A problem I have with USA leftist is that they can have "their way" inside the current system. It is not against the law to have co-ops and such or form communities of large people of leftists to spread benefits among each other thus giving everyone a level playing field, equality, and so on. There are millions of people that claim they think this is a good idea, and vote that way. Yet, what they should be doing is living that way (the way they propose we all live) today. They can do it. I'm skeptical on why they think they should have EVERYONE comply with their commands, many tens of millions against their will, when leftists can have their way today. That's why I don't believe any of them to be genuine. And forcing people to comply with their system when it is necessary for them to achieve their supposed goals reeks of totalitarianism.

    After listening to this lecture I realize my disdain for these people is that they don't have skin in the game. Further, the poor of the USA are still rich among many in the world. Why don't they self-impose taxes upon themselves in order to give people in Africa and Asia health care, shelter, food, water? Surely they don't think Americans are better people than those of the world. They are all rent seekers — trying to obtain benefits without giving anything in return.

    NNT is a terrible speaker – enough with your pointless digressions! Also, it is hypocritical when he accuses others of intellectual arrogance. He is exhibit A. That being said, he's a brilliant writer and I love how he thinks.

    What a pretencious claim: the book ought to be fractal like to contain a lot of information that makes reading worthwhile. He should know that fractals can be described with very very short formulas. Therefore his book, according to his claim, his book can be summarized with a single sentence, indeed….

    Nassim really fuct up with his recent screed against "IQ." As someone who flat ass does not believe that one simple little number is able to sum up and define anyone's level of intelligence, I was appalled at the stupidity of his lame ass argument. Now when I argue against "IQ" everyone thinks I'm stupid like him. Forest Gump's mom was right, Stupid Is As Stupid Does.

    Specifically, Mr Taleb looks like an ignorant communist jackass when he calls Charles Murray a "mountebank." I don't accept a lot of what Professor Murray concludes either, but the impression is too strong that Mr Taleb's argument is based on the ad hominem rhetoric and not on anything substantial against Murray's work. Mr Taleb looks like the mountebank, not Murray.

    I can't figure out whether this guy is full of shit or a genius. Or both.
    I'm a bit of a Wittgensteinian in the sense that I believe that if you can't communicate your idea clearly, either the idea sucks or you suck. If both are great, you shouldn't have a problem communicating it. Unless you're a super genius with poor communication skills, of course, in which case by definition only few people will "get it".
    I had the same problem with Heidegger, who, and 've made up my mind on this, turned out to be full of shit.
    Let's hope this goes differently if I read this fella's book.

    + Talks at Google Hey,
    Around 34:37 Nassim speaks about a peacock. In the subtitles there is a part described as [INAUDIBLE].
    The word he is saying there is Zehavian, as in Amos Zehavi, who coined the term "Handicap principle", and used the peacock as an example for it. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle
    So the sentence should be:
    " And… The peacock, you know, the Zehavian peacock story, the peacock, why does the peacock have a big tail?"

    What about writing? A writer is judged by his readers, but some writers can still write things that are relevant no matter what century.

    Computers, the internet, lasers, MRI's, X-rays, …, all examples of science-turned-technology. Why does he think that it's always technology first? It's just a stupid and wrong point. It's an interplay, as every real scientist will be able to tell you.

    My understanding about this "Skin in the Game" argument is that some experts are intellectual yet idiots because they bear no consequence for their actions. They have been isoluting themeselves from failure and any sort of risk. Thus, they can come up with non-sense that only makes sense to them.
    I am an economic major student and I am feeling exactly that. Most of what is written in the textbook is BS. They have no connection to the real world.

    There is a western tradition that very major thinker or critic or any sort of intellectual has to have a complete philosophical system. It has to be complete and consistent.

    Let me illustrate with an example. A guy like Jordan's Peterson has come up with a theory of truth or epistemology. He felt compelled to do so to be taken seriously. This is a great mistake. In Jordan's case, he is a clinical psychologist. First, he took on topics that were outside his scope and now he has to even come up with a full blown abstract philosophy model.

    I am not saying people shouldn't cross pollinate and diverse, this is helpful actually. But that theories and concepts are interesting in their own right and need not be absolute,

    Every new theory is not going to be a complete system like Newtonian mechanics or Einstein rlativity. Taleb is interesting but take his theory as an interesting pattern. It doesn't not and need no th explain everything.

    I agree Taleb has also fallen for the absolutist western tradition.

