It's Better To Be Patient Than Right. Better Still To Be Disciplined.

Mindy Crandell was in line to purchase lottery tickets for the $590.5 million Powerball jackpot when another woman cut in front of her and her daughter. That woman, Gloria C. Mackenzie, won the lotto with the ticket Mindy would have purchased.

Powerball Lottery Near Winner Mindy Crandell.

I’ve never bought a lotto ticket and never will. After this Florida office pool won a recent lottery, I told my coworkers that I wouldn’t participate in one & wouldn’t collect a share of the winnings even if they won. Lotteries are bad, as James Poulos argues. Lotteries are so bad that the negative effects even extend to neighbors and family members of winners. I suppose Crandell’s story points to one reason Poulos doesn't mention why not to buy one: that you’ll avoid the situation of knowing you could have bought the winner if only…

Billionaire investorWarren Buffett provides a better rationale for staying away from the lotto. Former GEICO chairman Jack Byrne once offered a deal to everyone attending a business get together of golf and bridge. Byrne would take an $11 dollar ‘premium’ that would pay $10,000 to anyone who hit a hole in one over the course of the weekend. That’s a payoff of just about 1,000-1.

Jack Byrne

It was genius by Byrne. All the people attending were wealthy and could spare $11 without batting an eye. Plus, it was fun—and I’m sure made several T-boxes a lot more exciting places while well-struck balls were in flight.

Every single person who attended took Byrne up on his offer. Except Buffett. Though he could have spared the $11 more easily than most if not all of the participants—Buffett was at this point in the late 1980s well on his way to becoming a billionaire—he didn’t take the offer because he hated the odds.

Buffett was right. 

“Charlie Munger and I detest taking even small risks unless we feel we are being adequately compensated for doing so.” $11 dollars surely counts as a small risk. His discipline in not taking that bet offers a powerful lesson for those of us not on any Forbes lists.

If only Crandell knew her odds were worse than Buffett’s, she would have given up her spot not graciously, but enthusiastically. Interestingly, she did know. "The joke was, that's the lady that's going to win it. I was like, 'Yeah right. No one is going to win from little Zephyrhills,'" ABC News reported Crandell as saying.

Crandell’s attitude and courtesy are impressive and admirable. Refusing to engage in self-pity or schadenfreude, she reportedly is happy for Mackenzie and hopes the money "truly blesses her family."

A line from the ABC News report struck me: “The one thing Crandell did gain from the incident was a lesson she hopes her daughters learned.” I completely agree. Only I wish she had a different lesson in mind.

"It could have been us, but things happen. Sometimes it's better to be patient than right. I knew we were teaching our daughter the right thing," Crandell said.

She’s partly right. It is better to be patient than right. But, as Warren Buffett’s example teaches us, it’s even better to be disciplined.

It’s that discipline that allows him to win awards like this:

There’s nothing so insignificant as an extra $2 billion to an old man

That's Charlie Munger gently making fun of partner Warren Buffett. Buffett had just remarked that he gives away "4.75 percent of my stock every year. That’s $2 billion of stock."[1]

Charlie Munger elicits a smile from Warren Buffett.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman just penned a piece about the affluence of the U.S.’s older generation under the headline: “The geezers are all right.”
Krugman cites the CongressionalBudget Office’s May 2013 projections for debt and deficits as a sharp rebuke to those who have long been peddling imminent fiscal doom due to the crushing toll Social Security and Medicare will have on the U.S. economy. While acknowledging that recently released reports by Social Security and Medicare trustees released Friday do indicate that the U.S. retirement system is in need of fixing, Krugman thinks not only is the usual rhetoric surrounding the issue wildly overblown, but “the data suggest that we can, if we choose, maintain social insurance as we know it with only modest adjustments.”
I won’t go into the details of Krugman’s argument. It’s pretty straightforward. But I do want to take a look at a couple of items he cites and compare them to a broader argument Buffett advanced at the Berkshire shareholder meeting.
Krugman concedes that our Social Security system can use tweaks, largely because, “The ratio of Americans older than 65 to those of working age will rise inexorably over the decades ahead, and this will translate into rising spending on Social Security and Medicare as a share of national income.”
He’s only slightly less sanguine about Medicare—somewhat surprising given his  
The reason Krugman cites for optimism is this, “the latest report from the [Medicare’s] trustees still shows spending rising from 3.6 percent of GDP now to 5.6 percent in 2035. But that’s a smaller rise than in previous projections.” And the reason, Krugman theorizes, that this has happened is that the Affordable Care Act has worked; Obamacare has "bent the curve.” Furthermore, Krugman asserts, “because there are a number of cost-reducing measures in the law that have not yet kicked in, there’s every reason to believe that this favorable trend will continue.”
If those postulations are questionable (and I think they are), wait for this one: “Furthermore, there’s plenty of room for more savings, if only because recent research confirms that Americans pay far more for health procedures than citizens of other advanced countries pay; that the price premium can and should be brought down, and when it is, Medicare’s financial outlook will improve further.”
Can and should? Rather not hang my hat on that.
But my real issue with Krugman is when he writes,“The latest projections show the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare rising by a bit more than 3 percent of GDP between now and 2035, and that number could easily come down with more effort on the health care front. Now, 3 percent of GDP is a big number, but it’s not an economy-crushing number.” (Ital. mine). I really like Krugman. I do. A lot more than Chris Conover, anyway. His analysis in this case, though, relies on a lot of speculative propositions—not much of a ‘margin of safety’ in his projections. And, worse, he unhelpfully paints the magnitude of health care spending as a percentage of GDP even if the future winds up being as rosy as his outlook. And that’s a big if.
Here's Buffett's take on healthcare spending’s effect on the economy from the recent Berkshire shareholders meeting, "Health care cost is a big item. Say we spend 17 percent of GDP on health care. Most of our rivals pay 9.5 percent to 11.5 percent. There are only 100 cents in a dollar; if you give up seven cents on the dollar, that will be a major problem in competitiveness. It doesn’t relate to Medicare. The real problem is the cost, regardless of the payer system. ... Our system works, but the No. 1 problem for American business is health care costs."

