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.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
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.
We can have different points of view and disagreements and express them in an appropriate manner.
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."