How to debate financial policy
Introduction by Ray Brimble:
Election Day! I thought it would never come, but here we are. By the time you read this excellent article by Barry Ritholtz, entitled "How to Debate Financial Policy", the die will have been cast, and we will all have great clarity about our path into the future.... Right??
Read Barry's article to remind yourself of what your high school debate coach taught you about how to discuss issues in a civilized and effective way. His basic advice is "stick to the facts, and don't get personal". How quaint! Nevertheless, this advice is timeless and puts the onus back on your to at least try to know what you are talking about before you open your big fat mouth (I am talking to YOU, Ray Brimble). His focus is on financial matters, but obviously his tips apply to virtually every other subject and kind of debate.
My version of String Theory is about finding points of connectivity which exist in everyday life. Sharing our ideas, knowledge, and wisdom used to be fun, and a valuable way of learning about stuff we might not know that much about, but perhaps our family member, friend or neighbor had taken more time to study. About 15 years ago, we would regularly get together with a few neighbors for dinner every once in awhile and the conversation would inevitably lead to politics. The beauty of the gathering was our diversity of thought and political leanings. For whatever reason, I don't attend or host those gatherings much anymore, and I am the worse for it. I long for the time when I could hear the other side, or even better, someone attempting to find a suitable middle. Blessed are those peacemakers indeed. So, my small piece of string-offering today is a bit of methodology which might allow us to get back to those good ole days when Americans of all stripes talked with one another. How about we make THAT America great again!
Content by: Barry Ritholz, post in the Austin American Statesman on November 5, 2018
When political debates become emotionally charged, people tend to make irrational decisions.
It isn’t much better when it comes to discussing investing.
With real capital on the line, the internet affords all of us an opportunity to engage in financial discussions that can easily run amok. The debate among bulls and bears doesn’t typically lead to violence, but it can get quite heated. It is incumbent on anyone who engages to learn the basic rules of decorum. For their trouble, those who do will find a richer online experience. Consider the following a modest guideline for keeping your exchanges both civil and useful.
Avoid cheap rhetoric
Anecdotes: Data and evidence always trump personal anecdotes. Your cousin might own a pub in London, but that data set N= l doesn’t give you statistical insight into the odds of Brexit.
Ad hominem: It is never OK to engage in debate by attacking your opponent personally. Their words, data, claims and arguments are fair game, but not your opponent personally - - ever. This is debate Rule No. l.
Predictions: Countering a factual discussion with a forecast in which you say what might happen is nonsense. Don’t do it.
Off topic: If I have 750 words to discuss a topic - - or 280 characters to tweet it - -1 will not be able to produce the comprehensive manifesto that solves all of humanity’s problems or even answer half of the questions about any given subject. Instead, I can barely scratch the surface of a single topic. Don’t let what aboutism reveal you as an unworthy debate opponent.
Chart crimes: Whenever a chart is used in a deceptive or inappropriate way, FinTwit calls it a #Chartcrime. Doctored outcomes are the most obvious chart crimes, but subtler issues include using a misleading Y axis scale or almost any chart involving Tesla.
Straw man: Fabricating an easily demolished example while ignoring the specific case at hand is a no-no. If anything, creating a ridiculous comparison tends to reveals the strength of the counter argument.
Do use good rhetoric:
Data: Show the data that underlies your position. Explain what it means to the argument, and how if it does shift in the opposite direction in the future, your views will change.
Logic: Follow the basic rules of logic. Explain them in simple terms. Avoid making unsupported assumptions or huge leaps in your argument; do not draw unsupported conclusions.
Know both sides: One of the more informative exercises in law school is moot court, where you prepare arguments with a specific fact pattern and applicable law. Only you don’t know which side you will be arguing, for or against. Thus, you must understand the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Traders and investors should learn from this approach.
Embrace kindness. Sometimes a little empathy reveals the human behind the online jerk. Those of you who have expertise in any given areas, feel free to share what you know. If you can teach a subject well, you really under stand it. Lastly, be willing to change our mind. Reverse yourself when the facts or data show your original position was wrong.
Content can be found at: https://epaper.statesman.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=29b099fc-1d8e-4f8e-8285-918d1d198e31&pbid=0bd3b62f-2574-4676-88da-58d1361460ab&utm_source=app.pagesuite&utm_medium=app-interaction&utm_campaign=pagesuite-epaper-html5_share-article&fbclid=IwAR1y0tE0yXIvf4cA8gGgcTxnv_3GkBcqXADmyk_wYVclB3oFzf6K3oMT2ig