Antifragile

[Marvin the Martian]

I recently finished Taleb's book Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder. I previously read his Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness.

Antifragile is a word he made up. Many things are fragile, they break easily. Many things are robust, they can take a pounding and probably survive. Something antifragile takes a pounding and improves and he says there was no word for it. He gives a couple illustrations. The human immune system is stronger after an infection as it is better able to fight that infection going forward. The airline industry, after an accident the problem is discovered and fixed and is better off.

The book is very intriguing. The author's politics is confusing, some populist mixed with classic libertarian and far left added in. I will post different ideas from it in responses to this one. But this one will cover government.

Taleb first loves small government, though small meaning close to home. His ideal government is Switzerland's, where he says more people can name the US President than the Swiss President. All real power lies in the Cantons. The Swiss Federation has little power.

I should mention, his ideal systems of any type are small and noncomplex. Small systems are less likely to be squeezed, and less fragile over all. Think of a drought and the survival attempts of mice vs elephants. Complex systems just break more often. Keep things as small and simple as possible.

This raises a problem, the big government like America's is too large and complex to effectively spy on its citizens. A smaller power structure like Switzerland's does not have the bureaucracy preventing it from being effective at spying. But it is a risk he is willing to take.

So he has some ideas for the US system. One, if a corporation ever takes bailout money from the government no one in that corporation could ever be paid more than the highest US civil servant.

Another idea, if one works for a US regulatory agency their salary in the private sector is again capped at the highest salary in the government. Government work should attract people wanting to serve the public good not be a stepping stone to exploit.

His area of expertise is risk. He believes virtually no one understands risk. As a result, he thinks we should min/max risk. He believes banks should be nationalized. Too many banks fail for them to be safe. But hedge funds should be totally unregulated. People should be allowed, if not encouraged, to take risks. In fact he describes ideal investment strategy as 90% totally safe and 10% in a wide variety of high risks. He believes "moderate" risk investments do not exist, they are only labeled such by people who do not understand risk. So government should encourage risk in investing.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I recently finished Taleb's book Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder. I previously read his Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness.

Antifragile is a word he made up. Many things are fragile, they break easily. Many things are robust, they can take a pounding and probably survive. Something antifragile takes a pounding and improves and he says there was no word for it. He gives a couple illustrations. The human immune system is stronger after an infection as it is better able to fight that infection going forward. The airline industry, after an accident the problem is discovered and fixed and is better off.

The book is very intriguing. The author's politics is confusing, some populist mixed with classic libertarian and far left added in. I will post different ideas from it in responses to this one. But this one will cover government.

Taleb first loves small government, though small meaning close to home. His ideal government is Switzerland's, where he says more people can name the US President than the Swiss President. All real power lies in the Cantons. The Swiss Federation has little power.

I should mention, his ideal systems of any type are small and noncomplex. Small systems are less likely to be squeezed, and less fragile over all. Think of a drought and the survival attempts of mice vs elephants. Complex systems just break more often. Keep things as small and simple as possible.

This raises a problem, the big government like America's is too large and complex to effectively spy on its citizens. A smaller power structure like Switzerland's does not have the bureaucracy preventing it from being effective at spying. But it is a risk he is willing to take.

So he has some ideas for the US system. One, if a corporation ever takes bailout money from the government no one in that corporation could ever be paid more than the highest US civil servant.

Another idea, if one works for a US regulatory agency their salary in the private sector is again capped at the highest salary in the government. Government work should attract people wanting to serve the public good not be a stepping stone to exploit.

His area of expertise is risk. He believes virtually no one understands risk. As a result, he thinks we should min/max risk. He believes banks should be nationalized. Too many banks fail for them to be safe. But hedge funds should be totally unregulated. People should be allowed, if not encouraged, to take risks. In fact he describes ideal investment strategy as 90% totally safe and 10% in a wide variety of high risks. He believes "moderate" risk investments do not exist, they are only labeled such by people who do not understand risk. So government should encourage risk in investing.

