Does money make you unhappy, or do you need to be unhappy to make more money?
You ask this, and you do not even address Numi’s graph’s assertion that if I have 8 money then I have 8 problems? This is clearly false, as I have well over 12 money but only 4 problems.
In all seriousness, I think threesome is referring to the range above 2 women while the triagle at three is actually labelled “hedonistic mirage” once you have 3 women: a foursome.
True. I definitley think there is an opportunity for a 3d graph with women on the X axis, money on the Z axis and problems on the Y axis.
Thank god I don’t have to date women!
Hmm… it depends, i think it work against you sometimes but work for you other times.
sometimes people hire people who are not aggressive and competitive, because they are more trainable and probably less of a threat.
i mean, the bottom line is, the person isn’t ACTUALLY incompetent, he still gets the job done but not necessarily in a “i am better than everyone” attitude.
I bet you get the same stats for men that think they’re great in bed.
Who knows where I’d be if it wasn’t for the 10 crack commandments.
Mo money mo problems? This can only come from someone who never was really broke. I think there is no linear relationship, it should look more like a parabola, with an ideal point somewhere between “broke ass” and “call me Warren”
I got 99 problems, but my monies is 1.
I get your point on this, but if everybody you hire is timid, does exactly what they’re told to do (and nothing more), and never rocks the boat, you’re going to wake up one day and realize that you have a whole lot of Indians and not any Chiefs.
And you’re still stuck using 1996 Creative Solutions instead of 2013 Excel.
Read the book “48 Laws of Power”. Law #1: Never Outshine The Master
Nothing is wrong with being the smartest person in the room. Just don’t boast or those in authority will see you as a threat. Be subtle and force those in authority to depend on you for answers, but always give them the credit for it. This butters them up for the kill later on 
This is clearly dependent on the industry and the company.
Though i must say, people with a certain personality just naturally end up in companies where they value obedience and conformity.
It takes only a couple “chiefs” in most companies so there are more room for indians perhaps?
The important thing I attempted to make clear in my original post is that these aren’t my thoughts – I’m just confronted with them by peers and superiors on a fairly regular basis. I’m just making sure to soak up all the knowledge of those around me and the activities I get exposure to. But I realized that my attitude didn’t come through correctly with the first few replies.
Good reference about Cialidini, Numi. I really enjoyed that book and your insights here.
Ha ha, you crack me up man. Thanks for the motivation.
At the end of the day, I’m not so much concerned about being the smartest person in the room. I’m worried about ending up in an environment where I don’t grow as much as I should because I don’t have like minded people around to foster it. This is what some of my co-workers are getting at as well. I still think I have a little time before I hit that in my current situation, but it is clearly approaching faster than I expected. I’m hoping that if I hit that point some day, the industry would’ve rebounded some And I probably should’ve realized how rare equity research gigs were when making my decision ha ha
I actually debated making this thread for a while because I wasn’t sure if I’d get serious replies. Pleasantly surprised!
Yea, that’s why I avoid self assessments due to illusory superiority. I rely more on the feedback of external parties. EQ has been a common strength for myself whether I’m hanging out with very smart or very dumb people – IQ always seems to be more a function of the crowd, as some of my friends are extremely bright and roll in those sorts of circles.
Numi, back from holiday here, so maybe I missed something.
You said you “like to lead with facts rather than evidence,” above. Did you mean evidence, or arguments here? If you meant what you said, how do you differentiate facts from evidence, because I tend to think of them as two words for the same thing.
Perhaps one can argue that evidence is a fact that already has a place or spin in an argument, but even so, how would you stick to a fact as opposed to introduce evidence in a discussion about an investment.
I think i have average IQ and EQ in my workplace and in my group of friends and family…
Sorry, I think I meant to say “conjecture” rather than “evidence” henceforth “I like to lead with facts rather than conjecture.” Seems so obvious but seems like all too often, investors/analysts lead with opinions/conjecture rather than facts. Anyway, far be it from me to correct them myself; I’d rather just leave it to the stock markets to teach them the errors of their ways.
Gotcha. That makes a lot more sense to me now.
Yeah, and amazingly you were the only one that noticed! Good to know that at least one person is reading the stuff I write…
Some of us are too busy taking notes to reply