As an investor it's important to be alert to your own biases, and seek out mechanisms to guard against them.

I largely share(d) Claire's view people should accept the trial safety data on covid vaccine & take. However, this tweet triggered an anti-bias warning for me <thread>
Claire responds to news 40% of front line healthcare workers are refusing the vaccine by assuming that they all must all be dumb or misinformed, because there is a 100% probability she is right. Even though I broadly agree with her, I don't think it's wise to respond this way.
Maybe they are all wrong. Or maybe you are suffering from a bias and they know something you don't. We are talking here about the people that are closest to the virus and have the most direct/personal experience with it, so we should be particularly alert to that possibility.
My piqued curiosity led me to this podcast (starts from about min 6). I enjoyed it and found it educational. They didn't manage to convince me the risk/reward doesn't favour most people taking the vaccine. But I now have a much more nuanced understanding.

I realise now that the issues are not quite as simple as I originally thought. Again, my conclusion hasn't changed. However, I have a more balanced view & are less at risk of bias, because I didn't automatically assume everyone else is dumb & offhandedly dismiss other opinions.
In my view, this is an important discipline to cultivate, not only for investors, but anyone seeking a balanced & nuanced view of complex issues. None of us are as smart and infallible as we think we are. Check your ego. Keep an open mind, and don't assume other people are stupid
What's my opinion on 40% of healthcare workers being adverse? Ppl care a lot about their own health & safety. My first thought was it's not just vaccine risk that's part of their calculus, but also how risky they perceive covid. Frontline workers may be less scared than assumed.
That's interesting in and of itself. Perhaps it's because many of them are young and almost never see ppl of their demographic come through ward. Maybe many of them have had it or know colleagues that have, and their assessment of risk from personal experience is below average.
It might also be because they or people they know have been administering the vaccines and have personally seen adverse reactions to it. The trial data itself suggested up to 5% of ppl have severe adverse reactions. Maybe that has made them more afraid of vaccine than of covid.
Maybe it's because healthcare workers are human beings, and like all human beings, they are risk averse with respect to novelty, and don't want to go first & prefer to wait and see if its safe in scaled real-world settings, just like many non-healthcare personnel.
Maybe it's because their experience in the healthcare system has shown them that the modern US healthcare system is profit-driven and often does significant harm to patients through over-diagnosis and over-prescription of treatments and drugs. Maybe it has made them cynical.
Truth be told, I have no idea. However, there are many possible explanations for it that go beyond simply assuming they are stupid. I think that's a very dangerous & arrogant approach to take, and there is no surer way to succumb to personal biases than to think like that IMO.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Lyall Taylor

Lyall Taylor Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LT3000Lyall

3 Jan
Crypto bulls seem to think being a very long term "store of value" is an important attribute of a currency. It's not and never has been.

The most important attribute/function of a currency is its exchange value being stable & predictable enough to facilitate trade & commerce.
The importance/desirability of these factors has nothing to do with govt monopoly. Humans have always organically chosen as currencies things which have stable/predictable medium term exchange value. In prison, cigarettes are often used. They hold their value long enough to work.
In countries with hyperinflation, you'll often see people abandon the local currency for foreign currencies like the USD/Euro. Merchants start to refuse local currency. Govt fiat "monopoly" does not guarantee acceptance. Ppl only accept it when its exchange value is predictable.
Read 4 tweets
30 Dec 20
A Bloomberg article today reported that human-run hedge funds trounced quants in 2020 - a turnaround from the experience of recent years. Renaissance Technologies - run by Jim Simons - saw its Institutional Diversified Alpha & Global Equities funds fall by 32% and 31% <continued>
The fundamental problem with computer/AI driven trading strats is - and always has been - that the models will never be capable of evaluating novel situations which have not happened before. This was undoing of LTCM, as well as port. insurance which caused 1987 stockmarket crash.
A global pandemic was not in the past datasets, so the bots don't know what to do. AI is only good where you have sizeable and complete datasets that can 'train' the AI to recognized statistical patterns too complex for humans to extract, and use it to make accurate predictions.
Read 11 tweets
29 Dec 20
Central bank asset purchases are actually little more than the de facto nationalization of private wealth.

If I could print money and use it to buy your house, I've basically stolen it. In theory CBs could use printed money to nationalize 100% of the economy/private wealth.
You'll often hear ppl say central bank buying is good for investors and increased wealth inequality. Nonsense. With asset purchases, income generating assets are confiscated and replaced with cash that generates nothing (-ve in EU). Investors as a class are left with less income.
The consequences of this are already starting to become apparent. Investors have less income generating assets left to fight over which drives up the price of everything. And pension funds etc are starved of income as the central bank is nationalizing income-generating bonds.
Read 4 tweets
28 Dec 20
3-4yrs ago I thought Bitcoin would eventually go to zero. I was wrong and no longer think that. It's not because any of the arguments/narratives bulls put forward 3-4yrs ago have proven even remotely right, but because it's now entrenched itself as an instrument of speculation.
Human beings will always love to gamble/speculate, and Bitcoin holds out the lure/possibility of rapid & massive gains. I think what we will instead see is repeated, periodic waves of speculation- huge bubbles followed by equally huge busts; a reset; and then another bubble, etc.
When it busts a lot of hot money will come out & prices will drop 80-90%, just like post 2017. However, as it falls the market cap shrinks & it takes less & less buying to support the price, and at some point enough people will step up & take another punt hoping it 10xs again.
Read 4 tweets
24 Dec 20
Many people seem to believe EVs are a fundamentally disruptive innovation to the auto industry. They aren't. They are a relatively minor evolution. The vast bulk of the parts outside the engine/propulsion system are the same. <thread below>
You still need a chassis, axel, wheels & tyres, body & exterior panels, braking systems, suspension, chairs & other interior, airbags and other safety features, lighting/indicators and on-board instrumentation. You even often have (simplified) transmissions & gears.
All you're doing is ripping out the ICE and replacing it with an electric motor & batteries. Everything else about the design and production process is very similar. Parts suppliers across ICE engine supply chain will be impacted. The automotive companies themselves, not really.
Read 11 tweets
23 Dec 20
A lot of people are confused about China's economic model. Is it socialist/communist or capitalist? The answer is that it is a hybrid that doesn't comport easily with the simplistic dichotomies we have become accustomed to using in the West. My take on it is as follows (thread):
China's model is still somewhat socialist/communist in the sense that the country has a strong belief in desirability of top-down government management/supervision/social engineering to ensure that economy achieves desirable social, economic, and geopolitical ends (strength).
However, they have changed the means by which they seek to achieve that outcome. After the failed communist experiment under Mao, which made China weak & poor, they realised that they needed markets, capitalism, private incentives etc, to drive productivity & wealth accumulation.
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!