You argue in the book that the way people are looking at inequality is wrong: that they should look at lifetime incomes. I must be missing something, since surely someone would have pointed these things out to him in their discussions. Because the book is so thought-provoking. Many may far likely have problems with the kind the author likes that benefit from few lucky calls initially through disproportionate gains by simply placing right bets with little efforts before they get anything wrong. For many environments, the relevant data points are those in the extremes; these are rare by definition, and it suffices to focus on those few but big to get an idea of the story. It was true under the Caesars.
A theory which is supported only by one form of evidence is a lot weaker than a theory that is vindicated by multiple sources that do not depend on each other. Is there another book in the works? My problem is with the ideas in this book, not its author, although I do question the intelligence of its author when his prose lapses into pseudoscientific drivel. And you are going to years making, having some time, making a lot of money. Nassim Nicholas Taleb: You don't know publishers. Most services are not meditative. Leaders, says Taleb, used to actually lead their troops into battle. We know that these religions have helped in survival, and whatever is related to survival is essential, because there's a path dependence.
So, the problem of these analyses that people throw around is that they ignore the value from life expectancy of whatever you are threatening. Furthermore, the antifragile is immune to prediction errors and protected from adverse events. In all four scenarios listed below, other people are respectively affected as a result of the implementation, but the ramifications for you are different in each. You give the example of Hammurabi's Code, where a builder, if the house collapses that a builder built, the house--the builder is put to death, I think. But, do you want to say anything else? Nassim Nicholas Taleb: … And so religion allows you sort of intergenerationally to convey some kind of behavior. And this book, Skin in the Game is more quirky than either of his previous books--if that is at all possible. I think his underlying point his actually reasonable, which, as I understand it… 1.
To use the ergodic framework: my death at Russian roulette is not ergodic for me but it is ergodic for the system. The bestselling author of The Black Swan and 'the hottest thinker in the world' Sunday Times is back with a book challenging many of our long-held beliefs about risk, reward, politics, religion and finance How can a stubborn minority easily end up ruling? Did you ask a professor at Harvard what they would like? Showing that atheists and believers sometimes behave the same way is not an argument against anything. It was like listening to the rant of a smart but drunk Uncle. However, the main purpose of the book is effectively to pound those the author has strongest dislikes for. Mr Taleb is a very smart author, but not necessarily a right one.
The modernist misunderstands the transaction. So, therefore, I don't see the point in atheism, because of that. And you would have been an empty suit if you were not harmed by anything. So, I mean, because you have acceleration. If you--and this came to me from meeting, finally, Ken Binmore, who really probably did more fundamental work, foundational work, on rationality than anyone else. But I don't have to do it.
Individuals that had the ability to sift through traditional ideas, picking and choosing the best ones presumably had greater survival odds than those who followed tradition more slavishly. Now, a lot of people--it's very fashionable--that's a disrespectful word. And a lot of the things that appear to be biases in the, the literature and the economics--not economics, behavioral economics literature--are not really--what, they are biases, maybe? So, whatever beliefs these people have that allow them to survive cannot be discounted. The pass was intercepted, and the Seahawks lost. Before I go on, I must admit that in saner moments at various points in the book, the author would go against his own over-generalised, grandiose statements and make sensible points.
Separately but also significant, the surprising differences in wealth across lifetimes and generations compared to single moments in time across a population. What they get out of it, and what is adaptive, is the sense of community. You send a hundred people to a casino, and the casino, you don't know the return from the casino. There was nothing inherently evil or stupid about the Southerners; they were driven by an inability to tell the difference between good and evil because their own interests were involved. Eric Taleb is Greek Orthodox Christian, not atheist. My takeaway comes from David Foster Wallace who says everyone worships.
Russ Roberts: I don't see that. Superstitions survive for thousands of years, and horrible myths that are demonstrably untrue are inherited through generations of descendants, completely unfiltered by Lindy. And eventually if he is very bad he'll run out of money. Get the book here: King Kong on Broadway? And we have looked at medical performance by doctors, or risk caused by doctors. A lot of smart people are very critical of religion these days.
In essence, it states that the projected lifespan of non-perishable cultural entities is in direct correlation with its current age. Those who became Christians under these circumstances could not expect that it improved their prospects for a long and healthy life in this world. And I think it's a very interesting challenge to think about life as one-shot deals versus longer-term dynamics. So, the remedy for that is, if I cannot transmit my wealth to my children, what's my motivation? Whether they are martyrs or just going to church on sunday, the action is motivated by something deeper unless your a sociopath. So, there's some restriction incoherence.