There seems to be a relatively large amount of uncertainty in those estimates. One source claims 17k “disease dead” while another claims 130k just from smallpox. The war dead estimates have a wide range too.
What? It's been steady at around 78.5 - 78.9 between 2010 and 2019 [1]. I'm not sure what the point of mentioning Cuba was or its relevance to trends in the US life expectancy is; its life expectancy has been within a year of the US for the past 40 years[2].
Your own chart confirms my statement, inspite of the misapplied use of the adjective "steady", which you switched to from the "upward trend" you stated in your first comment. THERE IS NO UPWARD TREND.
What was steady before 2014 is the INCREASE in life expectancy every year. The first derivative was steady. Now the first derivative has been negative and expectancy is only STEADY if you squint your eyes to lower the resolution of the data to 0.5 instead of 0.1
You can see the decline phase in red in the lower split. It's a marked shift from the continuous green line. To see it more clearly set the end date to 2018. You can clearly see from your own data that life expectancy peaked in the United States in 2014 and hasn't recovered yet. If the previous green trend had continued we would be at a life expectancy of 80.0 - not still short if the 2014 peak.
The purpose of the example of Cuba is CONTRAST. How a lower income country with a higher baseline life expectancy continues to have a green trend i.e. life expectancy at year n+1 is more than year n - ALWAYS.
It has not been "steady". It has reversed trends from a consistent increase in expectancy - green trend - every year since records have been kept. All changes in life expectancy are in the decimal range. Disguising the decline by specifying a range doesn't help.
You seem to have peculiar definitions of the words "falling" and "steady", which do not mean "decreasing" and "flat" respectively.
The decade of the 2010s has a linear regression slope of -.008 years / year, well within the measurement error. I stand by my use of "steady" to describe that.
You can put words in my mouth. But you claimed upward trend. I didn't. You switched it to steady. I did not. You picked arbitrary time windows and lowered the resolution, I did not. Your data contradicts your own thesis. Mine doesn't.
Life expectancy increased every year in the united States peaking in 2014, when it reversed trends.
We still haven't recovered to 2014 levels 8 years later. The data you shared validates my original comment which states that life expectancy was DECREASING before covid19.
Your memories of the 5th grade are likely much more recent than mine. As I recall it, showing your work was occasionally necessary for my own edification especially when my final answer was a result of hasty guesswork predicated on faulty assumptions.
Mr Munger making it to a ripe old age and being a wealthy man to boot could literally be shaving years off your life expectancy. But I sense that if you write out all your thinking, step by step, you might find a flaw in that line of reasoning. Even though it is.. simple mathematics. ;)
Turns out regardless of wealth generally healthy adults who make it to old age typically die from various cancers (or falling in the shower) at around the same age as the rest of the cohort.
Having large families, lots of friends, and a sunny disposition (as opposed to being an edgy communist for example), minorly but measurably increases your life expectancy.
Citations please. Especially for the stats on edgy communists. Or do you perceive this thread as "pro-Communist", hence all the edgy comments by you in this thread?
Cancers and terminal illnesses of all sorts eventually come for everybody, luck of the draw. But in so far as you can control anything being less stressed and having more friends correlates very well to living a tad longer.
You are most welcome to compare life expectancy stats between communist countries and none communist countries and make your own conclusions about life of course ;)
If that someone you know is a friend or a loved one tell them that you are probably better off spending time with them than arguing about politics online with either edgy communists or edgy libertarians. And then go to the zoo or something. Have the chef make a you a nice picnic. Try and relax old sport.
You might look at something like the median life expectancy of a 65-year-old. That skips over a lot of early deaths that really bias the "average life expectancy".
For instance, you might find that in 1980 the median life expectancy at 65 was 25 years, and today that number might be higher. You'd still be getting a lot of lifestyle disease deaths though. Obesity and diabetes really grew after 1980.
It might be even better to look at median life expectancy at 70 or 75, if your idea is to gauge whether modern medicine is keeping people alive longer. Start with the group of people that at least made it that far. 70 or 75 is still probably too early for "died of old age" to happen, and those people are past most of the "died of something else" deaths.
