We Waste Many of Our Lessons by Studying Only Failure

Physician Peter Attia had a confession for former professional poker player and psychologist Annie Duke. He loves archery and shoots constantly at home in San Diego, pushing his range until he loses about an expensive arrow a day. He can list a hundred reasons for every miss, he said, but he has never once studied a perfect shot.

Duke told him he was describing how most of us learn. By digging in only when results disappoint, she said, he was losing half of his chances to learn, if not more.

She meant that pattern is built into professional life. In surgery, Attia explained, doctors hold a weekly morbidity and mortality conference where every death and complication from the prior week is presented. Everyone understands you get in that room because something bad happened, Duke argued, even if the discussion is supposedly about process.

She offered a business version. Imagine a real estate group whose project comes in 15 percent below forecast, she said. That triggers a long meeting. The same project coming in 15 percent above forecast triggers no meeting at all, just congratulations. Yet both surprises carry information, she argued. The model could be wrong in either direction, and a win can hide risk that was never identified.

That one sided review does three kinds of damage, in her view. It wastes learning, it tells people the organization only cares about downside, and it discourages anything unusual.

Attia realized the cost in his own shooting. At 50 yards he expects to put eight shots out of 10 inside a certain circle. He obsesses over the days he hits six, and dances off on the days he hits 10. Comparing six to 10 offers a bigger gap that makes differences easier to spot. As Attia put it, "it's easier to see that there are two lines if they're a foot apart versus a millimeter apart."

Duke said that habit is the single biggest difference between slow and fast improvers in poker. She pointed to poker player Eric Seidel, who picks apart every hand the same way whether he won or lost, asking what other bets or folds might have done. Listening to him, she said, you would hardly know whether he had won or lost.