00:00hi everyone welcome to the Asics insi
00:02podcast I'm sonal today's episode is
00:04based on a conversation we recorded
00:06previously with Ray Dalio
00:07author of the book principles life and
00:09work the book originated as an internal
00:12company document that was posted online
00:13years ago and has been shared widely
00:15since it was expanded and published as a
00:18book for a more general audience late
00:19last year Dahlia is a founder chairman
00:22and co-chief investment officer of
00:24Bridgewater associates one of the top
00:26private companies in the US which
00:28manages over 150 billion dollars and has
00:30made more money for clients than any
00:32other hedge fund and so also join him to
00:34host this conversation is a six NC
00:36General Partner Alex rampell who covers
00:38our FinTech vertical among others
00:40together we discuss with Ray many of the
00:42themes of the book from the vantage
00:43point of VC and small startups to big
00:46company culture to just overall self
00:48development which is why this episode is
00:50also part of a broader ongoing series on
00:53you'll hear Alex's voice first where we
00:55begin with the origin story of the
00:57chicken nugget so I love the book and I
01:01told my kids I do this every morning
01:02what am i doing for the day and I didn't
01:05know how to describe this myself my
01:06eight-year-old you helped invent the
01:08chicken nugget I'm glad you told me that
01:10because I can use that with my
01:11four-year-old grandson when he gets my
01:14eight year old loves chicken nuggets
01:16like I actually have tricked him into
01:18thinking that McDonald's is normally
01:19closed it's like oh it's closed on
01:21Sunday oh it's closed on Saturday it's
01:22like he goes for his birthday because
01:24otherwise he'd want to go every day so I
01:25was like you know actually the guy today
01:26invented the chicken nugget was like did
01:27you know I actually didn't really invent
01:29it but he was responsible for the
01:31introduction so he was very very excited
01:32actually you want to know if you could
01:33sign or give him a chicken well I mean I
01:37mean I don't really you didn't actually
01:38invent the chicken like that because all
01:42of a sudden be all over the media and
01:43people who have dietary problems will
01:46sue me or something and you know how
01:47this go anyway what happened at the time
01:49I contributed to the economic risk of
01:53being able to come out with the trick in
01:55McNugget because it came out at a time
01:57when there was a lot of commodity price
01:59volatility and McDonald's wanted to come
02:02out with a Chicken McNugget but they
02:04couldn't lock in a price they couldn't
02:06guarantee that because the producers of
02:08the chicken wouldn't be able to contract
02:10forward those prices because their costs
02:13going up but I figured out that by the
02:16way this is in the old days of trading
02:18commodities and so on and mechanics of
02:20it were that there's a little chicken it
02:22doesn't cost much money and what really
02:24costs the money is the feed and up which
02:27is mostly corn and soybean meal and so
02:30there is a futures market in that so I
02:33went to the chicken maker and client
02:35that I had at the time and McDonald's
02:38and I told the chicken making client
02:40that they could put on these particular
02:42hedges so that they could sell a forward
02:45contract of that chicken at a fixed
02:47price to McDonald's so McDonald's could
02:49come out and have a fixed price and
02:51wouldn't have that price risk so that's
02:53what happened and what I like about that
02:54is I love the mechanics of the
02:56cause-effect relationships that you
02:58could then you know when one thing
03:00relates to another and so that was my
03:02Chicken McNugget story that's great
03:04because it's a great example of how when
03:05you break it down into analyzing it the
03:07result is more than the sum of its parts
03:09we're all eating chicken nuggets why I
03:10don't have vegetarian but your son eats
03:12them you can actually break down exactly
03:14this cause-effect relationship that
03:15you're talking about and why that
03:16matters so much for decision making
03:17right I know you've been not actually in
03:19a lot of different podcasts and so I
03:20don't spend too much time on this but
03:21just in a nutshell if you could
03:23summarize what principles is how would
03:26you sort of distill it like what is the
03:27point of principles I think everything
03:30happens over and over again and
03:31principles are a way of looking at
03:35things so that everything is viewed as
03:36like another one of those and when one
03:38of those comes along how do I deal with
03:41that successfully so for example there
03:43may be principles for skiing well put
03:45your weight on the downhill ski or
03:46something the big principles for
03:47parenting or whatever it is so it's a
03:50way of looking at things so that you see
03:52this thing coming over and over again
03:53and how do I successfully deal with my
03:56realities so I get what I want those are
03:59principles then I think everybody should
04:01have their own principles that they
04:02believe in it's not shouldn't be
04:03anybody's my principles are just
04:05happened to be my principles but from my
04:07experience and I recommend to everybody
04:09whenever I would encounter something I
04:12would write down the criteria I would
04:14use to make a decision so when the same
04:17thing happened again I could kind of
04:19refer to that and then it changed how I
04:22saw the world because everything just
04:23seemed like dealing with a particular
04:27in other words that rather than all this
04:28noise coming at me that's a whole bunch
04:30of different things I could say well if
04:33this is a doc and how do I deal with
04:35ducks or this is a species I haven't
04:37seen before and how do I deal with that
04:39it's like having a framework that you
04:41can look against and see this is
04:42different or similar to what I've seen
04:44yes and then by writing it down I was
04:47able to communicate with others so it
04:49got us in sync and then I was able to
04:52convert a lot of these two algorithms so
04:55that I was able to build a
04:56decision-making system so those are what
04:58principles are and I don't care where
05:00people get them this is my recipe book
05:03that I've accumulated over a period of
05:04time and then I'm just encouraging other
05:06people to pick their own so one of the
05:08things that I really admired reading the
05:10book was just how much you've been a
05:11student of history so for every cycle
05:14for everything that you've looked at in
05:16your career you were able to understand
05:17when it had happened before and in many
05:19cases when you thought it was new it
05:20actually had happened before because
05:21sometimes if you're standing on the
05:22upslope you don't even see it but you
05:24know I think one of the things that was
05:25really interesting reading about your
05:27journey knowing everything now that you
05:29know now and starting bridgewater 40
05:32years ago what order would you have done
05:34things enrolled things out because for
05:36many companies that are in the early
05:37stages when they don't have product
05:39market fit they don't have revenue they
05:40don't even know what they're doing going
05:42from zero to one from nothing to
05:44something that's often a different skill
05:47set than going from 1 to n and if you
05:49think about the team aspect of this when
05:51you're a team of two people you're
05:52probably radically transparent with each
05:54other it seems like a lot of information
05:57just flows osmotically so part of my
05:59question is how does it change from
