Capitalogix

Why Don't We See Aliens?

So, if the math says it's likely that there are aliens ... why don't we see them?

In 2020, I mentioned Israeli officials who claimed they had been contacted by Aliens from a Galactic Federation - and that not only is our government aware of this, but they are working together.

There are many stories (or theories) about how we have encountered aliens before and just kept them secret. Here are some links to things you might find interesting if you want to learn more about this.

• NewsNation Segment: UFO Whistleblower Jake Barber Shares Allegations and Will Testify to Congress About Nonhuman Craft Retrievals.
• NewsNation Segment: UFO whistleblower David Grusch: 'We are not alone.'
• Dr. Diana Walsh Pasulka, Professor of Religious Studies, bridges the gap between religious studies, technological advancements, and the realm of UFO phenomena.
• Trailer for a film called "The Phenomenon."

So, while some may still believe aliens don't exist - I think it's a more helpful thought experiment to wonder why we haven't seen them. 

For example, the Fermi Paradox considers the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations and the various high-probability estimates for their existence. 

To simplify the issue, billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy (which is only one of many galaxies) are similar to our Sun. Consequently, there must be some probability that some of them will have Earth-like planets. It isn't hard to conceive that some of those planets should be older than ours, and thus some fraction should be more technologically advanced than us. Even if you assume they're only looking at evolutions of our current technologies, interstellar travel isn't absurd. 

Thus, based on the law of really large numbers (both in terms of the number of planets and length of time we are talking about) ... it makes the silence all the more deafening and curious. 

If you are interested in the topic "Where are all the aliens?"  Stephen Webb, a particle physicist, tackles that in his book and this TED Talk.   

via TED

In the TED talk, Stephen Webb covers a couple of key factors necessary for communicative space-faring life. 

1. Habitability and stability of their planet
2. Building blocks of life 
3. Technological advancement
4. Socialness/Communication technologies

But he also acknowledges the numerous confounding variables, including things like imperialism, war, bioterrorism, fear, the moon's effect on climate, etc. 

Essentially, his thesis is that there are numerous roadblocks to intelligent life, and it's entirely possible we are the only planet that has gotten past those roadblocks. Even if there were others, it's entirely possible that they're extinct by now. 

What do you think?

Here are some other links I liked on this topic. There is some interesting stuff you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand or enjoy. 

• 75 Reasons We Don't See Aliens 
• Wait But Why: The Fermi Paradox
• A New Theory on Why We Haven't Found Aliens Yet
• A List of Solutions to The Fermi Paradox
• Dissolving the Fermi Paradox, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University

To Infinity and Beyond!

Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading - April 20th, 2025

Here are some of the posts that caught my eye recently. Hope you find something interesting.

Lighter Links:

• OpenAI's Most Impressive Move Has Nothing to Do With AI. (ZDNet)
• AI Stuns Researchers by Rewriting Its Own Code to Overcome Limitations. (TalkAndroid)
• Meta’s New AI Tech Can Read Your Mind at Work…What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (AllWork)
• How to Enter a ‘Flow State’ on Command: Peak Performance Mind Hack Explained in 7 Minutes. (OpenCulture)
• British Anthropologist Claims Jesus' Tomb and Ark of the Covenant are Beneath the Great Pyramid. (JPost)

 

 

Trading Links:

• Trump’s Knives Are Out for Jerome Powell, Setting Up a Supreme Court Showdown Over the Fed’s Independence. (Fortune)
• First Shockwaves of Trump’s Tariffs are About to Hit the World Economy. (Bloomberg)
• America is Losing the Robot Wars. (Insider)
• The Only Way Some Manufacturing Jobs Will Return Stateside is If AI-Empowered Robots Do Them—And That’s a Good Thing. (Fortune)
• ‘China’s Elon Musk’ Uses Just Two Numbers to Demonstrate Why His Country’s Auto Industry is Now Outcompeting the U.S. And Europe. (Fortune)

Are We Alone In The Universe?

Last week, Astronomers announced the discovery of the most promising "hints" of life on an exoplanet, K2-18, 124 light years away. 

While it would only be signs of phytoplankton and other microscopic marine life, it would still be a massive finding. 

I tend to read a lot across a wide variety of sources. Recently, I've noticed a significant uptick in stories about aliens, UFOs, non-human intelligence, and non-human technology. In addition, several of my seemingly sane friends claim to have direct knowledge of projects and groups (funded by well-known billionaires) close to making very public announcements about missions, research, and discoveries in these areas, they hope will result in discontiguous innovations and asymmetric capabilities.

While I believe it's naive to assume that there's no other form of life in a universe as vast as what we understand ... I'm also highly skeptical of anyone who claims that they have specific knowledge or proof. With that said, I have seen enough stuff from people I trust to expect that our beliefs about these issues will shift massively in the very near future. As an example, check out Skywatch.ai, some of its videos, or this NewsNation broadcast.