It isn't the same statistic, but middle age mortality seems likely enough to be correlated with life expectancy. A bachelors is enough to signal "elite":
This is still only about 1/3 of the US population. If we’re generous to the OP’s point, it still supports it (granted the tone of “a few elites” may be read differently)
It seems that the science has already gained a few wins in the last twenty years when it comes to understanding (and slowing down) aging. It will take time for that to trickle down to the medical system. I mean, there are good reasons why we have the processes in place before we start recommending stuff to the general population.
That being said, the first people who are going to live to 150 (most of that in good health) are likely already among us.
Life expectancy is stagnant or declining. The oldest person died in 1997 at age 122. No one has surpassed that record since. There is zero scientific basis to expect that anyone alive today will live to 150. It's not impossible, but it would depend on multiple breakthrough scientific advances akin to miracles.
The book itself is somewhat pop-sci’ish, and there is something to be said about Sinclair himself being somewhat sensationalistic. However, pretty much all concrete statements are backed with footnotes to actual research papers if you’re willing to dig deeper.
It was very good to be able visit my 98-year-old grandmother at Christmastime (and I did a lot to be able to do so safely last year) — at this age, there can't be many left.
It's sort of mindblowing that there's adults now that have never talked to someone who was in their 20s during WW2. It makes it something akin to ancient history. Even though I'm "only" 35, WW2 never felt like something that happened a very long time ago, it was something that happened to my grandparents and that influenced the circumstances and upbringing of my parents.
For people not yet in their 20’s it must seem like ancient history (like the Vietnam war was for me despite happening not that long before I was born).
“I literally couldn't talk to any one. There was nobody. I just walked off by myself... I could never talk to anyone about it and never understood anyone's reaction." - Noam Chomsky the day of the Hiroshima bombing
You can't post like this to HN. Maybe you don't owe elderly billionaires better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
This guy is the embodiment of what not to do if you want to live a long time: bad diet, no exercise. Same for warren buffet . Shows how important genes are
It’s an easier life for sure, but less stressful? Really?
If you or I mess up at our job the worst thing that happens is we have to look for another job.
If someone like him messes up bad enough it’s jail terms and death threats. Obviously that’s less threatening when you’re already pushing 100 and we’ll into what most of us would call bonus years but I’m sure he was aware of the cost of screwing up during his younger years too.
I mean, he went blind in one eye after a botched medical procedure and can hardly see at all with the other one. I don’t think he’s been getting some amazing life preserving treatment or something.
Sure, medical interventions could obviously help life expectancy, but I expect spending “elite” amounts of money has relatively little impact on average life expectancy. The USA has elite income compared to the rest of the world, yet some poor countries have better longevity figures, so that kinda argues that point.
And prevention is surely more influential on life expectancy: exercise, food, and environment help a lot and are available to most people with median income.
Charlie clearly had some stressors at 31: “divorced, broke, and burying his 9 year old son”.
Certainly. Yet poor and wealthy people often forget we are mostly given equal amounts of lifetime (in first world). The fact seems to frustrate those that want disequality (believe money is everything), and it seems to be wilfully ignored by those that say they wish for equality (we mostly have equality in many important things: the politics of arguments relating to other equalities is often relatively bizarre).
> but wealth buys you a factor of two in lifespan at best.
We tend to refer indirectly to average lifespan, without context, which is strongly influenced by baby deaths (also childhood and teenage deaths). In another comment about elites: “Life expectancy for rich people is up”. That statement strikes me as being meaningless without further details (especially given the context that the USA is rich yet lifespans are going down!). What is an elite baby? It turns out approximately all of us are terrible at maths, probability, and clarity of communication.
Charlie Munger applied to Harvard Law School and was rejected because he didn't have an undergraduate degree. But then his dad's friend called the dean of admissions, and suddenly they changed their mind.[1]
The rules don't apply to the wealthy. It's their world, you're just living in it.
He was a highly privileged kid, son of Stanford professors / attorneys, worked for Jane Street, raised a couple billion in capital and would have stayed a billionaire if he just hadn't stolen from his customers. FTX by itself was worth billions without the degenerate Alameda trading strategies being deployed against their own clients.
