Survivorship Filter
I'm seeing the survivors — where are the ones who didn't make it?
Before drawing conclusions from a success story, write: Who tried the same approach and failed? Would I know about them if they existed? If the answer is no, your evidence is incomplete — you're only seeing the winners.
You're making a decision based on examples of what worked — successful companies, people, strategies.
You have access to comprehensive data that includes both successes and failures.
Why it works
Success stories are visible. Failure is silent. Basing decisions on visible successes alone is like studying only the planes that came back and concluding that where they were hit doesn't matter.
For every startup success story you’ve read, there are hundreds of identical attempts you’ve never heard of. They had the same idea, similar timing, comparable talent — they just didn’t make it. But nobody writes articles about them, so your mental database is entirely composed of survivors. This is the most dangerous data set to reason from, because it systematically excludes the evidence that would change your conclusion. The classic example: studying successful entrepreneurs to find common traits and concluding that risk-taking and persistence are the keys. But the failed entrepreneurs were also risk-taking and persistent. The difference was often luck, timing, or circumstances — none of which show up in survivor interviews.