5 ms·

This from a person who questions climate change and is an advocate of insider trading.

by dr_ 16y ago

jsn 16y ago
That alone doesn't mean the person is smart and rational, but I'd say it's a good start.
andreaja 16y ago
Could you explain how this affects your view of the reflections in the article? I found the article held some bittersweet sentiments on what it was like to have (a good deal of) money. To the point of the title he spoke of a false sense of security and casual arrogance. Both of which I find reasonable, but not universally applicable. I don't see how the positions you list alter this interpretation, but I'd be very interested in hearing how they altered yours.
laut 16y ago
Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories? Except that it's not PC.
- shiven 16y ago
  Except that it's not PC. My beef is not with it being PC or nPC. It is about questioning the theorie(s) in a scientific manner with rigorously formulated and educated questions. Otherwise, it is merely politics/BS/political-BS.
  - jaltucher 16y ago
    For the first person who brought up this climate change thread I have a few questions I hope you can answer honestly: A) did it have to do with the article in question? B) Did you see the reference to climate change on wikipedia or you have actually read the chapter on it in my book where I feel I present a very balanced view.
    - shiven 16y ago
      I apologize for not making myself clear. My reply was not directed towards the article or your book, I was replying to the immediate parent only. My ire was directed towards the idea that any criticism of global climate change is bunk simply because it is not PC. I would posit that such criticism, in the context of general public and media, is mostly bunk for the reason I outlined in my first reply.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  > Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories? Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a clue what they're talking about, then yes, there's something wrong with it and you're very likely both wrong and a quack.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a clue what they're talking about, So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders and outside criticism is forbidden? FYI, most serious skeptics don't claim the specialists "haven't a clue". They claim that the certainty in our current conclusions is overstated. It's also important to note that many AGW proponents make the exact same claim when geoengineering is discussed.
    - gnaritas 16y ago
      > So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders and outside criticism is forbidden? Let me rephrase that for you to more reflect reality... The scientific process is limited to those educated on the subject and criticism from the uneducated isn't taken seriously nor should it be. So, if you're not a climate scientist, and your position on climate science is in opposition to 99% of actual climate scientists, it's very likely that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational person.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        So, if you're not a homeopath and your position on homeopathy is in opposition to 99% of actual homeopaths, it's very likely that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational person? FYI, I'm a former scientist, so I have some idea of the scientific process. It's actually pretty rare for a field to declare outside opinions worthless. The only other fields I'm aware of which try to do this are math ed, labor economics, and psychometrics of race/gender. I'm also not sure why you are attempting to conflate not being a climate scientist with being uneducated. That's simply ridiculous.
rick888 16y ago
"questions climate change" I know! All these pesky facts backed up with data get in the way.
nickpinkston 16y ago
Can you give a good defense of why you're not for insider trading?
- nostrademons 16y ago
  Because I'm an outsider and all those pesky crooks steal my money. Duh.
  - nickpinkston 16y ago
    I'm guessing you're serious here, but that's a very unsupported position. I'm for it because it's getting the market more towards perfect information. By them using insider info, stock prices adjust to this information - which is more accurate than without. If you're not sophisticated, that still means the prices are more reasonable. Yes, that means some make money, but that's the cost of a smoother market. Also - computer trading would be able to pick up to differences in trading strategy (by seeing big positions taken) and react quickly - minimizing total profits and bringing prices closer to reality. Also - your company would have a higher incentive to treat you well if you could legally sell the info to Goldman Sachs to trade on and give you a commission. That's the populist side of insider trading.
    - Retric 16y ago
      The problem with insider trading is it leads to stock manipulations which is the opposite of your argument. Pump and dump is possible outside a company, but when you get to write the prospectus there are many more options to mess with the market.
      - nickpinkston 16y ago
        That's not insider information. Trading on real data is insider trading. Manipulating the prospectus is fraud. There's a big difference.
        16y ago
mseebach 16y ago
How the hell does an unmitigated ad hominem attack get that many upvotes?
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  The faithful love an impromptu "amen" chorus.

