Longetivity
Solons warning:
Croesus, irate, asked him point-blank if he was not to be considered the happiest man of all. Solon answered: “The observation of the numerous misfortunes that attend all conditions forbids us to grow insolent upon our present enjoyments, or to admire a man’s happiness that may yet, in course of time, suffer change. For the uncertain future has yet to come, with all variety of future; and him only to whom the divinity has [guaranteed] continued happiness until the end we may call happy.”
I like how Taleb puts it too
One cannot consider a profession without taking into account the average of the people who enter it p.21
Here, he uses a dentist vs a janitor who has just won the lottery. Are we to say that you earn as much if you follow either profession.
Its a marathon not a sprint
MC Simulation Engine
Taleb says to consider alternative paths or histories. This aligns with the MC simulation with a random walk of paths that may hover over some average path of a set of random variables. Say, something like the amount of money you have in a year. This could keep going up but you might be one of those looking paths in an average downward trajectory.
This reminded me of Alan Hajeks recommendation of ‘thinking at the extremes’ when faced with some new theory. It’s not totally the same but running a simulation or stress testing a hypothesis generally within its stated bounds is a good heuristic I think.
I reckon I outgrew the desire to generate random runs everytime I want to explore and idea but by dint of playing with a MC engine for years I can no longer visualise a realized outcome without reference to a non-realized one""
Just as a mental heuristic, this is useful. Play a little MC simulation in your head, try and get some non-realised paths.
This plays into hindsight bias as we fail to acknowledge the ‘ocean’ of alternate histories. We could be looking at the tip of the iceberg.
What you feel? That’s variance
In an interesting example of pleasurable vs non-pleasurable experience depending on how frequently you check some measure.
I’ve played with the example of checking ones weight in gaining muscle.
All is to say, that minimising inputs information can reduce noise and allow the signal outcome to more likely happen.
Over the short time period one observes variability not the returns
Taleb says we just risk and consequence by our emotions not some rationality, we burn out with inputs like the above and our brains don’t really seem to think long term.
Whenever I hear ‘work ethics’ I interpret ‘inefficient mediocrity’ p.124
This concept of not checking your watch every five minutes has effected how I think. Once a goal is defined with a rational path to get there, it doesn’t make sense to keep pondering choices. The agreed upon time should be given to see the outcomes.