Tag Archives: sitg

Arabization, Umayyads, Professional Shills, Decision Theory, SITG, Monsanto, Socialites | Twitter

Leave a reply

@nntaleb 2/2 Likewise Abbaside Califs favored settlement of Jews in Baghdad for Arabization because unlike Persians or Chaldeans, Jews were “Arabs”. Permalink 7:57 AM – 2 Mar 2016

@nntaleb Where we learn the Umayyads helped Jews settle in coastal Levant to displace Byzantines settlers/traders.(free PDF) https://twitter.com/Ballandalus/status/704328842530463744   Permalink 7:51 AM – 2 Mar 2016

@nntaleb We need good compilation aggregating professional shills s.a. Jon Entine, Henry I. Miller, Keith Kloor,Tamar Haspel https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/705028460750589952   Permalink 6:12 AM – 2 Mar 2016

@jfrias92 @nntaleb #antifragile pic.twitter.com/hEBHcHRzPM Permalink 4:03 AM – 2 Mar 2016

@nntaleb More robust (and easier) to focus on food distribution than mess w/transgenics with unknown tail risks. #technodopes https://twitter.com/SaraMenker/status/704909887956983808   Permalink 1:05 AM – 2 Mar 2016 (Evaluating gambles using dynamics)

@nntaleb The most important published paper in decision theory I’ve seen (Peters and Gell-Mann) since Thorp’s “Kelly Crit.” https://twitter.com/mikeandallie/status/704793858194825217   Permalink 2:23 PM – 1 Mar 2016

@nntaleb Even a child wouldn’t say “Even if true, Nuclear bomb expodes “only a small % of the time”. #ProbabilityRiskIgnorant https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/704692089347514368   Permalink 1:33 PM – 1 Mar 2016

@nntaleb More evidence that lack of skin in the game make people stupid… and dangerous. https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/704692089347514368   Permalink 11:38 AM – 1 Mar 2016

@nntaleb Social scientists have brain problem not getting: for Fat Tailed dist ALL properties=tail. @sflicht @robinhanson pic.twitter.com/nvYfmgI47q Permalink 7:23 AM – 1 Mar 2016

@nntaleb Prediction: Monsanto to move into organic, away from GMOs. They may be evil, but unlike their shills/technodopes, they aren’t very stupid. Permalink 3:51 AM – 1 Mar 2016

@nntaleb Inversion of skin in the game for big corporations: Monsanto Given Legal Shield in a Chemical Safety Bill http://nyti.ms/1TKummk   Permalink 5:10 PM – 29 Feb 2016

@Danimallian Flint, TBTF, and now this. Singapore’s president makes $4.3M. Our officials are paid by lobbyists. @nntaleb https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/704470212909858816   Permalink 5:03 PM – 29 Feb 2016

@RyanHoliday “Preoccupation with efficacy is the main obstacle to a poetic, elegant, robust and heroic life.” Nassim Taleb @nntaleb Permalink 1:30 PM – 29 Feb 2016

@maggieNYT Trump said he’ll open up the 9/11 commission papers that are secret so people can know who “really” knocked down WTC http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories.html?_r=0   Permalink 7:51 AM – 29 Feb 2016

@nntaleb Correction: Should be 2.01 (add, not deduct epsilon) Permalink 6:05 AM – 29 Feb 2016

@nntaleb My current list of “enemies of the good”: 1) Wahabi regime/Saudi Barbaria, 2) Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison/Tony Blair, 3) Monsanto/GMO shills Permalink 5:56 AM – 29 Feb 2016

@nntaleb A simple way to understand why for fat tails the average is always closer to the maximum: (here 1.99 trillion) https://twitter.com/JohnAllenPaulos/status/704297361993031680   Permalink 5:46 AM – 29 Feb 2016

@nntaleb The social media comments on our Real World Risk Mini-Certificate Workshop from attendants: http://www.realworldrisk.com   pic.twitter.com/w9w9EWQqle Permalink 5:32 AM – 29 Feb 2016

@nntaleb Never befriend socialites. (Heuristic du jour) Permalink 5:22 AM – 29 Feb 2016

One Bank, The Clinton System, Erudition, Minority Rule, SITG | Facebook

Leave a reply

My Bank of England Seminar will be webcast.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/resea…/…/seminars/180216.aspx

PDF of slides (temporary)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5…/BoE2016.pptx-show.pdf

One Bank Flagship Seminar by Nassim Nicholas Taleb – Tail Risk Measurement Heuristics | Bank of…
Date: Thursday 18 February 2016Time: 4.15-6pmVenue: Moorgate Auditorium, 20…

———-

Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison and husband (sort of) Bill Clinton represent the reverse skin of the game, that is the worst of the worst of unethical politics. It consists in the use of public office to subsequently get legally rich. Gaming the system is legal but not ethical.

