Whether you like it or not, radical transparency and algorithmic decision-making is coming at you fast, and it's going to change your life. That's because it's now easy to take algorithms and embed them into computers and gather all that data that you're leaving on yourself all over the place, and know what you're like, and then direct the computers to interact with you in ways that are better than most people can.
Bez obzira sviđa li se to vama ili ne, radikalna transparentnost i algoritamsko odlučivanje stižu brzo i promijenit će vam život. Tomu je tako jer je danas jednostavno algoritme ugraditi u računala i skupiti sve te podatke koje ostavljate o sebi posvuda, i saznati kakvi ste, a zatim usmjeriti računala da komuniciraju s vama na načine koji su bolji od većine ljudskih.
Well, that might sound scary. I've been doing this for a long time and I have found it to be wonderful. My objective has been to have meaningful work and meaningful relationships with the people I work with, and I've learned that I couldn't have that unless I had that radical transparency and that algorithmic decision-making. I want to show you why that is, I want to show you how it works. And I warn you that some of the things that I'm going to show you probably are a little bit shocking.
E, to može zvučati strašno. Ja se time bavim dugo i mislim da je čarobno. Moj je cilj bio imati smislen posao i smislene odnose sa suradnicima, a saznao sam da do toga ne mogu ako ne uključim radikalnu transparentnost i to algoritamsko odlučivanje. Želim vam pokazati što je to, želim vam pokazati kako djeluje. Upozoravam vas da bi neke stvari koje ću vam pokazati mogle biti pomalo šokantne.
Since I was a kid, I've had a terrible rote memory. And I didn't like following instructions, I was no good at following instructions. But I loved to figure out how things worked for myself. When I was 12, I hated school but I fell in love with trading the markets. I caddied at the time, earned about five dollars a bag. And I took my caddying money, and I put it in the stock market. And that was just because the stock market was hot at the time. And the first company I bought was a company by the name of Northeast Airlines. Northeast Airlines was the only company I heard of that was selling for less than five dollars a share.
Još kao dijete bio sam loš u učenju napamet. I nisam volio slijediti upute, nisam bio dobar u poštivanju uputa. Ali sviđalo mi se kada bih nešto odgonetnuo sȃm. Kada sam imao 12 godina, mrzio sam školu, ali zaljubio sam se u trgovanje na tržištu. Radio sam kao nosač palica za golf i zarađivao oko pet dolara po torbi. Tako zarađen novac uložio sam na burzu. To je bilo samo zato što je burza bila popularna u to doba. Prva tvrtka koju sam kupio bila je Northeast Airlines. Northeast Airlines bila je jedina tvrtka za koju sam čuo da se prodaje za manje od pet dolara po dionici.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And I figured I could buy more shares, and if it went up, I'd make more money. So, it was a dumb strategy, right? But I tripled my money, and I tripled my money because I got lucky. The company was about to go bankrupt, but some other company acquired it, and I tripled my money. And I was hooked. And I thought, "This game is easy." With time, I learned this game is anything but easy.
Shvatio sam da mogu kupiti više dionica i ako porastu, zaradio bih više novaca. To je bila glupa strategija, zar ne? Ali utrostručio sam zaradu, a utrostručio sam zaradu jer sam imao sreće. Tvrtka je bila pred stečajem, ali kupila ju je neka druga tvrtka i ja sam utrostručio zaradu. Navukao sam se. Pomislio sam: "Ova igra je jednostavna." S vremenom naučio sam da je ta igra sve samo ne jednostavna.
In order to be an effective investor, one has to bet against the consensus and be right. And it's not easy to bet against the consensus and be right. One has to bet against the consensus and be right because the consensus is built into the price. And in order to be an entrepreneur, a successful entrepreneur, one has to bet against the consensus and be right. I had to be an entrepreneur and an investor -- and what goes along with that is making a lot of painful mistakes. So I made a lot of painful mistakes, and with time, my attitude about those mistakes began to change. I began to think of them as puzzles. That if I could solve the puzzles, they would give me gems. And the puzzles were: What would I do differently in the future so I wouldn't make that painful mistake? And the gems were principles that I would then write down so I would remember them that would help me in the future. And because I wrote them down so clearly, I could then -- eventually discovered -- I could then embed them into algorithms. And those algorithms would be embedded in computers, and the computers would make decisions along with me; and so in parallel, we would make these decisions. And I could see how those decisions then compared with my own decisions, and I could see that those decisions were a lot better. And that was because the computer could make decisions much faster, it could process a lot more information and it can process decisions much more -- less emotionally. So it radically improved my decision-making.
