No, because the whole premise here is that investor behavior prevents this kind of bias. You can't take the whole argument and then cast massive, glaring contradictions to the core premise as merely bias.

I think we have a communication hitch here:

> the whole premise here is that investor behavior prevents [survivorship] bias

WTF? How the heck is some "investor behavior" supposed to prevent you (or I, or anybody) from succumbing to a common human mistake made when analyzing data and discussing it here in the comments-section?

> You can't take the whole argument and then cast massive, glaring contradictions to the core premise as merely bias.

Back up: You're using a straw-man argument, a false version created out of black-and-white absolutes, rather than trends and high probabilities.

___________

Consider this fictional conversation:

A: "Playing the lottery is a sucker's game, you're almost guaranteed to go bankrupt."

B: "But look! These people bought a lot of tickets and won! They're multi-millionaires now!"

A: "That's survivorship bias. You're not considering the huge numbers of not-so-notable people who lost money instead."

B: "No it's a massive glaring contradiction to your core premise! You can't brush it off as bias!"