Indeed.

---

[1] His comment was in response to the question from a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder at the company's annual meeting asking whether Buffett's charitable donations had or would have an effect on the company. Buffett clearly doesn't think so, pointing out that his donations amount to less than 1 percent of Berkshire. "Many stocks on the exchanges trade over 100 percent a year. One percent is absolutely peanuts."  

Don't Forget To Eat Your...Dandelions?

I have no intention of dedicating this blog to nutrition, but a recent New York Times article on phytonutrients caught my eye. An earlier post on this blog notes that learning is at the bottom of Munger's cognitive fitness pyramid and nutrition at the bottom of Glassman's physical preparedness pyramid.

New York Times graphic on phytonutrients in contemporary food.

The New York Times piece by Jo Robinson opens with an argument nearly verbatim to advice my grandfather used to give me. He'd say, "it's always better to get your nutrients from food, not pills." Robinson's piece recites the idea that "food can be the answer to our ills...if we eat nutritious foods we won’t need medicine or supplements."

Robinson cites Hippocrates who, in addition to providing medicine's guiding principle more than 2,500 years ago (do no harm), also offered this insight that has become conventional wisdom, "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food." My foods & nutrition instructor in college liked to point out that the French were in the habit of making fun of 'Americans' for their habit of popping nutrition supplements noting that in addition to our poorer health and higher obesity rates, we also had a lot more expensive urine.)

It is a nearly universally held maxim today that optimal health can be achieved by eating lots of fruits and vegetables. (CrossFit founder Greg Glassman, interestingly, isn't crazy about fruit and hates sugar). And food may well be the answer, but Robinson notes that farming--even before Monsanto!--has robbed a lot of the stuff we eat of a lot of the stuff that is the most beneficial to our bodies. Phytonutrients--the parts of food scientists tell us are most likely to keep us from cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and dementia--have been disappearing from our diets for about 10,000 years.

Robinson's piece tells a bunch of fascinating stories--most notably the story of how our corn came to be super-sweet, about 40 percent sugar, and devoid of phytonutrients after a scorched earth campaign launched by soon-to-be U.S. President George Washington against the Iroquois.

"If we want to get maximum health benefits from fruits and vegetables," Robinson argues, "we must choose the right varieties." And the right varieties are getting harder and harder

Form Before Function.

CrossFitters chase performance. They don't care so much what their bodies look like (the CrossFit Turning 7s into 10s video notwithstanding), but they're invested in what they can get their bodies to do. Just as many people exercize in order to look good rather than perform well, 19th Century gentleman farmer Noyes Darling set out to create an all-white, sweet varietyof corn. He succeeded in ridding corn of its erstwhile "disadvantage of being yellow."

Robinson's piece is a helpful corrective to crooked thinking about what's good for us to eat. She even offers some easy, practical advice for modern-day foragers, "Look for arugula. Arugula['s] greens are rich in cancer-fighting compounds called glucosinolates and higher in antioxidant activity than many green lettuces....Scallions, or green onions, are jewels of nutrition hiding in plain sight. They resemble wild onions and are just as good for you. Remarkably, they have more than five times more phytonutrients than many common onions do....Herbs are wild plants incognito. We’ve long valued them for their intense flavors and aroma, which is why they’ve not been given a flavor makeover. Because we’ve left them well enough alone, their phytonutrient content has remained intact." 

