benelliott comments on Rationality Quotes: February 2011 - Less Wrong

13 Post author: gwern 01 February 2011 05:46PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (347)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: benelliott 02 February 2011 09:05:24PM 47 points [-]

Day ends, market closes up or down, reporter looks for good or bad news respectively, and writes that the market was up on news of Intel's earnings, or down on fears of instability in the Middle East. Suppose we could somehow feed these reporters false information about market closes, but give them all the other news intact. Does anyone believe they would notice the anomaly, and not simply write that stocks were up (or down) on whatever good (or bad) news there was that day? That they would say, hey, wait a minute, how can stocks be up with all this unrest in the Middle East?

--Paul Graham

Comment author: simplyeric 04 February 2011 03:14:22PM 6 points [-]

An interesting concept...but I wonder. I bet at least some people would actually notice that. They'd see unrest in the middle east and say "hmm...oil prices didn't change the way I expected them to" or something. Sometimes you see things like "_ index rises in spite of _".

I think Graham's inference has merit: these people don't really know what's happening...but I think some people at least would notice the anomoly.

Comment author: benelliott 04 February 2011 04:43:07PM 9 points [-]

Well now I want to test this. Do we have anyone here who thinks they know a thing or two about the stock market? If so would they be amenable to an experiment?

I'm thinking that they would agree not to look at any stock price information for a day (viewing all the other news they want). At the end of the day they are presented with some possible sets of market closes, all but one of which of which are fake, and we see if they can reliably find the right one.

Comment author: Gurkenglas 28 June 2013 09:30:55PM 2 points [-]

Finding the most probable market outcome given a few possibilities and a day's news is easier than noticing by yourself that the news and the market don't fit.

Comment author: ig0r 26 February 2011 10:29:17PM 2 points [-]

I will participate if you'd like to try, there are some problems with the experiment though

Comment author: benelliott 03 March 2011 06:39:51PM 1 point [-]

I'm still interested, what changes would you suggest?

Comment author: ig0r 18 March 2011 01:28:27AM 0 points [-]

Sorry for the slow reply, want to do this over email? im gbasin at gmail

Comment author: benelliott 18 March 2011 01:20:38PM 2 points [-]

I'm benelliott3 at gmail. To be honest I'm not very familiar with the stock-market so if you could suggest a procedure for the experiment, including such things as where to get the information that would be appreciated.

Care to precommit to a discussion post about the experiment regardless of the result?

Comment author: private_messaging 28 August 2013 03:28:04PM *  3 points [-]

Well, the time Steve Ballmer announced he was to quit the Microsoft, Microsoft's stock jumped quite a bit, clearly because Ballmer quit, even though one could perhaps explain either a raise or a fall with Ballmer quitting. Expected square of a change was big from Ballmer quitting, that's for sure. Same goes for any dramatic news, such as the recent gas attack in Syria.

And yes, over the time one could tell that something is up if the stock market graph is uneventful while there's dramatic news.

Bottom line is, a causal link can exist and be inferred even when there is no correlation.