Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Age 54. I top out at around 9800. I have sometimes noticeably bad hearing.
  3. So far, enjoyed Either/Or, A Fragment of Life the most. This is an excellent translation.
  4. thanks. i actually don't even invest in etfs and prefer to invest in the funds themselves. however, i do know that vanguard itself engages in some extra activities above just holding stocks and they use derivatives even with their "pure" index funds, like their total stock market index fund. i'm assuming it's related to the fact that the index is sampled according to the prospectus instead of the fund holding all of the underlying all the time. i'm also guessing this is related to combating some active shenanigans like front-running the index. (and while we're slaying sacred cows here, i'll also note that vanguard itself offers some actively managed funds too.) in general, the derivatives themselves are not the problem, but just how they're used. as for cdo squared, the movie "the big short" does an excellent job explaining them (as well as explaining the whole housing debacle) in a way that everyone can understand. highly recommended, if anyone is interested. i think i've read somewhere that the vast majority can index and things will still be fine as far as the issues you've outlined are concerned. there was some research that gave a number of i believe in the 80%+ range of money indexed and things still being ok. personally, i don't think we'll ever see close to 100% participation in passive index funds. look at the situation today. 90%+ of actively managed funds are underperforming suitable index funds over long time periods, but they still attract investors. people still study security analysis and try their best to beat the market. it's probably a matter of pride in coming up with a great idea and making money off of it. i don't think that's going to change in the future and there will always be people who won't subscribe to indexing. they don't want to be seen as average. you are of course right about the suitable benchmark being a problem in the hedge fund bet. seides mentions this in his article as well, and i actually agree with him. actively managed funds should be compared to suitable index funds that reflect the main strategy of the fund. one that invests mostly in small-cap value should be compared to a small-cap value index fund, for example, not the s&p 500 index fund. when an actively managed fund shifts strategies, they should then be compared to another suitable index fund for the time period in which they've pursued that different strategy. this is the real way to judge for outperformance. seides mentioned being invested in international stocks, for example, at a time when they performed relatively worse. roughly half of my own portfolio is in the international markets, and it has seen an underperformance compared to the u.s. total stock market index in recent years, so i understand his point. when i invest in the international stock markets, i still have some idea of what the long-term expected returns should be (i'm using the same numbers as for the u.s. stock market). i believe the hedge funds still underperformed if compared to the appropriate weighted benchmark because it was too hard to overcome their fees no matter how you slice it. for example, the annualized returns on the total international index (ex-us) was roughly 8.8% over the past 5 years. a typical 2 and 20 hedge fund fee would eat into a significant chunk of that. personally, i think buffett is smart enough to understand all of this. in fact, he probably also chose vanguard's s&p 500 index fund for the bet instead of vanguard's total u.s. stock market index fund as a symbolic gesture. the vanguard s&p 500 index fund was the one that started it all four decades ago.
  5. What are the raw onions for? Is that garnish? The onions on that plate just really set me off. What is the point of them?!
  6. From my side as a parent, luckily I wasn't abused in any form but he was a controlling person ,but for what I lack are his strengths and vice versa.. We share,we do have blow ups,But what a lot of parents do forget ,are the children ,are having to take sides ,hear the shit about that parent..I could happily wipe my hands clean and he to,but our kids are the main reason .. We help each other out, ive come from a disfunctiinal family ,of watching terrible things,so I understand it's not as easy as my situation,think here that 48% are amicable ..that's all I can say
  7. In psychiatry, these are different terms to describe a single phenomenon. I like this. Another way to look at what you describe is frame of reference. Our dog, George, has an identifiable frame of reference. All actions are divided into four categories: eating, sleeping, pooping, and playing. If it isn't one of the first three, then it's playing. He has no frame of reference to understand work or learning. I rarely understand another person's frame of reference, but I accept that it exists and is useful to that person. Understanding is astoundingly over-rated. Acceptance is far more important. The term "empath" is often used to describe someone who is able to detect other people's thoughts and feelings. My forty year old daughter is a natural empath. As with most of them, she is uncommonly attuned to microbehaviors, which give away our thoughts and feelings.
  8. just hopped onto the last train home. woo
  9. So, from a quick skim through the posts so far, it looks like I get to be the one who works out how to send the signal that results in us being rescued. (Those of us that want to be rescued, I mean. If some of you want to hide in the trees till the rescuers have gone, that's OK, I won't give you away.)
  10. No. That is, I might be able to produce a world that was utopian for me, but not for everyone. I don't believe anyone could do that. Maybe one day in the far distant future we'll create an artificial intelligence that could do it, but I'm inclined to doubt it, because I don't think that having "all power" is the way to go about it. You can't make people happy by use of power, they need to find their own way. And some people seem so unappreciative of their good fortune that I'm not sure they would get there. I suppose I might have a go at starting the world off in a direction that could eventually lead those people who're prepared to bother into a situation that was utopian for them.
