Charlie Munger: The Psychology of Human Misjudgment

PS: I came across a great article on psychology, recording it here to commemorate the great Munger.

As Buffett's partner, Charlie Munger is a relatively secretive figure, but he is equally important to Berkshire Hathaway, with a more scholarly demeanor. Munger's research interests are extremely broad, but not aimless: just as many great investors need numerous researchers to provide them with tacit knowledge about probability theory, physics, and behavioral economics, Munger's openness has allowed Buffett's depth in value investing to be further unleashed.

Even Buffett himself admits: “Charlie pushed me in another direction, rather than just suggesting buying cheap stocks like Graham did; that’s the power of his thinking, he expanded my horizons. I evolved from a gorilla to a human at an unusual speed, otherwise I would be much poorer than I am now.”

If we reduce business to the result of the interplay between decision-making and execution, then in today's world where people constantly emphasize execution (think of Six Sigma, Toyota's on-site management, and the widespread application of ERP and CRM), the emphasis on decision-making itself is clearly insufficient. Indeed, compared to the execution that can be standardized, optimizing decision-making in some way is not easy. In this regard, Munger's approach is quite the opposite. His famous saying is: “I just want to know where I will die, so I never go there.” — he carefully avoids potential pitfalls and then seeks the optimal solution.

Munger's speech from 12 years ago feels timeless: When all investors explain all irrational behaviors in the capital markets with “fear” and “greed,” finding a broader and richer behavioral explanatory framework undoubtedly helps everyone re-examine themselves and the market itself.

I am very interested in the theme of human misjudgment — God knows, I have already made some small creations in misjudgment — but I do not believe I have “created” all the misjudgments of my life. I think one reason for discussing this is that I am trying to solve a problem I did not resolve when I graduated from Harvard Law School.

I realized that human irrationality has established patterns, but this irrationality is so extreme that I have no theory to explain and resolve it; however, I see how extreme it is and also see that it has certain patterns. I began to create my own psychological system, partly through casual reading and mostly from personal experiences, using this model to help myself navigate through life.

Later, I happened to read the book "Influence," written by a psychologist named Robert Cialdini. This book has now sold over 300,000 copies and is indeed extraordinary. It is a theoretical book aimed at the general reader, filling many gaps in my rough system. Among the gaps it filled, I believe I have established my own system, which is a very useful tool that I am willing to share with you.

1. The power of what psychologists call “reinforcement” or what economists call “incentives” is underestimated.

You might say this is “common knowledge,” but I also believe that among my peers, I have been in the top 5% of those who can understand the power of “incentives” throughout my life. Every year, I am amazed to find that my understanding of this continues to grow The example of FedEx is one of my favorite cases regarding the effect of "incentives." The core of the company's internal system operates effectively: every night, all packages must be quickly dispatched from the same central location, and if the entire delivery process is not swift enough, the system encounters problems. However, before it operated normally, FedEx went through a rough period where they tried moral persuasion and every means possible. In the end, some people came up with a clever idea: they paid night shift workers by the hour. If compensation was based on different shift patterns, the system would run much better. You see, this method worked.

At Harvard, B.F. Skinner was someone who truly viewed "reinforcement" as a powerful tool. His experiments were creative, and the results were "counterintuitive," but these conclusions were significant. What tarnished Skinner's reputation was something I call the "hammer syndrome": to someone holding a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And Skinner is an extreme case in the history of academia. Some smart people can also suffer from this syndrome. Later, we will explore why people develop this syndrome.

2. Simple Psychological Denial

The first thing that greatly moved me was a friend of my family, whose son, with a super athlete's physique and excellent academic performance, took off from an aircraft carrier in the North Atlantic and never returned. His mother, a mentally sound woman, never believed he was dead. Of course, if you turn on the television, you will find that the mothers of those obviously guilty criminals also always believe their sons are innocent.

This is psychological denial. Sometimes, the truth is too cruel to bear. So, you distort it to make it bearable. We all do this to some extent. It is a common psychological misjudgment that causes terrible problems.

3. Bias Caused by Incentives Exists in the Minds of Both Oneself and Trusted Advisors, Creating What Economists Call "Agency Costs"

"Bias" exists in every professional field and in every person, leading to very terrible behaviors. I am 70 years old, but I have never seen anything that is just a step away from objective truth. To witness the power of incentives and the power of rational yet terrifying behavior, consider the following example: after the Department of Defense became accustomed to adding contract costs outside of the budget, our response was to define such behavior as a crime under federal law, and a felony at that.

