Szymon's Zettelkasten

Powered by 🌱Roam Garden

R: The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb

This is an "Orphan" page. Its core content has not been shared: what you see below is a loose collection of pages and page snippets that mention this page, as well as snippets of this page that were quoted elsewhere.

Innovation is the result of luck (positive black swans)

By doing something you know (an objective or hypothesis) you find something that you didn't was there.

This shows that our platonicity and ludic fallacy—ridding reality of Black Swans through simplification due to our cognitive limitations—can work in our favor. You see, the hypothesis that hid BS could hide BS of the positive kind. When you test your hypothesis—implement it in reality—those BS get exposed leading to new things. The new things can be innovative on their own or they can act as a spare part (that was previously missing) to spark a novel idea. (PN: Most new ideas are incomplete)

  • The important feature of creativity—it's serendiputous. PN: Times of slack for serendipity
  • Secondly, this excerpt shows the recipe for creativity. In short, you must do stuff. Like in PN: How to get startup ideas, it's best to work on what interests you and keep living in the future. By building—i.e., externalizing your ideas in the physical world—you will discover things that only reality can disguise to you like in P: Bring the metaphysical into the physical
  • Does bringing the metaphysical into the physical work because we expose the ludic fallacy? Those idealized but simplified pieces of reality get uncovered and this is where inventions hide?
  • This shows that you have to have projects that you execute because they are what ena le serendipity. Putting thoughts into action in rral life can trigger new combinations like billiard balls hitting each other
  • therefore do shit. Ship stuff. Execute. Implement and be ready for inspiration to come. Not the other way around. This is the cardinal rule.
  • This also shows the side product of goals. You want to achieve on thing but you achieve another, unexpected because diving into reality shows you that your idealized goal was inaccurate, which is now irrelevant cuz you achieved more than you initially set out to.
  • This is also an argument to "ship first, iterate later" because it speaks to implementing and being open to opportunities presenting themselves.
  • Design your personal life and your professional team work so that serendipity can easily occur. Maximize different inputs—not only ideas but also places experiences trips places etc.
  • This is also why you should try, ship, and implement frequently—you don't know what awaits you in the gap between your idea and reality.
  • By bringing the metaphysical into the physical you are uncovering the gap between the idea and reality—and this is where the gold (learnings, new ideas, etc.) lies.

I developed the governing impression that our minds are wonderful explanation machines, capable of making sense out of almost anything, capable of mounting explanations for all manner of phenomena, and generally incapable of accepting the idea of unpredictability. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 10). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

It cannot be unpredictable cuz it would mean that we're not as godly as we think we are

Thwts why being in your buble not publishing or sharing for feedback your ideas will keep you in a closed loop thst will lead you to mirage development. You must go out and clash your knowledge with reality

Change metaphors slightly and imagine that your consciousness is a desk in the Library of Congress: no matter how many books the library holds, and makes available for retrieval, the size of your desk sets some processing limitations. Compression is vital to the performance of conscious work. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 68). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Great metaphor. We want to ft as much information on our desk as we can therefore we aim to compress it

this is where biology comes in. It defines the size of your desk

Now consider the opposite: a book filled with the repetition of the following sentence: “The chairman of [insert here your company name] is a lucky fellow who happened to be in the right place at the right time and claims credit for the company’s success, without making a single allowance for luck,” running ten times per page for 500 pages. The entire book can be accurately compressed, as I have just done, into 34 words (out of 100,000); you could reproduce it with total fidelity out of such a kernel. By finding the pattern, the logic of the series, you no longer need to memorize it all. You just store the pattern. And, as we can see here, a pattern is obviously more compact than raw information. You looked into the book and found a rule. It is along these lines that the great probabilist Andrey Nikolayevich Kolmogorov defined the degree of randomness; it is called “Kolmogorov complexity.” We, members of the human variety of primates, have a hunger for rules because we need to reduce the dimension of matters so they can get into our heads. Or, rather, sadly, so we can squeeze them into our heads. The more random information is, the greater the dimensionality, and thus the more difficult to summarize. The more you summarize, the more order you put in, the less randomness. Hence the same condition that makes us simplify pushes us to think that the world is less random than it actually is. And the Black Swan is what we leave out of simplification.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (pp. 68-69). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Hmm that is not nice for thinkers like me.

What about writing. In writing you're summarizing information and putting it into your own words. How to avoid simplifying/reducing it too much?

Is reduction bad for knowledge workers or not?

It might be bad for scientists, but it might be good for decision-makers and entrepreneurs. The latter can always "outsource" the management of details to the former, right?

Think about this problem.

Information that has a pattern or logic or in other words is organized and summarized is less costly for our brain. However, this process reduced the dimensionality and randomness of the information. This simplification pushes us to think that the world is less random than we think, which is where the black swan lives.

Our tendency to perceive—to impose—narrativity and causality are symptoms of the same disease—dimension reduction. Moreover, like causality, narrativity has a chronological dimension and leads to the perception of the flow of time. Causality makes time flow in a single direction, and so does narrativity. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 70). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

We are biased for narrativity and causality because they're chronological which leads to the perception of the flow of time.

When in fact history is cyclical and everything revolves in a cycle (if you zoom out sufficiently). But we get (only) older until we die.

