Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Tastylunch (29.93)

Be Careful about which Gurus you listen to

Recs

41

December 30, 2009 – Comments (52)

Ever wonder why guys like Jim Cramer  or politicians with terrible track records (take your pick) are popular despite making some horrendous judgment calls?

or why Disbarred lawyers like Jack Thompson, manipulative CEOs like Patrick Bryne or stock pumpers like Charles Payne are "experts" on Fox News?

or why certain analysts are more popular than others depsite making the same accurate calls?

Wonder no more

from

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227115.500-humans-prefer-cockiness-to-expertise.html

" Humans prefer cockiness to expertise....

The research, by Don Moore of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, shows that we prefer advice from a confident source, even to the point that we are willing to forgive a poor track record. Moore argues that in competitive situations, this can drive those offering advice to increasingly exaggerate how sure they are.....

 the more confident advisers found more buyers for their advice, and this caused the advisers to give answers that were more and more precise as the game progressed...

Moore said that following the advice of the most confident person often makes sense, as there is evidence that precision and expertise do tend to go hand in hand....

There are times, however, when this link breaks down. With complex but politicised subjects such as global warming, for example, scientific experts who stress uncertainties lose out to activists or lobbyists with a more emphatic message..."

 

Nowhere is this more true in my experience than talking with reporters. Reporters hate good scientists because they talk in probabilities. But they love buffoons who throw easily digestible sound bite reckless guesstimations. Why? Cause they need a narrative to get people to watch. And the more dramatic it is , the more interested people usually are.

Learning this key fact has helped me land a ton more interviews and tv time when I've sought it. It's frighteningly easy to get in the paper as an "expert" these days if you want to.

I suppose it makes some sense, after all it is hard to judge an expert's opinion if you yourself have little first hand knowledge of the subject. You need some sort of workaround to gauge it's validity. Specificity and confidence are two very rational ones to choose.

as an addendum, this observation also fits wth my personal experience with dating/marriage etc. The men who are conifdent always seem to attract women, whether they are "nice guys"" or jerks. The saying "nice guys finish last" is probably more correctly stated as "men with low self esteem finish last" at least when it comes to the dating world. Unless you are Tasty, then you have a severe problem with the ugly tree. :)

In any event if there ever was a study that proved you should do you own due diligence this is it. Always use multiple independent sources if you can. Let the data guide you to your conclusion, not the speaker. Its the information age, you have no excuse for ignorance other than laziness.

And if you are one of the sub twenty single pick players who like JBII.OB that means you have to understand that real DD is more than reading Press Releases from an obviously biased party.:)

 

52 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 30, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

Posted for Binve's amusement

Report this comment
#2) On December 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, anchak (99.83) wrote:

Tasty my friend - wisdom beyond years!!!

Report this comment
#3) On December 30, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

anchak

Hah thank you. glad it was of value to you.

Although in my opinion you already know this very well and you exemplify the right way to approach these sorts of issues. :)

Report this comment
#4) On December 30, 2009 at 10:02 PM, FreeMortal (29.97) wrote:

Smart post. 

Now, just let it go to your head.

Report this comment
#5) On December 30, 2009 at 10:08 PM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

(from here)

Report this comment
#6) On December 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

 FreeMortal

heh that would be pretty ironic wouldn't it? Or is that te incorrect defitinition of irnoy? Alanis Morisette ruined my ability to use the term correctly. :(

heh anyway, I've made more than enough mistakes in my life over the years to get too arrogant now. If anything I struggle with the opposite problem and don't act with enough resolve too often. Still getting humbled can be a valuable life experience as painful as it may be even many years later, realizing that I might not have all the answers has got me out of more than a few jams.

 

Report this comment
#7) On December 30, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

portefeuille

hah nice never heard of this Dirac fellow, but I like him.

You must either have fantastic recall or a great reference system to find things like this as often as you do.

Report this comment
#8) On December 30, 2009 at 10:14 PM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

(from here)

Report this comment
#9) On December 30, 2009 at 10:15 PM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

Dirac was the best!