  11. This hits upon the inherent problem of value investing. You have no idea when the rest of the market will catch up with your analysis that one particular stock is undervalued and buy it, pushing the price upwards. You need to add a component of technical analysis to the mix. It could be something simple like 'buy at a new 3 or 6 month high'. By sitting in cash until your favorite technical indicator signals a buy, you avoid market risk and have the cash available to use elsewhere if you so desire. I often use the relative strength of an issue to its peer group. The simplest group is only 2 issues. Calculate the price ratio of A:B over time, smooth it with an average. An upsloping line tells you that A is stronger than B. (This doesn't by itself tell you that A is rising; it could be falling less quickly). This can help pick out the strongest issue in a sector. This can be used to drift in and out of different sectors relative to the overall market too. Using the 4 equity ETFs (ISF, MIDD, IMEU, IUSA) in an 'always-in' SIPP pension fund, produced 32.24% return for me over the last 12 months. (But there was the Brexit £-sterling devaluation in there). (Major Chord has snaked me on some downsides to ETFs. They ain't what they used to be.)
  12. Cleaning after my pets. On the days I have off from work, my pets allow me to clean after them,
  13. So what does it have to do with this topic? I will definitely avoid alcohol. It would make matters definitely worse. If I am depressed about something, alcohol makes me cry like a little baby. I don't need that. And I don't need a hangover.
  14. And I'd have died in childbirth had I lived 200 years ago. Such is modern human culture. What more objective basis do you include for humanity? Your personal preferences? As I've stated it, the criteria for validity is biological survival. This person is surviving and operating in a mode of which you and I can only dream, with any number of interesting adaptations to circumstance. Thus, their experience is a mode of humanity that, however limited, works regardless of our opinion that it's not preferable. Autonomy and agency are critical elements of need in our own psyche. And we see this particularly when considering such a case as the one you've proposed. I see an emotional reaction as a priority interrupt. It's how you process the interrupt that matters. There has to be an intelligent main process that does more with the events than the interrupt routine can do. That's the difference between using emotions and being controlled by them. Where's the locus of control? I think the locus of control is in the belief system. Beliefs drive feelings drive thoughts. There's a feedback loop from the neocortex to the belief system and this is where our opportunities lie: in developing more useful models of reality within our belief systems. The fact is we do have emotions, and short of excising the mammalian brain or developing a massive neocortex, we will still find more messages travelling up from the lower centres to the neocortex than the other way around. Neither of these options will be influenced by you in your lifetime - and your case would also need development. It seems a drastic measure for what benefit? What we are finding, however, is a whole lot of learning and cultural development around effective utilisation of emotion. This will continue to develop, I've no doubt. In my opinion and experience this is a fruitful endeavour. My whole method is to deal with datapoints and reality and to take steps from there. I do agree there's a place for dreaming and ideology, in fact I find people's ideologies fascinating if they are actionable and the person can build momentum around them. This is a vital process to initiate debate, and thus to socially construct value and thus the framework by which society makes resource investment decisions. I kinda misread your post so rephrased a bit. Apologies for that.
  15. RE: "Shock is a feeling..."; A feeling of shock can also indicate an unintegrated startle reflex.
  16. Given that the approach I take has resulted in a number of close friendships that have lasted 2 to 3 decades and counting, I'm not convinced. You are correct, though, in the sense that it's born of treating it as a speculative investment. When I was younger, I ran with some very shady crowds. Approaching people in this way was sort of essential in not ending up in someone's crosshairs. Not in that environment anymore, thankfully, but this is an approach that's never failed me in any other context, personal or even professional. To clarify, what I'm saying is geared more for establishing friendships and relationships built on a foundation of mutual respect. A starting point. I have no illusions that people are perfect, and I'm certainly no angel. I expect flaws, fuckups, and rough times. Over the sorts of time-spans I'm referring to, you'll see people at their highest and lowest points. You'd think that the strain and stress of time would grind down that sense of respect, and in some cases it has. In most, it's done the opposite. If you stick with someone long enough, and through enough highs and lows, you see what is consistent. You see what is essential. In my case, what remains consistent is usually what I saw in the first place. That foundation stays intact. Frankly, if you aren't willing to tolerate more than a third chance, you are probably living with an idealized standard for people. The reality of people is messy. Of course, where you draw the lines of your boundaries for what you will tolerate, and how you approach that, is entirely personal, but what you're saying is certainly not the only way. If that's what works for you, good.