By the way, the government is right, but one of the many ways this world operates—including many law firms and elsewhere—is by adding extra costs outside of the cost system. And human nature, which I call "incentive-induced bias," greatly contributes to the proliferation of this practice.

Human thinking operates this way, and this fact greatly proves that the inventor of the cash register is one of the most productive saints in our civilization—it's the cash register that makes it difficult to engage in unethical behavior; each cash register is a great moral tool. John Patterson, the founder of NCR, understood this clearly He had a small shop where people stole from him, causing him to never make any money. Later, someone sold him two cash registers, and the shop immediately became profitable. Of course, he closed the shop and started dealing in cash registers...

4. The Superpower of Psychological Tendencies Caused by Errors: Bias comes from people's tendency for consistency and commitment, including the tendency to avoid or quickly resolve cognitive dissonance, as well as the tendency to self-confirm all conclusions—especially those that have been publicly expressed or are hard-won.

Human thought is similar to human eggs. Eggs have a "closing" mechanism. Once a sperm enters, it "closes the door," preventing other sperm from entering. Human thought generally has this characteristic. It's not just ordinary people who have this tendency; even the dean of a physics department can exhibit it. According to Max Planck (the famous physicist), true innovation and significant new theories in physics have never been genuinely accepted by the defenders of old theories. However, new theories rarely reject previous theories.

If the group described by Planck has this tendency for consistency and commitment, causing them to cling tightly to established conclusions, even in the face of evidence proving those conclusions false, you can imagine the behavior of this group, of which you and I are a part.

Of course, if you publicly state your conclusions, it’s as if you have firmly embedded that conclusion in your brain. Many students shout loudly at us, but they are not trying to persuade us; they are reinforcing their own new ideas because what they shout is precisely what they have embedded in their own minds. I believe educational institutions create an atmosphere that allows this situation to flourish... Fundamentally, they are irresponsible institutions. It is important not to let what you shout imprison your mind when you are young.

5. I have never taken a psychology or economics course, but I did learn about Pavlov in high school biology class. You know how they teach it, for example, that dogs start salivating when they hear a bell. So what? No one (even with the slightest effort) connects it to the broader world.

The fact is, in all our daily lives, "Pavlovian association" is a huge, powerful psychological force. I believe three-quarters of commercial advertising relies entirely on the principles of Pavlov. How does pure association work? Think of Coca-Cola; they want to associate the company with all pleasant images: sports heroes at the Olympics, beautiful music, and so on. They wouldn’t want to be associated with a presidential funeral. When you see a Coca-Cola advertisement... the connection truly takes effect.

All these psychological tendencies are mostly or entirely completed in a subconscious state, making them very insidious. Now, you all suffer from "Khorasan Messenger Syndrome." The kings of the ancient Central Asian country of Khorasan would execute messengers who brought bad news. Do you think this situation has disappeared? Then you should look at the last 20 years of Bill Paley's (former chairman and CEO of CBS) life—he did not listen to any news he did not want to hear People know that if the messenger brings Bill Paley news he doesn't want to hear, that messenger is in trouble. This means that leaders have locked themselves in a state of unreality; it's an amazing giant company, but he has indeed made some foolish decisions over the past 20 years.

Now, the "Khorasan Messenger Syndrome" is still very much alive. I believe no one wants to bring bad news to executives. Therefore, the best approach is to leave and hide like the Khorasan messenger, rather than bringing home the news of defeat.

Speaking of economics, throughout my long life, I have repeatedly observed a very interesting phenomenon in people. You have two products, assuming they are both complex technological products. Now you would think, according to economic principles, if the cost of product A is x yuan, and the cost of product Y is below x yuan, then if product Y is priced above x, its sales will be worse.

In fact, this is not the case. In many instances, after raising the price of the substitute product, the market share gained is greater than that obtained when the price is set below the competing product. But in fact, the economics community only recently discovered this obvious truth.

6. Bias arising from "reciprocity tendency." This includes a person's tendency to act according to others' expectations of him.

In this regard, Cialdini does quite well. Cialdini refers to those he calls "compliant participants" as easily deceived. In any case, "reciprocity tendency" is a very, very powerful phenomenon.

