This comes from someone who has a degree in the field, but I've always sensed that many of my colleagues had a bit of an inferiority complex when it came to comparing their work to the other hard sciences. "Psychologists aren't real scientists, blah, blah"...is something we often hear. We always want to isolate effects, or determine the "greatest cause" of an effect in the name of following strict scientific process/doctrine to "prove" we are "real scientists". I often had advisors tell me or my fellow students to ignore variables that contributed a small amount to the overall effect and focus on the one or two (if they were close) most responsible. We then talk about theory in a very linear 1:1 fashion. I always thought this was strange. I admit, I'm ignorant to how things are today as I haven't been in academia for many years now. Maybe it is better now.
Absolutely loved the Offshore retrospective, very cool. Kasporov removing his RO before the kill shot, that's just an amazing anecdote. I like modern AP designs, but as much as people beg them to go back in time from a design standpoint, I think they could also leverage their old marketing techniques as well. Tomba/Faldo were also a childhood heroes of mine, young people riding around on whimsical Code 11:59 bicycles, not so inspirational. :D
Interesting that you were encouraged to ignore 2nd or 3rd order effects. That’s wild. In finance we would simply use multivariate equations and try to isolate each effect while measuring its significance, rather than simply ignoring it.
Kasparov sounds like a G, and yes, I think the marketing departments nowadays are simply too constrained with all the woke shit to come up with anything genuinely memorable or impactful. If it’s supposed to appeal to men, they water it down to be inclusive, etc. Talk about a lose-lose eh
It is the same, ignore is a perhaps too strong a word. Perhaps, emphasize or focus on the stronger effects is a better way to put it. There was not a lot of encouragement to explore how things combined with one another in the way Mr. Munger describes. I had the very real perception that results that had few variables accounting for a large amount of variance were highly valued. It was wild.
Interesting one! You should share those old works more often :D
Yeah this was particularly relevant to Chester’s point … otherwise I don’t tend to randomly share things 🤷♂️
But now you have more readers than back then :) maybe every Monday or so share 1 old post on insta :D
Yeah, a good idea… Thank you!
This comes from someone who has a degree in the field, but I've always sensed that many of my colleagues had a bit of an inferiority complex when it came to comparing their work to the other hard sciences. "Psychologists aren't real scientists, blah, blah"...is something we often hear. We always want to isolate effects, or determine the "greatest cause" of an effect in the name of following strict scientific process/doctrine to "prove" we are "real scientists". I often had advisors tell me or my fellow students to ignore variables that contributed a small amount to the overall effect and focus on the one or two (if they were close) most responsible. We then talk about theory in a very linear 1:1 fashion. I always thought this was strange. I admit, I'm ignorant to how things are today as I haven't been in academia for many years now. Maybe it is better now.
Absolutely loved the Offshore retrospective, very cool. Kasporov removing his RO before the kill shot, that's just an amazing anecdote. I like modern AP designs, but as much as people beg them to go back in time from a design standpoint, I think they could also leverage their old marketing techniques as well. Tomba/Faldo were also a childhood heroes of mine, young people riding around on whimsical Code 11:59 bicycles, not so inspirational. :D
Interesting that you were encouraged to ignore 2nd or 3rd order effects. That’s wild. In finance we would simply use multivariate equations and try to isolate each effect while measuring its significance, rather than simply ignoring it.
Kasparov sounds like a G, and yes, I think the marketing departments nowadays are simply too constrained with all the woke shit to come up with anything genuinely memorable or impactful. If it’s supposed to appeal to men, they water it down to be inclusive, etc. Talk about a lose-lose eh
It is the same, ignore is a perhaps too strong a word. Perhaps, emphasize or focus on the stronger effects is a better way to put it. There was not a lot of encouragement to explore how things combined with one another in the way Mr. Munger describes. I had the very real perception that results that had few variables accounting for a large amount of variance were highly valued. It was wild.