This from a person who questions climate change and is an advocate of insider trading.

by dr_ 16y ago

This from a person who questions climate change and is an advocate of insider trading.

jsn 16y ago

That alone doesn't mean the person is smart and rational, but I'd say it's a good start.

andreaja 16y ago

Could you explain how this affects your view of the reflections in the article? I found the article held some bittersweet sentiments on what it was like to have (a good deal of) money. To the point of the title he spoke of a false sense of security and casual arrogance. Both of which I find reasonable, but not universally applicable. I don't see how the positions you list alter this interpretation, but I'd be very interested in hearing how they altered yours.

laut 16y ago

Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories? Except that it's not PC.

shiven 16y ago
Except that it's not PC. My beef is not with it being PC or nPC. It is about questioning the theorie(s) in a scientific manner with rigorously formulated and educated questions. Otherwise, it is merely politics/BS/political-BS.
- jaltucher 16y ago
  For the first person who brought up this climate change thread I have a few questions I hope you can answer honestly: A) did it have to do with the article in question? B) Did you see the reference to climate change on wikipedia or you have actually read the chapter on it in my book where I feel I present a very balanced view.
  - shiven 16y ago
    I apologize for not making myself clear. My reply was not directed towards the article or your book, I was replying to the immediate parent only. My ire was directed towards the idea that any criticism of global climate change is bunk simply because it is not PC. I would posit that such criticism, in the context of general public and media, is mostly bunk for the reason I outlined in my first reply.
gnaritas 16y ago
> Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories? Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a clue what they're talking about, then yes, there's something wrong with it and you're very likely both wrong and a quack.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a clue what they're talking about, So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders and outside criticism is forbidden? FYI, most serious skeptics don't claim the specialists "haven't a clue". They claim that the certainty in our current conclusions is overstated. It's also important to note that many AGW proponents make the exact same claim when geoengineering is discussed.
  - gnaritas 16y ago
    > So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders and outside criticism is forbidden? Let me rephrase that for you to more reflect reality... The scientific process is limited to those educated on the subject and criticism from the uneducated isn't taken seriously nor should it be. So, if you're not a climate scientist, and your position on climate science is in opposition to 99% of actual climate scientists, it's very likely that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational person.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      So, if you're not a homeopath and your position on homeopathy is in opposition to 99% of actual homeopaths, it's very likely that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational person? FYI, I'm a former scientist, so I have some idea of the scientific process. It's actually pretty rare for a field to declare outside opinions worthless. The only other fields I'm aware of which try to do this are math ed, labor economics, and psychometrics of race/gender. I'm also not sure why you are attempting to conflate not being a climate scientist with being uneducated. That's simply ridiculous.

rick888 16y ago

"questions climate change" I know! All these pesky facts backed up with data get in the way.

nickpinkston 16y ago

Can you give a good defense of why you're not for insider trading?

nostrademons 16y ago
Because I'm an outsider and all those pesky crooks steal my money. Duh.
- nickpinkston 16y ago
  I'm guessing you're serious here, but that's a very unsupported position. I'm for it because it's getting the market more towards perfect information. By them using insider info, stock prices adjust to this information - which is more accurate than without. If you're not sophisticated, that still means the prices are more reasonable. Yes, that means some make money, but that's the cost of a smoother market. Also - computer trading would be able to pick up to differences in trading strategy (by seeing big positions taken) and react quickly - minimizing total profits and bringing prices closer to reality. Also - your company would have a higher incentive to treat you well if you could legally sell the info to Goldman Sachs to trade on and give you a commission. That's the populist side of insider trading.
  - Retric 16y ago
    The problem with insider trading is it leads to stock manipulations which is the opposite of your argument. Pump and dump is possible outside a company, but when you get to write the prospectus there are many more options to mess with the market.
    - nickpinkston 16y ago
      That's not insider information. Trading on real data is insider trading. Manipulating the prospectus is fraud. There's a big difference.
      - 16y ago

mseebach 16y ago

How the hell does an unmitigated ad hominem attack get that many upvotes?

jacoblyles 16y ago
The faithful love an impromptu "amen" chorus.