Yeah, according to the author I guess Einstein was "winging it" too.
Perhaps it's useful to distinguish between "entrepreneurial" success-stories and achievements like Einstein's
But he doesn't stop there:
Even Fortune 500 CEOs, Nobel Prize winners, and U.S. presidents — all are really good at winging it.
Proclaiming Nobel Prize winners in fields like Chemistry or Physics are "winging it" is, frankly, uninformed and insulting.
I can't speak for Mint, but Scott Cook (who founded Intuit) was definitely winging it:
I'm afraid I don't follow. You're saying Warren Buffet, arguably the greatest investor of all time, doesn't know how he became successful? Or that some random chance gave him his uncanny investment insight? If that's the case why should we bother trying to control our lives at all? Why don't we just walk around with our eyes shut and hope luck drops into our lap?
Yes.
Or that some random chance gave him his uncanny investment insight?
Possibly. The point is neither we, nor he, know.
[W]hy should we bother trying to control our lives at all?
A good question. Without getting into philosophical questions of free will, I suspect the pragmatic answer is that there is at least a weak correlation between the publicized 'formula' for success and actual success, for the same reason that most lottery winners are repeat buyers. By doing something, you expose yourself to fate. And generally, any activity we can afford to keep doing will at least permit us to make a living, which is the outcome for most. After all, we can't all be Warren Buffet---not even the Warren Buffets of the world.
What is the publicized formula for success?
By doing something, you expose yourself to fate.
There are millions that do something with the stock market every week. Why is Warren Buffet the only one with his level of investment success?
Generally something along the lines of 'work hard, work smart, be persistent.'
Why is Warren Buffet the only one with his level of investment success?
No one knows; that's the point of the article. It could be pure chance. Put 1000 people in a room and have them each flip a coin for double or nothing, and in the end you will likely have a person who has made 1000x their original investment. Should we laud the winner's coin-flipping ability?
To answer your question, no, we don't laud the winner's coin flipping ability, because, in the absence of cheating, the person's actions and decisions don't influence the outcome. All participants have an exactly equal chance at being the end winner, and nothing will change that. However, some savvy investors, like Warren Buffet, are able to ensure they win over others using the stock market; the difference being that their decision making does directly influence whether they "win" or "lose".
It seems to me you're suggesting investors could use coin flipping to make all investment decisions, and that makes as much sense as trying to decide by other means, since they don't know what they are doing anyway. Correct?
[Y]ou're suggesting investors could use coin flipping to make all investment decisions, and that makes as much sense as trying to decide by other means...
I'm not suggesting it, but now that you mention it there are some studies that do. I suspect there are real investment skills that can be learned and applied, much the same way a blackjack card counter gains a small edge that can be exploited over time.
Let me rephrase the question: Would you give Warren Buffet credit for his investment success?
he has to decide to keep playing
You said "in the end" which I took to mean the coin flipping would continue until only one winner remained of the 1000.
and he has to decide whether to call heads or tails
To ensure we are imagining the same crucial parameters let me clarify these points: first, the coin itself is not biased in any way; second, the flipping action is not biased; it could be carried out by a mechanized flipper, for example; third, the choice of heads or tails is always made before the flip. Under these circumstances the actual calling of heads or tails does not matter. The caller will always have exactly a 50% chance of winning and losing.
I suspect there are real investment skills that can be learned and applied, much the same way a blackjack card counter gains a small edge that can be exploited over time
Well, that's the first thing you've said I can easily agree with. Yes, I certainly believe, given enough time, Warren Buffet could teach someone to follow his methodology to have nearly identical success. So which is it? Is Warren Buffet someone who knows what he's doing or not?
For making a good living, yes; I think that much was in his control. For becoming a billionaire? No, there were far too many variables involved that were not within his control.
I certainly believe, given enough time, Warren Buffet could teach someone to follow his methodology to have nearly identical success.
I think Warren Buffet could teach someone to have some success, I don't believe he could teach someone to be a billionaire because becoming a billionaire depends in large part on chance. Most professional card counters never became rich either, they just made a good living.
You seem to be viewing the article as discouraging, while I see it as encouraging. While it means that much of our prospects for success are beyond our control, for the most part we have as good a chance as anyone, so get out there and do something.
Well, yes, I can agree nobody can completely know or control the future. One may become terminally ill, or the Earth may be hit by a meteor at any time. However, that was not the argument made by the author. It was that none of us knows what we're doing. He seems to suggest we have little control over the outcomes which we do see, saying things like Nobel Prize winners are "winging it", as if they have the same understanding as anyone else (in this case none) when it comes to their expertise. I find that highly disconcerting.
If we imagine a chess match, where we know the duration will be a few hours, and the fitness of the players will not be compromised for the game duration, we can understand the winning or losing outcome is entirely in the hands of the players. If we further imagine the best chess player in the world accepts this match, and both players fully intend to win, if the best player wins would you agree it is because he (or she) does know what he (or she) is doing?
Similarly, in a championship chess match there will be points where even the most skilled player in the world may be uncertain as to which move is best. At those points, they too are winging it. If they intuitively make the best move without being able to fully explain why they are making it, does that not prove the author's point?
Now, the place where I believe we are in discord is those instances when we are less certain we are making the right choice. If I walk up to a roulette table and choose black rather than red, and happen to win, I am certainly winging it and agree with you and the author entirely. However, I say the best chess player in the world would be able to tell you exactly why he (or she) made every move. They won't know with 100% certainty whether any given move is best, but they do know the logical mental progression taken to arrive at their choice, since they know strategy and likely outcomes. Similarly, Nobel Prize winning economists or physicists in large part know exactly what they are doing, for example, when driving home, and when working mathematical calculations. Our disagreement is over those rarer occasions when they are less certain of the correct choice. You seem to say it's the same as a 50% coin toss in these cases, and they are winging it. I firmly disagree. While they can't know with 100% certainty which choice is correct, they can know what is more likely correct (and why they believe so), and that is what separates them -- and Warren Buffet, and chess masters -- from everyone else.
The shorter answer to your question boils down to whether or not the winning caller used known information about the bias to his advantage. If he did, yes, he deserves some amount less than full credit -- fate will ultimately decide -- but more than zero credit, which would be in the case of a non-biased 50/50 choice. Also, I feel compelled to say I do believe Warren Buffet made the majority of his investment decisions on a mental certainty of far greater than 60% (unless the stake was quite small). One of the things about Warren Buffet's strategy is he buys for the long term, so, even if he's wrong in the short term, he won't sell. The company would practically have to go out of business for him to lose. The chance of that for companies he invests in is very slim.