Hmm but are we? Isn't it stupid to think that when everything is circular our lives are linear? Furthermore, we know that time is an illusion and it's really just another dimension like space. Therefore, isn't it more logical to think that our lives are circular as well? We are born, we die, and then are born again?

And also on a physical level. The atoms that we consist of will sooner or later become another living being.

But for this to be true I need to make sure that all the processes are in fact circular.

Atoms are balls that revolve around each other. So do planets. So do stars. So do galaxies.

What are the things that don't go circular?

What about waves? Maybe time is a wave? Maybe it's both? Maybe we are both?

I need to get deeper into physics.

We are thinking linearly because in our small scale (as animals) we must perceive time as linear to survive. But it's an illusion like the earth seeming flat from the surface. If you zoom out enough it is a ball. Why then, when we are biased to see time as linear, do we think that universal time is linear as well? Isn't it more

But ain't I here liable of the narrative fallacy myself? Trying to reach conclusions with the information I have? And how to avoid it in my newsletter not to write utter nonsense? Is it about consuming more information? Is it about better thinking? Feynman technique because it's deconstructing and filling the gaps with new information.

Memory is more of a self-serving dynamic revision machine: you remember the last time you remembered the event and, without realizing it, change the story at every subsequent remembrance. So we pull memories along causative lines, revising them involuntarily and unconsciously. We continuously renarrate past events in the light of what appears to make what we think of as logical sense after these events occur. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 71). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

We continuously adjust our memories to make them better fit our desired narrative.

Very dangerous, therefore, we need processes that will guide us from that.

Likewise, if I asked you how many cases of lung cancer are likely to take place in the country, you would supply some number, say half a million. Now, if instead I asked you how many cases of lung cancer are likely to take place because of smoking, odds are that you would give me a much higher number (I would guess more than twice as high). Adding the because makes these matters far more plausible, and far more likely. Cancer from smoking seems more likely than cancer without a cause attached to it—an unspecified cause means no cause at all. I return to the example of E. M. Forster’s plot from earlier in this chapter, but seen from the standpoint of probability. Which of these two statements seems more likely? Joey seemed happily married. He killed his wife. Joey seemed happily married. He killed his wife to get her inheritance. Clearly the second statement seems more likely at first blush, which is a pure mistake of logic, since the first, being broader, can accommodate more causes, such as he killed his wife because he went mad, because she cheated with both the postman and the ski instructor, because he entered a state of delusion and mistook her for a financial forecaster. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 76). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

More plausible (making more sense to happen) doesn't equal more probably (happening more frequently) but we fall into this trap. This is very common. How to avoid that. Get deeper into that. What is the root cause for that?

is this narrative fallacy btw?

Fuck. You must be realy careful with your experi.ents st work. Youre likely to b biased

Respect for elders in many societies might be a kind of compensation for our short-term memory. The word senate comes from senatus, “aged” in Latin; sheikh in Arabic means both a member of the ruling elite and “elder.” Elders are repositories of complicated inductive learning that includes information about rare events. Elders can scare us with stories—which is why we become overexcited when we think of a specific Black Swan. I was excited to find out that this also holds true in the animal kingdom: a paper in Science showed that elephant matriarchs play the role of superadvisers on rare events.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 78). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Respect for elders compensates for our short-term memory. Nice idea. Traditions (which are societies habits [btw., connect it to chyba R: Hooked by Nir Eyal where he said that habits are a way for your mind to save energy]) do that in general.

This shows the wisdom of traditions, books that have been around for long (like the bible), customs, elders, etc. Our minds are too stupid to grasp them rationally and therefore we assume that these things don't make sense. But we cannot throw them out!

Fuck these topics (and those other above) interest me so much. How can you call it? It's like the combination of psychology, economy, history, sociology, philosophy, logic. How do you call it? I would love to study it.

System 1, the experiential one, is effortless, automatic, fast, opaque (we do not know that we are using it), parallel-processed, and can lend itself to errors. It is what we call “intuition,” and performs these quick acts of prowess that became popular under the name blink, after the title of Malcolm Gladwell’s bestselling book. System 1 is highly emotional, precisely because it is quick. It produces shortcuts, called “heuristics,” that allow us to function rapidly and effectively. Dan Goldstein calls these heuristics “fast and frugal.” Others prefer to call them “quick and dirty.” Now, these shortcuts are certainly virtuous, since they are rapid, but, at times, they can lead us into some severe mistakes. This main idea generated an entire school of research called the heuristics and biases approach (heuristics corresponds to the study of shortcuts, biases stand for mistakes).

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 81). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Great summary of system 1

System 2, the cogitative one, is what we normally call thinking. It is what you use in a classroom, as it is effortful (even for Frenchmen), reasoned, slow, logical, serial, progressive, and self-aware (you can follow the steps in your reasoning). It makes fewer mistakes than the experiential system, and, since you know how you derived your result, you can retrace your steps and correct them in an adaptive manner. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (pp. 81-82). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

System 2

Most of our mistakes in reasoning come from using System 1 when we are in fact thinking that we are using System 2. How? Since we react without thinking and introspection, the main property of System 1 is our lack of awareness of using it! Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 82). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

It's the post-hoc rationalization P: People judge mostly emotionally How the fuck can we avoid these post-hoc rationalization?

