If it's clickbait - could just be a misreading on the part of the poster - it highlights an important fact - we all yearn to feel we have full control over a situation, even when in this case this sense of control is tenuous at best.
Just finished another boring run and asked myself "Why do I do this again?" then saw the news - dead at 61 due to heart attack. RIP. Scheduling my next boring run.
This case is a true unknown. There is an open question as to who carried out the bombing, with multiple intelligence services blaming Syria. the US decided to blame Gaddafi though, and he was happy to take the blame as it plays well to the "Arab street." The trials resulting from the bombing are considered show trials by some... just an unknown...
Ignoring the ideology - maybe, in a roundabout way, if this causes the middle-class and above to move their kids to private education in response, this will actually achieve its aims, in that the next time they sample gifted kids in public education, a larger percentage will be *ahem* "ethnically diverse"?
I think Girard passes muster in that the theory is often useful, in conjunction with others - that is, it passes the "Condorcet barrier of utility" and one can use it as part of a toolbox to explicate certain human behaviors.
Taking it as a unified theory doesn't work, just as any -ism taken alone to explain the whole damn thing doesn't work and is often counterproductive.
For example - and I would be grateful if someone with knowledge of Girard would explain it - how does one bridge the Underwear Gnomes reasoning of say #12 in the blog:
Step 1 - We point out how we all act out of mimicry
Step 2 - ???
Step 3 - We "escape the endless cycles of reciprocal violence by rising above our desire for vengeance and working instead to delegitimize the urge to punish and scapegoat."
Step 1 - We point out how we all act out of mimicry*
Step 2 - We delegitimise the urge to punish and scapegoat
(thus rising above our desire for vengeance)
Step 3 - We escape the endless cycles (Samsara?)
of reciprocal violence
Exercise: how soon might the last pandemic have been over if people had been more interested in eliminating viral propagation and less interested in punishing and scapegoating each other?
Maybe your (anyone's) system 1 might assume only two possible outcomes, but it's not in the question - it's which is more likely, and one option assuredly is, up to a less-than-or-equal sign.
I hope the actual study wasn't as "tricky" as it was referenced in the article re: the Linda example
I'd imagine there's enough stuff Kahneman identified with biases that have held up and don't involve artificial questions like this designed to trick the respondents whose real world applicability seem questionable at best...
further, in the supplied example, I'd argue that the prior probability of Linda being a feminist (based on her being an activist/etc.) is probably higher than her not being a feminist so, in a sense the respondents got it right (i.e., in that population, I'd argue there are more women who are bank tellers and feminists than just bank tellers)...
Ding Ding. With the added story Levitt told on Jon Hartley's podcast about the extremes Heckman went to, to disparage Levitt - translated into the terse Economist house style (which doesn't do justice to the utter toxicity of Chicago Economics...).
Just to point out the beauty of how a clearly defined black-and-white mathematical term (just use the dot product!) becomes malleable once it enters language as a metaphor. There's great humor in being "slightly orthogonal".
(Hopefully this doesn't come off the wrong way - just my mostly useless degree in linguistics acting up again.)
At which point is something slightly orthogonal - perhaps if it's between 1 degree and 45 degrees off topic, while if it is between 45 degrees and 90 degrees it is considered "fully orthogonal."
It is, like many an intellectual technological innovation, currently the Churchillian "worst, except for all the other options."
Once a company is traded publicly, the market, over a long time horizon [1], usually gives a good value estimate to the company. In the short-run you have to contend with the different ways to juke the price, such as share buybacks just before the CEO is to get a bonus etc. Heck, even in Boeing's case, the market corrected for the stock price (especially if you consider inflation) once planes started falling out of the sky, and the company started to change. Now only doors are falling out of the sky! It's still a price we shouldn't be willing to pay for a market correction - and that's where efficient regulation comes into play, itself a very fraught tool to get right. All in all, we suck at forecasting, understanding, and learning from outlier events. Maybe it's an inherent problem.
[1] with the usual caveat that the market can remain irrational longer than the plane can remain airborne
Market valuations for tech companies have been irrational for years. At least in view, there are enough examples in the last couple decades of companies being consistently valued at such high multiples of profit and revenue that it can't really be waved off as short term market corrections.
> Market valuations for tech companies have been irrational for years
No they weren't, unless by "years" you men 2-3. Google, Facebook etc were expected to grow and they did grow to match those valuations, they weren't overvalued. When you know a market will grow then you price that in.
Some companies don't grow as expected, but most do, the market is usually pretty good at estimating.
reply