tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2568941354104807757.post3114085588171244374..comments2023-10-05T09:07:24.225-04:00Comments on Investment Performance Guy: Even science doesn't need equations ... to communicate idea, that isDave Spauldinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01777929408680234896noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2568941354104807757.post-34526109177204470642014-01-14T03:07:35.588-05:002014-01-14T03:07:35.588-05:00Thanks, Miles ... sorry for the delay in publishin...Thanks, Miles ... sorry for the delay in publishing; it got lost.Dave Spauldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01777929408680234896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2568941354104807757.post-32129952327605556802013-09-11T14:11:44.606-04:002013-09-11T14:11:44.606-04:00The book "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sow...The book "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell is just like this - describes the fundamentals of economics without a single graph or table. Reading it made me get a MS in Econ. I wish the classes were as straight forward as that book.Mileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02234709492906618670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2568941354104807757.post-79632352971619671752013-09-10T06:47:04.737-04:002013-09-10T06:47:04.737-04:00Interesting point; these models are each construct...Interesting point; these models are each constructed from equations. Perhaps some standalone equations cannot easily be portrayed pictorially, but I would suspect that the use of metaphors, analogies, and the like can still hold in some cases.Dave Spauldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01777929408680234896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2568941354104807757.post-76348383093263444032013-09-10T00:13:07.501-04:002013-09-10T00:13:07.501-04:00Take care not to confuse "modeling" with...Take care not to confuse "modeling" with "equations" -- for example, object modeling via influence diagrams or process figures are essential -- however, the relationship between objects is still best expressed via an equation -- one without the other is methodologically unsound -- hope these thoughts are useful...McKibbinUSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10545798495680527622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2568941354104807757.post-445310103164271732013-09-09T19:46:15.735-04:002013-09-09T19:46:15.735-04:00Steve, "spot on" (not patting myself on ...Steve, "spot on" (not patting myself on the back; it's re. the broader points). After one is quite comfortable with the math/functions/formulae/ideas, then they can translate it into a graphic, metaphor, etc. Some folks will never get the math, but they may get the ideas when expressed in this form; and, that's usually all that matters.Dave Spauldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01777929408680234896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2568941354104807757.post-75129897207839126122013-09-09T19:23:13.093-04:002013-09-09T19:23:13.093-04:00Your analysis and conclusions are correct because ...Your analysis and conclusions are correct because they reflect how we actually learn. We first experience something and get to know how it behaves. We then visualize and verbalize what we know. This is where pictures come in. The power of these pictures is in their universality; they bridge the differences between our tendency towards unique expressions of a common reality. Only when we have established a common understanding of something do we apply literacy, which may be in the form of written words or mathematical expressions of the relationships between the particular variables that express the thing we are studying. In other words: a picture is worth a thousand words.Stephen Campisinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2568941354104807757.post-64964493162714331562013-09-09T19:14:54.339-04:002013-09-09T19:14:54.339-04:00Excellent points, as always, very insightful thoug...Excellent points, as always, very insightful thoughts. If there is any competence these times call for, it is adaptability. Adaptability requires the flexibility to take into account multiple perspectives on a given situation. But the problem here is that your innovating approach and teaching techniques are not important to professionals who seek to acquire the CFA or any other designation. Simply because the exams test your breadth of knowledge, not your depth of knowledge! <br /><br />Candidates therefore need to learn a little of a wide ranging of topics, without ever mastering any single field. Just memorize a few formulas and you’ll do well, we are often told.<br /><br />My belief is that we are all exposed to, and have generally accepted, a certain line of standard learning techniques. This is why I think we see more and more candidates straight out of college passing the exams than multi-year professionals. Consider the difference between judging on process and judging on results. College students focus on the process, the structure of the actual test. In contrast, professionals on the field are judged on the application of their knowledge. In the real world the structure is often unknown and ever changing.<br /><br />In other words, the test taker does not need to dig deeper; he/she already knows the question structure and even has the chance to take sample exams with the exact format used in the actual exam. Perhaps if the exam structure was different every time, your approach would be significant enough for the candidate. <br />superbmindsethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08204905390409200470noreply@blogger.com