Well I suppose it could be seen as a defense of behavioral or technical investing, over strictly fundamentals-based investing. It's basically reinforcing the f

Well I suppose it could be seen as a defense of behavioral or technical investing, over strictly fundamentals-based investing. It's basically reinforcing the fact that while we take actions in the market based off of our understanding of what reality is, our actions in turn also affect the reality. I don't mean behavioral instead of fundamentals. I mean integrating behavioral into fundamentals, because his overall point is that both "understanding reality" and "manipulating reality" are valid factors. You get into trouble if you focus on one at the expense of the other. Overall I'm finding the article sequence a little disappointing. Transcript #3 is interesting in comparing enlightenment to post-modernism. But it all feels like it's a run-up to something actually insightful about what we should actually do, when it actually never quite gets there, aside from recommendations that politicians should be thinking in terms of the public good rather than in terms of the market. It's like, yeah, we already understand that. From a geek perspective it's somewhat related to subjects like complexity theory I guess. I don't know much about it, but one thing that depresses me is that even though it's possible for very simple inputs to yield highly complex (or random) outputs, it's impossible to take one of those complex outputs and reverse-engineer the simple inputs that created it. That makes me grumpy. I like those movies where some super-villain (or hero) introduces a silver bullet solution that spreads out and affects all sorts of things in exactly the way they intend. Just a fantasy, though.