1. I don't know that at this stage of the game reducing a CEO to a federal worker salary is feasible. But a multiplier could certainly be tenable. Getting a corporate bailout while pulling an 8 figure income is disgusting.
2. I still like Sope's idea of another layer of gov (regional government) - as loathsome as that may be to a person who prefers smaller gov. I think the fed gov would be better off smaller with regional govs taking over certain roles that are more responsive to the needs of particular regions

 

[Marvin the Martian]

1. I don't know that at this stage of the game reducing a CEO to a federal worker salary is feasible. But a multiplier could certainly be tenable. Getting a corporate bailout while pulling an 8 figure income is disgusting.
2. I still like Sope's idea of another layer of gov (regional government) - as loathsome as that may be to a person who prefers smaller gov. I think the fed gov would be better off smaller with regional govs taking over certain roles that are more responsive to the needs of particular regions

We will get to CEOs, he has a lot to say on them. There are two groups he hates, academics and CEOs.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I recently finished Taleb's book Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder. I previously read his Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness.

Antifragile is a word he made up. Many things are fragile, they break easily. Many things are robust, they can take a pounding and probably survive. Something antifragile takes a pounding and improves and he says there was no word for it. He gives a couple illustrations. The human immune system is stronger after an infection as it is better able to fight that infection going forward. The airline industry, after an accident the problem is discovered and fixed and is better off.

The book is very intriguing. The author's politics is confusing, some populist mixed with classic libertarian and far left added in. I will post different ideas from it in responses to this one. But this one will cover government.

Taleb first loves small government, though small meaning close to home. His ideal government is Switzerland's, where he says more people can name the US President than the Swiss President. All real power lies in the Cantons. The Swiss Federation has little power.

I should mention, his ideal systems of any type are small and noncomplex. Small systems are less likely to be squeezed, and less fragile over all. Think of a drought and the survival attempts of mice vs elephants. Complex systems just break more often. Keep things as small and simple as possible.

This raises a problem, the big government like America's is too large and complex to effectively spy on its citizens. A smaller power structure like Switzerland's does not have the bureaucracy preventing it from being effective at spying. But it is a risk he is willing to take.

So he has some ideas for the US system. One, if a corporation ever takes bailout money from the government no one in that corporation could ever be paid more than the highest US civil servant.

Another idea, if one works for a US regulatory agency their salary in the private sector is again capped at the highest salary in the government. Government work should attract people wanting to serve the public good not be a stepping stone to exploit.

His area of expertise is risk. He believes virtually no one understands risk. As a result, he thinks we should min/max risk. He believes banks should be nationalized. Too many banks fail for them to be safe. But hedge funds should be totally unregulated. People should be allowed, if not encouraged, to take risks. In fact he describes ideal investment strategy as 90% totally safe and 10% in a wide variety of high risks. He believes "moderate" risk investments do not exist, they are only labeled such by people who do not understand risk. So government should encourage risk in investing.

Good stuff. I have it sitting on my bookshelf and might put it up next in the cue.

 

[Univee2]

Good stuff. I have it sitting on my bookshelf and might put it up next in the cue.

You're going to rack it up, in other words . . .

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

We will get to CEOs, he has a lot to say on them. There are two groups he hates, academics and CEOs.

Does he comment on Chairmen? In my experience whatever the CEO is is because of the Chairman.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Does he comment on Chairmen? In my experience whatever the CEO is is because of the Chairman.

He finds corporate people up and down the line pretty bad. He places a lot of stock in having skin in the game, it is pretty much his deciding factor everywhere. Anyone working in a corporation is merely managing someone else's money investment. That is a low rung to him. Only a step above academia.

He thinks that as people rise levels they make fewer decisions. As a result there is no way to know someone really knows how good they are above flipping a coin.

I use that because he used that in a previous book. Get 10,000 people together and flip a coin with them guessing. After 10 tosses there are probably 10 people left. Those 10 really are not superior coin toss predictors but in a real scenario they would be exhausted.

He used that specifically on traders, but it fits in what he says about corporate employees.

He has some exceptions, he finds a handful of corporations that are more into making a good product more like a Craftsman. Apple was an example. Jobs demanded the inside case of a Mac be aesthetic, he said that is what an artisan does.

He blames math for a lot of this. Corporations engineer everything to minimum specifications. He speaks about Roman bridges and old churches last a thousand years. That is because they did not determine that only 8 3/8ths inches of stone were needed. They put massive amounts in, and things were just better.