Report this comment
#10) On December 30, 2009 at 10:19 PM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

-------------------

Landau in general , especially in his youth, liked to classify everything. Later, when I got to know him, he himself looked at these classifications, for instance, of women, with irony. I shall only dwell on his classification of theoretical physicists who worked in the 20th century. It was done according to a logarithmic scale, with the base 10, so a 2nd class physicist was 10 times inferior to a 1st class physicist. It was a question of accomplishments, and not of the level of knowledge, of pedagogical ability or oratorical talent. Class 0.5 was given only to Einstein. Put into class 1 were Bohr, Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, de Broglie, Feynman. I have undoubtedly forgotten several names, but, of course, I will not supplement this list in the way I see it. I remember Pauli being put to class 1.5. Landau himself was placed in his own classification, as far as I remember, at first to class 2.5 and then to class 2. Once E. Lifshits told me that Landau had upgraded himself to class 1.5.

-------------------

(from here) 

Report this comment
#11) On December 30, 2009 at 10:31 PM, starbucks4ever (99.56) wrote:

I find the reference to Ginzburg very germane to this discussion. Ginzburg has famously formulated his empirical law stating that any physicist can win the Nobel Prize if he lives long enough. By analogy, I can propose a similar hypothesis: any guru can have his predictions justified by the stock market if only he waits long enough. 

Report this comment
#12) On December 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

zloj

any guru can have his predictions justified by the stock market if only he waits long enough. 

I dunno I think Cramer is going to have to wait a very very long time for his Bear Stearns call to work out.

I do agree though the way many gurus frame their predictions leaves many possible ways that they later can call it as being "right". Many macro calls by "experts" in particular are so vague in detail and timeframe that I find them virtually worthless. That includes me. :)

portefeuille

judging from later on in the biography Dirac may have been a tier 1 theoretical physicist but he may have been a tier 4 instructor using Landau's classifications.

I'm amazed he found someone to marry him when he  had social skills like that!

Report this comment
#13) On December 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

I'm amazed he found someone to marry him when he  had social skills like that!

okay, last quote ...

Report this comment
#14) On December 30, 2009 at 10:53 PM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

speeking of Russia ...

-------------------

Russia Unbeatable as Kudrin Says Stocks Are Too High

Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Russia is the top investment pick for the biggest emerging-market stock funds in 2010, even after the RTS Index’s world-beating 127 percent rally prompted Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin to say shares are too expensive.

...

-------------------

 

Report this comment
#15) On December 30, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Ticker007 (< 20) wrote:

 you have no excuse for ignorance other than laziness.

 

Bla bla bla..heard this before..from everyone

Report this comment
#16) On December 30, 2009 at 11:07 PM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

(from the paper linked to the article your post is about (pdf))

 

I like the first part of the first sentence of the abstract!

Report this comment
#17) On December 30, 2009 at 11:07 PM, binv271828 (< 20) wrote:

Tasty,

Excellent post man! I hear you, people do respond to cockiness. Definitely in the stock market, and I find in other industries as well, just as you are observing above. I find that cocky Program Managers are listened to more in the aerospace industry. A PM has to be competent to be taken seriously, but if there are two equally competent PMs, the cockier one will be listened to.

Which is odd, it is a trait I personally despise. In fact, even if I agree with what someone is saying based on the merit of their message, but they are cocky in delievering it, I will tune them out and not seek out their work in the future. Maybe I am just an oddball?

Nowhere is this more true in my experience than talking with reporters. Reporters hate good scientists because they talk in probabilities. But they love buffoons who throw easily digestible sound bite reckless guesstimations. Why? Cause they need a narrative to get people to watch. And the more dramatic it is , the more interested people usually are.

I think this very true. I always write disclaimers in my posts discussing a chart. But then someone always takes my chart out of context because they did not read the post. I like to talk in probabilities too. I am just an engineer at heart. 

This really is a great post man. I don't think I could agree any more with your conclusion. Listen to the data, not personalities.

BTW, that fail pic is absolutely righteous!! I will probably steal it at some point in the future. Just giving you fair warning :) Thanks man!!. 

Report this comment
#18) On December 30, 2009 at 11:29 PM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

-------------------

Fat tails and risk estimate distortions

By contrast to fat tail distributions, the normal distribution posits events that deviate from the mean by five or more standard deviations ("5-sigma event") are extremely rare, with 10- or more sigma being practically impossible. On the other hand, fat tail distributions such as the Cauchy distribution (and all other stable distributions with the exception of the normal distribution) are examples of fat tail distributions that have "infinite sigma" (more technically: "the variance does not exist").

