Skin In The Game
Skin In The Game Product details
Warum wir nur denen vertrauen sollten, die etwas zu verlieren habenStehen wir für die Risiken ein, die wir verursachen? Zu viele der Menschen, die auf der Welt Macht und Einfluss haben, so Nassim Nicholas Taleb, müssen nicht wirklich den Kopf. Das Risiko und sein Preis – Skin in the Game: lmdle.eu: Taleb, Nassim Nicholas, Held, Susanne: Bücher. Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life: The Underlying Matrix of Daily Life | Taleb, Nassim Nicholas | ISBN: | Kostenloser Versand. Buy Das Risiko und sein Preis: Skin in the Game (German Edition): Read Kindle Store Reviews - lmdle.eu Taleb selbst beweist in seinem neuen Buch durchaus Skin in the Game. Der Autor macht sich darin auf jeder Seite angreifbar, indem er andere. „Das Risiko und sein Preis – Skin in the Game“ ist das fünfte Buch seiner „Incerto“-Serie, einer philosophisch-essayistischen Reihe von. Thalia: Infos zu Autor, Inhalt und Bewertungen ❤ Jetzt»Das Risiko und sein Preis – Skin in the Game«nach Hause oder Ihre Filiale vor Ort bestellen!
Skin In The Game Get A Copy Video
Nassim Taleb: Skin in the Game Einband Taschenbuch Seitenzahl Erscheinungsdatum Genres bis heute Ring Smart Home Security Systems. Paperback NEU. Daher werden Sie einen Unterschied zwischen meiner ersten Bewertung Der Glöckner Von Notre Dame Stream dem Reread ein Jahr danach finden. Wir können darob verzagen oder ein Ive Tv Mal Grossmutter fragen. NZZ Geschichte. Register a free business account. The Tragedy of the Commons, something Taleb discusses in his book, was developed by the economist William Forster Lloyd in his armchair. You may not agree with Taleb's side, but Spuk Von Draußen Folge 2 are never left in doubt which side that is. While there is much that I think Taleb is wrong about -- behavioral economics, the importance of economic inequality, the level of social mobility across classes, the role of government beyond the small scale, the role of a The Trust Stream Deutsch press, the The Foreigner Film number of Latin quotations to put in books about risk and uncertainty Sich jetzt anmelden oder Einloggen. The audiobook version is narrated by Joe Ochman and reached 4 on the The Children Stream Deutsch. However, Jordan B. Thalia: Infos zu Autor, Inhalt und Bewertungen ❤ Jetzt»Skin in the Game«nach Hause oder Ihre Filiale vor Ort bestellen! Intellektuelle, Journalisten, Bürokraten, Banker – sie vor allem haben kein»Skin in the Game«und entscheiden daher schlecht. Taleb zeigt. Jetzt online bestellen! Heimlieferung oder in Filiale: Skin in the Game Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life von Nassim Nicholas Taleb | Orell Füssli: Der. Skin in the Game – Das Risiko und sein Preis audiobook written by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Narrated by Steffen Groth. Get instant access to all your favorite. Die Unruhe zu besänftigen. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Böhse Onkelz Nichts Ist Für Die Ewigkeit Books Ltd. Paperback NEU. Er zeugt von Ignoranz — und fällt auf die Intellektuellen zurück. Seine Zerrissenheit überspielt er mit perfekt inszenierter Überzeugungskraft. Read more Read less. Er wirkt überzeugend und ist es gerade darum nicht. Physik und Chemie.
Neue Wörter. Far Cry Primal Test B Shares Class B shares are a share class of common stock of a corporation, but often with fewer or limited voting rights compared to Class A shares. But going up to neurons may double that complexity; going to neurons may double it again; and Galaxy Quest Stream on. Bearing no downside for one's actions means that one has no "Skin In The Game", which is the source of many evils. The premise: You present an idea to the world, which is then implemented. Apr 23, Satyajeet Bible Black it it was Ihr Shelves: on-a-break. Trading Strategies. And this book, Skin in the Game is more quirky than either of his previous books--if that is at all possible. Taleb is kind of dickish but he often succeeds in making me question whether I'm smart enough to grasp what he's saying. Dec 31, Laura Noggle rated it it was amazing Shelves: would-will-read-againnonfiction, favorites. You cannot make profits and transfer the risks to others, as bankers and large corporations do. You cannot get rich without owning your own risk and paying for your own losses.