Since we live in a time where technologies are rapidly advancing, I thought it might be interesting to test out an AI-powered chatbot designed to debunk conspiracy theories through evidence-based conversations. It is a spin-out project with roots at MIT and other top universities. Research shows that many people doubted or abandoned false beliefs after a short conversation with the DebunkBot. 

I first heard of this tool through these two articles: Meet DebunkBot, The AI Chatbot that Will Debunk Any Conspiracies You Believe and AI Chatbot Shows Promise in Talking People Out of Conspiracy Theories.

Here is a link to the conversation I had with it about the belief  "Life likely exists elsewhere in the Universe due to its vastness and the repeated conditions that can give rise to life."  To my surprise, this tool concluded that the belief is not a conspiracy theory and reminded me that:

Science for the sake of knowing is one thing. Belief for the sake of hope, curiosity, or imagination is another. The search for "life" might actually help us discover something more valuable than what we thought we were searching for in the first place.

You can test your beliefs against DebunkBot's AI. Let me know how it goes and whether you changed your mind.

Meanwhile, Information Is Beautiful has an interactive data visualization to help you decide if we're alone in the Universe. 

As usual, it's well done, fun, and informative. 

For the slightly geeky amongst us, the model lets you adjust the estimate by playing with the Drake and Seager equations.

The Drake equation estimates the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy and the universe. It factors in variables such as habitable planets, the likelihood of life, intelligent life, and the duration of time a civilization sends signals into space. 

The Seager equation is a modern take on the equation, focusing on bio-signatures of life that we can currently detect - for example, the number of observable stars/planets, the % have life, and the % chance of detectable bio-signature gas. 

Click here to play with the Are We Alone in the Universe infographic. 

 

via Information Is Beautiful

For both equations, the infographic lets you look at various default options, but also enables you to change the variables based on your beliefs. 

For example, the skeptic's default answer for Drake's equation shows 0.0000062 communicating civilizations in our galaxy, which is still 924,000 in the universe. The equivalent for Seager's equation shows 0.0009000 planets with detectable life in our "galactic neighborhood" and 135,000,000 planets in our universe. 

Even with the "lowest possible" selection chosen, Drake's equation still shows 42 communicating civilizations (Douglas Adams, anyone?) in the universe.

 

via Information Is Beautiful

One of the most interesting numbers (and potentially influential numbers for me) is the length of time a civilization sends signals into space. Conservative estimates are 420 years, but optimistic estimates are 10,000 or more. 

One other thing to consider is that some scientists believe that life is most likely to grow on planets with very high gravity, which would also make escaping their atmosphere for space travel nigh impossible.

If any aliens are reading this ... don't worry, I won't tell. But we will find out who you voted for in the last election.

Last week, Astronomers announced the discovery of the most promising "hints" of life on an exoplanet, K2-18, 124 light years away. 

While it would only be signs of phytoplankton and other microscopic marine life, it would still be a massive finding. 

I tend to read a lot across a wide variety of sources. Recently, I've noticed a significant uptick in stories about aliens, UFOs, non-human intelligence, and non-human technology. In addition, several of my seemingly sane friends claim to have direct knowledge of projects and groups (funded by well-known billionaires) close to making very public announcements about missions, research, and discoveries in these areas, they hope will result in discontiguous innovations and asymmetric capabilities.

While I believe it's naive to assume that there's no other form of life in a universe as vast as what we understand ... I'm also highly skeptical of anyone who claims that they have specific knowledge or proof. With that said, I have seen enough stuff from people I trust to expect that our beliefs about these issues will shift massively in the very near future. As an example, check out Skywatch.ai, some of its videos, or this NewsNation broadcast.

Since we live in a time where technologies are rapidly advancing, I thought it might be interesting to test out an AI-powered chatbot designed to debunk conspiracy theories through evidence-based conversations. It is a spin-out project with roots at MIT and other top universities. Research shows that many people doubted or abandoned false beliefs after a short conversation with the DebunkBot. 

I first heard of this tool through these two articles: Meet DebunkBot, The AI Chatbot that Will Debunk Any Conspiracies You Believe and AI Chatbot Shows Promise in Talking People Out of Conspiracy Theories.

Here is a link to the conversation I had with it about the belief  "Life likely exists elsewhere in the Universe due to its vastness and the repeated conditions that can give rise to life."  To my surprise, this tool concluded that the belief is not a conspiracy theory and reminded me that:

Science for the sake of knowing is one thing. Belief for the sake of hope, curiosity, or imagination is another. The search for "life" might actually help us discover something more valuable than what we thought we were searching for in the first place.

You can test your beliefs against DebunkBot's AI. Let me know how it goes and whether you changed your mind.

Meanwhile, Information Is Beautiful has an interactive data visualization to help you decide if we're alone in the Universe. 

As usual, it's well done, fun, and informative. 

For the slightly geeky amongst us, the model lets you adjust the estimate by playing with the Drake and Seager equations.

