QuoteOriginally posted by: MikeCroweQuoteOriginally posted by: DJAverageQuoteOriginally posted by: crowlogicQuoteOriginally posted by: DJAverageQuoteOriginally posted by: KackToodles[Albert is a monkey like you and me. The only difference is that Albert grooms himself to look more like a monkey than the rest of us. Mr. Market is smarter than any monkey.So I conclude from this that you are A) a darwinist and B) EMH supporter.Both are simplistic and outdated concepts, don't you think? What is darwinism? And yes, the EMH is dated. It is silly to assume that unique strategies are independent and identically distributed like coin flips.Darwinism is popular belief that given a monkey and a typing device, you will almost surely get Shakespeare and all his plays typed. Just wait long enough. Darwinism is absolutely nothing of the sort, and comments like that simply proliferate misunderstanding. That is a just a combinatorics statement that given any countable sample space that any given sample will be produced if we make enough trials.Darwinism is (broadly) the theory that any given population of organism contains variation, and that the environment through natural selection causes certain varieties to be more successful that others, where success is simply the number of offspring produced. This encourages the following generation to express more of the characteristics that distinguished the original successful parents. Since variety is always present and maintained, the population gradually shifts to a new species. RTFM or in this case, read origin.The point here though is that there is often a massive misunderstanding that evolution relies on just random chance like the monkey example enough e.g. stupid people often think along the lines "darwinism means given enough mutations we would randomly get a person from a chimp etc." This is as much science as crystal power and voodoo and is complete rubbish. To place it in a more mathematical example what you actually have is a random variable that say is initiall N(0,1) in the first generation. We take 100 samples and throw away half of the negative ones at random. Each of the remaining samples (75 ish) creates a new sample of 100 each N(x,1) where x is its value. The new distribution is clearly normal, but will have a higher mean. If we keep repeating this process the mean will keep increasing.A story teller might say the population is moving away from the 0 line in order to reduce the number of samples that are thrown away. However normal distributions don't think. This is like the story "a giraffe has a long neck to reach the leaves", or "A rabbit evolved to run fast to avoid foxes".If you want to talk about darwinishm in the context of funds then forget monkeys and hamlet and think about fund managers that are successful teaching their staff, who then set up funds... Or alternatively talk about banks being large so having more variety in their staff, hence more opportunity to evolve their staff's skill set (by firing the rubbish ones, and getting the good ones to teach/hire the newbies).Thank you for your lecture, Professor. I feel really enlightened and very sleepy indeed.