During WWII, the Allies were dropping bombs on German cities like there was no tomorrow.
The Germans, not too thrilled about that, shot back at Allied bombers.
So, preventing bomber losses was crucial for the Allies.
The chances of a single bomber crew member making it from the beginning of the war to the end of the war were a coin flip, 50/50.
The Allies needed armour.
But where to put it?
More armour meant a heavier bomber, leading to higher fuel costs and reduced range.
They studied bombers that made it back from enemy territory, recording where they had taken the most damage.
A pattern emerged.
Bullet holes clustered along the wings, tail gunner, and center body.
Naturally, commanders wanted to armour these spots.
Makes sense, right?
What they saw was a bullet mark pattern.
Over and over again, bullet holes tended to accumulate on the edges along the wings, around the tail gunner, and down the center of the body.
Naturally, commanders wanted to armor these spots.
No brainer, right?
But Abraham Wald, a great statistician at the Statistical Research Group, didn't agree.
"To a worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."- Malcolm Gladwell
They weren't looking at the whole picture.
They were only studying bombers that came back.
They missed the ones that didn’t.
The bullet holes showed where the planes were toughest.
The surviving bombers were hit in these spots and still made it back.
They were the 'survivors'.
The planes that didn’t return?
They got hit elsewhere.
It was the rest of the plane that actually needed reinforcement.
Wald saved the day by pointing out survivorship bias.
And in doing so, he helped turn the tide of the war.
So, what does this have to do with you?
More than you think.
In ‘Naked Statistics’ by Charles Wheelan, he digs into how people can twist stats to fit their story, but the real crime?
When they straight-up 'lie with data', using messed-up methods that churn out bogus info.
By concentrating on the people or things that made it through some selection process, you overlook those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility.
This skews your judgment and lead to over-optimistic analysis of a situation.
I hope the question that bubbles up in your mind when you think about this is: "Could I be making this kind of mistake?"
The answer is: "YES, you are."
You make these mistakes every day.
You've probably made it even today and you're probably making it right now.
Think about it:
“This guy's been running on a treadmill for a year and looks in shape…maybe I should try it.”
“Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Oprah, Spielberg, and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college and became millionaires, so will I.”
“Look at all these hipster cafes packed with people…let’s open one immediately.”
“Half the people I know have this phone and love it…I should get one too.”
“This must be an excellent school; two founders at work went there and look where they are now.”
“That new approach works well for them, so let’s implement it here.”
“I know I’m good. I asked my clients, and they all said they like me.”
"Most of our gym members dig the current membership pricing, so why mess with other pricing models?"
“For every wealthy start-up founder, there are 100 other entrepreneurs who end up with only a cluttered garage.”-David Cowan
Like Wald, you need to remove your blinders.
Understand survivorship bias.
It’s key to becoming a sharper, more critical thinker.
If you only learn from 'survivors,' your knowledge will be incomplete.
When looking for advice, look for what NOT to do, for what is missing.
Failures hold crucial information.
If they become invisible, you'll pay more attention to successes.
And you’ll miss out on the full picture.
PS. Like what you’re reading here? Well, you have three choices really.
1. Get more stories straight to your inbox. Subscribe in the page footer below.
3. When you are ready to level up, hire me.
Comentarios