Skip to content

Anything deemed bad for you is, well…

Anything deemed bad for you is, well, good when infrequent and in small quantities.

From the idea of the “S-family” dose response with a convex section it flows *necessarily* that anything deemed harmful that you are exposed to 1) in small enough quantities, 2) in a non-recurring, not chronic exposure, and, 3) in an acute, short lived way (“one off”), *no matter how toxic* it is deemed to be in long term consumption, will eventually either leave you better off or at least no worse off than before. This means that sugar, smoking, pollution, medication, the New York Times, etc. have to leave you not worse off under the condition that your exposure is episodic, not chronic. (Beware the “small”: some things like heroin or an MBA class can leave you permanently altered after a single exposure at doses that do appear small but are not).

The proof is in Part II of the technical book (I am cleaning it up thanks to Carl Fakhry’s indefatigable vigilance). [CORRECTED TYPO]

via Anything deemed bad for you is, well,… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb | Facebook.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *