## Rats, Humans, and Probability

Investors—or people generally—find it difficult to think in terms of probability.  A quote from a recent ThinkAdvisor article on probability is instructive:

In multiple studies (most prominently those by Edwards and Estes, as reported by Philip Tetlock in his book Expert Political Judgment), subjects were asked to predict which side of a “T-maze” held food for a rat. The maze was rigged such that the food was randomly placed (no pattern), but 60% of the time on one side and 40% on the other. The rat quickly “gets it” and waits at the “60% side” every time and is thus correct 60% of the time. Human observers keep looking for patterns and choose sides in rough proportion to recent results. As a consequence, the humans were right only 52% of the time—they (we!) are much dumber than rats. We routinely misinterpret probabilistic strategies that accept the inevitability of randomness and error.

Even rats get probability better than people!  It is for this reason that a systematic investing process can be so valuable.  Away from the pressure and hubbub of the markets, strategies can be researched and probabilities investigated and calculated.  Decisions can be made on the basis of probability because a systematic process incorporates the notion that there is a certain amount of randomness that cannot be overcome with clever decision-making.

Ironically, because humans have sophisticated pattern recognition skills built in, we see patterns in probability where there are none.  A systematic investment process can reduce or eliminate the “overinterpretation” inherent in our own cleverness.  When we can base our decisions only on the actual probabilities embedded in the data, those decisions will be much better over a large number of trials.

Good investing is never easy, but a systematic investing process can eliminate at least one barrier to good performance.

### 6 Responses to Rats, Humans, and Probability

1. I might personally favor Google. Both FB and Google would benefit from it, but we would probably benefit more from Google taking it over. In the case of Google+ it is just a matter of time. Facebook was lucky it didn’t truly should compete with something as “good” as facebook, the competition was just lacking a lot of features and also a global approach.Google+ is excellent to Facebook, but it surely has a bigger challenge to obtain popular.Just have a look at VHS and Betamax. Betamax was better but lost due to bad marketing/licensing.Danny recently posted..Black & Decker NPP2018 18-Volt Cordless Electric Pole Chain Saw

2. […] The full post is here. […]

3. Good day! I simply would like to give an enormous thumbs up for the great info you’ve gotten right here on this post. I will probably be coming again to your weblog for extra soon.

4. Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive read anything like this before. So nice to search out anyone with some authentic thoughts on this subject. realy thank you for starting this up. this website is something that is needed on the net, someone with a bit of originality. useful job for bringing something new to the internet!

5. I was seeking at some of your weblog posts on this website and I believe this web site is real instructive! Keep posting .

6. The users could take advantage of having a a good
credit score history by utilizing online loans. It is sure to benefit
you in availing auto loans at lower rates. Most individuals do not realize you
can even refinance a motor vehicle loan let alone,
the running savings that comes as well as it.