds.”

5. Absence of a need to invest all the time. As Buffett said: “You only have to do a few things right in your life as long as you don’t do too many things wrong.” Also, Seneca said: “The mind must be given relaxation; it will arise better and keener after resting.”

6. Knowing what to avoid. As Buffett recently said on Wells Fargo: “The real insight you get about a banker is how they bank. You've got to see what they do and what they don't do. Their speeches don't make any difference. It's what they do and what they don't do. And what Wells didn't do is what defines their greatness.” Isn’t that wise? My favorite Munger quote on this is: “It is remarkable how much long-term advantage people like us have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.”

7. Temperament is more important than intelligence. As Buffett said: “Independent thinking, emotional stability, and a keen understanding of both human and institutional behavior are vital to long-term investment success.”

8. Keynes’ advice: “It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.”

9. Thinking like a businessman and investor. As Buffett said: "Being a businessman makes me a better investor and being an investor makes me a better businessman."

10. Keeping things simple. I love this Munger quote: “We use a lot of experience and do it [investment returns] in our heads. We don’t like complexity and we distrust other systems and think it many times leads to false confidence. The harder you work, the more confidence you get. But you may be working hard on something that is false. We’re so afraid of that process so we don’t do it.”

11. Understanding the fundamental importance of trust to life and business. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said: “Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.” And to quote Seneca in the choice of friends: “After friendship is formed you must trust, but before that you must judge.” Think about how much life is improved by being around people you can trust. Or to invert – think about the misery of being around people you can’t trust. And it simplifies life. As Munger said: “When you get a seamless web of deserved trust, you get enormous efficiencies.”

12. An ability to tune out folly and noise. For example, physicists have a wonderful ability to eliminate unimportant details and focus on what matters. Professor Douglas Hofstadter once said that thinking is all about the ability to look at complex situations and strip away things that don’t count – the ability to filter out situations, and [find] what’s at their core. Something Buffett and Munger are extremely good at.

In your opinion, why is there so much difference in opinion when it comes to economics? For example, conservative, liberal, and the Austrian School economists all seem to have dramatically different economic theories on causes and solutions to crises. Is economics a science that hasn’t evolved enough, one that has evolved too quickly, or are their other factors that keep smart people from coming to even a general consensus?

Since economics is not an exact science (if it is a science at all) there exist a lot of opinions, ideas and therefore different “schools” and personal beliefs and ideologies. How could it be otherwise?

Many of the big ideas in economics, like Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage and Smith’s idea on the gains from specialization and division of labor, are hundreds of years old. Then something happened. As the 18th century Irish statesman Edmund Burke said: “The age of chivalry has gone: the age of economists, sophists and calculators has arrived.” Not much has happened since then except that now economics focuses on econometrics and statistics. After World War 2, mathematics was turned into an obsession where economists overemphasized techniques over ideas. But reality is a little bit too messy to be put into an equation. There is too much uncertainty. Too many factors and possible outcomes (see more about this in part three of my book). As Keynes said: “Too large a proportion of recent “mathematical” economics are mere concoctions, as imprecise as the initial assumptions they rest on, which allow the author to lose sight of the complexities and interdependencies of the real world in a maze of pretentious and unhelpful symbols.”

Their models may be rigorous but the key is whether they are useful. Is it physics envy? I would characterize it more as mathematics envy. Physicists are more empirical. Economists imitate mathematicians in their effort to try to prove theorems. It is more applied mathematics than science. Furthermore, economists often forget side effects, as they call it, meaning effects they didn’t foresee or didn’t want to think about. But as Buffett has said over and over again: “The most important question in economics is, “And then what?”

Let me end with Keynes again:

"I also want to emphasise strongly the point about economics being a moral science. I mentioned before that it deals with introspection and with values. I might have added that it deals with motives, expectations, psychological uncertainties. One has to be constantly on guard against treating the material as constant and homogeneous. It is as though the fall of the apple to the ground depended on the apple's motives, on whether it is worth while falling to the ground, and whether the ground wanted the apple to fall, and on mistaken calculations on the part of the apple as to how far it was from the center of the earth."

Several books have come out within the past year, such as OutliersTalent is Overrated, and The Talent Code, which discuss the concept of greatness and the process it takes to achieve it. They basically say that the key to achieving greatness is a very specific kind of really hard work, or deliberate (or deep) practice, assuming one is in a position to perform that kind of deliberate practice (which is often a factor of luck and culture). Can you comment on the kind of deliberate practice activities you think: (1) makes a great investor; (2) it takes to be an overall great thinker? Also, can you give an example of the type of work you put in when trying to master a particular mental model?

