"Here on ET we have a bunch of people that, on average, can't wrap their heads around simple bond calculations, option theory or probability. However, they feel qualified to argue economic theory or experimental psychology"Quote from sle:
Can I presume that all three of you have numerous peer-reviewed publications (in top-tier journals, of course!) that allow you to argue against the hypothesis presented in the abstract? I can't see how else you can refute the conclusions without even reading the paper.
I do sincerely doubt that any of you actually subscribe to Science or are active members of AAAS.
Here on ET we have a bunch of people that, on average, can't wrap their heads around simple bond calculations, option theory or probability. However, they feel qualified to argue economic theory or experimental psychology.
So, in short, you did not read the paper beyond the abstract (i.e. you did not see the actual experiments/studies and the data) but do feel qualified to argue about it.Quote from SteveNYC:
I read the article up to the point it asked for personal info. or money in order to continue reading. I forgot which.
It was a general statement about the tendencies among ET posters - this is not the first time I see ignorance breeding overconfidence. Why, do you feel that you are an outlier to the general set of ET members?Quote from zdreg:
it is obvious that either you wasted time in logic 101 or statistics 101 or never took a course in either or its equivalent. average qualities of respondents to ET are irrelevant in determining the validity of any particular response. even your hypothesis is unproven.
Quote from sle:
So, in short, you did not read the paper beyond the abstract (i.e. you did not see the actual experiments/studies and the data) but do feel qualified to argue about it.
It was a general statement about the tendencies among ET posters - this is not the first time I see ignorance breeding overconfidence. Why, do you feel that you are an outlier to the general set of ET members?
Regarding the hypothesis, it's pretty intuitive. Stress impedes cognitive function. It's a natural effect - at the limit, fight or flight reaction does not really allow for deep thoughts. Kaneman has shown this, among many other people, in humans. It has also been very well demonstrated in animals. It's not a far reaching extension to hypothesize that poverty induces stress by increasing uncertainty about "immediate sustenance". I need to read the paper to get a better sense of what experiments/studies they have done to prove this hypothesis. I doubt the paper has anything to do with liberal/conservative views - from my perspective it's a fairly interesting direction for behavioral fiance/economics.
Ok, it's good to know that you think you are exceptional! Let's just hope you have the knowledge to prove it.Quote from zdreg:
my response to you is proof in itself.
I don't see how sympathetic nervious system responce can be positive for optimal cognitive performance and SNS responce is one of the main effects of stress. Stress might force you to work harder, sure, but it will have negative effect on the cognitive function. The paper is talking about cognitive ability, not about hard work or motivation.Quote from zdreg:
really. perhaps it is like wine. 2 glass of wines daily are life prolonging but more wine has diminishing to negative effects.
perhaps some stress is necessary for optimal performance.
I am a simple guy that is trying to make money day in and day out, the only thing that differentiates me from an average retail trader is a slightly better education/experience and larger sizes of capital/risk. Never been a part of the "elite" and never will.Quote from zdreg:
your crude characterization of people on ET is informative and does not put u among the elite.
Quote from sle:
Ok, it's good to know that you think you are exceptional! Let's just hope you have the knowledge to prove it.
I don't see how sympathetic nervious system responce can be positive for optimal cognitive performance and SNS responce is one of the main effects of stress. Stress might force you to work harder, sure, but it will have negative effect on the cognitive function. The paper is talking about cognitive ability, not about hard work or motivation.
If you have different hypothesis, why don't you do some research and publish it in Science or maybe Nature? Otherwise, your argument is nothing more then hand-waving, while my statement is suppored by solid research.
I am a simple guy that is trying to make money day in and day out, the only thing that differentiates me from an average retail trader is a slightly better education/experience and larger sizes of capital/risk. Never been a part of the "elite" and never will.
Quote from zdreg:
solid research? too often it is nothing but an oxymoron.
Quote from sle:
Regarding the hypothesis, it's pretty intuitive. Stress impedes cognitive function. It's a natural effect - at the limit, fight or flight reaction does not really allow for deep thoughts. Kaneman has shown this, among many other people, in humans. It has also been very well demonstrated in animals. It's not a far reaching extension to hypothesize that poverty induces stress by increasing uncertainty about "immediate sustenance". I need to read the paper to get a better sense of what experiments/studies they have done to prove this hypothesis. I doubt the paper has anything to do with liberal/conservative views - from my perspective it's a fairly interesting direction for behavioral fiance/economics.