1) #Bitcoin $ETH #Defi THE ART OF Contrary Thinking by
HUMPHREY B. NEILL
It Pays To Be Contrary
"What is the Theory of Contrary opinion?"
Primarily, it is a method of ruminating over a broad range of public questions; political, economic, and social.
wrong When writers write alike, readers are prone to
think alike Too many predictions spoil the forecasts;
or, to put it another way, the weight of predictions causes
their own downfall.
let's not overweigh it. It is more of an antidote to general
forecasting than a system or forecasting.
workable, include:
Habit
Emotion
Irritability
Custom
Greed
Pride-of-Opinion
Imitation
Hope
Wishful Thinking
Contagion
Impulsiveness
Fear
a. A "crowd" yields to instincts which an individual acting alone represses.
b. People are gregarious; instinctively they follow the im-
pulses of the "herd."
leader) make people susceptible to suggestion, to commands, to customs, to emotional motivation.
d. A crowd never reasons, but follows its emotions; it accepts without proof what is "suggested" or "asserted."
this propaganda analysis, but so long as "opinion-makers"
are out to sway and mold public opinion the only defense is
"to doubt all before you believe anything"-and to look
behind the words for meanings.
by The Market Cynic
1. Put your trust in board-room gossip.
2. Believe everything you hear, especially tips.
3. If you don't know, guess.
4. Follow the public.
5. Be impatient.
6. Greedily hang on for the top eighth.
7. Trade on thin margins.
8. Hold to your opinion, right or wrong.
9. Never stay out of the market.
10. Accept small profits and large losses.
greed, pride-of-opinion, wishful thinking)
are so strong in the human that they
prevent one from being objective. Objective analysis of economic trends is imperative, I believe, as subjective reasoning leads to opinionated conclusions.
his own opinion he is likely to "stand on
his opinion," right or wrong. No trait is
stronger, perhaps, than that of defending
one's opinion and of being unwilling to
admit error in judgment.
the next problem was to find a solution.
If individual opinions are unreliable, why
not go opposite to crowd opinion-that is,
contrary to general opinions which are so
often wrong?
of great value in analyzing economic and political
trends, not merely to catch an occasional swing in
the stock market.
of fundamental shifts in our economy and in the
world economy. In this regard they are significant,
of course, but the lesser ups and downs in stock prices
are of negative value and are generally unpredictable.
with sufficient accuracy to feel reasonably confident
of the contrary conclusion. It takes time to form the
habit of thinking contrarily.
economic situation it is difficult oftentimes to sub-
merge your feelings and coldly gauge public opinion.
So, occasionally you will misjudge public opinion
because of your preconceived opinions.
become a member of the "public" and in reality
think as the public does.
opposite" you will less frequently be subject to the
old traits. Finally, you may become completely objective and become the boss over those natural human
failings.
More from Crypto
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?