The Drake equation estimates the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy and the universe. It factors in variables such as habitable planets, the likelihood of life, intelligent life, and the duration of time a civilization sends signals into space. 

The Seager equation is a modern take on the equation, focusing on bio-signatures of life that we can currently detect - for example, the number of observable stars/planets, the % have life, and the % chance of detectable bio-signature gas. 

Click here to play with the Are We Alone in the Universe infographic. 

 

via Information Is Beautiful

For both equations, the infographic lets you look at various default options, but also enables you to change the variables based on your beliefs. 

For example, the skeptic's default answer for Drake's equation shows 0.0000062 communicating civilizations in our galaxy, which is still 924,000 in the universe. The equivalent for Seager's equation shows 0.0009000 planets with detectable life in our "galactic neighborhood" and 135,000,000 planets in our universe. 

Even with the "lowest possible" selection chosen, Drake's equation still shows 42 communicating civilizations (Douglas Adams, anyone?) in the universe.

 

via Information Is Beautiful

One of the most interesting numbers (and potentially influential numbers for me) is the length of time a civilization sends signals into space. Conservative estimates are 420 years, but optimistic estimates are 10,000 or more. 

One other thing to consider is that some scientists believe that life is most likely to grow on planets with very high gravity, which would also make escaping their atmosphere for space travel nigh impossible.

If any aliens are reading this ... don't worry, I won't tell. But we will find out who you voted for in the last election.

Understanding the Shape of Change

Change is the only constant in life, yet it rarely unfolds in ways we expect. While we sense its approach, its shape — whether sudden and disruptive or slow and subtle — often defies our predictions. As the pace and scale of change accelerate, understanding its patterns becomes more crucial than ever.

The World Government Summit put together a helpful interactive website where you can test your knowledge on the trajectory of key statistical indicators for the development of society over the past decade. Here is the text from their opening screen.

 

Can we estimate how much the world has changed in a decade? Or do our own experiences impact the perception of progress? This work challenges the assumptions we make about how key statistical indicators regarding Health, the Environment, or Education evolve through the years. 

- The Shape of Change via the World Government Summit

The first part of the process was designed to be like a guessing game where you try to predict the direction and the rate of change of key issues shaping the world (like oil dependency, pollution,  literacy, economic freedom, etc.) by answering some questions at "The Shape of Change." It is simple, easy-to-use, and has a nice interface ... but answering the questions was more challenging than expected. Try it here. 

 

The Shape of Change via the World Government

The second part of the experiment lets you explore the year-over-year changes in key statistics regarding health, education, economy, and other topics.

 

The Shape of Change via the World Government

If you want to explore this further, I asked Perplexity to give me a broad overview of the project and its key insights. Here is the link.

The data is interesting. But, perhaps, your reaction to the data is more important. 

Were there any numbers that surprised you?

Taking Lessons on AI from my Grandmom

Almost every event I go to nowadays ends up focused on AI. At a recent event, conversations ranged from use cases for generative AI (and the ethics of AI image creators) to the long-term effects of AI and its adoption.

Before I could chime in, the conversation had gone to the various comparisons from past generations. When electricity was harnessed, articles claimed that it would never catch on, it would hurt productivity – and woe be unto the artisans it would potentially put out of business if it were to gain traction. 

When the radio or TV was released, the older generation was sure it would lead to the death of productivity, have horrible ramifications, and ultimately lead to the next generation's failure. 

People resist change. We're wired to avoid harm more than to seek pleasure. The reason is that, evolutionarily, you have to survive to have fun. 

On the other hand, my grandmother used to say: "It's easy to get used to nice things." 

 

 

Here's a transcript of some of my comments during that discussion: 

 

With AI, getting from "Zero-to-One" was a surprisingly long and difficult process.  Meaning, getting AI tools and capabilities to the point where normal people felt called to use it because they believed it would be useful or necessary was a long and winding road.  But now that everybody thinks it's useful, AI use will no longer be "special".  Instead, it will become part of the playing field.  And because of that, deciding to use AI is no longer a strategy.  It becomes table stakes.

But that creates a potential problem and distraction.  Why?  Because, for most of us, our unique ability is not based on our ability to use ChatGPT or some other AI tool of the day.  As more people focus on what a particular tool can do, they risk losing sight of what really matters for their real business.

Right now, ChatGPT is hot!  But, if you go back to the beginning of the Internet, MySpace or Netscape (or some other tools that were first and big) aren't necessarily the things that caught on and became standards.

I'm not saying that OpenAI and ChatGPT aren't important.  But what I believe is more important is that we passed a turning point where, all of a sudden, tons of people started to use something new.  That means there will be an increase of focus, resources, and activity concentrated on getting to next in that space.

You don't have to predict the technology; it is often easier and better to predict human nature instead.  We're going to find opportunities and challenges we wouldn't because of the concentration of energy, focus, and effort.  Consequently, AI, business, and life will evolve.

