Weekend Wars: Outliers vs. Outliers
I'm ambivalent towards Malcolm Gladwell's definition of an outlier . Better yet, I have always thought an interesting argument to exist between the best-selling book's two major points.
What is better to possess in abundance, luck or skill?
Gladwell uses the "10,000 hour formula" as his definition of what it takes to succeed in a given field, industry or lifestyle choice.
Want to be a BSD? Play with your allowance for 5 hours per day after school for 8 years and you'll have that hedge fund role out of undergrad you guys are always asking about.
Gladwell also addresses the issue of timing, winning the sperm lottery or just simply being in the right place at the right time. Examples such as J.D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates and others clearly show that even though talent is an unavoidable ingredient in the success mix, simply coming along at the right moment in history can be equally if not more important.
In my experience I have definitely seen both work. Though I would argue that those who worked harder and "failed all the way to success" enjoyed it a whole lot less than those who rode the warm wave ashore.
Who's with me?
Can you think of a time when you thought it would be better to be lucky than good?
I usually can't stand your post 3M, as they are wayy to long to leisurely read. This ones not too bad, and straight to the point without being too redundant.
I think it is always better to be lucky than smart/skillful. I think the 10,000 hours thing is total BS, there are several examples where this does not apply, and is open to so much statistical interpretation/argurments. I think it's all about hunger and making your own opportunities when there are none around. It's all about speaking well, being articulate, and being passionate about something, with the latter being the most important.
Look at Sidney Weinburg, a man with no formal education that went to the biggest building in Wall Street to look for a job. He went through every floor asking for work until GS, which was a relatively no-name firm, offered him a low level janitor/mail-room/runner position. He is undoubtedly the most personable person in the history of Wall Street and a great example.
Could this happen today?
Yes I believe this could happen 100%, It is likely, hell we have a black president and the most popular people in american are reality stars from New Jersey. Anything is truly possible, albeit not very likely. If someone had to BALLS, work ethic, and personality to do what he did, then of course it can happen. But kids these days are soft, not willing to take risk for something they want, and an unfortunate casualty of private school education and commercial television.
Disclaimer: I find absolutely nothing wrong with private schools or television, except for the fact that it makes kids soft.
Shame you don't have the patience for my garble, you would find we share the same perspective on things.
I disagree with your specific example, though I see it comes from a place of good intent. Goldman was still a private company back then and the era of relationship banking was (perhaps) at its apex. The skills Sid exhibited (and the ones you are championing) are very admirable, however, it is questionable that they are welcome in today's IB universe. Also, getting on a trading floor today without a hard quant degree is very difficult, partially because there are few actual pits remaining, partially due to the automatizing of trading, in general. To consider anyone without a bachelor's getting beyond MO at a BB is stretching it quite a bit for the reality of today's business practices.
Disclaimer: I do find absolutely everything wrong with private schools and television, precisely because they make kids soft.
I will start putting a little more time into reading your post from here on out. That was the only example I could think of, I never look up information for WSO post, just take them from what I know. I do think that relationship banking has been on the downfall for quite some time, maybe even nonexistent in todays business world. You are correct about trading, but I have seen crazier things happen. There are some things that absolutely defy all logic and far surpass anything statistics can measure; we'll call them statistical anomalies. The stars will always shine, unless they are lazy as hell, which would discount them from being stars anyways.
I agree on the disclaimer, I just hate how people approach these forums with trolling and degrading people. I am here to help anyone that needs advice and don't wish to make enemies, hence the disclaimer.
No worries, man. Care to share one of the "crazier things"? Sometimes the newer guys don't know what to ask. Always good to throw up something that might inspire an underdog. I've definitely seen more than one person quit. IMHO it's very much a function of our feminized approach to rearing young males. Precisely the reason I go on rant mode so often. Mental toughness and persistence trump all talent and skill. Shamefully, it seems that it is these virtues becoming the ultimate outliers.
I'm gonna have to jump in and say I disagree about the possibility of this happening today and I think we need only look to our Esteemed Resident Curmudgeon Mr. Braverman to see this. This was a guy with no education beyond HS but had military experience, documented returns in the market etc. He went to smaller, regional type banks looking for work and was shut down cold. Yes, he was able to get in at a bucket shop and do very well for himself, but that's not really what were addressing.
With the street today that is more concerned with your lineage and the name on your resume than your skills, it would be seemingly impossible for this to occur. How would it play out? First of all, you have to get into the building. This is rather easily accomplished but not a cake walk either. Then you have to knock on doors of people that can actually hire you without any of them saying 'No' and calling security to escort you out. Then, you would have to find someone who would listen etc. I could go on but you get the idea.
I also think the 10,000 hours idea is retarded. Think about a guy that started investing in 1992 and basically just farted around for 8 years to the early to mid part of 2000. To everyone without knowledge or experience, it would look like this guy could manage some serious returns. But, going back to your basic question about luck and timing etc. you would have to say that these two factor had a much bigger impact than any real skill. Of course there were companies that went tits up during this time but from 1992 to 2000, the DOW was up 237.5% in that time (from 3,235.47 Jan 2, 1992 to 10,921.91 Jan 3, 2000).
