Hi Guys,
Whenever an MFO member sees an IMHO or an “In my opinion” proclamation within the discussion pages, a loud warning bell should be sounding in his brain. That’s especially so if the IMHO is a naked claim devoid of any supportive documentation. Raw opinions are often wrong, and sometimes they are offered as part of a propaganda campaign. It is explosive and dangerous stuff that can permanently do damage to a portfolio.
In a free society it is an unchallenged truism that everyone has the right to an opinion. It is equally clear that the freely given opinion need not be right. The quality of the opinion is often an unknowable issue. Not all opinions are equal, especially if that opinion is not supported with statistical data and with a responsible model that at least partially explains the data set.
In fact, there are some philosophers and logicians who would argue that an opinion that omits documentation is the last stand of a promoter who really is conceding the shallowness or the falseness of his position.
That interpretation is precisely the position that Jamie Whyte commands in his short 2005 book titled “Crimes Against Logic”. His first chapter is called “The Right to Your Opinion” which he grants with serious reservations. The remainder of the book presents compelling reasons that undermine trust in that undocumented opinion. He outlines disqualifies like false authority, biased motivation, empty words, inconsistencies and morphing positions, argument equivocation, and faulty application of statistics in an engaging narrative format.
Unfortunately, many of these logic shortcomings find there way onto the MFO discussions. I suppose this should not be a surprising observation given the average investor’s poor portfolio management record, and his equally poor record in choosing political leaders. We often fall victim to faulty arguments.
MFO hosts a few members who recommend an austere posting discipline without references and/or without statistics. I guess these guys trust opinions more than I do! They object to the repetition and length of such presentations. My easy solution is not to shortstop the submittals, but rather that the objector simply not read the specific postings that are objectionable to his sensitivities.
“Crimes Against Logic” is a breezy and informative book and I highly recommend it. To better appreciate the author’s perspectives and biases, here are Links to two short videos (Parts 1 and 2) that provide background material to this energetic New Zealander:
These two videos are more about who Jamie Whyte is than about his book.
As a Guardian reviewer summarized, “It (the book) ruthlessly exposes logical flaws …..angry and witty”. I did not see the angry elements, but it is witty.
The main lessons that the book teaches are that it identifies guidelines for how to spot deceptive arguments. However, the investing public, like the overall population, seem to be slow learners. George Bernard Shaw was even dubious about this shortcoming being correctable when he remarked on our widespread propensity as follows: “We learn from history that man can never learn anything from history”. I’m a little less skeptical - but not much so.
Further down the road, Richard Feynman doubted Joe Six-pack’s capability to apply logic when it is grounded in statistics. But the stats are a necessary part of the decision process. He said: “There are good guesses and there are bad guesses. The theory of probability is a system for making better guesses.”
Statistical methods are just a minor extension of simple counting. When he was at Princeton, a sign hanging in Albert Einstein’s office read: “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” That’s great wisdom. All investors should remember and practice it.
Investors, like most everyone else, are poor at estimating odds and event impact (expectations). Adam Smith, the father of economics, had a saying that addressed this observation: “The chance of gain is by every man more or less overvalued, and the chance of loss is by most men undervalued”. Truer words were never written.
Many fear flying, yet on a per mile basis, it is a far more dangerous auto trip driving to the airport than is the subsequent cross-country flight. A major reason for any fear factor is the perceived lack of control.
A secondary consideration is our misunderstanding of statistics. The media are likely responsible for the public’s exaggerated fears and misunderstandings. On TV, shock value events capture an audience. Fatal shark attacks are greatly feared, but are very rare events. Yet whenever they occur they make the TV news programs.
Few of us appreciate that women are terrific survivors. Statistics demonstrate that women have better survival rates than men with respect to accidental deaths. For example, only 15% of the folks killed by lightning are women. Women know enough to take cover away from an open field as a storm approaches. Financial records also show that women are better investors. They are more fully aware of the marketplace’s risk/reward tradeoffs and react conservatively.
I recognize that some IMHO submittals are necessary to keep the MFO Discussion Board fluid and timely. But please limit your IMHO postings unless they are supported by some analysis and/or stats. Otherwise they are only assertions from a source that is difficult to calibrate and whose reliability is mostly unfathomable.
Your thoughts on this matter are always welcomed and encouraged.
Best Regards.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
IMHO MJG's post is possibly the most insolent and arrogant that I have ever seen here, and that takes some doing, given a number of his previous performances.
I never doubted that my post would strike a few nerves. So I anticipated a reaction that your picture vividly illustrates. Too too bad. Much of the venom is directed at my Hi Guys introduction and my choice of wording.
Just another day in the trenches. I will survive.
Best Wishes.
1. I think MJG is never going to be pleased with this thing called the internet, which is effectively a massive pile of IMHOs from everyone about everything. Without IMHOs, there's not that much internet.
You have multi-billion dollar companies that are effectively based upon thousands and thousands of IMHOs. Yelp's stock symbol should have been IMHO.
2. Have some degree of confidence in people's ability to filter things. I am more than happy to read an article, filter what I believe is relevant information after I analyze it and move on.
I'm not going to even get into the hints to censor (or, to use a less aggressive word, "shape") the discussions here, which others have already done.
