But how do you arbitrage situations where the yields are concentrated in belief discrepancies between two different groups? You just pick the group with the highest yield potential and give up on the other one? Risky. What if there is an overarching narrative change?

This is especially problematic when the group which provides the highest yield potential is further from ground truth because ground truth exerts a kind of gravity on all narratives.

The scapegoating threat is too high for my taste. I'm not well versed in scapegoat selection. Being too strongly tied to a narrative puts you in the crosshairs of the big guys if things don't pan out.

The problem with full narrative buy-in is that it's impossible to spin out of it later because you didn't plan ahead. Some positions are easy to spin out of while others are essentially impossible. Full narrative buy-in doesn't play well with position selection IMO.

Ah, the Gill Bates method.

I choose to believe that I never do this.