Everyone's money decisions make sense given the era and cohort that formed them — 'irrational' usually means 'calibrated on a different sample'.
Where I think Housel overreaches: framing every mistake as a rational response to different data makes the claim unfalsifiable, and some financial behaviour really is just bad.
Links
Typed edges. Anything below the line was authored on the other note and derived here.
contradicts →Ego, emotion, social pressure, and inertia hijack a decision before reasoning ever starts.Parrish treats the hijackers as distortions of reasoning. Housel says the same behaviour is correct updating on a different data set. They cannot both be describing the same mechanism, and the difference decides whether you fix the person or the environment.