06:02effectively the zero to one phase if you
06:04have two people three people as opposed
06:06to you have hundreds of people where
06:08decision making is actually hampered by
06:10lack of understanding different people's
06:12strengths and weaknesses how do you
06:14determine if you should listen to this
06:16person or that person how do you
06:18understand what people's principles are
06:20it becomes more important at that stage
06:22as opposed to early on if you really try
06:25just focusing on scaffolding before
06:27product you're gonna run out of money so
06:29I think you're asking two questions one
06:31when did I discover it and then secondly
06:34when would I do it right okay I
06:37discovered it by making mistakes and you
06:40particularly like in 1982 will you know
06:43that crash and whatever poll that got me
06:45thinkin differently so you know I was
06:47just figuring out how to do that at each
06:49of the stages it sounds like everything
06:51like you would have rolled that out of
06:53day zero because these all developed
06:54over time it wasn't like this so I was
06:57in even a worse position in that I
06:59didn't raise any capital so I had a
07:022-bedroom apartment I had a second
07:04bedroom right and it was me and my
07:05second bedroom really and I didn't raise
07:07capital but of course the nature of my
07:09business would I could get paid a fee
07:11but that's like earning some revenue or
07:13whatever it depends on whether you
07:14needed capital expenditures I needed it
07:16for a quote machine and things like that
07:17right but anyway back to the basics
07:20knowing what I don't know and how to
07:22deal with it is something that's always
07:24great even if there's not even a company
07:26right right like one of the things that
07:28I've observed over and over again is
07:30that everybody gets surprised about the
07:31thing that hasn't happened and before
07:33their lifetime yeah before we ever
07:35devalue the currency boom I had guessed
07:37this one on that one but everything has
07:39happened in history almost everything
07:42the way I look at it is almost like an
07:44upward pointing corkscrew you know these
07:47things go around and around but it's
07:48sort of pointing upward so that there is
07:51new what is how it is new repeat itself
07:54and you can start to look at that right
07:55so I think one has to be informed and
07:58take that perspective of it happening
08:01I mean I'll bet you dollars to donuts
08:03that almost anything that you're going
08:05to observe by and large has happened
08:08before in the past if you're informed of
08:11that not only does that allow you to
08:13think about those cases that are
08:15analogous but it also brings you to the
08:17fundamental understanding of why things
08:19might be different so you will still
08:21understand how reality works to produce
08:24the cause-effect relationships to get
08:26you to that point and that fundamental
08:28understanding is still valuable right
08:30right it's amazing in our business where
08:32there are all these people that are
08:33starting companies that don't remember
08:341999 B's they weren't born in 1999 and
08:37they don't understand what the concept
08:40of technology inflated bubbles look like
08:42and it's just that can't exist because
08:44it's never existed before but exactly as
08:46you said it's not before in their
08:47lifetime and some of these cycles like
08:49the longer term cycles that you talk
08:51about like most people haven't been
08:52around since the nineteen
08:54so for them to observe something and
08:57actually think that this actually
08:58happened before in history it's just not
08:59something that they're capable of
09:01I think of McKay's book extraordinary
09:03popular delusions and the madness of the
09:05crowds and it's about that phenomenon
09:07and that was written in 1640 something
09:09around there looking backwards and so on
09:11so that dynamic exists or today let's
09:14say populism okay so think of populism
09:17that's a phenomenon so you say okay what
09:19is the phenomenon of populism how does
09:21this thing grow and develop so once you
09:24start to think that way then it brings
09:26you into it and then I like to look at
09:29them late on top of each other so in
09:31other words let's take all of those
09:33cases and put them together and if
09:35they're if they have data associated
09:37with them let's say a bubble and then
09:38you just plot the data on top of each
09:40other so you could see each one unfold
09:42and then you can then say what is an
09:45archetypical one and then what is the
09:47deviations between that one archetypical
09:50and the others and can you explain that
09:52and then when you get the explanation
09:54then you get a rich understanding of the
09:56dynamic behind it it's a very effective
09:59way of making rules so this kind of
10:01making rules has been key to our
10:02investment perspective
10:04well except there's one big layer here
10:06which is we're talking about this arc of
10:07history and having that knowledge or the
10:09mistakes you made when you first came to
10:11your business because you didn't have
10:12experience and then you earned the
10:14experience the hard way but the theme
10:16that really resonated for me was the
10:19timing of it then actually making a
10:20decision on that information and data
10:22you've gathered whether it's from
10:23history or a personal experience because
10:25the other thing that resonated about
10:27your book is that it was also a matter
10:29of knowing we were too early on a lot of
10:31different things and in VC we talked
10:33about this all the time you can either
10:34be very early or very late it's all
10:37about timing being wrong and being
10:38earlier the same thing venture capital
10:40has a very very high latency loop you
10:43make a decision today you figure out if
10:44you're right or wrong in 10 years so for
10:47public markets you make a decision today
10:50you could figure out if you're right or
10:52wrong maybe even in an hour from now
10:54maybe tomorrow certainly within a year
10:56that's one of the things that's very
10:58very hard with technology is you don't
11:00have the benefit of real-time feedback
11:02you don't have this benefit of knowing
11:04like how the market is anticipating or
11:06answering your actions
11:07you do in ten years I would argue that
11:10the set of principles that people use
11:11around investing has to be much more
11:13internal focus than external focused
11:15because you don't on a short term time
11:17horizon have the external outputs in
11:20terms of the stimuli so how do you guys
11:22think about acting on this information
11:25to make a decision to know when is the
11:28like what's sort of the framework for
11:29that aspect of it what does it really
11:31mean because I think of it in mechanical
11:34terms in other words what I think about
11:36in terms of returns I'm now going to get
11:38into an investment perspective
11:40everything is a return stream meaning
11:43from the moment you buy it it has a
11:45return in the form of either what it's
11:48worth is or the cash that it throws off
11:51the think of that like the dividends and
11:53that is the return stream and now you're
11:56thinking about how should you optimize
11:58for that return stream and I believe
12:00then that the best way to do that is to
12:03think about that return and also what do
12:06you define as risk and to what extent
12:08for example is risk the standard
12:10deviation of that return stream or to
12:12what extent is at risk of ruin and so on
12:15and so as you approach that question of
12:18being early you start to think of it as
12:20an engineering exercise is a betting
12:22strategy so when you take that and you
