Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Skin in the Game – chapter drafts by Nassim Taleb

fooledbyrandomness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 131 posts

Re: Skin in the Game – chapter drafts by Nassim Taleb

#41

Post by acqq »

henrik_w wrote: post #30
sremani wrote: post #9

I thoroughly enjoyed his other book, "Anti-Fragile" and even more enjoy his twitter feed. He may be low on humility factor, but him calling out BS is refreshing, esp. the self-proclaimed vanguards of science whose work in science is filled with holes and/or is sparse. Read some of the preview chapters, posted here and twitter feed. Fits very well with his writing style and over all theme. I look forward to read this…

I agree on both points. I really enjoyed reading Antifragile, lots of good concepts and ideas! But his Twitter feed is pretty depressing to read - lots of attacking back and forth.

> his Twitter feed is pretty depressing to read

Em, aren't they all, unless they are the kind of "the shit my dad says," that is, intentional jokes?

Re: Skin in the Game – chapter drafts by Nassim Taleb

#42

Post by s_kilk »

xfax wrote: post #5

Am I the only one who doesn't enjoy Taleb's writing style? I find that he tends to use overly complex vocabulary to explain very simple ideas.

When I tried to read Antifragile his style seemed rambling and incoherent, darting back and forth between concepts and obtuse metaphors, like a tirade from the coked-up conspiracy nut at every party.

I may need to give it another shot.

Re: Skin in the Game – chapter drafts by Nassim Taleb

#43

Post by ricksplat »

VodkaHaze wrote: post #33
ricksplat wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't rules of thumb in his case the outcome of inductive reasoning based on many observations? Sounds pretty empirical to me. It is a fundamental strength of science that such formulations accept falsifiability - so the fact that his hypotheses/theories/laws don't hold in all cases just means they need to be refined for those cases. It also common scientific practice to accept hypotheses within bounds of probabilit…

The wildest conspiracy theories you've heard are also "the outcome of inductive reasoning based on many observations". Empirical testing is supposed to be statistical, not subject to human bias.

Well no, because they are neither falsifiable nor independently verifiable. Taleb proposes hypotheses based on openly available information and he provides enough information to replicate his findings.

Re: Skin in the Game – chapter drafts by Nassim Taleb

#44

Post by whatok »

visakanv wrote: post #34
mayukh wrote: post #4

For somebody who wrote 'Fooled by ..' one of my favorite books of all time, he certainly doesn't seem to suffer from self-doubt when it comes to stating his personal hypotheses. I can look past his condescending tone (especially towards the wealthy and 'pseudo' intellectuals), but his certitude in his own ideas -- especially after pressing home the point that we are surrounded by randomness -- tarnishes his punditry…

I once had a chance to meet him in person when he happened to be in town, and I was surprised by how pleasant, friendly and even soft-spoken he was, given how arrogant his writing can be. I suppose it riles up more critics and sells more books that way.

I wouldn't imagine he would be hostile to you unless he suspected you were a charlatan.

Re: Skin in the Game – chapter drafts by Nassim Taleb

#45

Post by tptacek »

mayukh wrote: post #4

For somebody who wrote 'Fooled by ..' one of my favorite books of all time, he certainly doesn't seem to suffer from self-doubt when it comes to stating his personal hypotheses. I can look past his condescending tone (especially towards the wealthy and 'pseudo' intellectuals), but his certitude in his own ideas -- especially after pressing home the point that we are surrounded by randomness -- tarnishes his punditry…

I read Fooled and Black Swan and I'm just going to admit it: I don't get it. I mean, I think I understood both books. But can someone explain why they're supposed to be so revelatory? I found them to be... something else.

Many, many smart people seem to swear by Fooled. Why? What am I missing?

Re: Skin in the Game – chapter drafts by Nassim Taleb

#46

Post by VodkaHaze »

tptacek wrote: post #45
mayukh wrote: post #4

For somebody who wrote 'Fooled by ..' one of my favorite books of all time, he certainly doesn't seem to suffer from self-doubt when it comes to stating his personal hypotheses. I can look past his condescending tone (especially towards the wealthy and 'pseudo' intellectuals), but his certitude in his own ideas -- especially after pressing home the point that we are surrounded by randomness -- tarnishes his punditry…

I read Fooled and Black Swan and I'm just going to admit it: I don't get it. I mean, I think I understood both books. But can someone explain why they're supposed to be so revelatory? I found them to be... something else. Many, many smart people seem to swear by Fooled. Why? What am I missing?

Fooled by randomness is his best book, but it's probably getting replaced by Robert Frank's book "Success and Luck" on my recommendation list for that topic.

It's just a good reminder that you might be luckier than you think and that skill doesn't fully explain the successful achievements.

Black Swan is seriously hard to read through; his arrogance is insufferable. The point he's making is fairly self evident; the book just got published at a very appropriate time.

You can get by without reading, or thinking about, his writings. He doesn't deserve the level of fame he has achieved by all standards.

Re: Skin in the Game – chapter drafts by Nassim Taleb

#47

Post by VodkaHaze »

zzzmarcus wrote: post #39
VodkaHaze wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of his theories are scientific. They're nice mental models to keep of the world, but they certainly don't justify his level of arrogance, especially not towards others who actually follow the scientific process to postulate theories

He has a 450 page mathematical explanation of his theories in his book Silent Risk. http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/FatTails.html

I'll read this thanks.

Re: Skin in the Game – chapter drafts by Nassim Taleb

#48

Post by flazzarino »

VodkaHaze wrote: post #37
anton1989 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like VodkaHaze is an account opened to harass scientists who are against GMOs.

I don't particularly care about his position on GMOs. In fact I sort of agree with it; his point can be reduced to "we're not exactly sure what we're doing here, perhaps we should try to avoid scalable disasters" which is sound. I was ambivalent towards Taleb a few years ago, but ever since he's upped his online presence he's become actively annoying

what's stopping you from ignoring him?

Re: Skin in the Game – chapter drafts by Nassim Taleb

#49

Post by triangleman »

ThomPete wrote: post #29
golergka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a good way to fight that is to form a stubborn minority that only eats GMO food.

that won't work in the EU which have have a much more sceptic view on these things. Their principle is the direct opposite of the US. If there is just the slightest risk that something is dangerous they forbid it. In the US they only forbid things if there is overwhelmingly evidence that points towards it being dangerous.

Then how do you explain the ban on ephedra? Something like 2 people die and it's off the market. Meanwhile, Tylenol kills hundreds of people annually and it's still allowed.

I was going to use Thalidomide as another counterexample, but I don't know how things are in Europe compared to the 60's.

Re: Skin in the Game – chapter drafts by Nassim Taleb

#50

Post by scott_s »

tptacek wrote: post #45
mayukh wrote: post #4

For somebody who wrote 'Fooled by ..' one of my favorite books of all time, he certainly doesn't seem to suffer from self-doubt when it comes to stating his personal hypotheses. I can look past his condescending tone (especially towards the wealthy and 'pseudo' intellectuals), but his certitude in his own ideas -- especially after pressing home the point that we are surrounded by randomness -- tarnishes his punditry…

I read Fooled and Black Swan and I'm just going to admit it: I don't get it. I mean, I think I understood both books. But can someone explain why they're supposed to be so revelatory? I found them to be... something else. Many, many smart people seem to swear by Fooled. Why? What am I missing?

I felt the same about Black Swan. And his attitude turned me off completely. So, no, it's not just you.
Post reply on HN