Think (Charlie Munger's) Mental Models?

The site Think Mental Models is impressive. The people behind it have put a lot of work into developing a list and explaining Charlie Munger's mental models.

Like Warren Buffett, I think it's a good idea to look to Charlie Munger for wisdom

Quoting Munger's longtime partner Warren Buffett, the site lauds Charlie Munger for having "the best 30-second mind in the world. He goes from A to Z in one move. He sees the essence of everything before you even finish the sentence."

Think Mental Models offers to help people think like Munger. It explains Munger's process as such, "he thinks by using the BIG IDEAS from disciplines as diverse as physics and psychology. He has a list of these ideas (mental models) in his mind and quickly picks the one(s) applicable to the given situation, much as a pilot automatically goes through a checklist prior to take-off."

Of course recognizing which models to use to analyze various situations is the hard part, as investor Mason Myers usefully deploys Clayton Christensen's thought to argue. "The trick is to know which theory to apply when." Indeed, even the best checklist (scroll to bottom of page for nice summary of Munger's checklists) is no good to someone who doesn't know how to use it.

Clayton Christensen knows the trick to Munger's mental models

Think Mental Models does provide a useful service; it lists and provides insight into a full 100 mental models either explicitly mentioned or inspired by Charlie Munger. It states, "Inspired by the work of Charles Munger, [this site] provides over 100 models that can be brought consciously to mind to aid the thinking process."

Think Mental Models compiles models into several categories:

Think Mental Models' Finance Models

Think Mental Models' Business Models

Think Mental Models' Thinking Models

Think Mental Models' Economic Models

Think Mental Models' Behavior Models

It's a pay site, and may be a good value. I'm sure its contents would aid the thinking process. Just understanding what mental models are and getting acquainted with the one hundred or so most important models will do wonders for anyone trying to get smarter. Adding Munger's insight that mental models need to be arranged in a supple mental latticework will help more. Add to that Munger's insight that you've got to continually use the models lest you forget them, and combine it with his concept of combined effects creating a 'lollapalooza effect' you'd really be onto something.

If Think Mental Models could teach the stuff Myers credits Munger & Christensen with teaching him, namely, "the best people can figure out which models are relevant to which situation," then it'd be a value at almost any price.

I haven't paid to see the site's elaborations of each model, but I wouldn't hold my breath that it could teach the skill of discerning how and when to use the models. Looking over the lists (and they are impressive lists) reminds me of a math class I took in junior high. Our teacher let us use one 5"x7" note card with any information we could hand print for the final test. We could write as many formulae as we wanted on the card. And we did. We even could have written (and perhaps some students smarter than I did!) write clues and rules to help determine when to apply which formula. Needless to say, even with the 'extra' help, not everyone got 100%.

Duke Huan of Ch'i

The reason is explained by an old Chinese folk tale:

Duke Huan of Ch’i was reading a book at the upper end of the hall; the wheelwright was making a wheel at the lower end. Put­ting aside his mallet and chisel, he called to the Duke and asked him what book he was reading. “One that records the words of the Sages,” answered the Duke. “Are those Sages alive?” asked the wheelwright. “Oh, no,” said the Duke, “they are dead.” “In that case,” said the wheelwright, “what you are reading can be noth­ing but the lees and scum of bygone men.” “How dare you, a wheelwright, find fault with the book I am reading. If you can explain your statement, I will let it pass. If not, you shall die.” “Speaking as a wheelwright,” he replied, “I look at the matter in this way; when I am making a wheel, if my stroke is too slow, then it bites deep but is not steady; if my stroke is too fast, then it is steady, but it does not go deep. The right pace, neither slow nor fast, cannot get into the hand unless it comes from the heart. It is a thing that cannot be put into words [rules]; there is an art in it that I cannot explain to my son. That is why it is impossible for me to let him take over my work, and here I am at the age of seventy, still making wheels. In my opinion it must have been the same with the men of old. All that was worth handing on, died with them; the rest, they put into their books. That is why I said that what you were reading was the lees and scum of by­gone men.”

So should we give up hope of learning Munger's 'mental models'? No. If Munger learned them, others can, too. And if he could learn them, they can be taught. The Clayton Christensen class Mason Myers cites is highly instructive in this regard. So is the Harvard Business School class Munger cites in his lecture on worldly wisdom, "Many educational institutions—although not nearly enough—have realized this. At Harvard Business School, the great quantitative thing that bonds the first-year class together is what they call decision tree theory. All they do is take high school algebra and apply it to real life problems. And the students love it. They're amazed to find that high school algebra works in life." But I don't think a book will do it. Not even Poor Charlie's Almanack. 