Cialdini demonstrated its power through an experiment: he ran into a campus and asked people to take juvenile delinquents to the zoo, with an average of one in six agreeing to his request. After he accumulated some data, he asked others in the same campus, "Hey, would you be willing to sacrifice two afternoons in a week to take a juvenile delinquent somewhere for a stroll?" As a result, 100% of the respondents refused him. But after asking this question, he took a step back and asked, "Then can you at least spare one afternoon to take the juvenile delinquent to the zoo?" At least half of the people agreed. By adopting this "ask for a lot first and then concede" strategy, his success rate was three times that of before.

Now, if a person's will is manipulated in this way subconsciously without their awareness, I often say, "You are like someone with only one leg participating in a kick-the-butt contest." What I mean is, you are truly spending a lot of time in an external world you cannot afford. In this so-called "role theory," how others expect you to act is how you tend to behave. If you think about how society is organized, you will understand that this is reciprocity.

A psychologist named Zimbardo once conducted an experiment at Stanford, dividing participants into two groups: one group acted as guards and the other as prisoners. Both groups acted out their roles in the way people expected. Five days later, Zimbardo had to stop the experiment because the guards became abusive, and the prisoners became very depressed At the beginning, the experimenters were ordinary and friendly college students. This experiment became a classic tutorial on the so-called situational evil, showing that even a good person placed in a bad environment can turn into a beast. What I mean is... this experiment is incredible. But the Stanford prison experiment has been severely misinterpreted. The results of this experiment were influenced not only by the tendency for reward and role theory but also by the tendencies of consistency and commitment. Every individual, whether playing the role of a guard or a prisoner, internalized the performance in their brain.

Wherever you are, this tendency for consistency and commitment is influencing you. In other words, your thoughts may change your actions, but more importantly, your actions will change your thoughts. You could say that everyone knows this. What I want to tell you is that I personally did not understand this principle as early and as thoroughly as I could have.

7. The bias produced by the excessive influence of social proof (i.e., conclusions drawn by others, especially under conditions of inherent uncertainty and pressure)

A commonly used case by psychologists regarding this is the example of Kitty Genovese. In 1964, she was murdered in the street by an assailant. At the time, there were 50 or 60 or even 70 people present; I don't know exactly how many witnessed her being chased by the assailant for half an hour, but not a single witness intervened, nor did anyone call the police.

One explanation is that everyone saw others doing nothing, so naturally, a social proof emerged: doing nothing was the correct course of action. In my judgment, this explanation for Genovese's case is insufficient; it is only part of the reason. Microeconomic thoughts and the risk/reward ratio also played a role. I have repeatedly thought that in reality, psychological concepts and economic concepts influence each other. Anyone who is ignorant of both is simply a damned fool.

Some big businessmen were also swept up in this wave of social proof. Remember a few years ago? A petroleum company acquired a fertilizer company, and then every major oil company rushed to buy a fertilizer company. In reality, these oil companies had no more reason to buy fertilizer companies, but they simply didn't know what to do. If Exxon did it, Mobil had enough reason to do it, and vice versa. It was a complete disaster.

Earlier, I talked about the power of reinforcement—when you do something, and then the market rises, you receive rewards, accolades, and so on, your method of doing things gets greatly reinforced. But at the same time, social proof is also at work; the rise and fall of the stock market is the ultimate manifestation of social proof, completely reflecting the thoughts of others. The combination of these two effects creates tremendous power; how could you think that the overall level of the stock market is efficient? Even during the overall downturn of the market in 1973-74, or in the heyday of 50 major companies in 1972? If these psychological concepts are correct, you should consider that waves of irrationality are leading the changes in the stock market 8. Economists fall in love with the efficient market theory because the mathematics is so beautiful

After all, mathematics is what they study and master. For someone with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Other truths can be a bit overwhelming for them; they have forgotten the great economist Keynes once said: "Roughly correct is better than precisely wrong."

9. Bias caused by the distortion of feelings, sensations, and perceptions due to contrast

Cialdini conducted a great experiment: he took three buckets of water, one with hot water, one with cold water, and one with room temperature water. He had a student put their left hand in the hot water and their right hand in the cold water, then put both hands into the room temperature water at the same time. Of course, one hand felt very hot while the other felt very cold. This is because the sensory organs of humans are overly influenced under strong contrast. There is no absolute temperature scale, only relative temperatures, and there are quantum effects involved.

