Conversation

This is an atrocious misrepresentation of

's ideas, and reads like someone's read the blurb of Black Swan and that's it. Why? Completely ignores his Barbell Theory: 90% safe, 10% risky.

Quote Tweet

Commoncog

@commoncog

May 21, 2019

We've got a new post on Commonplace!

The Dangers of Treating Ideas from Finance as Generalised Self Help commoncog.com/blog/the-dange

Replying to

and

Hmm, why do you think that’s the case? Keep in mind that I’ve read all of

@nntaleb

’s books, think the man is a genius, and have been spelunking into his technical literature. (See also my summary of the Kelly criterion: commoncog.com/blog/time-allo)

Replying to

and

Probably this phrase: "People read Munger and Taleb and think their advice applies to life in general." Well, it does, because Taleb explicitly writes about the barbell as applied to life. Whereas the article reads as if Taleb only ever wrote on how to handle the risky side.

Replying to

and

Operative word: in general. Are there domains in life where the barbell does not apply?

2:19 AM · May 22, 2019Tweetbot for iΟS

Replying to

and

Hmm, I'm struggling to work out what the question actually means. In fitness sure; 90% easy, 10% pushing yourself to the limit. Not sure how it would apply to food; unless 90% healthy/10% not. Hard to generalise because one person's "ruin" could be another's new start.