In a future post, I'll detail why the old wheelwright had a hard time teaching his son his craft and why we have a hard time 'learning' Munger's mental models from books.

Developing a 'Circle of Competence' is Hard. But Charlie Munger (and Barry Hecker!) Can Help.

I don't much care for investing. I don't have much money invested and don't spend a lot of time worrying about the stock market. People who pay close attention to the market, like Mason Meyers, love Charlie Munger. And I think I know why. Because his approach to learning makes people smarter. 

Charlie Munger

Of course, his track record also has a lot to do with it. So does his willingness to share his ideas. People will try almost anything if they think it’ll make them rich. Munger had to trick people into it a little, but he provided a functional set of guiding principles for acquiring wisdom. He was once asked to give a talk on stock picking. There was a reason he was invited to address the topic—he certainly was qualified. But he wasn’t all that interested in ‘just’ talking about stocks. The talk he gave was on the art of stock picking as a subdivision of the art of worldly wisdom.

“That enables me to start talking about worldly wisdom—a much broader topic that interests me because I think all too little of it is delivered by modern educational systems, at least in an effective way,” Munger said. “And therefore, the talk is sort of along the lines that some behaviorist psychologists call Grandma's rule after the wisdom of Grandma when she said that you have to eat the carrots before you get the dessert.

The carrot part of this talk is about the general subject of worldly wisdom which is a pretty good way to start. After all, the theory of modern education is that you need a general education before you specialize. And I think to some extent, before you're going to be a great stock picker, you need some general education.”

He’s right. Picking stocks is hard. There’s a lot of competition. And there are a lot of variables. So people do need to have some more general education.

Munger & Warren Buffett are famous for arguing that people would do well to carve out a well-defined ‘circle of competence’ and stay in it as much as possible. On it’s face, such advice seems like a vapid truism, akin to writing programs with little more to offer than ‘write what you know.’

But investing is so complicated that commanding a circle of competence isn’t easy—even confined to a narrow set of businesses in a small grouping of industries. Fortunately, for investors and the rest of us, Munger's thought extends far beyond investing. His approach to learning doesn’t just lead to wise investment decisions, but more general wisdom. I’m reminded of CrossFit’s recent official tweet: "What we’ve discovered is that #CrossFit increases work capacity across broad time and modal domains. #Fitness." Munger’s approach leads to cognitive, not physical, fitness. But the approach is the same.

And Munger’s thought is so great because it challenges people to question, to dig, and to look to multiple disciplines and to a diversity of ideas for insight and inspiration. (It also helpfully recommends being honest about what we do and don’t and cannot know). Mason Meyer’s piece was helpful in combining Munger's thought with Clayton Christensen’s to determine when and how to use different models. People who follow Munger’s approach learn a lot about investing by learning from other disciplines; and people who follow his approach learn a lot about various disciplines by learning to invest.

The Barry Hecker Axiom.

A couple weeks ago, Barry Hecker, an assistant coach for the NBA’s Memphis Grizzles, resigned. I believe he was the head coach of my high school’s basketball coach at Westminster College. My introduction to the basketball program at my high school came at a summer camp just before the start of my freshman year. One of the most memorable guests was Barry Hecker. He was working as a scout for another NBA team at the time. Our coach had the 200 or so campers all assemble on the gym floor to hear him. We all sat with our legs crossed facing him.

Basketball Guy Barry Hecker.

After his introduction, the first thing Hecker said was, “I fly in 400 (or whatever) miles to be here, and this is the thanks I get? 200 crotch shots? Some thanks!”

It was hilarious. At least to me as a 14-year old kid. He was cocksure and crass and outrageous. I won’t soon forget it. Another bit of advice that was just as provocative and every bit as memorable. He told us that to improve as shooters, we should shoot with our off-hand. He said, “The more you shoot with your left, the better you’ll understand how to shoot with your right.”

He was exaggerating a little. But, shooting with the opposite hand, for most of us, required that we rethink how to do a task we’d all done thousands of times. It also helpfully allowed the staff to start from scratch and demonstrate our mechanics from the bottom up. The coaches could put the ball in our hands and explain were it should sit, how we should hold it. They could tell us how we should set our feet, everything. Because we didn’t have the built-in experience doing it any other way, they had something of a tabula rasa. And challenging even our best, most deeply held ideas by trying to shoot with our off hands did help us to understand shooting with our dominant hand better.

When Two Great Thinkers Come Up With A Similar Idea, I Pay Attention

This post's headline is a paraphrase of a wonderful piece by investor Mason Myers. Here's his opening line verbatim: "When two great thinkers come to a similar idea from different starting points and careers, I pay attention."

Investor Mason Myers

Obviously, I agree. This blog is founded because two guys with very different starting points and careers came up with strikingly similar ideas. 

CrossFit founder Greg Glassman thought that the fitness industry was failing people by being too specialized. He came up with an idea that would develop greater general physical preparedness. Berkshire Hathaway partner Charlie Munger, similarly,  had previously come to the conclusion that the way people had learned (and were taught) to think was too narrow and too specialized. He came up with an idea that would combat what he saw as the 'fatal disconnectedness' of academic training: a acquiring a latticework of mental models. Munger's aim is cognitive, rather than physical, fitness. But the ideas are virtually identical.

Charles T. Munger Sr.

Myers has identified similarities that Munger's approach shares with another thinker and businessman: Clayton Christensen. This Harvard professor's ideas illuminate how to use Munger's approach, and signal how one can become adept at recognizing when and how to apply the various models Munger thinks are important.

Myers' piece is a must read in full for anyone interested in putting Munger's ideas into practice. But here's a snapshot of his argument:

"When I took Christensen’s class in 2001 or 2002, I remember being handed at the beginning of class a couple of summary papers with maybe 15-20 different hieroglyphic-like symbols representing different theories and models that are “true” in some circumstances." 

Clayton Christensen. Famous, among other things, for being Mason Myers' teacher at Harvard.

"For Munger, his ideas of “worldly wisdom” have been circulated from talks he gave in the 1990′s. The idea is that a wise person needs a “latticework of mental models” rather than the ability to crunch numbers in his head or regurgitate facts.  He explains that multiple models are better (shades of Christensen emphasizing a collection of frameworks rather than the singular focus of some academics), the models should be cross-disciplinary, and the best people can figure out which models are relevant to which situation."

Those at all interested in Munger need to read the full piece; it's one of the best, most useful things I've ever read on Munger.

Scientific Revolution, Fitness Revolution...Education Revolution?

CrossFit founder Greg Glassman made some waves (and enemies, no doubt) when he wrote about his befuddlement at Outside magazine calling Mark Allen, then the world's best triathlete, the fittest man alive and putting him on its cover.

Glassman argued that the cover's claim was absurd. Instead, he averred, Simon Poelman, a seven-time New Zealand national decathlon champion, was fitter. Glassman thought that Poelman was a better model for fitness because he, like Allen, had plenty of endurance and stamina "yet crushes Mr. Allen in any comparison that includes strength, power, speed, and coordination.”

brian mackenzie

brian mackenzie on Fitness

Author and noted CrossFitter brian mackenzie recently had the opportunity to interview Mark Allen and wrote this about the exchange, "FWIW, Mark Allen says he makes sure he is surfing and in the gym every week, lifting, not logging miles. Let that resonate if it bothers you before you defensively react to it. Mark Allen prefers to lift now rather than log miles for health and fitness. Mark Allen."

So, now, even the guy who was the paragon of long distances is mixing things up. That's what Thomas Kuhn's acolytes (and MBAs who were fed his ideas 30 years later) would call a paradigm shift.

Ben Franklin on Education

Long before Kuhn wrote his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Benjamin Franklin wrote a pamphlet that ushered in an even more impressive change in people's practice. 

Ben Franklin's Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania.

Franklin's treatise Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania was revolutionary. Franklin had a simple thought: why not teach people the stuff they'd need to do the jobs they'd get upon graduation: "Things that are likely to be the most useful and most ornamental, Regard being had to the several Professions for which they are intended."

Doesn't seem groundbreaking, much less revolutionary. In fact, it seems obvious. But Franklin's pragmatism was a significant departure from the education then offered. So significant, in fact, that the guy who ran the university Franklin founded quit doing it! Here's how the University of Pennsylvania's current website explains it:

Franklin's educational aims –- to train young people for leadership in business, government and public service -– were innovative for the time. In the 1750s, the other Colonial American colleges educated young men for the Christian ministry, but Franklin's proposed program of study was much more like the modern liberal arts curriculum. His fellow trustees were unwilling to implement most of his ideas, and Penn's first provost, the Rev. Dr. William Smith, soon turned the curriculum back into traditional channels. 

Franklin's picture adorns the $100 bill. Coincidence?

Charlie Munger on Multidisciplinary Education

Charlie Munger loves Ben Franklin. And he has adopted and amplified his hero's call for a multidisciplinary education. He argues against the intellectual specialist in favor of a broader, more general cognitive fitness or general intellectual preparedness. Munger's brand of thinking produces cognitive decathletes rather than triathletes.  