He blames corporations for advertising. Artisans rely on word of mouth, corporations try to convince you Coke or a McDonald's burger are healthy through advertising. When it comes to soft drinks he suggests they are equal or worse than cigarettes but we don't do anything.

But he finds anything corporate inferior, mostly through food examples. Corporate food is designed by engineers in his mind.

Oh, skin in the game. He finds executive pay ludicrous (again, the sample size of decisions is too small to know someone is worth that much), but bonuses do not equal skin in the game because of optionality, they can choose to sell at any time. If there was a rule they must hold the stock bonus 5 years, executives would run corporations entirety differently.

He finds things like business plans stupid for two reasons. One, the number 1 goal should be to survive the length of time of the plan. If the Corp fails, nothing else could happen in the plan. The second reason is that corporations should simply be opportunistic. Many big corps started as something entirely different. A plan creates a mentality locking them into a path and not being opportunistic.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

He finds corporate people up and down the line pretty bad. He places a lot of stock in having skin in the game, it is pretty much his deciding factor everywhere. Anyone working in a corporation is merely managing someone else's money investment. That is a low rung to him. Only a step above academia.

He thinks that as people rise levels they make fewer decisions. As a result there is no way to know someone really knows how good they are above flipping a coin.

I use that because he used that in a previous book. Get 10,000 people together and flip a coin with them guessing. After 10 tosses there are probably 10 people left. Those 10 really are not superior coin toss predictors but in a real scenario they would be exhausted.

He used that specifically on traders, but it fits in what he says about corporate employees.

He has some exceptions, he finds a handful of corporations that are more into making a good product more like a Craftsman. Apple was an example. Jobs demanded the inside case of a Mac be aesthetic, he said that is what an artisan does.

He blames math for a lot of this. Corporations engineer everything to minimum specifications. He speaks about Roman bridges and old churches last a thousand years. That is because they did not determine that only 8 3/8ths inches of stone were needed. They put massive amounts in, and things were just better.

He blames corporations for advertising. Artisans rely on word of mouth, corporations try to convince you Coke or a McDonald's burger are healthy through advertising. When it comes to soft drinks he suggests they are equal or worse than cigarettes but we don't do anything.

But he finds anything corporate inferior, mostly through food examples. Corporate food is designed by engineers in his mind.

Oh, skin in the game. He finds executive pay ludicrous (again, the sample size of decisions is too small to know someone is worth that much), but bonuses do not equal skin in the game because of optionality, they can choose to sell at any time. If there was a rule they must hold the stock bonus 5 years, executives would run corporations entirety differently.

He finds things like business plans stupid for two reasons. One, the number 1 goal should be to survive the length of time of the plan. If the Corp fails, nothing else could happen in the plan. The second reason is that corporations should simply be opportunistic. Many big corps started as something entirely different. A plan creates a mentality locking them into a path and not being opportunistic.

Not knowing anything about his background I’d say he has a very jaded view of corporations. Corporations employ a large share of our workforce and do so mostly without taking money from the government. They’re the backbone of capitalism. Are CEOs overpaid? Yes. But they make a ton of decisions / at least in my experience.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Not knowing anything about his background I’d say he has a very jaded view of corporations. Corporations employ a large share of our workforce and do so mostly without taking money from the government. They’re the backbone of capitalism. Are CEOs overpaid? Yes. But they make a ton of decisions / at least in my experience.

He was born in Lebanon during the civil war. As a young adult and came to America. Got several degrees, he now regrets. Entered academia and hated it. His love is risk, so he became a trader. He loves small bets on things failing because it is inevitable they will.

In his previous book he said he received a lot of hate for saying warren Buffet has not made enough trades to know how good he is. He stood by that in the second book, saying it is more likely we know Soros is a good trader.

Probability is his thing in modern times. He is very much a classisist and stoic. It is filled with quotes from ancients.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I recently finished Taleb's book Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder. I previously read his Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness.

Antifragile is a word he made up. Many things are fragile, they break easily. Many things are robust, they can take a pounding and probably survive. Something antifragile takes a pounding and improves and he says there was no word for it. He gives a couple illustrations. The human immune system is stronger after an infection as it is better able to fight that infection going forward. The airline industry, after an accident the problem is discovered and fixed and is better off.

