Black Swan 101

[Cain]

Ratatosk, Taleb calls the difference between the map and the territory the Platonic gap, and outright states "this is where Black Swans happen".  Its the difference between nice, conceptual, clearly dinlineated ideas about reality and messy reality itself.

So yes, pretty much.  He just has a nicer term for it.

Ah, very good... as the gap between the Platonic forms and the reality... nice!

Carl von Clausewitz called it 'friction' when it occured during war.  And it leads directly into the Aneristic Delusion, of course.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

What about things like violence in video games and television?  Or is that too broad?

Far too broad.  They're not even supposedly unexpected events.

Instead maybe:
The Earthquake in China appears to have lead to a rapid explosion of Information as individuals with cell phone etc outpaced the government in passing Information about the incident. This could be a major Black Swan for the government, since once Information is flowing freely, it may be nearly impossible to stop. Further, such an event might highlight information that the government would normally have redacted (like why many of the collapsed buildings were schools...)

[Dr. Pataphoros, SpD]

Well it would certainly indicate a higher likelihood that humans might be directly responsible for sombunal Black Swans.

Since identifying a Black Swan requires a human observer then I would say that we're responsible for all of them, not just some.  An event that is unexpected implies someone is expecting something else.

Well, this is where I think most Black Swans come from anyway... people get confused between the map: "We know how someone will react" "we can analyze the data and determine future events" and the territory: "What actually happens". It's the bits of the territory that aren't on the map which give rise to Black Swans, I think maybe.

To take your metaphor and run with it: a map is a graphical depiction of the Earth's surface as viewed from above.  It's an approximation based on giving us information we need (elevation, terrain features, distance between points, etc..) and eschewing the details we don't need (like the correct colors and textures of the terrain, precise down-to-the-inch accuracy, locations of transient objects, etc...).  The map cannot tell us what type of events will occur along our trip, but we don't need it to--that's not its purpose, nor would anyone expect to use it to such an end.  

In the same way, it is irrelevant (and unhelpful) to the planning of our future to consider the unforseeable.  If we worry about whether or not our projections are likely to become true they'll have less chance to eventually be true, "on time" or otherwise.  I guess what I'm saying is the map is more useful to our purposes than the territory.  You can navigate territory without a map, but it's hard.  You have no way to guage your progress if you don't have a reference to the big picture.

I disagree... a Human, in the turkey's position seems unlikely to figure out that he's lunch... unless he can speak to his captors and they tell him. If we take a baby, keep it for its entire life in a 30 x 30 barn, feed it well and care for it... I think it highly unlikely that it will say to itself "I think I'ma gonna be dinner!!! OSHI!" I think it far more likely that it will be very surprised when someone comes in with an axe.

You've got me there, but I still find the analogy irrelevant.  Just because the subject of the execution doesn't know its coming doesn't mean outside observers can't conclude what will happen--it's all a matter of perspective and available information.  Babies and Animals are not truly capable of higher reasoning, so it's silly to use them.  They can hardly follow day to day events beyond the assurance of their own survival and will of course be duped by the evil baby-and-turkey-eating farmer.

There are, however, a million ways for a normal person to figure out what is going on beyond the walls of the barn, and any intelligent being will be inquisitive.  Unless he's being held under duress he'll find answers, and if he is being held under duress he'll already have one of them.

EDIT: Mai spellign iz nao gudr

[hooplala]

What about things like violence in video games and television?  Or is that too broad?

Far too broad.  They're not even supposedly unexpected events.

Instead maybe:
The Earthquake in China appears to have lead to a rapid explosion of Information as individuals with cell phone etc outpaced the government in passing Information about the incident. This could be a major Black Swan for the government, since once Information is flowing freely, it may be nearly impossible to stop. Further, such an event might highlight information that the government would normally have redacted (like why many of the collapsed buildings were schools...)

This is fascinating.

Cain, is this theory taken seriously by many scientists?

[hooplala]

Just because the subject of the execution doesn't know its coming doesn't mean outside observers can't conclude what will happen--it's all a matter of perspective and available information.  Babies and Animals are not truly capable of higher reasoning, so it's silly to use them.  They can hardly follow day to day events beyond the assurance of their own survival and will of course be duped by the evil baby-and-turkey-eating farmer.
There are, however, a million ways for a normal person to figure out what is going on beyond the walls of the barn, and any intelligent being will be inquisitive.  Unless he's being held under duress he'll find answers, and if he is being held under duress he'll already have one of them.

You seem to be forgetting about self-imposed blinders.

[Dr. Pataphoros, SpD]

Just because the subject of the execution doesn't know its coming doesn't mean outside observers can't conclude what will happen--it's all a matter of perspective and available information.  Babies and Animals are not truly capable of higher reasoning, so it's silly to use them.  They can hardly follow day to day events beyond the assurance of their own survival and will of course be duped by the evil baby-and-turkey-eating farmer.
There are, however, a million ways for a normal person to figure out what is going on beyond the walls of the barn, and any intelligent being will be inquisitive.  Unless he's being held under duress he'll find answers, and if he is being held under duress he'll already have one of them.

