Lumifer 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (279)

CC Licenced

Tags: quotes

Comments (279)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: Lumifer 10 June 2014 06:30:57PM * 1 point [-]

Isn't this optimal?

Is it? Which specific index funds are you talking about and how do you define optimality here?

good evidence to the contrary it will be of the form that is almost certainly beyond the ability of most LW people to properly evaluate.

So, it's completely fine for most LW people to evaluate the chances of a Singularity, details of AI design, or the MWI of quantum mechanics, but real-life financial markets, noooo, they are way too complicated? X-D

Comment author: James_Miller 10 June 2014 07:58:30PM 0 points [-]

Low cost, broad based index funds.

So, it's completely fine for most LW people to evaluate the chances of a Singularity, details of AI design, or the MWI of quantum mechanics, but real-life financial markets, noooo, they are way too complicated? X-D

Good reply, but there are different types of complexity and looking at financial market data isn't a type of complexity LW tends to deal with.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 June 2014 08:27:11PM 0 points [-]

Low cost, broad based index funds.

That's still very VERY non-specific.

Let's take our friends Alice and Bob. They come to you and ask you where should they invest their pennies. You tell them "low cost broad based index funds". They blink at you and say "Could you please give us the names of the funds?"

And I still have no idea what do you mean by "optimal".

there are different types of complexity and looking at financial market data isn't a type of complexity LW tends to deal with.

That is true as a matter of empirical observation. But the real question is about capability: can LW types deal with the financial-markets type of complexity? Why or why not?

Comment author: James_Miller 11 June 2014 04:23:15AM 3 points [-]

Most Americans invest in mutual funds via their firm's pension plan and have limited choices. I have index funds with Vanguard and Fidelity on the S&P 500.

can LW types deal with the financial-markets type of complexity? Why or why not?

Even for those who could, it wouldn't be worth the time cost for those of us who don't work in finance since you would likely conclude after lengthy study that yes, one should just buy index funds.

Comment author: Lumifer 11 June 2014 04:48:01AM * -2 points [-]

I have index funds with Vanguard and Fidelity on the S&P 500.

So, in which sense having a long-only portfolio of large-cap US equities is optimal?

since you would likely conclude after lengthy study that yes, one should just buy index funds.

How do you know? Isn't that rather blatantly begging the question..?

Comment author: James_Miller 11 June 2014 05:38:31AM * 4 points [-]

How do you know? Isn't that rather blatantly begging the question..?

I have a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago.

So, in which sense having a long-only portfolio of large-cap US equities is optimal?

The S&P 500 is effectively international since big U.S. companies do lots of business in foreign countries. For diversification reasons you might also want to own bonds and invest some in smaller cap stocks.

Comment author: Lumifer comment score below threshold [+] (16 children)

Comment author: James_Miller 11 June 2014 02:53:21PM 4 points [-]

First, appeal to authority is a classic fallacy.

No, it depends on the authority. Being rational means giving appropriate weight to the opinions of other people and these peoples' education has some impact on the optimal weights. Also, you did ask the personal question "How do you know?" and I interpreted this as your wondering how I, James Miller, acquired my knowledge of financial markets.

Comment author: Lumifer 11 June 2014 02:57:29PM 2 points [-]

you did ask the personal question "How do you know?" and I interpreted this as your wondering how I, James Miller, acquired my knowledge of financial markets.

A bit of miscommunication, then, my question referred to the quote directly preceding it which is

since you would likely conclude after lengthy study that yes, one should just buy index funds

I meant "How do you know that I would likely conclude after lengthy study that yes, one should just buy index funds?"

Comment author: James_Miller 11 June 2014 03:16:58PM * 5 points [-]

If you read LW you are likely the kind of person who, after massive study, would agree with economists on microeconomic issues on which most economists agree because microeconomics is really math and logical reasoning applied to human behavior and economists are, relative even to the LW population, good at these things.

continue this thread »

Comment author: [deleted] 11 June 2014 02:59:24PM 2 points [-]

First, appeal to authority is a classic fallacy.

Logical fallacies are still (possibly weak) evidence.

It's rude to ask someone how they came to believe something, and then dismiss their experience out of hand.

formulate a claim, provide the necessary tight definitions, outline the reasoning why your claim is true, provide links to empirical data supporting your position.

Step up your own game.

Comment author: Lumifer 11 June 2014 03:02:21PM * -2 points [-]

It's rude to ask someone how they came to believe something, and then dismiss their experience out of hand.

I am not asking about personal experience -- "how did you find your path to Jesus" kind of thing. I am asking to provide supporting evidence and arguments for a claim about empirical reality. "I have a PhD" is neither supporting evidence nor an argument.

Step up your own game.

My claim is negative: there is NO investment optimal for everyone; optimality is hard to define and even harder to estimate; equity index funds are just an asset class, one among many; etc.

I see the advice "you should just invest in index funds" as similar to advice "you should just eat whole grains". Yes, it's progress if your baseline is coke and twinkies. Yes, it's not the worst thing you can do. No, it's not nearly an adequate answer to the question of what should you eat.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 June 2014 03:14:32PM * 0 points [-]

"I have a PhD" is neither supporting evidence nor an argument.

You're simply wrong. It is evidence.

My claim is negative: there is NO investment optimal for everyone; optimality is hard to define and even harder to estimate; equity index funds are just an asset class, one among many; etc.

This comes nowhere near the standard you've tried to impose on your interlocutor.

continue this thread »

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 11 June 2014 04:10:50PM 1 point [-]

The fallacy is appeal to inappropriate authority....

Comment author: Cyan 11 June 2014 04:13:02PM 0 points [-]

No it isn't. For support I appeal to Wikipedia.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 11 June 2014 04:21:45PM * 1 point [-]

Could I suggest that you actually read the article? Authorities aren't necessarily correct, and so it would be fallacy to appeal to an authority as necessarily correct... (but what , for a Bayesian, would be necessarily correct...?) ...even so, "authorities can be correct in their field of reasoning" (and are more likely to be than non authorities....to state, in theory, what everyone does in practice)

continue this thread »

Lumifer comments on Rationality Quotes June 2014 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (279)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (279)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login