The book is very intriguing. The author's politics is confusing, some populist mixed with classic libertarian and far left added in. I will post different ideas from it in responses to this one. But this one will cover government.

Taleb first loves small government, though small meaning close to home. His ideal government is Switzerland's, where he says more people can name the US President than the Swiss President. All real power lies in the Cantons. The Swiss Federation has little power.

I should mention, his ideal systems of any type are small and noncomplex. Small systems are less likely to be squeezed, and less fragile over all. Think of a drought and the survival attempts of mice vs elephants. Complex systems just break more often. Keep things as small and simple as possible.

This raises a problem, the big government like America's is too large and complex to effectively spy on its citizens. A smaller power structure like Switzerland's does not have the bureaucracy preventing it from being effective at spying. But it is a risk he is willing to take.

So he has some ideas for the US system. One, if a corporation ever takes bailout money from the government no one in that corporation could ever be paid more than the highest US civil servant.

Another idea, if one works for a US regulatory agency their salary in the private sector is again capped at the highest salary in the government. Government work should attract people wanting to serve the public good not be a stepping stone to exploit.

His area of expertise is risk. He believes virtually no one understands risk. As a result, he thinks we should min/max risk. He believes banks should be nationalized. Too many banks fail for them to be safe. But hedge funds should be totally unregulated. People should be allowed, if not encouraged, to take risks. In fact he describes ideal investment strategy as 90% totally safe and 10% in a wide variety of high risks. He believes "moderate" risk investments do not exist, they are only labeled such by people who do not understand risk. So government should encourage risk in investing.

This sounds interesting. I'd like to read more. I'm only responding to tag this thread as read.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

He was born in Lebanon during the civil war. As a young adult and came to America. Got several degrees, he now regrets. Entered academia and hated it. His love is risk, so he became a trader. He loves small bets on things failing because it is inevitable they will.

In his previous book he said he received a lot of hate for saying warren Buffet has not made enough trades to know how good he is. He stood by that in the second book, saying it is more likely we know Soros is a good trader.

Probability is his thing in modern times. He is very much a classisist and stoic. It is filled with quotes from ancients.

The profile is coming together. He thinks he’s smarter than the CEOs and as a trader he blames them for underperformance in his investments.

i could be wrong

 

[Marvin the Martian]

One more item on this, he abhors government debt. Debt is a fragility, that is part of it. But decisions, even talk, are impacted by "how will this impact the willingness to buy our debt". He does not believe counties should be beholden to a group like that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The profile is coming together. He thinks he’s smarter than the CEOs and as a trader he blames them for underperformance in his investments.

i could be wrong

Maybe? I am sure he thinks he is smarter. I am not sure on the other side, he says betting on failure pays off amazingly well with no real downside as failure always comes. He said he has seen a lot of hotshot traders go on big win streaks then lose so much in a day that armed guards escort them from the floor.

He believes a lot of what the market does is totally random. Afterward we think we see patterns and accredit a trader for picking up on it. In reality the trader was just lucky.

On this, he says 911 could never have been predicted before, the clues that stare at us now are just 20-20 hindsight. No one could have ever pieced them together from the millions of bits of random noise.

Which is what all 3 books combined are, a treatise on how random has far more control over us than we realize or care to admit.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

He believes a lot of what the market does is totally random. Afterward we think we see patterns and accredit a trader for picking up on it. In reality the trader was just lucky.

I've read that there are studies that support this, that in the long run, there is no evidence that there is any skill to investing, and it is all just random.

 

[kurt cloverdales]

I've read that there are studies that support this, that in the long run, there is no evidence that there is any skill to investing, and it is all just random.

bitcoin and the other cryptos are a classic example, I know a lot of small timers who in their world have made a lot of money, but when asked to explain crypto can't come up with a logical explanation other than its the future currency, will probably be wrong but I suspect eventually the small timers will be left holding the empty bag

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

I've read that there are studies that support this, that in the long run, there is no evidence that there is any skill to investing, and it is all just random.

It really depends how you define investing. In the case of a trader, someone taking passive stakes based on mathematical and/or technical analysis, I would likely agree. The best quants (e.g., LTCM, Tiger, Renaissance Tech) and fundamental (e.g., Baupost, Greenlight) fund managers of all time have always succumbed to eventual underperformance.