You seem to be forgetting about self-imposed blinders.

The process of minimizing future uncertainty is synonymous with removing those blinders.  Anyone who keeps them on is only preparing themselves for failure.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well it would certainly indicate a higher likelihood that humans might be directly responsible for sombunal Black Swans.

Since identifying a Black Swan requires a human observer then I would say that we're responsible for all of them, not just some.  An event that is unexpected implies someone is expecting something else.

Eh? I thought you were arguing that Free Will was necessary for Black Swans... not that human perception was necessary to categorize Black Swans... which are you arguing here?

Well, this is where I think most Black Swans come from anyway... people get confused between the map: "We know how someone will react" "we can analyze the data and determine future events" and the territory: "What actually happens". It's the bits of the territory that aren't on the map which give rise to Black Swans, I think maybe.

To take your metaphor and run with it: a map is a graphical depiction of the Earth's surface as viewed from above.  It's an approximation based on giving us information we need (elevation, terrain features, distance between points, etc..) and eschewing the details we don't need (like the correct colors and textures of the terrain, precise down-to-the-inch accuracy, locations of transient objects, etc...).  The map cannot tell us what type of events will occur along our trip, but we don't need it to--that's not its purpose, nor would anyone expect to use it to such an end.  

In the same way, it is irrelevant (and unhelpful) to the planning of our future to consider the unforseeable.  If we worry about whether or not our prjections are likely to become true they'll have less chance to eventually be true, "on time" or otherwise.  I guess what I'm saying is the map is more useful to our purposes than the territory.  You can navigate territory without a map, but it's hard.  You have no way to guage your progress if you don't have a reference to the big picture.

See, though, its in the "details we don't need" where the Black Swan is gonna make a showing. For example, you may examine all the available maps and determine the best location for your new Nuclear Lab. However, unknown to you, an as of yet, undiscovered fault line lies beneath your facility. It's not on the Map, because the Map is not the Territory... the map is just a representation of our limited knowledge and our preferred categorization of data which we consider important.

However, i think you're trying to apply this incorrectly, I don't think Taleb is making the argument that we shouldn't use models to make predictions... rather I think he's saying that we cannot KNOW that our prediction is right, due to the limited nature of both our perception and the model. We're discussing the relativity of the value of such predictions. Also, it wouldn't hurt scientists to be a little less certain on occasion

I disagree... a Human, in the turkey's position seems unlikely to figure out that he's lunch... unless he can speak to his captors and they tell him. If we take a baby, keep it for its entire life in a 30 x 30 barn, feed it well and care for it... I think it highly unlikely that it will say to itself "I think I'ma gonna be dinner!!! OSHI!" I think it far more likely that it will be very surprised when someone comes in with an axe.

You've got me there, but I still find the analogy irrelevant.  Just because the subject of the execution doesn't know its coming doesn't mean outside observers can't conclude what will happen--it's all a matter of perspective and available information.  Babies and Animals are not truly capable of higher reasoning, so it's silly to use them.  They can hardly follow day to day events beyond the assurance of their own survival and will of course be duped by the evil baby-and-turkey-eating farmer.
There are, however, a million ways for a normal person to figure out what is going on beyond the walls of the barn, and any intelligent being will be inquisitive.  Unless he's being held under duress he'll find answers, and if he is being held under duress he'll already have one of them.

<i>it's all a matter of perspective and available information</i>

Yes, it is. We as humans have limited perspective and limited available information about reality. It's useful, but let's not assume that we're observers outside the barn, or that we ever could be observers from outside the barn.

Besides, the other turkeys outside the barn aren't gonna have a better clue than the one inside, are they?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Just because the subject of the execution doesn't know its coming doesn't mean outside observers can't conclude what will happen--it's all a matter of perspective and available information.  Babies and Animals are not truly capable of higher reasoning, so it's silly to use them.  They can hardly follow day to day events beyond the assurance of their own survival and will of course be duped by the evil baby-and-turkey-eating farmer.
There are, however, a million ways for a normal person to figure out what is going on beyond the walls of the barn, and any intelligent being will be inquisitive.  Unless he's being held under duress he'll find answers, and if he is being held under duress he'll already have one of them.

You seem to be forgetting about self-imposed blinders.

The process of minimizing future uncertainty is synonymous with removing those blinders.  Anyone who keeps them on is only preparing themselves for failure.

I think you may misunderstand the metaphor...

[Dr. Pataphoros, SpD]

The process of minimizing future uncertainty is synonymous with removing those blinders.  Anyone who keeps them on is only preparing themselves for failure.

I think you may misunderstand the metaphor...

