I definitely agree that it’s largely (or more) about human nature. It sort of has to be, because there’s no rational reason why we humans would listen to people who are consistently wrong or, at best, unverifiable. Wanting answers seems important at a basic level. I think of the attack on skater Nancy Kerrigan. When she was crying (all caught on camera, how nice), she kept wailing “why?” This was a human being in an unguarded, primal moment, and what she wanted was to know why.

The details of how banks are being stress-tested are unclear, at least to me, and I share both your hope and your skepticism. I did/do not mean to express an opinion of the methods being used to stress-test banks. Having conducted stress-tests that toughened many companies’ competitive strategies, what I meant to applaud is the desire to stress-test banks.

You touch on a very broand and interesting topic with Pundits. Without over simplifying, much of this can be grouped into human nature. Their is a comfort in believing that there is always an expert that knows all of the answers. Whether they are right or wrong does not seem to deter us from wanting to believe. Suzi Orman is a good example of a Pundit that according to the press has no real credentials and yet her opinion is saught on so many news shows.

As far as stress testing goes, call me a skeptic. Banks have supposidly been doing stress testing for a while and we see what that has achieved. They rally around Basel II and all of the measures and testing associated were ill utilized because they were in the end self regulated. I agree that the fact that the government is beginning to require it is a step forward but some real changes in how this is done are needed before they stress testing yeilds any value.