Trevor's Reviews > Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets
Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets (Incerto)
by
by

Trevor's review
bookshelves: economics, behavioural-economics, psychology, social-theory
Nov 18, 2008
bookshelves: economics, behavioural-economics, psychology, social-theory
Yeah, you see. I’ve just checked and most of the other reviews of this book do pretty much what I thought they would do. They complain about the tone. This guy is never going to win an award for modesty and he probably thinks you are stupid and have wasted your life. And it gets worse � like that quote from Oscar Wilde that has tormented me for years: “Work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do�, this guy reckons that if you work for more than an hour or so per day you are probably too stupid to know (or deserve) any better.
Do you hate him yet? I didn’t. I found him very amusing. Admittedly, I probably wouldn’t want to be stuck beside him on a long flight somewhere � but I don’t really go on long flights anywhere, so it doesn’t make too much sense using that as a criterion for anything.
Let’s make a proper start. I’m going to tell you something about Heraclitus. Probably best known for some pithy little quotes about change that he made up all by himself a very long time ago. “You can never stand in the same river twice� � “All is flux�. Heraclitus’s vision of the world was that what is important is change, everything else is transitory and impermanent.
Bertrand Russell claims that Heraclitus came from an aristocratic family that ended up dashed agains the rocks of change and not nearly so well off. The other thing you might need to know about Heraclitus was that he was known as ‘The Obscure�.
I was reminded constantly of Heraclitus while reading this book. The author was also from a well off family that lost everything in the Lebanese War. This also made him focus on change and the nature of unpredictable events. Hardly surprising then that Popper is his favourite philosopher � there is no ultimate truth, rationality is more or less prejudice, everything is awaiting falsification.
I have a love/hate relationship with Karl Popper. I can never work out if he is incredibly naïve (as Taleb proudly boasts that he is) or if he is terribly profound. I do like his idea that we should constantly seek to prove our most beloved theories wrong � but I also think that this level of scepticism is somewhat overstated. There is a line in this book in which we are informed (well, twice actually) that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein. Oh, was he just? I guess all those people shot through the head by guns aimed after the careful application of Newton’s laws of motion suddenly came back to life again then did they? I guess Neil Armstrong, who got to the moon on Newtonian physics, not on the front seat of one of Einstein’s light rays, might also have been a bit surprised at this remarkable over-throw.
Okay, I know, I’m nitpicking, but then again, Taleb does ask for it. He is so contemptuous of the ignorance and foolishness of others that it does become a bit of a sport for him. The one thing you can say about Taleb is that he is not like Heraclitus when it comes to being obscure. He is always very clear, very comprehensive and very interesting.
We should now do some of the people he particularly hates. And in the first rank of those he hates are probably Journalists. Now, it is hard not to agree with him there. He sees Journalism as basically part of the entertainment industry and believes they only really go ‘wrong� when they start to think they serve some purpose beyond entertainment. Then there are business people, who he believes are mostly thick. One of the main contentions of his book is that successful people are often successful by pure chance. As such their abiding emotion should be gratitude. However, as he repeatedly points out, we all tend to believe our successes are proof of our own genius, and that it is only our failings that are the result of bad luck and chance.
This book gives a wonderful introduction to many of the fallacies we humans are all too prone to make. He makes a cogent argument that we can never be ‘purely rational� because we need our emotions to short-circuit the endless decision loop that each ‘purely rational� decision would involve. This book is also a great introduction to probability theory without too many numbers � to the theory without the calculus. Some of his verbal explanations of mistakes are remarkably clear � so clear they virtually jump from the page.
One of the constant themes that I found particularly interesting was that we all suffer from hindsight bias. This is something I will definitely be taking from this book. The idea is that because what has happened in the past has ‘happened� we think it is the only thing that could have happened and then use it to predict what will happen in the future. We forget that events in the past were also the culmination of probabilistic situations that have resolved one way and not another. We forget that these events could just as easily have resolved in another equally probable outcome - one that merely did not occur. The range of fallacies that he shows spring from this one bias is quite remarkable.
Now, I was recommended this book by someone called Yuri and the funniest story in the book also starred someone called Yuri. It is when he is discussing Stock Market people applying for jobs with him. One of the things they tend to put on their CVs is that they play chess. They do this because playing chess means they are both ‘analytical� and ‘strategic�. These are obviously good things to be - in fact, I think I would like to be both of these things. Since you can be both of these things just by declaring yourself to be them, we shall take it as read from now on that I am both of these. Taleb tends to prefer to associate with Russian Physicists, not just because they think like him, but also because they can give him lessons in chess and teach him to play piano. When one of these new stock market trader types applies for a job and says that they play chess � Taleb brings this up and then says, “And this is Yuri who will now continue the interview�. And here Yuri appears with a chess board in front of him�
I once watched a Russian playing a non-Russian at chess. The Russian spent the entire time laughing his head off after every move. I don't know if it was because the moves made by his opponent were so useless that he truly found them funny or because this was all part of the psychological warfare - but he did slaughter his non-Russian opponent, so perhaps a bit of both.
This is another book inspired by behavioural economics (like Freakonomics and Predictably Irrational - I'm becoming a bit of a fan of behavioural economics.