I kind got off the point there for a minute but in summary: there is no conceivable way for this to happen today (Hell, guys from good schools with good resumes get punted out the door on a daily basis) and the 10,000 hours rule is silly.
Luck is definitely a huge factor. People like to think that any success they experience is all due to their hard work, education, etc...and don't/can't admit that luck was a major component. There is a Thomas Jefferson quote I really like: "I am a believer in luck. I find that the harder I work, the more of it I have".
Education, hard work, and so forth puts you in a position to benefit from random/lucky situations you may come across. Nassim Taleb (Black Swan) talks about buying "lotto tickets"... I believe that going to a good college, working hard, networking, getting an advanced degree, are all lotto tickets...without them, you virtually have no chance at a big payoff.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Agreed
The 10,000 hour to mastery thing makes complete sense.
Think about how many hours we put into modeling, excel, powerpoint, interviews, etc. until we have it mastered.
A musician is another great example. The ones who are the best are usually the ones who put in the ridiculous amounts of practice hours into it.
There are many more great examples in Mr. Gladwell's book....
Random segue...
Just went for beer with my boy. Got served by most "Plain Jane" bartender ever....HOWEVER...she:
1) smiled genuinely
2) made football game related conversation and noted Wade Phillips losing quite a bit of weight over recent years
3) asked my buddy (who I referenced having to drive several times) if he needed water as we were leaving
resulting in:
Me remembering her in positive light and wanting to return to location, because of her...something that cannot be said for the 10 that served us last night and the 9.5 from Friday night.
QUESTION:
Did "Plain Jane" exhibit:
a) skill
b) talent
c) luck
Why or why not?
How can this situation be interpreted for success and then applied by prospective monkey ?
Was this an outlier?
Perhaps the outlier is you in that you in that you choose to return to this bar b/c of the plain jane bartender??
With respect to the 10,000 hours thing...i certainly dont think you can quantify in absolute terms the # of hours to become a master at something...but the level of mastery will certainly increase with the actual hours. Galdwell's other book "Blink" talks about thinking with your subconscious. I think that when you have truly mastered something, you can do it at a very high level without even thinking about what you are doing. Golf is a perfect example...I'm by no means a great golfer...but I was down to a 3 handicap when i was in college. When i played well, i played by feel. I didnt need to think about adjusting my stance, grip, swing path, to hit a fade/draw. When i walked up to the ball, i knew they type of shot I wanted to hit and just swung.
She did her job right, that was the outlier in my view.
As for Gladwell's "Blink" I think it repeats the same pro's/con's of his other books. Namely, he picks a great topic with a lot of potential avenues for exploration, then he beats home the same stupid points. "Thin-slicing" sounded great until he started babbling about how Amadou Diallo was right and those ridiculous "center cut bacon slab slicing" cops needed to read his mind better...trying to give another angle to your golf reference.
a - Yes, smiling at a ugly ass mofos who are wasted as **** is hard work
b- Yes, it is hard for a women to make it out of back kitchen right to front kitchen with mostly liquor must of networked networked networked REMEMBER MONKEYS ITS ALL ABOUT NETWORKING
c - Yes, she was serving a baller ass investment banker the closest thing this girl will every get to such a high quality of prestige i'm surprised she didn't blow you right there shit man 1235 bananas WHO WOULDN'T BE LUCKY TO BE BY YOU
"How can this situation be interpreted for success and then applied by prospective monkey ? "
Even if you have tight jeans double d's make a man go phew phew aka just "plain Jane" you will still get ranked based on looks in a scale of 9-10 !~!~BUT~!~! like those non target kids who make it into banking the MD(customer) WILL REMEMBER YOU !!!
hillarity
Provident et in aut delectus sit. Voluptates voluptas occaecati vel natus. Maiores ea hic provident possimus blanditiis sint accusantium culpa.
Voluptas nemo enim voluptatum sed qui perferendis. Expedita mollitia aut eveniet quas cumque quas. Non est consequatur et qui dolorem ducimus. Ducimus aliquid et esse consequuntur qui at. Totam voluptas tenetur sint iste aut. Sed error consequatur amet sit rerum et consequatur.
Sapiente quibusdam explicabo architecto et asperiores doloribus debitis. Autem voluptatem dolores sed. Natus magnam aut debitis est quibusdam. Magnam officia voluptate sunt delectus enim adipisci. Voluptatibus quis voluptatibus dolorem. Dolorem itaque est velit omnis incidunt.
Aperiam voluptatem saepe aliquam quibusdam animi. Quaerat magni modi repellat perferendis. Nihil dicta libero quidem rem deleniti architecto aperiam. Quaerat maxime repellat ut non quibusdam. Ut impedit rerum tempora.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...