A really cynical view of the world is that the rags to riches story is something the power structure tolerates because it 1) brings in a little fresh blood to replace families that self destruct and to give them something else to gossip about and 2) the token successes are an opiate for the masses. The moment they lose all hope head will roll. Most days I try not to think this way but some days it’s difficult to avoid.
Someone else said the problem was that SBF stole from his customers. And while it’s true that this is often sufficient to bring you down, it’s often only when you steal from the powerful that the wheels of justice turn so swiftly. He’s being made an example.
That may be true, but perception matters, and a lot of virtual ink has been spent on his political ties, donations, contributions to regulation, and meetings with government officials, all the way up to the White House.
Powerful people are acting quickly to publicly distance themselves from him.
> acting quickly to publicly distance themselves from him
The point being they’re making and keeping that distance. This conspiracy theory, that SBF is facing consequences only because he sort of maybe embarrassed Ricchetti, has no legs to stand on.
Sure, I’ll dispute that, too. Crypto is a hated industry. FTX blew up loudly, fascinatingly, and then SBF basically admitted guilt in multiple public forums. None of this went unexpectedly quickly. Many of the people proposing the current conspiracy were, weeks ago, claiming he would skate away free.
To the degree powerful people were embarrassed by him, it was in the Bahamas. Not here. Not at all.
I don't want to argue over the semantics of the word "embarrassed". Perhaps we can both agree that, whatever your (or their) personal feelings about the issue, it has objectively resulted in a lot of negative press coverage.
And that (even if only because of the negative coverage) powerful people are taking steps (like returning millions of dollars) to distance themselves from him.
And finally that, whether it's the motive or not, swift prosecution is an effective way for officials to distance themselves.
Sequoia wasc embarrassed enough to delete their fulsome hagiography of SBF. not to mention the 200 mill or so underscore of their fawning "i love this founder!!" vote of confidence in him.
> But I'm not sure you could get away with that today.
As long as an applicant meets the minimum/lower-end standards for admissions, Ivy League professors in grad schools (law, mba, and PhD-track… not sure about medicine)can and do make by-name requests for admissions that are best not ignored.
Ivy League schools survived for 300 years before a couple decades of the general public thinking that they need Ivy League, due to the corporate sector’s inability to screen a larger working population
Ivy League schools will survive this meme too. Academia as a whole has never adjusted to the underclass’ need to learn for the purpose of making money, they teach irrelevant theory for the sole pursuit of knowledge to this very day
They are for the wealthy to connect with each other and build rapport with each other
Today, the wealthy play a different game than what Charlie's dad did. If you belong to the right group (wealth, political connections, power, etc), if you can give $5M donation, you can get into Harvard.
The Ivies only recently became places for the smartest students to go. In the beginning they were openly just rich kid schools, like Le Rosey and Eton today.
Taking capable youth, imprinting them with love for you while enabling them to become rich is a lot better business model than taking in kids whose parents have generational money and asking for some of it.
He didn’t have an undergraduate degree because he dropped out of college to serve in the military during WW2, and then graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. Yes, his family connections certainly helped, but it’s hard to say he wasn’t deserving of a place.
Also worth noting that practicing law in the US, even today, does not require an undergraduate. That requirement is purely a result of academia being academia and eagerly wasting 4 years of people's lives for the sake of not finding a better way to filter people.
In most states, to pass the bar, you only need a Juris Doctor which is usually received upon graduating from law school. In some states you don't even need this, and in some others you can skip law school entirely by studying under a judge or practicing attorney[1].
Law, especially in the US, is much more like a trade that accidentally ended up being taught by the universities, instead of a trade school separate from academia. Very similar to medicine in that regard, where again, there is no need for an undergraduate degree to practice medicine.
No need for an undergraduate degree to practice medicine? Well perhaps not but if you look at the list of classes required to enter most medical schools, and the content of the curriculum most anybody is going to be hard pressed to get in, much less get through it without something pretty close to an undergraduate major in biology or chemistry.
Then how would you say he was not deserving of the place?
OP apparently isn’t talking about the subject’s brilliance or so. I think the OP is talking specifically about the rule bending for the rich.