Cialdini gave the example of a real estate agent. If a country person comes to the city to buy a house from you, the first thing you should do is take them to see the two most expensive houses you know, then take them to see some moderately expensive houses, and finally, you will be able to close the deal. This method is very effective, which is why salespeople do it; it always works.

I have a friend who lives off inherited wealth. He once told me something very useful. He said, "Charlie, if you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out immediately. But if you put it in lukewarm water and then slowly heat the water, eventually it will be boiled to death." I don't know if frogs really behave as he said.

But I know many businessmen do. This is still the contrast phenomenon. But they are all high-ranking and powerful figures. I mean, they are not fools. When change comes a little closer to you, you are likely to be unaware. So, if you want to be a person with good judgment, you must respond to the distortions created in your mind due to comparison.

10. Bias caused by the excessive influence of authority figures

There are about 1,600 psychological papers on the Milgram experiment. In this experiment, there is a person playing the role of authority who tells the subjects that they must continuously administer electric shocks to completely innocent people. Surprisingly, even when the subjects began to feel nervous and hesitant, more than two-thirds of them still complied when ordered to administer the maximum shock.

Milgram wanted to demonstrate how Hitler was successful through this experiment, and it indeed captured the imagination of the world. From the perspective of the Milgram experiment, the criminal activities of the Nazis and Hitler's success are not difficult to understand. Part of the reason is political correctness and the excessive influence of authority. Humans have an inherent tendency to obey authority, even when that obedience is wrong.

You might like the following example: there are two pilots, one captain and one co-pilot, and the captain is an authority figure. They are not in the plane but completed this experiment in a simulated environment. The co-pilot has been trained for a long time in the simulation, and he knows his duty is to prevent a crash During the experiment, the pilot made some moves that even a fool could see would lead to a crash. But the co-pilot just sat there quietly because the pilot is the authoritative figure. In 25% of cases, the plane would crash.

11. "Deprival Super-Reaction Syndrome" leads to bias. This includes biases caused by current or potential scarcity, including the deprivation of things that one almost has or has never had.

I have a neighbor, an old gentleman, whose house is surrounded by a small island. His neighbor next door planted a small pine tree on that island, about three feet tall. Previously, the old gentleman could see his harbor in a 180-degree view, but with this small tree, his view became 179 and 3/4 degrees. From then on, the two developed a lifelong feud, which continues to this day.

What I mean is that people are truly crazy about those insignificant "reductions." If you take action on this, you fall into the tendency to swap. Because you not only swap friendship but also swap hatred, and everything escalates. Such immense madness stems from people's subconscious tendency to place too much weight on what they have lost or what they almost had but did not get.

In this regard, New Coke is an extreme business case. Coca-Cola is the world's most valuable brand. Coca-Cola has many smart engineers, lawyers, psychologists, and advertising executives, etc. Over the past 100 years, they have spent a lot of time convincing people that the trademark has immense intangible value. People associate this trademark with a certain taste.

But when they announced to the outside world that "the taste has been improved," it was difficult for consumers to accept. Taste is about experience. I mean, you can improve a detergent or something, but I don't think you can make any significant changes to a certain taste. So, they fell victim to this huge "Deprival Super-Reaction Syndrome." The result was a disastrous failure!

By the way, Roberto Goizueta (the CEO of Coca-Cola at the time) and Donald Keough (the president of Coca-Cola at the time) were both smart and interesting people, but it was these smart people who made these terrible, foolish mistakes. Now you understand the power of "Deprival Super-Reaction Syndrome," right? But people can never respond in a balanced way to gains and losses.

12. Bias caused by envy/jealousy

Those who have experience raising siblings, running law firms, investment banks, or even starting factories will understand the term envy. I have heard Buffett say more than once: "It is not greed, but jealousy that drives the world forward."

You go once again to browse psychology survey courses, looking for a large volume on "envy/jealousy" in the index, but you can't find it. There are some blind spots in academia regarding this, but it is truly a powerful force. Envy and jealousy largely operate at a subconscious level. Every person who does not understand it exhibits some flaws they should not have 13. Bias Caused by Drug Dependence

We don't have to discuss this topic. We've seen too much of it. However, interestingly, drug dependence always leads to moral collapse, so people tend not to acknowledge its impact. In the example of the missing pilot's son we discussed earlier, it is precisely people who distort reality to make it easier for themselves to accept.