If you take this book in good humour, if you allow yourself to listen and not get worked up about his ‘inappropriate tone� (god save us from those who complain about inappropriate tone) you will learn something from this book and maybe even have a good time.
And I can do a two word review of this book - Shit Happens!
Do you hate him yet? I didn’t. I found him very amusing. Admittedly, I probably wouldn’t want to be stuck beside him on a long flight somewhere � but I don’t really go on long flights anywhere, so it doesn’t make too much sense using that as a criterion for anything.
Let’s make a proper start. I’m going to tell you something about Heraclitus. Probably best known for some pithy little quotes about change that he made up all by himself a very long time ago. “You can never stand in the same river twice� � “All is flux�. Heraclitus’s vision of the world was that what is important is change, everything else is transitory and impermanent.
Bertrand Russell claims that Heraclitus came from an aristocratic family that ended up dashed agains the rocks of change and not nearly so well off. The other thing you might need to know about Heraclitus was that he was known as ‘The Obscure�.
I was reminded constantly of Heraclitus while reading this book. The author was also from a well off family that lost everything in the Lebanese War. This also made him focus on change and the nature of unpredictable events. Hardly surprising then that Popper is his favourite philosopher � there is no ultimate truth, rationality is more or less prejudice, everything is awaiting falsification.
I have a love/hate relationship with Karl Popper. I can never work out if he is incredibly naïve (as Taleb proudly boasts that he is) or if he is terribly profound. I do like his idea that we should constantly seek to prove our most beloved theories wrong � but I also think that this level of scepticism is somewhat overstated. There is a line in this book in which we are informed (well, twice actually) that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein. Oh, was he just? I guess all those people shot through the head by guns aimed after the careful application of Newton’s laws of motion suddenly came back to life again then did they? I guess Neil Armstrong, who got to the moon on Newtonian physics, not on the front seat of one of Einstein’s light rays, might also have been a bit surprised at this remarkable over-throw.
Okay, I know, I’m nitpicking, but then again, Taleb does ask for it. He is so contemptuous of the ignorance and foolishness of others that it does become a bit of a sport for him. The one thing you can say about Taleb is that he is not like Heraclitus when it comes to being obscure. He is always very clear, very comprehensive and very interesting.
We should now do some of the people he particularly hates. And in the first rank of those he hates are probably Journalists. Now, it is hard not to agree with him there. He sees Journalism as basically part of the entertainment industry and believes they only really go ‘wrong� when they start to think they serve some purpose beyond entertainment. Then there are business people, who he believes are mostly thick. One of the main contentions of his book is that successful people are often successful by pure chance. As such their abiding emotion should be gratitude. However, as he repeatedly points out, we all tend to believe our successes are proof of our own genius, and that it is only our failings that are the result of bad luck and chance.
This book gives a wonderful introduction to many of the fallacies we humans are all too prone to make. He makes a cogent argument that we can never be ‘purely rational� because we need our emotions to short-circuit the endless decision loop that each ‘purely rational� decision would involve. This book is also a great introduction to probability theory without too many numbers � to the theory without the calculus. Some of his verbal explanations of mistakes are remarkably clear � so clear they virtually jump from the page.
One of the constant themes that I found particularly interesting was that we all suffer from hindsight bias. This is something I will definitely be taking from this book. The idea is that because what has happened in the past has ‘happened� we think it is the only thing that could have happened and then use it to predict what will happen in the future. We forget that events in the past were also the culmination of probabilistic situations that have resolved one way and not another. We forget that these events could just as easily have resolved in another equally probable outcome - one that merely did not occur. The range of fallacies that he shows spring from this one bias is quite remarkable.
Now, I was recommended this book by someone called Yuri and the funniest story in the book also starred someone called Yuri. It is when he is discussing Stock Market people applying for jobs with him. One of the things they tend to put on their CVs is that they play chess. They do this because playing chess means they are both ‘analytical� and ‘strategic�. These are obviously good things to be - in fact, I think I would like to be both of these things. Since you can be both of these things just by declaring yourself to be them, we shall take it as read from now on that I am both of these. Taleb tends to prefer to associate with Russian Physicists, not just because they think like him, but also because they can give him lessons in chess and teach him to play piano. When one of these new stock market trader types applies for a job and says that they play chess � Taleb brings this up and then says, “And this is Yuri who will now continue the interview�. And here Yuri appears with a chess board in front of him�
I once watched a Russian playing a non-Russian at chess. The Russian spent the entire time laughing his head off after every move. I don't know if it was because the moves made by his opponent were so useless that he truly found them funny or because this was all part of the psychological warfare - but he did slaughter his non-Russian opponent, so perhaps a bit of both.
This is another book inspired by behavioural economics (like Freakonomics and Predictably Irrational - I'm becoming a bit of a fan of behavioural economics.
If you take this book in good humour, if you allow yourself to listen and not get worked up about his ‘inappropriate tone� (god save us from those who complain about inappropriate tone) you will learn something from this book and maybe even have a good time.
And I can do a two word review of this book - Shit Happens!
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Fooled by Randomness.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
November 18, 2008
– Shelved
June 25, 2010
– Shelved as:
economics
June 25, 2010
– Shelved as:
behavioural-economics
June 25, 2010
– Shelved as:
psychology
June 25, 2010
– Shelved as:
social-theory
Comments Showing 1-50 of 102 (102 new)
message 1:
by
Grumpus
(new)
Nov 18, 2008 04:07AM