  17. Today
  18. Well I can give you a few alternative views on ETFs. The first thing is that lots of ETFs today are synthetic ETFs. Their returns do not derive directly from investing in the securities representing the index. Instead there is an SPV that has issued the ETFs, and the cash flows funding the ETFs are actually cash flows from complex OTC derivative transactions which the SPV has entered into with banks, to mimic the performance of the index. If you do not like the sound of derivatives (perhaps because you remember Warren Buffett saying that they are "weapons of mass destruction"), well, unfortunately your ETF is actually a derivative of a derivative. Analogous to a CDO square (a CDO based on other CDOs), if anyone remembers what those are. More philosophically, the odd nature of financial markets is that every good idea eventually becomes a bad idea, if too many people agree or believe it to be a good idea. To give you a simple hypothetical example, suppose overnight everybody (or a big enough percentage of investors) in the world became convinced that ETFs are the best way to trade, and they all decide to trade ETFs only, avoiding all actively managed funds and individual stock picking. What would happen? Well it would be the death of capital markets. All companies which have just tried to launch an IPO would fail, no matter how excellent their business model, how innovative their products, how strong their revenue flows or branding etc etc. That is because newly-IPO'd companies do not feature in any index. Therefore if everybody only ever invested in ETFs, no newly-IPO'd company would be able to attract any investors through the stock market, even if it were a truly excellent company. Going back to your OP, where there is a comparison between actively managed funds and the S&P 500 index, one point has been missed. The comparison probably compared an investor who stayed invested in the fund for x years, with the investor who stayed invested in the S&P 500 ETF for the same x years. Of course, in reality, active investors do not necessarily or even usually stick to the same fund for x years. E.g. they may switch in and out, this year they allocate more to US equities, next year they allocate more to Japanese equities, the following year they switch some money into commodities fund, or bond funds etc. Therefore you cannot actually do a direct comparison. Another perception I have is that in general, fees for actively managed funds have already reduced a lot in recent years. Since the year 2000, I have seen sales charge for equity funds drop from 5% (ridiculously high) to 2.5% (when online platforms began to replace human salespeople) to 1.25% (due to competition from ETFs) and now, today some platforms charge 0% sales charge for customers who have at least $x AUM with that platform/distributor. Thus the old argument that ETFs always win because fund fees are too high is getting weaker and weaker year after year. Note that while you are not charged anything called a "sales charge" when you invest in an ETF, there is, in fact, a kind of sales charge. This is reflected in the bid-offer spread. When you as an investor buy an ETF, the price is always higher than if you were to sell the ETF at exactly the same time. The difference is effectively your sales charge. Also, while ETFs are touted as a quick, easy way to achieve diversification (eg by buying into a global equities index and maybe a global bonds index), and while this indeed may be good enough diversification for a very large segment of the public .... It may not be enough diversification for the more wealthy folks. They would like to spread it out even more. This is where the even more specialised closed-end types of funds come in. These tap into more esoteric areas where ETFs do not (ETFs, by their nature, go only into investments mainstream enough to warrant inclusion in an index). One big example of such fund investments would be private equity funds; these are funds which invest in businesses that do not even want to get listed (and they can be very big businesses, by the way). Another argument made against ETFs is that they may promote poor corporate governance. Why? Because the SPV that issued the ETF is basically some kind of passive investor which has diversified itself so broadly that it takes no active interest in how the various companies are run. This is different from active fund managers, who will show up at shareholders meetings, ask tough questions, demand answers from the Board of the company, ask for data, ask to see the factory or land or inventory etc and if they don't get good answers, they will pull their investment and get out. Thus they promote good corporate governance, because the companies know that they will be held accountable. ETFs however don't contribute to corporate governance at all. All said and done, I do think that ETFs are a good idea overall and I do use them myself.
  19. ADHD behaviors are survival strategies that emerge from traumatized family systems. ...... added to this post 0 minutes later: Primarily, bonding trauma.
  20. I think that practice is a good bet for improvement.
  21. Verified by whom? Again, I don't know how you came to this conclusion but I do know that biology or chemistry as raw subjects doesn't deal with non-verifiable data, which will include mental states (anxeity, depression, etc). This should be obvious and the fact that you're still grasping at straws is why I'm making assumptions about your background. So feel free to sit down or stand up as you please; whatever your positioning you should try sticking to the field that's making the claim.
