For whatever reason, most people have a very hard time letting go of false beliefs, or simply accepting they can be "wrong" on something. They want to be right at all cost, no matter how ridiculous it makes them look in the end, or how much they stand to lose. Somehow that's less "embarrassing" to them.

Hubris is a mighty steep mountain to climb, and the eventual fall is not likely to be a pleasant one. It also sounds like I just described most politicians too. I mean, when was the last time you recall a politician admitting they made even a small mistake, let alone one of their usual "whoppers". But I suppose for some (especially if there's no real personal accountability involved, and countless people still choose to vote for them anyway), it's easier on their egos just to double down, then double-down again, on an obviously disastrous policy initiative, regardless the public costs involved or how many may get hurt along the way.

Ray Dalio learned some of these lessons early on when when he went broke and nearly shut down his Bridgewater fund before turning it into the biggest hedge fund ever. According to Dalio:

My failure "was one of the best things that ever happened to me because it gave me the humility I needed. .. Rather than thinking, ‘I’m right.’ I started to ask myself, ‘How do I know I’m right?’" -- Ray Dalio

Taking this a step further, Dalio also believes "radical transparency" and "algorithmic decision making" is taking over, and it's going to change your life, whether you like it or not. With modern technology and the breadcrumbs we leave through social media, smart phones, and other "can't live without" services, those who prefer to keep their heads up their keisters will soon discover even that may no longer be a "safe" (albeit rather stinky) hiding place.

Soon you'll have algos sizing you up better than your own friends and family. And whether these algorithms are used to help you grow and improve, or are deployed to plot against your delusions "emotional trigger points", at the end of the day, it will likely be up to us and how "truthful" and "honest" we are with ourselves that will determine if the tech helps us grow, or helps others better take advantage of us through our own stubborn denial.

How to WIN

To be a successful investor or entrepreneur, one must bet against the "consensus" and be "right". In order to do so successfully, certainly more often than the occasional "random bout" of "lucky happenstance", one will inevitably make many painful mistakes along the way. What differentiates the winners from the losers over time is how quickly people can come to terms with their mistakes, re-adjust their thinking, and hit the pavement running on a new, hopefully more "correct" and viable path.

For example, successful traders quickly learn that you must be humble or you will not survive. Even large governments and empires have been forced to kneel before the mighty power of the "global markets". Most recently, the Swiss National Bank lost 60 Billion Francs trying to "prove" this wrong...

"Intelligence is not measured in the definitive knowledge that is never wrong. It is measured by the ability to see when you are wrong and quickly adapt to the new reality." -- Martin Armstrong

For example, as Martin Armstrong writes in the following article, "Keeping It Real – WHY THERE CAN BE NO PEG OR STANDARD":

NEVER in history has there ever been any PEG or STANDARD that has ever survived. WHY do all PEGS and STANDARDS simply collapse? Aside from trying to eliminate the business cycle, why communism also failed, it encourages speculation. PEGS are the greatest gift to traders in history – the illusive and fabled GUARANTEED TRADE. It is like going to the casino and you bet 100,000 on number 23 at roulette. If you win, you get your 35 to 1 return. If you lose, the house returns your 100,000. It is a no loss game.

"Idea Meritocracies" and "Radical Transparency"

Periodically, I've been told that I can be a bit "brutal" in assessing a situation. But the truth is that it serves no one any good to sugar-coat an invalid perspective. It's still "invalid" however much lipstick you throw on it. From my perspective, it's very simple. Time, resources, and money are all precious commodities. I have no problem with people admitting they don't know something and asking for guidance or perspective. I do that all the time myself. But when people start arrogantly acting like they "know" something, when they clearly don't, all that does is waste everyone's time, money, and resources from diligently working together to solve the problem at hand.

Egos aside, we're all better off working together to rip the target goal apart from every angle, figuring out what works, and what doesn't through knowledge, experience, research, and observation. Expect that most things you've come up with have already been tried and done before. Research it, study it, understand it, and don't repeat the same mistakes of the past.

“That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.” ― Aldous Huxley, Collected Essays

As Ray Dalio says:

To have an idea meritocracy, you need to do three things: Put your honest thoughts on the table, engage in thoughtful disagreements–how do you disagree without it being a problem?–and then you have to have rules to get past your disagreements. Good for any relationship. And for every workplace in which you want to have quality exchanges and thoughtfulness.

I also highly recommend you check out Ray Dalio's recent TED Talk, where he discusses how to build a company where the best ideas win (Bridgewater is now the biggest hedge fund ever, currently managing around US$160 Billion):

Dalio's also assembled these ideas into a book called "Principles" that he originally released as a free PDF in 2011.

Most recently, he's also working on an interesting research paper titled: "How the Economic Machine Works: Leveragings and Deleveragings".

Finally...

In conclusion, I also wanted to throw in this prescient "tidbit", since it relates directly to decentralized blockchain technology and implementation. The speaker is Martin Thompson, who was co-founder and CTO of LMAX (the group that developed the LMAX Disruptor pattern that also influenced @Dan when building bitshares and steemit). Watch around the 31.5 minute mark, where he discusses designing and building distributed systems:

"Building distributed systems are hard! When it comes to concurrency in particular, it's a bit like politics and guns... You should not want to get into this, and only the people who really don't want to get into it, are the ones who should be allowed to." -- Martin Thompson

As always, I appreciate your upvote, your follow and all your comments!