Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and
Speaker 1: Jason Kelly on Bloomberg Radio. I just wrot through some
Speaker 1: statistics at everybody, because the World Economic Forum recently did
Speaker 1: this last year about the amount of data generated every day.
Speaker 1: Every day, five hundred million tweets are sent, two emails
Speaker 1: are sent every day, four terabytes of data are created
Speaker 1: from each connected car. I mean, this is just a
Speaker 1: little taste of the amount of data that is being
Speaker 1: done on a daily basis. It's a lot, and we
Speaker 1: are dealing with that deluge every moment of our day.
Speaker 1: Vicram Mancherani man sar Amani excuse me, is a lecture
Speaker 1: at Harvard University, and he's got a new book app
Speaker 1: It's really about how to step away from some of that.
Speaker 1: It's entitled Think for Yourself, Restoring Common Sense in an
Speaker 1: Age of Experts and Artificial Intelligence. And he joins us
Speaker 1: on the phone in Lexington, Massachusetts. Vicram, forgive me, I
Speaker 1: mangled your name and I really apologize for that. UM,
Speaker 1: I need some data help on that. UM, tell us
Speaker 1: a little bit of about this book. Why write it? Sure? So?
Speaker 1: Part of it is that I think all of us
Speaker 1: are now suffering from not only this information overload and
Speaker 1: data deluge that you refer to, but it's recreating this
Speaker 1: desire for optimization and everything we do. And so that
Speaker 1: desire has led us to stop thinking. We've run headlong
Speaker 1: into the arms of experts and technologies that promised to
Speaker 1: help us overcome this fear of missing out on the
Speaker 1: optimal choice, and so we've stopped thinking. And so my
Speaker 1: book is really a call to sort of take a
Speaker 1: step back and start reclaiming some of the autonomy we've
Speaker 1: given up in this process. And it's not just from technology.
Speaker 1: It's also from experts, whether they're your doctor or your
Speaker 1: financial advisor or etcetera. But it's to change the nature
Speaker 1: of those relationships. And one of the things you say, Vicram,
Speaker 1: is that we need to keep experts on tapped, but
Speaker 1: not on top. What does that mean? Yeah, look, that's
Speaker 1: a great point. I mean the reason I say that
Speaker 1: is I think for too long we've bounced like a
Speaker 1: ping pong ball between complete dismissal of experts and blind
Speaker 1: deferral to experts. What I'm suggesting is a nuanced middle ground,
Speaker 1: one in which we are able to tap into the
Speaker 1: value that experts have and bring to the table. They
Speaker 1: obviously know a lot about their domains of expertise, more
Speaker 1: than a lot of us will ever know, and so
Speaker 1: we shouldn't dismiss them. But at the same time, they
Speaker 1: don't have an appreciation for the context that each of
Speaker 1: us faces in our decision making, and so we shouldn't
Speaker 1: defer to them either. So neither dismiss nor defer. Keep
Speaker 1: them on tap, but not on top. You know, it's
Speaker 1: so interesting, especially if you know, in a time where
Speaker 1: we're talking so much about inequalities and we're talking about
Speaker 1: how the data has shown that diversity makes a difference,
Speaker 1: you know, in terms of financial performances at firms, you know,
Speaker 1: having diversity of thought it's just so much more rewarding,
Speaker 1: certainly for a culture, but also financially for a company.
Speaker 1: How do you find the balance between data and kind
Speaker 1: of gut and common sense, trusting your own data set
Speaker 1: of knowledge, Sure so, kind of. One of the things
Speaker 1: I say in the book, and that I really believe,
Speaker 1: is that every single perspective is biased, incomplete, and limited,
Speaker 1: and as such, the best way to proceed is to
Speaker 1: triangulate by using multiple perspectives. Now, in terms of diversity.
Speaker 1: That means anyone who brings a different perspective other than
Speaker 1: your own is additive. And so I'm a big believer
Speaker 1: in diversity because it makes a great deal of sense
Speaker 1: in making better decisions. Uh So, so that's one thing.
Speaker 1: Now in terms of data and how we use it.
