Category Archives: Facebook

Everyone Worries Too Much About ‘Black Swans’


Relax. They really are pretty rare.

In other words, Taleb might be wrong — people might be overestimating, rather than underestimating, the risk of market crashes.

Some recent survey evidence indicates that this might be true. William Goetzmann, Dasol Kim and the Nobel-winning economist Robert Shiller looked at 26 years of survey data, and found that people consistently say they expect things like stock-market crashes and earthquakes to happen more frequently than they really do. This is exactly the opposite of what Taleb might predict.

Source: Everyone Worries Too Much About ‘Black Swans’

Taleb is not taking this sitting down! (Says your faithful archivist tongue in cheek.)
From Facebook 4/15/16

Friends, this is what I wrote in The Black Swan about rare events: they are very difficult to assess probabilistically. Not underpriced: hard to price, hence one should avoid being fragile to them.

Accordingly I have asked for a formal retraction of an article by Noah Smith (someone who has been spreading nonsense for years) and who apparently has not read the book.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-15/everyone-worries-too-much-about-black-swan-events

Another flaw which most certainly explains Noah Smith’s failing his academic career. He takes a book published in 2007 discussing events until 2006, then says “Taleb is wrong” about market estimation of probability between 2007-2016. Perhaps the participants adjusted to events of 2007, the book, or something else. The claim by Noah Smith is about market value of risk, not the structure of risk, which is something subsequent to the book. That his editor missed it is also strange.

P-Values, Growth | Facebook

For those interested in p-values, a short (very technical) paper and a video commentary. I was able to pull out the exact meta-distribution of p-values (i.e. p-values as random variables).
The point is that the same phenomenon will produce p-values all over the map, A true p-value of .12 will produce p-values <.05 more than half the time, so people may never replicate and get the same result.
One Hundred Years of P-Value Bullshit!
The paper: http://fooledbyrandomness.com/pvalues.pdf

This is a companion to the short paper at http://fooledbyrandomness.com/pvalues… It explains the problem with p-values giving different values… (3/23/16)

——————–

I was at a venue where someone wanted to increase economic growth: “funding” and “investments” were mentioned every 240 characters.

Now some empiricism. Consider that almost all tech companies “in the tails” were not started by “funding”. Take companies you are familiar with: Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook. These companies started with risk-taking. Funding came in small amounts, way later.

Now let us take the idea to its next logical step. The minute something called a “business plan” is created, the idea is corrupt and the BS start dominating. People start thinking in terms of other people’s perception of the business, for “raising cash. Like prostitutes.

We can generalize to economic growth. The problem is that these discussions of “growth” are made by people who have never taken risks.

What is needed? 1) determination, 2) sophistication, 3) authenticity, 4) convexity and above all, 5) risk loving.

PS- Someone wanted to start an academic research center; his aim was to have a structure, a business plan, get research grants, etc. Then do research. I bailed out and did more for a total cost of $1.50, with http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/FatTails.html  (3/21/16)

SOUL IN THE GAME, Real World Risk, Rebellion, Voting to Destroy the Establishment | Facebook

Reader: “Dear N., I have read all your books and have a question. How do you recommend an average young man navigate the modern world? “.

Me: “Never ask a vague question“. (3/13/16)

—————-

SOUL IN THE GAME & THE RISE OF PROTECTIONISM

The rise of protectionism may have a strong rationale. One fundamental flaw with economic thinking is that humans are assumed to be doing things to make a living and improve their economic condition. This is partially true. But people are also doing things for existential reasons. We may be better off economically (in the aggregate) by exporting jobs. But that’s not what people may really want.

I write because that’s what I am designed to do –and subcontracting my research and writing to China or Tunisia would (perhaps) increase my productivity but deprive me of my identity.

So people might want to *do* things. Just to do things, because they feel it is part of their identity. It may be cruel to cheat them of that. They too want to play. They want to have their soul in the game.

Bureaucrats don’t get it because they don’t do things.

—-
NOTE I: More technically, it is erroneous to think that one necessarily has to “maximize” income if one seeks it (economists used naive mathematics in their optimization programs and thinking). It is perfectly compatible to “satisfice” their wealth, that is, shoot for a satisfactory income, plus maximize one’s fitness to the task, or the emotional pride they may have in seeing the fruits of their labor. Or not maximize anything, just do things because that is what makes us human.

NOTE II: TK. (3/12/16)

—————-

Announcement: Our next Real World Risk (Taking) Mini-Certificate is June 6-10, Princeton Club in NYC.