For most of us, what that means is that over the next five years, our success will not be tied to how well we use a tool that exists today, but rather on how we develop our capabilities to leverage tools like that to grow our business and improve our lives. 

Realize that your success will not be determined by how well you learn to use ChatGPT.  It will be determined by how well you envision your future and recognize opportunities to use tools to start making progress toward the things you really want and to become more and more of who you really are.  Right?

So, think about your long-term bigger future.  Pick a time 5, 10,  or even 20 years from now.  What does your desired bigger future look like?  Can you create a vivid vision where you describe in detail what you'd like to happen in your personal, professional, and business life?  Once you've done that, try to imagine what a likely midpoint might look like.  And then, using that as a directional compass, try to imagine what you can do in this coming year that aligns your actions with the path you've chosen.

 

Ultimately, as you start finding ways to use emerging technologies in a way that excites you, the fear and gloom fade.

The best way to break through a wall isn't with a wide net ... but with a sharp blow. You should be decisive and focused. 

Commit to using AI in ways that give you energy, which may be entirely different from how you use it now. 

So much of what we do now is anchored in the past. This is an opportunity to transcend the old ways you did things and to shape and transform your future (and perhaps even what you believe is possible).

I was an entrepreneur in the late 90s (during the DotCom Bubble). And I remember watching people start to emulate Steve Jobs ... wearing black faux-turtlenecks and talking about how they were transforming their business to be in an Internet company – or which Internet company would be the "next big thing." Looking back, an early sign that a crash was coming was that seemingly everybody had an opinion about what would be hot, and too many people were overly confident in their views because seemingly everyone was saying the same things. 

Human nature has remained stubbornly consistent through many waves of technology. 

The point is that almost nobody talks about the Internet with the focus and intensity they did in the late 90s ... in part because the Internet is now part of the fabric of society. At this point, it would be weird if somebody didn't use the Internet. And you don't really even have to think about how to use the Internet anymore because there's a WHO to do almost all those HOWs (and many of them are digital WHOs that do those HOWs for you without you even knowing they were needed or being done). 

The same is going to be true for AI. Like with any technology, it will suffer from all the same hype-cycle blues of inflated expectations and then disillusionment. But, when we come out the other side, AI will be better for it ... and so will society. 

Understanding the Possibility Scale

It helps to understand how we bring things into existence. To start, it's nearly impossible to manifest something you can't first imagine. And there is a moment just before something happens - when it becomes inevitable. 

I created this Possibility Scale to help envision the stages of becoming.

 

 

As an aside, before today, I would not have attempted to create an image for a post like this. While I love thinking and writing, image creation was outside my area of expertise or unique ability. But now things are different. Today, I simply asked ChatGPT to create that image. Yes, it took me four tries ... each retry starting with "that was great, now help me improve the prompt to (fix the thing I wanted done differently)."  At the end, I asked it to give me the complete prompt I could reuse. Contact me if you want the prompt.

Earlier, I mentioned how long it took to get from "Zero-to-One" with AI. But don't fret; things are speeding up, and we're just at the beginning of the process. If I created a scale to show the capabilities of AI, and set the endpoint at 100 to represent AI's potential when I die - even though I'm in my early 60s, I'd put us at only a 3 or 4 on that 100-point scale. Meaning, we are at the beginning of one of the biggest and most asymptotic curves that you can imagine. That also means that you're not late. You're early! Even the fact that you're thinking about stuff like this now means that you are massively ahead of most.

The trick isn't to figure out how to use AI or some AI tool. The trick is to keep the main thing the main thing. Build your ability to recognize when and how to use these new capabilities to bring the future forward faster.

Investing resources into your company is one thing. Realize that there are 1000s of these tools out there, and many more coming. You don't have to build something yourself. It is often faster and better to acquire a tool than it is to spend money on developing and building it.

Think of the Medici family. They invested in people, which in turn triggered the Renaissance. A key to moving forward in the Age of AI will be to invest in the right WHOs, seeking to create the kind of world you want to see or the types of capabilities you desire. Think of this as a strategic investment into creators and entrepreneurs with a vision or who are on a path that aligns with yours.

As you get better and better at doing that, you'll see increasing opportunities to use tools to engage people to collaborate with and create joint ventures. Ultimately, you will collaborate with technology (like it's your thought partner and then your business partner). We are entering exciting times where AI, automation, and innovation will make extraordinary things possible for people looking for opportunities to do extraordinary things.

As my grandmother said, it's easy to get used to nice things.

Onwards!

Mad About March Madness

March Madness is in full swing and will have the world's attention for a few more days. As you can guess, almost no one has a perfect bracket anymore. McNeese beat Clemson, Drake beat Mizzou, and Arkansas handed Kansas its first first-round loss since 2006. On Friday, the NCAA said that of the over 34 million brackets submitted at the start of March Madness, approximately 1,600 remained perfect. That's less than .1% after the first day. The first game of the tournament - Creighton vs. Louisville - busted over half of the brackets. 