12:25have a highly volatile or unknown timing
12:28could be a very very very big thing
12:29we're in agreement that it's a very very
12:31big thing and then you have to then
12:33think about okay so now it's not just
12:35good enough to find a good investment it
12:37has to be well-timed so now how am I
12:40going to determine that particular
12:42timing what are my indicators then
12:44brainstorm of what your indicators are
12:46and you think you think about that
12:48question and through that exercise you
12:50will come up with something that is your
12:52particular thing you write it down you
12:54specify it and then you back test it in
12:56other words get a large sample size of
12:58those particular cases and then you say
13:00if I executed that strategy and that way
13:03how would it have been when you tested
13:05it you might think oh that was good but
13:07it wasn't good in these ways in that
13:08time and then you say okay what happened
13:10in those times that it wasn't good and
13:12whatever and what do I do to modify my
13:14strategy and then I execute a carrying
13:16forward you've got the framework the
13:17decision-making framework to decide on
13:19timing well I think part of the reason
13:21you know what can you learn from history
13:23because it's almost equally interesting
13:24what can you not learn like so on that
13:26corkscrew that you think about like is
13:27there going to be a new archetype or is
13:29kind of everything that's going to
13:30happen has it already happened in
13:32another archetypical form to be very
13:34clear you don't know that unless you
13:36know the other right that's true because
13:38that's what the framework is and what
13:40you'll discover is it really depends on
13:42exactly what it is it'll be by and large
13:45true but not a hundred percent true you
13:47make a very good point about how history
13:49repeats itself again and again and there
13:52are these natural cycles that tend to
13:54just repeat with almost oddly
13:57predictable regularity yet at the same
13:59time there are things that have no
14:00historical precedent you see something
14:02and you can say oh yes there is a
14:04precedent for this in the 1930s or
14:06there's a precedent for this in the
14:081880s but every now and then there is
14:10fundamentally a new paradigm that
14:12develops and this is obviously easier to
14:14do retrospectively than prospectively
14:17but how do you determine or how do you
14:19try to determine if something is truly
14:21without precedent because there is an an
14:23overly pattered matching or pattern
14:25recognition trap that you can fall into
14:27where you could say ah this is exactly
14:29like what happened then but it turns out
14:31that there actually are differences Alex
14:33do you have any models where you think
14:34that pattern recognition breaks down
14:36like where there is an archetype that
14:37you're sort of the past does not
14:39necessarily indicate the future well I
14:42think it's hard to know only in
14:43retrospect but do you agree that if you
14:46don't have deep understanding of the
14:48algorithm and the logic behind it and
14:51the future is different from the past
14:54that that's extremely loose a disaster
14:59that's important thing to know what I
15:01mean especially if you look at the quant
15:02trading world so I know a lot of people
15:05in the space and the pure black box so
15:08there's a company they take all of these
15:10data sets and then they encrypt the data
15:12but you can still perform operations on
15:14the encrypted data because this allows
15:16them to buy Thompson Reuters data and
15:18then give it out to the entire world of
15:20crazy machine learning programmers and
15:22then the machine learning programmer
15:24will design something it will get back
15:26tested they'll do some kind of
15:27out-of-sample test but there's no cause
15:29and effect analysis the computer just
15:31it's the ultimate black box of black
15:35and so you don't know the why behind
15:36what it's doing and it could just be
15:38picking up pennies in front of the
15:40proverbial bulldozer so yes I mean like
15:42when you don't understand the why and
15:44then when especially if the future is
15:47going to be different than the past
15:49that's definitely cause for a blow up
15:51and if you do that go down that path
15:53then the problem is you will never test
15:56your mind you will never be in that
15:59situation of going for the deep wise you
16:02will not have the deep on drive
16:04ourselves of that because in the book I
16:05love this phrase where you talked about
16:06how you always went back and of course
16:09hindsight 20/20 we all know that but you
16:11would look at how the dominoes fell in
16:13logical sequence for every big bubble
16:15but it was interesting I always started
16:18with what I thought and I always do this
16:20you go through your experiences and then
16:23you express your logic what is the cause
16:26effect and what is the bet I'm gonna
16:27make and when do I make it in terms of
16:29the timing and then you've got that
16:31clarity because that forces you to think
16:33deeply and then when you've got that
16:36then you run that back in time and test
16:38it because if you go to history and then
16:41you say what would have worked and then
16:43you try to sort through that particular
16:45pile and then you've got that pile I
16:48guarantee you you can't even understand
16:50a basic algorithm let's take just a
16:52regression with two independent
16:54variables by the way example and it says
16:56here's the constant and here's the it's
16:580.25 times whatever that thing is and
17:00you're asked to explain why it's 0.25
17:03that if it will be point two five and
17:07you probably can't do it and that's what
17:08the simple two independent variable type
17:10of regression now you put those things
17:12you get a whole bunch of those things
17:14and you get them with more complicated
17:15invent and that's a lazy man's way out
17:18of that particular thing so I'm
17:20recommending that when you're making a
17:22decision you just get in the habit of
17:24writing down just do it in words to get
17:27algorithms forget back-testing just do
17:29it and you accumulate those principles
17:31and then you think how do I convert
17:33those principles over a period of time
17:35into algorithms and then when you've got
17:37that then you can go back and you could
17:39see how it performed and refine what
17:41you're you know and what you're betting
17:42on one of my other favorite parts of the
17:44book is how you did talk about your
17:45evolution of partnering with computers
17:48thinking about codifying your thinking
17:49because at the end of the day writing
17:51something down is codifying it is
17:52turning into an algorithm it's code and
17:54while we do have this open question of
17:56how our world is going to change with
17:57blackbox algorithms and AI that veers
18:00into complex systems where you can't
18:02tease apart cause and effect it does
18:04open a lot of questions I wonder if at
18:05least a new model of thinking but that's
18:07a broader philosophical question I just
18:10want to pick up on that particular point
18:12when you build a computer
18:13decision-making system and you have your
18:16own think of it as a computer chess game
18:19so now you have a computer chess game
18:21that makes its move and now you have you
18:23making the move that relationship is a
18:25beautiful fantastic relationship because
18:28if it makes a move that is different
18:29than your move it raises the question
18:32what am i doing incorrectly or what is
18:34the computer and why can't I reconcile
18:36that that'll help to teach the computer
18:38and I was speaking to Garry Kasparov