Forcing skin in the game corrects this asymmetry better than thousands of laws and regulations. The world is not run by consensus but by stubborn minorities imposing their tastes and ethics on others.
A simple barbell can build muscle better than expensive new machines. Without it, fools and crooks will benefit, and their mistakes will never come back to haunt them.
Get A Copy. Paperback , pages. More Details Original Title. Goodreads Choice Award Nominee for Nonfiction Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about Skin in the Game , please sign up. Hi there, let me know if I can answer questions?
SO excited about this book. Still, brilliant man. Do you think this is going to be worth the wait? See all 10 questions about Skin in the Game….
Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Mar 01, Ryan Boissonneault rated it liked it.
Skin in the Game is at the same time thought-provoking and original but also contradictory and sometimes absurd. But why does he insist on presenting his views in this way?
The communication of his ideas, often profound, does not require a mean-spirited or condescending tone. One wonders why Taleb cannot just present his ideas without the incessant personal attacks and condescension.
His overall philosophy appears to be self-refuting. As far as I can tell, Skin in the Game is a work of philosophy, an intellectual exercise that argues against the value of intellectual exercise.
The upside for him is book sales with little to no downside risk, so by using his own logic we should conclude to not trust him.
Except that Taleb uses economic theories to frame his thinking. The Tragedy of the Commons, something Taleb discusses in his book, was developed by the economist William Forster Lloyd in his armchair.
How about Einstein's theory of relativity, which preceded GPS technology, which wouldn't exist without it. Taleb obsesses about the superiority of practice over academics and theory.
This is a questionable proposition. Very experienced, practical individuals sometimes perpetuate bad habits and fail to keep informed of the theories and academics that lead to better practice.
This point is completely lost on Taleb. Imagine a hypothetical survival machine is available for your use. By plugging yourself in, it will guarantee and maximize your life span and, on a social scale, maximizes reproduction.
The price is that the machine also inflicts a high degree of pain and cuts you off from contact with other people.
According to the logic of Taleb, the rational thing to do would be to plug into this machine. Of course, no one would volunteer to do this because survival is not what motivates rational behavior.
Any rational agent would choose one year of pleasant life over years in the survival machine, because actions have value according to how they promote or are perceived to promote well-being or pleasure.
Taleb, using this more believable definition of rationality, could have used it to argue the same points, namely how religious belief cannot be called irrational if it promotes well-being, which includes psychological well-being and survival but not survival alone.
When not being demeaning or taking extreme positions, Taleb writes about some of the most original, thought-provoking, and profound ideas.
And even when you find yourself disagreeing with him, he makes you think. For this reason alone, the book is worth checking out. And his idea that you should have to pay some kind of penalty for decisions that negatively impact others—risk sharing vs.
Of course, these ideas would be easier to swallow if presented with a little more humility, but I suppose we should know what to expect from Taleb by now.
View all 53 comments. Apr 07, Philippe rated it it was amazing Shelves: systems-thinking , futures-thinking , innovation.
The world in which we live is complex and eludes our sense-making faculties. These people monopolize positions of authority and routinely take decisions to intervene in that complex world, without however doing the effort to think through the cascading impacts of these decisions and being conveniently isolated from any tangible repercussions on themselves.
In other words, these people have nothing at stake. They have no skin the game. The absence of skin in the game comes with undesirable epistemological consequences.
Because people who are isolated from the impacts of their decisions do not learn. They remain captive to their erroneous ideas about how the world works.
Sooner or later this is going to cause a lot of trouble. As our technological powers grow and our systems mushroom and interconnect, the likelihood of catastrophic downside consequences ratchets up too.
Absence of skin in the game also leads to objectionable ethical consequences. It leads to an inequitable distribution of risks and resources in society.
To mitigate adverse effects of incautious and irresponsible courses of action, authorities are wont to create an ever more granular web of rules and regulations.
Getting rid of these regulations is much harder than to create them. But opportunistic operators with deep pockets always find loopholes in this tangle.
