The Hidden Psychology of Investment Decisions

Rafael Kisslinger da Silva on the psychodynamics behind Warren Buffett's secret to value investing

Created in Midjourney

A missing framework for the most critical investment decision of all

In an era when corporate scandals dominate headlines and CEO integrity faces unprecedented scrutiny, investors are grappling with a fundamental question that has plagued the financial world for nearly a century: How do you accurately assess the character of the people running the companies you’re betting on?

The collapse of FTX, the ongoing questions surrounding tech leadership accountability, and the rise of ESG investing have thrust management assessment into the spotlight. Yet despite these high-stakes consequences, most investors still rely on gut feelings and informal hunches when evaluating whether a CEO can be trusted with their capital.

This glaring gap in investment methodology has caught the attention of researchers who believe the answer might lie in an unexpected place: psychology. A groundbreaking study by Rafael Kisslinger da Silva suggests that the tools psychoanalysts use to understand human behavior could revolutionize how investors evaluate corporate leadership—and that legendary investors like Warren Buffett may already be using these techniques intuitively.

The 90-Year-Old Problem

The challenge isn’t new. Back in 1934, Benjamin Graham and David Dodd—the fathers of value investing—identified three critical factors for analyzing any investment: company valuation, business model strength, and management quality. They developed sophisticated frameworks for the first two but essentially threw up their hands on the third.

“Qualitative factors such as the character of the management are exceedingly important, but they are also exceedingly difficult to deal with intelligently,” Graham and Dodd wrote. Their solution was radical for its pragmatism: focus on quantitative factors and largely ignore management character, since financial results would “epitomize” the qualitative elements anyway.

This approach worked reasonably well in an economy dominated by tangible assets—factories, inventory, equipment—that appeared clearly on balance sheets. But today’s knowledge-based economy tells a different story. When human capital drives most of a company’s value, ignoring the people in charge is no longer viable.

“Unfortunately for value investors today, human capital is ever more important for a company’s valuation than the tangible, physical assets that can be objectively quantified,” da Silva notes in his research. “Ignoring qualitative factors such as the character of management is no longer a viable option.”

Created in Midjourney

What Warren Buffett Actually Does

The world’s most successful investor has long emphasized the importance of management integrity, famously stating:

“In looking for people, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you.”

But when pressed to explain exactly how he evaluates integrity, even Buffett struggles. In a 1998 Berkshire Hathaway meeting, he admitted: “I can’t tell you exactly what filter we put them through mentally, but I can tell you that if you’ve been around a while, you can have a pretty high batting average in coming to those conclusions.”

Nine years later, still grappling with the same question, Buffett said:

“People give themselves away fairly often. When somebody comes to me with a business, just the very things they talk about, what they regard as important and not important, there are a lot of clues. But I don’t know how to articulate it.”

This inability to codify his process frustrated da Silva, who suspected Buffett was unconsciously employing sophisticated psychological techniques. To test this theory, he interviewed ten successful European investors managing portfolios from tens of millions to 2.4 billion euros, all of whom had consistently outperformed market averages.

The Hidden Psychology of Investment Decisions

The research revealed that successful investors are indeed using psychological methods, though they don’t realize it. They’re employing what psychologists call “associative thinking”—the mind’s ability to make connections between ideas and experiences based on patterns, even when those connections aren’t immediately logical.

This process, popularized by Malcolm Gladwell as “thin-slicing,” allows experts to make accurate judgments based on minimal information. Art experts can spot forgeries in seconds; marriage researchers can predict divorce with 95% accuracy after watching couples for just one hour. The key is pattern recognition developed through experience.

“All investors confirmed that gut-feelings play an important role in their investment process,” da Silva found. “When I dug deeper into what is meant by gut-feelings, all investors agreed that gut-feelings are somehow related to unconscious pattern-recognition.”

One investor told da Silva he takes potential business partners to lunch and observes how they treat the waitstaff—a classic example of using minimal behavioral cues to infer broader character traits. Another looks for family-controlled companies that shared IPO proceeds with employees, reasoning that such generosity signals fairness and stakeholder consideration.

The Science Behind the Intuition

What makes this research compelling is how it aligns with established psychological findings. The investors’ instincts about management character mirror discoveries in personality psychology:

The Honesty-Humility Factor: Psychologists Michael Ashton and Kibeom Lee discovered that honesty and humility form a unified personality dimension. Remarkably, da Silva’s investors had independently noticed this connection, using observations of humility as indicators of integrity.

The Dark Triad: Research into Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy has shown these traits cluster together and predict manipulative behavior. Several investors described watching for narcissistic tendencies in management, even without knowing the formal psychological framework.

Thin-Slicing Accuracy: Studies show that snap judgments based on minimal information can be surprisingly accurate—sometimes more so than extensive analysis. This validates investors’ reliance on brief management interactions to form lasting impressions.

Created in Midjourney

Beyond Gut Feelings: The Logic of Inference

The investors weren’t just using pattern recognition; they were employing a specific form of reasoning called “abductive logic.” This approach, developed by philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, involves observing surprising facts and inferring the most likely explanation.

For example: A CEO openly discusses personal mistakes and company shortcomings in annual reports. If the CEO were trustworthy, such candor would be expected. Therefore, the CEO is likely trustworthy.