reply
|
flag

Oh, it certainly does. However, it happens to some of us more than others. I do like behavioral economics (and brain science and evolutionary psychology), but what bothers me about a lot of it is that these analyses seem to not bother with the social. When you say that he says that successful people are successful merely by chance does he not acknowledge that most successful people are successful because they started off in life with more material resources?
(Gotta insert conflict sociology wherever possible. It's my mission in life.)

I see the psychology of attribution at work so often it isn't funny. It seems to be one of the more powerful of influences on human thinking, where we see the success of others as being purely by chance, while their failures are most certainly due to deep character flaws (and the complete reverse, of course, for ourselves).
I've worked around supposedly very smart senior executives who so strongly believed in the correctness of their past decisions that seemed to have delivered success, that they tried to repeat them in a new setting, only to have it all come crashing down.

Steer clear of his followup book ("The Black Swan"), however, which is a sloppily written rehash of the same ideas.

Mindy - That is, of course, part of the reason why I love you so much. But he doesn't really discuss the social at all. Which might go some way to explaining why he only got four stars.
Larry - The attribution twist you raise is very amusing.
Ginnie - I love that play and love the film at least as much. It is years since I have seen it and had forgotten this scene. It is wonderful to remember back to the days when actors were given scripts they could ACT. Now it seems all an actor needs to be able to do is shout. Dear God, I've just realised - someone has exchanged all of our actors for Vogon Guards!
David - I've heard that about The Black Swan and will follow your advice.


It does beg the question why one would bother reading the advice of people one trusts if one is just then going to ignore it...
Love you lots


We have an ex-PM here who collects various pieces of classical music through time - you know, like the 1812 Overture played by various orchestras throughout the decades (like people do with vertical tasting of wine). He was big on Mahler, apparently, and also referred to a fellow politician once as 'a shiver in search of a back-bone'. I've always been rather fond of Keating. So, I've decided I might do the same with poetry if I can.
The notes can be a bit random in what they decide to note. For example: Sonnet 21 "So is it not with me as with that muse" explains 'painted beauty' (which I'd have thought wouldn't need too much explanation) but not 'couplement'. The word doesn't even appear in the Concise Oxford - You've got to go to the Shorter to find it.
Oops, sorry, might have gotten a little off topic...







But I love writing reviews. I think I would go on writing them even if people didn't read them. I read books now quite differently because I have to write them.

You say thar Popper holds " there is no ultimate truth, rationality is more or less prejudice, everything is awaiting falsification."
No. Popper accepted Tarski's theory of truth (which is a correspondence theory); Popper upheld rationality too.
Popper is a fallibilist; truth is attainable, but we can't be entirely sure that we attained it. I encourage you to join some Popper discussion groups on the internet.





/book/show/2...


:-) it's a great book and it includes something Taleb would call a "black swan event". But it is of course a novel - I'd be happy to point you in the direction of a few more books on the topic itself, if you are interested. Of course, the subject is vast and basically about statistics. Are you interested in any specific aspects of probability theory?


