This. The same set of cognitive defects that are responsible for statements like this are responsible for belief in homeopathy and in the power of prayer to cu

This. The same set of cognitive defects that are responsible for statements like this are responsible for belief in homeopathy and in the power of prayer to cure cancer (despite taking chemotherapy drugs). People are remarkably bad at understanding the differential power of evidence with respect to their beliefs. That includes experts. Being right about what the evidence is doesn't mean we account for it correctly. This quote, from the MS guy, is prompting me to work out the math on Bayesian updating in an incompletely hypothesized space, tonight, because I for one would like to know how/when I can rationally update my absolute and relative beliefs about hypotheses in response to weak evidence, and if this implies anything about how I should select for less mysterious hypotheses. This seems like a really basic idea, but as a 31 year old, I am only now wrestling with the process of making less stupid decisions. I suspect the same is true for many of you. And for that reason alone, I can't really hate on the Morgan Stanley guy, because in my heart of hearts, I think he's probably not the sharpest tool in the shed, and it should not surprise me that he develops confidence in other places that probably aren't warranted. I can, however, hate on the world that allows people like this to be in a position to impact the world economy, just like I can be angry that there isn't a mandatory 'using evidence in making policy' training program for members of congress.