"When I asked Derman recently about his early years in finance, he said that at first he felt that quant, like rocket scientist before it, was largely a derogatory put-down for the brainy newcomers, many of them foreign-born: 'two-thirds pejorative, one-third grudging praise,' by his calculation."
Quants are the guys who run the math so that the bat-wielding psychopaths that are traders don't accidentaly shoot their feet off. They usually have PHDs.
They have some prestige on the trading floor.
Edit: They don't literally have bats, you guys. But when the guy who's paying you ~250K a year looks over your shoulder and asks for a risk report, the effect is more or less the same.
I've noticed that on trading floors. Why do traders keep bats at their desks? Are they actually intimating threats of violence to support staff who are stuck on the floor dealing with them?
Yes. It's a passive-aggressive tactic of a veiled threat.
However, the logical among you will realize, over time, that those people are insecure weaklings and that they are bluffing. They are basically child bullies dressed in suits and wearing ties.
Once confronted, they will attempt to outwit their opponent until faced with undeniable facts. When this happens, they break down. It also seems to be a rite of passage for anyone dealing with them, otherwise they show no respect.
Actually some of them do have bats. And most, if not all of them are sociopaths in addition to being pathological psychopaths, which tends to manifest itself in the deep financial crisis we have been experiencing for a decade and a half now. A lot of people with those disorders end up in management, especially upper and middle management. This appears to be due to the sociopathic pathology and high social intelligence.
Apparently it is not yet widely accepted that sociopaths or psychopaths, or persons with both disorders should not be the decision makers, let alone leaders; not only is that not the state of affairs yet, but these people usually cower everyone else and thus come into leadership positions. Why this is tolerated and accepted, I cannot comprehend. I for one fight and oppose them at every turn and opportunity, because I will not accept fallacies, will not accept subjugation, and will not be cowered into obedience; only logic works with me.
30,000 years ago groups of prehistoric humans had communities no larger than 30 because that was about the maximum that the hunting-gathering methodology could support while maintaining coherence. It is noteworthy that sociopaths would usually be expelled from such groups, and that they would not have more than one or two psychopaths in the group, whose function was primarily to hunt and fend off enemies, not lead the group.
Where I read that, I don't remember, but considering the sociopathic psychopaths I have to deal with on a daily basis, it makes perfect sense to me why prehistoric groups of humans did that. Once I read that, the proverbial light bulb went off, as they say.
Somehow, we have gone from that working model to a model where a psychopath, a sociopath, or a combination of both becoming a leader is actually promoted as a role model, something to aspire to, and appreciated by the society at large.
I wasn't trying to suggest that it's actually used in a derogatory way, just that, as someone hearing it for the first time, it's feels like harsh word.
I should have consulted with the authority on derogatory terms before posting such a thoughtless comment. Thank you for the correction, lord derogator :) But, again, I wasn't saying it actually is a derogatory word, it just has the harsh sound of one. Maybe it's just because it sort of rhymes with the derogatoriest word of all.