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: 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):
Cialdini Robert B., Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
Darwin Francis (editor), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters
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?)
Feynman Richard, The Character of Physical Law and The Meaning of it All: Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist
Hardin Garrett, Filters Against Folly: How to Survive Despite Economists, Ecologists, and the Merely Eloquent
Lowenstein Roger, Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist
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 emphasize 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 Outliers, Talent 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?
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