Da bi bio dobar ulagač, moraš ići protiv struje i biti u pravu. A nije lako ići protiv struje i biti u pravu. Moraš ići protiv struje i biti u pravu jer je "struja" uključena u cijenu. I da bi bio poduzetnik, uspješan poduzetnik, moraš ići protiv struje i biti u pravu. Morao sam biti poduzetnik i ulagač... a to prati golem broj bolnih pogrešaka. Napravio sam puno bolnih pogrešaka i s vremenom moj se stav o tim pogreškama počeo mijenjati. Počeo sam gledati na njih kao na slagalice. Ako riješim slagalicu, dobit ću nagradu. A slagalica je bila: Što mogu učiniti drukčije u budućnosti kako se bolne pogreške ne bi ponovile? Nagradu su činila načela koja bih zapisao da ih zapamtim i da mi pomognu u budućnosti. Budući da sam ih zapisao jasno, mogao sam -- to sam naknadno shvatio -- mogao sam ih ugraditi u algoritme. Ti bi se algoritmi ugradili u računala, a računala bi donosila odluke sa mnom; zajednički bismo donosili te odluke. I mogao sam usporediti te odluke s vlastitima i uvidjeti da su te odluke puno bolje. Tomu je tako jer računalo puno brže donosi odluke, obrađuje puno više informacija i obrađuje odluke puno -- s puno manje emocija. To je radikalno promijenilo moj proces odlučivanja.
Eight years after I started Bridgewater, I had my greatest failure, my greatest mistake. It was late 1970s, I was 34 years old, and I had calculated that American banks had lent much more money to emerging countries than those countries were going to be able to pay back and that we would have the greatest debt crisis since the Great Depression. And with it, an economic crisis and a big bear market in stocks. It was a controversial view at the time. People thought it was kind of a crazy point of view. But in August 1982, Mexico defaulted on its debt, and a number of other countries followed. And we had the greatest debt crisis since the Great Depression. And because I had anticipated that, I was asked to testify to Congress and appear on "Wall Street Week," which was the show of the time. Just to give you a flavor of that, I've got a clip here, and you'll see me in there.
Osam godina nakon osnutka Bridgewatera doživio sam najveći neuspjeh, najveću pogrešku. Bile su kasne 1970-e, imao sam 34 godine, i izračunao sam da su američke banke posudile puno više novaca zemljama u razvoju nego što će te zemlje moći vratiti i da ćemo doživjeti najveću dužničku krizu od Velike depresije. Uz to će doći gospodarska kriza uz veliki pad vrijednosti dionica. To je bilo kontroverzno gledište u ono doba. Ljudi su mislili da je to pomalo ludo stajalište. Ali u kolovozu 1982. Meksiko nije platio svoj dug, a zatim ni neke druge zemlje. I imali smo najveću dužničku krizu od Velike depresije. Budući da sam to predviđao, zvali su me da svjedočim u Kongresu i gostujem u emisiji "Wall Street Week", popularnoj emisiji u ono doba. Da vam to malo približim, imam ovdje isječak, gdje me možete vidjeti.
(Video) Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mitchell, it's a great pleasure and a great honor to be able to appear before you in examination with what is going wrong with our economy. The economy is now flat -- teetering on the brink of failure.
(Videozapis) G. predsjedniče, g. Mitchell, zadovoljstvo mi je i čast što mogu s vama sudjelovati u ispitivanju što nije u redu s našim gospodarstvom. Gospodarstvo nam je u recesiji -- tetura po rubu kraha.
Martin Zweig: You were recently quoted in an article. You said, "I can say this with absolute certainty because I know how markets work."
Martin Zweig: Nedavno su vas citirali u članku. Rekli ste: "Apsolutno sam siguran jer znam kako tržište funkcionira."
