The big issue is the typical issue of survivorship bias. For obvious reasons they can only study the PAWs who are, you know, successful PAWs. So one of their claims is PAWs are willing to take economic risks if the return is high.
But what about the people who took economic risks and had it collapse under them? They’d be UAWs by their nomenclature … yet they did a PAW thing.
In reality you learn more about what led people to failure than enumerating the things that supposedly led to people’s success.
You mean it only applies to the US, or something different?
The big issue is the typical issue of survivorship bias. For obvious reasons they can only study the PAWs who are, you know, successful PAWs. So one of their claims is PAWs are willing to take economic risks if the return is high.
But what about the people who took economic risks and had it collapse under them? They’d be UAWs by their nomenclature … yet they did a PAW thing.
In reality you learn more about what led people to failure than enumerating the things that supposedly led to people’s success.
This, thank you!