You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: [Steem Study] Yes, More Flows Out Than In
Oddly enough I just left a comment for @paulag regarding her forensic data analysis regarding delegated voting behavior.
I think that you can definitely add some horsepower to the work she's doing (if you aren't already).
Transparency is a good thing.
She and I have passed a few words regarding some potential collaboration. It could happen.
Transparency is a good thing, but sometimes it can lead to analysis paralysis and simple informational overload. It's the latter that we have a real problem with on the steem blockchain. Information is available and it's not hard to dig up – but there's so much of it and it's all related in fairly complex ways that interpreting what you see is very difficult.
Turning data into information is a skill, and it's one that I haven't quite mastered yet. I'm giving it a go, however.
I have to disagree, this post does a very professional job of transforming data into information.
But I tend to compartmentalize jobs and think interpreting that information is the next step in the process. (Actually, interpretation is probably more of a dark art than a science.)
Luckily, the blackest of sorceries have always fascinated me.
I suppose that if I specifically limited my data to things older than six months, stuff like this would probably qualify as necromancy. I'm willing to accept that designation.
It's a little bit complicated trying to determine what level of interpretation one should apply when you have information this dense. Step one is figuring out what you can throw away, and that alone can sometimes require more knowledge than you have available.
The ability to distinguish the wheat from the chaff is a scarce commodity these days.
And with the "Wild West" aspect of cryptocurrencies these days, there's a very strong possibility that things move in inexplicable ways. Seems like the people most knowledgeable about crypto are the ones who also have the ability to stay one step ahead of the crowd.
I figure if I can stay two or three steps behind the leaders, I can still be ahead of the herd.
Personally, I'm coming to think that because of the overlapping emergent processes involved in this particular type of market, there are no people who are "most knowledgeable."
There are people who are really good at lying about it, but no one who actually has actionable knowledge. Rules of thumb, approximations, some ideas, cultist tendencies, systems that won't work – everything you find in a population of gamblers.
But not predictive knowledge.
Would it make a difference to you if the state of affairs was accurately reflected by what I just said? Would you choose to act in a different manner?
I agree, 100%
Humans like to follow and I don't think people even have to be good liars, all they have to do is sound confident in their viewpoint and you'll see a lot of followers latch on.
I simply try to process as much data as my little brain can handle, weed out as much fact from opinion as I can and try to make the best wild ass guess I can.
Unfortunately, true.
Of course, you can always play the double-blind game where you publicly claim not to know anything but keep saying things so that people believe you are either modest or unaware of your own insight and begin following you regardless. That's my favorite methodology!
There's always more information to have. The secret is to know when you have overdosed on information and need to call 911.