18:40about this and that's like the best play
18:42to play the chess is to have that
18:44computer partner next to you and to do
18:46that exercise and that's a beautiful
18:48relationship and it has tremendous
18:50beneficial effects yeah yeah I think the
18:53thing that's really interesting if you
18:54follow the trends in machine learning
18:56today in many cases they are more black
18:59box like even the way that image
19:01recognition works it's a
19:02multi-dimensional regression effectively
19:05how is the computer determining that
19:06this is a cat it's actually kind of hard
19:09to figure out or if you look at lending
19:11algorithms that newfangled banks are
19:13using its effectively linear algebra you
19:15have every consumer here you have every
19:18possible measurable attribute over here
19:20and it's not three things it's a
19:22combination of everything so it's a
19:23little bit hard to disentangle cause and
19:25effect well if it's something that
19:27you're confident that the future will be
19:30the same as it's the past that's a-ok so
19:34let's say if you were to say I have
19:36enough cats or whatever or like computer
19:40I mean computer deterministic it's a
19:42right because I'm comfortable that with
19:44a high enough sample size that the
19:46future will be the same as the path and
19:48I will do that this is what I'm calling
19:50mimicking I think of it as kind of
19:52mimicking okay I could do that with
19:54people making surgeries in other words
19:56if I have a surgeon and I have a bunch
19:57of people and they still cut the same
19:59way and I take that on and convert that
20:02and I know that that form of cutting is
20:04going to work with that kind of body I'm
20:06totally happy to derive the algorithm
20:08with that because the future will be the
20:11same as the past there's no to reinvent
20:13it every time right I'm going to be
20:14clear I'm totally okay on that so the
20:17issue really is when you go to those two
20:20things right when you have a situation
20:22where the future will be different from
20:25the past and you have no understanding
20:27that's where you're gonna have problems
20:29but one of the quotes that I really
20:30enjoyed in the book is that he who lives
20:32by the crystal ball is bound to eat
20:33ground glass so it's combining that also
20:36with an arrogance that you really know
20:37you can prophesy with a hundred percent
20:39certainty what's going to happen I mean
20:41one of the things that actually we
20:42debate here a lot is if we think we're
20:45right we really really think we're right
20:47of course we should ask why do we think
20:48we're right but if we think we're right
20:50you know should we go put more money
20:51into an investment and the problem with
20:54that is that it actually creates more
20:55stress on the organization because maybe
20:57the best way of thinking about it is if
20:59you have a fund that size X and you make
21:0250 investments you know maybe the right
21:05answer is 1 over 50 times X even though
21:09that might not be optimal you might
21:10believe in one company more than another
21:11that actually might create more
21:13organizational not harmony but it just D
21:16stresses the organization and it kind of
21:18hopefully doesn't fall victim to the the
21:20glass eating exercise of trying to think
21:22that you could prophecy the future well
21:24the question is what is the marginal
21:26benefit of diversification relative to
21:28the marginal benefit of goodness it's a
21:30better way of putting it and if you
21:32really look at that the marginal benefit
21:34of diversification is much more powerful
21:36than the marginal benefit of goodness if
21:38you don't know what's gonna be the best
21:40bet and you have some element of
21:42uncertainty so you're not typing in a
21:45number that has an uncertainty to it you
21:47have a distribution of that number and
21:49then you know that diversification works
21:51the power is going to be so much greater
21:53the key embedding I believe is to find
21:5715 good they don't have to be great
22:02uncorrelated or low correlated return
22:05streams because if you have let's say
22:08it's 60% correlation between those items
22:11that you're about and you could have a
22:13thousand and you're not going to reduce
22:15risk much you're gonna reduce the risk
22:17by 15% or something along those lines if
22:20you have uncorrelated debts and you
22:23don't know which is necessarily gonna be
22:25the best but you do know that they're
22:26not correlated together and you put that
22:29together fifteen uncorrelated return is
22:32going to reduce the risks by about
22:34fifteen or twenty percent of what you
22:37originally had that increases your
22:39return to risk ratio by a factor of five
22:42so now you start to think about that in
22:44terms of what does that mean for the
22:46types of bets you can take let's say if
22:48you're using leverage for example okay
22:50now you could say I could leverage that
22:52risk reduction can be converted into a
22:54return enhancement you wouldn't want to
22:56over do it but you can take that risk
22:57reduction equals return enhancement so
23:00that being able to produce the
23:01diversification and the structuring of
23:03the bets that way raises your expected
23:06return while reducing your risk right
23:08and so anyway that's why diversification
23:12and knowing what you don't know and
23:13picking it will reduce your risk reduce
23:16your stress make your better portfolio
23:18so one question I have which I think is
23:20really great that you've done is this
23:22decision to record errors versus flog
23:24the error makers I love that you called
23:27it the error log and then you changed it
23:29to the issue log right and one thing
23:31that I also think is very interesting in
23:32terms of how organizations judge process
23:35versus output and I was wondering if you
23:37could talk about this a little bit
23:38because if you think about some of the
23:39hardest things like if you want somebody
23:41to solve the hardest problem that
23:43perhaps has the lowest probability of
23:44success you should probably put the best
23:47person for the job on that problem but
23:49the output might be nil yeah you know
23:51that there's a big distinction between
23:53goodness of decision-making and
23:55particular outcomes unless you have such
23:58a perfect high sample that you could
24:00then put that all the way through and
24:01you could say I have a statistically
24:03reliable sample and also making mistakes
24:06as part of the process of learning so
24:07connecting them to mistake and flogging
24:10them just doesn't make any sense right
24:11so first embrace the fact that that's a
24:15identify what people are good and bad at
24:17in the book I talked a lot about our
24:19culture of how you go about that so
24:21first just embracing it is the reality
24:23and then also seeing is somebody doing
24:26something right if you're looking
24:28baseball player or a golfer and you see
24:31how their swing is you should be able to
24:33say that's a good swing so if you just
24:35look at the shot that's a different
24:37thing so you have to know how to look at
24:39the swing rather than the shot right
24:41I heard bazo's actually tell a story
24:43about this exactly this what I was
24:44thinking we had jeff bezos here and he
24:46was talking about how the person that
24:48actually built the fire phone that was
24:49really hard to build a phone from
24:50scratch to getting into markets and nine
24:52months and to do all the things that
24:53they did you know he like he actually
24:56really rewarded that person whereas if
24:58you think about the most successful
25:00thing that Amazon's done in the last
25:02it's the amazon.com app on your iPhone
