NancyLebovitz comments on Rationality Quotes June 2014 - Less Wrong

9 Post author: Tyrrell_McAllister 01 June 2014 08:32PM

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

Comments (279)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 05 June 2014 01:59:49PM 3 points [-]

Igon value

I think you're making a joke, but I'm not sure what the joke is.

Comment author: David_Gerard 05 June 2014 02:48:19PM *  5 points [-]

Presumably that people who know what they're talking about are less likely to make obvious errors in jargon. And that Gladwell was the person who made that particular error in jargon, in the very book that's being quoted, and that this is an example of Gladwell's glibness and lack of deeper knowledge of things he's talking about in this case and in general.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 05 June 2014 02:56:00PM *  2 points [-]

It's sort of an odd example, though, since Gladwell himself consistently succeeds.

ETA: Given the downvote, maybe I should clarify that I don't mean that Gladwell succeeds at being the kind of writer that I would want to read. I mean that he consistently succeeds at writing best-selling books. The "igon-value" thing was cringe-inducing, but it plausibly hasn't done any significant harm to his sales. Apparently, you can be careless in that way and still succeed fantastically, again and again, with his target audience.

So, in that sense, he's not a good example for the claim that "people who success many times in the row, tend to employ eigenvalues rather than use igon value." (Though, of course, his existence doesn't disproves the claim, either.)

Comment author: David_Gerard 06 June 2014 01:36:06PM 4 points [-]
Comment author: private_messaging 05 June 2014 03:29:56PM *  1 point [-]

The point is that the consecutively successful investment managers tend to have more clue than unsuccessful ones. Of course, the luck plays a huge role, but over ten years, if we assume that super skilled have success rate of 0.6 and low skilled have success rate of 0.4, there's 57-fold difference in 'survival'.

Comment author: Lumifer 05 June 2014 03:47:25PM 2 points [-]

Let me point out that you can make very straightforward Bayesian estimates of performance/skill/alpha by starting with, say, zero-alpha prior and then updating on monthly returns.