Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #FooledbyRandomness
Most recents (2)
My #1 marker for the designation "imbecile": the person conflates NECESSARY & SUFFICIENT:
"Math is necessary to undrstnd probability" they counter w/"math doesn't always work".
"Experience is necessary to undrstnd finance" they use counterexamples of old pple who made mistakes.
"Math is necessary to undrstnd probability" they counter w/"math doesn't always work".
"Experience is necessary to undrstnd finance" they use counterexamples of old pple who made mistakes.
2) E.g. blockchain arguments"it's a NEW technology, denying it is like denying the early internet". They mistake NEW for a sufficient condition.
I walked out of a barber shop in Beirut who wanted to use the electric th. in place of scissors when he said "we use cars not horses"
I walked out of a barber shop in Beirut who wanted to use the electric th. in place of scissors when he said "we use cars not horses"
3) The conflation of necessary & sufficient is more technically called: affirming the consequent.
[Notes for #FooledbyRandomness]
Almost all comments on my Twitter aphorisms usually make that mistake.
[Notes for #FooledbyRandomness]
Almost all comments on my Twitter aphorisms usually make that mistake.
Elon Musk illustrates my #FooledbyRandomness point: solid financial success is largely the result of skills, hard work, and wisdom. But wild success (in the far tail) is more likely to be the result of reckless betting, extreme luck, & the opposite of wisdom: folly.
1/2
1/2
2/2
Explanation: the point is simple; for most classes of probability distributions, you get to the tail by increasing the variance (or the scale) rather than raising the expectation.
Explanation: the point is simple; for most classes of probability distributions, you get to the tail by increasing the variance (or the scale) rather than raising the expectation.
3/ Go back and check the numerous times when Tesla was on the brink of going bust.
