Pay in Oil Fields, Not College, Is Luring Montana Youth

[SharperDingaan]

When I first started out a very wise women reminded me that the B or C in the group has typically had to deal with failure, & come to terms with it; the A in the group usually hasn't. What she meant was that the B's & C's you saw were net of survival bias, & the A's were the risk.

 

Today's youth from Spain, Greece, or Ireland that actually got on a plane (all lands 50%+ youth unemployment) & left, are great examples of the B & C. The poster child is that Spanish 23-28 year old, with 3-5 years experience, physically interviewing in NA. It took balls to leave, & discipline to continue applying - when they could just have coasted as a waiter/waitress.

 

Long term it's a great time to be a European youth, IF you're the half net of survival bias. 

 

 

 

[Green King]

Interesting point.

Thanks

 

I have friend i meet during international exchange who got his MBA. But instead of settling down in Paris partially due employment problems in France has chose to travel the world and trade with his small account. Last i heard of him he was in Mongolia. Great stress make great people.

 

This i think also apply to the future of apple now #1 and all powerful it will been very hard for anyone to counter act the power of decay created by time. 

[Green King]

Smart by itself is not particularly useful – our smart guy/gal has to be able to talk to people, show some humbleness, & think laterally.

 

 

How do you do those two ? I been having great problems with the two. :(

I've been thinking about the how to talk to people problem for a long time so far there is no great direction to improve my skills and solve this problem.

 

Humbleness has been improving. But i think its mostly because of my age want to proof that i know stuff but sometimes hurting others because my bluntness and lack of attention to others. For that I've taken some real life pain. Some are wrong and some i think are worth it to find out what the other knows and see if i am wrong. But most of the time i ask question other can not answer but the other doesn't have the character to say i don't know. Maybe even counter with why don't you find out for me.  ;D

 

In my experience, being humble will make it easier to talk to people. It's easier for people if you listen to them and find a connection in that way. I don't know if this is related, but I usually get along better with women than I do with men. I am a man. Being a good listener also gets you the women :) It gives you a good start at least!

 

About SD's comment regarding CA/CFA, I guess that maybe true (I'm a new charterholder). Bay street has a bunch of assholes. I'd like to think I buck the trend though.

 

I'm a manager and I'd like to be the dumbest person of the group. The people I want are smart and gets things done. My actual situation is different, but I'm working on improving it. I think I read a quote from a magazine a long time ago which went something like "the guys who got the B's and C's have the ones who got the A's working for them." I guess the average students had better people skills. In engineering school, I remember having no clue how to solve some problem sets. I would resort to copying sometimes. A lot of the smart people I went to school with are either professors or doing research. Many of them seemed to be condescending if you weren't smart.

Thank you for the tip half is more than i need.

 

O don't do we all wish to have that luxury surrounded by smart people who can think, understand, add and execute making life much easier. But that type of luxury take a life time to accumulate. I think Warren said about surrounding himself with people smarter than him. Marrying someone smarter than him and making life easier. (Correct me i am wrong. Sorry i only remember the essence of things and not exact words.)

 

Um i am not at the position to say but i feel it should be defended. I think stupid is the wrong word to use or even to use in thinking. (being very unproductive even scaring in thinking)  Just the right person with the right skill set, tolerance and etc for the job. If you have a lot of smart people you don't have to worry about those things. But at the same time it dolls your mind since it take away complex problems that are needed to solved with limited resources.

(note: Most of this is my theories created my mind based on my readings and understanding and not from real life testing and practice. take it as it is free and ignore if it is useless.)

 

[RichardGibbons]

Um not saying anything wouldn't it be easier to just give the candidate a company that you know well and ask some question about it ?

 

Not for me.  I'm interviewing for technical positions.  That said, I do a tech-variant of this approach by asking people some of the websites they use the most, and how they'd architect them. 

 

Personally i think the question above might be partially impaired by domain dependence. Also the person answering the question might have too much crap in their head and not concentration enough.

 

Definitely the answer is impacted by both domain and the candidate's ability to concentrate under pressure.  So, I have to factor in the candidate's background (e.g. people with graduate degrees in math typically come up with the right answer in under five seconds.) In terms of concentrating under pressure, if I'm not looking for the right answer, that's less relevant, and I do expect people to be able to answer challenging questions in an interview, because that's kind of the definition of an interview.  People who are amazing, but have no way of proving it to me will never be hired by me.

 

I personally i would answer i don't want to waste my time on something that have a real life answer.

I would actually read quite a bit into this depending on the tone.  Most likely, I'd interpret it as, "I don't know the answer to the question or even how to approach it.  But I think I'm very smart, so my ego won't allow me to say 'I don't know', so I'll bluff by pretending that it isn't worth my time." 