Before 24/7 sports channels, people watched the weekly show "The Wide World of Sports."  Its opening theme promised "The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat!" and "The human drama of athletic competition." That defines March Madness.

The holy grail is mighty elusive in March Madness (as in most things). For example, the odds of getting the perfect bracket are 1 in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (that is 1 in 9.223 quintillion if that was too many zeros count). If you want better odds, then you can have a 1 in 2.4 trillion chance based on a Duke Mathematician's formula that takes into account ranks). It's easier to win back-to-back lotteries than picking a perfect bracket. Nonetheless, I bet you felt pretty good when you filled out your bracket.

via Duke University

Here's some more crazy March Madness Stats: 

• Companies expect $4 Billion of corporate losses due to employees tracking games
• The highest-paid NCAA coach, Kansas's Bill Self, makes a salary of $8.8 Million
• In 2018, it was estimated that March Madness generated $10 Billion in gambling (twice as much as the Super Bowl)

 

Feeding the Madness

"Not only is there more to life than basketball, there's a lot more to basketball than basketball." - Phil Jackson

In 2017, I highlighted three people who were (semi) successful at predicting March Madness: a 13-year-old who used a mix of guesswork and preferences, a 47-year-old English woman who used algorithms and data science (despite not knowing the game), and a 70-year-old bookie who had his finger on the pulse of the betting world. None of them had the same success even a year later.

Finding an edge is hard - Maintaining an edge is even harder.

That's not to say there aren't edges to be found. 

Bracket-choosing mimics the way investors pick trades or allocate assets. Some people use gut feelings, some base their decisions on current and historical performance, and some use predictive models. You've got different inputs, weights, and miscellaneous factors influencing your decision. That makes you feel powerful. But knowing the history, their ranks, etc., can help make an educated guess, and they can also lead you astray. 

The allure of March Madness is the same as gambling or trading. As sports fans, it's easy to believe we know something the layman doesn't. We want the bragging rights for the sleeper pick that went deeper than most expected, our alma mater winning, and for the big upset we predicted. 

You'd think an NCAA analyst might have a better shot at a perfect bracket than your grandma or musical-loving co-worker.

In reality, several of the highest-ranked brackets every year are guesses. 

The commonality in all decisions is that we are biased. Bias is inherent to the process because there isn't a clear-cut answer. We don't know who will win or what makes a perfect prediction. 

Think about it from a market efficiency standpoint. People make decisions based on many factors — sometimes irrational ones — which can create inefficiencies and complexities. It can be hard to find those inefficiencies and capitalize on them, but they're there to be found. 

In trading, AI and advanced math help remove biases and identify inefficiencies humans miss.

Can machine learning also help in March Madness?

“The greater the uncertainty, the bigger the gap between what you can measure and what matters, the more you should watch out for overfitting - that is, the more you should prefer simplicity” - Tom Griffiths

The data is there. Over 100,000 NCAA regular-season games were played over the last 25+ years, and we generally have plenty of statistics about the teams for each season. There are plenty of questions to be asked about that data that may add an extra edge. 

That said, people have tried before with mediocre success. It's hard to overcome the intangibles of sports—hustle, the crowd, momentum—and it's hard to overcome the odds of 1 in 9.2 quintillion. 

Two lessons can be learned from this:

1. People aren't as good at prediction as they predict they are.
2. Machine Learning isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to all your problems.

Something to think about.

 

Feeding the Madness

"Not only is there more to life than basketball, there's a lot more to basketball than basketball." - Phil Jackson

In 2017, I highlighted three people who were (semi) successful at predicting March Madness: a 13-year-old who used a mix of guesswork and preferences, a 47-year-old English woman who used algorithms and data science (despite not knowing the game), and a 70-year-old bookie who had his finger on the pulse of the betting world. None of them had the same success even a year later.

Finding an edge is hard - Maintaining an edge is even harder.

That's not to say there aren't edges to be found. 

Bracket-choosing mimics the way investors pick trades or allocate assets. Some people use gut feelings, some base their decisions on current and historical performance, and some use predictive models. You've got different inputs, weights, and miscellaneous factors influencing your decision. That makes you feel powerful. But knowing the history, their ranks, etc., can help make an educated guess, and they can also lead you astray. 

The allure of March Madness is the same as gambling or trading. As sports fans, it's easy to believe we know something the layman doesn't. We want the bragging rights for the sleeper pick that went deeper than most expected, our alma mater winning, and for the big upset we predicted. 

You'd think an NCAA analyst might have a better shot at a perfect bracket than your grandma or musical-loving co-worker.

In reality, several of the highest-ranked brackets every year are guesses. 

The commonality in all decisions is that we are biased. Bias is inherent to the process because there isn't a clear-cut answer. We don't know who will win or what makes a perfect prediction. 

Think about it from a market efficiency standpoint. People make decisions based on many factors — sometimes irrational ones — which can create inefficiencies and complexities. It can be hard to find those inefficiencies and capitalize on them, but they're there to be found. 

