Skip to main content

Your Money and Your Brain – Jason Zweig ****

It might seem a book about investing isn’t really suited to a popular science site, but hold on – Jason Zweig’s book is much more than a ‘how to make money on the stock market’ tome. Yes, it does give some lessons for would-be investors, but the subject of the book is much more interesting (with a scientific hat on). In fact the investment advice, when you come to it, is fairly bog standard stuff like the need to investigate a company before buying shares, not just relying on the shares’ track record on the stock exchange. This book is almost back to front. What it really is, is an in-depth exploration of why the way our brains work make us hideously unsuited to playing the stock market.
Before assessing the book as a whole, I do need to clarify one issue that nearly stopped me reading it. There’s an example on page 20 that just doesn’t make any sense. It is supposed to show how people make the wrong assumptions about the evidence they need to make a decision, but unfortunately the way the problem is stated makes the assumed ‘wrong answer’ correct. Zweig has attempted to correct this in the US paperback, but after discussing this with both the author and the academic on whose paper the example is based, it’s clear that the example would probably never be able to usefully show what was required here. So if you read the book and get hung up on the problem of the consultant who says the market rises every time after he predicts it, don’t. It doesn’t work – ignore it!
Once past that issue, the book has fascinating detail about the way different parts of the brain react to the types of stimuli presented to us by stock trading, whether it’s fear, risk, surprise, regret or prediction. By using MRI scans and other technology, Zweig takes us through how the brain reacts under those pressures, making the kinds of decision stock market players have to make and demonstrates not only what happens in the brain, but how our natural responses make us highly unsuited to the whole business. The aim is that we can be aware of these natural faults and overcome them, but the reality is it makes you feel that no one sane would ever have anything to do with these kinds of investments. It has always worried and irritated me when I hear on the news that a stock index has collapsed because traders were worried about something or panicking about something. The financial basis of our institutions shouldn’t be animal, reflexive reaction. Yet Zweig shows this is almost inevitable.
So whether, like me, the impact of the book is to make you think it’s time we did away with stocks and shares and introduced a more reasoned way of financing businesses, or, as Zweig intended, you use this as a book to get insight into the best possible way of investing, there can be no doubt that this is an interesting read and one that is much more about the brain and human response than it is about money. If you have an absolute aversion to matters financial you might find it a little hard going in places, but if, like me, you find business interesting and the human brain wonderful, this book will provide plenty of food for thought.

Paperback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on