Thus when data naturally arise from a fat tail distribution, shoehorning the normal distribution model of risk — and an estimate of the corresponding sigma based necessarily on a finite sample size — would severely understate the true risk. Many — notably Benoît Mandelbrot as well as Nassim Taleb— have noted this shortcoming of the normal distribution model and have proposed that fat tail distributions such as the stable distribution govern asset returns frequently found in finance.

The Black-Scholes model of option pricing is based on a normal distribution. If the distribution is actually a fat-tailed one, then the model will under-price options that are far out of the money, since a 5 or 7 sigma event is more likely than the normal distribution predicts.

...

-------------------

(from here)

So if you want to profit from the "overconfidence" of the option sellers in their "confidence levels" derived inappropriately using the normal distribution, buy those under-priced options!

Report this comment
#19) On December 30, 2009 at 11:32 PM, tkell31 (< 20) wrote:

Its widely accepted that it isnt the smartest person who people look to for leadership, but the loudest.  That seems fitting of the majority of greedy CEOs who are just out to make more then humanly possible and who really cares about anyone else?

Report this comment
#20) On December 30, 2009 at 11:32 PM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

Benoît Mandelbrot and Nassim Taleb.

Report this comment
#21) On December 30, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

Ticker007

I guess that was a little stern for your liking. Not sure what you would have liked me to say?

portefeuille

People’s 90% subjective confidence intervals typically contain the true value about 50% of the time, indicating extreme overconfidence. 

Wow, I think I'll read the whole paper. that's one heck of an unsually strong opening. Thanks for giving me the incentive to actually do it. :)

Report this comment
#22) On December 30, 2009 at 11:39 PM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

(#20 The relevant part of that interview starts at 6:33/10:16. Also quite "germane", that Mandelbrot starts with "That is not well understood." ...)

Report this comment
#23) On December 30, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Ticker007 (< 20) wrote:

Happy New Years

 

People’s 90% subjective confidence intervals typically contain the true value about 50% of the time, indicating extreme overconfidence. 

BINGO!!!!!!!

Report this comment
#24) On December 30, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

tkell31

Yes I agree. I think this study helps explain and verify a lot of coroporate behavior and internal politics we all have seen and have known about for some time.

binv271828

Hey man thanks for the high praise.

I find that cocky Program Managers are listened to more in the aerospace industry. A PM has to be competent to be taken seriously, but if there are two equally competent PMs, the cockier one will be listened to.

I think this phenonmeon you describe helps explain why a lot of talented women have trouble penetrating the "glass ceiling". Women in the US are not generally culturally rewarded for being cocky. It's kind of a d@mned if you d@mned if you don't for many in corporate America. Either climb the ladder by being as cocky as the men and be resented, or be a team player and not get promoted. :(

Which is odd, it is a trait I personally despise. In fact, even if I agree with what someone is saying based on the merit of their message, but they are cocky in delievering it, I will tune them out and not seek out their work in the future. Maybe I am just an oddball?

I'm the same way. I tend to be dismissive of anyone who makes dramatic statements and refuses to acknowledge alternate possibilites. Perhaps I shouldn't be, but I know that's my bias.

I don't think it's odd, I think it's largely cultural to some degree. Many people from my old field  were mostly the same way. People who were very confident were almost shunned as lunatics.

On the other hand I know from my days in collegiate athletics that guys who talked big often became Team Captains .

Listen to the data, not personalities.

yeah it's easy to say hard to do, especially if you didn't self generate the data. I was thinking about this after looking at GGP debate. So many of the projections by both camps could be severely dmagaed by GIGO. Its hard to know which is right unless you yourself gather the numbers. My take is that the bulls have the stronger case although it's not as clearcut to me as it is to them. I do think Hovde is not comparing Apples to apples.

BTW, that fail pic is absolutely righteous!! I will probably steal it at some point in the future.

That was my intent in sharing it ;)

Report this comment
#25) On December 30, 2009 at 11:48 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.77) wrote:

Why did you not tell me that you could speak French?

Report this comment
#26) On December 30, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

portefeuille

It's my understanding that the Icelandic banks based all their financial decisions off the Black-Scholes model...

heh Whoops.

So if you want to profit from the "overconfidence" of the option sellers in their "confidence levels" derived inappropriately using the normal distribution, buy those under-priced options!

