3 ms·

I'm no fan of Taleb - simplistic ideas expressed in the most confusing and least concise way possible. Want to understand his 400+ page book "The Black Swan" re

by spikels 12y ago

I'm no fan of Taleb - simplistic ideas expressed in the most confusing and least concise way possible. Want to understand his 400+ page book "The Black Swan" refer to Rumsfeld's single sentence on "unknown unknowns"[1]. However he does focus on popularly neglected ideas. "Antifragile" is known as "being long vega" to options traders or perhaps "being flexible" (better words escape me) to regular people. The idea that change (or volatility) can be a good thing seems odd at first but is the basis fo almost everything. Think of evolution without change - not going to happen. Instead we should embrace change and variation otherwise we will be stuck forever in the same rut. But I guess I just like change anyway. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns

hangonhn 12y ago
I agree with some part of what you say but I think there are some subtleties that your comment ignores. His point isn't that simply volatility is a good thing. Rather, by looking at things are many levels, fragility at one level is anti-fragile at another level. By allowing small businesses to experience catastrophe the system as a whole becomes stronger. I do agree with you about Black Swan as well. I couldn't finish and felt it was a big let down from "Fooled By Randomness".
- HelloMcFly 12y ago
  Interesting. I found Black Swan wholly superior to Fooled by Randomness. I read The Black Swan first, so maybe that explains it as I found the two very similar.
mr_schnippel 12y ago
Why sir, calling out Taleb on his banality. What a rare criticism to be spotted in the wild. He wrote a book, the swan one, which is a rehash of his previous one, the randomness one. The book contains very little scientific data. It's mainly about him sitting down and deducing things (which are probably true, I'll give him that). It's verbose, it's boring, it's irrelevant and, of course, it's a best-seller.
eruditely 12y ago
Lol. Somehow people like you actually think this of Taleb. To reach people like you, we have to try other ways other than true substance. If Kahneman one of the heroes of modern intellectual culture is friends with him and they receive each other well and he does not agree with your banal analysis of him, is that not good enough(?). Terrence Tao links to his fourth quadrant articles, is that man's clout not enough? Mandrelbrot too. I wonder how people like you get away with such utter mis-characterization of him? It was how people receive Taleb and Graham that I realized that one person's true identity doesn't matter and that people like you somehow exist contraire-chic indeed. Indeed your post is probably just tribal signalling. Subscribe to his FB, read his posts, you truly find an incredible man of genius. He can admit to be human. I don't know what else to say but when I see stuff like this about him(like valleywag people probably saw comments on Graham). I cannot think of any other way other than to plead to the audience that the person they think they see of Taleb is not what it is, and the commentator above me mislead, or is mis-leads. I like how people some-how point to him calling other people idiots is somehow something outrageous to the point of murder, this is a place of extreme passivity though. Grothendiek protested vietnam by giving lectures in the forests while the U.S bombed nearby, Guass was quite stern, etc etc. Genius comes in variety.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Oh stop. If your entire reason we should listen to someone is based on the signal-quality of whom he associates with, you have no grounds to tell someone else they're "just [tribally] signalling (sic)". What bloody tribe is he going to belong to that he would signal so, the We Hate Making Money tribe? I'm underinformed on Taleb, but I too share the view that his ideas have less substance than is necessary to justify two or three full books.
firebones 12y ago
Ironically, it was Taleb who inspired Rumsfeld to use that line [1], even though Rumsfeld's actions showed he had no true understanding of the concept, since he dramatically increased the exposure to these kinds of risks while having little personal skin in the game. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/apr/28/society http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/apr/28/society

by spikels 12y ago

hangonhn 12y ago

I agree with some part of what you say but I think there are some subtleties that your comment ignores. His point isn't that simply volatility is a good thing. Rather, by looking at things are many levels, fragility at one level is anti-fragile at another level. By allowing small businesses to experience catastrophe the system as a whole becomes stronger. I do agree with you about Black Swan as well. I couldn't finish and felt it was a big let down from "Fooled By Randomness".

HelloMcFly 12y ago
Interesting. I found Black Swan wholly superior to Fooled by Randomness. I read The Black Swan first, so maybe that explains it as I found the two very similar.

mr_schnippel 12y ago

Why sir, calling out Taleb on his banality. What a rare criticism to be spotted in the wild. He wrote a book, the swan one, which is a rehash of his previous one, the randomness one. The book contains very little scientific data. It's mainly about him sitting down and deducing things (which are probably true, I'll give him that). It's verbose, it's boring, it's irrelevant and, of course, it's a best-seller.

eruditely 12y ago

Lol. Somehow people like you actually think this of Taleb. To reach people like you, we have to try other ways other than true substance. If Kahneman one of the heroes of modern intellectual culture is friends with him and they receive each other well and he does not agree with your banal analysis of him, is that not good enough(?). Terrence Tao links to his fourth quadrant articles, is that man's clout not enough? Mandrelbrot too. I wonder how people like you get away with such utter mis-characterization of him? It was how people receive Taleb and Graham that I realized that one person's true identity doesn't matter and that people like you somehow exist contraire-chic indeed. Indeed your post is probably just tribal signalling. Subscribe to his FB, read his posts, you truly find an incredible man of genius. He can admit to be human. I don't know what else to say but when I see stuff like this about him(like valleywag people probably saw comments on Graham). I cannot think of any other way other than to plead to the audience that the person they think they see of Taleb is not what it is, and the commentator above me mislead, or is mis-leads. I like how people some-how point to him calling other people idiots is somehow something outrageous to the point of murder, this is a place of extreme passivity though. Grothendiek protested vietnam by giving lectures in the forests while the U.S bombed nearby, Guass was quite stern, etc etc. Genius comes in variety.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago
Oh stop. If your entire reason we should listen to someone is based on the signal-quality of whom he associates with, you have no grounds to tell someone else they're "just [tribally] signalling (sic)". What bloody tribe is he going to belong to that he would signal so, the We Hate Making Money tribe? I'm underinformed on Taleb, but I too share the view that his ideas have less substance than is necessary to justify two or three full books.

firebones 12y ago

Ironically, it was Taleb who inspired Rumsfeld to use that line [1], even though Rumsfeld's actions showed he had no true understanding of the concept, since he dramatically increased the exposure to these kinds of risks while having little personal skin in the game. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/apr/28/society http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/apr/28/society