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
We've got a new post on Commonplace! 👉 The Dangers of Treating Ideas from Finance as Generalised Self Help commoncog.com/blog/the-dange
1
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.
2
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?
1
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.
1
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.
3
Replying to and
Also, if you like the barbell idea, I think you’ll enjoy Taleb’s papers on the Kelly criterion. The barbell concept is a non technical description of the intuition that powers the Kelly formula. twitter.com/nntaleb/status for instance.
Quote Tweet
KELLY CRITERION My lecktchur notes to students. Thanks to @ole_b_peters who showed how stoooooopid decision theorists have been not getting time vs/ ensemble returns.
Image
Image
Show replies