  22. utopia is reliant on an abundance of material goods and the means to continue that supply of goods, so humans won't degenerate into savage competition over resources. we definitely need people working in the stem fields to both maintain and advance the underlying infrastructure that has made modern life comfortable. we need teachers to pass on the accumulated knowledge of the past. we also need the military and the police to maintain peace and order because disagreements are likely to arise when there are differences in people, even on a personal level. we need judges and lawyers to uphold justice. we need writers, musicians, actors and artists in general to keep life interesting. sports are a proxy for that competitive struggle over resources and sports keep many people entertained, so we'll keep sportsmen as well. we need a lot of support personnel who usually go unnoticed by society, but are extremely integral to keeping everything running smoothly, like blue-collar workers. plenty of white-collar workers also fall into this category. we also keep the children who have not chosen their roles in society yet since they are the future, and their well-being is what we are all working towards as a whole. i guess we're keeping everybody! no, wait. let's eliminate the child molesters, and rapists, and murderers, and drug lords, and gang members, and serial killers, and those who abuse their spouses, and those who engage in white-collar financial crime, etc. kill 'em all! on second thought, they deserve justice too and the courts should decide their fates. i guess we really are keeping everybody, after all.
  23. Agreed. The vagueness in that goal is mostly arrogance. I'm so important I have to do something important. A thought for young people and occasionally older people still adjusting to the idea that it isn't about them and the world doesn't revolve around them. The reward? A possible history book mention. And how many people even know history well? Not many. There are billions of people who are now dead that changed the world in their little ways that will never get a history mention but are the only reason our species got this far. I think all a person can hope for themselves is to follow their passions and be the best version of themselves and not worry about fame. And not worry if they're getting noticed. It doesn't really matter in the end. Even if your name fades, your contributions keep everything going a little longer . . . Besides, the only person's approval you need is your own.
  24. I got you. Definitely brings up the external vs. internal preference of the network. Locus of control is a thought on the psychology side. Also begs the question- is it a teeter totter or cause and effect determination. Which is a great pursuit of understanding when it comes to personality. In that we study the behaviors to understand the inner workings. Mapping patterns of external behavior to in turn map the networks underneath. This we know to a greater extent. I like talking about the anomaly, when a behavior doesn't match up, when certain value switches are flipped or don't align, knowledge gaps, etc. The fringe of personality. And while most will fall close to the mean, many do not.
  25. Yeah it is mandatory for diversity requirements - the other class was full (Women's psych). It was an interesting class, but I actually was better off before I took it. Yeah hold on I'll post a model which I think about a lot.. ...... added to this post 25 minutes later: Okay this is what is called the Nigrescence model which literally means 'to become black.' It's been adapted a few times but I will talk about the original one by William Cross. There are 5 stages in this model - and the black person can cycle through them or be stuck at one specific stage indefinitely. I'm going to explain it how it was explained to me. It's sort of an oversimplification. Pre-encounter - the person is unaware of their blackness - I was told to imagine Stacey Dash or some other 'whitewashed' person Encounter - the person becomes aware of their blackness - due to an event - such as being pulled over simply for being black Immersion/Emersion - is being immersed in blackness - the example I was told was a student attending a historically black college, being immersed in black culture, and it is as if no other race exists - they don't matter - this part includes disparaging white culture - seeking to avoid white things - and exclusion of nonblacks in activities Internalization - this stage marks where the person is comfortable with who they are and they can rejoin society and begin to foster relationships with other races Internalization-Commitment - the highest stage, this is where the person is comfortable with their own identity and accepts nonblack people - and is able to empathize with other groups for political and social justice Someone could be stuck in the pre-encounter stage for several years. Someone could be in the final stage, then revert back to immersion/emersion, etc. you get it. So, given that I live next to an HBCU and many of my neighbors attend there - I have always guessed that some of them are probably in the immersion/emersion stage. Which is wrong of me to guess, of course. This class was particularly interesting because I haven't had to take a class about black people, and black people only, before. I did learn a lot. But I am affected by a lot of the topics of discussion that occurred in the class - mostly because it was 'filterless.' But it was made very, very clear in that class that the majority of blacks in that class do not approve of interracial dating. It was also made very clear that something as benign as hair clips being worn by a white woman was cultural appropriation. I also learned that many black social workers do not approve of black children being adopted by white families - and a lot of other things I never thought were issues. A lot of things I thought well shit, race relations in America are pretty good - no apparently not so. Also the class was during the Trump election so that amped it up quite a bit. Oh, something really valuable I got out of this class - there were some studies done where the participants were to rate the competence of people by race - long story short, people rated black people higher during certain tasks simply because they were black - I'll look for the studies, but the end result is that they were rated higher than their peers because of low standards for excellence for black people that the observers had. Lowered expectations if you will. In short, an application of this would be if you had a black waiter vs. a white waiter - they both treat you the same way, but when asked, you might say the black waiter was better - when in fact, they did the exact same thing the white waiter did. But since unconsciously people might think low of black people, they will try to overcompensate for it by saying they did an excellent job and go above and beyond with their compliments - this is a form of racism - can't remember which type, but it is. If I were a black person on the receiving end of overexaggerated compliments I would feel insulted. ...... added to this post 36 minutes later: Yeah that was pretty dumb of me to say, wasn't it?
  1. Load more activity