the shelves, and shoppers should feel some urgency about stocking up.
Note: Scarcity at play along with consensus.
Professional controversies bring out the worst in academics. Scientific journals occasionally publish exchanges, often beginning with someone’s critique of another’s research, followed by a reply and a rejoinder. I have always thought that these exchanges are a waste of time. Especially when the original critique is sharply worded, the reply and the rejoinder are often exercises in what I have called sarcasm for beginners and advanced sarcasm. The replies rarely concede anything to a biting critique, and it is almost unheard of for a rejoinder to admit that the original critique was misguided...
Note: Sounds like Facebook!
You will do yourself a large financial favor if you are able to see each of these gambles as part of a bundle of small gambles and rehearse the mantra that will get you significantly closer to economic rationality: you win a few, you lose a few.
Note: Reminds me of the example we use with selling a rate increase. We clearly show agents can make more money under most circumstances but they hate the thought of losing any account. Agents like to say, "A little bit of something is better than a lot of nothing." They are taking the safe route and paying a premium by forgoing future earnings.
If you have the emotional discipline that this rule requires, you will never consider a small gamble in isolation or be loss averse for a small gamble until you are actually on your deathbed—and not even then.
Note: I wonder how this applies to publicly traded companies that make short term decisions to satisfy quarterly reporting versus taking a long view.