25:04but that was riding a massive secular
25:07tailwind so to say that team deserves
25:09all the praise because like they had a
25:11really easy job and meanwhile the fire
25:14phone guys should get fired I mean if
25:15you think about what happened at Apple
25:16Apple built Apple Maps in six months the
25:19person behind it got fired because it
25:21didn't work very well but that was an
25:22almost impossible job so if you think
25:24about the cultural norms that that
25:25reinforces you don't want people shying
25:28away from the hardest work because
25:30they're afraid of the repercussions you
25:32want to be judged on the swing to take
25:33your metaphor versus the outcome of the
25:35shot if you're going into a massive
25:37headwind the hard part is how do you
25:39measure the swing how you do that is to
25:41know what the person is like can you
25:43talk about what the person is like can
25:46you would measure what the person is
25:47like does the person want to know what
25:50they're like do they want to know their
25:52weaknesses as well as their strengths
25:54can you have a community that does that
25:56that is in my opinion the most important
25:59thing in terms of running an
26:02organization this goes to your idea of
26:03baseball card like profiles of people
26:05where you kind of have their stats on
26:07who they are but as a personality level
26:09not just like they're outputting or
26:10batting average or whatever it is yeah
26:12let's let's recognize that people are at
26:14strong and weak in different ways right
26:16so let's get down to a nitty-gritty
26:18level and then how do you put together
26:19teams of people so that you embrace your
26:22weaknesses and then you figure out what
26:24it could either be that you develop a
26:26strength to deal with it or it's
26:28probably even better to work somebody
26:30there's someone in yeah work with
26:33somebody was a complimentary strength
26:35where you have a weakness and then you
26:37can have an appreciation and you could
26:38achieve success right but they're not
26:40talking about it and
26:42dealing with what you're like is a
26:45I'm so glad you said that because we
26:47have a lot of founders that listen to
26:48our podcast and one of the things that
26:49we hear a lot from them is as you build
26:51a company from scratch and you've never
26:53managed before or you know hired CFO or
26:56hired a sales revenue off chief revenue
26:58officer it's not only this radical
27:00transparency that you're talking about
27:02of knowing people strengths and
27:03weaknesses and sort of having these
27:04profiles in your heads but sometimes
27:06it's about knowing what you don't know
27:07because you don't know what sales is
27:09when you've never done it before
27:10exactly that's been the story of my life
27:12and that's why I wrote down these things
27:14because knowing what you don't know it's
27:18so much more valuable than anything you
27:21know because there's so much more good
27:23thinking out there than any human being
27:25could have in their head well let's
27:26shift gears then because given that the
27:28biggest barriers to having these kinds
27:30of understandings and ability to have
27:32these principles or ego and blind-spot
27:34and that's what you quote as the two
27:35things and we've been talking a lot
27:37about algorithms and codifying things
27:39and I think it's fascinating but you're
27:40an investor but what we're talking about
27:42it's all about decision making under
27:43uncertainty and that's the thing that
27:44connects us to life to finance to
27:46whatever it is on that note you can't
27:48necessarily codify emotions into an
27:51algorithm and so one of the things that
27:53I think we should go deep on this sort
27:54of the differences in frameworks in your
27:56book between two types of minds that we
27:59have inside all of us the two users that
28:01you use exactly in each person there's a
28:04conscious thoughtful you that is the
28:10prefrontal cortex rational rational you
28:14and then there's a subliminal emotional
28:18you that actually you don't understand
28:20very much because it's also subliminal
28:22oh yeah and by the way as a student of
28:24therapy I've been an analysis for a few
28:26years now four days a week let me tell
28:28you that those patterns go way back to
28:30like when you were born and before and
28:34before totally okay you don't know you
28:38could show a child a picture of a snake
28:40and a picture of a baby show them the
28:42picture of a snake and the features of a
28:44they'd they're programmed to know that
28:46this is okay there was become program
28:49its inherent tendencies right which
28:51things that go back longer the mankind
28:54I mean there's all kinds of philosophies
28:55around that - exactly what we do know
28:57our programming the brain is evolved and
28:59so knowing that they're the to use and
29:01that we encounter those to use all the
29:04time then brings a crystallization to
29:06that so that's why intellectually when
29:09we go through this that's where the
29:11barrier lies there's the ego barrier and
29:14there's the blind spot barrier the ego
29:16barrier means it's sort of like it's got
29:18to come from me or even disagreement the
29:20reaction to disagreement is an
29:22instinctual reaction of intending to
29:24assume it's an attack and it triggers
29:27the amygdala so there's a mechanics
29:29there that produces those kinds of
29:31reactions it is only an exercise because
29:34if you can get to that open-mindedness
29:36where you can take in and you can find
29:39out where you might be wrong then you're
29:41going to be in a much better position I
29:43think that one of the greatest tragedies
29:45of mankind is that people hold on to
29:48wrong opinions that lead to bad
29:50decision-making without being able to
29:53put them out there and properly stress
29:55test them which is so easy to do to
29:57raise their probabilities of taking it
29:59and to get information inside so that's
30:02the ego barrier and then there's the
30:04blind spot barrier which is a little bit
30:06different the blind spot barrier means
30:08that people genuinely see things
30:10differently so you could have a totally
30:12open-minded person but when you see
30:14things differently than somebody else
30:17then that's how you see it and it wasn't
30:20really fully apparent to me that though
30:22all of these things existed until we
30:24made it so crystal clear how people see
30:26things there's a tool I show in TED talk
30:29and the tool shows how people see things
30:32differently on a continuous basis that
30:34difference means that you when you start
30:36to see things collectively and you see
30:39through other people's eyes it's like
30:41going from black and white to color or
30:43in from one dimension to multi
30:45dimensions and if you can get that
30:47radical open-mindedness collective
30:49decision-making is so much better than
30:51individual decision-making but you've
30:53got to get over those two barriers how
30:55much do you think people are capable of
30:56change within organizations as adults I
31:00could only tell you what our experience
31:01has been about a third of the people can
31:04get through it something like that over
31:07you can pretty well find out where you
31:09are so the answer to the question just
31:11generally speaking if you're talking
31:13about that ego barrier open blind spot I
31:16think most people can make it but it
31:18requires that practice it's just a
31:19matter of habit our backgrounds are so
31:21bad in that all of the ways that were
31:23raised in school like don't make the
31:25mistake and the kid who's got the right
31:27answers is the one who is getting
31:30it's like going against programming so I
