I have the greatest book EVER

[LMNO]

Not really, because the example he presented was an example of Mediocristan, and his thesis takes place in Extremistan.

[Triple Zero]

"One was similar to the following:"

did you read, or even scan the original article he referenced?

there is not one example that is even remotely similar to the one he gives.

And isn't your anecdotal evidence of "a statistician you know" just as suspect?

exactly, you are making my point here this guy is writing a scientifically supported book here and HAS to prove his point. he hasn't just failed to prove his point, his "proof" turned out to be fake. that i am making a similar statement, whether i'm able to prove this is besides the point.

what i would really like is that you guys, coming from different areas of expertise, take a critical look at his statements; in particular the ones not about mathematics and statistics, but about history etc.

indulge me

[Cain]

I would, but essay, dissertation etc means I refuse to take part in any more research than strictly necessary to get a High Merit.

[LMNO]

From what I could tell, he usually calls himself a philosopher, not a scientist.



I think where we diverge is that I'm reading the book as a general assesment of the way our Monkey Minds seem to work when we're not really paying attention (or just pretending to pay attention) to things, and you seem to be reading it as a scientific dissertation.

His broad claims seem to hold up.  We are horribly bad at predicting things, but amazingly good at finding "reasons" after the fact.

He's still not offering any solutions yet, though (I'm on page 170 (hardcover)).

[Cain]

Wait 120 pages.

Not that I'm saying there will be a revelation or anything (the final chapter is only 3 pages long), but when you consider the nature of the problem is he describing, could there ever be an acceptable solution?

[LMNO]

I'm guessing it's something like, "stay flexible"?


I was thinking about this the other day.  From my current vantage point (page 170), he seems to be advocating a very conservative* approach to life.  "You literally don't know what's going to happen, so WATCH OUT!"  You can't use the past to predict the future, and the unknown event that will change everything is COMPLETELY UNKNOWN, and there's nothing you can do about it!












*in its non-political usage.

[Cain]

About exposures to negative black swans, yes.

Not so much positive ones.

[LMNO]

But even then, we won't know what kind of Black Swan is headed for us, do we?

I mean, if you do your best to minimize your exposure to risk in general, doesn't that apply to positive risk as well as negative risk?

[Triple Zero]

I think where we diverge is that I'm reading the book as a general assesment of the way our Monkey Minds seem to work when we're not really paying attention (or just pretending to pay attention) to things, and you seem to be reading it as a scientific dissertation.

true, and i agree that's probably the wrong way to look at the book.

but still, why even bother putting up the references list (looooong list in the back of the back) if you're not supposed to check them?

but even then. be it scientific, philosophical or general assessment. is it so strange to be dissapointed that the very first example i decide to look up his proof for, turns out to be totally fake?
i hope it's a coincidence, i'm willing to be generous and assume he was thinking of a different paper, or perhaps he discussed this particular example with Kahneman and assumed it was in that paper (seeing as he called him "Danny", they might have talked or met IRL).

(but if i'm not so generous, i call it purposefully misrepresenting a paper in order to make yet another stab at statisticians (i bet he got dumped by one, or something :-P))

either way, i guess i'm gonna be checking some more of those references as i progress in the book.

His broad claims seem to hold up.  We are horribly bad at predicting things, but amazingly good at finding "reasons" after the fact.

He's still not offering any solutions yet, though (I'm on page 170 (hardcover)).

yeah i agree with the broad claims (as i said before), they seem to hold up, which is all the more reason why he really shouldn't need to make up evidence for his claims, as there is enough actual true evidence out there as well.

i'm at page 53, but i'm a slow reader (especially in english, even though i must have read more english than any other language in my life, even dutch) and it is, how do you say, "advanced english", big words, complicated sentences etc, impeding my progress even more

about the "solution", so far as i've read he said he is in fact not advocating a conservative approach, he said something about people asking "so should i avoid any and all risks?", explaining, no, he likes to use a "very agressive" form of risk-taking, that, indeed he promises to explain later on in the book.
something about not "not crossing the road at all", but preventing yourself from "crossing the road blindfolded".

[Cain]

Depends if the risk is scalable or not, doesn't it?  He uses market metaphors frequently, and there is a difference between spreading your investments and making them small, or investing large but in concentrated amounts.  The former maximises your chances of a positive Black Swan, precisely because the risk is minimized, whereas the larger invites a devestating black swan.

[Triple Zero]

But even then, we won't know what kind of Black Swan is headed for us, do we?

I mean, if you do your best to minimize your exposure to risk in general, doesn't that apply to positive risk as well as negative risk?

well the point is, you can't really minimize your exposure to risks of black swans.

remember that turkey example, getting killed on day 1001. the turkey had all the reason to believe it was living in Mediocristan, while on day 1001 a black swan hit, and apparently he had been living in Extremistan all along.

the point is, you can't know. you can't avoid all risks, because you can only avoid risks based on historical evidence, and some risks, black swans, cannot be predicted from history, at all.

so, maybe he is saying, take the risks and go with them, AAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

[LMNO]

Oh yeah, I forgot that bit.


I'm reading Black Swan like I read RAW:  His large concepts are useful, his examples, not so much (I can hardly bear to re-read his stuff on quantum mechanics, for example, and his Futurism just doesn't stand up anymore).

[Cramulus]

Hah, zilch you quoted the exact line I was going to. (paraphrasing) I'm not advocating that people don't cross the street. I'm just saying don't cross the street blindfolded." I think that sums it up, right?

No you can't know what black swans you might encounter, but when you're aware that they might be coming, you can keep yourself guarded.

Example - I was trying to persuade a friend of mine to come to a LARP one weekend. He said he couldn't because his wife (who is in the process of divorcing him) was going to be in the country. Also, she was intent on fucking up his life.

"Is she going to interact with you in some way this weekend?"

"Probably not," he said, "but she's connected into a lot of the same systems as I am. I need to be at an at-ready posture just in case."

To me, that sounds like someone who's ready for Black Swans.

[Richter]

It also may be a case of letting the POSSIBILITY of a Black Swan hinder life.  Just sayin'.

[That One Guy]

I thought a big part of the book wasn't just the message (expounded on by many in the thread) but the messenger. It's one thing for someone like RAW or any of us to talk about this stuff and try to get other people to understand and work with this kind of Black Swan mindframe. As we've probably all experienced at one time or another, the "straights" tend to humor us (at best) or just ignore us.

With this book - and a lot of the approach - it's as much the messenger (a former trader on Wall Street IIRC) that's important. As someone that's been in that economic prediction racket, his voice regarding this stuff (even if his message isn't perfect in every detail) has a LOT more weight in the "establishment" than if it was anyone like RAW or any of us trying to convince anyone in the racket of making the kinds of predictions the book says are pretty much a waste. Hell, the man was getting asked to speak at conferences about this stuff before he put it all down in the book.

Admittedly, we're not really the target audience of this book because we've already predisposed ourselves to acknowlege and anticipate the Black Swans, and yes, he could have done a bit more fact checking (didn't he refer to people that were helping him with that in a few places as well in the book? can't remember exactly where, but I thought he did). However, if the messenger helps people get the general message (which we're also trying to get across to people, althogh we tend to aim for a different or at least broader audience than it seems this book is shooting for) then that should count for something.

I'm not defending any incorrect facts or misstatements, but at least he put all those footnotes and sources in - hopefully people will check them for themselves. The more information people can get about this thing is good, yes?