Ever say something that you know might be taken out of context, but you say it anyway?

Today, once or twice during the day, I commented that the market’s immediate reaction to one of these "events" is a mathematical function of body count. The capital market response to the London bombing will be less than Madrid, which was less than New York (9/11).

That seems some what clinically dispassionate, and it is so by design. Indeed, following this morning’s first post, an emailer gently chided me for my lack of compassion.

Please do not confuse objectivity with lack of passion. For those of you who may be new to the site, if you are unfamiliar with my history, thn its time to bone up:  If you have some time to kill, brew a cup of Joe and have a read of this:

A Personal Recollection From a Day of Horror
(see the Post Script as well)

I am only capable of being objective — of having the alien investor
perspective, of being unemotional — because I have been through the
process before.

Category: Psychology, War/Defense

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

One Response to “Understand the “Clinical Objectivity””

  1. I, Hans. says:

    War on gnats.

    The Big Picture: The Journal quotes Hugh Johnson (A terrific old old pro and chief investment officer at Johnson Illington Advisors). Hugh noted “We’re learning to live with terrorism.” It may be even more basic than that: Terrorism is