I think I misunderstand most of this concept entirely.  I'm still trying to discover why it is useful for us to catagorize something as unknowable when we don't even know what it is that we don't know.  This whole Black Swan business seems to be an exercise in needless circular thinking.

Since identifying a Black Swan requires a human observer then I would say that we're responsible for all of them, not just some.  An event that is unexpected implies someone is expecting something else.

Eh? I thought you were arguing that Free Will was necessary for Black Swans... not that human perception was necessary to categorize Black Swans... which are you arguing here?

This started out with me wondering what impact free will had on a Black Swan situation.  I concluded that if non-deterministic free will is true then All of Everything Yet To Occur is a Black Swan.  We can't know everything, so we can never be sure of anything. 

Regardless of what constitutes a Black Swan, one cannot exist without an intelligent observer with a presupposed idea of what will occur.  If there is no one to have an expectation, then there cannot be an unexpected event.  I could wax tautological further, but I think you take my meaning.

See, though, its in the "details we don't need" where the Black Swan is gonna make a showing. For example, you may examine all the available maps and determine the best location for your new Nuclear Lab. However, unknown to you, an as of yet, undiscovered fault line lies beneath your facility. It's not on the Map, because the Map is not the Territory... the map is just a representation of our limited knowledge and our preferred categorization of data which we consider important.

However, i think you're trying to apply this incorrectly, I don't think Taleb is making the argument that we shouldn't use models to make predictions... rather I think he's saying that we cannot KNOW that our prediction is right, due to the limited nature of both our perception and the model. We're discussing the relativity of the value of such predictions. Also, it wouldn't hurt scientists to be a little less certain on occasion

Okay, I see now what you're getting at.  The problem is, as I keep saying, it seems useless to have a complicated metaphorical label just to tell us we can't tell the future for really real.  Unless there is a level of depth I am continually missing.

it's all a matter of perspective and available information

Yes, it is. We as humans have limited perspective and limited available information about reality. It's useful, but let's not assume that we're observers outside the barn, or that we ever could be observers from outside the barn.

Besides, the other turkeys outside the barn aren't gonna have a better clue than the one inside, are they?

Depends on how many Thanksgivings they've lived through.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Since identifying a Black Swan requires a human observer then I would say that we're responsible for all of them, not just some.  An event that is unexpected implies someone is expecting something else.

Eh? I thought you were arguing that Free Will was necessary for Black Swans... not that human perception was necessary to categorize Black Swans... which are you arguing here?

This started out with me wondering what impact free will had on a Black Swan situation.  I concluded that if non-deterministic free will is true then All of Everything Yet To Occur is a Black Swan.  We can't know everything, so we can never be sure of anything. 

Good god, no. Most of All of Everything Yet To Occur falls within a standard deviation bell curve of probability. A Black Swan is an event in which the rare, outrageous exception turns out to be more significant than the more probable events, which tend to be moderate.

Imagine that, while playing a Monopoly game, someone gets a Chance card that says "You win 5 million dollars." It would be completely unexpected (because the real game of Monopoly has no such card), there would only be one small chance for it to occur, but it would nevertheless be more significant than every other event in the game put together.

[Cain]

Also requires a large impact to be a Black Swan.

Winning $5 million in imaginary money is not a Black Swan.

Losing $20 trillion in real money because a very very unlikely event just happened, on the other hand, is.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also requires a large impact to be a Black Swan.

Winning $5 million in imaginary money is not a Black Swan.

Losing $20 trillion in real money because a very very unlikely event just happened, on the other hand, is.

LOL

True enough in some sense. I think, Padre Pataphoros, that you may be confusing the value of the concept by misapplication. I don't think anyone has argued that Black Swans mean that all predictive data is useless, or that it has any effect on the nature of scientific prediction. Rather, its a philosophical point which focuses on the unknowable, which, throughout history seems to have been where the largest changes have wandered into reality from.

[Bu🤠ns]

Also requires a large impact to be a Black Swan.

Winning $5 million in imaginary money is not a Black Swan.

Losing $20 trillion in real money because a very very unlikely event just happened, on the other hand, is.

that would be winning or losing 20 trillion, right?  because a Black Swan isn't necessarily a good or bad happening, right?

[Cain]

Also requires a large impact to be a Black Swan.

Winning $5 million in imaginary money is not a Black Swan.

Losing $20 trillion in real money because a very very unlikely event just happened, on the other hand, is.

that would be winning or losing 20 trillion, right?  because a Black Swan isn't necessarily a good or bad happening, right?

Yes.  Certain scientific discoveries or inventions could be considered black swans too.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also requires a large impact to be a Black Swan.

Winning $5 million in imaginary money is not a Black Swan.

Losing $20 trillion in real money because a very very unlikely event just happened, on the other hand, is.

that would be winning or losing 20 trillion, right?  because a Black Swan isn't necessarily a good or bad happening, right?

Yes.  Certain scientific discoveries or inventions could be considered black swans too.

Vulcanization, perhaps? LSD?