Speaker 1: You know, lots of people will say there are lies,
Speaker 1: damn lives and statistics, and there's a little bit of
Speaker 1: truth to that in the sense that a lot of
Speaker 1: the data can be manipulated. So it's the context of
Speaker 1: the data that really matters. It's they to connect the
Speaker 1: dots across disparate data sets. That's where I believe the
Speaker 1: value is moving. And so rather than focus on generating dots,
Speaker 1: I think we should all spend a little more time
Speaker 1: connecting dots. Vicram teach us, help us understand how to
Speaker 1: be better in this world because we are, in fact inundated.
Speaker 1: We are facing this problem. I know I am, and
Speaker 1: I think I can speak for my partner too. What
Speaker 1: do we do well? You know, one of the things
Speaker 1: but not highly recommend all of us do, is to
Speaker 1: always seek disagreement. So not just get the advice of
Speaker 1: one person, but get someone who can disagree with that
Speaker 1: expert and give you both sides of an argument. And
Speaker 1: I think it really is a useful way to sort
Speaker 1: of help people make better decisions in the face of uncertainty.
Speaker 1: And it reminds me of that that Alfred Sloan quote
Speaker 1: which is so famous. You know Alfred Sloane, the former
Speaker 1: chairman of General Motors. You know, he comes into a
Speaker 1: boardroom meeting and he has a discussion and he says,
Speaker 1: General and want to take it. We're all in the
Speaker 1: complete agreement about this decision. And he looks around and
Speaker 1: he sees everyone's head this sort of nodding in agreement,
Speaker 1: and his answer is, well, then I propose we postponed
Speaker 1: further discussion on this matter to give ourselves time to
Speaker 1: develop disagreement and perhaps gained some understanding of what the
Speaker 1: decision is all about. And I think that captures the
Speaker 1: essence of it, that you really can't appreciate the complexities
Speaker 1: if you have one side of a story. You know,
Speaker 1: it's so interesting. It's like journalism one oh one. And
Speaker 1: I feel like when I was kind of starting my career,
Speaker 1: I would do a story and it was imperative that
Speaker 1: you've got both sides of the story, and you presented
Speaker 1: that way to hopefully let the audience see both sides,
Speaker 1: or your viewers or your listeners and and make a decision,
Speaker 1: but make an informed decision. You know, something's happened that
Speaker 1: Vicram in our world where people like we see this
Speaker 1: on colleges and universities, people are afraid to have diversity
Speaker 1: of thought speakers who are controversial, you know, students protest,
Speaker 1: and then the colleges don't have those speakers. And I thought,
Speaker 1: isn't that how we open up our minds. We may
Speaker 1: not agree, we may you know, strongly disagree with someone,
Speaker 1: but isn't that what the world is supposed to be about,
Speaker 1: that we hear different thought, diversity of thought, and that
Speaker 1: we are all are smarter as a result. Yeah, Carol,
Speaker 1: I think you hit the nail on the head. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is really about critical thinking and being able to
Speaker 1: step back and see both the pros and cons of
Speaker 1: every decision, and so closing our eyes to different opinions
Speaker 1: is not a useful process. And so I fully agree
Speaker 1: with what you're saying here that you know you should
Speaker 1: be open minded. I'm not suggesting everyone agree with everything
Speaker 1: that's said by someone they don't, you know, naturally tap into.
Speaker 1: But you should shoot the argument and then you make
Speaker 1: your own decision and then you think for yourself. That's
Speaker 1: why I love always seek a disagreement. I I think
Speaker 1: that is such a smart thing. You can always come
Speaker 1: to me, you can always come to make Carol, I
Speaker 1: was gonna say, it's why it works. No, that's why
Speaker 1: it works. Um. So vickerm, I have to ask you.
Speaker 1: You know, we're living in this topsy turvy upside down
Speaker 1: world where you know, our communication is different than it
Speaker 1: was before. You know, Carol and I, who you know,
Speaker 1: spent a couple of years in studio together about six
Speaker 1: ft from each other, um, sometimes closer our desks. You know,
Speaker 1: we work at Blueberg and we're all, you know, right together. Um.