In trading, AI and advanced math help remove biases and identify inefficiencies humans miss.

Can machine learning also help in March Madness?

“The greater the uncertainty, the bigger the gap between what you can measure and what matters, the more you should watch out for overfitting - that is, the more you should prefer simplicity” - Tom Griffiths

The data is there. Over 100,000 NCAA regular-season games were played over the last 25+ years, and we generally have plenty of statistics about the teams for each season. There are plenty of questions to be asked about that data that may add an extra edge. 

That said, people have tried before with mediocre success. It's hard to overcome the intangibles of sports—hustle, the crowd, momentum—and it's hard to overcome the odds of 1 in 9.2 quintillion. 

Two lessons can be learned from this:

1. People aren't as good at prediction as they predict they are.
2. Machine Learning isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to all your problems.

Something to think about.

The Psychology of Gamblers

March Madness, Vegas, and Wall Street share a lot in common. 

Over Time ... The House Wins

Casinos only offer to play games that they expect to win. In contrast, gambling customers play even though they know the odds are against them.

Why does this happen? The rush of a win, the chance of a big win, and random reinforcement are common factors that incentivize people to play the lotto, go to a casino, or try to trade.

Chemicals like adrenaline and dopamine play a part as well. Even in a sea of losses, your body can't help but crave the chemical reward of even a small win.

The "House" knows this and engineers an experience that takes advantage of it.  

In the case of casinos, every detail is meticulously crafted to extract you from your money - from carpet patterns to the labyrinthian layouts, the music, the lights, and even the games themselves. 

Here is an infographic that lays it out for you. 

Bojoko via DailyInfographic

Most people aren't gamblers ... the fear of losing big inhibits them. However, when people were instructed to "think like a trader," they showed considerably less risk aversion when gambling. And I bet you have no problem filling out a March Madness bracket, even if you put money on the line. 

The illusion of control convinces us we can overcome the statistics. 

When you almost get it right - when you guess the first round of March Madness correctly, when you miss the jackpot by one slot on a slot machine, when you just mistime a trade to get a big win - you're more likely to play longer, and place bigger bets ... because you're "so close." 

It's human nature to want to feel in control. 

This is why you find a lot of superstitious traders & gamblers. If you wear this lucky item of clothing ... if you throw the dice in this particular way ... if you check your holdings at this time every day ... you have control. 

There is a big difference between causation and correlation. 

It is not hard to imagine that, for most traders, the majority of their activities do little to create a real and lasting edge.  

Skill vs. Luck

There are games of skill, and there are games of chance.

In a casino, poker, and blackjack are considered games of skill. In contrast, slot machines are considered a game of chance.

In trading, predicting markets is much different than using math and statistics to measure the performance of a technique.

Much of what we do is to figure out how to eliminate the fear, greed, and discretionary mistakes humans bring to trading.

In trading, "Alpha" is the measure of excess return attributed to manager skill, rather than luck or taking on more risk.

We believe in Alpha-by-Avoidance ... Meaning much of what we do is figure out what to ignore or avoid so that more of the games we play are games of skill rather than games of chance.

Are you playing the right game?

Starting With Why

Ideas don’t have to be complex to be valuable. Twice this week, I heard someone say, “Start with Why.” As a tech entrepreneur, I often ignore that aphorism.  Someone who embodies it (and made it famous) is Simon Sinek.  He is a motivational speaker and organizational consultant who gained widespread recognition after his 2009 TED Talk, “How Great Leaders Inspire Action,” which remains one of the most-viewed TED Talks ever, with almost 70 million views. This talk introduced his core framework: The Golden Circle, the concept that catapulted him to fame. It is a simple but powerful model for understanding why some leaders and organizations inspire while others don’t. It consists of three concentric circles, like a bullseye. At the center is Why, the middle ring is How, and the outermost ring is What.

Most people and organizations focus on the outermost circle first—what they do—and then work inward. Sinek flips this approach, arguing that great leaders and companies start from the inside out: start with Why. Why Start with Why? Here’s an analogy: Think of a magnet. The strongest force comes from its core. Similarly, in leadership and business, the Why is your core—it’s what attracts people to you. It’s not just about selling a product; it’s about sharing a belief or vision that resonates emotionally with others. For example: Apple doesn’t just sell computers (What). They believe in challenging the status quo and thinking differently (Why). Their How—innovative design and user-friendly technology—flows naturally from this belief. Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t say, “I have a plan.” He said, “I have a dream.” His Why inspired millions because it connected with their values and emotions. The Biological Connection Sinek ties this idea to how our brains work. The outer layer of the brain (the neocortex) processes logical information like facts and figures (What), but decisions are driven by the limbic brain, which controls emotions and instincts (Why). When you lead with Why, you speak directly to people’s feelings, inspiring trust and loyalty. Simplified Takeaway Think of it like this: If you want people to join your cause or buy into your vision, don’t just tell them what you’re selling or how great it is. Tell them why it matters—to you and to them. Starting with Why connects hearts before minds, creating a lasting impact. In short, the Golden Circle isn’t just a business strategy; it’s a way to inspire action by leading with purpose. I met Simon through friends before his first book came out. Then, in 2009, he gave a speech to the Dallas Chapter of EO, and then visited my office to speak with our team afterwards.  I still remember how well-received he was. It was right at the beginning of his meteoric rise, two short months after the release of his famous book "Start With Why." Here's the article I wrote in 2009 after that visit:

___________________

Inspiration is stronger than persuasion.  It gives people a sense of purpose and belonging that has little to do with external incentives or benefits.