 

So, you'd have to be pretty good on most other questions to survive that answer, since I don't like working with people who think highly of their own abilities, yet can't admit when they don't know something and believe in bluffing.  I want to collaborate with my colleagues towards a bigger goal, not constantly engage in pissing contests and trying to determine the difference between when my colleagues are bluffing vs. when they actually know something.

 

(All that said, I might have taken that sort of bluff approach 15 years ago.  Since then, I've decided that I know how smart I am, and I generally don't feel the need prove it, though sometimes when I'm uncomfortable or feel attacked I'm an ass and forget it. :P )

 

[Green King]

Um not saying anything wouldn't it be easier to just give the candidate a company that you know well and ask some question about it ?

 

Not for me.  I'm interviewing for technical positions.  That said, I do a tech-variant of this approach by asking people some of the websites they use the most, and how they'd architect them. 

 

Personally i think the question above might be partially impaired by domain dependence. Also the person answering the question might have too much crap in their head and not concentration enough.

 

Definitely the answer is impacted by both domain and the candidate's ability to concentrate under pressure.  So, I have to factor in the candidate's background (e.g. people with graduate degrees in math typically come up with the right answer in under five seconds.) In terms of concentrating under pressure, if I'm not looking for the right answer, that's less relevant, and I do expect people to be able to answer challenging questions in an interview, because that's kind of the definition of an interview.  People who are amazing, but have no way of proving it to me will never be hired by me.

 

I personally i would answer i don't want to waste my time on something that have a real life answer.

I would actually read quite a bit into this depending on the tone.  Most likely, I'd interpret it as, "I don't know the answer to the question or even how to approach it.  But I think I'm very smart, so my ego won't allow me to say 'I don't know', so I'll bluff by pretending that it isn't worth my time." 

 

So, you'd have to be pretty good on most other questions to survive that answer, since I don't like working with people who think highly of their own abilities, yet can't admit when they don't know something and believe in bluffing.  I want to collaborate with my colleagues towards a bigger goal, not constantly engage in pissing contests and trying to determine the difference between when my colleagues are bluffing vs. when they actually know something.

 

(All that said, I might have taken that sort of bluff approach 15 years ago.  Since then, I've decided that I know how smart I am, and I generally don't feel the need prove it, though sometimes when I'm uncomfortable or feel attacked I'm an ass and forget it. :P )

Thank You for your answer.  :D

 

like above (note: Most of this is my theories created my mind based on my readings and understanding and not from real life testing and practice. take it as it is free and ignore if it is useless.)

 

Most of this has been from thinking about this problem

 

I've been thinking about the problems of finding good people who didn't jump through the hoops of University. They mostly fall out of most of the fillers of HR people since they are not considered. Making those people as a group extremely undervalued, while due to the nature of University(Useless for the most part with learning being the by product. Not the normal result of it)

 

will allow the population have extreme deviation in abilities making it a great place to find asymmetric bets.

 

like i say the answer will save both of us a lot of time.  :D

I don't think i will get through your normal anyways filters this is more a voice from the wilderness.

 

I think it is implied that i don't know. what is also implied is i don't care i don't i know since it dose not interest me.

 

Can i spend a few weeks or month to find out the answer ? yes. (Like anything spend a lot of time reading anything i can find on the subject. A answer i know is other there.)

(thinking a bit 1/27? one ant going to the right place is 1/2 and be right and there is 3 so 1/8. Three edits) But i cannot bet any amount of money on my confidence that i am right. (for me that is what matters.) Since i don't have the tools and it will take a long time to acquire them to be sure and withstand the doubt of others. Will i no.  It doesn't pass the cost and benefit or the personal interest test. (mostly personal interest.)  Take this as you will.

 

Come to think of it. It is more a context problem than anything what you are doing is probably the best you can do based on the constraints that are imposed to you by your environment.

 

Care to share the application to the technical jobs? Other than no one will get fired asking the questions you do but will if you take risks basket bets on people that take a long time to pay off.

 

This touches upon the problem I've been thinking partially about since statistics class and even more after reading anti fragile.

 

Are those successful in a population of people who achieve great things those that survives due to their robustness ? Meaning the weak would have been better off if they did not try since the strong would have won anyways. Or are they more the product of trial and error so the larger the population the better ?

Underlining question is it better to find a few people who are view are high probabilistic bets ? (more wasteful to you if failed) or is it better to find a lot of people a bet on all of them ? (more wasteful to people you bet on.)

 

Both ? Neither ? more than both ? Framing problem? ( asking the wrong question?)