14. Bias Caused by "Erroneous Gambling Compulsion"

Regarding this aspect, you can find Skinner's only explanation in standard psychology survey courses. Of course, he created a variable reinforcement ratio for his pigeons and rats. He found that this would better influence behavior than any other compulsion pattern. He said, "Ha, I have explained why gambling is so powerful and addictive in civilized society." I believe that, to a considerable extent, what he said is true. However, Skinner seems to think this is the only explanation, but the fact is that the modern machines and technology's benefactors know many things that Skinner did not.

If you go to play slot machines, you will get bars, bars, and walnut. It happens over and over again. All of this makes you feel like you're about to win, which is the "Deprivation Super Response Syndrome." My God, does the person who invented this machine understand human psychology? For high-IQ groups, they can play games that require their own choices, like "Blackjack." How amazing it is that we use computers to undermine civilization.

In any case, "erroneous gambling compulsion" is a very, very powerful and important thing. Look at what is happening in our country: every Indian has a piece of reservation land, every river town, and then look at those people who have been ruined by stockbrokers and others. If you go to consult standard psychology textbooks, you can hardly find anything on this aspect.

15. Bias Caused by Preference Distortion, Including a Special Liking for Oneself, People Like Oneself, One's Knowledge Framework, as well as the tendency to be easily misled by people one likes, and the tendency not to learn correctly from people one dislikes.

Now let's revisit the "Hammer Syndrome." Why does the "Hammer Syndrome" persist? If you stop to think about it, this is bias caused by motivation. His professional reputation is entirely tied to his theoretical knowledge. He likes himself, he likes his own ideas, and he expresses these ideas to others, which is a tendency for consistency and commitment. I mean, four or five basic psychological tendencies combine to create this "Hammer Syndrome."

Once you realize that you cannot truly accept certain ideas—you can accept a small part, but a large part of the world is difficult for you to accept—you have learned a very useful lesson in life. There is a character in Shaw's novel "The Doctor's Dilemma" who says, "After all, every profession is a conspiracy against the layman." However, it is not very accurate; rather than a conspiracy, it is more fitting to say it is an unconscious psychological tendency The doctor in the book tells you what is good for him; he believes his own methods can cure cancer. He thinks the demon he is fighting against is the biggest and most important demon, but in fact, the demon he is contending with may be very insignificant compared to what you face yourself. Therefore, the advice you receive from paid consultants in this world is filled with terrible biases. It is truly sad for you!

There are two ways to solve this: you can hire your consultant but correct them, just like you would consider the influence of the wind when aiming your shot. Or you can learn the basic principles of your consultant's industry, and you don't have to learn too much; just learning a little will allow you to make him explain why he is right.

In my long life, I have never seen a management consultant's report that did not end with the words: "What is truly needed in the current situation is more management consulting." It always ends this way. I always like to flip directly to the last page. Of course, Berkshire Hathaway does not hire these consultants. However, I sometimes participate in the management of some non-profit organizations where some fools hire consultants.

16. Biases from the Non-Mathematical Nature of the Human Mind

Coca-Cola has elevated availability to a secular religion. If availability can change behavior, you will drink a lot of Coke—if Coke is always available. What I mean is that availability can indeed change behavior and cognition. In a sense, the various psychological tendencies mentioned earlier will reduce the availability of things. Because if you quickly pounce on something, the subsequent tendencies of consistency and commitment will lock you into that thing.

I think we should discuss John Gutfreund, the former CEO of Solomon Brothers Securities, who is a very interesting human example. For at least an entire generation, every orthodox business school would teach this example.

Gutfreund had an employee he trusted very much, but one time this employee was unexpectedly discovered (not confessing) to have lied to the government and committed accounting fraud, which is equivalent to forgery. This person immediately said: "I have never done this before. I will never do this again. This is a one-time thing."

Many psychological forces are at play. You know this guy's wife, and he is standing in front of you, which generates sympathy. He seeks your help, which triggers the reciprocity effect. Numerous psychological tendencies come into play, coupled with the fact that he is part of the team that helped you make a lot of money.