> … his family connections certainly helped, but …
Put few people with similar background — except the socioeconomic part of their backgrounds in the same situation and see whether they would have made it.
FYI, you have it backwards. The parent said Munger was deserving.
> I doubt it.
Exceptionally bright people exist. Had Munger not gone to HLS immediately or at all, I wouldn't bet against him doing exceptionally well (still top 1% of 1% of business outcomes).
You may be right about him “deserving” the place, but you appear to be missing the point here: just by pure statistics, there would have been others who also dropped out of college to serve in WW2, but who did not have an influential father like Munger, and who then did not get the admission he did. Also by pure statistics, there is a likelihood that among these others were many who were at least as deserving as he was.
In summary, the argument is to point out the difference between personal effort/discipline/work ethic/character (and everything that’s commonly named as the “reason” of success) and the huge impact of external conditions that are completely outside the realm of influence of the individual in question, such as their parent’s wealth and influence, physical build, natural attractiveness, health, location of birth, etc.
It is very, VERY common that people uphold and believe in the (comforting) myth that mostly oneself is responsible for success and that said external factors are basically negligible. The “self-made” person… You could even throw them on Mars and they’ll somehow become billionaires and own mansions!
There is not much to add, except that such thinking appears outdated (previous economic booms allowed for a bit more control of one’s fate), ignorant, and self-congratulatory - a delusion of a successful person who is neither aware nor grateful for the external circumstances that allowed them to get where they are.
FWIW I like Charlie Munger, a down-to-earth thinker who doesn’t shy away from talking about inconvenient truths. Chances are he would even agree with the above.
Book recommendation: “Outliers: The Story of Success” by Malcolm Gladwell.
Not so much wealthy as being connected. I used to work with someone admitted to Stanford grad school sans undergrad degree based on connections and it wasn’t 80 years ago.
Except there may be many cases of to the rules being bypassed after special pleading from the non-connected, but we just never hear about them because the people don't go on to become billionaires years later and write autobiographies.
The wealthy made the rules. Why are you surprised that they should bend or change them at will? It’s not like we had some nationwide democratic vote on the process and requisites for law school admissions
I'm not necessarily the biggest Charlie Munger fan, but I think he's got some wisdom and found his 1995 speech he gave on human biases at Harvard to be insightful and interesting:
121 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 199 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger
President Carter turns 99 too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter
At some point over the next 50 years, science gets a few wins and a lot more people will reach 100.
Antibiotics only started appearing in the 1940s, for example.
Jimmy Carter survived cancer in his 90’s. That likely would not have happened a few decades ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/...
And if life expectancy for a few elites is increasing, that means it's decreasing even more for the rest of us, given the trends.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2020-2021/LExpMort.pdf
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?location...
What was steady before 2014 is the INCREASE in life expectancy every year. The first derivative was steady. Now the first derivative has been negative and expectancy is only STEADY if you squint your eyes to lower the resolution of the data to 0.5 instead of 0.1
This is a clearer chart with delta measurements
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/life...
You can see the decline phase in red in the lower split. It's a marked shift from the continuous green line. To see it more clearly set the end date to 2018. You can clearly see from your own data that life expectancy peaked in the United States in 2014 and hasn't recovered yet. If the previous green trend had continued we would be at a life expectancy of 80.0 - not still short if the 2014 peak.
The purpose of the example of Cuba is CONTRAST. How a lower income country with a higher baseline life expectancy continues to have a green trend i.e. life expectancy at year n+1 is more than year n - ALWAYS.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CUB/cuba/life-expectan...
It has not been "steady". It has reversed trends from a consistent increase in expectancy - green trend - every year since records have been kept. All changes in life expectancy are in the decimal range. Disguising the decline by specifying a range doesn't help.
The decade of the 2010s has a linear regression slope of -.008 years / year, well within the measurement error. I stand by my use of "steady" to describe that.
Life expectancy increased every year in the united States peaking in 2014, when it reversed trends.
We still haven't recovered to 2014 levels 8 years later. The data you shared validates my original comment which states that life expectancy was DECREASING before covid19.
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/life-expectancy-is-declini...
I don't see how that follows, please, show your work.