Simon Sinek, who is quite charismatic and well-spoken, is delivering this message to a rapidly growing fan base. 

My team thought Simon was inspiring, engaging, and insightful.

You can watch a short video that introduces his material below. 

In addition, you can explore more of his ideas in his book, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action.

 

An Example of Finding the Right Person for a Job.

Who do you believe will do a better job, someone who takes a job because of the salary and benefits ... or someone truly inspired to accomplish the job's purpose? 

Phrased that way, of course, you know the answer.  Still, how can you leverage this to better select customers and employees?

For example, Simon uses the story of Sir Ernest Shackleton to illustrate this concept.  Shackleton was preparing to lead the first expedition across Antarctica in 1914.  Legend has it that when seeking crew members for his journey, Shackleton placed the following ad in a newspaper:

"MEN WANTED FOR HAZARDOUS JOURNEY. SMALL WAGES, BITTER COLD, LONG MONTHS OF COMPLETE DARKNESS, CONSTANT DANGER, SAFE RETURN DOUBTFUL. HONOUR AND RECOGNITION IN CASE OF SUCCESS.
     -  SIR ERNEST SHACKLETON"

When the expedition became stuck in the ice and could not be rescued for 22 months, not a single man was lost.  The reason Simon gave for their unlikely survival was that Shackleton hired survivors that could deal with the situation and were aligned with the mission and purpose.

Can you imagine writing an ad like that to attract the right people to your cause?

Watch This Video.

Here is a video of Simon speaking at a TED Conference.  It is an excellent intro to his stuff. 

Other Resources:

• Here is a link to Simon's Blog.  (2023 Note: this now links to his old blog, which is poorly formatted but interesting to see.  His new website/blog can be found here.)
• Here is a link to Videos of Simon.
• Here is a link to an article on why to know someone else's Why.  (PDF Version)
• Here is a link to Simon's Book: Start with Why.

_____________________

It's now more than ten years later, and Simon is one of the most prominent leaders in leadership development and has published five books, to much acclaim. 

Part of his success is the charisma and pith with which Simon speaks and writes - but a large part is his focus on what makes humans human.  He's not preaching a leadership mantra focused on the bottom line and revenue; he's focused on the aspects of human nature that don't change.  He's focused on purpose and the elements of leadership that apply to everyone - not just CEOs. 

As we move into an era of increased volatility – both in markets and business - these leadership principles will become more important. 

Understanding your "WHY" is vital if you want to make a difference (and not be replaced by an AI). It’s also vital in making discipline the easier choice.

If you haven't read any of his books, they're all good, but I suggest "Start With Why" and "The Infinite Game."

Most people and organizations focus on the outermost circle first—what they do—and then work inward. Sinek flips this approach, arguing that great leaders and companies start from the inside out: start with Why.

Why Start with Why?

Here’s an analogy: Think of a magnet. The strongest force comes from its core. Similarly, in leadership and business, the Why is your core—it’s what attracts people to you. It’s not just about selling a product; it’s about sharing a belief or vision that resonates emotionally with others.

For example:

• Apple doesn’t just sell computers (What). They believe in challenging the status quo and thinking differently (Why). Their How—innovative design and user-friendly technology—flows naturally from this belief.
• Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t say, “I have a plan.” He said, “I have a dream.” His Why inspired millions because it connected with their values and emotions.

The Biological Connection

Sinek ties this idea to how our brains work. The outer layer of the brain (the neocortex) processes logical information like facts and figures (What), but decisions are driven by the limbic brain, which controls emotions and instincts (Why). When you lead with Why, you speak directly to people’s feelings, inspiring trust and loyalty.

Simplified Takeaway

Think of it like this: If you want people to join your cause or buy into your vision, don’t just tell them what you’re selling or how great it is. Tell them why it matters—to you and to them. Starting with Why connects hearts before minds, creating a lasting impact.

In short, the Golden Circle isn’t just a business strategy; it’s a way to inspire action by leading with purpose.

I met Simon through friends before his first book came out.

Then, in 2009, he gave a speech to the Dallas Chapter of EO, and then visited my office to speak with our team afterwards.  I still remember how well-received he was. It was right at the beginning of his meteoric rise, two short months after the release of his famous book "Start With Why."

