4/ Application of statistics/probability to stock markets is not about luck either, since beating market beyond historical gains is zero-sum
Conversation
Replying to
5/ i.e. since markets themselves create no wealth, if you beat history, it's because someone else is beaten by history by betting wrong
7
1
2
Replying to
6/ There is another field that has this somewhat dismal/pessimistic risk-oriented flavor: psychology
1
Replying to
7/ Throughout much of its history, psychology has been about mental illness and pathologies rather than making good minds better
1
2
3
Replying to
8/ When positive psychology came along, many were excited by the promise, but it degeneratd into a bit of a New Age cult.
1
1
Replying to
9/ But the motive was laudable and worthy, and I think positive psychology *is* beginning to shed New Age trappings and deliver good results
2
2
Replying to
10/ I think lesson can be ported. There is room for a "positive probability theory" and "positive statistics" focusing on luck, not risk
2
2
3
Replying to
11/ Taleb made a big contribution towards theory of non-zero-sum luck/serendipity, but domain lock-in limited him to negative black swans
2
3
4
Replying to
12/ Where can we look for a true theory of luck? Certainly and obviously, hacking/software in agile/devops sense is a great starter domain
6
1
2
Replying to
13/ Fundamental theory/concepts won't change, since it is an axiomatized math field, but shift in emphasis to max-luck over min-risk is big
4
2
4
Replying to
14/ So #musklevel challenge to data/stats/probability wonks: invent a rigorous theory of luck/serendipity using hacking as first example
Replying to
15/ I'll offer a $100 reward to a new paper that panel of my mathy friends agree is a credible GUT of luck. Others: add to pot if you like.
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
best book on luck/serendepity, James Austin - Chase, Chance and Creativity.
1
1
5

