Nassim Nicholas Taleb: How to Live in a World we Don't Understand 

Cc

His other book - Skin in the Game

@Shikhar Srivastava it's intended :D

I've been to very little parties over my life time as always kept myself away from people... I'm going grey now

A now you all must catch me yumi

Thank you I needed this comment. Was told to read his books and have just tried to listen to RU-vid videos. I think I just need to start reading.

And the king of the crop is Antifragile

I tried reading fooled by randomness and for first hundred pages which is one third of the book all i got were some random stories about people in the trading business i thought his book addressed a bigger population but no its just a compilation of anecdotes which really have no value whatsover so i stopped reading the book almost midway i might pickup again but its not really what a expected

@@ahbarahad3203 Definetly hard to get started, you gotta have that Eureka moment. I personally started with Skin in the Game (really doesnt matter where you start, as NNT's books are written in a fractal-like style), and never looked back on it. I'm only missing Antifragile and Bed of Procrustes, though I am reading Fooled by Randomness for the second time - and I feel like I understand it much better now, paying attention to some stuff I didn't before.

And if you carry on with that thought, you will come to realize some stunning things about how incredibly genuine you (YOU) are. Kind regards.

@@furlockfurli2719 thanks. No offence taken . I look at my life as it was and see alot of times when i saw life different. Mabe that a reason we could be here. To learn to be better?

@@johnramirez5032 Even if this won't be the main reason, I would happily sign any future contract on that! Wish you the best, mate. Ah, my English is terrible, so when I said "genuine", I mean unique with it. :)

WOW REALLY F BOMB!?

@@TheNameIsFreddy yep, more than one F bomb and several BS bombs. Taleb went thug life here.

Just tinker with things that have low downside and great potential

"Thousand" IQ points

You realize that every voter has an infinitesimal fraction of "responsibility" in elections. So they do pay individually it's just as tiny a fee as it gets.

Responsability is shared among voters. As is the risk. If they vote a "wrong" system, they will live in it. I don't see how is that not paying for their mistakes.

Until Sars2 in the US.

@@Mica-sf9ud voters prolly won't swing an election individually anyway, so getting it wrong isn't likely going to punish anyone and getting it right isn't worth the research individually because it is so unlikely to affect the outcome.

Imagine if he practiced presenting on stage before his books were published..

Peterson is a native english speaker whereas english is Taleb's third language.

He is a Maronite Lebanese, so his background prejudices him.

He's a lousy public speaker, but his books are good. He has no discipline as a speaker. It's shameful. He stammers and doesn't finish sentences he starts. He should try harder!! This is a rambling mess!! Surprised he doesn't demand more of himself. He'd be better off reading his book, but he could not without STAMMERING ALL THE TIME! Dammit! Do it right!

i couldn't finish his books either.

Dexter Haven He does this on purpose and he explains why in Anti-Fragile.

ilikechess1 You bought that lame argument? Don't be so gullible. No one speaks lousy on purpose. It's possible to make a self-serving face-saving excuse about it, though. Just don't' be a sucker for it. He speaks the same way in debates and interviews, silly, where there is no justification, however lame, for it. C'mon, don't be a 'turkey,' as he would say.

Dexter Haven But it's not possible to either: A) speak lousy on purpose, B) not care about not polishing his public speaking skills to some standard? So someone is "gullible" for buying his argument, but your skepticism, unsupported by anything more than personal incredulity, is somehow, what? somehow less fallible? No justification? At all...? More personal incredulity it seems.

Yes

Definitely you are.

Yes

So far he is very successful in risk management and makes more money with every crises He is not a "mathematician" But whatever the F he is doing has been working since 1987

Poor comparison. Deepak Has Nothing to compare.

He stops because it's apparent the direction he going. So instead of babying people he expects his energy and time will be be better used not______.

Adam Lakes No, you are making excuses. I wrote out what he said in transcript form in some comment and proved the point beyond doubt, with all his repetitions and self-interruptions. He's just not in control of his words; he starts a sentence and then trips his way along, groping in the dark to find a period somewhere .

It's not about the ah's and uhms. If you psychoanalyze Taleb's comments, then he comes across as anti-science. That's a problem.

Adeel Khan Well, it depends what sort of psychoanalysis. Do you mean traditional Freudian analysis or a derivative kind? I prefer a Rogerian analysis with Taleb, whereupon I detect a sort of Popperian and Wiggensteinian aversion to universality, which manifests in a skepticism that can be mistaken for anti-science when it is actually pro science, in the sense of radically empirical, always ready for the exception to the rule.

Taleb explains the value of opaque presentation at the outset of this very talk. It draws attention and therefore understanding. See also www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/31/easy__true/

***** No that was just your snarky way to try to defend the indefensible. It is possible to have good content, as in his books, and a lousy manner of saying it, as in the transcript excerpt above. How come you are unable to distinguish between speaking manner and content? You conflate the two. Also, the following strictly consists of the content of his speech too, as in his exact locution, "the two way, ah, um, ah, ah, the, the, the effect… And let me, let me, let me." So, you are basically a lying sack of shit who is trying to float a sophistry. Shame on you.

Dexter Haven Can you send us some videos of yourself public speaking, so we can see from a critic (I mean expert) how it's done?

Mark Joinnides Why change the subject? That was a total non sequitur by you. The issue here is this speaker. But you avoid the section I quoted above at random and tried to call attention to some other speech somewhere that may or may not exist? How does that help resolve this issue? It doesn't. Try to be logical. Start from the transcript section quoted above and compare it to common-sense standards for good speaking skills - classes in oration at college, say, or the sermons of Billy Graham or Louis F. Try to stay on topic. Then we can move on to the issue of my speaking skills. In the meantime, imagine any speech by George Will. Listen to the diction.

Dexter Haven So, I guess you can't send us a video of yourself public speaking. The "issue" is not the speaker, but your inability to hear his message because he says "um" a few times when searching for the right word. English is, I believe, Nassim's third language, after Arabic and French. Even native speakers say "um" here and there. Bob Costas is great at what he does -- no doubt a talented broadcaster and an insightful sports journalist. Nassim is an author. He doesn't speak (English) as well as Bob Costas because he doesn't have to. Nassim writes extremely well, and he doesn't need to waste his time on people too dumb to understand him just because they're too shallow to look past his speaking style. Bob Costas is an exception because I believe he's actually smart, but most of the empty suits on TV speak like smooth hotshots while the content is just hot air. Idiots like to watch them because they sound slick, which is enough for them. This is a tangent to the content of Nassim's words. Criticize what he says, not how he says it. And if you want to criticize how he says it, at least step up to show how you can do it better yourself instead of referring me to George Will and Billy Graham. There are a thousand examples of better public speakers than Nassim -- big deal. Give me one example of someone who can convince me that he's wrong. I came to this video with an interest in Nassim after reading The Black Swan and starting Antifragile, not for public speaking tips from somebody I've never heard of.

***** Aha, you must insult, because you can't rebut. That proves you're illogical. You also just violated the principle of fidelity in philosophy by falsely claiming I believe "good diction trumps message." No, I don't, and don't conflate the two things. Treat them separately, as I do. That's called being able to make "distinctions." A good thing. Read the transcript I faithfully transcribed above again, and then address the issue of oratory skills separately. Ortherwise, you are being intellectually dishonest.

Pinker is naively optimistic about AI risks. Taleb correctly critiques his bad understanding of statistics. Dawkins just arrogantly rants about "muh atheism". He never says anything profound.

Axel Schultz read his books.

Well nobody is perfect.

What’s funny is that taleb talks about this flaw in his book fooled by randomness. How someone so ingrained with a certain belief that they end up not following it themselves. I won’t spoil the but it was a good part of that book and taleb acknowledges that he is aware of this.

@@seren1ty755 please spoil it!!

+TheMarketsLive that clown made his firm a billion dollars in august 2015. How much money did u make during that time?

+Benjamin Dorsey This guy in another video is telling people to read books of Nassim /watch?v=pqzcCfUglws

Benjamin Dorsey You have been drinking too much Kool Aid, I mean Coke.

Benjamin Dorsey 2.5 M without been a Clown. Your friend Bernie Madoff made his firm 60 billion so what?

+TheMarketsLive you made 2.5 million to talebs billion. so your saying the clown out performs you by 1000 times then? hahah

his failure in the markets too him to write about black swans and uncertainty and NOBODY can predict the markets consistently over the long haul.