Here's the article I wrote in 2009 after that visit:

Skype's Kodak Moment: Remnants of a Past Era

Last week, Microsoft announced that Skype would shut down in May ... after over two decades of service. 

Hydrox existed before Oreo, and Betamax before VHS.

But Skype might be even more surprising. Skype was so ubiquitous that it became a verb and eponymous with video calling. As a world traveler, Skype also used to be the go-to international calling app.

Imagine if Kleenex, Jell-O, or Band-Aids went out of business. 

That’s what Skype did - and it’s not the first tech business to fail similarly...

Thinking Linearly in an Exponential 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, weak, and famously bad at understanding large numbers or exponential growth. 

Making matters worse, 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 couldn’t understand a future where shopping was done online – and Kodak didn’t think digital cameras would replace good ol’ film. Blockbuster couldn’t foresee a future where people would want movies in their mailboxes because “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. The list goes on. 

 

via Diamandis

Human perception is linear. Technological growth is exponential.

There are many examples. Here is one Peter Diamandis calls “The Kodak Moment” (a play on words of “a Kodak Moment”... the phrase Kodak used in advertising to mean a “special moment that’s worth capturing with a camera”). 

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.

Meanwhile, despite Skype having several features that Zoom still hasn’t implemented, Zoom recognized an opportunity during COVID and capitalized. When Microsoft bought Skype, they focused on adding several new features and expanding the range of services instead of improving the quality of their audio or video. Meanwhile, when Zoom entered the space, they brought much better servers and the ability to have much larger rooms. More attendees meant a wider variety of use cases and quicker adoption and referral cycles. They also made it easy to join a Zoom room. Instead of getting your e-mail up front and forcing you to create an account to use it, they let you join a meeting without an account. You only needed an account to host a meeting. 

They focused on making it easy to use their service and on having a clear identity instead of trying to ride every wave and become unfocused. Of course, at the same time, Microsoft stopped focusing on the tool, with an increased focus on their new competitor to Zoom, Teams. 

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.

Don’t forget ... you don’t have to be the first mover to win in the end. 

Onwards!

Triumph Through Trials: Becoming Anti-Fragile

Many of our best decisions, timeliest course corrections, or significant innovations occur after a seemingly disastrous occurrence. That's why many psychologists and self-help gurus encourage people to focus on the hidden gift that many of these experiences provide.

It's there if you look for it. That painful event becomes the catalyst for either something new, a better way, or a level-up.

The goal isn't just to survive - it's to thrive. While a robust business can withstand shocks and a resilient business can recover from them, an anti-fragile business improves and grows stronger when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors.  The interesting thing about this concept is that it doesn't mean not fragile. It means things that weaken other systems are actually the things that strengthen you. 

Of course, that's not the case for everyone or every event ... It takes the right mindset and the right actions to turn a trial into a triumph. 

As we see the world changing rapidly, both through AI and through Trump's presidency, I think back to 2008 and how a prior incarnation of algorithms fared against it (spoiler alert: not nearly as well as this time). They say the things that don't kill you make you stronger. Here's my trial into triumph story about that. 

 

Via Howard Getson's YouTube Channel.

Too many people become victims of their circumstances instead of choosing to be the master of their destinies. 

Life is harder for people who live a life of least resistance. Doing the hard things and making the most of bad times makes life better and, ultimately, easier. 

Tony Robbins calls this the Threshold of Control. If you push through the fear and the struggle ... as you persevere, eventually, what was scary becomes easy. You've increased your threshold, and that's often a permanent improvement.  

Here is a list of the seven steps I use to transform almost any situation.

Seven Best Practices for Uncertain Times.

1. Accept Reality: We are where we are. Focus on being complete with what happened before this – and think about this as a new beginning with an even bigger future.
2. Do Something Positive: Take action and build momentum and confidence. Big wins are great. Yet, in scary times, even small items are worth noting, building upon, and stacking. Let progress build positive momentum for you.
3. Take Care of Yourself: Increase your physical activity, meditation, and massage. Take time to eat and sleep well. Many studies show decision-making suffers when you're stressed. Caring for yourself goes a long way to improving many other things.
4. Communicate More: The natural tendency is to hide or to recuperate in private. Instead, be open and receptive to help and ideas from friends, partners, or wherever it may come.
5. Creative Destruction: The old game and the old ways of thinking are over. Shift your energy to what is working. Commit to the result you want rather than the process.
6. Increase Your Options: It often takes a different level of thinking to solve a problem than the level of thinking that got you there in the first place. So, be open to opportunities, new possibilities, and more ways to win.
7. Choose a Bigger Future: Instead of resigning yourself to playing small and doing with less, recognize that a clearing creates space for something even better. Choose what you want and call it into existence through your thoughts and actions.

They say everything happens for a reason. The secret is that you get to choose the reason, what it means to you, and what you're going to do about it. Choose well, and someday, you could look back on this time as one of the best things that ever happened to you.