Is more information necessarily better?

I have always liked this academic heirarchy.

Data - unconnected facts
Data that are organised and condensed is:
Information - knowing what, when, where, who - understanding relations
Information that is actionable is:
Knowledge - knowing how - understanding patterns
Knowledge leads to:
Wisdom - knowing why - understanding principles.

Always awkward trying work "it" out or to discuss things with people who are suffering paralysis due to data overload - usually not information overload by this definition. As you move up the heirarchy it becomes easier as things become clearer.

While we are all hoping the seller doesn't realise the true value of their property or are willing to discount it to "clear the decks" we are also competing with other buyers. As a renovator my aim is to find properties that are badly presented and usually badly maintained but have a good design (room size, flow, solar orientation etc) and simple construction. Many can't see past the poorly patched wall or crappy pain job while others are dazzled by the snazzy "dressing" of the property or smell of baking bread.

 

No, not necessarily


You need to be able to interpret the data? Not everyone actually will Or Can do this.

If you dont understand it, network with the right people/professionals to give you an edge

I think there is way too much useless information

All I need is the address of the property and a phone from here I will network with the people that can provide me with the information I need.
Of course you need to ask the right questions

Ok its not rocket science. But it does surprise me that there are many that dont get this.

never rely on one person for information, this is a mistake

 

We never had home computers when I started investing and I was following people who became financially free without such technology. I'm 50 now and financially free. I've just started using stats and systems to analyse suburbs for development projects, and for checking feasibility. I expect this new awareness of IT and stats etc to only accelerate my future results but hey..it's all been done before and without the aid of IT. It depends on the individual as ever.

 

An experienced developer goes in armed with as much knowledge as is available, familiar with DCP/LEP, stock of brown envelopes, financial modelling tools (or back of an envelope feasibility), better access to finance, knowledge of historic sales/trends/end market value, SWOT analysis, etc.

Other than experience the rest is available.

 

It is extraordinary how much data is available today. In my uni days (c.1973) I had a holiday job with a management consultancy. One project was on world trade in copper: I, as a lonely student, was packed off to Westminster library to compile the daily copper wire bar prices from the previous year's copies of the Financial Times .... Which I did, keeping my coat on (Christmas holiday: winter UK) - when I asked the librarian for the windows to be shut, my request was declined on the grounds that if the place got warm the street people would come in. In those days if you wanted information on a UK company, Companies House would provide a microfiche for payment, delivered in a week or two. Now anyone in the world can instantly look at any UK company's filings for free (Get information about a company). Old newspapers, planning records .... Changed times.

 

I think your fifth point should be System - mapping a process that works and repeating it. That's what successful companies like apple and Facebook do.

 

As I said it is an old (1990's?) academic description in systems design and the four levels suited the courses that I was teaching. Others have expanded it but I have forgotten several of the variations. I agree that systems could be added as once you have knowledge then you have the ability to discern which systems may be viable in a given situation. The problem with systems is of course applying the appropriate system to the problem at hand. At times Apple and Facebook get it wrong because they try to apply a single solution to all problems.

I have always loved the quote that "for every complex problem there is a simple solution that is inevitably wrong".

 

As usual Dilbert comes to the rescue!
All Data Is Wrong

 

I always work on the principle that any every spreadsheet has at least two mistakes!

 

I read about an academic study once (it may have been an anecdote in a Burton Malkiel book, not sure) that went like this...

The study was for professional punters choosing bets on a horse race. There were three different groups:

• Group 1 had no information about the horses/race etc (control)
• Group 2 were allowed to choose four bits of information about the race that they were most interested in knowing (out of a preset list of ~20 bits of information)
• Group 3 had access to all 20 bits of information.

Group 2 performed best since group 3 produced overconfidence in personal judgement which clouded their decision making/bet amounts.

More information =/= better quality judgement. But some information > none.