Now, what can we do about this? We need to compartmentalize risks by focusing on our immediate environment. We need to decentralize and reduce the scale of the systems we meddle with.
Rather than masterplans and fixed strategies we need practical ethical and operational rules to guide local experimentation and problem solving. Insisting that as many people in the community should have skin in the game is ethically sound.
The principle emerges at the intersection of three main ethical systems: Kantian, consequentialism, and classical virtue.
Taleb puts great store in the property of ergodicity. I understand it to work at different logical levels. Not having skin in the game leads to a non-ergodic system, i.
So, in a non-ergodic system a person who gets rich will stay rich. Perfect ergodicity would imply that each person, should s he live forever, would spend a proportion of the time in the economic conditions of the entire cross-section.
At the higher logical level, ergodicity links my personal fate to the fate of the community and larger ecosystem from which I am part.
Loss of my personal life is a necessity to lower the risk for the collective as shorter shelf life for humans allows genetic changes across generations to be in sync with the variability of the environment.
A small, intransigent group in society is able to impose its preferences on a much larger flexible group because of the asymmetry in choices that defines their relationship at least as long as the minority group is not spatially ghettoized and the cost structure associated with their preferences is more or less comparable to the original societal norm.
Vice versa, we need to mindful about the fact that the minority rule can also be used to advance extremist agendas. In general: good market structures neutralize the stupidity of those participating in them.
He is a genuine systems thinker, informed by a deep knowledge of probability theory and what that means for how we ought to deal with risk and uncertainty.
Now the challenge is not only to read the book, but also to absorb it and reflect it in the conduct of one's life. View all 18 comments.
Mar 01, Nilesh rated it did not like it Shelves: economic-and-finance. SITG is an angry rant. It lacks structure. The basic concept is at least as old as the adage itself.
The author does little to bolster the claim while spending all efforts on slamming real or imagined opponents.
Mr Taleb is a very smart author, but not necessarily a right one. He uses a plethora of subterfuge and polemic to diss potential criticism. Yet, he fails to realise that this does not make many of his arguments any more right or less incomplete than they are.
Effectively, the proofs are never presented but claims of them are everywhere. It is likely that wherever those proofs exist, they are on sketchy data and little analysis but his loud claims would hint as if they are as indisputable as two and two make four.
He will repeat this so many times assuming that if he repeats enough number of times he has shown the proof, he has!
Without addressing the likely counterarguments, he would begin by castigating the present or future contradicting voices as people without even basic knowledge, integrity, brains, reputational or financial interests.
Even if one is to fully disagree with a Picketty, a Pinkell, a Thaler or a Dawkins, the likely path is not by simply smashing their intelligence or theoretical knowledge.
Mr Taleb genuinely believes that such thinkers would not know the basics of theories like probability. According to the author, these quantum physics quoting personalities otherwise know nothing but words.
Of course, the inequality loving author sees himself as the better champion of the oppressed! Taleb has fixed views. Some of his views are archaic, some self-serving, some sensible and some downright abhorrent - with most under more than one categories.
There is little consistency in his thesis and most of what he writes is to prove that he has figured it all out and the life he leads is the ideal.
His all-pervasive braggadocio in the book is only trumped by the justification for arrogance - a new trend which was not so visible in his earlier works.
If there is an opportunity, for whatever reason, whereby a woman can, say, mine all the remaining bitcoins in the next ten minutes without risk, the author himself would suggest the woman take the chance and make merry.
This would be a worthy goal for a society to reduce the role played by chance of any kind. However, given the way the practical life is, any system will always be playing a catch-up against individuals perpetually on the hunt for easy opportunities.
The smartest in the society will be continuously unearthing low personal risk, high personal gain situations while quietly transferring some of the hidden risks affecting their own bodies to the rest.
This is how most individuals would behave - a basic human tendency that cannot be wished away. Another broad point that the author misses is what the skin in the game is and for what types of causes it should exist: - A typical human being pursues many goals.
And a majority of them are where failures do not need to cause any personal hurt. If I am trying to cause a child to smile, feed a sick, run a mile under five, learn quantum mechanics for self-fulfilment, a failure does not have to come with pain.