Much of the trouble with human nature resides in our inability to use much of System 2, or to use it in a prolonged way without having to take a long beach vacation. In addition, we often just forget to use it. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 82). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

my newsletter will help with that—how to use more of system 2?

Use more of system 2 could be UVP for my newsletter but also a channel on 101 Club

The more complicated an issue, the more system 2 you must use. Our society becomes more and more system 2 heavy. We need education (e.g., my newsletter) and tools that will help develop your system 2.

The way to avoid the ills of the narrative fallacy is to favor experimentation over storytelling, experience over history, and clinical knowledge over theories. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 84). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

There you go! You need to test everything. You also need to take the knowledge you show in your newsletter into practice.

So empiricism is the help

its crucial at my work. Dont get fooled that you knoe the answer. You must test it ffs!

It's to oof

Finally, there may be a way to use a narrative—but for a good purpose. Only a diamond can cut a diamond; we can use our ability to convince with a story that conveys the right message—what storytellers seem to do. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 84). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Good storytelling—positive persuasion (not manipulation)

Really learn to tell stories.

Our intuitions are not cut out for nonlinearities. Consider our life in a primitive environment where process and result are closely connected. You are thirsty; drinking brings you adequate satisfaction. Or even in a not-so-primitive environment, when you engage in building, say, a bridge or a stone house, more work will lead to more apparent results, so your mood is propped up by visible continuous feedback. In a primitive environment, the relevant is the sensational. This applies to our knowledge. When we try to collect information about the world around us, we tend to be guided by our biology, and our attention flows effortlessly toward the sensational—not the relevant so much as the sensational. Somehow the guidance system has gone wrong in the process of our coevolution with our habitat—it was transplanted into a world in which the relevant is often boring, nonsensational. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (pp. 87-88). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

By reducing the amount of stimuli (e.g., through NSD), you will be more likely to notice the non-sensational because you'll be more sensitive to it. Nice! NSD

Exaxtly. Thats why people having nkrmal jobs may be happier. How can you minimize the negative impact of the abstract?

For most of our history work and results, inputs and outputs were closely related. You were thirsty; drinking brought you adequate satisfaction. You were building a hut; more work lead to more apparent results, so your mood was propped up by visible feedback. In other words, what was relevant was the sensational. This is why we are so attracted to sensory and concrete information. Unfortunately, in our world what's most relevant becomes more and more boring and nonsensational.

Also to emotional. Are we drawn to the emotional because system 1, which is cheaper, works with emotions? When something is emotional we will be less likely to use system 2, thus saving energy?

Does emotional count as concrete?

Intuitives are better suited for today's world?

It is so easy to avoid looking at the cemetery while concocting historical theories.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 101). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

survivorship bias

(Anyone can be skeptical; any scientist can be overly empirical—it is the rigor coming from the combination of skepticism and empiricism that’s hard to come by.) Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 102). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Combination of skepticism and empiricism. Be skeptical through empiricism.

The neglect of silent evidence is endemic to the way we study comparative talent, particularly in activities that are plagued with winner-take-all attributes. We may enjoy what we see, but there is no point reading too much into success stories because we do not see the full picture.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 103). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Many self-help books are filled with single examples of people "who made it." The question is, which of them made it simply because of luck? How can you evaluate it in order to decide if it's worth following their example?

One way is to test it through a low cost experiment.

Another way is to widen your research and search for people who did the same and determine if they have achieved similar results.

Another way is to learn about people who did the opposite—what were their results, were they also opposite?

Another way is to use first principles thinking.

Now take a look at the cemetery. It is quite difficult to do so because people who fail do not seem to write memoirs, and, if they did, those business publishers I know would not even consider giving them the courtesy of a returned phone call (as to returned e-mail, fuhgedit). Readers would not pay $26.95 for a story of failure, even if you convinced them that it had more useful tricks than a story of success.fn1 The entire notion of biography is grounded in the arbitrary ascription of a causal relation between specified traits and subsequent events. Now consider the cemetery. The graveyard of failed persons will be full of people who shared the following traits: courage, risk taking, optimism, et cetera. Just like the population of millionaires. There may be some differences in skills, but what truly separates the two is for the most part a single factor: luck. Plain luck.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 105). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

It's all fucking luck. Just take a look at how different Kacper Raszkiewicz and my careers are. It all depends on the first company joined.

Update: now it's a little different. It evened out.

This shows the importance of expanding your luck surface area. Doing as many things as you can, especially early on, while staying safe.

There is a vicious attribute to the bias: it can hide best when its impact is largest. Owing to the invisibility of the dead rats, the more lethal the risks, the less visible they will be, since the severely victimized are likely to be eliminated from the evidence. The more injurious the treatment, the larger the difference between the surviving rats and the rest, and the more fooled you will be about the strengthening effect.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 108). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Interesting

Strengthening effect

Btw., is success the practice of increasing your chances of luck? And you can approach luck horizontally—by trying as many things as possible—but also vertically—by persevering, by not giving up so that you're longer exposed to the workings of the goddess of luck.

In his essay “What We See and What We Don’t See,” Bastiat offered the following idea: we can see what governments do, and therefore sing their praises—but we do not see the alternative. But there is an alternative; it is less obvious and remains unseen. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 111). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Read it finally!

