Risk Control: Nassim Taleb Versus Reality

What do you mean by “fake low volatility?

You know the funds of Bear Stearns that blew up in the subprime crisis? They were funds that never had a down month. A lot of people who blew up in subprime did not have a down month—ever. And people rushed to invest in them because they were low volatility. And then they blew up.

Typically, I never get close to anything that has no volatility, unless it’s justified, like Treasury bonds. If you go to a balance sheet, you can see why there is low volatility, whether it is genuine. The company can have a barbell. The company can have very, very low leverage. Or you might discover that a company is doing the equivalent of selling remote options, and the company can lose a lot of money in one blow.

Let’s link it to make it more intuitive: In general, I can say that a system that has very, very low volatility is likely to blow up. Take the example of Syria. Syria had no political volatility for 40 years, and look what happened.

Forests that never have fires are likely to be completely eradicated by fires when they happen. Forests that have regular fires are much more stable.

via Risk Control: Nassim Taleb Versus Reality.

Many people are harrassing Malcolm Gladwell…

Many people are harrassing Malcolm Gladwell. Assuming critics are right about the anectodal aspect of his work, many many social “scientists” are much worse, many are dangerously ignorant of the very notion of “evidence” and the validity of statistical claims. And if he who is clueless about statistical inference is clueless about science.

This is from my Chapter 6.

socialscience.pdf – Google Drive

via Many people are harrassing Malcolm… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb | Facebook.

SKIN-IN-THE-GAME: Eye for eye 3ayn…

SKIN-IN-THE-GAME: Eye for eye 3ayn ta7at 3ayn is not literal. One can’t inflict exactly the same pubishment: what if the other person happens to be blind? If a doctor amputates the wrong leg, there has to be another solution than amputate the doctor’s leg.
(I thank Marc Abrahams for Talmudic advice/guidance/training.)

YUTorah Online – On the Daf – Bava Kamma/84/a

via SKIN-IN-THE-GAME: Eye for eye 3ayn… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb | Facebook.

Experience is not much of a teacher; it is, rather, a continuous exit exam…

Experience is not much of a teacher; it is, rather, a continuous exit exam. For we are not very good at “learning” from events.

– You are told that experience is accumulated knowledge when it is largely a survival filter, a fitness test. Those we call “experienced” are simply those who had the traits that allowed them to survive in a given function in order to be able do it for a long time: what we call on this forum absence of fragility.

– This confusion is similar to mistaking the Lamarckian for the Darwinian. There is some direct learning (Lamarckian) in experience, but it has to coexist with a stiff selection test.

– The consequence is that “experienced” people should limit their teaching to avoidance of fragility.

– And our preferences show that we get the point (intuitively): we tend worship old people when they are successful, and despise (and neglect) them when they are ordinary. Yet both have, technically, the same “experience”.

[VIA NEGATIVA, LINDY EFFECT, SKIN IN THE GAME]

–Please read carefully before commenting.

via Experience is not much of a teacher; it… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb | Facebook.