No 1 unnecessary occupation : Investment Manager
No 2 unnecessary occupation : Psychologists
Let's put both of them to pasture.
Why is it that I've never liked meeting an author I like? (Maybe I should cancel my trip to Chicago? Ha!) Love it.
For sure.
The web is a big ball of imho, yup, except that it will be the savior of us all as the smartest cream rises. Politically, medically, athletically, scientifically, economically, to a slightly lesser extent financially, the very best marketplace-of-ideas thinking gets spread (sometimes) like nothing before in history. If a lie is halfway round the world before truth gets its shoes on, the web gives truth track shoes. Thus far only about a quarter of the time, though. But increasing. Maybe not fast enough to save us, actually, ultimately. But better than not.
At recess, kids that didn't attract playmates were not driven from the playground and only the bullies tried to make their stay intolerable.
Why all the posts attacking other kids on this playground? Play with or ignore but why form gangs and start street fights that trash the MFO site more than an occasional IMO or even IMHO???
IMHO Jamie Whyte should play a minimal role in my own recess endeavors. And MJG should write one long post outlining what people can or cannot do at MFO in order to buy his/her affection and respect. Then everyone else could write their long posts in the same vein. Finally I will have enough data to choose who to play with and who to ignore. I had not noticed the IMO type posts and really prefer, as one of the not-sophisticated, that people document all data. IMO is a documentation that gives better context than just spouting off everything like it wasn't opinion. IMHO, of course.
There, MJG. I make no documentation for that statement. Is that "the last stand of a promoter"? Have I conceded the shallowness and falseness of this position? Is it illogical in some way? Is your jumping from 'IMHO' to your little dissertation on statistics supposed to be some sort of logical progression?
I find your post just plain silly. And to be repetitive, if I mentioned that this is my opinion, would I have made it the last stance of a promoter while conceding the shallowness and falseness of the position?
I might add that the fact that documentation for a statement is not offered at any particular time does not mean that documentation for that statement does not exist. I also find that your simple demand for documentation begs the question as to whether or not the documentation offered is accurate and/or sufficient. I also find you begging the question as to whether or not any proffered statistics may be valid or invalid. Seems like you commit one crime against logic(al argumentation) after another.
But of course, in normal discourse you shouldn't really be required to reinvent the wheel. Such demands would soon make all discourse impossible. I think that you ought to remember that before criticizing others for pretty much nothing at all.
"Further down the road, Richard Feynman doubted Joe Six-pack’s capability to apply logic when it is grounded in statistics. But the stats are a necessary part of the decision process. He said: “There are good guesses and there are bad guesses. The theory of probability is a system for making better guesses.”
GARY
I contend that decisions are made on faulty inputs - it - has nothing to do with statistics - garbage in garbage out.
MJG
"Few of us appreciate that women are terrific survivors. Statistics demonstrate that women have better survival rates than men with respect to accidental deaths. For example, only 15% of the folks killed by lightning are women. Women know enough to take cover away from an open field as a storm approaches."
GARY
Misapplication of data and faulty data comparing oranges to apples - again garbage in garbage out
MJG
'I recognize that some IMHO submittals are necessary to keep the MFO Discussion Board fluid and timely. But please limit your IMHO postings unless they are supported by some analysis and/or stats. Otherwise they are only assertions from a source that is difficult to calibrate and whose reliability is mostly unfathomable."
GARY
YOU SIR ARE NOT THE THOUGHT POLICE
MJG
"He outlines disqualifies like false authority, biased motivation, empty words, inconsistencies and morphing positions, argument equivocation, and faulty application of statistics in an engaging narrative format."
GARY
MJG I copied this from your off topic discussion it fits you.
For my 2 cents @MJG I've found the book Thinking Fast & Slow to be an enlightening look at flawed processes in human decision making. Have you read it?
I also find on MFO that people will be asked to provide references for their statements and that they oblige. As you note conversation flows more easily when the burden of substantiation is lighter. As long as people can reference details when asked I don't see this as evil. Economics and investing are also inexact sciences, some things are just opinions, but that doesn't make them wrong. Hell, in mathematics the are disciplines that have 20+ years of research built on the assumption that a widely held opinion is true (always cited in the introduction).
There is a difference between useful opinions and destructive ones, but perhaps you would elicit less vitriol if you qualified your statements slightly.
But I'm guessing I won't get that bad. I think you have to be born that way.
noun
the hubris among economists was shaken...
arrogance, conceit, haughtiness, hauteur, pride, self-importance, egotism, pomposity, superciliousness, superiority
Sorry, couldn't resist
In the near term, anxieties might be lessened if the board were divided into two sections. One could be labeled: "Assumptions Based on Data Driven Research." MJG and those of similar persuasion could click on it and view only arguments meeting their criteria.
The other section for the less data driven folk might be called: "Truthiness." ... "Truthiness" was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster. Wikipedia defines it this way: "Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."
Perhaps this helps a little. Just my humble perspective.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
Regards- OJ
(Edited to add "IMHO")
IMHO: Self-dug trenches, deliberately dug to attract self-attention. I believe that Anna has called the situation exactly correctly, in her response, above:
(1) MJG, MFO, August 18, 2014 (Well, he demands references...)
or any society. All of us can choose what to read, listen, ignore or challenge.
Regards,
Ted
Lilies Of The Field: Sidney Poiter: