Category Archives: Haters

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Became The Chiseled Adonis You See Before You Through A Strict Regimen Of Picking Up Rocks And Lying In Bed For Two Years « Dealbreaker: Wall Street Insider – Financial News, Headlines, Commentary and Analysis – Hedge Funds, Private Equity, Banks

Certainly NNT has set the stage for these sorts of reactions. Hopefully they won’t get in the way of his message.

Have you ever gazed upon classical Greek philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb and thought to yourself, “That man has a body from the gods. I could never hope to match him in brains, but what about brawn? If only I could obtain the details of his diet and fitness regimen”? Well, friends, today is your lucky day. Despite still being on his second tour of self-imposed quiet time, Taleb granted several interviews to publications reviewing his new book, “Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder,” and, naturally, the topic of his physique came up, specifically the various ways he keeps it in such enviable shape. (He also touches on the exercises that led to him having a brain three times the size of the typical astrophysicist, though please note that these should be appreciated but not be attempted by average humans, who could hurt themselves quite badly.)

via Nassim Nicholas Taleb Became The Chiseled Adonis You See Before You Through A Strict Regimen Of Picking Up Rocks And Lying In Bed For Two Years « Dealbreaker: Wall Street Insider – Financial News, Headlines, Commentary and Analysis – Hedge Funds, Private Equity, Banks.

(REVISED) What do you do to a “prominent” social scientist…

(REVISED)

What do you do to a “prominent” social scientist who is talking about my book while visibly not read it (or did not read it attentively to realize that his points are not what I am saying)?

The best strategy is to… promote his review.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WEIPZNPXM3U1/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

via (REVISED) What do….

Amazon.com: Herbert Gintis’ review of The Black Swan

1.0 out of 5 stars Might be a nice twenty page essay, but a bomb of a book, April 10, 2012

By

Herbert Gintis

This review is from: The Black Swan (Hardcover)

Science does not generally predict, but when it is good science, it does explain. You cannot, even in principle, predict the decay of an energized particle, or when a component in a complex mechanism will fail. But you can develop a probability distribution that accurately represent the decay probability of the particle or the distribution of failure times of the component.

Of course, the most important time we drove to work is the time an iron bar came loose from a pickup-truck and came crashing through our winshield. Science cannot predict this. But science can tell us how to reduce or even eliminate the chance that this event will happen in a properly equipped pickup-truck. It is not an indictment of engineering models that they cannot predict, as the author seems to believe.

It would be lovely to have an insigntful exposition of great unexpected events, such as the fall of the Soviet Union, Black Monday, and the shooting of Robert Kennedy. This woeful volume is not it. I can’t image what anyone finds valuable in The Black Swan. This too is a completely unforseen event, but is also difficult to explain in hindsight.

via Amazon.com: Herbert Gintis’ review of The Black Swan.

A Quant’s Apology: Bar Humbug – The Talebian Bar-Bell Portfolio, Part I

In the end I added  this to the ‘haters’ category. Especially after I read this post. He seems to be writing anonymously. Anyone know who it is?

According to philosopher Taleb we can have heuristics, but not optimization. Optimization leads to airport delays. It also leads to cheaper tickets and in this exciting two part installment I will merely attempt to clarify, and separate, the two separate pieces of advice which have been rather successfully promulgated:

It is wise to bet on unexpected outcomes, because markets underprice them

It is wise to adopt a bar-bell portfolio eschewing a middle ground of only moderately risky investments

My hope is that those of you falling for the long-shot lure might nevertheless hear me out, because you have not considered the possibility that 2 does not follow from 1. You are fools, frankly, but I have little interest in arguing about the first belief per se, just at the moment, because nobody has been able to explain to me why Taleb’s redressing of the longshot lure does not apply to situations where it is obviously wrong (like the racetrack).

It is the implication 1 => 2 I find rather more intriguing because like most pseudo-science it sounds perfectly reasonable, almost compelling. Yet if you were assuming that the world’s foremost thinker on probability and uncertainty has thought about it carefully on your behalf, and you need not, think again. We shall pry the two beliefs apart because the benefits of long-shot betting, real or imagined, do not suggest a bar-bell strategy.

via A Quant’s Apology: Bar Humbug – The Talebian Bar-Bell Portfolio, Part I.
HatTip to Dave Lull!

Janet Tavakoli: Where Were Drama Pundits — Whitney, Taleb and Gasparino — When It Mattered?

I’m in receipt today of a collection of emails from Janet Tavakoli. You may recall some controversy around figures NNT was quoted to have said in a GQ article. I believe I’ve posted about this elsewhere on the blog. It’s from 2009. As you know, I have no relationship with Nassim Taleb, I’m simply collecting, in one place, information related to him and his ideas, for people who, like myself, find his thinking fascinating. I am a fan, certainly not a devotee. So in the interest of fairness, and perhaps also, to provide a place for Ms. Tavakoli to further make her case, I’m posting these links to various articles and documents she presents.

 

Taleb’s Stranded Swan? pdf TSF Commentary – June 3, 2009 By Janet Tavakoli

Taleb Kills $20 Billion Mythical Swan pdf

And via Janet Tavakoli: Where Were Drama Pundits — Whitney, Taleb and Gasparino — When It Mattered? | The Big Picture.
Taleb asserted the article was about philosophy, and one should ignore the numbers. The Times (among others) didn’t seem to see it that way. The Times’s original reference to GQ’s article focused on the erroneous $20 billion in trading gains months before Taleb made his correction in the face of media pressure. As for Taleb’s eventual explanation that the “$20 billion” referred to a “notional” amount of derivatives that produced between $250 to $500 million in gains, it raises further strategy questions.