Furthermore, the environment where you salsa dance is not as prone to social anxiety since everybody is there to dance. There is less anxiety at being rejected. And, as you start dancing or just hearing the beat, it releases some internal chemicals in your brain because you do feel more loose even without drugs.

Anyhow, where I have learned to dance, there were parties where people did drink. But you are probably right that people drank less in that environment.

Prove what? That that interpretation is what "they" meant or that it is biologically accurate?

The parent says in his final paragraph that he does not know whether it is biologically accurate or not.

I am being drained out of karma in this thread because of all the downvotes by defending the poster... :)

But the underlying question about whether not-joining and buying from competitors is also interesting. We all know consumer boycotts work. What he is asking is whether that can be transported into the investment world.

As others replied, there are many more investors than customers, and besides it is a largely anonymous operation, so it is much more difficult to affect a company by making it easier for their competitors to raise capital. I still think it is interesting whether things like Pope calls for people not to invest in arms and oil has had any impact.

That is a good point. The stock market is probably more competitive than whatever market the company is in, so, for every one moral investor, there are infinite more that are amoral.

Again, that is a good point, and I already had it in mind when I posted my reply. The person I was replying to did not articulate it correctly.

Still, I do not think the original question should be dismissed outright. The fact is that not even the stock market is perfectly competitive. There are not infinite players in either side. For instance, if you look at Islamic countries, you can find countries where close to 100% are religious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country. I can imagine how a religious figure could possibly bankrupt a company by talking to banks alone and draining the company out of capital (without ever talking to customers). My point is that even in highly competitive markets maybe activists can have an influence. I find it very unlikely. I still think dismissing that question outright is anti-scientific.

I know. But that discussion is largely irrelevant. Shareholders do care about the price of the stocks and dividends.

That is like saying that in my coffee shop I do not care about whether my customers enjoy their coffee. I already sold them the coffee afterall.

The point is that if you don't care about your shareholders and shootcrap your company, your competitors will find it much easier to raise capital. The original question is whether there are enough "activists" that can change the route of a company by selling their stocks or buying from expensive stock options from their companies.

"What, not owning stock of company XYZ makes me a shareholder activist?"

I don't think that is the point at all. If a lot of people buy stocks from one firm and refrain from buying from their competitors, they change the relative costs of raising capital and do benefit one firm instead of the other. It is like a lot of customers buying from one firm and not from others.

"If my college refuses to buy from a firm it hurts that firm a little, but if it refuses to buy stock in a firm it does that firm zero harm."

If a lot of people refrain from buying stocks from a given firm, don't they have to raise dividends or capital gains in order to attract capital? Those dividends or capital gains must be financed by cutting costs, raising prices or whatever. Either way, it does harm a firm when capital is not as cheap.

It is pretty exciting. :)

I only recently learned about the Brain Initiative (USA) and the Human Brain Project (European Union). As I understand it, both were started in 2013. First the Brain Initiative, and then the European Union responded with the Human Brain Project. Anyone knows what kind of developments have accrued from them so far?

Hi Christian, do you have a link to that facebook study and the ensuing controversy? I must have missed that study...

Sorry for being so impatient. :)

ps: I have received an email, and will submit the information during the weekend!