The difference is those that are actively managing their positions, meaning intervening and helping to add or create value or utilizing their clout and leverage to make advantageous and favorable investments (e.g., Berkshire, Elliott Management, Third Point)

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I've read that there are studies that support this, that in the long run, there is no evidence that there is any skill to investing, and it is all just random.

Read A Random Walk Down Wallstreet. It's a good read.

 

[F.Fletch]

He was born in Lebanon during the civil war. As a young adult and came to America. Got several degrees, he now regrets. Entered academia and hated it. His love is risk, so he became a trader. He loves small bets on things failing because it is inevitable they will.

In his previous book he said he received a lot of hate for saying warren Buffet has not made enough trades to know how good he is. He stood by that in the second book, saying it is more likely we know Soros is a good trader.

Probability is his thing in modern times. He is very much a classisist and stoic. It is filled with quotes from ancients.

So "Soros is a good trader" ..........

Wonderful, I hear Hitler had a keen eye for dogs.

 

[twenty02]

Not knowing anything about his background I’d say he has a very jaded view of corporations. Corporations employ a large share of our workforce and do so mostly without taking money from the government. They’re the backbone of capitalism. Are CEOs overpaid? Yes. But they make a ton of decisions / at least in my experience.

Also almost every stock award has vesting schedules in today's corporate world.... most just as many years as this guy says should exist.

Sounds like a book written about the past, not the current world.

 

[twenty02]

I've read that there are studies that support this, that in the long run, there is no evidence that there is any skill to investing, and it is all just random.

Burton Malkeil wrote A Random Walk Down Wall Street in 1973, proving as much. John Bogle wrote books about this for decades. Nothing new to be seen here.

 

[twenty02]

Taleb has been around for years. Interesting guy, writes interesting work..... some of which I find dubious, but typically thought provoking.

He runs a 'Black Swan' fund that is fairly conservative investments (T-Bonds and such) along with a small piece of far out of the money put options on the market (basically a low probability/ high payout bet on a market crash.) In March '20, during the Covid crash his fund was up like 3000% in one month. Of course the trade off will be you were just going nowhere for a decade, running up to that.

But be aware, he comes at his writing as a way to drive attention to his fund, IMHO.

His writings have been debated for years on Bogleheads.org in the investing theory board (a board filled with some fabulously smart people, BTW). If you really are interested, go there and search on his name.

Warning... they have heavy moderation so don't expect to just go all Water Cooler in there and expect to stay

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Antifragile is a word he made up. Many things are fragile, they break easily. Many things are robust, they can take a pounding and probably survive. Something antifragile takes a pounding and improves and he says there was no word for it. He gives a couple illustrations. The human immune system is stronger after an infection as it is better able to fight that infection going forward. The airline industry, after an accident the problem is discovered and fixed and is better off.

I agree with what I think the point is here. Life that includes accountability, responsibility, challenge, risk, insecurity, and obstacles is a better more fulfilling life than life where those things are absent. Such a life would be less fragile. This is living outside your comfort zone which many people think is good. it seems to me many of us strive to avoid all those things and government leads that avoidance.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I agree with what I think the point is here. Life that includes accountability, responsibility, challenge, risk, insecurity, and obstacles is a better more fulfilling life than life where those things are absent. Such a life would be less fragile. This is living outside your comfort zone which many people think is good. it seems to me many of us strive to avoid all those things and government leads that avoidance.

I think you have it. Just a note, the randomness in investing is more in book 2, Fooled by Randomness.

He tackles medicine. He believes doctors do too much number chasing, "your cholesterol should be x, we are giving you drugs to make it x". The problem is that he believes statins are dangerous. This happens up and down the line of medicine for him.

He is big into iatrogenics, the law of unintended consequences. He believes most medicines run afoul of that. He thinks it is wrong to take medicines with potential side effects worse than the disease.

He is in on that with elective surgery. He finds the concept of elective surgery wrong, if one has a choice other than death one should take it.

He believes doctors try to hard, waiting allows the body to heal but doctors want to play God.

He hates modern food, he says that even the apples and oranges we eat are bad. In ancient times they had far less sugar and were bitter but for a long time have been bred sweeter.

He believes healthcare spending should be reduced for most non-lethal conditions, increased for lethality.