Fuck, there are so many great books! Don't waste time on high dopamine shit when you can explore the minds of the smartest people in history.

Bastiat goes a bit deeper. If both the positive and the negative consequences of action fell on its author, our learning would be fast. But often an action’s positive consequences benefit only its author, since they are visible, while the negative consequences, being invisible, apply to others, with a net cost to society. Consider job-protection measures: you notice those whose jobs are made safe and ascribe social benefits to such protections. You do not notice the effect on those who cannot find a job as a result, since the measure will reduce job openings. In some cases, as with the cancer patients who may be punished by Katrina, the positive consequences of an action will immediately benefit the politicians and phony humanitarians, while the negative ones take a long time to appear—they may never become noticeable.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 111). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

How to extend your view to both the negative and positive consequences of the action, no matter the outcome? This would power your learning immensely. "What would I learn if I failed?" Are these pre-mortems?

The alternative and unseen cost

Gives points to the constraint vision and shows the hubris of the unconstraint one A Conflict of Visions.

Let us apply this reasoning to September 11, 2001. Around twenty-five hundred people were directly killed by bin Laden’s group in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. Their families benefited from the support of all manner of agencies and charities, as they should. But, according to researchers, during the remaining three months of the year, close to one thousand people died as silent victims of the terrorists. How? Those who were afraid of flying and switched to driving ran an increased risk of death. There was evidence of an increase of casualties on the road during that period; the road is considerably more lethal than the skies. These families got no support—they did not even know that their loved ones were also the victims of bin Laden. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (pp. 111-112). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

How to reason to such conclusions id like to be able to do it. Its probably practice and deep thinking

How to be more sensitive to the unseen?

But I insist on the following: that we got here by accident does not mean that we should continue to take the same risks. We are mature enough a race to realize this point, enjoy our blessings, and try to preserve, by becoming more conservative, what we got by luck. We have been playing Russian roulette; now let’s stop and get a real job.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 116). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

be thankful and humble with the gifts you've gotten from the world, like a good paying job. It's not just your skills; luck played a big role as well.

What if there were an app that would aggregate highlights for a given book and generate only those most relevant—i.e., those who repeated the most? People would tag it with context or use cases and then you could choose the highlights that fit your goals the most. You could also attach comments to particular highlights and connections to other resources. Problem: Don't have time to read the whole book. Solution: The juice of the book filtered by the use case. productIdea

First, justification of overoptimism on grounds that “it brought us here” arises from a far more serious mistake about human nature: the belief that we are built to understand nature and our own nature and that our decisions are, and have been, the result of our own choices. I beg to disagree. So many instincts drive us. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (pp. 116-117). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

constraint vision A Conflict of Visions

Exactly. We are still animals, why would we assume we know why we do things. Maybe in the macro we re acting like a big synchronized organism like an ant nest with a long term goal in mind.

The reference point argument is as follows: do not compute odds from the vantage point of the winning gambler (or the lucky Casanova, or the endlessly bouncing back New York City, or the invincible Carthage), but from all those who started in the cohort. Consider once again the example of the gambler. If you look at the population of beginning gamblers taken as a whole, you can be close to certain that one of them (but you do not know in advance which one) will show stellar results just by luck. So, from the reference point of the beginning cohort, this is not a big deal. But from the reference point of the winner (and, who does not, and this is key, take the losers into account), a long string of wins will appear to be too extraordinary an occurrence to be explained by luck. Note that a “history” is just a series of numbers through time. The numbers can represent degrees of wealth, fitness, weight, anything.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 119). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

The way to avoid the survivorship bias is to look at all who started in the cohort. Don't just look at the winners but at he loser as well. So, when you want to evaluate if a particular decision is good, look at all people who made the decision—not just at the ones who made the decision and succeeded. For example, when you wanna decide about whether to go on a keto diet, look for data where they take a large group of people as look at how it went (don't just watch this one keto youtuber). Or another instance, it's more relevant. When you see someone who is successful in an area and want to emulate them, stop. Before you decide to do what he did look at a greater sample of people who followed a similar behavior in that area and look at their outcomes. Maybe he's just one of the lucky ones who succeeded. Don't forget that those who are hidden, those who we don't see. The bigger the sample, the more extravagant the winners will be. This is exactly the way to notice the hidden. Look at the whole sample (the base rates). Ok, so this is another way to fight the survivorship bias (add it there earlier).

Whenever your survival is in play, don’t immediately look for causes and effects. The main identifiable reason for our survival of such diseases might simply be inaccessible to us: we are here since, Casanova-style, the “rosy” scenario played out, and if it seems too hard to understand it is because we are too brainwashed by notions of causality and we think that it is smarter to say because than to accept randomness. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 120). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Make a step back

Also, causality gives us the illusion of control.