This same logic underlies both detective work and psychoanalysis—and apparently, successful investing. “In all four investment examples shared by Rob Vinall in his annual letter, he used abductive logic,” da Silva noted. “This was evident every single time investors described looking at factors ‘below the surface and beyond the obvious.’”

The Reflection Factor

Perhaps most importantly, successful investors share a commitment to reflection. They spend significant time thinking about their observations, discussing them with others, and examining their own potential biases. This mirrors psychoanalytic practices designed to bring unconscious insights into conscious awareness.

“All socioanalytic methods have one thing in common: they are aimed at creating the conditions for reflection,” explains James Krantz, a systems psychodynamics expert. “Shared reflective practice is the pathway to understanding the unconscious background of organizations.”

The parallel to investment success is striking. As da Silva discovered, “All investors confirmed that an important part of their work involves spending a lot of time thinking and reflecting.”

The Cognitive Bias Trap

But associative thinking comes with risks. Because much pattern recognition happens unconsciously, it’s vulnerable to cognitive biases. The “halo effect” might lead investors to overlook red flags in managers they find personally likable. “Transference” could cause them to trust someone who reminds them of a respected mentor.

One investor admitted to da Silva that despite having developed a systematic “red flag” checklist, he still invested with a manager who exhibited multiple warning signs simply because he was fond of the person—a costly mistake that illustrated how emotional bias can override analytical frameworks.

Practical Applications

So how might investors practically apply these psychological insights? Da Silva suggests several approaches:

Systematic Pattern Documentation: Rather than relying solely on intuitive pattern recognition, investors could maintain explicit lists of behavioral indicators they’ve observed over time, both positive and negative.

Bias Awareness Training: Understanding specific cognitive biases—halo effects, confirmation bias, transference—can help investors recognize when their judgment might be compromised.

Structured Reflection Practices: Regular reflection sessions, either alone or with trusted advisors, can help bring unconscious observations into conscious analysis where they can be properly evaluated.

Behavioral Cue Checklists: Specific things to observe during management meetings—communication style, response to challenges, treatment of others, discussion of failures—could provide more systematic character assessment.

Created in Midjourney

Beyond Financial Returns

The implications of da Silva’s work extend beyond portfolio performance. If more investors allocated capital based on management integrity rather than just financial metrics, it could incentivize better corporate behavior. As da Silva notes: “If more investors would allocate their capital to managers with high integrity, it could help to make the world a little better.”

This aligns with growing demands for stakeholder capitalism and ESG investing. Investors increasingly want to support companies that create value for society, not just shareholders. But without systematic ways to assess management character, these goals remain difficult to achieve.

A Framework for the Future

Da Silva’s research suggests a potential synthesis: combining the quantitative rigor that investors already use with psychological insights that can systematize character assessment. This wouldn’t replace traditional financial analysis but would complement it with tools specifically designed for evaluating the human elements of business.

The approach recognizes that assessing people is fundamentally different from analyzing balance sheets. It requires what philosophers call “interpretive” rather than “positivist” methods—approaches that acknowledge subjectivity while still providing systematic frameworks for evaluation.

Warren Buffett has spent decades perfecting his ability to read people, developing what he calls his “inner scorecard” for character assessment. But if psychological research can help systematize even a portion of this process, it could democratize access to better management evaluation—giving more investors the tools to avoid the next FTX while supporting truly trustworthy business leaders.

As corporate leadership faces increasing scrutiny and investor responsibility grows, the stakes for getting character assessment right have never been higher. The answer may not lie in traditional financial metrics but in understanding the psychology of the people who drive business success or failure.

The question isn’t whether investors should evaluate management character—it’s whether they’ll develop systematic ways to do it well. Psychology might finally provide the missing framework that Graham and Dodd couldn’t offer 90 years ago.

The research discussed is based on Rafael Kisslinger da Silva’s thesis “The Socioanalytic Edge: Are Systems Psychodynamics Methods & Concepts the Missing Framework in Value Investing?” completed in 2021.

References

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2013). The H factor of personality: Why some people are manipulative, self-entitled, materialistic, and exploitive—and why it matters for everyone. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Berkshire Hathaway. (1998). Morning session - 1998 meeting. CNBC. Retrieved from https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/1998/05/04/morning-session---1998-berkshire-hathaway-annual-meeting.html

Berkshire Hathaway. (2007). Afternoon session - 2007 meeting. CNBC. Retrieved from https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/2007/05/05/afternoon-session---2007-berkshire-hathaway-annual-meeting.html

da Silva, R. K. (2021). The socioanalytic edge: Are systems psychodynamics methods & concepts the missing framework in value investing? [Master’s thesis]. European Master’s in Coaching and Consultation.

Gladwell, M. (2006). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Little, Brown and Company.

Graham, B., & Dodd, D. (1934). Security analysis: Principles and technique. McGraw-Hill.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Krantz, J. (2013). Work culture analysis and reflective space. In S. Long (Ed.), Socioanalytic methods: Discovering the hidden in organisations and social systems (pp. 15-32). Karnac Books.

Long, S. (2013) Socioanalytic Methods: Discovering the hidden in organisations and social systems. https://www.amazon.com/Socioanalytic-Methods-Discovering-Organisations-Systems/dp/0367101556.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563.

Peirce, C. S. (1931-1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1-6). Harvard University Press.