if it’s an easy to find stupidity, then it’s a stupidity that you already know to be a stupidity. It teaches you comparatively little about good or bad judgment
Eh, I don’t know about that. Many similar stupidities look radically different in different contexts. It’s hard to overstate the effect of formulations, frameworks, and angles of view on the perception of basically the same things. I think what Charlie Munger was doing was looking for patterns which he could then discern in unexpected places.
Easy-to-find vs hard -to-find is mostly a difference in context. Put Waldo into a picture of a night sky and, well...
Hmmm. You are right that an easy-to-find stupidity in one case may be hard to find in another. But finding it in the easy case does not always make it all that much easier to find in the hard case—finding Waldo in a picture of the night sky does not make a Where’s Waldo book any easier.
...of course, knowing what Waldo looks like does make it easier to know when you have found him.
Eh, I don’t know about that. Many similar stupidities look radically different in different contexts. It’s hard to overstate the effect of formulations, frameworks, and angles of view on the perception of basically the same things. I think what Charlie Munger was doing was looking for patterns which he could then discern in unexpected places.
Easy-to-find vs hard -to-find is mostly a difference in context. Put Waldo into a picture of a night sky and, well...
Hmmm. You are right that an easy-to-find stupidity in one case may be hard to find in another. But finding it in the easy case does not always make it all that much easier to find in the hard case—finding Waldo in a picture of the night sky does not make a Where’s Waldo book any easier.
...of course, knowing what Waldo looks like does make it easier to know when you have found him.