One of his examples of the importance of not focusing on success is actually a success story; he just conflates the path to success with the content along that path. That might sound confusing, so consider two ants that go to find food. One ant does it by crossing over an area where a plane did not crash. The other finds food by going over an area where a plane did crash. They both report back the success story - a pheromone trail that describes their respective path to success. The content along that path and the path itself are separate things. Just because the content on the path to success involved reasoning with regard to a plane which just so happened to be crashed doesn't mean that communicating expected value of paths in general is refuted. Otherwise the point is self-refuting, since it argues on the basis of a path description which has positive expected value that path descriptions of expected value are inherently flawed.
One of his examples of the importance of not focusing on success is actually a success story; he just conflates the path to success with the content along that path. That might sound confusing, so consider two ants that go to find food. One ant does it by crossing over an area where a plane did not crash. The other finds food by going over an area where a plane did crash. They both report back the success story - a pheromone trail that describes their respective path to success. The content along that path and the path itself are separate things. Just because the content on the path to success involved reasoning with regard to a plane which just so happened to be crashed doesn't mean that communicating expected value of paths in general is refuted. Otherwise the point is self-refuting, since it argues on the basis of a path description which has positive expected value that path descriptions of expected value are inherently flawed.