|
|
|
|
|
|
by ldp01
3223 days ago
|
|
|
I'll buy that. I am expecting a lot from a random/free study on the Internet! But I think part of my gripe stands: the study is treating all these skills as independent when they actually seem pretty interrelated. There are also important confounding factors like industry which aren't given a mention. For example 'judgement and decision making' in any professional field has to be built on a foundation of technical knowledge. And that judgement and decision making is probably not really transferable to other professional fields. |
|
|
Is it though? Because we have the case of CEOs and upper management doing fine in widely differing companies and industries.
It's more about knowing who to trust and what the signs tell you, than about having any low- or even mid-level technical knowledge.
Taleb has this story: "“In one of the rare non charlatanic books in finance, descriptively called What I Learned Losing A Million Dollars, the protagonist makes a big discovery. He remarks that a fellow called Joe Siegel, the most active trader in a commodity called “green lumber” actually thought that it was lumber painted green (rather than freshly cut lumber, called green because it had not been dried). And he made a living, even a fortune trading the stuff! Meanwhile the narrator was into theories of what caused the price of commodities to move and went bust. The fact is that predicting the order flow in lumber and the price dynamics narrative had little to do with these details — not the same thing. Floor traders are selected in the most non-narrative manner, just by evolution in the sense that nice arguments don’t make much difference.”