Speaker 1: And now we are literally, you know, a hundred miles
Speaker 1: maybe not a hundred fifty miles away from each other
Speaker 1: and we can see each other via video conference. And
Speaker 1: that's it. Um, what has this done to us? Granted
Speaker 1: we're connection connected by technology, but you know, part of
Speaker 1: thinking for yourself and taking in all of the interesting
Speaker 1: perspectives I feel like is being able to see those
Speaker 1: social cues and body language and all those different things.
Speaker 1: So how does this affect the way that we move
Speaker 1: forward here? You know, I think there's some cross currents here,
Speaker 1: universally positive or universally negative. I mean, the fact that
Speaker 1: I can have in my class that I'm teaching virtually
Speaker 1: UH guests visiting from China or or from Latin America
Speaker 1: UH allows a diversity of thinking that I couldn't bring
Speaker 1: into an in class in person class. Yet at the
Speaker 1: same time, when you're virtual rather than in the classroom
Speaker 1: with your peers, you're learning differently. You're not getting the
Speaker 1: same cues. So I think we're sort of expanding the
Speaker 1: pie of opinions at the same time as perhaps getting
Speaker 1: fewer of the cues that you might get in person.
Speaker 1: And so, you know, I think there's some cross currents.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's a universal answer to that question. So, oh,
Speaker 1: go ahead, Jason, Well, I just have one one question
Speaker 1: that cue Wing like apart um, I mean, victorm. The
Speaker 1: one thing that does occur to me though, as you're talking,
Speaker 1: is this notion that if you are seeking a diversity
Speaker 1: of opinions, which is great, you can paralyze yourself though,
Speaker 1: And so how do you think you're out a way
Speaker 1: to be decisive while at the same time sort of
Speaker 1: aggregating these opinions. Yeah, so this is ultimately the part
Speaker 1: that I think we've started hinting at, which is one
Speaker 1: needs to be mindful of the process you're using. So
Speaker 1: I'm okay with you deferring to your GPS device, just
Speaker 1: be aware that you're doing it. I'm okay with you
Speaker 1: listening blindly to what your doctor's recommendations are much and
Speaker 1: not blindly, but listening to your doctor's recognitions. But I
Speaker 1: want you to do so mindfully rather than as a
Speaker 1: default operating condition where you don't think about it. And so,
Speaker 1: you know, in the book I mentioned, there's a professor
Speaker 1: at Stanford Universities names Baba shift Um, and he and
Speaker 1: his wife had a cancer diagnosis and they proactively decided
Speaker 1: to give up control, and so they spent I think
Speaker 1: more time thinking about who to give up the control too,
Speaker 1: rather than giving you know, fighting each decision. And so
Speaker 1: sometimes it's okay to take, you know, get out of
Speaker 1: the driver's seat. So that's one thing. And the other
Speaker 1: thing I would suggest, which I don't think is particularly unique,
Speaker 1: but you know, thinking in terms of scenarios for the future,
Speaker 1: and then the part that I do think is more
Speaker 1: unique in my recommendation is imagine failure in each of
Speaker 1: those and areas. Because when you imagine failure and the
Speaker 1: path that could lead to potential future failure, you're less
Speaker 1: likely to fail because of those reasons. So it's sort
Speaker 1: of twisting the logic on its head. It's sort of saying, hey,
Speaker 1: scenario plan and think about five possible scenarios of what
Speaker 1: might happen in the world to saying here's five possible
Speaker 1: choices you could make, and here's how they could all
Speaker 1: go wrong. And when you focus on the reasons they
Speaker 1: could go wrong, you're less likely to have those reasons
Speaker 1: go wrong. So that so so yeah, I mean those
Speaker 1: are some strategies that I recommended. Oh my god, we
Speaker 1: could talk forever. Yeah, this is really and I feel
Speaker 1: like it's very applicable to the environment wherein right now,
Speaker 1: where we're being bombarded by so much information and trying
Speaker 1: to figure out the best and smart uh you know,
Speaker 1: decisions and way forward. So um, hopefully you can come
Speaker 1: back and we can continue this conversation. Vicram Mance Romani
Speaker 1: is a lecture at Harvard University. Check out his latest
Speaker 1: book it's new. It's just out. It's entitled Think for Yourself,
Speaker 1: Restoring common sense and an age of experts and artificial intelligence.