lee beat hooker, and he should not have. hooker had him outnumbered two to one. it is an incredibly interesting battle. there are all reasons -- there are many reasons why hooker blew it, but he was arrogant and overconfident. he thought he had lee so completely outgunned that he no longer had it taken seriously as an opponent. and i thought that there was a truly extraordinary lesson in that. overconfidence turns out to be -- psychologists tell us -- the most common kind of flaw. if incompetence is the disease of the novice, overconfidence is the disease of the expert. one of the ways to explain what happened on wall street two years ago is precisely this. the financial industry began to behave as hooker did. they began to be so confident of their decisions that that they became -- -- there were no longer capable of failure. this notion that our leaders need to be humble more than they need to be good is really important. not to say that they do not need to be good, of course they do. but as we get better and better at what we do, we run an increasing risk of ov

lee beat hooker. hooker had him 2-1 and robert e.lee pulled it out there are all kinds of reasons why hooker blow it but the core of it was was that he was arrogant. he thought he had robert e. lee and outgunned, that he no longer had to taken seriously as an opponent. i thought there was a truly expert near a lesson in that. overconfidence turns out to be the most common flaw of experts. incompetents is the disease of the novice. over, this is the disease of the expert. -- overconfidence is the disease of the expert. one thing i think happened on wall street two years ago was that these titans of the financial industry began to behave as hooker did on the eve of the battle of chancellorsville. they believe to be in such command of their world and their environment and their decisions that they were no longer capable of failure. i think this notion that our experts and their leaders need to be humble more than they need to be good is really important. not to say that they don't need to be good, is that we get better and better at wha

the financial industry began to be paid as hooker did. they began to be selling command of their decisions that that they become american. this notion that our leaders need to be humble more than they need to be good is really important. not to say that they do not need to be good, of course they do. but as we get better and better of what we did, we run an increasing risk of overconfidence, and we need to keep that -- the task of a leader is to keep that psychological problem in check. and they need our help to do that. >> can you name a leader of the date you think shows humility? -- that you think shows humility? >> interesting, i thought you were going to ask another question which would be more difficult to answer. there is a wonderful book written a couple of years ago called "overconfidence and war," in which he walks through virtually every major conflict of the last few years trying to find a humble military leader. and he can rarely find one. the preponderance of the leaders he looks at suffer from some kind of major overconfide