Comments by the previous class found on social media:

http://www.realworldrisk.com/inaugural_program_comments

—————-

What we are seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30y of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, microeconomic papers wrong 40% of the time, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating only 1/5th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. I have shown that most of what Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types call “rational” or “irrational” comes from misunderstanding of probability theory. (3/9/16)

—————-

The *establishment* composed of journos, BS-Vending talking heads with well-formulated verbs, bureaucrato-cronies, lobbyists-in training, New Yorker-reading semi-intellectuals, image-conscious empty suits, Washington rent-seekers and other “well thinking” members of the vocal elites are not getting the point about what is happening and the sterility of their arguments. People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment. (3/7/16)

Violence Under Fat Tails, Enemies of the Good, Real World Risk, Umberto Eco | Facebook

We finally summarized both our violence paper and our methodology for “Fooled by Randomness” under fat tails. We explain in the simplest possible terms what is noise and what is “significant” and why journos such as Pinker are fooled by “drops in violence”. (3/2/16)

The file is at:
www.fooledbyrandomness.com/significance.pdf

Background: one economist, Michael Spagat, commented on us vs. Pinker in a journal called significance, making eggregious errors of significance. The mean NEEDS to include the tails.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb's photo.

———-
THE “ENEMIES OF THE GOOD”

1) Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison (a la Tony Blair, used public office for subsequent enrichment; the reverse is far better; agent of the crony clepto-bureaucrato Washington order. Unlike overt corruption, this insidious form (legal not ethical) is the most morally damaging to our fabric).

2) The Wahabi regime of Saudi Barbaria and their friends.

3) Agrochemical and pharma shills.

4) People increasing rather than decreasing ruin problems while claiming to “help”, i.e., with enough pseudoknowledge of probability to cause damage (a la Cass Sunstein who find it irrational for people to worry about ruin)… (2/29/16)

———-
Apparently we did OK with our inaugural Real World Risk Mini-Certificate. Five days of lecturing.

We managed to drill the essence of the problems with graphs only, with examples and concepts, no equations. And it worked! For instance, Zari Rachev who was the doctoral student of the great Kolmogorov was simpler than any lecturer I have ever seen on probability, could get points simple enough for school students.

I lectured a bit more than 6/10, but most other instructors were present in debates, with constant commentary from Robert Frey and teasing from Raphael Douady. At many times the discussions were like stand-up comedy.

I focused in my part in showing that almost all of probabilistic decision problems, convexity (antifragility) and all can be linked to a simple logical asymmetry that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and how the point gets lost as people become semi-sophisticated. From that you get almost everything in a tight systematic view.

This is the first time I’ve worked hard in 15 years. I realized the trick: had no coffee. It works.

The next seminar is June 6.

http://www.realworldrisk.com

[NOTE We are assuming that given that these comments were on public sites (Twitter) we do not need the hassle of the permission/approval process. But if the author objects we would remove immediately.] (2/27/16)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb's photo.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb's photo.

———-
Today a big chunk of erudition, curiosity, imagination, and intellectual playfulness has left the planet.
Rest in Peace, Umberto Eco. (2/20/16)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb's photo.

One Bank, The Clinton System, Erudition, Minority Rule, SITG | Facebook

My Bank of England Seminar will be webcast.

Date: Thursday 18 February 2016Time: 4.15-6pmVenue: Moorgate Auditorium, 20…

———-

Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison and husband (sort of) Bill Clinton represent the reverse skin of the game, that is the worst of the worst of unethical politics. It consists in the use of public office to subsequently get legally rich. Gaming the system is legal but not ethical.

You don’t become a Jesuit priest because it is good on your CV, and because those who leave the orders get great positions in the lay sector. Likewise a political position is not a stepping stone for enrichment.

Interestingly, electors worldwide are getting the point (with the reverse TonyBlairing of UK politics). But not the journos and people who work within the system.

http://www.nybooks.com/…/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016…/

  • The Clinton System
  • The Clinton System
  • The Clinton System
 ———-

Additional reason I am more impressed by erudition than what is commonly called “intelligence” or skills, or something of the sort. To have erudition requires *not* reading the newspapers.

This is a *via negativa* statement.

———-

It hit me from the origin of the term halal that morality has minority dynamics. Added to the minority rule.

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

Nassim Nicholas Taleb's photo.
———-

We don’t know what we are tawking about when we tawk about risk.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb's photo.

———-

HOW TO ANSWER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS WHEN YOU ARE CLUELESS
Humphrey Bogard and his friend infiltrated a Nazi cell in New York, impersonating two Nazi engineers. They had to bluff their way by answering questions when they really didn’t know anything about the subject matter.

It can also work as a hoax: just give a speech that says nothing but looks technical.