Black Swan 3 PDF - Bleed or Blowup

EL DESIERTO DE LOS TÁRTAROS Yevgenia met Nero Tulip in the lobby of the Hotel Danieli in Venice. He was a trader who lived between London and New York. At the time, traders from London went to Venice on Friday noon during the low season, just to talk to other traders (from London). As Yevge...

EL DESIERTO DE LOS TÁRTAROS Yevgenia met Nero Tulip in the lobby of the Hotel Danieli in Venice. He was a trader who lived between London and New York. At the time, traders from London went to Venice on Friday noon during the low season, just to talk to other traders (from London). As Yevgenia and Nero stood engaged in an e ortless conversation, she noticed that her husband was looking uncomfortably at them from the bar where he sat, trying to stay focused on the ponti cations of one of his childhood friends. Yevgenia realized that she was going to see a bit more of Nero. They met again in New York, rst in a clandestine way. Her husband, being a philosophy professor, had too much time on his hands, so he started paying close attention to her schedule and became clingy. The clingier he got, the more sti ed Yevgenia felt, which made him even clingier. She dumped him, called her lawyer who was by then expecting to hear from her, and saw more of Nero openly. Nero had a sti gait since he was recovering from a helicopter crash—he gets a little too arrogant after episodes of success and starts taking uncalculated physical risks, though he remains nancially hyperconservative, even paranoid. He had spent months immobile in a London hospital, hardly able to read or write, trying to resist having to watch television, teasing the nurses, and waiting for his bones to heal. He can draw the ceiling with its fourteen cracks from memory, as well as the shabby white building across the street with its sixty-three windowpanes, all in need of professional cleaning. Nero claimed that he was comfortable in Italian when he drank, so Yevgenia gave him a copy of Il deserto. Nero did not read novels—“Novels are fun to write, not read,” he claimed. So he left the book by his bedside for a while. Nero and Yevgenia were, in a sense, like night and day. Yevgenia went to bed at dawn, working on her manuscripts at night. Nero rose at dawn, like most traders, even on weekends. He then worked for an hour on his opus, Treatise on Probability, and never touched it again after that. He had been writing it for a decade and felt rushed to nish it only when his life was threatened. Yevgenia smoked; Nero was mindful of his health, spending at least an hour a day at the gym or in the pool. Yevgenia hung around intellectuals and bohemians; Nero often felt comfortable with street-smart traders and businessmen who had never been to college and spoke with cripplingly severe Brooklyn accents. Yevgenia never understood how a classicist and a polyglot like Nero could socialize with people like that. What was worse, she had this French Fifth Republic overt disdain for money, unless disguised by an intellectual or cultural façade, and she could hardly bear these Brooklyn fellows with thick hairy ngers and gigantic bank accounts. Nero’s post-Brooklyn friends, in turn, found her snotty. (One of the e ects of prosperity has been a steady migration of streetwise people from Brooklyn to Staten Island and New Jersey.) Nero was also elitist, unbearably so, but in a di erent way. He separated those who could connect the dots, Brooklyn-born or not, from those who could not, regardless of their levels of sophistication and learning. A few months later, after he was done with Yevgenia (with inordinate relief) he opened Il deserto and was sucked into it. Yevgenia had the prescience that, like her, Nero would identify with Giovanni Drogo, the main character of Il deserto. He did. Nero, in turn, bought cases of the English (bad) translation of the book and handed copies to anyone who said a polite hello to him, including his New York doorman who could hardly speak English, let alone read it. Nero was so enthusiastic while explaining the story that the doorman got interested and Nero had to order the Spanish translation for him, El desierto de los tártaros. Bleed or Blowup  Let us separate the world into two categories. Some people are like the turkey, exposed to a major blowup without being aware of it, while others play reverse turkey, prepared for big events that might surprise others. In some strategies and life situations, you gamble dollars to win a succession of pennies while appearing to be winning all the time. In others, you risk a succession of pennies to win dollars. In other words, you bet either that the Black Swan will happen or that it will never happen, two strategies that require completely di erent mind-sets. We have seen that we (humans) have a marked preference for making a little bit of income at a time. Recall from Chapter 4 that in the summer of 1982, large American banks lost close to everything they had ever earned, and more. So some matters that belong to Extremistan are extremely dangerous but do not appear to be so beforehand, since they hide and delay their risks—so suckers think they are “safe.” It is indeed a property of Extremistan to look less risky, in the