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

Personal example: I started a luxury service business. The economy plummeted in my local area, and it was no longer worthwhile to keep going. But I had a fall-back plan and went back into my previous field. No ruin. Was it a bad decision to start a business?

Replying to

and

Yeah, so you’ve just described a decision making process in an irregular domain, which is exactly what Taleb’s methods are about. But in regular domains, his methods aren’t as important.

Replying to

and

But in "writing software, managing people, and dealing with clients" the barbell applies in that the safe 90% is what all your competitors do too, the 10% is what differentiates you.

Replying to

and

You should probably read Kahneman and Klein’s paper ;) I think we fundamentally agree actually, having read your thoughts now. But I think you’re missing context for ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ domains. The 3 categories can both be regular and irregular.

2:39 AM · May 22, 2019Tweetbot for iΟS

Replying to

and

That's fair. I will also acknowledge I am a Taleb fan, even if I disagree sometimes. Not that that wasn't clear, I'm sure. Skimmed K&K years ago, but I'll go back and read it more carefully and your articles too. Am in engineering R&D, so that's where I want this to speak in to.