Nassim Taleb's Top 10 Life Tips(ben.casnocha.com)
ben.casnocha.com
Nassim Taleb's Top 10 Life Tips
http://ben.casnocha.com/2008/06/nassim-talebs-t.html
7 comments
>Has nationalism really killed more people?
It's certainly plausible. Top 10 genocides of the 20'th century:
1: Great Leap Forward (Communist)
2: Soviet Purges/Ukrainian Famine (Communist)
3: Nazis (Nationalist)
3 (Roughly Tied): Congo Wars (Nationalist)
4: Imperial Japanese (Nationalist)
5: Pol Pot (Communist)
6: Kim (Communist)
7: Mengistu in Ethiopia (Mix of Communist and Nationalist)
8: Armenian Genocide by Turks (Nationalist)
9: Igbo genocide of Nigeria (Nationalist)
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
(Note: some of these numbers are sketchy, especially towards the bottom of the list. The list also missed the Congo (WTF!), which I added.)
It's certainly plausible. Top 10 genocides of the 20'th century:
1: Great Leap Forward (Communist)
2: Soviet Purges/Ukrainian Famine (Communist)
3: Nazis (Nationalist)
3 (Roughly Tied): Congo Wars (Nationalist)
4: Imperial Japanese (Nationalist)
5: Pol Pot (Communist)
6: Kim (Communist)
7: Mengistu in Ethiopia (Mix of Communist and Nationalist)
8: Armenian Genocide by Turks (Nationalist)
9: Igbo genocide of Nigeria (Nationalist)
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
(Note: some of these numbers are sketchy, especially towards the bottom of the list. The list also missed the Congo (WTF!), which I added.)
Can I just say "Thanks" to the Hacker News crowd? comatose_kid asked a fair question about religion and atheism, and yummyfajitas gave a fair answer. No trolls, no painful Reddit-style debates on atheism vs. religion. Let's keep this up.
There's plausible elements of religion being an element in #8
The Soviet regime also did have a great amount of Nationalism built into it as well. The people who are also in the "religion kills" camp will also argue (and not without good arguments) that you could call communism a religion.
And of course for every single one of these genocides religion, class warfare and nationalism played a role (targetting of ethnic minorities under Pol Pot, state Shinto in Japan, Socialist and volk-Religion elements in Nazism, "communism as religion" so on).
(Overall I'll tend to fall within the "nationalism kills more" camp.)
The Soviet regime also did have a great amount of Nationalism built into it as well. The people who are also in the "religion kills" camp will also argue (and not without good arguments) that you could call communism a religion.
And of course for every single one of these genocides religion, class warfare and nationalism played a role (targetting of ethnic minorities under Pol Pot, state Shinto in Japan, Socialist and volk-Religion elements in Nazism, "communism as religion" so on).
(Overall I'll tend to fall within the "nationalism kills more" camp.)
And one more modern crime - Iraq War
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29cas...
And do not forget about Hiroshima...
p.s. world isn't black and white.
And do not forget about Hiroshima...
p.s. world isn't black and white.
I only listed the top 10. Iraq and Hiroshima (FYI: Tokyo and Dresden are better examples) just don't compare in scale to the Congo, the Nazi's or even Rwanda.
Also, the study your article describes (and it's followup) is seriously flawed.
Also, the study your article describes (and it's followup) is seriously flawed.
i don't take that quote as a condemnation of atheists.
rather, i think he's saying that there will always be people who want to 'believe in' or 'belong to' something - and w/o religion, that hole would be filled with nationalism... which has problems in its own right.
rather, i think he's saying that there will always be people who want to 'believe in' or 'belong to' something - and w/o religion, that hole would be filled with nationalism... which has problems in its own right.
For many people, that hole is now filled by computers! (Read: forum zealots.)
Thus, things like Digg will be a huge factor in the creation of world peace! Or something!
Thus, things like Digg will be a huge factor in the creation of world peace! Or something!
[deleted]
Why read that when you can read his books: The Black Swan or Fooled by Randomness. They are pretty amazing.
I loved The Black Swan. I filled it with post its and have used it for multiple school projects. If I had to name one person who tossed me into the world of non-fiction intellectual books, it would be Taleb. As I learn more and read more I see more connections between him and others (eg he is a part of EDGE.org where I learned about Dawkins, Zimbardo. Through him I also know of Yossi Vardi and Benoit Mandelbrot. He probably also has connections with Douglas Hofstadter, another cool guy.)
I like Taleb.
For anyone who has read The Black Swan, you will see how this DARPA project may have to do with his Las Vegas casino visit. http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrusts/math/appliedcompmath/rum/in...
I like Taleb.
For anyone who has read The Black Swan, you will see how this DARPA project may have to do with his Las Vegas casino visit. http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrusts/math/appliedcompmath/rum/in...
"Skepticism is effortful and costly. It is better to be sceptical about matters of large consequences, and be imperfect, foolish and human in the small and the aesthetic."
This is kinda dangerous. Many times you don't know if a matter is of large or small consequences unless you first approach it skeptically.
This is kinda dangerous. Many times you don't know if a matter is of large or small consequences unless you first approach it skeptically.
#2 Go to parties.
Will do. Thanks for the tip. (Frankly, I'm surprised no one thought of that before...)
You can’t even start to know what you may find on the envelope of serendipity.
Parsing...parsing...
Okay, so for envelope he must mean one of the following definitions:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/envelope
This? "something that envelops; a wrapper, integument, or surrounding cover."
Or this? (As a metaphor) "the technical limits within which an aircraft or electronic system may be safely operated."
Okay, let's look at the context: "...parties...envelope...of serendipity". Serendipity is a sort of accidental discovery. So at parties we find the envelope (wrapper? limit?) of "Serendipity" Okay... maybe he means that parties are a good place to accidentally discover things?