Ray Dalio: I can say with absolute certainty that if you look at the liquidity base in the corporations and the world as a whole, that there's such reduced level of liquidity that you can't return to an era of stagflation."
Ray Dalio: Apsolutno sam siguran da ako pogledate bazu likvidnosti u korporacijama i svijetu u cijelini, smanjena je razina likvidnosti koju ne možete vratiti u doba stagflacije."
I look at that now, I think, "What an arrogant jerk!"
Kada to vidim sada, pomislim: "Kakva arogantna budala!"
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
I was so arrogant, and I was so wrong. I mean, while the debt crisis happened, the stock market and the economy went up rather than going down, and I lost so much money for myself and for my clients that I had to shut down my operation pretty much, I had to let almost everybody go. And these were like extended family, I was heartbroken. And I had lost so much money that I had to borrow 4,000 dollars from my dad to help to pay my family bills.
Bio sam arogantan i potpuno u krivu. Mislim, dužnička se kriza dogodila, ali burza i gospodarstvo išli su prema gore, a ne prema dolje i izgubio sam puno novaca, svojih i od svojih klijenata, toliko da sam morao gotovo pa zatvoriti tvrtku, morao sam skoro sve otpustiti. A bili su mi kao šira obitelj, srce mi se slamalo. A izgubio sam toliko novaca da sam morao posuditi 4.000 dolara od oca da bih mogao platiti režije.
It was one of the most painful experiences of my life ... but it turned out to be one of the greatest experiences of my life because it changed my attitude about decision-making. Rather than thinking, "I'm right," I started to ask myself, "How do I know I'm right?" I gained a humility that I needed in order to balance my audacity. I wanted to find the smartest people who would disagree with me to try to understand their perspective or to have them stress test my perspective. I wanted to make an idea meritocracy. In other words, not an autocracy in which I would lead and others would follow and not a democracy in which everybody's points of view were equally valued, but I wanted to have an idea meritocracy in which the best ideas would win out. And in order to do that, I realized that we would need radical truthfulness and radical transparency.
To je bilo jedno od najbolnijih iskustava u mom životu... ali ispalo je da mi je to jedno od najboljh iskustava u životu jer mi je promijenilo stav o procesu donošenja odluka. Umjesto da mislim: "U pravu sam," počeo sam se pitati: "Kako znam da sam u pravu?" Stekao sam skromnost koja mi je bila potrebna da bih uravnotežio svoju smjelost. Htio sam pronaći najpametnije ljude koji bi mi proturiječili kako bih pokušao shvatiti njihovo stajalište ili koji bi ispitali utemeljenost mojeg stajališta. Htio sam stvoriti meritokraciju ideja. Drugim riječima, ne autokraciju u kojoj bih ja vodio, a drugi slijedili, ni demokraciju u kojoj stajališta svih jednako vrijede, već meritokraciju ideja u kojoj najbolje ideje pobjeđuju. Da bih to postigao, shvatio sam da moramo postići radikalnu iskrenost i radikalnu transparentnost.
What I mean by radical truthfulness and radical transparency is people needed to say what they really believed and to see everything. And we literally tape almost all conversations and let everybody see everything, because if we didn't do that, we couldn't really have an idea meritocracy. In order to have an idea meritocracy, we have let people speak and say what they want. Just to give you an example, this is an email from Jim Haskel -- somebody who works for me -- and this was available to everybody in the company. "Ray, you deserve a 'D-' for your performance today in the meeting ... you did not prepare at all well because there is no way you could have been that disorganized." Isn't that great?
Pod radikalnom iskrenošću i radikalnom transparentnošću smatram da ljudi moraju reći ono što stvarno vjeruju i moraju sve vidjeti. I mi doslovno snimamo gotovo sve razgovore i dopuštamo svima da vide sve, jer da to ne radimo, ne bismo mogli imati meritokraciju ideja. Da bismo postigli meritokraciju ideja, moramo dopustiti ljudima da govore ono što žele. Na primjer, ovo je e-poruka Jima Haskela -- osobe koja radi za mene -- koja je bila dostupna svima u tvrtki. "Ray, zaslužio si dvojku za izvedbu na današnjem sastanku... uopće se nisi pripremio jer nema drugog objašnjenja za tu tvoju neorganiziranost." Nije li to sjajno?