He thinks that to be smart, one must have models in her head. And one isn't enough, because reality requires more. That why we make fun of the guy who can bench press 500 pounds but can't run 500 meters or throw a baseball 50 feet. Munger cites the old addage: "To the man with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." 

He thinks that much education is insufficiently multidisciplinary, and the result is that we produce the cognitive equivalent of chiropractors instead of doctors. Just as Glassman thinks traditional fitness routines had been producing too many triathletes and not enough decathletes.

And Munger thinks that's a "perfectly disastrous way to think and a perfectly disastrous way to operate in the world." So, just as CrossFit requires people to be able to perform across a broad range of physical activities, Munger requires people to be able to think using multiple mental models. 

"And the models have to come from multiple disciplines—because all the wisdom of the world is not to be found in one little academic department. That's why poetry professors, by and large, are so unwise in a worldly sense. They don't have enough models in their heads. So you've got to have models across a fair array of disciplines." 

Did Ben Franklin Invent CrossFit?

Franklin in his 1749 treatise, by the way, not only provides a nice template for Munger's multidisciplinary 'mental models' approach to education, but a template for Glassman's functional fitness program as well. One of the most important, and my favorite, parts of the CrossFit charter is this: regularly learn and play new sports. Here's Franklin circa 1749:

Ben Franklin: Founding Father...of CrossFit?

Looking for a Few Good Men (& Women to Teach Munger's Mental Models)

CrossFit instructor and participant Josh Everett has landed his dream job. He provides strength and conditioning training to U.S. soldiers in the Naval Special Warfare Group.



Few if any jobs place more, or more unpredictable, demands on the human body. Being physically prepared to be a special forces soldier is a tall order.

CrossFit founder Greg Glassman's formula: constantly varied, high-intensity, functional movement is just about a perfect recipe for a special forces soldier. And Josh Everett is just about the perfect coach. He's right when he says that the training he provides has a "real world analog," and that the exercises his troops do "carry over very greatly" to the demands of their jobs. When you don't have any idea just what your job will require of you, it's good to be broadly, generally prepared. 



A 'real world analog' to the physical demands placed on special forces soldiers is your job. Few if any jobs in today's economy (at least any that anyone would want) draw on neatly-defined, unchanging mental skills and capacities. Even the best training by the greatest teachers and leaders in any field will inevitably come up short.

I've taken a look at what Warren Buffett called the life-changing moment when he encountered Benjamin Graham's book. Buffett went on to study with Graham. But, as great as the education Buffett got from Graham was (Charlie Munger said that what Buffett learned from Graham was enough to make anyone rich), that if his partner hadn't learned anything else Berkshire Hathaway would be a pale shadow of its present self.

CrossFit recently re-tweeted CrossFit Games runner-up Julie Foucher who wrote, "Two hour AMRAP of practice questions, 100 flash cards for time, then time for the gym!" with the analysis: Cognitive fitness.

Med Student Julie Foucher is Physically & Cognitively Fit.

Charlie Munger's ideas on building a latticework of mental models prepares people for general intellectual fitness even better than the advice from this Harvard Business Review piece on 'cognitive fitness' (some examples from HBR: manage by walking, read funny books, play games, learn a new language or instrument, exercise). Not surprisingly, the HBR piece cites Charlie Munger's partner Warren Buffett as someone who defies "the widespread belief that our mental capacity inevitably deteriorates as we get older.

Now all we need are a few Josh Everetts to teach Munger's mental models and some educational institutions with the will and wherewithal to do it.

 

When Will Education Copy Charlie Munger Like The Fitness Industry Copies CrossFit?

I came across an advertisement today from an established, well-respected shoe company. It announces the 'Asics training collection'. The ad doesn't really show what the shoes look like. and it doesn't really matter. The point is that the company is designing shoes for a market that CrossFit (and CrossFit-type movements) makes possible.

Asics shoes, CrossFit movement.

The ad is linked to a site that proclaims 'what's next' for Asics fitness (of course, it's a look in the rear-view mirror for regular CrossFitters), and has a pic of a guy with a prosthetic leg using the kind of 20 lb. medicine ball popularized by CrossFit.

And that's a good thing.
 
I've long been frustrated by the lack of citations in educational literature for Michael Oakeshott and Richard Flathman who offer clear-headed writing on the theory and practice of the engagement of teaching and learning.

Just as frustrating is the relative lack of influence Munger's thinking has had on educational thought and practice. Many (even many academics) would agree with his diagnosis that the academic disconnectedness is the worst plague higher education faces. It's a topic that gets a lot of lip service in academic circles. But almost no one would adopt anything close to Munger's multidisciplinary 'latticework of mental models' approach to addressing that plague.

And that's a shame.