If you suffer from agoraphobia, send colleagues.
Right, because people who have agoraphobia typically have colleagues they can order around. Howard Hughes and no one else maybe.
That's his #2 life tip. My #2 life tip is: "...but no simpler". My #1 tip is: "Make everything as simple as possible". I can't possibly be alone in seeing this list as combining the worst of banality and inscrutability.
Will do. Thanks for the tip. (Frankly, I'm surprised no one thought of that before...)
You can’t even start to know what you may find on the envelope of serendipity.
Parsing...parsing...
Okay, so for envelope he must mean one of the following definitions:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/envelope
This? "something that envelops; a wrapper, integument, or surrounding cover."
Or this? (As a metaphor) "the technical limits within which an aircraft or electronic system may be safely operated."
Okay, let's look at the context: "...parties...envelope...of serendipity". Serendipity is a sort of accidental discovery. So at parties we find the envelope (wrapper? limit?) of "Serendipity" Okay... maybe he means that parties are a good place to accidentally discover things?
If you suffer from agoraphobia, send colleagues.
Right, because people who have agoraphobia typically have colleagues they can order around. Howard Hughes and no one else maybe.
That's his #2 life tip. My #2 life tip is: "...but no simpler". My #1 tip is: "Make everything as simple as possible". I can't possibly be alone in seeing this list as combining the worst of banality and inscrutability.
'Envelope' in this context just means 'edge'. Taleb is just saying that some of the best things may come from those most accidental, least expected of serendipitous events that parties are, in a sense, designed to generate in the first place. By going to more parties, you increase your exposure to that edge.
It's also not uncommon for individuals who are people-shy to have friends, partners who aren't, nor is it always necessary to "order around" these people to convince them to go.
It's called being charitable. In other words, don't assume that a stupid interpretation of what someone said is what they actually meant. If that's what you're looking for, it's easy enough to find. Fox News talking heads are great at this.
It's also not uncommon for individuals who are people-shy to have friends, partners who aren't, nor is it always necessary to "order around" these people to convince them to go.
It's called being charitable. In other words, don't assume that a stupid interpretation of what someone said is what they actually meant. If that's what you're looking for, it's easy enough to find. Fox News talking heads are great at this.
Yes, I translated it thus:
maybe he means that parties are a good place to accidentally discover things?
You translated it thus:
some of the best things may come from those most accidental, least expected of serendipitous events that parties are, in a sense, designed to generate in the first place.
So, miy translation is shorter but the same, and so I don't thing it is fair to describe it as a "stupid interpretation".
My point is this: His style is pointlessly convoluted----obfuscation for the sake of obfuscation----and that is an age-old rhetorical trick to make a humdrum idea seem profound.
maybe he means that parties are a good place to accidentally discover things?
You translated it thus:
some of the best things may come from those most accidental, least expected of serendipitous events that parties are, in a sense, designed to generate in the first place.
So, miy translation is shorter but the same, and so I don't thing it is fair to describe it as a "stupid interpretation".
My point is this: His style is pointlessly convoluted----obfuscation for the sake of obfuscation----and that is an age-old rhetorical trick to make a humdrum idea seem profound.
No, it's not the same. Taleb points to the "envelope of serendipity" to emphasize just how important the element of chance really is. I.e., you can't discount even the "chanciest" of chance events. That emphasis is lost in your translation.
Also, I didn't mean to call your interpretation stupid...rather, that you're interpretation assumes a sort of stupidity on behalf of the speaker.
Also, I didn't mean to call your interpretation stupid...rather, that you're interpretation assumes a sort of stupidity on behalf of the speaker.
I was able to read Taleb in the original English and understand what he wrote and meant just fine, being a native speaker of said language.
Yeah, so did I. So did I.
But unlike many others, I recognized that he's using poor style as a substitute for meaningful content. That's my point, which I apparently did not make sufficiently clear for native speakers like yourself.
But unlike many others, I recognized that he's using poor style as a substitute for meaningful content. That's my point, which I apparently did not make sufficiently clear for native speakers like yourself.
Really I think it's just applied poetry. The rational argument associated with the point is boring. Parsing out "envelope of serendipity" might take epsilon more time/effort but it's that epsilon which causes you to feel a small spark of discovery WHILE parsing the sentence. That feeling of discovery convolves with the conceptual meaning of the sentence and immediately you mentally associate with the similar spark-like feeling of serendipity, and probably also remember a couple of times things like this HAVE happened at parties too. It seems pretty elegant to me. Perhaps it is a rhetorical trick but it's also good people-hacking.
"The art of finding something by looking for something else."
What a beautiful thing. Good tip. I would like to note that when he says go to parties, he is probably talking about more than just parties. Be open to going places and seeing people, reach out, and keep your eyes open. You don't always have to have a goal in mind.
[deleted]
There's some inspiring parts there, not quite scientific.
"It is better to be skeptical about matters of large consequences"
Just that clause is arresting.
Just that clause is arresting.
Ironic that the blogger is wearing a tie ;-)
The guy wrote a couple of popular "popular science" books. So now he's a lifestyle guru?
I shall follow only the even ones.
The following quote from the article:
"Take away religion, he says, and people start believing in nationalism, which has killed far more people. Religion is also a good way of handling uncertainty. It lowers blood pressure. He’s convinced that religious people take fewer financial risks. "
is a pretty lame conjecture. Has nationalism really killed more people? Even if it has, is there any proof that atheists are more prone to nationalism? And even if that is so, is there any proof that nationalistic atheists are responsible for any significant proportion of deaths attributable to nationalism?
Contrary to the above, I did like most of the original article.