Quote from steve46:
Okay then, an intelligent comment.
I have to say it is unexpected but appreciated.
First off, it has been quite long time since I read the work. So I may not have all the details at my command.
From my point of view, what the author implies, is that we bring preconceived notions to the forum and then look for data that verifies what we wish to believe. If I am correct, those preconceived notions have by definition to be illogical (I like chocolate, why? don't know, I just do). I can't argue your point really because I don't see any reason why a person couldn't have preconceived notions that have a logical basis as well. I think though that most people deep in their hearts know that it is usually the other way around. Just look at trading. We enter a trade, and (some of us) simply "hope" that we are right. We sit there looking at the screen, waiting, and looking for something to verify what we hope is true (that the market is going to go in our direction). Today for instance, did the market head south because of the Korean missile test, or because some of the big boys decided to use that news item as an excuse to mark it down. If you had a friend on the trading floor, you would have an interesting story to tell about that today..
Steve
mmmhhh... most likely those preconceived notions would have a strong taste of being eminently 'logical' to the person, sthg like 'irrefutable-type' premises, governing principles, long established accepted wisdom-type... adopted 'memes' if you will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
... beliefs that will have become so much part of the person's inner compass system that he/she will essentially have lost awareness that they are there in the background steering most of the person's cognitive and non-cognitive activity...
could range from things such as 'history always repeats itself', 'mean-reversion is the norm', i.e. elementary building blocks if you like, to more complex associations leading to, say, a 'niederhoffer is a hero' super-meme (memeplexe) for instance... and i am not trying to provoke... anything other than 'thought' HERE (i mean that)
by nature of how those 'memes' (for lack of a 'better' concept / word) are acquired / adopted, the person usually has little to no incentive in revisiting them of him/herself... in addition some of these 'memes', on the surface, provide some unquestionable benefits with regard to survival of the species / survival instinct type responses... however taken to an extreme...? i.e. when those same memes figure too prominently (a relative notion of course) on a person's mind, how does that translate into that person's response to a perceived risk?
who knows of course? but just thought of this as an interesting framework, if only to build a useful opportunity/risk map
which would then 'tell' us that when NK in the current tense international context fires missiles simply to attract attention and obtain money, some form of 'recognition' and other 'advantages'... just my opinion of course..., market makers do have reasons to anticipate (and shift their their bid-ask spread / build and manage their inventory accordingly) that most peoples' response will be one of 'great concern'
similarly when BoJ Fukui speaks in Dec 2005, and the yen goes from 121 to 114, and then speaks & says the same thing again in Feb 2006, it is reasonable for the market makers to anticipate that at such a short time interval the mkt response will be similar directionaly but over a much shorter period of time and more moderate in amplitude terms... (119 to 116 roughly)
wonder what will happen if say NK repeats its missile tests in 3 months time, all other things being 'equal'?
just ranting, 'memes' aside...