Because his system works. Just like CrossFit works. Perhaps Munger's models need an evangelist (strange that he's not enough, given that he and his partner Warren Buffett regularly draw thousands to hear them talk, an audience Munger often remarks is full of cultists!). Maybe it's because the people devoted to implementing the kind of system he suggests would rather spend their time making money and investing in the stock market than changing educational practice. 

But the opportunity is there. As Munger argues, “There will be immense worldly rewards, for law schools and other academic domains, as for Charlie Munger, in a more multidisciplinary approach to many problems…and more fun as well as more achievement.” 

I look forward to the day when I come across ads for education companies that mimic Munger's mental models. Because that will mean that someone, somewhere has implemented his ideas. 

Greg Glassman with a reason for optimism: "Suppressing truth is like holding a beach ball under water; it takes constant work against a tireless resistance."

Charlie Munger Explains Why CrossFit Works

He only needs one word: Lollapalloza.

F. Murray Abraham as Antonio Salieri  

CrossFit workouts almost always look easier on paper than they are to do. Anyone who has done more than a couple CrossFit workouts has probably looked at a workout on the whiteboard or CrossFit.com and said or thought, "Doesn't look so bad." But they're always bad. No matter how they look on paper. Staring at a CrossFit workout before doing it is a little like F. Murray Abraham's Salieri looking at a Mozart score immediately after hearing it played. "On the page, it looked, nothing. The beginning, simple, almost comic. But..."

Charlie Munger's Lollapalooza Principle Explains Secret of CrossFit's Success

Charlie Munger's 'lollapalooza' effect explains why.

Munger gave a talk that focused on the causes of psychological misjudgement. He lists 24 factors total, but what's truly interesting for CrossFit is what he went on to describe as the 'lollapalooza' effect that occurs when several of these psychological factors combine. He asks, "What happens when the situation, or the artful manipulation of man, causes several of these tendencies to operate on a person toward the same end at the same time?"
And his answer is that, "the combination greatly increases power to change behavior, compared to the power of merely one tendency acting alone." The difference, though, isn't just one of addition, but multiplication. Sometimes exponential multiplication.

Munger notes that "When you get these lollapalooza effects you will almost always find four or five of these things working together."

What does that have to do with CrossFit? Take a look at a CrossFit workout. Any will do. Doesn't look that bad, does it? They're short. They might tax the upper body heavily and then give the upper body a 'rest' while the lower body gets taxed. One example: 'Diane' 21-15-9 repetitions of deadlifts and handstand pushups. Deadlifts work the lower body, & handstand pushups mostly upper body, right? So, when a person does one she's basically resting the parts of the body required to do the other.

Only it doesn't work that way.

Here's a personal example. About two weeks into CrossFit, I came across a workout called 'Helen.' I had been running a lot, & 400 meter repeats were a major staple of my (pre-CrossFit) routine. I was very light weight (from all the running), and about the only lifting I'd been doing was weighted pullups. So this workout looked easy: 3 rounds of 400 meter run, 21 kettlebell swings, and 12 pullups. Simple. I thought I'd kill it.


On days when I had just 400 meter repeats, I could manage 1:15s for 10 rounds with 60 seconds of rest in between. So I planned on running 'easy' 1:30s for the runs to conserve energy. I had already learned the (in)famous CrossFit 'kipping' pullup. So, 12 pullups would take just a matter of seconds. I chalked 30 seconds including the transition from the swings to the pullups back to the run. And I'd never done kettlebell swings. Might be tricky, I thought. But I tried them & they weren't that hard. Should take 45 seconds, tops. 

So, adding these together (without a 'lollapalooza' effect), even with generous time for transition, I should finish in under 8:30. Simply adding the time I 'should' have been able to do the exercises with minimal transition time should yield a time of about 7 minutes. Probably less, because the last three 400 meter repeats are a lot harder than the first three.

It's not just me: CrossFit's 'lollapalooza' effect works on everyone.

I did the workout. My goal was 8:30. Thought it'd be easy. I did finish. But not in 8:30. It took nearly 10 minutes. And almost killed me. It felt like I stood bent over with my hands on my knees staring at that dumbbell (didn't have a kettlebell) for longer than 8:30 my last round.

I hadn't been that tired in years. Not since high school. Maybe ever. And certainly not from doing 400 meter repeats. I didn't need math--my legs could tell me--that there was a Mungeresque lollapalooza effect with that workout.