In any case, Gutfreund did not dismiss him; of course, that guy had done this before, and he would definitely do it again in the future. Now Gutfreund seems to want him to do it once more. That simple decision ruined Gutfreund, and making such a decision was very easy Social proof, biases caused by incentives, and other psychological tendencies lead to the spread of terrible behaviors... Your company will rot, and civilization will decay. I fired someone for taking his mistress on a business trip abroad; I know his wife and children, so I paid him severance. What I minded was not the adultery, but the misuse of public funds.

17. Bias caused by being overly influenced by additional vivid evidence

My wealth should have been $30 million more than it is today. I once bought 300 shares of a certain stock, and that guy called me back and said, "I have another 1,500 shares." I said, "Can you hold them for me for 15 minutes? I need to think." In my life, I have seen many real vivid examples, but this person (who was the CEO of that company) set a world record. But I misjudged the situation.

In fact, the situation was very safe at the time—he was about to die, and I refused to buy the additional 1,500 shares. As a result, it has now cost me $30 million. Therefore, it is easy to misjudge those vivid pieces of evidence. Gutfreund looked that guy in the eye and then forgave this colleague.

18. Cognitive confusion caused by knowledge and theoretical frameworks being unable to handle current information

We all know some people who fail exams; they memorize the questions and retake the test, but then fail again... it just doesn't work; the brain doesn't work that way. You have to incorporate facts into your theoretical framework, and you have to ask yourself "why." If you don't, you won't be able to cope with this world.

Now let's talk about Feuerstein, the former legal officer of Solomon Company. When Gutfreund made a big mistake, Feuerstein was clearer about it than he was. He told Gutfreund: "You must make a moral judgment and a prudent business judgment about this matter, and then report it upward."

He also said, "It may not be illegal, and there may be no legal obligation to do so, but you must remind the major clients whether this practice is prudent and appropriate." He told Gutfreund this at least two or three different times. In the end, he stopped saying it. Of course, the persuasion failed. When Gutfreund stepped down, Feuerstein stepped down with him. This basically ruined Feuerstein's life.

Feuerstein was one of the editors of the Harvard Law Review, but he made a fundamental psychological error. If you want to persuade someone, you must really tell them why. What did we learn in the first lesson? Are incentives really that important? Does vivid evidence really work? He should have told Gutfreund: "You might ruin your life, bring shame to your family, and lose a lot of money." He should have asked him: Is Moses worth this risk? Saying it that way would have worked. Therefore, Feuerstein, this smart and seasoned lawyer, failed at basic psychology. In fact, it's not that hard; just remember to tell people "why."

19. Limitations of feelings, memory, perception, and knowledge, leading to biases 20. Mental Changes Caused by Stress (Some Major, Some Minor, Some Temporary, Some Permanent)

My favorite example is the great Pavlov. He kept some dogs in cages, and after training, their behavior changed. Once, there was a flood in Leningrad, and the water kept rising while these dogs remained in their cages, experiencing immense stress. After the flood receded, Pavlov noticed that the personalities of these dogs, which had been trained, had completely reversed. As a great scientist, Pavlov spent the rest of his life making dogs mentally ill, and he learned many things that I find very interesting.

I have never seen a Freudian psychoanalyst who understands Pavlov's later work, nor have I seen any lawyer who can comprehend the connections between the indoctrination, deprogramming, and worship rituals that Pavlov discovered from these dogs. What I mean is that among high-level individuals, ignorance of basic psychology is quite significant.

21. Other Common Temporary or Permanent Mental Illnesses

22. The Development of "Say-Something Syndrome" and Organizational Chaos

Regarding this, my favorite example is bees. A bee flies out, finds nectar, and then flies back. It tells other bees the location of the nectar by dancing, and then they collectively set off to gather it. Some clever scientists, like Skinner, decided to conduct an experiment. He placed the nectar far above the hive in a vertical position. In a natural state, no nectar is positioned like that above.

Now, the poor bee does not have enough genetic programming to convey such information to other bees. You might think that this bee would fly back to the hive and quietly hide in a corner. But it didn't. It flew into the hive and danced "incoherently." I have spent my life dealing with people like this bee. This is a very important part of human organization, so it is crucial for human organizations not to let individuals suffering from "Say-Something Syndrome" participate in decision-making.

Public Account Red and Green$Berkshire Hathaway B(BRK.B.US)$Berkshire Hathaway(BRK.A.US)