Still there is a damned if you do and damned if you don't aspect.
The causality can go either way: maybe you were really convinced about something so you went all in, you invested in it, you founded a company on that bet etc. -> i.e. we can trust your judgment. Or maybe you're just doubling down on something hopeless, but now that you've invested in it, you're incentivized to pontificate about it.
Perhaps the best way to break the dilemma is to check if the person has recently made skin-in-the-game decisions/investments supporting his position or whether it's a pre-existing position that he may no longer believe in, but must keep pretending due to the pre-existing incentives that are for some reason hard to get rid of.
For example assume someone says: "College is overrated and bloated and outdated, the trades are actually more important" It's a valid critique to say "Oh yea? Then why didn't you send your own kids to trade school?". Equally valid may be to say "Of course you'd say that, you've sent all your kids to trade school, now you're looking to justify your bad decision". A good retort can be "Nah, actually my kid got a scholarship to college a month ago, but I recommended him to reject it because I think trade school will be better in the long run!". Recent signals are important and it's important to see that they aren't locked into a position but are actively choosing to stay in it.
Comments
Definitely a disclosure is important.
Still there is a damned if you do and damned if you don't aspect.
The causality can go either way: maybe you were really convinced about something so you went all in, you invested in it, you founded a company on that bet etc. -> i.e. we can trust your judgment. Or maybe you're just doubling down on something hopeless, but now that you've invested in it, you're incentivized to pontificate about it.
Perhaps the best way to break the dilemma is to check if the person has recently made skin-in-the-game decisions/investments supporting his position or whether it's a pre-existing position that he may no longer believe in, but must keep pretending due to the pre-existing incentives that are for some reason hard to get rid of.
For example assume someone says: "College is overrated and bloated and outdated, the trades are actually more important" It's a valid critique to say "Oh yea? Then why didn't you send your own kids to trade school?". Equally valid may be to say "Of course you'd say that, you've sent all your kids to trade school, now you're looking to justify your bad decision". A good retort can be "Nah, actually my kid got a scholarship to college a month ago, but I recommended him to reject it because I think trade school will be better in the long run!". Recent signals are important and it's important to see that they aren't locked into a position but are actively choosing to stay in it.