4 ms·

No it is not a no-true-scotsman fallacy. Here is another example. On average, retail investors lose money. However, a highly intelligent, highly motivated, ski

No it is not a no-true-scotsman fallacy. Here is another example. On average, retail investors lose money. However, a highly intelligent, highly motivated, skilled retail investor will make money. In fact there is always some subset of retail investors that will always make money. But on average, retail loses money. Because on average retail loses money does not imply that any given retail investor is more likely to lose money than to make money. Also it is very obvious that a huge portion of people that own guns do not adhere to strict gun safety principles, so not sure what argument you are trying to make there.

petsfed 3y ago
So, no true highly intelligent, highly motivated, skilled retail investor will lose money? The point I'm making is that good, safe gun ownership and gun storage practices only mitigate very specific parts (and not even the largest parts) of the statistical observation that people who live in a home with guns are considerably more likely to be killed or injured by gun violence. A person can very carefully follow the basic rules of gun safety (treat every gun as if it's loaded, don't point it at something you're not prepared to shoot, etc) and still use it on themself. Or their kids. Or their spouse. Or their roommate. These are not mutually exclusive. That person can very conscientiously store their (unloaded) firearm in an appropriate locked cabinet, with trigger locks, away from their ammunition, and still do any of those things. So I reject completely your initial claim that being a "safe" gun owner makes you somehow an exception to the observed phenomenon.
- ComplexSystems 3y ago
  > So, no true highly intelligent, highly motivated, skilled retail investor will lose money? > The point I'm making is that good, safe gun ownership and gun storage practices only mitigate very specific parts (and not even the largest parts) of the statistical observation that people who live in a home with guns are considerably more likely to be killed or injured by gun violence. A person can very carefully follow the basic rules of gun safety (treat every gun as if it's loaded, don't point it at something you're not prepared to shoot, etc) and still use it on themself. Or their kids. Or their spouse. Or their roommate. These are not mutually exclusive. That person can very conscientiously store their (unloaded) firearm in an appropriate locked cabinet, with trigger locks, away from their ammunition, and still do any of those things. So I reject completely your initial claim that being a "safe" gun owner makes you somehow an exception to the observed phenomenon. The point being made is simply one of statistics. "On average," retail investors will lose money. This "average" is taken across the entire population of investors. There are subpopulations of investors, however, who tend to be better educated, motivated and so on, and who do not lose money "on average." It isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.
  - lores 3y ago
    In order to avoid the No True Scotsman, you need to identify a priori a group that will make money. "Intelligent" and "motivated" don't cut it, because they are going to be identified a-posteriori, from the stock market winners, and that's circular reasoning. I know many smart people who lost money on the market, that's not a good characteristic.
- DontchaKnowit 3y ago
  Do you understand how ridiculous it is to say that guns aren't safe because I might intentionally murder my family with it? I can tell you now, that risk for me is 0. I would never do that. You are missing the point of my post which is basically people have such a hard on for arbitrary statistics that they will completely ignore that likely outcomes are very easy to identify in many cases. Because I know myself, I know I am not part of the population of the average which contributes to the "self/family harm" side of the statistic. And its ridiculous for you to suggest that I am somehow just as likely as the average to murder my family or kill myself or have an accident.
  - petsfed 3y ago
    And you're missing the point that the things that drive people to deliberately cause harm with firearms (which is AGAIN, the reason why the statistics are what they are) are completely unaffected by the best practices taught today. Congratulations that you and your spouse are completely immune from ever experiencing brain tumors or traumatic brain injuries that cause wild behavioral changes. You should really let us all know how you know, a priori, that you'll never experience such a psychologically traumatizing event that it would push you into such an action. That would save millions of veterans' lives. I am not saying that people shouldn't own or keep firearms in light of these statistics. I'm saying that "I observe safe practices with my firearms, so those statistics don't describe me" is along the same lines as "I know I'm a good driver, so all the statistics about most dangerous days/times/situations to drive are irrelevant to me". It's a failure of imagination on your part. You can still mitigate the how's and why's of those statistics, but it takes a lot more than a gun safe and a trigger lock, and it's stuff that is never actually characterized as "gun safety".
    - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
      No it isnt. You are obsessi g over this particular example. My point is this : If you have 100 coins and 1 of them has heads on both sides, on average the likelihood that flipping a rabdom coin will give heads is about 50, and approaches 50 as your number of them increases. For the 1 coin with 2 heads though, the probability is always 100 percent. The point I am trying to make is that people take a generalized statistic and when you say "okay but that really isnt all that applicable in this specific case" they have an anuerysm and accuse you of exceptionalism instead of just listening to reason. The law of large numbers applies only to the aggregate. If you have any information whatsoever about a specific case it can dramatically change the math.
Ecoste 3y ago
I'm not disagreeing, but we also must be aware of ideological tautolagies (not sure if the term is correct, but it's a kind of circular reasoning). Where an intelligent and skilled investor is only considered intelligent and skilled iff they make money. The moment you lose, you're not longer intelligent and skilled.