Questions with no answers are more fun. :)

[Green King]

Another interesting question being the main debate of this thread. Which variable is more important work ethics or smarts. Which play a more important role and would lacking in one be more detrimental? As seen in

Robinson Crusoe.  Is the true source of value great abundance of Labour power. Since get to the answer to the problem through trial and error.

 

This question I have been fear the answer for the entire summer, because I like think to this but lack the energy and stamina. I have limited supply of concentration when in use is very powerful. But limited nevertheless.Hopefully this will not be the limiting factor that make impossible for me to practice value investing. The only thing I want to do in this world.

 

So far it seems patience and consistent work can avoid this problem. Instead of looking for small animals I look for great beasts to slay.

But more testing and data is needed.

[ScottHall]

On a unrelated note

I've been thinking about the problems of finding good people who didn't jump through the hoops of University. They mostly fall out of most of the fillers of HR people since they are not considered. Making those people as a group extremely undervalued, while due to the nature of University(Useless for the most part with learning being the by product. Not the normal result of it)

 

will allow the population have extreme deviation in abilities making it a great place to find asymmetric bets.

 

I wonder how many such people actually exist. I'd be interested in meeting them if I found any. I dropped out of the 4th grade, myself, and have found that most people who have done similar things are not worth my time.

[RichardGibbons]

Care to share the application to the technical jobs? Other than no one will get fired asking the questions you do but will if you take risks basket bets on people that take a long time to pay off.

I don't really understand what you are saying here, but I'll try to answer what I think is the question.  The application to technical jobs is:

• If someone is unable to look at a problem and decompose it to attempt to identify a solution, they probably will not be very good at solving most technical challenges
  
• Most good tech people I've met like puzzles
  
• Thinking logically is pretty important for most technical jobs, and this question allows someone to show their logical thinking, or lack thereof
  

Underlining question is it better to find a few people who are view are high probabilistic bets ? (more wasteful to you if failed) or is it better to find a lot of people a bet on all of them ? (more wasteful to people you bet on.)

I think the answer to this is probably testable if you're willing to define what you mean in a more formal way, by defining who is in each group and what it means to bet on them and what it means to win the bet.

 

e.g. suppose you have $100, and you  can either bet $1 on each one of 100 grade 7 students or $10 on the top 10 grade 7 students as selected by a standardized test, and you double your money if a student you bet on completes a degree.  You could figure out very easily what is the right bet to make on average just by looking at degree completion data over a large sample size of population.

 

So to me, this is entirely a problem definition question, and for most problem definitions, I suspect the answer is knowable.  (Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking.)

 

[Green King]

On a unrelated note

I've been thinking about the problems of finding good people who didn't jump through the hoops of University. They mostly fall out of most of the fillers of HR people since they are not considered. Making those people as a group extremely undervalued, while due to the nature of University(Useless for the most part with learning being the by product. Not the normal result of it)

 

will allow the population have extreme deviation in abilities making it a great place to find asymmetric bets.

 

I wonder how many such people actually exist. I'd be interested in meeting them if I found any. I dropped out of the 4th grade, myself, and have found that most people who have done similar things are not worth my time.

 

On Education 

 

Most of the people that i went to school with are not worth my time either. most of my professors too.  It is my belief that Universities (current education system as a whole) in its current form that is losing (maybe even passed) its relevance as a productive institution in terms of educating the future. There are too much force applied to its students, so they will do what is told. There is little to no enabling factor for most that go through it. A lot of efficient manufacturing of people. Making products have minimal relevance to what the person will be doing. Those who are great products of it are in spite of it not because of it.

 

On learning without school

I've meet Chinese entrepreneurs that never went to School that can do great things but can't hold a great conversation. I think holding a conversation and doing are different things. 

how many are out there i don't know. Currently agree what Taleb noted in his new book antifragility that formal education make good conversation partners and nothing else. In terms of having physical power over the world (to change it) takes doing and failing...and so on. On Can acquire those skills but it don't think it is required.  One of the modern example of people i am thinking of will be Steve Jobs. (Can be argued though first one i can think of. Source being first instinct and not reasoning.)

 

On finding those people and talking to them

I don't have financial freedom yet for that it will take me about 20 or more years to get my freedom than i will try some of my ideas. Sorry if i disappoint you i am only starting my life so most of my ideas are subject to change as i get more data. 

 

On not going to School

It is my deepest belief that if one only follow ones curiosity and apply ones time in finding its answers or look for it. Its reward will be far grater than that given by a university. Since you are doing what you want to and not what  you are told. what you learn will far easier to apply since you were looking for it the first place. Which is increase the utilization of human potential in a society and be more beneficial to society as a whole.