(Still gotta show your work tho)
Mr Munger making it to a ripe old age and being a wealthy man to boot could literally be shaving years off your life expectancy. But I sense that if you write out all your thinking, step by step, you might find a flaw in that line of reasoning. Even though it is.. simple mathematics. ;)
Having large families, lots of friends, and a sunny disposition (as opposed to being an edgy communist for example), minorly but measurably increases your life expectancy.
Social isolation and loneliness amongst the elderly are widely known to lead to adverse health outcomes and shorter life expectancies.
https://www.cdc.gov/aging/publications/features/lonely-older...
Cancers and terminal illnesses of all sorts eventually come for everybody, luck of the draw. But in so far as you can control anything being less stressed and having more friends correlates very well to living a tad longer.
You are most welcome to compare life expectancy stats between communist countries and none communist countries and make your own conclusions about life of course ;)
Don't see what all the halabaloo is about.
Covid and drug ODs really isn't a life expectancy issue
For instance, you might find that in 1980 the median life expectancy at 65 was 25 years, and today that number might be higher. You'd still be getting a lot of lifestyle disease deaths though. Obesity and diabetes really grew after 1980.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statisti...
It might be even better to look at median life expectancy at 70 or 75, if your idea is to gauge whether modern medicine is keeping people alive longer. Start with the group of people that at least made it that far. 70 or 75 is still probably too early for "died of old age" to happen, and those people are past most of the "died of something else" deaths.
https://twitter.com/paulnovosad/status/1603895646565634049
This is still only about 1/3 of the US population. If we’re generous to the OP’s point, it still supports it (granted the tone of “a few elites” may be read differently)
That being said, the first people who are going to live to 150 (most of that in good health) are likely already among us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people
Would you share some credible sources ( books, links ) that explain the new discoveries in slowing down human aging?
https://books.google.com/books/about/Lifespan.html?id=0fEbwQ...
The book itself is somewhat pop-sci’ish, and there is something to be said about Sinclair himself being somewhat sensationalistic. However, pretty much all concrete statements are backed with footnotes to actual research papers if you’re willing to dig deeper.
For people not yet in their 20’s it must seem like ancient history (like the Vietnam war was for me despite happening not that long before I was born).
I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
It’s an easier life for sure, but less stressful? Really?
If you or I mess up at our job the worst thing that happens is we have to look for another job. If someone like him messes up bad enough it’s jail terms and death threats. Obviously that’s less threatening when you’re already pushing 100 and we’ll into what most of us would call bonus years but I’m sure he was aware of the cost of screwing up during his younger years too.
That's not to say other billionaires aren't under constant stress, but they don't seem to be personally.
I’d say your average middle class job is way less stressful.
Hell, I sometime yearn for the days of my blue collar jobs where when the clock hit 5pm the work was someone else’s problem.
And prevention is surely more influential on life expectancy: exercise, food, and environment help a lot and are available to most people with median income.
Charlie clearly had some stressors at 31: “divorced, broke, and burying his 9 year old son”.
It's possible for someone to have a million times the wealth as somebody else but wealth buys you a factor of two in lifespan at best.
> but wealth buys you a factor of two in lifespan at best.
We tend to refer indirectly to average lifespan, without context, which is strongly influenced by baby deaths (also childhood and teenage deaths). In another comment about elites: “Life expectancy for rich people is up”. That statement strikes me as being meaningless without further details (especially given the context that the USA is rich yet lifespans are going down!). What is an elite baby? It turns out approximately all of us are terrible at maths, probability, and clarity of communication.
The rules don't apply to the wealthy. It's their world, you're just living in it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Munger#Early_life_and_...
By that logic SBF should be chilling still in the Bahamas , having paid off the authorities
Munger at least has proved himself many times and has the history to show it.
Poor comparison.
To paraphrase Chris Rock, SBF was rich, but Charlie Munger is wealthy.
Alameda was over 50% of the trades and often the counterparty of the others.
It is a scam in the end, FTX will die without Alameda.
Someone else said the problem was that SBF stole from his customers. And while it’s true that this is often sufficient to bring you down, it’s often only when you steal from the powerful that the wheels of justice turn so swiftly. He’s being made an example.
