Niederhoffer tweaks me with his fanatical devotion to testing and his utter refusal to accept or even pay attention to simple philosophical principles. He can't test the validity of common sense and so he doesn't see the point in having any.
It's not that his observations are incorrect; it's that they are devoid of larger considerations that, if taken into account, would potentially take the conclusion in an entirely new direction (or add color and insight at the very least).
In his magnum opus Niederhoffer mentioned that he never got good at chess. I think I know why. Chess masters apply deeply ingrained strategic principles in deciding their moves: time, space, pawn structure, etc. They can't always consciously quantify in the midst of the game; it all blends together most of the time. This kind of stuff is too "fuzzy" for Vic because he can't break down a spreadsheet on the spot.
I have a word for the scientific type who consistently overlooks real world observations: hailei. High analytical intelligence, low emotional intelligence.
A hailei is kind of like a walking computer / encyclopedia britannica. He / she can recite a million facts, but can't offer much of value unless you come up with the questions yourself.
