When I go to the track with my buddy he does not even think about looking at a racing form, tip sheet or even the horse. He looks at the names and the current odds and then makes his bet. He never wins.
haha well that would be going too far in the opposite direction IMO. while the title of the article is misleading and probably created to draw pageviews, i think the point is that the average person may give too much weight to info they sought out or "filled in the gaps" instead of objectively looking at things.
All I can say is that the first example with the recent college grad is about as poor an example as you can find. The $5000 derog on his credit does not make sense based on the rest of his history, so yes more information is needed for an underwriter to make their decision based on the existing information. Perhaps he doesn't even know that the charge is there (identity theft?) or there is a dispute with the vendor for a valid reason. This runs contrary to what they are trying to prove with less is more. I understand where they are attempting to go but that was a really bad example. Yes you can over analyze and when it comes to capping it can happen often if you're taking a strictly visual approach. That's why models come into play where as in the past we said with the models it helps take the human emotion/subconscious part away. Whether that's a good thing or not is/can be argumentative. Personally, I think it takes a bit of both the models/numbers approach and then the subjective approach with all the other intangibles involved.
as i mentioned, i think the article is poorly titled. i dont think "less is more" should be the takeaway but the impact and potential pitfalls of the recency effect or more specifically putting more weight into data that you had to seek out or "find" yourself is what should be called to people's attention IMO.
StJoes0610
Senior Member
Comments