    Google certainly has skin in our games by recording everything we search , type and storing it somewhere for the powers that be ! Full disclosure I just had a wank to German anal porn searched on google chrome

    The few interesting ideas he presents do not take away from his idiotic and all encompassing narcissism. He has no clue what he's talking about on multiple topics, tells lots of bullshit, but sounds convincing. Read a summary of his book online, and save yourself some time.

    it's unbelievable how he gives the talk in this kind of a fractal manner where it's sometimes difficult to make sense of certain elements but as it starts approaching the end, everything becomes clearer and clearer and at the end it all makes sense – really good talk and interesting ideas!

    2:43 modus operandi: a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established.

    The thought that if we forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat it rapidly comes to mind when I look at our economy today. While we constantly refer to the "2008 financial crisis" it has been chiefly forgotten and we have learned very little from it. The following article is a stark reminder that we may have learned nothing. http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2018/05/often-mentioned-2008-crisis-chiefly.html

    Mr. Taleb has the right view on many important things. I especially liked his book Antifragile but i would have liked it even more without his blathering and showmanship. Half of the book is simply not needed to understand the relevant points, thus half of it is just a waste of time. Almost the same here in this presentation.

    Crap… I could not listen to this stuttering, throat clearing, meandering any more…he is a really poor speaker, notwithstanding his message…he simply cannot get it across …too painful to continue. Last point…forgetting what you wrote in your own book and then reading directly from it is not good…oh yeah…be prepared…" I hope this has a pointer?" really…?

    So, basically… (negative) incentives matter. Well duh. This is not news. Nor is it particularly deep. Did we need a 1 hour lecture for that?

    I wonder how certain types of philosopher – certain types of metaphysician, say – could have skin in the game? Aren't there kinds or levels of theory that just can't really be approached in this way?
    But yeah, great lecture.

    nassim taleb is a complete fraud. it isn;t that hard to predict the future as he claims to do. all you gotta know is which way the wind blows GOOGLE. then it simple

    there are only so many googler 1% ers to go to those high brow restaurants and celebrate their succinct success. wowww. good job googlers. u can't actually see past your nose to chop it off……..loooool

    bad attribution to darwin taleb
    he never said survival of the fittest, the concept is that their is no genetic makeup that is superior to another but that there is a specific adaptation for each individual environment. kind of like a hummindbird

    good that he put judaism down at the bottom of the list as far as awareness….preaching to the choir. you are not symetrical friend in the sense that you look to the past to answer the moment. everyone gets lucky

    but he will never declare the ultimate equalizer, btc. that is supposedly a black swan but he didn't predict it. such a whore

    Funny that Google has this guy on there saying that companies that don't have skin in the game will fail.. and yet youtube is cutting off views they don't want, and google buries information they don't want you to see. He is sitting there telling them Google will fail.. soon… due to the fact that they will collapse.

    Although, Nassim books are on the top of favorites, but based on his idea they won’t survive because there can be summarized:

    Skin in the game: if people can transfer risks and not own their risk, the system will fail. The minority can always rule the majority..

    Antifragile: the same way a muscle will gain from pressure in the gym , transfer this concept to other domains.

    Always think micro at the bottom and go macro as you widen/grow.

    Bingo two books summarized in 1 mns

    I like the peacock guy. That's skin in the game. Really putting yourself behind what you believe and that too by confronting Nassim Taleb on video that would be put on YouTube instead of quietly in a paper or in front of a receptive audience setting – ultimate risk taking.

    Nassim needs to study Algorithmic Probability. Indeed, Google needs to study it relation to "bias" or Google may find itself subject to draconian governmental intervention.

    My response to the UK government's initiative on "bias" in algorithmic decision-making by its "Center for Data Ethics and Innovation":

    The missing ingredient in remediating bias is that we use data to recognize bias, including bias in the data itself. Any serious experimentalist understands this: Measurement instruments must be modeled along with the measurements they report. The solution to this apparent conundrum in data analysis has been known since the early 1960s: Algorithmic Information Theory. In short, to discover bias in the data, one must strive to approximate its Kolmogorov Complexity program as model selection criterion: The smallest program that outputs the data embodies the best model, including the best model of bias in the data. Multiple measurement instruments provide the cross-checking data necessary to discover bias. Since entire disciplines can be biased, this means cross-disciplinary measurements must be included in a comprehensive corpus to be compressed.

    Aside from the fact that this is the right way to discover bias in the data, it has the additional benefit of resolving the political conundrum entailed by vague model selection criteria for adoption in public policy.


