Being Right, Being Wrong and Insults

MJG

Hi Guys,

I have been investing for over half a century. When I make an investing decision, I always have a rationale for that decision. At that time, I believe I’m right. My record is mixed in that regard. Many times I’m wrong.

One defense against being wrong is to expose yourself to alternate perspectives. That’s one primary reason why I visit MFO frequently (the other is that I advocate for a better understanding of statistical analyses).

Some of Charles Darwin biographers argue that he was an unexceptional scientist with one major extraordinary positive attribute. He actively pursued divergent perspectives that challenged his logic. I try to follow that same pattern.

In most instances, expressing an opinion on any topic to the MFO Board solicits responses that are both sympathetic and unsupportive. That’s useful. That’s the main purpose of my exchange, especially when conducted in a friendly, honorable manner. Decorum is important in any situation. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen here.

My baseline approach is almost always the rather innocuous scientific method. I collect data and evaluate that data against some meaningful measures and/or criteria. The procedure is designed to be emotionally neutral. However, when reporting, it does take-on a pedantic character.

But that’s style and not substance. It does seem to irritate a few MFO members, and they express their annoyance. That’s okay if that displeasure is expressed in a polite, courteous, and helpful manner. Mostly it is. Sadly, there are a few notable exceptions that degrade the entire exchange, and the overall high MFO standards.

A day or so ago an MFOer took issue with some of my posts on the recent Republican debate. I am only in the early data collection phase on that project. I made no derogatory comments about any of the candidates or the MFO commentary. I will not do so for either Republican or Democrat candidates.

I did state that I will place heavy emphasis on leadership potential as a primary sorting tool. That’s it. Nothing controversial. Yet the venom erupted. That’s totally unnecessary. I do take exception to that bad behavior. That’s the primary motivation for this current post.

Why the ad hominems? There is surely no call for such thoughts or foul language.

Having divergent opinions is what elections and investing are all about. In a Capitalistic system there are winners and losers. In every trade, someone is right, but also someone else is wrong. And those sides change outcome positions frequently.

As William James wrote: “Our errors are surely not such awfully solemn things. In a world where we are so certain to incur them in spite of all our caution, a certain lightness of heart seems healthier than this excessive nervousness on their behalf.”

Everyone makes mistakes. There is positive side to error if it contributes to a learning experience. In fact, that is the scientific expectation. A science theory is practiced until some evidence contradicts it, and the community adjusts accordingly. Science progresses using this falsification method.

Progress is accomplished in a civil manner. Debate is good; insults destroy that goodness. Tolerance for debate is sometimes missing on the MFO Board. I hope change will happen.

Best Regards.

DlphcOracl

Please get over yourself and give everyone else a well-deserved break from your long-winded diatribes.

Ted

@MJG: I afraid I must agree with DlphcOracl on this one. Many of your post are way to long-winded for me.
Regards,
Ted

LewisBraham

@MJG, Watching the debates is not equivalent to scientific data collection anymore than going to the circus or watching an ad for laxatives are controlled experiments. There is science and there is rhetoric, two highly different disciplines with one could argue conflicting goals--the former to seek the truth, the latter to conceal it. If you want to apply the scientific method to politics, I respect that but don't expect to find much useful data at a debate or you will invariably come up with a garbage-in, garbage out result. I know you say you want primary sources, but assuming that politicians' words themselves are the only primary sources is misunderstanding what a primary source is. A primary source is someone who is present at a historical event. It doesn't mean it has to be the actor or in this case the speaker at an event. Any political analyst, journalist or viewer like yourself who witnessed the debates are also primary sources in this case. And those witnesses in many cases may be more objective than the speakers themselves as the speakers are expressly motivated in this case to slant the truth in their favor. No source is truly objective. So if you want to apply the scientific method, I hope you will review many sources about the candidates, not just listen to their words. Read about their actions, their political records and the implications of their policies. Read sources of different political stripes to get a fuller view and sense of where they really stand. Good luck with your quest for the truth.

MJG

Hi LewisBraham,

Thank you for your contribution.

Your comments mistakenly focus on the debate issue. That was not the primary thrust of my submittal. My main purpose was to plea for more respectful decorum in the exchanges.

The lack of decorum displayed on the debate postings prompted this submittal. DiphcOracl's comment serves as yet another illustration of the issue.

I am fully familiar with the distortions that politicians propagate. They are great at trying to sell each of us the George Washington bridge. Buyer beware is always a good policy.

Best Wishes.

rjb112

Insults have no role on MFO.
We can have different points of view and disagreements and express them in an appropriate manner.

davfor

@MJG My primary motivation for visiting MFO -- which I do on most days -- is to gain information about investing and the world of finance. Off Topic postings that focus on these topics make the most sense to me. Off Topic posts that are light hearted also make sense to me. But, Off Topic posts about controversial topics lend themselves to divisive outcomes unrelated to MFOs primary purpose. Religion and politics top my list of topics of that sort. I tend to not even to click on those posts. This is not an ideal world. By and large, this site has been a very pleasant one to visit this year. But, I suspect that it will always be difficult to keep everyone's posts civil when those two subject are being discussed. Just a thought.....

As an aside, I think it was you who commented about preferring Newton's old time physics in a recent Off Topic post. In a follow up comment, I suggested Newton would embrace 21st century physics. Recently, I ran across a comment made by Isaac Newton that relates to the way he viewed the world (and which in some ways relates to understanding the world of economics and finance):

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

little5bee

@rjb112 I agree...but I'm quite confident that people post things online that they wouldn't dare say to someone in person.