31:32was a manager of no more than 150 people
31:35so very small by your standards but the
31:38thing that I often asked myself through
31:39you can give people very good feedback
31:41or sometimes you can get people not very
31:43good feedback but in what cases do if
31:46somebody knows their strengths and
31:47knowing their weaknesses like can they
31:49change by one standard deviation like
31:51what's the limit that you've seen I've
31:52examined that at length both in terms of
31:55our populations and then I've really
31:57enjoyed working with psychologists to
31:59try to figure out there the pros and
32:01doing that and generally speaking with a
32:03lot of hard work you can change by about
32:06one standard deviation there's some
32:08people that argue that the nurture
32:09element is malleable until a certain age
32:11and then there are some people that say
32:13nope no like once you're an adult like
32:14they the age is that of adulthood and
32:16that it's very hard to change thereafter
32:18and I think that's one of the things
32:19that's very interesting if you really
32:20map the strengths and weaknesses of the
32:22individuals in an organization to what
32:25extent is that dynamic versus static
32:28that's why there's two paths you don't
32:30have to change right this is the thing
32:32about it if you can take the joy out of
32:34success and you realize that you put
32:36together the teams right you can bring
32:37those dimensions and then you could see
32:39or two ways of thinking about this if
32:40people can't change is very useful to
32:43understand what are the characteristics
32:45that are effectively ossified if people
32:49can change then it might actually be a
32:51bad idea to think of certain
32:53characteristics as being overly ossified
32:55because in fact there are fundamentally
32:57malleable that's what I found
32:58fascinating which is in a lot of
32:59organizations try really hard to train
33:02people to be things that they don't want
33:04to do or to do things that they're not
33:06good at as opposed to actually having
33:08radical transparency around like here
33:09are the things that I like here are the
33:11things that I'm good at and then pair
33:13them accordingly I think that's exactly
33:14and actually it was a conversation with
33:16Ben that actually prompted this insight
33:18it was about some other things that I
33:19was thinking about in terms of trying to
33:21change people's biases and how they
33:22think and whether that's even possible
33:25but basically Danny Kahneman talks a lot
33:27about the concept of a system 1 and
33:29system 2 brain which is not unlike the
33:32to use that you describe and by the way
33:34this is actually a brilliant piece of
33:35rebranding that he did this because it
33:36sort of takes it out of the Freudian
33:38legacy and other loaded interpretations
33:40but basically system one is like the
33:43fast reacting instinctive subliminal you
33:46and then the other system is a bit
33:48slower more analytical rational
33:51reflective etc so and it's kind of sad
33:54because we as a society are programmed
33:56to keep these to use in conflict and I
33:58think that actually plays out
33:59particularly between work and personal
34:02settings as well but anyway I want to
34:05switch gears now and let's talk about
34:07this concept of an idea meritocracy
34:09which Ray you talk a lot about and I
34:11have to tell you I kind of hate the idea
34:13of that really yeah let me tell you
34:15because I don't like this false notion
34:17of democratizing all ideas it's equal I
34:19don't know you got for a minute no but
34:21that's what I'm saying okay so close so
34:24I'm talking about believability weighted
34:26decision let's talk about believability
34:27okay in most when I say a meritocracy
34:30it's dependent on knowing the merit of
34:32the person it's not all opinions are
34:34equally valuable you have to know the
34:36merit of that person that's why I say
34:37you have to know what they're like okay
34:39so I mean there's either autocratic
34:42decision-making or democratic
34:43decision-making autocratic
34:45decision-making means that the boss
34:46knows best democratic decision-making is
34:49one equal vote so I'm gonna give you the
34:52concept and the mechanics the concept is
34:54you have a disease you're sick now you
34:57don't know how to deal with that disease
34:58you can go to one doctor or you can go
35:01to three doctors to triangulate what I
35:04recommend you do in that case in almost
35:06all cases of making decisions is find
35:08three really great experts who will
35:11disagree with each other will openly
35:13disagree with each other to try to find
35:16if you then will isolate what the
35:19disagreements are and you bubble those
35:20things up to the top then you can focus
35:22in on that and when you go through that
35:24exercise you will probably make a
35:26believability weighted decision so
35:28that's what I mean kind of by
35:30believability weighted decision and
35:32then the question is only how you
35:33establish each to those people's
35:35believed abilities now what we do in
35:37processes that we're looking at is that
35:40we know what people are like what are
35:41their strengths and weaknesses they may
35:43be right or wrong about that but by
35:45doing it in agreed-upon ways of saying
35:47okay now you're good at this and that
35:49and you get believability points or
35:52whatever the dimensions are because a
35:53believability will change depending on
35:55the particular thing now if you can
35:57establish those definitions for that and
35:59then you come into a room and on you
36:01know CEO I have a choice do I just ask
36:04and then go make a decision I ask that
36:06room and I get an equal weighted answer
36:08and I get a believability weighted
36:10answer and then what should I do in that
36:13well if they're at odds I still try to
36:15reconcile it but honestly like I'm the
36:18person who's that patient who then says
36:19that I got these three doctors so that's
36:22I'm smiling because when I had my foot
36:24surgery I saw three doctors and this is
36:25basically what I tried to do but it's
36:27hard because sometimes doctors don't
36:28like to disagree with each other or
36:29speak openly you may not be able to do
36:31this perfectly but man the real question
36:34is do you want to do this do you want to
36:36as an organization know what people are
36:39can you speak honestly with each other
36:42about that do you bring that to the
36:43surface so that you can know what then
36:45deal with how what people like and then
36:47use that as a foundation of who should
36:49make what decisions in an idea
36:51meritocratic way so now do you like idea
36:54merit I do and I'm gonna read out loud
36:56your definition of believability i
36:57define the livable people as those who
36:59have repeatedly and successfully
37:01accomplished the thing in question who
37:03have a track record with at least three
37:05successes and have great explanations of
37:08their approach when probed so they have
37:10the rationale kind of clear I need no
37:11noise I need at least one of those two
37:13things right well I thought it was very
37:15interesting because you talked about how
37:17if you have a disagreement with someone
37:18and you're the more believable person
37:20you might actually remind the other
37:22person in a conversations that they
37:23asked you the questions versus you
37:24having to be the one answering the doc
37:26because the politics of organizations
37:27often mean it's the other way around
37:28right if Tiger Woods is trying to teach
37:31me how to play golf or whatever it would
37:34be smart for me to try to ask him the
37:37questions rather than think that I'm the
37:39one who has the understanding of that
37:40that wouldn't be smart and so if you
37:43have a differences in the understanding
37:45kind of saying am i a teacher appear or
37:48a student what should I be helps me
37:51navigate the best way to approach that
37:53is if I can ask you write a lot in the
37:55book about shapers and one of the things
37:57that I thought was interesting was you
37:58actually kind of looked at the
38:00psychological traits of many people that
38:02most people would call shapers Steve
38:04Jobs Steve Jobs Elon Musk and actually
38:06one of them was I don't want to call it
38:08sociopathy but it's basically thinking
38:10more about the goal that they're going
38:11to achieve as opposed to the temporary
38:14emotional feelings of others that they
38:15might hurt I often find it the best
38:17leaders they are dogged in terms of
38:20their determination of that goal and not
38:22worrying about the feelings of other
38:23people along the way but in a good way
38:25right like that it's not that they're
38:26sociopathic it just means that they
38:28really care about achieving that goal
38:30yeah that's why I did the test what have
38:32you found so let me define a shaper a
38:34shaper is a person who can bring
38:36something from visualization to
38:38actualization I can visualize this thing
38:41and then I can deliver on it you can
38:43basically do but I mean the quick
38:44example that pops on my mind was
38:45Hamilton because not only did he have
38:47the vision for the Treasury Department
38:48and everything else he also spent his
38:50first year as Secretary of Treasury like
38:52writing letters about lighthouses you
38:55have to fight with people
38:56you have to do something so I literally
39:00asked these people Steve Jobs Elon Musk
39:02Muhammad Yunus in philanthropy these
39:05people essentially to discuss it and
39:07then also take some personality with
39:09profile tests in a sense to think what
39:11their preferences are to see if they
39:12would look alike and so on and then
39:15there are a number of dimensions I can't
39:16go through all the dimensions there's a
39:18number of them the one that you're
39:20referring to is there's a test call in
39:23workplace inventory which is called
39:26concern for others and it doesn't really
39:28mean concern for others what it means is
39:30that when faced with the choice of
39:32whether the mission or the individuals
39:36feelings are going to be at odds which
39:39is the choice that is going to be made
39:41these people have devoted their scythe
39:42to others they have huge concern for
39:45others but on that particular dimension
39:47they are relatively low on that
39:49dimension and what it's only telling you
39:50is that the mission can't be compromised
39:53think about it as if it was a team
39:55instead of a company if we have a team
39:58he's got to say man you ain't doing it
40:00well you know and nobody would say hey
40:02listen I'm sensitive to how you're
40:03talking to me about that you've got to
40:05have that capital of conversation and
40:06you've got to get the best people on the
40:08in other words tough love is I think the
40:11best kind of love pulled them to
40:12standards and also love them a
40:14meaningful relationships part is as
40:17important as the excellence part because
40:19if you have those relationships that are
40:21self reinforcing that you know you care
40:23but you're holding to high standards to
40:25each other you can accomplish things we
40:28talked a lot about founders having the
40:29will to power and sometimes it requires
40:31like a hubris maybe should be a student
40:33but you're trying to be a teacher in a
40:35new industry a very big difference in
40:36mindset I would argue between startup
40:38founders and like the CEO of a fortune
40:39500 established company sometimes and so
40:42this idea that you have to have this
40:44will to power which requires a certain
40:45amount of self-delusion how do you sort
40:47of know given this framework that you're
40:49talking about when because weaknesses
40:52and strengths are flip sides of each
40:54other and I would argue that it's
40:56actually not just flip size that they're
40:57matter of degree how do you know when
40:58you're going too far on this continuum
41:00of letting your strengths become a
41:03weakness and your weakness become a
41:05strength well we're talking about to be
41:08able to have simultaneously
41:11open-mindedness and assertiveness so in
41:14other words the deep need to make sense
41:16of things knowing that you might be
41:18wrong and so yes you have that vision
41:21and then you at that same time as you
41:23have that vision you say I might be
41:26wrong and how do I stress test the hell
41:28out of that vision so you listen you can
41:30take in at the same time as you can be
41:33assertive if you don't lose one to the
41:35other that's how you're gonna get the
41:37balance right so you talk about
41:38surrounding yourself with independent
41:40thinkers that are sort of like-minded ly
41:41independent even though they might not
41:42agree with you because one of the things
41:44that I've learned is that you cannot be
41:46honest with yourself without mirrors
41:47around you right and the problem is that
41:49people think they're self-aware but
41:50they're really not and in fact I thought
41:52one of the best sections of your book
41:53was actually on how to tell the
41:54difference between close minded and open
41:56minded people I mean you think it'd be
41:58obvious but it isn't I just love the
42:00precision of language for each so I'm
42:01gonna go ahead and quickly summarize and
42:03read aloud some of this really quick
42:05closed minded people don't want their
42:07ideas challenged they're typically
42:09frustrated that they can't get the other
42:10person to agree with them instead of
42:12open-minded people do which is be
42:14curious as to why the other person
42:15disagrees closed-minded people are more
42:18likely to make statements than ask
42:19questions and open mind people also
42:21meanwhile will assess their relative
42:23believability to determine whether their
42:25primary role should be as a student a
42:27teacher or a peer I thought that was a
42:29really nuanced interesting point because
42:31you actually have to be aware of what
42:33you are in different settings because
42:34you can be all three of them depending
42:35on what you're doing close minded people
42:38focus much more on being understood than
42:40understanding others and open-minded
42:42people obviously feel compelled to see
42:44things through other's eyes close minded
42:46people say things like I could be wrong
42:48but here's my opinion and I love this
42:50because you said it's a perfunctory
42:51gesture because if your statement starts
42:53with I could be wrong you should
42:55probably follow it with a question and
42:56not an assertion and then finally you
42:59observe that closed-minded people have
43:00trouble holding two thoughts
43:01simultaneously in their minds so that's
43:04the kind of a big summary but I guess
43:05Ray what's your big summary advice take
43:07away there most people who think that
43:09they're open-minded have formed an
43:11opinion that prejudices them and that
43:15they have to get knocked off on they're
43:17not reaching out with the worry that
43:20they might be wrong so the notion that I
43:22have an opinion and I might be wrong
43:25with that worry prompting them to pull
43:28in those others and take it in and
43:30consider them is what I'm talking about
43:33the real open mindedness right but
43:35where's there room for expertise because
43:37I love how you also observe that it
43:38doesn't pay to be open-minded with
43:40everyone that you should spend time
