Nassim Taleb, author of the Incerto books, posts essays on risk, probability, intolerance, IQ and the failures of intellectuals.
Commenters cite his essays to explain social dynamics, such as the minority-rule piece and the surgeon paradox, and to support arguments about IQ and risk-taking.
First, name one bank that is not willing to provide you service if you don't have a smartphone. Even if you do find it, ask yourself if this is the type of bank that you really want to work with.
Second, how was it that banks managed to operate for centuries and now there is the idea that people simply can not live without a mobile banking app?
Third, minority rule[0]: the best way to make sure that we can see apps being develop for other platforms (not just KaiOS, but Linux devices and even ungoogled AOSP-based systems) is for us to cultivate the intolerant minorities who simply will refuse to run iOS/Android.
Convenience is nice, but freedom is much better.
[0]: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
> The IYI [Intellectual Yet Idiot] pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit.
> When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences.
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577
Taleb. Love him, hate him. Always a lot of controversy.
I like him quite a lot somehow, and there's clearly a good amount of genius in him, although sometimes there are certain positions and affirmations that feel less so (to me at least).
For example, his critique of the growing inequality in the world [0] [1] amounts to pointing at dynamic inequality, not static one. This one never convinced me so far.
To be clear: I fully understand his point; I simply disagree, especially while living in San Francisco and witnessing homeless people every day, walking next to VC multimillionaires.
Anyone able to convince me?
[0]: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/892351059615789057?lang=en
[1]: https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d8f00bc0cb46
This argument reminds me of Taleb's note on Minority rule:
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
"The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority"
"The black-and-white character of these societal laws can be explained with the following. Assume that under a certain regime, when you mix white and dark blue in various combinations, you don’t get variations of light blue, but dark blue. Such a regime is vastly more likely to produce dark blue than another rule that allows more shades of blue."
One of the bigger bangers from the chapter:
"Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will eventually destroy our world."
wealth distribution is not a virtuous goal insofar that we have seen what attempts at the opposite end up causing. Everyone becomes equal, way way down.
What is important, extremely important, but no one talks about - is equality of opportunity. In this regard, more than 50% of all americans will spend at least 1 year in the top 10% of all income. Compare that to most europe, where for example, the same 10 families in france in italy , after many centuries, still hold on to money and power...and never lose either.
That is a worthy goal to keep improving on. It doesn't matter how much anyone amasses - what really matters is that everyone has a fair shot at it, too.
https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d8f00bc0cb46
>Um. "I don't keep a calendar" means "I consider my time more important than yours, so we'll meet at my sole convenience." I would love to do that, but everyone else in the world would rightly understand it that way and would treat it as a refusal to do core elements of my job.
The advice is for free persons, not for us salaried workers.
(Not to mention that TFA already covers this: "I'm totally serious. If you pull it off -- and in many structured jobs, you simply can't" and again later: "Clearly this only works if you can get away with it. If you have a structured job, a structured job environment, or you're a CEO, it will be hard to pull off.").
See also: https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-legally-own-another-person-4145a1802bf6