It sounds like you believe people can behave more in line with the Rational Human used to model older economic theories. I'm not so sure confirmation, affinity, or proximity biases can be held down. What we need is a system that is either immune to these biases, or is designed to thwart them.
My opinion: individual's actions and beliefs do not put a dent in the tsunami of bias that swamps our brains. We need systemic thinking (e.g. science has a decent structure with double blind studies).
I think a precondition of the entire discussion is that we’re talking about what’s more effective in resolving disagreement - which would be measured by whether a disagreement process approaches the conclusion that would be reached between two rational agents sharing their information.
Note that I am not saying I believe humans do act that way, rather that is the yardstick of outcome to decide if one disagreement resolution technique is better than another.
Maybe the issue is different views of what the disagreement is over?
I tend to view the disagreement as being over policy not over rationalism/facts. If at the end of the discussion both people agree on the policy I see that as successful even if they still disagree on the evidence that supports that policy.
If your goal is just to manipulate someone else into doing what you want, regardless of what the facts say nor what their beliefs say about the facts or about your beliefs, then sure, that is pure manipulation and not related to strategies for effective disagreement resolution.
It’s also not relevant or useful to bring up the fact that humans are not rational Bayesian actors, again because we’re talking about how best to achieve unified shared understanding of the true facts and to ensure we only derive beliefs from that (anything else can only be manipulation, not decision resolution, by definition). We may fall short of the best solution due to our flaws and limitations, but that doesn’t render the best solution any less the best, not make some other seemingly more attainable solution better or more worthwhile.
Important for what? Your home is not and should no be an investment. Investments come with risks. Don't risk losing your means of shelter because you wanted to make money. Compounding gains with loans for real estate investment as a business does make leverage seem important. That is, until a scenario where real estate prices fall, you cannot acquire more property because you leverage based on property price, loans pay your expenses, and you lose your investments. Pay with cash and renters pay your expenses.
If time and date are unpredictable, what's the use? Suppose you switch to conservative investments now -- say, bonds. You're going to be hit less hard by the recession, but you also will have missed out on gains.
So, unless you believe you can time the market, it doesn't appear like there is much to do except to make sure you have a rainy day fund.
Your sentiments contribute to the bubble. It is possible to live without forking your money over to the stock market. It is harder to grow great wealth, but that is phony wealth at the moment or soon enough. If everyone invested in themselves, demanded a stable gold or gold backed currency, and eschewed the bubble gains in the markets, the gains would not be there and the manipulation would not be possible. That would reflect the reality of our current situation. Times will get tougher the longer we wait to see reality.
Worth noting that the FB acquisition of WhatsApp was a massive unicorn success for the WA team. While the point doesn't hold, the "breaking" of it is the best case outcome for the people who build the product.
