Item — HN Reader

You look for information from the original source, not opinions. You take that information and come to your own opinion. You validate your opinion with an open mind and curiosity - look out for people who can challenge their views. You introspect and change your mind. You also say that some information is beyond your comprehension and “too hard to understand”.

“I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don’t know the other side’s argument better than they do.”— Charlie Munger

5 comments

Good luck reading just the 10-Ks or local equivalent for all the companies that you're interested in (not even as a shareholder but as a stakeholder). Will take a lot of hours each week.

Same with research papers, data sheets, raw press releases, etc. Like it or not - you have to rely on 3rd party summarization and information selection.

FWIW, I do read 10-K and research papers regularly as I find that investment worthwhile for me - even if it is several hours a week. You may not, that's fine.

> Like it or not - you have to rely on 3rd party summarization and information selection.

I don't necessarily disagree. I have a slightly different viewpoint. I do rely on 3rd party summarisation as a first step. Beyond that, I dig deep myself and form ym own opinion.

Your answer seems to suggest reliance on credible 3rd party sources. No issues with that - but if you should also accept the implications with reliance on expert / wisdom of crowds. <Insert Aswath Damodaran's lemming cartoon> If you are fine with those implications, good for you. I am not, most of the times - at least in areas that I care about. Therefore, I read research papers and 10Ks myself.

This is a shameless plug for my site but it provides features[1] that helps users efficiently read lengthy 10-K/Qs for all publicly traded companies without having to take a lot of hours each week.

[1] https://Last10K.com/features

To add to this: if you grow into this approach, it's almost impossible to become a "radical" believer in anything; usually any serious discourse has very solid points on both sides, which are formulated by very smart people. It's quite hard to live with it, actually, humans are not built for seeing nuance everywhere.

Although you have to be careful not to fall into "Enlightened Centrist" mode all the time.

While there are usually solid points on both sides of an argument, you should take one side on many (most?) issues.

I agree. Everything can be morally relative until you get punched in the face

why should one do that?

truth is often undefined, and you can simply weigh sides with probabilities.

There is however 100% certainty this post will be downvoted.

> you can simply weigh sides with probabilities

Absolutely.

And is most cases one side has a 60%+ probability. That should be your side.

Why? Especially if the outcome of the argument doesn't matter to you, why take a side?

If you're surrounded by "radicals" and you have a balanced and well reasoned opinion then you will be a radical among them.

Define what you mean by radical.

When seeing a trend of a common narrative, even if it's socially or corporate driven, look for opposing ideas.

Look for them, sure. And consider the opposite. But if you believe the opposite of the Current Thing all the time, you're just a mindless contrarian. A good recent example of this phenomenon is all the people who denied that Russia would invade Ukraine -- not because of any primary sources or facts, but because they reflexively countered the mainstream consensus.

The good news is you can spot these people easily by just asking them to explain why they believe the opposite. And if they answer with empty platitudes or lofty statements that don't really address the specifics of the issue at hand, you can keep searching.

Simple, dumb contrarianism explains a lot of radical political beliefs, esp support for Trump.

Obviously, he got votes from a lot of normal Republicans, but there's a decent segment of support for him where people were apolitical before, but latched on to him out of sheer, immature contrarianism.

This. But you'll be seen as troublemaker.

"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." — W. Edwards Deming

This is irrelevant quote. All data could be collected and interpreting in different ways based on actual knowledge.

We have data for knowing that grass is green. But it is not true at night.

This. There’s just no substitue for genuine curiosity paired with extensive reading.