Study something old but not visibly useful (classics), something modern and useful (accounting, coding), never something new and not visibly useful.
-
I’ll agree with that because of sloppy language by me. But to think that taleb (or any other speaker) doesn’t realize the exceptions and that commenting them in reply is worthwhile is a practice that should be downvoted whenever possible
Let me ask you a question. It sounds like you believe there are exceptions. Why do you think computer science (at its outset), board games like chess, and sports like baseball are old but may not be worth studying?
-
-
I understand your point, but it’s not a counter. Talebs point is that if you bet on the “new and not visibly useful” you will probably lose - since there are many more failures in that set than successes. If you bet on other two, you will very likely succeed.
-
If I gave you a 20 sided die with 19/20 colored blue and 1/20 sides color red. Taleb would tell you to bet on blue. Still, a lot of ppl bet red. Almost all of them lost. Randomly, one of them won. It’s not interesting to point it out.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.