4 ms·

What Taleb shows is that people should become more willing to bet as they move away from the "absorbing barrier" of having so little money that they have to qui

What Taleb shows is that people should become more willing to bet as they move away from the "absorbing barrier" of having so little money that they have to quit the game. But he phrases this in terms of justifying the fact that people are more willing to bet with "house money" (money that they have already won) than their own. This is clearly wrong because the starting point is always higher than the absorbing barrier. I think Taleb is a bit too eager to criticise others, even when his mathematics isn't actually applicable to the situation.

mjb 9y ago
"A bit too eager to criticize others" is a understatement. Taleb has a lot of interesting things to say, and some of them are even reasonably novel. Unfortunately his general "everybody but me is stupid" approach makes his message much less useful and accessible than it otherwise would be. This is a good example of that problem. I find this really unfortunate, because Taleb's message about systems behavior being dominated by tail behavior, and about the risks systems not being designed to tolerate that behavior, are very interesting and broadly applicable. Unfortunately, the medium makes the message less effective. I often think of Taleb as a sort of counter-example when thinking about how to teach and communicate difficult concepts.
- te_chris 9y ago
  He's such a thin-skinned snowflake. I enjoyed The Black Swan but didn't know much about him as a person. He should give up twitter, or stop reading reviews. His fans are hilarious too: he's created a whole cult of redundant pedants.
  - vvdcect 9y ago
    >whole cult of redundant pedants. aspiring despots
- pfortuny 9y ago
  The long tails and the lack of mean of important distributions is essential. However, we are losing those concepts because of his belligerance. A pity.
- User23 9y ago
  Contrariwise, many people find his communication style refreshing and entertaining with his book sales being a solid exhibit in favor of that. Also, most people are stupid compared to Mr. Taleb, that's just a simple function of his observably high intelligence. That said, I've never seen him treat someone as stupid who doesn't first act stupid, and he's demonstrably willing to engage with people publicly on fair terms. It's a good test though: do personalities like Taleb and Dijkstra entertain you or do they offend you? Introspecting on why they do or don't is a great opportunity for personal growth.
  - exolymph 9y ago
    I suspect that you may not be aware of this, so I'm commenting (partially with the hope that someone will figure out a nicer, more effective way to say this): You come across as condescending in a similarly offputting way to Taleb himself.
    - User23 9y ago
      I do take my own advice about introspection and thank you for your concern. Much like Mr. Taleb, I just don't see it as a problem. If my personality allows me to appreciate a communication style others have trouble with, without restricting me from appreciating other communications styles that they do not, then I have access to a broader and more diverse set of knowledge and interactions. I find the trade-off acceptable.
platz 9y ago
> the starting point is always higher than the absorbing barrier. true - also a tautology > justifying the fact that people are more willing to bet with "house money" - this is clearly wrong I don't think you exactly showed that.
- OscarCunningham 9y ago
  I think I showed why his justification is wrong. But if I wanted to explain why treating house money differently from your own money was wrong I'd use the example of two people who entered the casino with different amounts of money but now have the same amount (somewhere in between where they each started). Then one is betting with house money and the other isn't. But I claim that it would be rational for them to behave the same way. This is because the consequences of having a certain amount of money will be the same for both of them, no matter where that money came from.
  - muro 9y ago
    Why would it be rational for them to behave the same way?
    - OscarCunningham 9y ago
      Because each of their actions have exactly the same consequences.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        So A enters the casino with $100 and B enters the casino with $50 -- he then proceeds to double them, whereas A remains steady. So, now both have $100, and B plays with just the house money. A is losing money they had put aside -- B is losing money he didn't have to begin with. E.g. A might be playing with borrowed mafia money, or his kids college fund (and risks losing them), whereas B doesn't risk going anywhere below where he was when he entered the casino. If anything, he has a chance to make his winnings even bigger (or at worse, lose them). In real life (as opposed to thought experiments treating those persons like abstract entities) the origin of those money has a story, so the A=B=100 state is not all that matters to determine the consequences.

mjb 9y ago

"A bit too eager to criticize others" is a understatement. Taleb has a lot of interesting things to say, and some of them are even reasonably novel. Unfortunately his general "everybody but me is stupid" approach makes his message much less useful and accessible than it otherwise would be. This is a good example of that problem. I find this really unfortunate, because Taleb's message about systems behavior being dominated by tail behavior, and about the risks systems not being designed to tolerate that behavior, are very interesting and broadly applicable. Unfortunately, the medium makes the message less effective. I often think of Taleb as a sort of counter-example when thinking about how to teach and communicate difficult concepts.

te_chris 9y ago
He's such a thin-skinned snowflake. I enjoyed The Black Swan but didn't know much about him as a person. He should give up twitter, or stop reading reviews. His fans are hilarious too: he's created a whole cult of redundant pedants.
- vvdcect 9y ago
  >whole cult of redundant pedants. aspiring despots
pfortuny 9y ago
The long tails and the lack of mean of important distributions is essential. However, we are losing those concepts because of his belligerance. A pity.
User23 9y ago
Contrariwise, many people find his communication style refreshing and entertaining with his book sales being a solid exhibit in favor of that. Also, most people are stupid compared to Mr. Taleb, that's just a simple function of his observably high intelligence. That said, I've never seen him treat someone as stupid who doesn't first act stupid, and he's demonstrably willing to engage with people publicly on fair terms. It's a good test though: do personalities like Taleb and Dijkstra entertain you or do they offend you? Introspecting on why they do or don't is a great opportunity for personal growth.
- exolymph 9y ago
  I suspect that you may not be aware of this, so I'm commenting (partially with the hope that someone will figure out a nicer, more effective way to say this): You come across as condescending in a similarly offputting way to Taleb himself.
  - User23 9y ago
    I do take my own advice about introspection and thank you for your concern. Much like Mr. Taleb, I just don't see it as a problem. If my personality allows me to appreciate a communication style others have trouble with, without restricting me from appreciating other communications styles that they do not, then I have access to a broader and more diverse set of knowledge and interactions. I find the trade-off acceptable.

platz 9y ago

> the starting point is always higher than the absorbing barrier. true - also a tautology > justifying the fact that people are more willing to bet with "house money" - this is clearly wrong I don't think you exactly showed that.

OscarCunningham 9y ago
I think I showed why his justification is wrong. But if I wanted to explain why treating house money differently from your own money was wrong I'd use the example of two people who entered the casino with different amounts of money but now have the same amount (somewhere in between where they each started). Then one is betting with house money and the other isn't. But I claim that it would be rational for them to behave the same way. This is because the consequences of having a certain amount of money will be the same for both of them, no matter where that money came from.
- muro 9y ago
  Why would it be rational for them to behave the same way?
  - OscarCunningham 9y ago
    Because each of their actions have exactly the same consequences.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      So A enters the casino with $100 and B enters the casino with $50 -- he then proceeds to double them, whereas A remains steady. So, now both have $100, and B plays with just the house money. A is losing money they had put aside -- B is losing money he didn't have to begin with. E.g. A might be playing with borrowed mafia money, or his kids college fund (and risks losing them), whereas B doesn't risk going anywhere below where he was when he entered the casino. If anything, he has a chance to make his winnings even bigger (or at worse, lose them). In real life (as opposed to thought experiments treating those persons like abstract entities) the origin of those money has a story, so the A=B=100 state is not all that matters to determine the consequences.