We love the tangible, the confirmation, the palpable, the real, the visible, the concrete, the known, the seen, the vivid, the visual, the social, the embedded, the emotionally laden, the salient, the stereotypical, the moving, the theatrical, the romanced, the cosmetic, the official, the scholarly-sounding verbiage (b**t), the pompous Gaussian economist, the mathematicized crap, the pomp, the Académie Française, Harvard Business School, the Nobel Prize, dark business suits with white shirts and Ferragamo ties, the moving discourse, and the lurid. Most of all we favor the narrated. Alas, we are not manufactured, in our current edition of the human race, to understand abstract matters—we need context. Randomness and uncertainty are abstractions. We respect what has happened, ignoring what could have happened. In other words, we are naturally shallow and superficial—and we do not know it. This is not a psychological problem; it comes from the main property of information. The dark side of the moon is harder to see; beaming light on it costs energy. In the same way, beaming light on the unseen is costly in both computational and mental effort. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 132). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

This is key of part one. Elaborate and internalize

We love the sensational, emotional, narrated. We aren't built to understand the abstract—we need context. Randomness and uncertainty are abstractions because we don't see them, we can't touch them, we can't feel them. We only look at what has happened and not what could have happen; we notice only those who succeeded while ignoring those who lost (survivorship bias); we favor information that confirms our beliefs, while rejecting that which disconfirms it (confirmation bias); we prioritize salient things, inhibiting others (priming/availability bias [is this leading to narrative])what else (?) Why? Because our brains evolved in a way simpler environment in which abstract thinking wasn't as necessary as it is now—most things were tangible, sensational, emotional: we were living in Mediocristan. Further, computing both what is seen and what isn't is way more costly.

And because of that we fall for the ludic fallacy—we simplify reality, ridding it of the uncertainties and randomness. (We also simplify it through the narrative fallacy, right? Or is the ludic an outcome of narrative fallacy?) Btw., list out all principles

Btw., is this one of the main laws that govern our brain? And is this a trace to building a new model to understand our psychology (opposed to biases).

WYSIATI is the ludic fallacy, right? It uses narrative fallacy to make it truer?

Can it be somehow related to tk P: Lazy brain

Maybe what's here is the energy saving propensity—the unseen and random is costly cuz it's bigger than the seen. And the proximity is what's responsible for priming, availability, confirmation.

Intuitives, especially thinking types, have an advantage in our world, haven't they?

Think about this shit hard cuz it's one of the cores of this book.

Internalize this and elaborate

we are skewed towards sensing. Thats why Ns are moreopen minded

open mindedness is willingness to face the unknown

I propose that if you want a simple step to a higher form of life, as distant from the animal as you can get, then you may have to denarrate, that is, shut down the television set, minimize time spent reading newspapers, ignore the blogs. Train your reasoning abilities to control your decisions; nudge System 1 (the heuristic or experiential system) out of the important ones. Train yourself to spot the difference between the sensational and the empirical. This insulation from the toxicity of the world will have an additional benefit: it will improve your well-being. Also, bear in mind how shallow we are with probability, the mother of all abstract notions. You do not have to do much more in order to gain a deeper understanding of things around you. Above all, learn to avoid “tunneling.” Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 133). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

To become a better thinker: denarrate, nudge system 1 out of the important decisions, train yourself to spot the difference between the sensational and the empirical

This how to become a bwtter thinker. Go deep on this. Create nktes and mental models that ell help you think that wasy

the naratice its a vehicle for the know. That why people eho know how to create and use this cehicle are so powerful. We are drawn to get data though stories and gossip.

it doesnt have to be only negative you csn use stories to transfer to others the uncovered unknown

Epistemic arrogance bears a double effect: we overestimate what we know, and underestimate uncertainty, by compressing the range of possible uncertain states (i.e., by reducing the space of the unknown). Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 140). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

The bigger the known, the bigger the unknown.

Show two groups of people a blurry image of a fire hydrant, blurry enough for them not to recognize what it is. For one group, increase the resolution slowly, in ten steps. For the second, do it faster, in five steps. Stop at a point where both groups have been presented an identical image and ask each of them to identify what they see. The members of the group that saw fewer intermediate steps are likely to recognize the hydrant much faster. Moral? The more information you give someone, the more hypotheses they will formulate along the way, and the worse off they will be. They see more random noise and mistake it for information. The problem is that our ideas are sticky: once we produce a theory, we are not likely to change our minds—so those who delay developing their theories are better off. When you develop your opinions on the basis of weak evidence, you will have difficulty interpreting subsequent information that contradicts these opinions, even if this new information is obviously more accurate. Two mechanisms are at play here: the confirmation bias that we saw in Chapter 5, and belief perseverance, the tendency not to reverse opinions you already have. Remember that we treat ideas like possessions, and it will be hard for us to part with them.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 144). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Because of the narrative fallacy we can't help but create theories and conclusions. We also do it when presented with weak, noisy data. What's worse, because of the confirmation bias we often stick to those explanations even when presented with better and more accurate evidence. Therefore, it's better to refrain from forming theories too quickly.

The WRAP methodology is great there especially Widen your options and Reality-test your assumptions.

Moments of slack and leaving things unfinished. Doing random stuff

How do I refrain myself from making decisions too early?

Having the options wide, the solutions wide, and comparing them like in OST?

Giving oneself a lot of time to reach the decision?

