I love statistics. But I also recognize how easy it is to be tricked by data.
Here is an example illustrating how factually accurate statistics can be misleading without proper context.
Take a quick look at this chart showing Robotics funding in July 2023.
If you look at that chart, you might conclude that Pittsburgh is a Mecca of innovation in robotics. Carnegie Mellon is there. That makes sense, right?
However, there's an immediate red flag ... it's only for the month of July 2023.
So the question becomes ... why?
Turns out, that entire number is essentially the result of a single check to Stack AV to recapitulate what was Argo. Argo is a Ford and VW-backed autonomous vehicle startup, and Stack AV is the founders' new self-driving startup.
One significant move skewed the scale so strongly that it trumped major countries' expenditures that month.
There's often an issue about not having enough data to be statistically significant. Another common issue is confusing coincidence with causality.
This isn't meant to undermine the effect of one data point on a chart. For example, think about Taylor Swift's impact on the economy. Taylor's Eras Tour has already netted more than $100M but also reportedly has had a $5B impact on the economy.
Cincinnati reported that Taylor Swift's Concert Tour brought $90M to their city in two days. Her 60,000 attendees pushed the city's hotels to 98% occupancy rates. Beyond that, her concert-goers also consumed the city's restaurants, bars, tourism, and retail.
Here is a different example of accurate data leading to an unusual conclusion, At a Genius Network meeting this week, the creator of OsteoStrong and the X3 bar spoke about people's misconceptions about fitness and workouts. One point, in particular, caught my attention. He claimed that most people only get stronger as a direct result of their workouts about ten times in their lives. This isn't true of competitive athletes or weightlifters - but the average gym goer. Why? His logic was you only get stronger when you take your muscle to failure, past its previous limits. Most people rarely work out to exhaustion and don't keep track of their best. They often stop one rep - or even half a rep - before there's a meaningful improvement.
A good lesson for life.
As entrepreneurs, we've all seen people get the "one big break" or the "one domino" that led to success. The goal is often to be good enough that you only have to get lucky once.
While one data point can ruin a statistic, it can also change your life. The power of an inflection point.
Hope that helps.
The Cost Of Thinking Linearly In Today's Age
Humans can’t do a lot of things.
Honestly, the fact that we’re at the top of the food chain is pretty miraculous.
We’re slow, we’re weak, and we’re famously bad at understanding large numbers and exponential growth.
Our brains are hardwired to think locally and linearly.
It’s a monumental task for us to fathom exponential growth … let alone its implications.
Think how many companies have failed due to that inability … RadioShack didn’t foresee a future where shopping was done online. Kodak didn’t think digital cameras would replace good ol’ film. Blockbuster dismissed a future where people would want movies in their mailboxes because they were anchored to the belief that “part of the joy is seeing all your options!” They didn’t even make it long enough to see “Netflix and Chill” become a thing.
via Diamandis
Human perception is linear. Technological growth is exponential.
There are many examples. Here is one Diamandis calls “The Kodak Moment.”
In 1996, Kodak was at the top of its game, with a market cap of over $28 billion and 140,000 employees.
Few people know that 20 years earlier, in 1976, Kodak had invented the digital camera. It had the patents and the first-mover advantage.
But that first digital camera was a baby that only its inventor could love and appreciate.
That first camera took .01 megapixel photos, took 23 seconds to record the image to a tape drive, and only shot in black and white.
Not surprisingly, Kodak ignored the technology and its implications.
Fast forward to 2012, when Kodak filed for bankruptcy – disrupted by the very technology that they invented and subsequently ignored.
via Diamandis
Innovation is a reminder that you can’t be medium-obsessed. Kodak’s goal was to preserve memories. It wasn’t to sell film. Blockbuster’s goal wasn’t to get people in their stores; it was to get movies in homes.
Henry Ford famously said: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Steve Jobs was famous for spending all his time with customers but never asking them what they wanted.
Two of our greatest innovators realized something that many never do. Being conscientious of your consumers doesn’t necessarily mean listening to them. It means thinking about and anticipating their wants and future needs.
Tech and AI are creating tectonic forces throughout industry and the world. It is time to embrace and leverage what that makes possible. History has many prior examples of Creative Destruction (and what gets left in the dust).
Opportunity or Chaos … You get to decide.
Onward!
Posted at 06:24 PM in Business, Current Affairs, Food and Drink, Gadgets, Healthy Lifestyle, Ideas, Just for Fun, Market Commentary, Movies, Science, Television, Trading, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0)