Heh better get on that soon. Wall Street is wising up to this flaw I think. At least they now know who Mandelbrot is....

Report this comment
#27) On December 31, 2009 at 12:03 AM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

Heh better get on that soon.

I always have a few fat tail EMC call options, so if you read something like "EMC is taken over by ... for $40 per share" consider me Euro millionaire and future hedge fund manager.

Report this comment
#28) On December 31, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

Ticker007

Hey Happy new year to you too

People’s 90% subjective confidence intervals typically contain the true value about 50% of the time, indicating extreme overconfidence.

yup. That includes me of course. If experts have such a high probability of being wrong, you might as well only use what they say as a data point not as an action item. I know I'm guilty of frequently stating things over strongly. It is a character flaw of mine.

That was what I was trying to get across, perhaps unsuccessfully.

 

Report this comment
#29) On December 31, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

Ticker007

Hey Happy new year to you too

People’s 90% subjective confidence intervals typically contain the true value about 50% of the time, indicating extreme overconfidence.

yup. That includes me of course. If experts have such a high probability of being wrong, you might as well only use what they say as a data point not as an action item. I know I'm guilty of frequently stating things over strongly. It is a character flaw of mine.

That was what I was trying to get across, perhaps unsuccessfully.

 

Report this comment
#30) On December 31, 2009 at 12:10 AM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

-------------------

#5) On April 15, 2009 at 8:37 PM, portefeuille (99.96) wrote:

... I think putting some money into options is always a good idea (Taleb on that). The good thing about options is that they are mispriced (especially the "risky" ones ("fat tails ...")).

I was once in a talk by a theoretical physicist who towards the end mentioned the pricing of options (to the surprise of most in the audience, the talk was actually about quantum field theory and he spent quite a lot of time on relating anecdotes of Feynman (to get a flavour you might start reading the preface to one of the speaker's books)). He mentioned Black-Scholes and that he had been one of the first to study the effect of the "false" assumptions that they had made on options pricing.

(now the "interesting" part)

He said that he had talked to some bankers about the mispricing of options that comes from using Black-Scholes and they (at least that is what he said during the talk) all responded by telling him that most in the business are well aware of that but that no one wanted to be the first to use the "better formulas" (based on more appropriate assumptions) because if they did, they (I think he meant the issuer/market maker of the options ...) would have to make their options systematically more expensive and by doing that would lose most of their "options business".

I could not quite believe that that was really "100% true", but I thought it was a nice little anecdote and that if it was true to any extent then you should try to "make a profit off it".

The talk was some 10 years ago so I doubt that they are still as mispriced as they might have been, but Taleb still wrote about it in his recent best-selling book ...

done.

(the idea of using options on leveraged ETFs as a hedge against something seems a little strange though, unless you want to hedge for a few hours which does not appear to be your aim.)

-------------------

(from here)

 

Report this comment
#31) On December 31, 2009 at 12:21 AM, PaxtorReborn (30.33) wrote:

I'm the best. I'm the best.  Buy PALM

Report this comment
#32) On December 31, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

portefeuille

Ah I remember that commet now, I had forgotten it. funny how wall street pros are often tied to ideas they know are wrong for reoasn of not wnating to be different.

Apparently on wall street it's better to be with the crowd than  right. I've seen it happen in other palces as well.

That's fine by me, I like mispricings and irrationality.

Given XOM's recent buyout of XTO, perhaps applying your strategy to cheap nat gas plays might make sense

Report this comment
#33) On December 31, 2009 at 12:40 AM, portefeuille (99.78) wrote:

Given XOM's recent buyout of XTO, perhaps applying your strategy to cheap nat gas plays might make sense

checklist34 has ATPG call options (deep in the money ones though, not the fat tail ones, see comment #7 here).

Report this comment
#34) On December 31, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Teacherman1 (47.99) wrote:

Tasty - just an observation and a question - are you by any chance dyslexic?

I am, and have to "proof" my posts many times to make sure what I am typing is what I mean to type. For example, in typing the word make in the previous sentence, I first spelled it amke.

There seems to be a disconnect between my brain and fingers. I know how to spell the words, but my fingers don't work in the right order.

Way off topic of course, but just an observation from one who is both dyslexic and a Special Ed. teacher.

