One reason may be that my nature makes me incline toward diagnosing and talking about errors in conventional wisdom. Thus, after many decades in which I have succeeded mostly by restricting action to jobs and methods in which I was unlikely to fail, I have now chosen a course of action in which (1) I have no significant personal benefit to gain, (2) I will surely give some pain to family members and friends, and (3) I may make myself ridiculous. My old Harvard Law classmate, Ed Rothschild, always called such a popping-off “the shoe button complex,” named for the condition of a family friend who spoke in oracular style on all subjects after becoming dominant in the shoe button business.ĭespite these four very considerable objections, I decided to publish the much-expanded version. Not only would there be stylistic and substantive objections, but also there would be perceptions of arrogance in an old man who displayed much disregard for conventional wisdom while “popping-off” on a subject in which he had never taken a course. Third, a longer version of my ideas would surely draw some disapproval from people formerly disposed to like me. Why should I care about new criticism? Well, who likes new hostility from articulate critics with an information advantage?
#Elite dangerous very rare materials time sink professional
This sort of intrusion into a professional territory by an amateur would be sure to be resented by professors who would rejoice in finding my errors and might be prompted to respond to my published criticism by providing theirs. Yet, in a longer talk containing guesses, I would be criticizing much academic psychology. Second, because my formal psychological knowledge came only from skimming three psychology textbooks about fifteen years ago, I know virtually nothing about any academic psychology later developed.
And who reads textbooks for fun or revisits Euclid? This would happen because I would use idiosyncratic definitions of psychological tendencies in a manner reminiscent of both psychology textbooks and Euclid. When I read transcripts of my psychology talks given about fifteen years ago, I realized that I could now create a more logical but much longer “talk,” including most of what I had earlier said.īut I immediately saw four big disadvantages.įirst, the longer “talk,” because it was written out with more logical completeness, would be more boring and confusing to many people than any earlier talk. The extensive revision by Charlie in 2005, made from memory unassisted by any research, occurred because Charlie thought he could do better at age eighty-one than he did more than ten years earlier when he (1) knew less and was more harried by a crowded life and (2) was speaking from rough notes instead of revising transcripts. This talk was written exclusively for Poor Charlie’s Almanack and is published on fs.blog with the written permission of both Peter Kaufman and Charlie Munger.
He also emphasizes the “lollapalooza” power of psychological misjudgments in combination. He shares with us his checklist of twenty-five standard causes of human misjudgment, which contains observations that are ingenious, counterintuitive, and important-values Charlie treasures in the work of other great thinkers throughout history. The talk features Charlie’s original concept of “behavioral finance,” which has now burgeoned into its own academic field of study.Ĭharlie also addresses the importance of recognizing patterns to determine how humans behave, both rationally and irrationally. In the run-up to publishing Poor Charlies Almanack, Charlie Munger remarked that “The Psychology of Human Misjudgment” could use “a little revising” to bring it in line with his most current views on the subject.Ĭharlie’s “little” revision would amount to a full-scale rewrite, with loads of new material, and a “stop-the-press” completion schedule. The Psychology of Human Misjudgment is considered the magnum opus on why we behave the way we do.
0 kommentar(er)
