[nostrademons]

They do this for the selection bias effect: they want to weed out anyone whose emotional reaction to the content will prevent them from engaging with the data and the reasoning in it. The company culture is based around radical transparency (within the firm, at least): say anything you want, criticize anyone, don't get mad about the criticism but instead engage with the information content contained in it. It's basically selecting for autists. (Sure enough, I have a college classmate who I'm pretty sure is on the spectrum, and he's thrived at Bridgewater.)

This actually isn't a bad selection filter for an investment firm, since the #1 reason traders fail is investing on emotion.

[sebastien_b]

> * They do this for the selection bias effect: they want to weed out anyone whose emotional reaction to the content will prevent them from engaging with the data and the reasoning in it.*

To me that sounds like the perfect way to create an echo chamber.

[meowkit]

The exact opposite. Echo chambers shutdown heterodox thinking, Bridgewater apparently embraces it.

They’re filtering out people who are most susceptible to getting stuck in groupthink.

[notahacker]

In this case they're filtering for readers who are susceptible to a particular type of groupthink: people who've read mostly positive stuff about Bitcoin and are inclined to believe it. It is impossible to argue with a straight face that glibly dismissing one side of an argument as "a few scared souls cowering in a corner" (as opposed to "most people") is a statement embracing heterodoxy.

As pointed out in other subthreads, it's a marketing document targeted at people interested in Bitcoin, not a reflection of Bridgewater's internal culture. And having sucked in people who agree that "most people" seem to want to promote Bitcoin, the actual analysis is a lot more bearish than the Bitcoin-promoting stuff they're likely to have been reading anyway...

[solosoyokaze]

I don't take "a few scared souls cowering in a corner" as a put down. It's a tongue in cheek comment about the massive (monstrous) growth of BTC. The only people who would take that seriously and get offended are people with preconceived notions. Most people would just find it humorous.

[sebastien_b]

So why not simply say "Bitcoin skeptics" instead?

I had never heard of Bridgewater; I had no opinion about them either way. Was more than willing to read up on their "thoughts on Bitcoin". But immediately going down that hole with such a characterization will not encourage me to engage or evaluate their thoughts objectively. Had they used 'skeptics' I certainly would have kept reading (though I suspect there's probably half a dozen or more similar characterizations in the text).

You can call it an emotional response on my part if you want (I don't see it that way), but I'd counter their own characterization shows emotional aspects on their part as well.

[solosoyokaze]

Because "Bitcoin skeptics" isn't funny or entertaining writing? I'm sure the author knows what tone works for their audience. Not everyone wants the completely antiseptic take.

[notahacker]

Oh, I don't think it's likely to cause offence, I just think it's a bit of a daft comment. Same as an article which opened with a tongue in cheek comment about Bitcoin's growth showing a bright future for ransomware shouldn't really be triggering any cryptoenthusiasts, but I'm sure they'd feel justified in skipping the article, whilst r/buttcoiners would be delighted that someone else gets it (and maybe get suckered into reading the analysis bits about buying Asset X instead)

[solosoyokaze]

I found it humorous (slightly, it's not like it's hilarious). Ray Dalio presumably knows his brand and what his audience wants to hear. The information in the piece is legitimate, people can ignore it at their own loss.