SBF stole nothing meaningful from anyone powerful.
Who is “them”? There is no serious power embarrassed by FTX. The seriously powerful never got close enough to be tarnished.
Powerful people are acting quickly to publicly distance themselves from him.
The point being they’re making and keeping that distance. This conspiracy theory, that SBF is facing consequences only because he sort of maybe embarrassed Ricchetti, has no legs to stand on.
> only when you steal from the powerful that the wheels of justice turn so swiftly
Not:
> only when you steal from the powerful that the wheels of justice turn [at all]
And certainly not:
> SBF is facing consequences only because ...
To the degree powerful people were embarrassed by him, it was in the Bahamas. Not here. Not at all.
And that (even if only because of the negative coverage) powerful people are taking steps (like returning millions of dollars) to distance themselves from him.
And finally that, whether it's the motive or not, swift prosecution is an effective way for officials to distance themselves.
The rest is speculation, but not crazy.
Nobody would accuse Ivy League schools of being bastions of fairness. We all know nepotism & pay-for-play is a core part of their business model.
But I'm not sure you could get away with that today. You'd have to make a sizable 'donation' instead.
As long as an applicant meets the minimum/lower-end standards for admissions, Ivy League professors in grad schools (law, mba, and PhD-track… not sure about medicine)can and do make by-name requests for admissions that are best not ignored.
Ivy League schools survived for 300 years before a couple decades of the general public thinking that they need Ivy League, due to the corporate sector’s inability to screen a larger working population
Ivy League schools will survive this meme too. Academia as a whole has never adjusted to the underclass’ need to learn for the purpose of making money, they teach irrelevant theory for the sole pursuit of knowledge to this very day
They are for the wealthy to connect with each other and build rapport with each other
The rest of us are just … around
He did ok.
https://inshorts.com/m/en/amp_news/warren-buffett-was-reject...
Elite schools feeding the powerful and elite companies / institutions with good ol' boys has always been quite symbiotic.
In most states, to pass the bar, you only need a Juris Doctor which is usually received upon graduating from law school. In some states you don't even need this, and in some others you can skip law school entirely by studying under a judge or practicing attorney[1].
Law, especially in the US, is much more like a trade that accidentally ended up being taught by the universities, instead of a trade school separate from academia. Very similar to medicine in that regard, where again, there is no need for an undergraduate degree to practice medicine.
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_bar_in_the_Un...
OP apparently isn’t talking about the subject’s brilliance or so. I think the OP is talking specifically about the rule bending for the rich.
> … his family connections certainly helped, but …
Put few people with similar background — except the socioeconomic part of their backgrounds in the same situation and see whether they would have made it.
I doubt it. So, I’d say you can omit the “but”.
FYI, you have it backwards. The parent said Munger was deserving.
> I doubt it.
Exceptionally bright people exist. Had Munger not gone to HLS immediately or at all, I wouldn't bet against him doing exceptionally well (still top 1% of 1% of business outcomes).
In summary, the argument is to point out the difference between personal effort/discipline/work ethic/character (and everything that’s commonly named as the “reason” of success) and the huge impact of external conditions that are completely outside the realm of influence of the individual in question, such as their parent’s wealth and influence, physical build, natural attractiveness, health, location of birth, etc.
It is very, VERY common that people uphold and believe in the (comforting) myth that mostly oneself is responsible for success and that said external factors are basically negligible. The “self-made” person… You could even throw them on Mars and they’ll somehow become billionaires and own mansions!
There is not much to add, except that such thinking appears outdated (previous economic booms allowed for a bit more control of one’s fate), ignorant, and self-congratulatory - a delusion of a successful person who is neither aware nor grateful for the external circumstances that allowed them to get where they are.
FWIW I like Charlie Munger, a down-to-earth thinker who doesn’t shy away from talking about inconvenient truths. Chances are he would even agree with the above.
Book recommendation: “Outliers: The Story of Success” by Malcolm Gladwell.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/29/business/ucsb-munger-hall...
"The Psychology of Human Misjudgment" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv7sLrON7QY
(you should flag opinions that break the rules, not ones you dont like)
I guess it's because the brain is used so intensely it's the last thing to fall.