6 ms·

Dalio's interview with Tyler Cowan [1] was embarrassing. He was totally unable to back up any of his opinions with a coherent argument. His performance was wors

Dalio's interview with Tyler Cowan [1] was embarrassing. He was totally unable to back up any of his opinions with a coherent argument. His performance was worse than that of any other Cowan guest by an order of magnitude. I'm reluctant to take anything he says seriously after listening to that. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9D0ElcV8DA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9D0ElcV8DA

dereg 4y ago
Before having us watch a 70-minute podcast, are there any particular examples that you'd like to point out?
cjohnson318 4y ago
I saw one with Tom Bilyeu [1] where Dalio opens with how bad crime is in Chicago and New York. While those metros do have a fair amount of crime, you actually have more violent crime, per capita, in a lot of smaller cities like Memphis, Little Rock, Odessa, and Shreveport [2]. Politicians and others spend a lot of time and effort calling out crime rates in certain giant metros, while ignoring higher crime rates in their own back yard. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-6bv8_pj-E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-6bv8_pj-E 2. https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america/20/ https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-most-dangerous-cities-i...
- devmunchies 4y ago
  > per capita Of course smaller cities will have more per capita. They don’t have massive universities or large companies or whatever to offset the violent parts of town. I’m sure you can draw a few square blocks in Chicago with the highest concentration of crime and then, voilà, that section has the highest crime rate per capita.
  - cjohnson318 4y ago
    > I’m sure you can draw a few square blocks in Chicago with the highest concentration of crime and then, voilà, that section has the highest crime rate per capita. Yes, obviously, and that's called cherry picking data. This is talking about violent crime rates within city limits, a statistic that most people would agree with.
    - devmunchies 4y ago
      If we're trying to identify the most violent areas, it makes sense to find the contiguous areas with the most crime, with a minimum populations sample size. Finding contiguous areas with higher violent crime is not cherry picking, it's just zooming in and finding actionable insights. "Cherry picking" as a concept only applies if you're playing political games. > This is talking about violent crime rates within city limits arbitrary gerrymandering, not really useful. > a statistic that most people would agree with. who cares? that's a logical fallacy.
      - cjohnson318 4y ago
        > arbitrary gerrymandering, not really useful. The fact that something is arbitrary does not make it useless or unimportant. If you're concerned about zoning, taxes, snow removal, or school districts, then administrative regions become very important. > who cares? that's a logical fallacy. Comparing regions by rate or density is a cheap measurement, but it's not a logical fallacy by any stretch of the imagination.

dereg 4y ago

Before having us watch a 70-minute podcast, are there any particular examples that you'd like to point out?

cjohnson318 4y ago

I saw one with Tom Bilyeu [1] where Dalio opens with how bad crime is in Chicago and New York. While those metros do have a fair amount of crime, you actually have more violent crime, per capita, in a lot of smaller cities like Memphis, Little Rock, Odessa, and Shreveport [2]. Politicians and others spend a lot of time and effort calling out crime rates in certain giant metros, while ignoring higher crime rates in their own back yard. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-6bv8_pj-E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-6bv8_pj-E 2. https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america/20/ https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-most-dangerous-cities-i...

devmunchies 4y ago
> per capita Of course smaller cities will have more per capita. They don’t have massive universities or large companies or whatever to offset the violent parts of town. I’m sure you can draw a few square blocks in Chicago with the highest concentration of crime and then, voilà, that section has the highest crime rate per capita.
- cjohnson318 4y ago
  > I’m sure you can draw a few square blocks in Chicago with the highest concentration of crime and then, voilà, that section has the highest crime rate per capita. Yes, obviously, and that's called cherry picking data. This is talking about violent crime rates within city limits, a statistic that most people would agree with.
  - devmunchies 4y ago
    If we're trying to identify the most violent areas, it makes sense to find the contiguous areas with the most crime, with a minimum populations sample size. Finding contiguous areas with higher violent crime is not cherry picking, it's just zooming in and finding actionable insights. "Cherry picking" as a concept only applies if you're playing political games. > This is talking about violent crime rates within city limits arbitrary gerrymandering, not really useful. > a statistic that most people would agree with. who cares? that's a logical fallacy.
    - cjohnson318 4y ago
      > arbitrary gerrymandering, not really useful. The fact that something is arbitrary does not make it useless or unimportant. If you're concerned about zoning, taxes, snow removal, or school districts, then administrative regions become very important. > who cares? that's a logical fallacy. Comparing regions by rate or density is a cheap measurement, but it's not a logical fallacy by any stretch of the imagination.