So to make myself clear, maybe I’ll get some responses.
If 100000 people use strategy A which gives results 10% of the time, and 100 people use strategy B which gives results 50% of the time (results as in they get rich), you will have 10000 people that got rich trough A and only 50 trough B.
If you wanted to get rich you’d be better served using strategy B, but you cannot see the cemetery of strategy A only looking at the Forbes 400. So isn’t this strategy not only not optimal, but actually harmful?
″ Google the list of the Forbes 400.
Go through each of the biographies for people on the list (or the first 200, or the first 100, or whatever is a large enough sample).
Write down how they got rich.
Summarize the data above: How do most rich people get rich?
Actually looking at data is simple, easy, and straightforward, and yet almost no one actually does it.”
Won’t that incur in the “not seeing the cemetery” fallacy?
So to make myself clear, maybe I’ll get some responses. If 100000 people use strategy A which gives results 10% of the time, and 100 people use strategy B which gives results 50% of the time (results as in they get rich), you will have 10000 people that got rich trough A and only 50 trough B.
If you wanted to get rich you’d be better served using strategy B, but you cannot see the cemetery of strategy A only looking at the Forbes 400. So isn’t this strategy not only not optimal, but actually harmful?