Graybeard
Well-Known Member
Not knowing all of the details of the inner workings of a new project can lead you to make better decisions.
This is not to say that basic research and market projection are not of value.
New ideas also need to be tested in live markets. I think that is a good use for network RTB traffic --not to make money immediately ROI/ROAS --but to invest a few hundred (or even less) to develop a sample --even if the offer is not live, just a fake --taking reservations. Toward determining buyer affinity and viability in a market.
{"newText":"For a unique 2012 experiment, University of Sydney professor of business strategy Dan Lovallo, who had done inside-view research with Kahneman, and two economists theorized that starting with many different Kepler-style analogies naturally lead to the outside would review and improve decisions.
They recruited investors from large private equity firms who are considering a large number of potential projects in a variety of areas. The researchers thought the investors' work might lend itself naturally to the outside world. The private equity investors should evaluate a real project they were working on with a detailed description of the success steps and predict the return on investment of the project.
They were then asked to write down a number of other investment projects that they knew that had a close conceptual similarity to theirs – for example, other examples of a business owner looking to sell, or a start-up with a technologically risky product.
They were instructed to estimate the rate of return for each of these examples as well. In the end, the investors estimated that the return on their own project would be about 50 percent higher than the third-party projects they identified as being conceptually similar.
Finally, when they had a chance to rethink and revise, they lowered their own initial estimate.
"They were kind of shocked," Lovallo told me, "and the older people were the most shocked."
Investors initially assessed their own projects, where they knew all the details, very differently from similar projects where they were outsiders. This is a common phenomenon.
When asked to predict whether a particular horse will win a race or a particular politician will win an election, the more internal details you learn about a particular scenario—physical characteristics of the particular horse, background, and strategy of the particular politician—the more likely it is say that the scenario you are examining will happen.
Psychologists have repeatedly shown that the more internal details a person is able to consider, the more extreme their judgment becomes. The venture capitalists knew more details about their own project and judged it would be an extreme success until they were forced to consider other projects with close conceptual similarities."}
AI rephrasing from:
Epstein D - Range Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World-Penguin Publishing Group 2019
This is not to say that basic research and market projection are not of value.
New ideas also need to be tested in live markets. I think that is a good use for network RTB traffic --not to make money immediately ROI/ROAS --but to invest a few hundred (or even less) to develop a sample --even if the offer is not live, just a fake --taking reservations. Toward determining buyer affinity and viability in a market.
{"newText":"For a unique 2012 experiment, University of Sydney professor of business strategy Dan Lovallo, who had done inside-view research with Kahneman, and two economists theorized that starting with many different Kepler-style analogies naturally lead to the outside would review and improve decisions.
They recruited investors from large private equity firms who are considering a large number of potential projects in a variety of areas. The researchers thought the investors' work might lend itself naturally to the outside world. The private equity investors should evaluate a real project they were working on with a detailed description of the success steps and predict the return on investment of the project.
They were then asked to write down a number of other investment projects that they knew that had a close conceptual similarity to theirs – for example, other examples of a business owner looking to sell, or a start-up with a technologically risky product.
They were instructed to estimate the rate of return for each of these examples as well. In the end, the investors estimated that the return on their own project would be about 50 percent higher than the third-party projects they identified as being conceptually similar.
Finally, when they had a chance to rethink and revise, they lowered their own initial estimate.
"They were kind of shocked," Lovallo told me, "and the older people were the most shocked."
Investors initially assessed their own projects, where they knew all the details, very differently from similar projects where they were outsiders. This is a common phenomenon.
When asked to predict whether a particular horse will win a race or a particular politician will win an election, the more internal details you learn about a particular scenario—physical characteristics of the particular horse, background, and strategy of the particular politician—the more likely it is say that the scenario you are examining will happen.
Psychologists have repeatedly shown that the more internal details a person is able to consider, the more extreme their judgment becomes. The venture capitalists knew more details about their own project and judged it would be an extreme success until they were forced to consider other projects with close conceptual similarities."}
AI rephrasing from:
Epstein D - Range Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World-Penguin Publishing Group 2019