Please, tell me the secret formula on how to get rich, be the best thinker, lose weight, have a happy marriage and solve all my problems quickly. There are no secret formulas or shortcuts and beware of the articulate incompetents and false prophets – they sound impressive and clever but lack substance. I can only refer to what Buffett said in the foreword to Poor Charlie’s Almanack: “From 1733 to 1758, Ben Franklin dispensed useful and timeless advice through Poor Richard's Almanack. Among the virtues extolled were thrift, duty, hard work, and simplicity.” Of course, Munger’s views on how to get worldly wisdom help.

Personally, I read a lot. I have to work things out for myself to understand them. I try to use the “see one, do one, teach one” approach used in medical education (but change it to “do many” and in multiple situations and over time). I often go from reality (something I have seen) to find answers among ideas. I don’t try to fit reality to an idea. And then I try to find more examples on an idea from reality. Finally, I try to explain it to someone else. Writing Seeking Wisdom was such an exercise – I forced myself to learn by teaching someone else. And reading Feynman at an early point helped me where I clearly learnt the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing what goes on since knowledge is only valuable if it’s useful and something is only useful if I understand what it means. What I in my book called meaning and asking, “what happens?”

I try to concentrate on learning practical and consequential things that can help me reduce the chance of sorrow.

When you talk about deliberate practice or working on what you’re bad at, just remember this Munger quote: “Each of you will have to figure out where your talents lie. And you’ll have to use your advantages. But if you try to succeed in what you’re worst at, you’re going to have a very lousy career. I can almost guarantee it. To do otherwise, you'd have to buy a winning lottery ticket or get very lucky somewhere else.” Also, as Munger said, what often causes greatness or a Lollapalooza is when many factors work together in the same direction (as in the case of Buffett).

In a recent interview with Bill Gates and his father, the elder Gates mentioned two traits that he thought really described his son’s success: curiosity and hard work. An intense curiosity has also been used to describe so many of the great minds throughout history, such as Ben Franklin, Darwin, Einstein, Feynman, among many others (including Buffett and Munger). Can you describe what you’re currently curious about? And is there anything you became more curious about while curiously writing your book?

I have a peculiar kind of mind that is continuously curious. Especially on things that relate to human nature and the brain in all its colors. For example, one thing that presently fascinates me is the workings of placebo and nocebo. And isn’t this fascinating – after you have read this you will never be the same. Not that my answers will have any dramatic impact but I am talking about the fact that all experiences modify the brain.

When I wrote Seeking Wisdom, I got more curious about DNA-testing and diagnostic screening and the uncertainties involved.

I have been reading a lot about the ancients and their wisdom lately. On and off I write on a memo for my children and myself. I call it “THE WISDOM SEEKER: Uncommon Sense from the Ancients to Munger.” It is about a man who wants to become wiser and visits a place I call “The Library of Wisdom.” In the library he meets and learns from wise people like Cicero, Newton, Einstein, Munger, etc. Reading ancient history has reinforced the notion that people’s behavior stays the same. As the saying goes - "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" or the more things change, the more they stay the same - just different actors.

I believe Charlie Munger has mentioned that if he could live another lifetime, he may spend most of it trying to fix the education system. I know it is a complex and detailed subject, one that Bill Gates said in a recent interview is his hardest one to solve, but could you give a couple of things that you think schools, on any level, should do better?

What do we need to teach? A preparation for real life; that is [composed of] useful knowledge of practical consequence, not recitation of facts. The purpose of education is not to fill the minds of students with facts – it is to teach them to think, and to think for themselves. To quote James Clerk Maxwell: “It is very necessary that those who are trying to learn from books the facts of physical science should be enabled to recognize these facts when they meet them out-of-doors.”

We need to learn some general and time-tested principles. Any theory or model that doesn’t work in practical reality should be banned. Practical applications are key. If what a student learns isn’t tied to reality, he cannot possibly remember what he has learned. And then a student needs to practice what he learnt.

Any educational experience must also tell stories – teach from real life situations from the experiences of others. We don’t pay attention to boring things. To quote Horace Mann: “A teacher who is attempting to teach without inspiring the pupil with a desire to learn is hammering on a cold iron.” We need more drama in class and more stories on failures, before we make them ourselves. Like the air flight simulator but when it is complemented with pilots hearing from other pilots (stories) who failed in real life. The U.S. Army conducts “After Action Reviews” that enable participants to analyze, discuss, and learn from both the successes and failures of a variety of military initiatives. Hospitals use "Morbidity and Mortality" conferences (in which physicians convene to discuss significant mistakes or unexpected deaths) as a forum for identifying, discussing, and learning from failures. And when a plane crashes, investigators retrieve the flight recorder and try to find out what went wrong. Why doesn’t academia learn more from failures?

Instead of teaching formulas to solve problems, wouldn’t it be better to teach the student the art of thinking and where to look for answers to various problems? And wouldn’t it be better to teach students that most of life’s problems have no easy solutions? And to teach them to learn to know when they know something and when they don’t?

Of course, I may be totally wrong. Like Cicero said: “No one can speak well, unless he thoroughly understands his subject.”