 

[NPT]

I've read that there are studies that support this, that in the long run, there is no evidence that there is any skill to investing, and it is all just random.

I'm not sure the answer is "no skill" because I do think there a a very few people who can beat the market consistently but overall it's hard to beat the market because all the ones trying beat the market make up the market.

 

[twenty02]

I'm not sure the answer is "no skill" because I do think there a a very few people who can beat the market consistently but overall it's hard to beat the market because all the ones trying beat the market make up the market.

Maybe. But it's of no use to the average investor to attempt to search out the needle in the haystack. And like the example presented above, with 10k people flipping coins..... some will be lucky enough to be right for a long time. Survivorship bias.... something that is very prevalent in the mutual fund business. Even legendary people like Peter Lynch and Buffett eventually run out of steam and fail to keep up with the market.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Maybe. But it's of no use to the average investor to attempt to search out the needle in the haystack. And like the example presented above, with 10k people flipping coins..... some will be lucky enough to be right for a long time. Survivorship bias.... something that is very prevalent in the mutual fund business. Even legendary people like Peter Lynch and Buffett eventually run out of steam and fail to keep up with the market.

And he holds the same idea for corporate leadership. He suggests that a decision made that turns out to be profitable is only seen as brilliant in hindsight when one can cherry-pick the data that the leadership "must" have seen. "Oh, clearly they realized "x" was about to happen and saw this opportunity" is seldom true at the time the decision is made but always seen as true after because we like things to be created by someone and not just a random draw. He puts corporate executives in the "talker" category. People who build their own company are doers.

Noodle, since I know you have an engineering background, he loves Rome. He said when Rome built a bridge they required the engineers to live under it for a time. This guaranteed they didn't shortchange the construction.

Just to add more of his thoughts, he loves science but not the way we do it. He doesn't like huge labs with huge grants. He wants more tinkerers working through trial and error. He wants more individual or small group research with more small grants and fewer huge research labs with huge grants. To him the tinkerer is the backbone and doesn't require a Ph.D. or not even necessarily schooling.

 

[NPT]

Maybe. But it's of no use to the average investor to attempt to search out the needle in the haystack. And like the example presented above, with 10k people flipping coins..... some will be lucky enough to be right for a long time. Survivorship bias.... something that is very prevalent in the mutual fund business. Even legendary people like Peter Lynch and Buffett eventually run out of steam and fail to keep up with the market.

I agree with that so that is the reason most people should just invest in indexed funds/ETFs.

 

[mcmurtry66]

And he holds the same idea for corporate leadership. He suggests that a decision made that turns out to be profitable is only seen as brilliant in hindsight when one can cherry-pick the data that the leadership "must" have seen. "Oh, clearly they realized "x" was about to happen and saw this opportunity" is seldom true at the time the decision is made but always seen as true after because we like things to be created by someone and not just a random draw. He puts corporate executives in the "talker" category. People who build their own company are doers.

Noodle, since I know you have an engineering background, he loves Rome. He said when Rome built a bridge they required the engineers to live under it for a time. This guaranteed they didn't shortchange the construction.

Just to add more of his thoughts, he loves science but not the way we do it. He doesn't like huge labs with huge grants. He wants more tinkerers working through trial and error. He wants more individual or small group research with more small grants and fewer huge research labs with huge grants. To him the tinkerer is the backbone and doesn't require a Ph.D. or not even necessarily schooling.

All interesting. Some of that mirrors Musk's thoughts/philosophy.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

All interesting. Some of that mirrors Musk's thoughts/philosophy.

I will say I think his ideas deserve a read, but I'm not sold on them. He REALLY relies on ancient customs and philosophers a lot (though he really doesn't like Socrates). I think we underestimate the intellect of people from the past, I think he overestimates.

He disdains experts and gives a story of a guy who made a killing in the green lumber market. One of his competitors, who lost out to him, complained "how does he do it, he thinks green lumber is wood painted green". This was to show that street smarts beats out useless knowledge. The catch is the author in no way suggests the street smarts guy is just randomly lucky. Same for a guy who made a killing in oil during the Iraq invasion. He calls the guy Fat Tony and he's a big part of the book and he's sort of a New Jersey mobster type. Everyone was predicting war would skyrocket oil. Tony figured all that was factored into the price and took positions on lower oil prices. Tony was right. Showing how much superior street smarts were to "experts'. But again the author who trumpets random chance often never suggests how Tony's success may have been random.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I will say I think his ideas deserve a read, but I'm not sold on them. He REALLY relies on ancient customs and philosophers a lot (though he really doesn't like Socrates). I think we underestimate the intellect of people from the past, I think he overestimates.