This is true in commercial aspects of life too: an entrepreneur may want to spend efforts tutoring a person she cares about, a programmer is writing an app just to see it being used, a financial investor decides not to invest in sin companies are some examples.
A rich person, like the author himself perhaps, feels no hurt shedding a few million on a risk if his wealth is in billions. For someone sensitive, a word of disapproval could spark suicidal thoughts.
The author describes SITG as absolute in physical and financial forms - nothing could be more wrong than such absolute claims.
The same is true for generals who love to be on the war front, putting themselves at risk, and countless others on the battlefield and outside.
The author - who hates to even have assistants - cannot live this life without a bevvy of legal advisers, infrastructure designers, financial planners, cleaners, accountants etc, most of whom cannot be entrepreneurs.
One cannot create an iPhone, a road, an army or even an investment firm where no one works for anyone else. A functioning society needs many risk takers, as it needs people of many other types who do not need to take risks.
May be, what the author wanted to write was how as a society, there is not enough risk-taking. However, the main purpose of the book is effectively to pound those the author has strongest dislikes for.
These people - from diverse groups of life - are bureaucrats, academicians, company executives, journalists, book reviewers! An academic who espouses a wrong theory and as a result suffers through a sub-par career, or a bureaucrat who is perpetually sidelined for making an incorrect critical decision, or an executive who loses the entire career along with reputation for a misplaced decision are not losing anything as per the author.
For the author, risk means if you have some chance of losing something financially or physically. 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.
He would quote academicians he finds agreeable with love Hagel, Kant, Nietzsche. He would use theories to make a case for employment contracts.
He would talk about repetitional and other types of SITG - but, only where it suits his preformed specific conclusions.
Rationality, according to the author, is not in beliefs or words but in revealed preferences and actions.
Rational, it seems, is anything that helps you survive over a period despite the tail risks that exist for existence. By this logic, combined with the Lindy, slavery and misogyny need undergo no modification.
The author does not attempt to apply this principle too rigidly for sciences, but he occasionally flirts there too in dismissing whatever technological or scientific achievements he disapproves under scientism.
The author never realises how his definition of rationality - even if right - would only cause my granny versus your granny type of arguments best case without any progress towards universal truths or technological advancement.
So, perhaps the only option as per the author is for her to put the body at risk? 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.
One begins to pity the author - supposedly smart - who cannot notice even the most obvious of errors. By this definition, who is the author to pass value-judgment on the boringness of academic reports?
This is such a hogwash that anyone who breathes knows this from time immemorial- the chances of one breathing the next breath is very high but eventually all die!
In academic theories too, joint probability is as old as the probability science. Take another example: he indirectly bashes Mr Pinkel, perhaps his top pet hate, for not recognising that violence is down because the vigilance is up.
The author shouts that the violence going down is perhaps the reason to step up the vigilance, rather than what the others seem to claim as per the author.
Surprisingly, this is exactly the point Mr. Pinkel makes. Such contradictions are supplemented by contortions to prove that only the way he does things is right: for example, the right level of transparency is what the author employs in his investment methods and not more or less.
The right amount of armchair criticising is what he does, like in this book. Same about the skin in the game - where his risk-taking is great but not of many others who take far higher risks that he will not understand.
The author does make many good points in between. There is an admirable section on scale-dependent political ideology - why he is a libertarian at the federal level, a republican at the state level, at a municipal level a democrat and a socialist with friends and family.
The discussion on dynamic inequality through the concept of ergodicity, was exceptionally good if one removed the vitriol towards others and too perfunctory a dismissal of inequality conclusions without sufficient proof.
The author shines when talking about Lindy effect, although this topic was better covered in the previous book on anti-fragility. Those who survive have a stronger chance of surviving longer is a good concept.
Given the simple and singular nature of the main theme , the book has many unrelated diversions through contradictions, contortions, critiquing where the author makes more interesting points: apart from the one on politics above, there is a good section on how a minority stringent choice impact could have on overall impact on the broad population choice.
Another unrelated topic is the differential spread of different religions due to differences in laws a non-Muslim marrying a Muslim has to convert while in cases under Judaism or Zoroastrianism, the follower might be ostracised.
Overall, the author could have used his fame and popularity better to make more constructive points, even if obvious, rather than waste so much energy bashing some other highly relevant and important analysis.
