Search Episodes
Listen, Share, & Support
Listen to the latest episode
Subscribe via iTunes
Subscribe via RSS
Become a fan
Follow on Twitter

Support Us:

Please consider making a donation to help make this podcast possible. Any contribution, great or small, helps tremendously!

 
Subscribe to E-Mail Updates

Related Readings
  • Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    by Massimo Pigliucci
Sunday
May132018

RS 208 - Annie Duke on "Thinking in bets"

Release date: May 13th, 2018

Annie Duke

This episode features Annie Duke, former pro poker player and author of the book Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don’t Have All the Facts. Julia and Annie debate why people tend to ignore the role of luck in their decisions, whether expressing uncertainty makes you seem weak, and how people end up engaging in "defensive decision-making," where they're not trying to make the best call so much as simply avoid being blamed for bad outcomes.

Annie's Book: Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don’t Have All the Facts

David French at The National Review

Edited by Brent Silk

Music by Miracles of Modern Science

 

Full Transcripts 

Reader Comments (2)

That people judge outcomes and not strategies may explain why so many investment managers buy exactly the same stocks. If everyone else buys Apple, and Apple fails, it looks much better for the investment manager than if that same manager bought some obscure company that then failed. However, this has an ironic side effect that tends to almost guarantee the under performance of investment mangers. When too many investors copy each other and all buy the same stocks, those stocks start to trade at a significant premium to their inherent value, measured in price / earnings, revenue growth, financial strength, and so forth. Thus, these seemingly risk adverse professional investors who choose to copycat each other actually overpay for stocks given the risk reward ratio of a particular investment. I wonder if this may explain why 85% of mutual fund managers under perform the S&P 500.

Indeed, David French generally writes and thinks really well.
May 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJameson
thanks for your content

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.