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
That's great. It's great because, first of all, I needed feedback like that. I need feedback like that. And it's great because if I don't let Jim, and people like Jim, to express their points of view, our relationship wouldn't be the same. And if I didn't make that public for everybody to see, we wouldn't have an idea meritocracy.
To je sjajno. Sjajno je jer, prvo i osnovno, trebao mi je takav komentar. Trebaju mi takvi osvrti. I sjajno je jer ako ne dopustim Jimu i ljudima poput Jima da izraze svoje stajalište, naš odnos ne bi bio isti. A da to nije javno dostupno svima, ne bismo imali meritokraciju ideja.
So for that last 25 years that's how we've been operating. We've been operating with this radical transparency and then collecting these principles, largely from making mistakes, and then embedding those principles into algorithms. And then those algorithms provide -- we're following the algorithms in parallel with our thinking. That has been how we've run the investment business, and it's how we also deal with the people management.
I to je način na koji radimo zadnjih 25 godina. Radimo uz takvu radikalnu transparentnost i skupljamo ta načela, uvelike iz pogrešaka koje činimo, a zatim ta načela ugrađujemo u algoritme. A ti algoritmi pružaju -- slijedimo algoritme u kombinaciji s našim idejama. Na taj način vodimo ulagački posao i na taj način vodimo zaposlenike.
In order to give you a glimmer into what this looks like, I'd like to take you into a meeting and introduce you to a tool of ours called the "Dot Collector" that helps us do this. A week after the US election, our research team held a meeting to discuss what a Trump presidency would mean for the US economy. Naturally, people had different opinions on the matter and how we were approaching the discussion. The "Dot Collector" collects these views. It has a list of a few dozen attributes, so whenever somebody thinks something about another person's thinking, it's easy for them to convey their assessment; they simply note the attribute and provide a rating from one to 10. For example, as the meeting began, a researcher named Jen rated me a three -- in other words, badly --
Da bih vam pružio uvid u kako to izgleda, vodim vas na sastanak kako bih vam predstavio naš alat "Dot Collector" koji nam to omogućuje. Tjedan nakon američkih izbora, naš istraživački tim održao je sastanak kako bismo raspravili što će Trump kao predsjednik značiti za gospodarstvo. Naravno, ljudi su imali različita mišljenja o tom problemu i o tome kako pristupamo raspravi. "Dot Collector" skuplja ta mišljenja. Ima popis nekoliko desetaka atributa, i kad netko ima mišljenje o mišljenju druge osobe, lako mu je prenijeti svoju ocjenu; jednostavno zabilježe atribut i ocijene ga ocjenom od jedan do 10. Na primjer, kad je sastanak započeo, istraživačica Jen dala mi je ocjenu tri -- drugim riječima, lošec--
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
for not showing a good balance of open-mindedness and assertiveness. As the meeting transpired, Jen's assessments of people added up like this. Others in the room have different opinions. That's normal. Different people are always going to have different opinions. And who knows who's right? Let's look at just what people thought about how I was doing. Some people thought I did well, others, poorly. With each of these views, we can explore the thinking behind the numbers. Here's what Jen and Larry said. Note that everyone gets to express their thinking, including their critical thinking, regardless of their position in the company. Jen, who's 24 years old and right out of college, can tell me, the CEO, that I'm approaching things terribly.
jer nisam pokazao uravnoteženost između nepristranosti i samopouzdanja. Kako je sastanak odmicao, ovo su bile Jenine ocjene drugih. Drugi u prostoriji imaju različite stavove. To je normalno. Različiti ljudi uvijek imaju različite stavove. I tko zna tko je u pravu? Pogledajmo što su ljudi mislili o mojoj izvedbi. Neki su mislili da sam bio dobar, drugi da sam bio loš. Sa svakim od tih stavova, možemo ispitati svoje stavove koji se nalaze iza brojeva. Ovo su rekli Jen i Larry. Vidite kako svi imaju pravo izraziti svoje mišljenje, uključujući i kritično bez obzira na položaj u tvrtki. Jen, koja ima 24 godine i tek je završila fakultet, može reći meni, izvršnom direktoru, da užasno pristupam stvarima.