View all 14 comments. Sep 18, David rated it it was amazing Shelves: philosophy , psychology , mathematics , nonfiction , ethics , politics , economics.
From the back cover of the book jacket: The problem with Taleb is not that he's an asshole. He is an asshole.
The problem with Taleb is that he is right. And this book, Skin in the Game is more quirky than either of his previous books--if that is at all possible.
This book is poorly written. It jumps around from From the back cover of the book jacket: The problem with Taleb is not that he's an asshole.
It jumps around from one topic to another, almost stream of consciousness. I am sure that Taleb makes new enemies with each book he writes.
If, by the end of the book, you have not been offended by something he has written, then you haven't been paying attention.
Taleb is blunt, sometimes obtuse, and often right. But it really irks me that his very strong opinions are not always backed up by reasoning.
Like a mathematics professor, he will often "let the reader fill in the lines of his proof. It is so easy for people to spout utter nonsense, so unless they could potentially suffer consequences of being wrong, you should ignore them.
This goes especially for intellectuals in academia. However, "hard" science seem to be immune to this problem, because of the redeeming nature of falsification, while "scientism" -- the excessive belief in science is worthless.
The broad sweep of his aphorisms are overwhelming. Here are some examples that actually are given some logical reasoning: Genes follow majority rule.
Languages follow minority rule. Islam is widespread because of its rules of conversion and parentage. We need entrepreneurs. Taleb goes into some detail about how psychologists totally misunderstand "loss aversion", due to the concept of ergodicity.
Taleb introduces so many quirky words and expressions, that he devotes a glossary in the back of the book to explain the terms. And, the end of the book is filled with a technical appendix with some very technical mathematical proofs about probability theory.
With so many issues that I have with this book, why do I recommend it with five stars? Because the book is so thought-provoking. It jabs me everywhere, and gets me to think about a lot of things, basic assumptions about life.
Take a risk--read this book. View all 5 comments. Anyway, this book lost a bit of its charm due to aggressive and seemingly random things aggregated together.
I'm sure it's another case of 'it's not you, it's me', still, I felt the previous volumes were better grounded and more founded in reality.
Anyway, the eruditic approach to even the most disjointed things: Assassins, politics, Knights Templar There is a lesson here: what we learn from professionals in the real world is that data is not necessarily rigor.
One reason I—as a probability professional—left data out of The Black Swan except for illustrative purposes is that it seems to me that people flood their stories with numbers and graphs in the absence of solid or logical arguments.
Further, people mistake empiricism for a flood of data. Just a little bit of significant data is needed when one is right, particularly when it is disconfirmatory empiricism, or counterexamples: only one data point a single extreme deviation is sufficient to show that Black Swans exist.
Traders, when they make profits, have short communications; when they lose they drown you in details, theories, and charts. Probability, statistics, and data science are principally logic fed by observations—and absence of observations.
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.
But for the general public and those untrained in statistics, such tables appear convincing—another way to substitute the true with the complicated.
This allows us to answer the questions: Who is the real expert? Who decides who is and who is not an expert? Where is the meta-expert? Time is the expert.
Morgan and recoup a multiple of the difference between his or her current salary and the market rate. Regulators, you may recall, have an incentive to make rules as complex as possible so their expertise can later be hired at a higher price.
So there is an implicit bribe in civil service: you act as a servant to an industry, say, Monsanto, and they take care of you later on.
They do not do it out of a sense of honor: simply, it is necessary to keep the system going and encourage the next guy to play by these rules.
He helped bankers get bailouts, let them pay themselves from the largest bonus pool in history after the crisis, in that is, using taxpayer money , and then got a multimillion-dollar job at a financial institution as his reward for good behavior.
A quarter is enough to have somewhere to go, particularly when it rains in New York, without being emotionally socialized and losing intellectual independence for fear of missing a party or having to eat alone.
So let us take a look at social science. If you say something crazy you will be deemed crazy. Sacrifice is necessary. It may seem absurd to brainwashed contemporaries, but Antifragile documents the outsized historical contributions of the nonprofessional, or, rather, the non-meretricious.
