3 ms·

I don’t think you mean to use the word “disingenuous” here. Typo? This word typically has a connotation of deception, and is usually applied to interactions be

I don’t think you mean to use the word “disingenuous” here. Typo? This word typically has a connotation of deception, and is usually applied to interactions between people. Looking for a reason for a cycle change is a totally natural and reasonable thing for someone to do.

namaria 4y ago
No, I mean it. Journalists and consultants peddle these explanations as some sort of management/investment science. But they know that each article they write each day to explain noise in the fluctuations of the market is bunk. If they could produce sound analysis they'd beating the market with it, not posting it online to sell ads.
- sfpotter 4y ago
  Got it, and I completely agree! Didn’t realize this was the specific sense of your post.
- vgatherps 4y ago
  > If they could produce sound analysis they'd beating the market with it, not posting it online to sell ads. This isn't correct - you can produce very sound analysis of past events, but to make money trading you need predictive power into future (as well as a lot of other things).
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Arguably, the soundness of the analysis is in its explanatory power. If you can't use your analysis to successfully predict the future, or even past events that weren't known to you when doing the analysis, then your analysis is a) useless, and b) impossible to tell apart from random bullshit of equal predictive power. However, per GP, such useless analysis can still make the reader feel smarter, meaning you can monetize it - through paid or ad-funded publishing. In this sense, journalists are selling "analysis porn".
    - namaria 4y ago
      I couldn't have put it better myself. Multiple explanations or analyses can be produced. Only a subset will be useful for making predictions. Explanations with no predictive power are useless. But can be sold for a bit of attention online. They can be correct in that there is no logical error involved, but absence of mistakes is not very useful in itself. I can sell you a computer that will never get hacked. It has no power unit...

namaria 4y ago

No, I mean it. Journalists and consultants peddle these explanations as some sort of management/investment science. But they know that each article they write each day to explain noise in the fluctuations of the market is bunk. If they could produce sound analysis they'd beating the market with it, not posting it online to sell ads.

sfpotter 4y ago
Got it, and I completely agree! Didn’t realize this was the specific sense of your post.
vgatherps 4y ago
> If they could produce sound analysis they'd beating the market with it, not posting it online to sell ads. This isn't correct - you can produce very sound analysis of past events, but to make money trading you need predictive power into future (as well as a lot of other things).
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Arguably, the soundness of the analysis is in its explanatory power. If you can't use your analysis to successfully predict the future, or even past events that weren't known to you when doing the analysis, then your analysis is a) useless, and b) impossible to tell apart from random bullshit of equal predictive power. However, per GP, such useless analysis can still make the reader feel smarter, meaning you can monetize it - through paid or ad-funded publishing. In this sense, journalists are selling "analysis porn".
  - namaria 4y ago
    I couldn't have put it better myself. Multiple explanations or analyses can be produced. Only a subset will be useful for making predictions. Explanations with no predictive power are useless. But can be sold for a bit of attention online. They can be correct in that there is no logical error involved, but absence of mistakes is not very useful in itself. I can sell you a computer that will never get hacked. It has no power unit...