3 ms·
Funny, Nassim Taleb, a worldwide (if controversial) risk probability expert, would say that you are the one which is being very bad at reasoning with probabilit
by 21 9y ago
Funny, Nassim Taleb, a worldwide (if controversial) risk probability expert, would say that you are the one which is being very bad at reasoning with probabilities, because you are putting Ebola and terrorism in the same class of risk as falling off a ladder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dKiLclupUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dKiLclupUM
- cm2187 9y agoI would agree with flu (which is a fat tail risk, eg the spanish flu), but not terrorism (these are small local events) and ebola (ebola has a very low risk of transmission, it is just that it is very deadly once transmitted). But classifying risks is one thing. Worrying in your daily life to the point of opposing a public policy is another. An asteroid wiping out life on earth is an even fatter tail risk, but the probability is so low that it is not worth worrying about. People have not rational reason to worry about ebola, terrorism, or plane crashes.
- simo7 9y agoI think he/she meant something different: it's not about how big/small are the chances, but about how much we know on the probability distribution. You assume you know the probability distributions, you compare them and determine that nuclear will kill less than coal burning. Except that you might have never observed a black swan event before (eg. massive sabotage of nuclear plants). So the probability distributions you inferred from past events might be wrong. The case of a lottery is different as the probability distribution of outcomes can be determined with certainty.