Btw., this is a topic for the newsletter

He links it to self-deception. In fields where we have ancestral traditions, such as pillaging, we are very good at predicting outcomes by gauging the balance of power. Humans and chimps can immediately sense which side has the upper hand, and make a cost-benefit analysis about whether to attack and take the goods and the mates. Once you start raiding, you put yourself into a delusional mind-set that makes you ignore additional information—it is best to avoid wavering during battle. On the other hand, unlike raids, large-scale wars are not something present in human heritage—we are new to them—so we tend to misestimate their duration and overestimate our relative power.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 147). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Looool. This is one of the reasons for our tendency to not change a decision after we have reached it—confirmation bias (is it that bias btw.). Very nice! So, we made decisions in predictable environments (outputs tied to inputs, repeatable past, tangible, etc.) where being an expert truly yielded bigger results. So intuitions were often right and changing one's mind after the decision wasn't because it hindered the execution.

The classical model of discovery is as follows: you search for what you know (say, a new way to reach India) and find something you didn’t know was there (America). If you think that the inventions we see around us came from someone sitting in a cubicle and concocting them according to a timetable, think again: almost everything of the moment is the product of serendipity. The term serendipity was coined in a letter by the writer Hugh Walpole, who derived it from a fairy tale, “The Three Princes of Serendip.” These princes “were always making discoveries by accident or sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of.” Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (pp. 166-167). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

The important feature of creativity—it's serendiputous. PN: Times of slack for serendipity

Secondly, this excerpt shows the recipe for creativity. In short, you must do stuff. Like in PN: How to get startup ideas, it's best to work on what interests you and keep living in the future. By building—i.e., externalizing your ideas in the physical world—you will discover things that only reality can disguise to you like in P: Bring the metaphysical into the physical

Does bringing the metaphysical into the physical work because we expose the ludic fallacy? Those idealized but simplified pieces of reality get uncovered and this is where inventions hide?

This shows that you have to have projects that you execute because they are what ena le serendipity. Putting thoughts into action in rral life can trigger new combinations like billiard balls hitting each other

therefore do shit. Ship stuff. Execute. Implement and be ready for inspiration to come. Not the other way around. This is the cardinal rule.

This also shows the side product of goals. You want to achieve on thing but you achieve another, unexpected because diving into reality shows you that your idealized goal was inaccurate, which is now irrelevant cuz you achieved more than you initially set out to.

This was my first encounter with a firm that lived off Black Swans of the positive kind. I was told that a scientist managed the company and that he had the instinct, as a scientist, to just let scientists look wherever their instinct took them. Commercialization came later. My hosts, scientists at heart, understood that research involves a large element of serendipity, which can pay off big as long as one knows how serendipitous the business can be and structures it around that fact. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 170). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

This is also an argument to "ship first, iterate later" because it speaks to implementing and being open to opportunities presenting themselves.

Design youpersonleordl and your professional team work so that serendipity can easily occur. Maximize different inputs—not only ideas but also places experiences trips places etc.

The best way to maximize it is to do as much stuff as possible. Doing, implementing, bringing the metaphysical into the physical will produce the most serendipity.

Also here it's important to be receptive to that serendipity. And one of the best ways for that is NSD TK PN: NSD makes you more creative

Writing is an intermediate form of bringing the metaphysical into the physical.

This is also why you should try, ship, implement frequently—you don't know what awaits you in the gam between your idea and reality.

By bringing the metaphysical into the physical you are uncovering the gap between the idea and reality—and this is where the gold (learnings, new ideas, etc.) lies.

To clarify, Platonic is top-down, formulaic, closed-minded, self-serving, and commoditized; a-Platonic is bottom-up, open-minded, skeptical, and empirical. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 182). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Be the second.

Open-mindedness + skepticism + empiricism: this is a powerful three.

The empirics practiced the “medical art” without relying on reasoning; they wanted to benefit from chance observations by making guesses, and experimented and tinkered until they found something that worked. They did minimal theorizing. Their methods are being revived today as evidence-based medicine, after two millennia of persuasion. Consider that before we knew of bacteria, and their role in diseases, doctors rejected the practice of hand washing because it made no sense to them, despite the evidence of a meaningful decrease in hospital deaths. Ignaz Semmelweis, the mid-nineteenth-century doctor who promoted the idea of hand washing, wasn’t vindicated until decades after his death. Similarly it may not “make sense” that acupuncture works, but if pushing a needle in someone’s toe systematically produces relief from pain (in properly conducted empirical tests), then it could be that there are functions too complicated for us to understand, so let’s go with it for now while keeping our minds open.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (pp. 182-183). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

TK P: Science is just a tool: and it's an imperfect tool which is liable to the amount of information we have. Empiricism can protect you from this liability.

Exactly! This is the critiwue of those science nerds that need theories for everyrhing. If the theories dontexit yet it doesnt mean tht something is false

this calls for the odklejony mindset where we sometimes need to make the leap of faith if something works after experimentation this is the esence of empiricism and its probably more Te than Ti

dont beto scientific. Be rational

If you can't prove something it doesn't mean that it isn't real. It might mean that you don't have the tools to prove it—like when we thought the earth was flat cuz we didn't have the telescopes to prove it's round.

Product management is like an empirical science with little theoretizing. Literally. You do real work. Leverage that to deepen your understanding of human psychology.

Philosophers since Aristotle have taught us that we are deep-thinking animals, and that we can learn by reasoning. It took a while to discover that we do effectively think, but that we more readily narrate backward in order to give ourselves the illusion of understanding, and give a cover to our past actions. The minute we forgot about this point, the “Enlightenment” came to drill it into our heads for a second time. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 202). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Our thoughts are mostly post-hoc rationalizations that compel us into believing we know more than we actually do and give a cover to our past actions.