For their research to be genuine, they should first have a real-world day job, or at least spend ten years as: lens maker, patent clerk, Mafia operator, professional gambler, postman, prison guard, medical doctor, limo driver, militia member, social security agent, trial lawyer, farmer, restaurant chef, high-volume waiter, firefighter my favorite , lighthouse keeper, etc.
It is a filtering, nonsense-expurgating mechanism. I have no sympathy for moaning professional researchers.
I for my part spent twenty-three years in a full-time, highly demanding, extremely stressful profession while studying, researching, and writing my first three books at night; it lowered in fact, eliminated my tolerance for career-building research.
View all 8 comments. Apr 23, Satyajeet rated it it was ok Shelves: on-a-break. Cherry-picking meets ignorance of human nature meets naive interpretation of history meets erroneous assumptions.
If you cherry-pick the data, you can make ANY ridiculous hypothesis sound convincing. 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 Cherry-picking meets ignorance of human nature meets naive interpretation of history meets erroneous assumptions.
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.
Taleb all but begs the reader to take note of his SITG chivalry. Yes, good Sir Knight, your chivalry is noted. Now, there are not two but four combinations of idea-consequence scenarios that can be neatly represented as below.
The premise: You present an idea to the world, which is then implemented. 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.
An investment advisor who is investing your money with his ideas should have a significant personal stake in the same fund.
If the idea fails, he almost drowns in bankruptcy and nobody will ever take his investment advice seriously again.
Over time, many similar events will eliminate other bad ideas and the people who parented those ideas. As a result, the system overall is better off, and it is precisely SITG that allowed these self-corrections to happen.
In a non-SITG environment, such people can persist. Sounds great, and symmetries are indeed well suited to some situations.
But the problem is that this solution is not at all generalizable and is very restricted in its applicability. He will lie, cheat, deceive, exaggerate, lobby, wield power, or do a million other wicked things just to save his skin.
Here are some ways in which SITG, by incapacitating the ability of the skin-owners to tell the difference between good and evil, can harm the system: 1.
He was allowed to have SITG because of bureaucratic loopholes; normally, this is rightly prohibited. However, someone who has the official power but who has nothing to gain or lose as in the case of pure neutrals , either in the present or in the future, is more likely to do good to others rather than serve himself like Icahn did.
Financial SITG is the reason why tobacco companies, despite their own research showing that smoking tobacco is strongly correlated with lung cancer, suppressed those findings, lied to the public for decades that there is no evidence, let millions die of preventable cancer, got caught lying, and were sued for billions—all in a misguided attempt to save their invested skin.
And unsurprisingly, owing to SITG, something very similar is happening with oil companies now. All these companies lose a lot of money should things not go in their favor, and make a lot of money otherwise, so they are never honest about their data or their true intentions—a typical trait of those with SITG.
Taleb himself stood to make a lot more money in had all the Big Banks been allowed to fail; he had placed bets that they would fail. Only the truly gullible can fail to see why he fruitlessly demanded that the Fed let those banks fail.
NOT having any SITG game lets you think objectively about a situation in a way that having your skin at stake hardly can.
The slave-holding states of the American antebellum South wanted to secede from the Union primarily, though not solely I am not nuance-averse , because of the issue of slavery.
Slavery was crucial to the cotton business, and the slave-holding states of the South would have taken a huge economic hit if slavery were abolished.
Small wonder, then, that the South wanted to keep slavery alive by seceding from the Union, thus initiating the Civil War. 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.
Slavery did not resolve itself at the hands of those with skin in the cotton game. It was Lincoln and his cohorts, not slaveholders or Southerners, who ratified the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the one abolishing slavery.
This idea is mathematically beautiful but ultimately stands on the quick soil. In essence, it states that the projected lifespan of non-perishable cultural entities is in direct correlation with its current age.
If a book has survived for years in print, it will likely survive another At its foundation, both ideas require people—lots of common, hardworking people—who make collective decisions about accepting or rejecting an idea through small decisions that accrue.
In the Wisdom, the decisions accrue across space; in Lindy, across time. But in both, it is the hoi polloi—and not the academics, the bureaucrats, or some other group of chosen experts—who truly put the ideas to the test.
The difference between these propositions is night and day. The difference matters. A lot. In that book, he is careful to distinguish between survival through chance and survival through competence.
A stockbroker can have a long career making successful bets, despite being clueless about stocks.
The laws of stochastic probability make room for such anomalies. However, a dentist or a doctor can have a long career if and only if they are competent, and no law of probability will rescue them otherwise.
Or so I thought I learned this many unfortunate years later: The case he makes for non-stochastic professions turns out not to be true at all and illuminates a rot in the assumptions that Lindy stands on.
The noise caused by the placebo effect can sometimes deafen people to the fraudulence of most alternative medicines which generally treat non-life-threatening conditions.
If any alternative medicine fraud claims to have a cure for cancer, the claim can be put to the test as easily by the public as by scientists. People should, given a decade or more of hearsay, arrive at a verdict about the efficacy of the treatment—if Taleb is to be believed.
Every week, an exodus of benighted, gullible, illiterate, and even semi-literate people from all across the country arrive at his doorstep and stand in miles-long queue for hours to get a second appointment with him.
Even his online ratings are consistently high. Vox populi? Vox humbug! Many more such examples abound. Aphorisms survive because of their rhetorical effect, not necessarily because they are agents of truth.
Only by woefully cherry-picking them can you present them in a positive light. Superstitions survive for thousands of years, and horrible myths that are demonstrably untrue are inherited through generations of descendants, completely unfiltered by Lindy.
Conversely, many great books of science and math from the antiquity, including five books by Euclid, have been irretrievably lost, unprotected by Lindy.
Lindy tolerated it for years; bureaucrats and reformers ended it in just Page after page of this book is filled with vignettes from classical literature, to give it the feel of Lindyness.
It never ceases to amuse me how Taleb combs through historical mythologies to find stories that vaguely metaphorically resemble an agenda he has already made up his mind about.
Even the typeface of this book is given a historical context for, geez! Taleb likes to chastise psychologists, but psychologists have also committed the same error that Taleb is committing in abundance here: Drawing a little too much inspiration from ancient vignettes.
Freud was inspired by the vignette of Oedipus when he came up with his ridiculous hypothesis of Oedipus complex. Jung produced an equally ridiculous variant called the Electra complex after the Greek mythological character.
Another perverse complex, also inspired by classical Greek stories, goes by Jocasta complex. Cancer genes can survive in a species for millions of years.
However, none of this is to say that Lindy is totally useless. In the philosophy of science, consilience is a method of converging on the truth through multiple, independent sources of evidence that are themselves imperfect and prone to errors.
We know that the theory of evolution is true not just because fossils hint at it, but because seven independent sources of evidence converge at the same conclusion.
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.
In the event of a disagreement between sources—which is bound to happen given that each source is imperfect—all it means is that further investigation is needed, not that one source is necessarily better than the other, or that the other source must be discarded altogether.
In consilience, Lindy can act as ONE of these independent sources, rather than replacing other sources. Alx fr totally lynched it.
If intellectuals can be idiots, Taleb is its most shining example. He is better suited for trolling on Twitter and peddling conspiracy theories about GMOs than for sermonizing on how societies should function.
View all 10 comments. Aug 16, Daniel Clausen rated it it was amazing Shelves: books-of , books-of Update September 4, I changed my mind.
I decided to rate this book after all. Any book that has passages that are better on the third reading deserves five stars.
On my third reading, there were parts of the book I skipped, but most of the book was still remarkable, and I would argue even better on the third reading.
Ergo, 5 stars are necessary. And anything less would be dishonest. I will leave the original review as it was written around this time last year, but keep in mind that all my Update September 4, I will leave the original review as it was written around this time last year, but keep in mind that all my remarks about the book being unrateable have now been overturned.
I can't rate this book. This seems an absurd thing to say, but it's hard to rate a book that often comes off as a pre-pubescent twitter rant.
I think the problem is that Taleb's classical and anti-modern sense of honor screeches against my modern ears.
Also, his classical sense of honor often devolves into the aesthetics of blue-collar water cooler bullshit sessions I've been around too many of these , twitter rants, and toxic masculinity.
Forghetabout it? It's really hard to once the words are out there. I still believe twitter was a technology that was supposed to be for teens and that in brings out the worst in people.
The actual philosophy of this book is wonderful and deserves at least two readings. I own the paperback in question, so I can just cross out flagrant vulgarity with a black pen.
There isn't that much of it just enough to make the book unrateable. If you've read Antifragile and Black Swan, much of what is written in this book but not all will seem redundant.
I think once you've figured out the core of Taleb's philosophy you can start applying it to your own problems with ease.
It does help, however, to go back and see how he applies it. I consider Fooled by Randomness to be less essential than Antifragile and Black Swan, but an interesting case study to understand how philosophies evolve.
Since apparently, I'm not a real man unless I deadlift, and deadlifting is more important than book lifting at a library, and since I haven't deadlifted since high school football, I guess I should get back to deadlifting.
Sadly, pounds was my max in high school and all I've been doing since then is trying to improve myself with book learning. That, or I can embrace a very hidden asymmetrical truth about modernity.
Modernity has unlocked the once hidden power of women -- women thinkers, women writers some who deadlift, many who don't -- thus, roughly doubling the amount of ingenuity and talent at least in places that are modern.
An interesting question, one I think deserves some thought: How do intelligent, working women -- and to be fair entrepreneurs -- read Taleb?
I think I'll explore the Goodreads comment sections and find out. View all 12 comments. Feb 21, Magnus Ahmad rated it did not like it.
The restriction addresses the issue of front running , which is when an executive enters a trade—with inside or non-public information—just before an event or announcement to gain an economic advantage.
There are also restrictions on commingled funds , which is the pooling of resources or the mixing of both private funds and corporate resources into the company's stock or bonds.
There are some instances when it's important that the executives remain objective in their decision making and are barred from investing in the company's they manage.
The Securities and Exchange Commission SEC requires that funds annually disclose how much money each portfolio manager has invested in the fund.
Proponents of skin in the game argue that capital commitment is the single most important way to align the interests of investors and managers.
The SEC also requires companies to report on insider ownership or trades of a company's securities. The reports are required because trades by executives, directors, and officers can impact the price of the company's stock.
There are various types of forms that the executives must file with the SEC. Investors can access and use these insider ownership reports to make a more informed decision as to whether to invest or not invest in the company.
If investors want to see a CEO that has skin in the game with his company, there are few better examples than Elon Musk. Trading Strategies. Investing Essentials.
Investopedia uses cookies to provide you with a great user experience. By using Investopedia, you accept our. Your Money.
Personal Finance. Your Practice. Popular Courses. Business Business Leaders.
Es gibt also — erstens — den Akteur mit Skin in the Game, der sein Geld, seine Glaubwürdigkeit Fingerkuppe seine Ehre riskiert, egal, ob er seine politische Meinung kundtut, ein Investment empfiehlt, eine Prognose anstellt oder eine professionelle Entscheidung trifft: Er hat Starkes Team Heute zu verlieren. Gute These, jedoch ist nicht jeder in der Lage dieses doch sehr tiefgehende Buch problemlos zu lesen und seinen Sinn zu ergründen. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. 6 Staffel Pretty Little Liars Auf Netflix entstehen Kriege und Katastrophen. Schweizer Länderausgabe. Dass dieses Bild der unschuldigen Filmkünstlerin eine Lüge ist, zeigt Nina Gladitz anhand aufwändig recherchierter Archivdokumente. Es wurden noch keine Bewertungen geschrieben. Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen.Skin In The Game Ein System, das sich selbst zerstört
Leserstimmen Sie kennen Mainstream Sex Buch bereits? Sie weiss Rat: Probieren geht über studieren. Amazon Rapids Fun Staffel 6 Game Of Thrones Deutsch for kids on the go. Bitte beachten Sie, dass wir uns Gem Tv Online Freigabe von beleidigenden oder falschen Inhalten bzw. Umgelegt auf das heutige Business, so Herr Taleb, würde das bedeuten, immer Französische übersetzung die Untergebenen zu opfern, selber aber nur die Befehle M Film geben. Nassim Nicholas Taleb is the Richard Wagner of uncertainty. Gleich vorweg: die erSkin In The Game Navigation menu Video
Skin In The Game by Nassim Nicholas Taleb - animated book review
0 KOMMENTARE