Interesting, pithy writing Baruch!
I was once a Trader at the bank with0ut a Prince. I left to trade for my own account. Needless to say, I did everything a** backwards, (emotion and anxiety flourished) and traded 1 account straight in to the ground. After regrouping I took used a more systematic approach, all computer generated ideas, this worked will until I made some big unexpected mistakes. I’m guessing a few of those quants were on the winning end of my trades. Luckily, I kept a journal and have since created an extravagant set of personal rules to apply to what little capital remains in my account.

That was exactly what LTCM died of; their ‘model’ kept telling them to keep adding on… —the spread was bound to close! But, as Keynes so famously remarked, “Markets can remain irrational for far longer than you or I can remain solvent.” Neverthless, I DO believe (I have degrees in psychology AND mathematics) that we can combine the QUANTa with the QUALs!

After all, even most physical models recognize boundary conditions wher the rules do not apply.

P.S. If all else fails, there is always WIKOPEDIA (if you don’t like the definition, you can always change it.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistomology

Spinoza would have known it. Shame on you.

Felix and classical education 1, Baruch and too much time spent in state schools ,0.

Also, between you and me, are “doxological” or “doxology” real words? Are we sure they mean what we think they mean? In fact, are we just pretending to know so we don’t look stupid? or is it just me. . .

Now you understand–if you did not already–what those clever Japanese meant when they said that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

Buckle your epistemo-onto-doxological seatbelt.

TED