3 ms·
Do you mean to imply that the post's author was lying, the person he was talking to was lying, or that a top money manager at a major Wall Street firm's opinion
by astrofinch 16y ago
Do you mean to imply that the post's author was lying, the person he was talking to was lying, or that a top money manager at a major Wall Street firm's opinion is just as good as that of a random person?
If the last one, I'm inclined to think that someone who thinks about something full-time is statistically more likely to guess correctly about it than someone who doesn't.
- Eliezer 16y agoMost of my friends on Wall Street say you shouldn't trust random top money managers at major Wall Street firms - that's not over the interesting competence threshold. I am, obviously, paraphrasing, but it's the impression I get.
- nostrademons 16y agoWhy trust your friends on Wall Street then? ;-)
- jimbokun 16y agoBasically, his friends on Wall Street are telling him to not trust his friends on Wall Street when it comes to financial advice. I'm struggling to determine whether this fits the Liar's Paradox, or not.
- GBond 16y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness more so than Liar's Paradox.
- billybob 16y ago"I'm inclined to think that someone who thinks about something full-time is statistically more likely to guess correctly about it than someone who doesn't." If the system they're thinking about is a system defined by other people also thinking about it, and they're all trying to outsmart each other, and the system itself is too large and complex for any one mind to grasp, maybe not. And in fact, I've heard (no citation) that you'll as well on average throwing darts at stocks as hiring a stockbroker, and you'll save the fees. Which is why I'm inclined to invest in an index fund and forget about it.