43:41exploring ideas with the most believable
43:44people you have access to but at some
43:46point doesn't being believable veer into
43:48being an expert and so very competent
43:50people are probably more often
43:52closed-minded because they've been doing
43:54things that have worked very well for
43:55them for a very long time but that
43:57doesn't make any sense
43:58you can have your track record but that
44:01doesn't mean that you can't go to the
44:03most believable people that you can
44:05think of who disagree with you take it
44:09what is the harm of taking it in you're
44:12considering it then you still have the
44:14right to do it just because you have a
44:15good track record does not mean that
44:17taking it in from the smartest people
44:19you can find who disagree with you to
44:21understand their perspective is a bad
44:23thing you're not losing
44:24anything so are there any differences
44:25here between big companies and startups
44:27I may feel like that's sort of the
44:28de-facto thread of the questions that
44:30Alex and I are asking is I want to check
44:32on that with this - I think all
44:33companies have got to decide how people
44:35are going to deal with each other right
44:37and you have to do it and you have to be
44:38really clear about it and so if you're a
44:41big company that's entrenched it's more
44:44difficult to make a change and then
44:46there's the cost of that change where if
44:48you're a newer company then it's easier
44:50to make those things Lassiter's dilemma
44:52type of thing is actually playing out
44:53against that fabric right but even in
44:55that big company you better make clear
44:58as to who is involved in make that
45:01decision you might even change the
45:02circle of the people in other words okay
45:05they may be the top 20 people are they
45:07radically truthful and radically
45:09transparent and operating an idea
45:10meritocratic way they can do that they
45:13can get together and say how are we
45:14gonna be with each other great point
45:16okay so we've talked a lot about how a
45:18lot of these frameworks for decisions
45:20apply to principles for life business
45:22relationships family spouse any all
45:25different kinds let's talk about at a
45:28very macro level how do you think this
45:30plays out when you think about
45:31competition and innovation around the
45:33world like one of my favorite moments is
45:35in the book you talk about your early
45:37days and how there is a sort of
45:38aspirational and inspirational period in
45:41the US in the 70s or I think it was a
45:43little tease in the post Kennedy era and
45:46I'm curious for where you think we are
45:48now and how it's going to play out
45:49especially given your love of places
45:51like China well I think we're in a
45:53relatively bad spot which is brought
45:56about by the loss of opportunity the
45:59conflicts that we're having we have an
46:02enormous opportunity gap as well as an
46:04income gap right and so we have two
46:06economies there is the top 40% in the
46:09bottom 60% and if you just carve out and
46:12you say what is the economy and life
46:14like of the bottom 60%
46:16there hasn't been income growth
46:17prospects of having a better life than
46:19your parents there's a loss of hope and
46:22so there's this wealth and opportunity
46:24gap the question is also how we deal
46:26with conflict and how we resolve
46:28conflict at this time so in other words
46:30to make clear what are our principles
46:32that bind us together and one of those
46:34that separate us so do we know are we
46:37by those principals and can we operate
46:41in this idea meritocratic way so I'm
46:42saying you know an idea meritocratic way
46:45is first put your honest thoughts on the
46:47table ii have a ways of having
46:51thoughtful disagreement so that you can
46:54get to the best answer not just impose
46:56one thing on top of each other and then
46:58third how do you have ways of getting
47:01past the disagreements that you believe
47:03are fair ways to get past those
47:06disagreements that you buy into so that
47:08you can work on these things together if
47:10you don't have those principles and
47:12those ways of getting through that we
47:14will be at each other's throats that's a
47:16great note to wrap up on because it just
47:18shows how all these mindsets or rather
47:20principles aren't just pity pieces of
47:22advice but they're a framework that can
47:24be applied and we can all apply these
47:26and actually I don't think I've ever
47:28even written down my principles except
47:30for career stuff like about you know
47:31editorial and content strategy I've
47:33never actually written down my personal
47:35principles I have to actually do that
47:37exercise Alex do you have any alright
47:39try doing this exercise when I read the
47:41book I think one in general is to never
47:44judge on the present and to always judge
47:46in the potential and my favorite I wrote
47:48a blog post for this actually when I
47:50first joined here and I think this is
47:51one of the reasons one of the things
47:53that really separates different types of
47:54people there's a video of Tiger Woods
47:56when he's two-and-a-half years old and
47:57he goes I think it's on The Ed Sullivan
47:58Show you can see this on YouTube and he
48:01hits a perfectly straight Drive which if
48:03you play golf you know was pretty hard
48:04to do and he does this when he's two and
48:05a half years old but he hits it maybe
48:06like 15 feet 30 feet something like that
48:09and there were two ways of looking at
48:10that video one if you look at it if you
48:13judge it by the present you'll say okay
48:15well I'm 36 I can hit a 250 yard drive
48:18I'm better than that two and a half year
48:20old kid and that was completely accurate
48:21that is an accurate set of comparison
48:24between the world as it stands today the
48:26other is to try to extrapolate the
48:27potential and say wow if this kid
48:29continues on his current trajectory then
48:32he can be amazing and in venture capital
48:34like one of the key principles that you
48:36really have to think about is you can't
48:38just judge on the present you can't
48:39judge on the set of present capabilities
48:41you can't judge in the present state of
48:42the product you have to judge on the
48:44potential that it can get to and it's
48:46one of the things that often handicaps
48:48larger companies because people that
48:51companies too long not always but in
48:54some cases they overly judge things
48:55based on the present as opposed to the
48:57potential because of the bureaucracy
48:59that just hinders decision making quick
49:02engineering or products there so they
49:03have to judge everything on the present
49:05not I think about it there's actually a
49:06lot that people throw around a six and Z
49:08is a firm I mean I think they kind of
49:09borrow them from each other I don't
49:10really know who's our who's but I know
49:11some of marks big three are strong views
49:14weakly held don't solve problems
49:16escalate upside strengths not lack of
49:19weakness what I'm planning to do is to
49:21get the best principles from everybody
49:23and then make that all available on an
49:26app in which then people can then vote
49:29up what are the best principles for that
49:31particular thing that they're
49:32encountering and so then when that thing
49:34comes along they can say okay here are
49:36the best principles and they can operate
49:38in a reflective way rather than just in
49:40an instinctual confused way well sounds
49:43like we could all use that and hopefully
49:44this way of thinking helps us get to
49:46where we want to be ray thank you so
49:47much for joining the a 6nz podcast thank
49:50you it was great thank you very much