    Nobody predicted Google but Douglas Adams did create the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which was a continually revised universally online volume which was electronically accessed. Now, maybe google looks a little tame by comparison.

    Taleb is a mixed bag (like all people). His advice and overall points make a ton of sense, but, he's a bigtime asshole on Twitter and doesn't follow his own advice. Separating the two is pretty easy though. Reading his books and lectures like this are more beneficial than following his Twitter. I say this as a big fan of his.

    THANK YOU for making the point 32:30 for calling out the chicken hawks who got us into the terrible Iraq War (by LYING) which is now remembered as a "silly mistake" rather than a huge, generational catastrophe spanning numerous countries including ours. Thx Bush, CHENEY, Pearle, Wolfowitz,etc
    — In any other country they'd be war criminals. D.A., J.D. NYC

    @53:35 Nasim Taleb gives such good advice. I have the book from the library "Skin in the Game" looking at an 'online version' of The Black Swan. – With all due respect, in my opinion, he has good ideas that I need to consume and would pay good money for (I get the library versions of books as a quick start into a book). However he is not a good writer. He needs think in terms of journalism writing or atleast the one on Udemy by Shani Raja 'Writing With Flair: How To Become An Exceptional Writer'. There are not signposts in the book to tell you something is coming up. We are just thrown in, I'm like more than 20 year younger than the writer. I like economics and thinking of that sort and hopefully ideas tested.

    Could be biased but I really only listen to people who are trying to share something of intellectual importance if they have a background in math. You could be the best programmer in the world, I do not care unless you understand math at a high level (min. undergrad or equivalent) interesting to see that I might be thinking clearly on this as everybody else blows up lol.

    Ad Lindy's eff: cultural artifacts may internalize into a practical meme in society/culture. But the effect much depends on the characters/subjects comprising the society being very much constant or little/limitedly mutated.!.
    ie. expect it to break with transhumanism, body diversification or AI inclusion.

    17:42 "A dentist will be an expert, but an epidemiologist will not be an expert…That's skin in the game."

    I suspect it's obvious even to his fans that Taleb is more infatuated with his own cleverness than he ought to be, but this blithe dumbassery lays bare just how willing this clown is to make proclamations that he doesn't even begin to understand. And in fact his whole thesis boils down to a thinly-disguised screed against intellectualism and academia, in favor of his "practical" knowledge.

    I am a physician, and I have tremendous respect for epidemiologists. I wouldn't let them treat my patients, of course, because…THAT'S NOT THEIR EXPERTISE. But to say that I have expertise and they do not, and the reason my expertise is valid is because I have "feedback" from patients, is just so insanely ignorant I don't even know what to say about it. Even to someone who lacked a granular understanding of the day-to-day of a clinician vs a public health scientist, is it not obvious — or at least suspected? — that our respective expertises are simply different? JFC dude you embarrass yourself with this showcase of pristine Dunning-Kruger cluelessness.

    At the end of the day, I guess none of this should be surprising given that his fundamental "observation" is his opinion that in his experience traders understand markets better than economists. I hope anyone who's ever met a trader or even read about them through, say, Michael Lewis's work will appreciate that traders are by and large superstitious goons who manage to implement markets though they understand them little…which is precisely the fascinating quality of markets understood by, ahem, *economists*: that markets emerge from the activities of people just trying to make a dollar. By Taleb's logic, of course, quack practitioners of pseudoscientific "medicine" are experts (they are "in contact with reality" through the "feedback" from their patients, while scientists who claim that acupuncture can't cure cancer are ivory tower IYI's, insulated from skin in the game!). Way to strike back at vacuous theorizing by <squints> shitting on empiricism. TLDR Taleb is a fuckwit

    Sorry to say but he forgot the part where a clever person must be concise and to the point. Big waist of time and I wonder if the audience are Alphabet employees. Perfect example why it's not always a good idea to sit in front. You cannot leave the room 🙂

    The 'Save Our Planet' message is the best example of virtue signaling I have seen. Saying you have virtue is not sinister but shaming others is, and real virtue is inspiring, not guilt-inducing.

    His Christology slide is inaccurate. Scripture claims that Jesus was God, incarnate, in order to suffer for the sin of mankind. Sufferer had to be holy, for the sacrifice to be worthy enough to pay the price for sin. No one is holy, save for God himself. Therefore, God literally put on skin, to become the better Adam, he put that skin in the game and won the victory over death and sin, to give eternal life to those who believe in the gift.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *