Business
Evolution is scalable: the DNA that wins (whether by luck or survival advantage) will reproduce itself, like a bestselling book or a successful record, and become pervasive, widespread and general. Other DNA will vanish. Let me give you 3 practical examples that shows in a nutshell what I mean: First example, take google control more than 80% of traffic online Microsoft control more than 80% of PC, LAPTOPS and other device produce out there ,Facebook, twitter are the behemoth of social media with close to 90% of the lion share This by the way Is the reason why I always say – history is written by the winners, the visible, the salient Second example: Take a marketer or a consultant who launches an online course, with 100 000 people on his/her list as base line. At the end of the course the expert will take performance of the top 10 or 20 are now very successful which here is called the survivorship bias- the rest will end up in the graveyard. Third Example: In the arts—say the cinema—things are far more vicious. What we call "talent" generally comes from success, rather than its opposite. A great deal of empiricism has been done on the subject, most notably by Art De Vany, an insightful and original thinker who single-mindedly studied wild uncertainty in the movies – wild uncertainty is also call the complex domain or the unpredictable domain. He showed that, sadly, much of what we ascribe to skills is an after-the-fact attribution. The movie makes the actor, he claims—and a large dose of nonlinear luck makes the movie. The success of movies depends severely on contagions. Such contagions do not just apply to the movies: they seem to affect a wide range of cultural products- such as books, online courses. It is hard for us to accept that people do not fall in love with works of art only for their own sake, but also in order to feel that they belong to a community. By imitating, we get closer to others—that is, Other imitators. It fights solitude in the meantime as we hate solitude and crave society, as nature draws men to each other, so in this matter also there is an attraction which makes us desirous of friendship. When you start buying a best seller in London because you heard it hits the New York bestseller list, you are no longer independent- you are subjected to interdependence. First: The kernel point of my thoughts is – you cannot understand a group of persons, or a nation-party by from the observation of the behaviour of a single individual. Why because the market is not driven by the average- it is driven by people plus interaction- therefore you cannot really see how things aggregate by studying individual behaviour. This is the reason why I recommend those of you who haven’t listen or watch “When lightening hit, we do not change the laws of nature” and by the way Second, we are more likely to mistake skills with convex luck than convex luck with skills explain just as certain objects which are perfectly straight, when sunk in water appear to the watcher as bent or broken off.[15] It matters not only what you see, but with what eyes you see it; our minds are too dull of vision to perceive the truth. By the way …………. not which is the title of the next episode For more clarity : with skills in the Mediocrestan, you're going to be very successful, have a happy life, be upper middle class, probably, you know, you're going to definitely do very well with skills in Mediocrestan, because the link between action and reward is going to be very visible, and you know what to do. In Extremistan, skills are often necessary but highly insufficient, you see? So if you're a writer, you need to, you know, be able to compose sentences. You need - you can have all the ingredients, yet fail because "Harry Potter" is going to take the shelf space and you're going to be, you know, out of print and people are not even going to notice your existence, you see or someone like Tony Robbins,Rich Shefren Brendon Burchard? So because Extremistan, one person wins everything. There's a much higher dose of luck in Extremistan. Third: Clearly people may discuss a book because 1) they heard about it, 2) their friends like it, 3) they are genuinely impressed with it. The first two are extrinsic reasons and seem to partake of general social contagion effects. The latter is intrinsic