Why? To keep going, to keep doing and not kill ourselves too much because it would make us useless evolutionarily?

Btw., getting into the bottom of psychological mechanisms is what I always do. And the bottom can be found in evolutionary biology, which I'm starting to uncover.

The lesson for the small is: be human! Accept that being human involves some amount of epistemic arrogance in running your affairs. Do not be ashamed of that. Do not try to always withhold judgment—opinions are the stuff of life. Do not try to avoid predicting—yes, after this diatribe about prediction I am not urging you to stop being a fool. Just be a fool in the right places.fn2 What you should avoid is unnecessary dependence on large-scale harmful predictions—those and only those. Avoid the big subjects that may hurt your future: be fooled in small matters, not in the large. Do not listen to economic forecasters or to predictors in social science (they are mere entertainers), but do make your own forecast for the picnic. By all means, demand certainty for the next picnic; but avoid government social-security forecasts for the year 2040. Know how to rank beliefs not according to their plausibility but by the harm they may cause.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 203). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Be human

its also an antidote to hyper rationalism

We can't avoid our irrationality. What we can do however is to avoid its impact. Therefore, be irrational in matters where being wrong doesn't have a detrimental impact—like planing your picnic or choosing what to wear. But don't let your irrationality fool you in big things that can kill you like predicting financial markets (just save), future trends, etc. There you want to cue out your System 1 and don't get into unnecessary risk.

This same point can be generalized to life: maximize the serendipity around you. Sextus Empiricus retold the story of Apelles the Painter, who, while doing a portrait of a horse, was attempting to depict the foam from the horse’s mouth. After trying very hard and making a mess, he gave up and, in irritation, took the sponge he used for cleaning his brush and threw it at the picture. Where the sponge hit, it left a perfect representation of the foam.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 204). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Avoid the negative black swans but embrace and expose yourself maximally to the positive ones. Find ways to attract the serendipity. In environments where being wrong has little cost while being right has massive payoffs.

What are such environments? Where you have many inputs, where you can fail safely, etc.

Have such environments

Key to life. Increase your web of possibilities. Try. Try. Try.

Ask yourself every day what new thibg can i do today. It can be even small as trying a new butter brand. Just aim to increasingthe size of your network

I am trying here to generalize to real life the notion of the “barbell” strategy I used as a trader, which is as follows. If you know that you are vulnerable to prediction errors, and if you accept that most “risk measures” are flawed, because of the Black Swan, then your strategy is to be as hyperconservative and hyperaggressive as you can be instead of being mildly aggressive or conservative. Instead of putting your money in “medium risk” investments (how do you know it is medium risk? by listening to tenure-seeking “experts”?), you need to put a portion, say 85 to 90 percent, in extremely safe instruments, like Treasury bills—as safe a class of instruments as you can manage to find on this planet. The remaining 10 to 15 percent you put in extremely speculative bets, as leveraged as possible (like options), preferably venture capital–style portfolios.fn3 That way you do not depend on errors of risk management; no Black Swan can hurt you at all, beyond your “floor,” the nest egg that you have in maximally safe investments. Or, equivalently, you can have a speculative portfolio and insure it (if possible) against losses of more than, say, 15 percent. You are “clipping” your incomputable risk, the one that is harmful to you. Instead of having medium risk, you have high risk on one side and no risk on the other. The average will be medium risk but constitutes a positive exposure to the Black Swan. More technically, this can be called a “convex” combination. Let us see how this can be implemented in all aspects of life.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (pp. 205-206). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Great approach.

Think how you can do it in your investments. is crypto the risky option?

Btw., the barbel strategy is a great strategy for life.

So the barbel strategy is as follows. We are very bad at predicting so you need to be both hyperconservative and hyperaggressive instead of being mildly aggressive or conservative. So, put 80-90% of your portfolio into the safest asset you can imagine and the remaining into the most speculative bets in existence. When you have such strategy, negative black swans can't kill you beyond the baseline you have determined (cuz 80-90% of your portfolio is safe, so you can't sunk) while you capitalize on positive black swans by exposing yourself to high-leverage, speculative opportunities. The most you can lose is the 10-20% you set for the risky portfolio. You avoid the errors of predictions that hurt so many. You don't predict. You accept that you cannot know where the black swans lie, so you insure yourself and create a surface (which you can afford to lose) where the black swans can land.]

Written differently (after sleep) Barbell strategy: being hyper-aggressive and hyper-conservative instead of being mildly aggressive or conservative. On one hand, you’re creating a safe ground investing 80-90% of your capital into extremely safe instruments—that is your insurance policy against negative black swans. On the other hand, you’re generating a serendipity attraction machine investing 10-20% of your portfolio into incredibly speculative bets with extremely high upside (like venture capital, crypto, etc) that way you’re exposing yourself to positive black swans. You have no risk and high risk which averages out to medium risk but contains an exposure to positive Black Swans.

Connects to R: Psychology of Money that said that most gains in life are result of a few inputs—i.e., black swans.

How to attract the most black swans as possible?

Fluid enviroments?

Other people?

Saying yes to everything?

