>One property of the option: it does not care about the average outcome, only the favorable ones (since the downside doesn't count beyond a certain point). Authors, artists, and even philosophers are much better off having a very small number of fanatics behind them than a large number of people who appreciate their work. The number of persons who dislike the work don't count - there is no such thing as the opposite of buying your book, or the equivalent of losing points in a soccer game, and the absence of negative domain for book sales provides the the author with a measure of optionality.
>Further, it helps when supporters are both enthusiastic and influential. Wittgenstein, for instance, was largely considered a lunatic, a strange bird, or just a b***t operator by those whose opinion didn't count (he had almost no publications to his name). But he had a small number of cultlike followers, and some, such as Bertrand Russell and J.M. Keynes, were massively influential.
>... you are better off having a high percentage of people disliking you and your message (even intensely) combined with a low percentage of extremely loyal and enthusiastic supporters.
Agree? It is what I got in mind for my attempt at a book. Oh by the way I made the typos for free.
One property of the option: it does not care about the average outcome...
Yeah I mean the asymmetry is obviously true.
The more interesting question is what it takes to be received that way
>b***t operator
what's this supposed to mean
>The more interesting question is what it takes to be received that way
I don't think there's an answer to that and one just have to see and try.
I still find it useful as a guide. I can't know whatever my work - implying it will ever come to that, but lets think hypothetical -will attract fanatical, enthusiastic (and influential) fans. But I can try to make it appealing to a small pool of people and do the opposite to the majority of people. I think Taleb, by offending a lot of readers, did exactly this. Of course that's only a part of it.
Taleb might be one of the most respectable thinkers of our era.
In what way?
I think he is one of the most creative individuals; the way he blends different sciences, art, philosophy and folk knowledge together. Even if he is wrong, and I think he is on certain things, his style is very original.
And there's a practical part to it that you won't find in academic works (unless we talk about health).
My read is that his implication is to not focus on appeal.
bullshit operator = con man
Agreed. You want to the opinion of people who matter, not the masses.
Btw its a good book, and Taleb has good ideas, but that guys tone and self-love is intolerable. The part about owning an unread library was the worst.
Agreed
>but that guys tone and self-love is intolerable.
It's an online act meant to repel/expose IYIs.
Buy-side disease. You have people telling you you're the greatest and blowing you for years... it gets to your head
But agreed. I hope someone with similar ideas but a better attitude emerges onto the public
Or maybe thats his justification for being a douche
"I'm an asshole to keep crypto-Victorians away" is pretty idiotic
Can you tell me more about buy-side culture?
Do big banks even use intelligent people? Or is hiring them just for marketing purposes. I can't imagine it takes a genius to create a bond and notify institutional investors.
Taleb: insensitive douche public persona, nice in private
IYIs: nice carefully constructed public persona, insensitive arrogant in private
It's pretty simple really. Taleb by his own conduct shames those intellectuals who glamorize unfortunate people's struggles but would actually never want to associate with one in person.
Your wish for someone with "better attitude" and similar ideas to emerge just shows how clueless you are about the actual content of his work.
You're a fucking idiot
It would be problematic and at odds with his themes if I said Taleb's ideas would be more appealing to me if he was less of a douche. What I am saying is that his ideas would be better spread about and implemented if promoted by people who are more agreeable.
>inb4 "antifragility implies shitting on people makes your ideas spread better"
Stop being a tool and think for yourself
>tell me about buy-side culture
>proceeds to ask for details about the sell-side
Buy side comes from being on the receiving end of salesmen's praise and affection. If e.g. you're a big portfolio manager, you are constantly being treated like a king by people trying to get your money. Successful traders have similar symptoms.
As for investment bankers. Frankly, as much as I hate the industry and have no regrets about bailing on an IB career, most of those guys are smart. Its a demanding and competitive job that few people can hack. Most of them went to good schools, are quick-thinking, eloquent, and good at math.
But as for their wisdom... one has to wonder at the priorities of the sort of person who chooses to work 80 hour weeks as a slave just to get boatloads of money.
>What I am saying is that his ideas would be better spread about and implemented if promoted by people who are more agreeable.
That statement is precisely at odds with his ideas. You're clearly not familiar with his thought.
Inaccurate. You're misreading him.
You are correct, I put it wrong.
I think I should have said interesting to a small amount of people.
He's not a hypocrite, his phrasing matches his philosophical intentions.
>one has to wonder at the priorities of a person who likes different things than i do
If you can't understand why someone would want one of those jobs, you have a lot to learn about life