He disdains experts and gives a story of a guy who made a killing in the green lumber market. One of his competitors, who lost out to him, complained "how does he do it, he thinks green lumber is wood painted green". This was to show that street smarts beats out useless knowledge. The catch is the author in no way suggests the street smarts guy is just randomly lucky. Same for a guy who made a killing in oil during the Iraq invasion. He calls the guy Fat Tony and he's a big part of the book and he's sort of a New Jersey mobster type. Everyone was predicting war would skyrocket oil. Tony figured all that was factored into the price and took positions on lower oil prices. Tony was right. Showing how much superior street smarts were to "experts'. But again the author who trumpets random chance often never suggests how Tony's success may have been random.

I'm going to read it. I'm not as sold on the investment of college and grad school for everyone as I once was - particularly given the expense. Gaining experience and street smarts are probably best for many with entrepreneurial aspirations as opposed to the bubble of college and expense. What Musk always says is the stuff taught in college thanks to tech is readily available to everyone

 

[CO. Hoosier]

He tackles medicine. He believes doctors do too much number chasing,

I agree. I think number chasing is a way to avoid individual decisions and thinking. Standardization provides comfort and security. But this is true in a number of professions and occupations, not just medicine. Bureaucracies, whether in government or in the private sector, thrive on standard policies and procedures because they make everyone more comfortable.

He is in on that with elective surgery. He finds the concept of elective surgery wrong, if one has a choice other than death one should take it.

How does he define elective surgery? A nose job is one thing, a joint replacement is a different thing. Both are considered elective.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Just to add more of his thoughts, he loves science but not the way we do it. He doesn't like huge labs with huge grants. He wants more tinkerers working through trial and error. He wants more individual or small group research with more small grants and fewer huge research labs with huge grants. To him the tinkerer is the backbone and doesn't require a Ph.D. or not even necessarily schooling.

I agree with this too. Except I wouldn’t say the knowledge gained with schooling isn’t necessary. Large institutional science is a huge issue which we have discussed often here In specific contexts.

He disdains experts

Ha. A man after my own heart. The problem with experts is not the experts, but in how the non-experts use them. Expertise is much more important than experts.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I agree with this too. Except I wouldn’t say the knowledge gained with schooling isn’t necessary. Large institutional science is a huge issue which we have discussed often here In specific contexts.

Ha. A man after my own heart. The problem with experts is not the experts, but in how the non-experts use them. Expertise is much more important than experts.

I knew you would like that part.

Last post about his ideas. He hated Alan Greenspan. As a Libertarian, he thought Greenspan would honor the business cycle. But Greenspan worked to calm the cycle. In Taleb's idea that is wrong. My take on Taleb's opinion is that recessions are like forest fires, they clear the dead so that new life can form. Taleb believes that the only reason we have too big to fail is that we diminish/eliminate recessions that would kill off these corporations before they reach that status.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I agree. I think number chasing is a way to avoid individual decisions and thinking. Standardization provides comfort and security. But this is true in a number of professions and occupations, not just medicine. Bureaucracies, whether in government or in the private sector, thrive on standard policies and procedures because they make everyone more comfortable.


How does he define elective surgery? A nose job is one thing, a joint replacement is a different thing. Both are considered elective.

He doesn't go into that. He suggests that Americans lack patience and the body has tremendous ability to heal itself if given time. But having waited 15 years from the time I was told I needed knee replacement I can say some things don't heal themselves given time.

An interesting note, he claims frequent fasting is good for the body, the stressor makes it better. He claims fasting cures diabetes. Googling there are studies ongoing, and at least a couple of people have been "cured"* by following a fasting ritual. But I would say he is out over his skis on this one.