Interesting post and I for one appreciate how much effort it must have taken to type it. 

Always read your posts because I find them thought provoking.

Hope all have a Happy New Year and a great 2010.

 

Report this comment
#35) On December 31, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

Teacherman1

No I'm not, at least I don't think so, I suppose it's possible. I was tested for it as a kid. When I write with a pencil theses errors don't happen and I read abnormally fast.  But I am an admittedly absolutely horrid typist. So I'm afraid I have no valid reason for being one. Pretty much all activities requiring good independent articulation of your fingers I am terrible at (I'm wretched at Guitar Hero).

I never learned how to do it correctly. I'm self taught to my detriment as I was the first in my family to learn how to use a computer. It doesn't help that that my keyboard on this laptop isn't as sensitive as I'm used to, so I make even more keystroke errors.

I always told myself if I bothered to take lessons I'd learn to use a DVORAK keyboard, but decades later I still haven't done it. Maybe I'm just not bad enough in my own mind to commit to classes. :)

To be honest I'm continually amazed by how nice people on CAPS and other places are to me about it.

hye and kudos to you, special ed tachers are a rare and under appreciated breed. I had a roommate who was one once and the conversations we had every day after he'd come from work were definitely enlightening for me. It made me thankful and appreciative for things I had previously taken for granted.

Report this comment
#36) On December 31, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

 PaxtorReborn

heh no thanks none for me please, PALM has been really fun to trade this past year though (Though i did it poorly in CAPS)

It's such a favorite of traders I know, that when a great trade goes against you many say something along the lines of "oooo PALMage" :)

If the market should correct it's definitely a top tier short candidate in my mind.

Report this comment
#37) On January 01, 2010 at 2:41 AM, HarryCarysGhost (99.77) wrote:

Dirac's terse answer: "You never asked me"

Happy New Year!

Report this comment
#38) On January 01, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

msftgev

I thought you were talking to Porte

 Hapy New Year to you too!

Report this comment
#39) On January 01, 2010 at 5:07 PM, jackthompson1 (< 20) wrote:

This is Jack Thompson, the "disbarred" attorney referred to in this article.  Allow me to respond to this Motley Fool:

I was disbarred upon the grievances of two porn industry giants.  I was not allowed to introduce any evidence at my trial.  Some might call that a denial of due process, which the writer of this piece apparently does not grasp.

As to being a guru who should not be listened to:  I predicted Columbine a week before it happened.  I identified correctly the DC Beltway Sniper, when FBI agents couldn't do so.  I correctly predicted that the Va Tech massacrist would be someone who trained on Counter-Strike.  I prepped Hillary Clinton for her Hot Coffee Mod news conference, and the House of Representatives wound up passing a resolution because my facts I gave her proved to be true.  Just ask the FTC.

I have been nearly always correct in my predictions re violent entertainment, and the reason knuckleheads like the fool who penned this piece don't like it is because they have no values, no purpose, and no sense.  So sue me.  Jack Thompson   

 

Report this comment
#40) On January 01, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

Let me preface this by saying , That my opinions, although posted on fool.com on a personal blog alloted by the Motely Fool, do not represent the Motley Fool's. They may agree or disagree with me I do not know. But anything I say should be construed as my opinion, not theirs.

jackthompson1 

Mr Thompson (assuming that you are indeed Mr Thompson as you claim)

All I said is that you were disbarred, a fact you did not dispute.

I did not comment on whether those proceedings which disbarred you were fair or not. So I don't know how you are able to discern my ability to grasp whether due process occurred as you allege.

"I predicted Columbine a week before it happened.  I identified correctly the DC Beltway Sniper, when FBI agents couldn't do so.  I correctly predicted that the Va Tech massacrist would be someone who trained on Counter-Strike.  I prepped Hillary Clinton for her Hot Coffee Mod news conference, and the House of Representatives wound up passing a resolution because my facts I gave her proved to be true.  Just ask the FTC"

I'm highly dubious of all these outrageous claims.

"and the reason knuckleheads like the fool who penned this piece don't like it is because they have no values,no purpose, and no sense"

Ad hominem attacks, a clear sign that you have no substance to your argument. You'll have to tell me sometime how you "deduced" this about me.

Perhaps sir, your time would be better spent addressing your disbarrment (which you claim was unjust) instead of searching for every internet mention of yourself, no matter how trivial.