petsfed 3y ago

So, no true highly intelligent, highly motivated, skilled retail investor will lose money? The point I'm making is that good, safe gun ownership and gun storage practices only mitigate very specific parts (and not even the largest parts) of the statistical observation that people who live in a home with guns are considerably more likely to be killed or injured by gun violence. A person can very carefully follow the basic rules of gun safety (treat every gun as if it's loaded, don't point it at something you're not prepared to shoot, etc) and still use it on themself. Or their kids. Or their spouse. Or their roommate. These are not mutually exclusive. That person can very conscientiously store their (unloaded) firearm in an appropriate locked cabinet, with trigger locks, away from their ammunition, and still do any of those things. So I reject completely your initial claim that being a "safe" gun owner makes you somehow an exception to the observed phenomenon.

ComplexSystems 3y ago
> So, no true highly intelligent, highly motivated, skilled retail investor will lose money? > The point I'm making is that good, safe gun ownership and gun storage practices only mitigate very specific parts (and not even the largest parts) of the statistical observation that people who live in a home with guns are considerably more likely to be killed or injured by gun violence. A person can very carefully follow the basic rules of gun safety (treat every gun as if it's loaded, don't point it at something you're not prepared to shoot, etc) and still use it on themself. Or their kids. Or their spouse. Or their roommate. These are not mutually exclusive. That person can very conscientiously store their (unloaded) firearm in an appropriate locked cabinet, with trigger locks, away from their ammunition, and still do any of those things. So I reject completely your initial claim that being a "safe" gun owner makes you somehow an exception to the observed phenomenon. The point being made is simply one of statistics. "On average," retail investors will lose money. This "average" is taken across the entire population of investors. There are subpopulations of investors, however, who tend to be better educated, motivated and so on, and who do not lose money "on average." It isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.
- lores 3y ago
  In order to avoid the No True Scotsman, you need to identify a priori a group that will make money. "Intelligent" and "motivated" don't cut it, because they are going to be identified a-posteriori, from the stock market winners, and that's circular reasoning. I know many smart people who lost money on the market, that's not a good characteristic.
DontchaKnowit 3y ago
Do you understand how ridiculous it is to say that guns aren't safe because I might intentionally murder my family with it? I can tell you now, that risk for me is 0. I would never do that. You are missing the point of my post which is basically people have such a hard on for arbitrary statistics that they will completely ignore that likely outcomes are very easy to identify in many cases. Because I know myself, I know I am not part of the population of the average which contributes to the "self/family harm" side of the statistic. And its ridiculous for you to suggest that I am somehow just as likely as the average to murder my family or kill myself or have an accident.
- petsfed 3y ago
  And you're missing the point that the things that drive people to deliberately cause harm with firearms (which is AGAIN, the reason why the statistics are what they are) are completely unaffected by the best practices taught today. Congratulations that you and your spouse are completely immune from ever experiencing brain tumors or traumatic brain injuries that cause wild behavioral changes. You should really let us all know how you know, a priori, that you'll never experience such a psychologically traumatizing event that it would push you into such an action. That would save millions of veterans' lives. I am not saying that people shouldn't own or keep firearms in light of these statistics. I'm saying that "I observe safe practices with my firearms, so those statistics don't describe me" is along the same lines as "I know I'm a good driver, so all the statistics about most dangerous days/times/situations to drive are irrelevant to me". It's a failure of imagination on your part. You can still mitigate the how's and why's of those statistics, but it takes a lot more than a gun safe and a trigger lock, and it's stuff that is never actually characterized as "gun safety".
  - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
    No it isnt. You are obsessi g over this particular example. My point is this : If you have 100 coins and 1 of them has heads on both sides, on average the likelihood that flipping a rabdom coin will give heads is about 50, and approaches 50 as your number of them increases. For the 1 coin with 2 heads though, the probability is always 100 percent. The point I am trying to make is that people take a generalized statistic and when you say "okay but that really isnt all that applicable in this specific case" they have an anuerysm and accuse you of exceptionalism instead of just listening to reason. The law of large numbers applies only to the aggregate. If you have any information whatsoever about a specific case it can dramatically change the math.

Ecoste 3y ago

I'm not disagreeing, but we also must be aware of ideological tautolagies (not sure if the term is correct, but it's a kind of circular reasoning). Where an intelligent and skilled investor is only considered intelligent and skilled iff they make money. The moment you lose, you're not longer intelligent and skilled.