Seriously I thought of you often reading it, he too is abrasive. Oh, and some of his ideas fit heavily with yours. Dragging your comment below in, he values education but believes we overvalue it as a society. He believes everyone should study and read on all the subjects often. And not just normal books, he makes a big deal about reading medical textbooks and the like when he wants to learn about medicine.

*scare quotes because cured vs remission is hard to determine

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

He doesn't go into that. He suggests that Americans lack patience and the body has tremendous ability to heal itself if given time. But having waited 15 years from the time I was told I needed knee replacement I can say some things don't heal themselves given time.

An interesting note, he claims frequent fasting is good for the body, the stressor makes it better. He claims fasting cures diabetes. Googling there are studies ongoing, and at least a couple of people have been "cured"* by following a fasting ritual. But I would say he is out over his skis on this one.

Seriously I thought of you often reading it, he too is abrasive. Oh, and some of his ideas fit heavily with yours. Dragging your comment below in, he values education but believes we overvalue it as a society. He believes everyone should study and read on all the subjects often. And not just normal books, he makes a big deal about reading medical textbooks and the like when he wants to learn about medicine.

*scare quotes because cured vs remission is hard to determine

I think he's probably out over his skis on quite a few topics he discusses. He's thought provoking though.

If anyone wants to listen to him being interviewed by an economist:

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on Antifragility - Econlib

Nassim Taleb, author of Fooled By Randomness and The Black Swan, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about antifragility, the concept behind Taleb’s next book, a work in progress. Taleb talks about how we can cope with our ignorance and uncertainty in a complex world. Topics covered include...

www.econtalk.org

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on Black Swans - Econlib

Nassim Taleb talks about the challenges of coping with uncertainty, predicting events, and understanding history. This wide-ranging conversation looks at investment, health, history and other areas where data play a key role. Taleb, the author of Fooled By Randomness and The Black Swan, imagines...

www.econtalk.org

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on Rationality, Risk, and Skin in the Game - Econlib

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of Skin in the Game, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the ideas in the book. This is the third episode of EconTalk with Taleb related to the general topic of skin in the game and how it affects decision-making and policy in an uncertain world. This...

www.econtalk.org

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the Pandemic - Econlib

Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about the pandemic with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Topics discussed include how to handle the rest of this pandemic and the next one, the power of the mask, geronticide, and soul in the game.

www.econtalk.org

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think he's probably out over his skis on quite a few topics he discusses. He's thought provoking though.

If anyone wants to listen to him being interviewed by an economist:

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on Antifragility - Econlib

Nassim Taleb, author of Fooled By Randomness and The Black Swan, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about antifragility, the concept behind Taleb’s next book, a work in progress. Taleb talks about how we can cope with our ignorance and uncertainty in a complex world. Topics covered include...

www.econtalk.org

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on Black Swans - Econlib

Nassim Taleb talks about the challenges of coping with uncertainty, predicting events, and understanding history. This wide-ranging conversation looks at investment, health, history and other areas where data play a key role. Taleb, the author of Fooled By Randomness and The Black Swan, imagines...

www.econtalk.org

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on Rationality, Risk, and Skin in the Game - Econlib

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of Skin in the Game, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the ideas in the book. This is the third episode of EconTalk with Taleb related to the general topic of skin in the game and how it affects decision-making and policy in an uncertain world. This...

www.econtalk.org

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the Pandemic - Econlib

Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about the pandemic with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Topics discussed include how to handle the rest of this pandemic and the next one, the power of the mask, geronticide, and soul in the game.

www.econtalk.org

I think he knows he is out over his skis because that is what he wanted. He tells of this using a barroom fight. If a factory worker hits someone in a bar, his factory does not care. If a CEO does they will probably be fired. If an author does their book sales will go up..

This fits with what we see, be controversial and gain. I think he is using it, I think Hannity uses it, and many others.

 

[UncleMark]

He doesn't go into that. He suggests that Americans lack patience and the body has tremendous ability to heal itself if given time. But having waited 15 years from the time I was told I needed knee replacement I can say some things don't heal themselves given time.

I can go along with this. Too often, people will come down with some kind of symptom or pain or discomfort and expect something needs to be done right away, assuming it's not going to get better. That's not been the case for me with several things. (Of course, a knee going to shit isn't one of them.)

My wife, on the other hand, doesn't let any malady go untreated. There's a pill or potion for everything, donchya know.