You don’t become a Jesuit priest because it is good on your CV, and because those who leave the orders get great positions in the lay sector. Likewise a political position is not a stepping stone for enrichment.

Interestingly, electors worldwide are getting the point (with the reverse TonyBlairing of UK politics). But not the journos and people who work within the system.

http://www.nybooks.com/…/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016…/

  • The Clinton System
  • The Clinton System
  • The Clinton System
 ———-

Additional reason I am more impressed by erudition than what is commonly called “intelligence” or skills, or something of the sort. To have erudition requires *not* reading the newspapers.

This is a *via negativa* statement.

———-

It hit me from the origin of the term halal that morality has minority dynamics. Added to the minority rule.

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

Nassim Nicholas Taleb's photo.
———-

We don’t know what we are tawking about when we tawk about risk.

Adding to:
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/SITG.html

Nassim Nicholas Taleb's photo.

———-

HOW TO ANSWER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS WHEN YOU ARE CLUELESS
Humphrey Bogard and his friend infiltrated a Nazi cell in New York, impersonating two Nazi engineers. They had to bluff their way by answering questions when they really didn’t know anything about the subject matter.

It can also work as a hoax: just give a speech that says nothing but looks technical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSSYkb_dmt8&feature=youtu.be

The Importance of Having Skin in the Game | The Art of Manliness

Leave a reply

To the skin-withholders above, Taleb adds news editors who choose clicks over credibility, managers who assume minimal accountability, and paper-pushing bureaucrats of all kinds. These societal elites and cosseted desk-jockeys invert the ancient order of honor; they attain status and influence without risk, and substitute cheap talk for action. They accept the upside of their position, without being exposed to its downside — and in fact outsource that downside onto unsuspecting others. Pundits give opinions and predictions that are trusted by the general population, but suffer no consequences if they turn out to be wrong — even if actual harm befalls those who took their faulty advice. They demand a pound of flesh from others, while protecting their own skin.

Source: The Importance of Having Skin in the Game | The Art of Manliness

WEALTH INEQUALITY AND SKIN IN THE GAME

Leave a reply

WEALTH INEQUALITY AND SKIN IN THE GAME
A well functioning society isn’t one in which people are equal but one in which people have equal *probability*. So measuring static inequality is severely flawed.
Take the United States. Less than 10% of the people in the 1982 list of richest 500 were there in 2012. Compare to France where 60% on the rich list today have inherited their wealth. And there are other more robust metrics: 56% of Americans will spent at least a year in the top 10% (in income not wealth). Not in Europe.
So a good society is one in which people at the top have *skin in the game* hence can lose their money. Wealth generation should not lead to protected position at the top. Social mobility isn’t in elevating people, it requires the top to open a position.
So in Europe a civil servant from the “mandarin class” is safe for life as they extract rent from the system, while a good entrepreneur will run a chance of getting poor, leaving room for others.
PS- Let me explain to those who don’t get it. SITG means the rich needs to remain exposed to losing back his money rather than shielded.
PPS- 39% of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 % of the income distribution, 56 % will find themselves in the top 10%, and 73% percent will spend a year in the top 20 %. Ref http://www.nytimes.com/…/…/from-rags-to-riches-to-rags.html…

via: Facebook

SKIN IN THE GAME and OUR FRAUD DETECTOR

1 Reply

SKIN IN THE GAME and OUR FRAUD DETECTOR
+ Have you ever wondered why people are upset by CEO compensation, sometimes >200x that of the average employee, but not if an entrepreneur makes the same amount of money; nor are they upset with singers, authors, or performers?
+ The economist Thomas Sowell found this an aberration. His argument is that a CEO is not harming you; he is not sponsored by the taxpayer (or let us grant him that for this argument). But Sowell and the others apologists of CEO pay are missing the fact that our naturalistic fraud detector may be picking up something quite severe. A CEO has inverse skin in the game; his losses are transferred to the shareholder (as he keeps the upside with stock options and stick others with the downside). As I said in Antifragile, he is no entrepreneur (or artist where thousands are sacrificing their lives, so entering the profession cannot be done rationally on economic grounds).
+ We also detect that a CEO is largely an actor. Just look at one on TV for a split second.
+ So our ecological instinct is effective there in smelling something unfair; it is more powerful than that of regular economists who need a more sophisticated understanding of contract theory/asymmetry to get the point.
+ Note that in some countries where wealth has a bad name, it is often because it is associated with rent seeking. In the US, perception is different because wealth is traditionally associated with risk taking.
+ Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that societies give respect to people who have skin in the game (but not exclusively), and have a moral repulsion towards those who have inverse skin in the game.

via: Facebook