Just a thought.

Report this comment
#41) On January 01, 2010 at 10:44 PM, checklist34 (99.79) wrote:

this is a tremendously good point, tremendously true.

girls at pubs go for guys acting confident when seeking a "good" guy, and never really bother to check what the guy is actually about at all. 

young men follow willingly behind more or less anybody with even any evidence of talent who is cocky.

fact.  its just a fact. 

we can see it here on the CAPs game.  Every time GMX posts a long list of "oh my god you are soooo smart" posters come on and gush in his general direction.  He boasted once to have made 68% shorting the market crash.  Porte has said he made 3+x his money in 2009, I have made 3+x, there are many people here who have done well in 2009 and may well be smarter than porte or I... 

but none of those smarter people, nor porte, nor i get listened too anywher nearly as much as GMX.  Why?  He is wildly cocky.  he insults everybody, calls everybody an idiot, yells loudly, proclaims that caps is not worth his time, and all of that.  Never mind that he's been wrong, majorly, on one of the biggest market moves in history.  A permabear is right about once a decade... 

Its a disaster of human programming.  My now long time business partner and I stumbled on to this fact years ago when in college age life and wanting nothing but beer and girls to chase.  A big cocky show works a whole lot better than actually being interesting or even sober enough to make sense. 

Much power falls to the person able to see around this kind of thing... 

Report this comment
#42) On January 01, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

checklist34 

Hey thanks

yeah that drives me nuts about some women. I've had a more than a few come complain to me about how they can't find nice guys while telling me That I'm nice to listen to them and then go leave with biggest d-bag in the room. And then they comeback the next day and make the same complaint. It's a forehead slapper sometimes. Fortunately not all women are like that, but man the bar scene is like that every night.

yeah I think one of the side effects I hate most, from this attribute humanity has, is it's affect on salesmen

Their entire job is basically BSing about stuff they don't know (usually cause home office just throws 'em out in the deep end to see if they can swim).

So much of my time is wasted on guys who want my businesses to buy something and they don't even know what they are selling me. I get a little short with them.

It is nice to see it spelled out in a scientific paper, even if it isnt the end all be all of the research. For some reason it make me feel more confident. :)

oh and hey congrats to you and Porte for having such a  good year !

Report this comment
#43) On January 02, 2010 at 12:17 AM, HarryCarysGhost (99.77) wrote:

Tastylunch

I wish I had more then one rec to give. The amount of information obtained by following and researching the topics contained in this blog is invaluable.

I would like to nominate for most interesting blog of the year. And its only Jan 01.

Msftgev.

Report this comment
#44) On January 02, 2010 at 12:23 AM, TMFUltraLong (99.96) wrote:

....so this is why I'm so loved.... =)

UltraLong

Report this comment
#45) On January 02, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

msftgev

 hah thanks don't know if I am truly deserving of such high praise but I am glad it was of value to you.

I will say learning about how humanity thinks is very useful to doing well in stocks. As well as life in general

being aware of potentil pyschologicla pitfalls is essential in game where one has to be cognizant of herd behavior.

Humanity is capable of some pretty amazing things, but we are some odd creatures in many way. Not nearly as independent as we like to think.

UltraLong 

Nah man it's cause you are a good dude with a great sense of humor

Although being right 90% of the time and top Fool helps too. ;)

Report this comment
#46) On January 02, 2010 at 2:27 AM, checklist34 (99.79) wrote:

Tasty, biggest d-bag in the room indeed.  This particular fact of human nature was discovered by me over exactly that - chasing girls.  I spent the first couple years of college listening to girls tell us nerdy kids (like me and my now long-time biz partner, then budding drinking buddy) what girls wanted.  And watching them not follow their own statements. 

So we handled it rationally, i think, and just tried to become the biggest d-bags in the room.  We then proceeded to have the most fun of any two d-bags possibly in human history, or at least close, for 3-4 years until it all unraveled in a puddle of hungover excess.  

10-12 years later, after failing with a handful of biz's and enduring the success of others (its just as stressful having a rapidly growing one as a tanking one, chaos, frustration, never caught up)...  There isn't a whole lot of cocky d-bag left. 