As far as I know Munger's never heard of CrossFit. The program is infinitely scalable, but Charlie's disdain for manual labor leads me to believe he's unlikely to try it. But I'm sure he'd be interested in seeing the physical example of his lollapalooza effect in it. Here's Munger's favorite example of a psychological lollapalooza effect:


"McDonald-Douglas airliner evacuation disaster. The government requires that airliners pass a bunch of tests, one of them is evacuation: get everybody out, I think it’s 90 seconds or something like that. It’s some short period of time. The government has rules, make it very realistic, so on and so on. You can’t select nothing but 20-year-old athletes to evacuate your airline. So McDonald-Douglas schedules one of these things in a hangar, and they make the hangar dark and the concrete floor is 25 feet down, and they’ve got these little rubber chutes, and they’ve got all these old people, and they ring the bell and they all rush out, and in the morning, when the first test is done, they create, I don’t know, 20 terrible injuries when people go off to hospitals, and of course they scheduled another one for the afternoon. 

"By the way they didn’t meet the time schedule either, in addition to causing all the injuries. Well...so what do they do? They do it again in the afternoon. Now they create 20 more injuries and one case of a severed spinal column with permanent, unfixable paralysis. These are engineers, these are brilliant people, this is thought over through in a big bureaucracy. Again, it’s a combination of [psychological tendencies]: authorities told you to do it. He told you to make it realistic. You’ve decided to do it. You’d decided to do it twice. Incentive-caused bias. If you pass you save a lot of money. You’ve got to jump this hurdle before you can sell your new airliner. Again, three, four, five of these things work together and it turns human brains into mush. And maybe you think this doesn’t happen in picking investments? If so, you’re living in a different world than I am."

My Favorite? Helen. (And not just because that's my mom's name). My favorite thing about CrossFit, other than the fact it works? That the people running it are interested in gathering data. Munger told people to figure out how psychological effects really work in practice. Greg Glassman and others at CrossFit are into collecting data. "Science is about measurement and prediction. Without measurable, observable, repeatable data concerning the fundamental physical units of kinematics (mass, distance, and time or MKS) there is no science of human performance."

The Abominable No Man Strikes Again

Charlie Munger is famous for his belief that he isn't entitled to hold an opinion unless (I should probably write 'until'!) he can state the arguments against his position better than those who oppose it. "I think that I am qualified to speak only when I've reached that state," he has said.

Charlie Munger & Warren Buffett.

He means it. Warren Buffett and Munger--who has earned Buffett's nickname for his 'the abominable no man'--are so serious about getting dissenting opinions and outlooks that they invited a guy to join them because he disagrees with them.

Berkshire 'Bear' Doug Kass.

This isn't a first. Concerned that the annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meetings were becoming too friendly and the questions raised were becoming more laudatory than interesting, reporters were invited to spice things up.

Munger is fond of rehearsing Richard Feynman's line, "the easiest person to fool is yourself." And for good reason. We don't all have the ability to invite our harshest critics over for a sit down. I wonder, though, how many of us take advantage of the chances we do have to hear, consider, and learn from conflicting points of view.

John Stuart Mill argued that no opinion--no matter how repulsive--should be suppressed by society.  And he didn't argue for such a position based on first-amendment grounds (he was British, after all). Instead, like the utilitarian he was, Mill advocated for allowing all opinions because doing so would lead to a healthier, more robust society.

J.S. Mill: Getting different opinions is good for you.

Among the reasons he provided for this position was that voicing an incorrect opinion strengthens a correct opinion because it allows for a healthy contestation of ideas. It goes without saying that the ideas that emerge after a vigorous debate are likely to be stronger than those who carry the day unopposed.

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it," Mill wrote in On Liberty. And here's why, "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

It's no coincidence that the most famous writer on liberty is a guy so careful not to trample on people's opinions. Charlie Munger is hardly bashful about letting people know they're wrong. But his example in inviting the strongest critics he can find is instructive. It means that the he lives by the creed J.S. Mill recommended for society.

The thing we can take from this, to my mind, is what a good idea it is to go out of our way to expose ourselves to ideas that differ from our own. what better way, after all, too destroy your best ideas? How often do we seek out not only someone with a differing view, but someone who passionately, ardently disagrees? But how beneficial would such a practice be?

Here's Mill again discussing the effects that strongly held beliefs carry more weight in the contest of ideas:

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form." 

Those sentiments could have been written by Munger. The two thinkers share a diagnosis for the disease of uncontested opinion and the likely outcome. Mill's dad James made the arguement that no one knows how a man's shoe fits better than himself. And so he was rightly skeptical about people telling other people how to think or act. And J.S. was pretty sympathetic to that position. But it was possible for the latter to ignore what a person (or porcine) thinks. And failing to buttress one's opinion with the dissenting viewpoints of others was a good way to warrant such disdain:  "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.

But being a fool or a pig might be preferable to Munger's take on what not subjecting your ideas to real challenges makes a person: a one-legged man in an ass-kicking competition.