“It is not a daily increase, but a daily decrease. Hack away at the inessentials.”
- Bruce Lee
Simple is greater than complex. Similarly, subtraction can be as useful as addition. Often we seek improvement by addition. However, subtraction is a viable option that often gets overlooked as it promotes simplicity.
When Steve Jobs created the line of Apple products, such as the iPhone, iPad, and iPod, he did not choose to make the most developed and complicated technology. Rather, one of the appeals of these gadgets is their simplicity; they all have one main button.
"The difference between successful people and very successful people is that very successful people say 'no' to almost everything."
- Warren Buffet
Shane Parrish recently had an interesting blog post discussing Jim Collins and a few of his books. The title of the blog post is "Forget The 'To-Do' List, You Need A ‘Stop Doing’ List," which I think is a very interesting concept. As Shane Parrish eludes to in the post, while writing his books Jim Collins noted the following:
(This) lesson came back to me a number of years later while puzzling over the research data on 11 companies that turned themselves from mediocrity to excellence, from good to great. In cataloguing the key steps that ignited the transformations, my research team and I were struck by how many of the big decisions were not what to do, but what to stop doing.
Steve Jobs said something similar on focus, mentioned in another Shane Parrish blog post:
One of my favorite heuristics, (techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery that give a solution which is not guaranteed to be optimal), is referred to as occam's razor. Basically, occam's razor states that when deciding between two theories that make the same prediction, the simpler one is superior. Again, keep things simple.
While simplicity and subtraction are not entirely the same thing, they do go hand in hand. Eliminate the urge to add more and instead look to subtract in order to simplify.
In order to truly understand the power of simplicity and subtraction, it is crucial to understand the difference between a "winner's game" and a "loser's game."
In The Loser's Game by Charles D. Ellis he distinguishes the difference between the two. Essentially, in a winner’s game the final outcome is determined by the activities of the winner. In a loser’s game the final outcome is determined by the activities of the loser.
According to Ellis, "Dr. Simon Ramo identified the crucial difference between a winner's game and a loser's game in his excellent book on playing strategy, Extraordinary Tennis for the Ordinary Tennis Player." Ellis writes:
After extensive scientific and statistical analysis, Dr. Ramo summed it up this way: Professionals win points, amateurs lose points. Professional tennis players stroke the ball with strong, well aimed shots, through long and often exciting rallies, until one player is able to drive the ball just beyond the reach of his opponent. Errors are seldom made by these splendid players.
Amateur tennis, Ramo found, is almost entirely different. Brilliant shots, long and exciting rallies and seemingly miraculous recoveries are few and far between. On the other hand, the ball is fairly often hit into the net or out of bounds, and double faults at service are not uncommon. The amateur duffer seldom beats his opponent, but he beats himself all the time. The victor in this game of tennis gets a higher score than the opponent, but he gets that higher score because his opponent is losing even more points.
As a scientist and statistician, Dr. Ramo gathered data to test his hypothesis. And he did it in a very clever way. Instead of keeping conventional game scores – "Love," "Fifteen All." "Thirty- Fifteen." etc. – Ramo simply counted points won versus points lost. And here is what he found. In expert tennis, about 80 percent of the points are won; in amateur tennis, about 80 percent of the points are lost. In other words, professional tennis is a Winner’s Game – the final outcome is determined by the activities of the winner – and amateur tennis is a Loser’s Game – the final outcome is determined by the activities of the loser. The two games are, in their fundamental characteristic, not at all the same. They are opposites.
So if you are an amateur tennis player, the best strategy for winning a loser's game is by minimizing mistakes and letting the opponent beat themselves. Ellis writes the following about Dr. Ramo's book:
Dr. Ramo explains that if you choose to win at tennis – as opposed to having a good time –
the strategy for winning is to avoid mistakes. The way to avoid mistakes is to be conservative and
keep the ball in play, letting the other fellow have plenty of room in which to blunder his way to
defeat, because he, being an amateur (and probably not having read Ramo's book) will play a losing
game and not know it.
He will make errors. He will make too many errors. Once in a while he may hit a serve you cannot possibly handle, but much more frequently he will double fault. Occasionally, he may volley balls past you at the net, but more often than not they will sail far out of bounds. He will slam balls into the net from the front court and from the back court. His game will be a routine catalogue of gaffes, goofs and grief.
He will try to beat you by winning, but he is not good enough to overcome the many inherent adversities of the game itself. The situation does not allow him to win with an activist strategy and he will instead lose. His efforts to win more points will, unfortunately for him, only increase his error rate. As Ramo instructs us in his book, the strategy for winning in a loser's game is to lose less. Avoid trying too hard. By keeping the ball in play, give the opponent as many opportunities as possible to make mistakes and blunder his, way to defeat. In brief, by losing less become the victor.
He will make errors. He will make too many errors. Once in a while he may hit a serve you cannot possibly handle, but much more frequently he will double fault. Occasionally, he may volley balls past you at the net, but more often than not they will sail far out of bounds. He will slam balls into the net from the front court and from the back court. His game will be a routine catalogue of gaffes, goofs and grief.
He will try to beat you by winning, but he is not good enough to overcome the many inherent adversities of the game itself. The situation does not allow him to win with an activist strategy and he will instead lose. His efforts to win more points will, unfortunately for him, only increase his error rate. As Ramo instructs us in his book, the strategy for winning in a loser's game is to lose less. Avoid trying too hard. By keeping the ball in play, give the opponent as many opportunities as possible to make mistakes and blunder his, way to defeat. In brief, by losing less become the victor.
Many others have spoken and written on this same concept.
Admiral Morrison writes in Strategy and Compromise, “Other things being equal, the side that makes the fewest strategic errors wins the war."
Likewise, Charlie Munger notes "It is remarkable how much long-term advantage people like us have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent."
Furthermore, Shane Parrish says in his blog post of the same title, "avoiding stupidity is easier than seeking brilliance"
This concept of a winner's game versus a loser's game and avoiding errors ties back to the simplicity and subtraction discussion. A majority of activities (unless you are a professional or expert) are loser's games, including not only war, golf, tennis, etc but also intellectual pursuits, judgements, and decision making. As a result, keeping things simple through subtraction in order to minimize mistakes is an essential part of winning the loser's game.
No comments:
Post a Comment