 

Also you get a edge since you don't have to deal with the cognitive biases and mental road blocks created by the education system.  Some of which i am dealing with daily. 

[Green King]

Care to share the application to the technical jobs? Other than no one will get fired asking the questions you do but will if you take risks basket bets on people that take a long time to pay off.

I don't really understand what you are saying here, but I'll try to answer what I think is the question.  The application to technical jobs is:

• If someone is unable to look at a problem and decompose it to attempt to identify a solution, they probably will not be very good at solving most technical challenges
  
• Most good tech people I've met like puzzles
  
• Thinking logically is pretty important for most technical jobs, and this question allows someone to show their logical thinking, or lack thereof
  

Underlining question is it better to find a few people who are view are high probabilistic bets ? (more wasteful to you if failed) or is it better to find a lot of people a bet on all of them ? (more wasteful to people you bet on.)

I think the answer to this is probably testable if you're willing to define what you mean in a more formal way, by defining who is in each group and what it means to bet on them and what it means to win the bet.

 

e.g. suppose you have $100, and you  can either bet $1 on each one of 100 grade 7 students or $10 on the top 10 grade 7 students as selected by a standardized test, and you double your money if a student you bet on completes a degree.  You could figure out very easily what is the right bet to make on average just by looking at degree completion data over a large sample size of population.

 

So to me, this is entirely a problem definition question, and for most problem definitions, I suspect the answer is knowable.  (Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking.)

 

Sorry my though are not as refined yet.

There are two parts. Is this question useful in application ? Other being... not sure. What about those Outliers that could become Steve Jobs ? ( I think if he was not born at the right time and right place he would not have been utilized for the benefit of society.)

 

Application of the question.

Your three points feel conflicting. less is more. (Non of this is ideas i created from nothing i fact i have no new ideas.) I feel like based on this small segment of your entire process it is not that relevant because i believe doing (Physical power to Change the world) is most important all else is BS. So more emphasis should be geared towards that. 

All this is probably useless since your spent more time doing. Thank you for your response and patience. 

 

On the problem

 

If you bond the question the question will still exist. Just that application will be solved.  Making money from betting on 7th grader. 10 concentrated bets or 700 diversified bets based on the measurement the completion formal education. (in this case university)

 

What will be the best way to allocate societies resources to people to crate the greatest benefit to society ?

concentrated bets based on early signs of success and confirmation.

diversified bets give all that wish to try some support.

 

I though about this a bit and i think diversified bets are better since the future is very uncertain.

Utility in the allocation of resources to others diminish after a certain point.

So i believe this will be a better way. But this is not certain or a answer but a way try and bypass answering the question

 

But the question is still there.

Since i will not know if it actually work after i do it and there is no way to compare it with another world and i don't know how this new direction will change the world and over exploit it to make it no longer relevant.  (sound like the market.)

 

Sorry for the long answers i have not spend enough time thinking about them to get shorter ones.

[RichardGibbons]

There are two parts. Is this question useful in application ? Other being... not sure. What about those Outliers that could become Steve Jobs ? ( I think if he was not born at the right time and right place he would not have been utilized for the benefit of society.)

 

I haven't read that much on Steve Jobs, but I think he would probably be a bad employee.  :)  Plus, I think he would have been wasted as my employee.

 

That said, you make a good point that I won't identify all the good candidates.  But for me, hiring people is more like Buffett's baseball game with no called strikes.  It's much more important to me that I don't make a bad hiring decision than it is for me to ensure that it is to cast a really wide net to ensure that every high-potential person is caught (but at the cost of a huge number of mistakes).

 

All that said, I also believe that the single most important factor that makes people like Jobs and Gates so successful is luck. 

 

In terms of your point about doing, I think that is important, but not as important to me as being capable of doing.  Someone who's smart will be much more capable of doing than someone who isn't.  Someone who isn't smart might spend a lot of time working, but get very little done because their approach is terribly inefficient.

 

What will be the best way to allocate societies resources to people to crate the greatest benefit to society ?

concentrated bets based on early signs of success and confirmation.

diversified bets give all that wish to try some support.

 

OK, I totally misunderstood what you were saying.  This is an interesting question.  "The greatest benefit" is also an interesting thing to define.  I have a feeling that many people would focus on wealth per capita, but I feel a measure such as happiness per capita would be better.

 

From my perspective, for which I have no evidence, is that you throw piles of resources at people to get them to their highest potential when they're basically ready to become productive, say at 20, then you let capitalism take over.  So, level the playing field as much as possible at the start, but then let luck and ability work out who gets the most resources from then on.