But the ability and willingness to speak loudly and with extraordinary conviction, even if you've no idea what you're talking about, is a great asset in life for those that can pull it off.  I love cars, I own alot of them, I used to own even more, and I will own more still.  Most car salesmen have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, but the good ones are extremely sure of what they are saying. 

on and on.  perception is reality, truly, quite often. 

Report this comment
#47) On January 02, 2010 at 2:31 AM, checklist34 (99.79) wrote:

this is a, for me, largely lost skill I need to work on picking bcak up a bit. 

I was once a waiter (never having had a real job) who could get an entire room to shut up if I talked becaused I had mastered the art (very much against the grain of my introverted nature) of talking loudly and with authority.  People will honest to god shut up and listen if you talk in the right way, old people, young people.  It can go so far as a customer you are waiting on asks to see a desert menu and you suggest skipping desert and more often than not they just do.  Saves time at the table so you make more $$$. 

Now i'm successful but I mumble more often than I speak clearly and if I came face to face with that 22 year old waiter  Iwas, I couldn't beat him for the loyalty of a group despite our wildly different stations (actual, real stations) in life. 

And thats a shame...

a project for 2010

Report this comment
#48) On January 02, 2010 at 10:36 AM, rofgile (99.10) wrote:

I always thought waiters wanted you to get dessert, because then they would get bigger tips..?

This has been an interesting thread.  I definitely think human psychology breaks down with the confidence and alpha male attitude trick.  Probably we are just evolved to respond that way for tribal structures or something.

But I think success in the real world is still highly dependent on merit and also luck.  Being extremely cocky might get you a job, but insulting the wrong person or being incompetent will quickly lose you job.

Merit and luck are the best things in the world, I think.

 -Rof

Report this comment
#49) On January 02, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

checklist34

hah, sounds like you played it right. If there ever is period in one's life where you can get away being a faux d-bag it's college. :)

Kinda funny I was looking through yahoo dating this morning thinking about this  and it was funny how many female profiles had quotes on the order "I'm tired of all the games". In about ten minutes I saw 11-2 profiles with something like that. 

 haha what a sorry mess we humans are.

But the ability and willingness to speak loudly and with extraordinary conviction, even if you've no idea what you're talking about, is a great asset in life for those that can pull it off. 

Truth. My sales have tripled since I started talking a big game (within reason) to the press.

I was once a waiter (never having had a real job) who could get an entire room to shut up if I talked becaused I had mastered the art (very much against the grain of my introverted nature) of talking loudly and with authority

hah that's pretty funny. Well I hope you are able to bring that guy out of retriment when you need him.

maybe you should go on cable news to practice.:)  CNBC's octobox gives me a headache 9 people shouting, awesome.

Report this comment
#50) On January 02, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

rofgile

That's an interesting question. I imagine it depends on the restaurant and what time of day it is. I imagine some places it might be better to focus on table turns as opposed to add-ons...

But I think success in the real world is still highly dependent on merit and also luck.  Being extremely cocky might get you a job, but insulting the wrong person or being incompetent will quickly lose you job.

Merit and luck are the best things in the world, I think

I think it's some mix of the three. Depending on where you work one might matter more than  the others. I personally know some executives at major companies that I've known since we were kids who didn't do any of their own work in school, but are such masters of BS they get kicked up the corporate ladder pretty quick.

I do think Americans in general over look how important luck is in life. It's uncomfortable to think that you can bust your entire life and not get rewarded for it.

I think most people don't realize (or don't want to) all hard work does is earn you a chance to succeed, it doesn't guarantee it.

If you work in a place that values hard work, reliability and integrity be thankful for that.

Report this comment
#51) On January 02, 2010 at 5:47 PM, anchak (99.83) wrote:

Also trust Hans to bring in all sorts of esoteric characters in the mix....Dirac, Heisenberg and Neils Bohr!!!

Maybe you can teach us how you are chanting  those names ( or others)  a little too often...and we can emulate a 92% success ratio on calls made.

Incidentally I actually tested it for Hans - he is statistically besting randomness in calls even accounting for market outperormance. His secret till now are Biotech calls - one of the major ones

Hail Hans! 

Report this comment
#52) On January 04, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Tastylunch (29.93) wrote:

anchak

hah yeah seriously 92% is pretty amazing. Actually I'd think the Biotech calls would hurt his accuracy not help given their nature, which is even more amazing that his accuracy as an aggreagte is so high.

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement