April 24, 2007
Lunch with Nassim Nicholas Taleb
From FelixSalmon.com:
So the lunch with Nassim Nicholas Taleb happened, in a rather pretentious little place on 15th Street, which at least was quiet. I arrived brimming with questions, and left with only a few of them answered, but had a great experience all the same.
I think I'm going to do a more formal Q&A with Taleb when both his book and the first reviews are out – probably by email. But here are a few questions I had going in to the lunch, along with any answers that Taleb gave me, if any. They should at least, give an idea of the kind of questions which get raised by his book.
- Are common economic concepts such as cycles or reversion to mean remotely useful or even meaningful? (I asked Taleb this, and got a general reply about all economics being not only useless but also unethical.)
- What does NNT think of Robin Hanson's blog, Overcoming Bias? (Taleb says he doesn't know it. But he should – there's enormous overlap between the blog and the book. The blogs he likes the most are Arts & Letters Daily and 3 Quarks Daily. He does read newspapers online, but usually through links from these sites. He's not interested in news, per se.)
- The "Black Swan" of the title comes from the idea that you can't confirm a statement like "all swans are white" by observing white swans. Similarly, you can't prove that OJ Simpson is not a murderer by closely observing him all day and seeing him murder nobody. On the other hand, if you give me two paragraphs and tell you they're anagrams of each other, I'm likely to pick a letter at random, probably something uncommon like W or Q or Z, and count its occurrences in each of the paragraphs. If the occurrences match, I'll be more likely to believe you. Is there some kind of real confirmation going on here? Or are all such observations largely meaningless unless and until you've either falsified the claim or proved it outright? (Taleb: Yes, there is some confirmation going on.)
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 09:55 PM | Permalink






Comments
I like the phonetics of Black Swan Outlier. Like Mr. Felixsalmon, however, I am quite sure that I don't get Taleb's theories. Although one may agree with him that our tools to predict the future - in particular, retrospective data, historical trends and so forth - are inadequate, it would seem that he would like us all to arrange our lives in a way that we anticipate a nuclear holocaust or a Martian invasion. After all, each is a "Black Swan Outlier."
To me Taleb's worldview, defined as it were by complicated statistical analysis, seems reductive. His theories may make sense in the statistical universe - which to me is a cousin of the lurking quantum universe - but not in the what we like to call the real world. But then I don't have a head for statistics.
Posted by: HMN | Apr 25, 2007 6:03:54 AM
Relatively new to N.N.T., I may be way, way off here, but it seems to me he is using the tools of statistical analysis to promote a form of fatalism. If we can statistically allow for the reality that careful planning may be for nothing, that the Black Swan can serenely paddle in or force majeure intervene at any time, and that a mathematical model is just, well...a mathematical model, then we are left with an almost meaningless data set. Are not statistics about probability? Is N.N.T. suggesting probability isn't perfect, and can be controverted *just like that*? If so, then -- this is news?
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Apr 25, 2007 10:50:45 AM
Taleb appeared on THE COLBERT REPORT on May 8. Colbert was hilarious.
Taleb: Take Google, September 911, the rise of the internet, Harry Potter…They were unexpected and no one saw them coming, and after they happened, oh yah, it was so explainable by historians, scholars and academics, but before they happened, they were so unexpected. And guess what? These events…they run the world. [The internet was predicted in several publications in the 1980’s. Harry Potter – an event that runs the world?]
[Later]
Colbert: So you say…911 could not be predicted.
Taleb: It is very very hard to predict these events [He probably never heard of the July 2006 intelligence report that stated that Bin Laden was determined to strike within the United States of almost identical title]
Colbert: …I’m glad to hear that, because that means the 911 Commission was a waste of time. Because we shouldn’t have investigated why it happend, right?
Taleb: You need you need [sic] to investigate to see if it is predicatable or not…
Colbert: But why? Why investigate something that can’t be predicted, because there is nothing to learn from it.
Taleb: No, after the fact, Okay, you have to look at…uh…first of all you can learn something from the event, it’s not like you can’t learn at all.
Colbert: Okay
Taleb: But 911, 911, what I’m saying is that its there is so many events like 911 that could have taken place, you see, so, its just to see if there’s responsibility, is there any vigilance or no vigilance. This is why we investigated 911.
Colbert: ..Is Iraq a Black Swan? We couldn’t have ever foreseen it would go poorly, we would never have known that was not going to go well…
Taleb: No, wars, wars, yah, listen, wars since Napolean [only since Napolean? This guy needs to learn some history]…we learned that wars…wars are more and more unpredictable, more and more complex, the link between action and consequence becoming fuzzier, and I think that the war in Iraq was a mistake…we should have seen that it could have led to these dire consequences.
Colbert: We should have but we didn’t, therefore we couldn’t.
[More]
Colbert: It seems like you’re essentially saying the future is unpredictable.
Taleb: No, I’m saying, yes, my idea in the book is to show two things: number one that the future is rather unpredictable, it is dominated by Black Swans and these black swans are not predictable, and the second point that is quite central, is that we humans…all right?...try to concoct stories [like his 911 story, his Iraq story and his Napolean story] to convince ourselves that the future is more predictable than it actually is…
Colbert: The future is essentially not predictable.
Taleb: Yes, it’s not.
Colbert: By that logic, doesn’t it mean that in the future you will be able to predict things, because you are predicting that you cannot predict things?
Posted by: BestinShow | May 9, 2007 6:12:50 PM
Post a comment