This tool helps people both express their opinions and then separate themselves from their opinions to see things from a higher level. When Jen and others shift their attentions from inputting their own opinions to looking down on the whole screen, their perspective changes. They see their own opinions as just one of many and naturally start asking themselves, "How do I know my opinion is right?" That shift in perspective is like going from seeing in one dimension to seeing in multiple dimensions. And it shifts the conversation from arguing over our opinions to figuring out objective criteria for determining which opinions are best.
Ovaj alat omogućuje ljudima da izraze svoje mišljenje i da se odvoje od svojih stavova kako bi stvari razmotrili s više razine. Kada Jen i ostali preusmjere pažnju s unosa svog mišljenja na cijeli zaslon, njihovo se stajalište promijeni. Vide da je njihovo mišljenje tek jedno od mnogih i prirodno je da se zapitaju "Kako znam da je moje mišljenje ispravno?" Ta je promjena stajališta poput prelaska iz jedne dimenzije u više dimenzija. I preusmjerava naš razgovor od rasprave oko mišljenja na razmatranje objektivnih kriterija za utvrđivanje najboljeg mišljenja.
Behind the "Dot Collector" is a computer that is watching. It watches what all these people are thinking and it correlates that with how they think. And it communicates advice back to each of them based on that. Then it draws the data from all the meetings to create a pointilist painting of what people are like and how they think. And it does that guided by algorithms. Knowing what people are like helps to match them better with their jobs. For example, a creative thinker who is unreliable might be matched up with someone who's reliable but not creative. Knowing what people are like also allows us to decide what responsibilities to give them and to weigh our decisions based on people's merits. We call it their believability. Here's an example of a vote that we took where the majority of people felt one way ... but when we weighed the views based on people's merits, the answer was completely different. This process allows us to make decisions not based on democracy, not based on autocracy, but based on algorithms that take people's believability into consideration.
Iza aplikacije "Dot Collector" stoji računalo koje nadzire. Nadzire što svi ti ljudi misle i uspoređuje to s načinom na koji razmišljaju. Zatim svakome pojedinačno šalje savjete na temelju te usporedbe. Zatim povlači podatke sa svih sastanaka i stvara sliku ljudi i načina na koji razmišljaju. A to stvara pomoću algoritama. Ako znate kakvi su ljudi, lakše ćete znati za koji su posao. Na primjer, kreativan mislilac koji je nepouzdan može se upariti s nekim tko je pouzdan, ali nije kreativan. Ako znamo kakvi su ljudi, lakše donosimo odluke o odgovornostima koje im predajemo i odlučujemo na temelju njihovih zasluga. To zovemo vjerodostojnošću. Ovo je primjer našeg glasovanja gdje je većina mislila jedno... ali zatim smo ocijenili stajališta na temelju zasluga i odgovor je bio potpuno drukčiji. Proces nam omogućuje da donosimo odluke ne na temelju demokracije, ne na temelju autokracije, već na temelju algoritama koji uzimaju u obzir vjerodostojnost ljudi.
Yup, we really do this.
Da, stvarno to radimo.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
We do it because it eliminates what I believe to be one of the greatest tragedies of mankind, and that is people arrogantly, naïvely holding opinions in their minds that are wrong, and acting on them, and not putting them out there to stress test them. And that's a tragedy. And we do it because it elevates ourselves above our own opinions so that we start to see things through everybody's eyes, and we see things collectively. Collective decision-making is so much better than individual decision-making if it's done well. It's been the secret sauce behind our success. It's why we've made more money for our clients than any other hedge fund in existence and made money 23 out of the last 26 years.
To radimo zato što to otklanja ono što smatram najvećom tragedijom čovječanstva, a to je da ljudi arogantno, naivno imaju stajališta koja su kriva, i djeluju u skladu s njima umjesto da ih preispitaju. To je tragedija. To radimo jer nas uzdiže od vlastitih mišljenja tako da vidimo stvari tuđim očima, i vidimo stvari kolektivno. Kolektivno odlučivanje puno je bolje od individualnog odlučivanja. Ako se radi ispravno. To je tajni sastojak našeg uspjeha. To je razlog zašto zarađujemo za svoje klijente više od ostalih hedge fondova i bili smo na dobitku 23 od 26 proteklih godina.
So what's the problem with being radically truthful and radically transparent with each other? People say it's emotionally difficult. Critics say it's a formula for a brutal work environment. Neuroscientists tell me it has to do with how are brains are prewired. There's a part of our brain that would like to know our mistakes and like to look at our weaknesses so we could do better. I'm told that that's the prefrontal cortex. And then there's a part of our brain which views all of this as attacks. I'm told that that's the amygdala. In other words, there are two you's inside you: there's an emotional you and there's an intellectual you, and often they're at odds, and often they work against you. It's been our experience that we can win this battle. We win it as a group. It takes about 18 months typically to find that most people prefer operating this way, with this radical transparency than to be operating in a more opaque environment. There's not politics, there's not the brutality of -- you know, all of that hidden, behind-the-scenes -- there's an idea meritocracy where people can speak up. And that's been great. It's given us more effective work, and it's given us more effective relationships. But it's not for everybody. We found something like 25 or 30 percent of the population it's just not for. And by the way, when I say radical transparency, I'm not saying transparency about everything. I mean, you don't have to tell somebody that their bald spot is growing or their baby's ugly. So, I'm just talking about --
U čemu je problem kod radikalne iskrenosti i radikalne transparentnosti među ljudima? Kažu da je emotivno teško. Kritičari kažu da je to formula za okrutno radno okruženje. Neuroznanstvenici kažu da je stvar u tome kako nam je mozak namješten. Postoji dio mozga koji želi znati naše pogreške i želi sagledati naše slabosti tako da budemo bolji. Rekli su mi da je to prefrontalni korteks. A postoji i dio mozga koji na sve to gleda kao na napad. Rekli su mi da je to amigdala. Drugim riječima, u vama postoje dvije osobe: emocionalna i intelektualna i često su u sukobu i često rade protiv vas. Naše je iskustvo da možemo dobiti tu bitku. Pobjeđujemo kao grupa. Obično je potrebno 18 mjeseci da se uvidi da većina više voli raditi na taj način, radikalno transparentno, nego u mutnijem okruženju. Nema politike, nema okrutnosti -- znate, svega toga skrivenog, zakulisnog -- postoji meritokracija ideja u kojoj se ljudi mogu izraziti. I sjajno nam je. Omogućila nam je učinkovitiji rad, i učinkovitije odnose. Ali nije za svakoga. Naučili smo da za 25 do 30 posto stanovništva to ne funkcionira. Usput, kada govorim o radikalnoj transparentnosti, ne mislim na opću transparentnost. Mislim, ne morate nekome reći da je oćelavio niti da ima ružnu bebu. Govorim o --
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
talking about the important things. So --
govorim o važnim stvarima. Znači --
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
So when you leave this room, I'd like you to observe yourself in conversations with others. Imagine if you knew what they were really thinking, and imagine if you knew what they were really like ... and imagine if they knew what you were really thinking and what were really like. It would certainly clear things up a lot and make your operations together more effective. I think it will improve your relationships. Now imagine that you can have algorithms that will help you gather all of that information and even help you make decisions in an idea-meritocratic way. This sort of radical transparency is coming at you and it is going to affect your life. And in my opinion, it's going to be wonderful. So I hope it is as wonderful for you as it is for me.
Znači, kada napustite ovu prostoriju želim da se promotrite u razgovorima s drugima. Zamislite da znate što stvarno misle, zamislite da znate kakvi su stvarno... i zamislite da oni znaju što vi stvarno mislite i kakvi ste stvarno. To bi razjasnilo mnoge stvari i omogućilo vam učinkovitije djelovanje. Mislim da bi unaprijedilo odnose. Sada zamislite da imate algoritme koji će vam pomoći prikupiti sve te informacije i pomoći u donošenju odluka pomoću meritokracije ideja. Takva radikalna transparentnost dolazi i utjecat će na vaš život. I po mom mišljenju, bit će čudesno. Nadam se da će i vama biti čudesno kao što je meni.
Thank you very much.
Puno hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)