Experimentation? I.e., doing versus theoritizing?

How to extrapolate the barbel strategy to other areas in life? Answer that. Below.

I find it hard to explain that when you have a very limited loss you need to get as aggressive, as speculative, and sometimes as “unreasonable” as you can be. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 207). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

^^Don’t look for the precise and the local. Simply, do not be narrow-minded. The great discoverer Pasteur, who came up with the notion that chance favors the prepared, understood that you do not look for something particular every morning but work hard to let contingency enter your working life.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 208). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition. ^^

Work hard without bigger expectations to "find something"—i.e., ship stuff, bring the metaphysical into the physical, do versus think, experiment versus theoretize—and let reality serendipity enter your daily life.

Seize any opportunity, or anything that looks like opportunity. They are rare, much rarer than you think. Remember that positive Black Swans have a necessary first step: you need to be exposed to them. Many people do not realize that they are getting a lucky break in life when they get it. If a big publisher (or a big art dealer or a movie executive or a hotshot banker or a big thinker) suggests an appointment, cancel anything you have planned: you may never see such a window open up again. I am sometimes shocked at how little people realize that these opportunities do not grow on trees. Collect as many free nonlottery tickets (those with open-ended payoffs) as you can, and, once they start paying off, do not discard them. Work hard, not in grunt work, but in chasing such opportunities and maximizing exposure to them. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (pp. 208-209). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Say yes to all opportunities. Prioritize those that offer Extremistan outcomes. You feel uncomfortable? Fuck it, just do it.

This makes living in big cities invaluable because you increase the odds of serendipitous encounters—you gain exposure to the envelope of serendipity. The idea of settling in a rural area on grounds that one has good communications “in the age of the Internet” tunnels out of such sources of positive uncertainty. Diplomats understand that very well: casual chance discussions at cocktail parties usually lead to big breakthroughs—not dry correspondence or telephone conversations. Go to parties! If you’re a scientist, you will chance upon a remark that might spark new research. And if you are autistic, send your associates to these events.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 209). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Yup! The value of cities and bars. Nice idea for a pn

So, in summary, you can expose yourself to positive Black Swans by:

Bringing the metaphysical into the physical.

Saying yes to all opportunities, especially those that offer open-ended outcomes.

Living in a city and using what it offers over villages—bars, cafes, parties, conferences, other events.

All these recommendations have one point in common: asymmetry. Put yourself in situations where favorable consequences are much larger than unfavorable ones. Indeed, the notion of asymmetric outcomes is the central idea of this book: I will never get to know the unknown since, by definition, it is unknown. However, I can always guess how it might affect me, and I should base my decisions around that.

Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 210). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

This is the core, self-help idea of this book: expose yourself to positive serendipity!

So expose yourself to asymmetric situations—where one input can lead to massive output.

Think of ways

Go to parties.

Go out weekly to bars and clubs.

Go out bi-daily to cafes or restaurants.

Travel and meet new people.

Work in coworking places in different cities.

Don't lose that. Life as a fucking quest.

The core principle: you can't know the unknown, since, by definition, it's unknown. However, you can always guess how it might affect you, and you should base your decision on that. I.e., if a black swan hits (and if you're in Extremistan it sooner or later will) how can I prepare myself for that? Or, should I enter Extremistan? Or, how can I expose myself to positive black swans. Do not judge whether the black swan can happen, judge how it will affect your life and what you can do about it—avoid or be resilient to a negative one or capitalize on a positive one.

{{DONE}} Should I use my ZK only for Psych Aegis related notes and ignore the rest? NoteToUnconscious

A theory is like medicine (or government): often useless, sometimes necessary, always self-serving, and on occasion lethal. So it needs to be used with care, moderation, and close adult supervision. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 284). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Is theory necessary to make the 'jump' of logic, to figure out that something that doesn't exist might be possible and why. In other words, it's a prerequisite for hypotheses. And it should stay a prerequisite until it's validated empirically. P: Bring the metaphysical into the physical

In the end this is a trivial decision making rule: I am very aggressive when I can gain exposure to positive Black Swans—when a failure would be of small moment—and very conservative when I am under threat from a negative Black Swan. I am very aggressive when an error in a model can benefit me, and paranoid when the error can hurt. This may not be too interesting except that it is exactly what other people do not do. In finance, for instance, people use flimsy theories to manage their risks and put wild ideas under “rational” scrutiny. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 296). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

This must be your approach. Use BS to your advantage

Balaji Srinivasan for positive black swans; Whatifalthist for protection

I am sometimes taken aback by how people can have a miserable day or get angry because they feel cheated by a bad meal, cold coffee, a social rebuff, or a rude reception. Recall my discussion in Chapter 8 on the difficulty in seeing the true odds of the events that run your own life. We are quick to forget that just being alive is an extraordinary piece of good luck, a remote event, a chance occurrence of monstrous proportions. Imagine a speck of dust next to a planet a billion times the size of the earth. The speck of dust represents the odds in favor of your being born; the huge planet would be the odds against it. So stop sweating the small stuff. Don’t be like the ingrate who got a castle as a present and worried about the mildew in the bathroom. Stop looking the gift horse in the mouth—remember that you are a Black Swan. And thank you for reading my book. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (pp. 297-298). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Great approach for happiness. Gratitude.