Have you come across any big ideas, in any field of study, within the last couple of years that have altered some of your previously held beliefs, or reinforced those that you already had?

One thing that has been reinforced is how hard it is to change people’s opinions or beliefs. On the other hand, this is understandable. As the author Jacob Braude said: “Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you’ll understand what little chance you have of trying to change others.” The lesson? It is better to avoid situations where we need to change people. Also, in the end, each of us has to respect that others may disagree with us.

Also, how quick we are in drawing conclusions. For example, I am often too quick in being judgmental and forget how I myself behaved or would have behaved if put in another person’s shoes.

Another thing that has been reinforced is how much uncertainty and randomness there is in the world. But what also has been reinforced – especially during the financial crisis– is how hard it is to accept this. I am referring to our hate of uncertainty and the unknown or our strong psychological need a) for control of what will happen to us, b) for reasons why something happened and c) to know what will happen in the future.There is a poem by Miroslav Holub that well illustrates our need of a map of hope – a sense of control so uncertainty is reduced:

Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, who knew a lot about maps according to which life is on its way somewhere or other, told us this story from the war due to which history is on its way somewhere or other:

The young lieutenant of a small Hungarian detachment in the Alps sent a reconnaissance unit out into the icy wasteland.

It began to snow immediately, snowed for two days and the unit did not return. The lieutenant suffered: he had dispatched his own people to death.

But the third day the unit came back.

Where had they been? How had they made their way?

Yes, they said, we considered ourselves lost and waited for the end. And then one of us found a map in his pocket. That calmed us down.

We pitched camp, lasted out the snowstorm and then with the map we discovered our bearings.

And here we are.

The lieutenant borrowed this remarkable map and had a good look at it. It was not a map of the Alps but of the Pyrenees.

Personally, I try to improve my understanding of what really can be explained or usefully predicted and what can’t. And sometimes finding an answer doesn’t mean anything or doesn’t lead to a rational course of action.

Can you describe the importance of skepticism in this world? It seems that it is so easy to fall for a good story and fall for the sensemaking trap described in your book. Do you have any red flags or checklists you use in these situations? I think you may have touched on one in our previous interview: Why should I believe this? – Show me the evidence + Compared to what?

First of all, I try to follow Pascal’s philosophy – only be skeptical about matters that really can hurt me if I’m wrong. So by this, I eliminate a lot – I don’t even think about it. Second, I try to learn how to recognize crap, including my own. There are many things I don’t do or think about – elimination is a great conservator of effort.

Generally, keep it simple and use some filters. Some questions I ask myself: Is it important? If yes, is it knowable? If yes, is this within my circle of competence? Which of course assumes that I know what I know and can do, and what I don’t know and can’t do. Otherwise I exclude and throw it in to too hard pile. If within, then, any testable argument should be tested – What is the evidence? Can I disprove it? Compared to what (including negative cases and non-events)? Randomness content? If I believe this, what would follow? What would I have to check out? What ideas can help me? I wrote more about this in part three of my book.

Take medicine and research as an example where my skepticism has increased. For example, there is a great article by John Ioannidis - Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.


Montaigne best illustrates another “filter” - assumptions are useful but only to the extent that they are valid: “I realize that if you ask people to account for ‘facts’, they usually spend more time finding reasons for them than finding out whether they are true… They skip over the facts but carefully deduce inferences. They normally begin thus: 'How does this come about?' But does it do so? That is what they ought to be asking.”

Also regarding making comparisons, take Robyn Dawes’ discussion on the crash of Western Airlines Flight 903. He says that to find out the cause of the crash, we have to compare the crash with cases where no accidents happen. For example, just because pilots are often tired before a crash doesn't give us any insights if it is important, unless we know they are often not tired before a safe landing. (There is a good interview with Dawes called, Ethics, science, and the helping professions: a conversation with Robyn Dawes.)


In our previous interview, you gave a great list of books from which you learned a lot. Which books have you read in the last couple of years that you have also learned a lot from and can recommend for our readers?

I read so many books but to mention a few I liked. The Strategist by Robert Dodge - about the Game Theorist Thomas Schelling. The Electric Life of Michael Faradayby Alan Hirshfeld. Niall Ferguson’s The Ascent of MoneyThe Choice by Eliyahu Goldratt, Brain Rules by John Medina. Joshua Cooper Ramo’s The Age of the Unthinkable, and The Match King by Frank Partnoy. The most recent book I read was The Invisible Hook by Peter Leeson. It’s about pirates. It clearly showed that there was honor among thieves. Rules, incentives and disincentives were needed for proper functioning. As you can see I read all kind of books. It’s fun!

Finally let me end with some wise words from the Greek historian Herodotus: “If a man insisted always on being serious, and never allowed himself a bit of fun and relaxation, he would go mad or become unstable without knowing it.”

Many Thanks and I wish you and your readers a happy, healthy and prosperous life.

May 31, 2009

Peter Bevelin