“I Think It Would Be Fair to Say That We All Are Living Under a Sort of Spell. The Name Given to This Sort of Spell in the Psychology Literature Is “Cognitive Dissonance.”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

Do you see?

How often does a person who smokes three packs of cigarettes a day need to hear the message that smoking causes cancer? Until he freakin’ gets it. ”

This is advice you need to take. Every one of your points have been addressed hundreds of times and you choose to twist it around, lie about it or ignore it. Repeating your lines has not helped and continuing to do so, will similarly fail. HOW OFTEN DO YOU NEED TO HEAR THIS UNTIL YOU FINALLY GET IT.

I put up a post pointing out the error in Greanry’s retirement study on the morning of May 13, 2002. The study has not been corrected as of today. Today’s date is November 1, 2018.

You say that my points have been addressed. But the study has not been corrected. Does that reality not tell a tale? People used that study to plan retirements.

I think it would be fair to say that we all are living under a sort of spell. The name given to this sort of spell in the psychology literature is “cognitive dissonance.” If Greaney were thinking clearly, he would have corrected the study a long time ago. If Bogle were thinking clearly, he would have insisted that Greaney correct the study a long time ago. Getting the numbers wrong in a study that people use to plan their retirements is a big deal

I love Jack Bogle, I would like to be working with him. It pains me that some see us as being on “different sides.” I think it would be fair to say that Bogle himself feels this way given that he did not respond to my three e-mails to him. That shouldn’t be. And of course I love John Greaney too. I would like to be working with him too. It pains me that he sees us as being on “different sides.” And the same is true re hundreds of others.

You say that my points have been addressed. But the study has not been corrected. The last time I checked, people were still recommending use of it to plan retirements. The points have not been addressed. The actions that need to be taken have not been taken.

I suppose that you could say that a majority at the various boards has made a decision that there is no need to do anything about the studies. I think that would be fair to say. But those of us (and it is not just me, it is a minority but it is not just me) who believe that the study is in error have both a right and responsibility to point out the problems in it to people who will be inclined to make use of it to plan a retirement if we fail to do so. If those people elect to make use of the study despite what we say, that’s on them. But if we don’t at least make an effort to inform them so that they can make an intelligent choice, that’s on us.

How will this situation ever change if none of us insist on our right to post honestly? It’s been 37 years since Shiller published his “revolutionary” (his word) research. Are we going to wait to see how it feels to live through a Second Great Depression before we speak up? I can’t go for that. It’s too much human suffering. I couldn’t live with myself if I saw millions of retirement failures coming into play and did nothing to help. If you knew about the 911 attacks before they happened, would you feel comfortable saying “oh, it’s not my problem, too bad for all those people who will get killed.” I would like to think that, if I knew about the 911 attacks before they happened, I would have tried to do something to prevent the huge amount of human suffering before it took place. That’s how I feel about this other matter.

I know that you don’t want me to say anything. I get that much. I know that you have powerful people on your side. I get that too. And I know that the majority sides with you. But I feel that as a nation we have to come to terms with this problem. We have created a mess and we need to fix it. And there is no way to fix it other than for more of us to work up the courage to speak up.

You don’t get to decide for everyone. You get to decide for you, that’s all. If 10 percent of a community wants to hear about Shiller’s findings, that’s good enough for me. In time, I am confident that the 10 percent will become 20 percent and then in some more time 40 percent. That’s how our country works. Someone comes up with a new idea and then over time it grows and grows and grows. You are going against the fundamental beliefs of our country when you try to kill this idea in the crib. And I just don’t feel even a tiny bit comfortable going along with that given how much human suffering we are talking about here.

The advances have been amazing. Yes, you have had the power to stop them from helping as many people as they should be helping. But the advances have been flat-out amazing. I want to share those advances with millions of people. Each person gets to decide for himself or herself whether he will tap into the benefits of the new ideas. But if there are millions who decide that they want to do so, I want to be there for them. We have already seen thousands express an interest and that was under very difficult conditions. So I think it is entirely possible that we could bring it up to millions in time. We will have to see how it all plays out.

I believe that, when we get to the other side, you will thank me, Anonymous. Did you ever have that happen? You don’t want to see a particular movie and someone else does and you end up being dragged into it and then you love the darn thing. I think that is what will eventually happen here. You will come around in time. You’ll need to stop fighting it so hard for that to happen. But I believe it will happen eventually, If not prior to the crash, then afterwards.

Can you please say what you see as the downside to opening every site on the internet to honest posting re the last 37 years of peer-reviewed research? I don’t see any. I cannot even imagine any possibilities. How many times do you need to hear that to get that, you know?

I believe in letting all sides talk. I don’t believe in abusive stuff. But I believe in letting all sides who come to the table with non-abusive stuff to talk. You can say that people have rejected that idea in this particular case. But we still have published rules at all the sites that show respect for that idea. And we still have laws that respect that idea. That idea is who we are as a people. This other thing is a mistake that we have made in this particular field of human endeavor. And we need to be working together to overcome that mistake before it does us more harm.

That’s my sincere take, Anonymous. I have heard all of your responses and I have also heard the responses of the thousands who have said they love the idea of learning more about Valuation-Informed Indexing if only it could be done in a peaceful environment. I care about those people. I want to give those people what they want and I don’t think that you have a right under the published rules of the sites or under the laws of the United States to stand in the way, You can decide for you and then you need to let others decide for others.

That’s where I am coming from. I hope that helps a tiny bit.

Slow on the Uptake(When His Country’s Values Are in Question) Rob