short run, than it really is. Nero called the businesses exposed to such blowups dubious businesses, particularly since he distrusted whatever method was being used to compute the odds of a blowup. Recall from Chapter 4 that the accounting period upon which companies’ performances are evaluated is too short to reveal whether or not they are doing a great job. And, owing to the shallowness of our intuitions, we formulate our risk assessments too quickly. I will rapidly present Nero’s idea. His premise was the following trivial point: some business bets in which one wins big but infrequently, yet loses small but frequently, are worth making if others are suckers for them and if you have the personal and intellectual stamina. But you need such stamina. You also need to deal with people in your entourage heaping all manner of insult on you, much of it blatant. People often accept that a nancial strategy with a small chance of success is not necessarily a bad one as long as the success is large enough to justify it. For a spate of psychological reasons, however, people have di culty carrying out such a strategy, simply because it requires a combination of belief, a capacity for delayed grati cation, and the willingness to be spat upon by clients without blinking. And those who lose money for any reason start looking like guilty dogs, eliciting more scorn on the part of their entourage. Against that background of potential blowup disguised as skills, Nero engaged in a strategy that he called “bleed.” You lose steadily, daily, for a long time, except when some event takes place for which you get paid disproportionately well. No single event can make you blow up, on the other hand—some changes in the world can produce extraordinarily large pro ts that pay back such bleed for years, sometimes decades, sometimes even centuries. Of all the people he knew, Nero was the least genetically designed for such a strategy. His brain disagreed so heavily with his body that he found himself in a state of continuous warfare. It was his body that was his problem, which accumulated physical fatigue from the neurobiological e ect of exposure to the small continuous losses, Chinese-water-torture-style, throughout the day. Nero discovered that the losses went to his emotional brain, bypassing his higher cortical structures and slowly a ecting his hippocampus and weakening his memory. The hippocampus is the structure where memory is supposedly controlled. It is the most plastic part of the brain; it is also the part that is assumed to absorb all the damage from repeated insults like the chronic stress we experience daily from small doses of negative feelings—as opposed to the invigorating “good stress” of the tiger popping up occasionally in your living room. You can rationalize all you want; the hippocampus takes the insult of chronic stress seriously, incurring irreversible atrophy. Contrary to popular belief, these small, seemingly harmless stressors do not strengthen you; they can amputate part of your self. It was the exposure to a high level of information that poisoned Nero’s life. He could sustain the pain if he saw only weekly performance numbers, instead of updates every minute. He did better emotionally with his own portfolio than with those of clients, since he was not obligated to monitor it continuously. If his neurobiological system was a victim of the con rmation bias, reacting to the short term and the visible, he could trick his brain to escape its vicious e ect by focusing only on the longer haul. He refused to look at any printout of his track record that was shorter than ten years. Nero came of age, intellectually speaking, with the stock market crash of 1987, in which he derived monstrous returns on what small equity he controlled. This episode would forever make his track record valuable, taken as a whole. In close to twenty years of trading, Nero had only four good years. For him, one was more than enough. All he needed was one good year per century. Investors were no problem for him—they needed his trading as insurance and paid him well. He just had to exhibit a mild degree of contempt toward those he wanted to shed, which did not take much e ort on his part. This e ort was not contrived: Nero did not think much of them and let his body language express it freely, all the while maintaining an unfashionably high level of courtesy. He made sure, after a long string of losses, that they did not think he was apologetic—indeed, paradoxically, they became more supportive that way. Humans will believe anything you say provided you do not exhibit the smallest shadow of di dence; like animals, they can detect the smallest crack in your con dence before you express it. The trick is to be as smooth as possible in personal manners. It is much easier to signal self-con dence if you are exceedingly polite and friendly; you can control people without having to o end their sensitivity. The problem with business people, Nero realized, is that if you act like a loser they will treat you as a loser—you set the yardstick yourself. There is no absolute measure of good or bad. It is not what you are telling people, it is how you are saying it. But you need to remain understated and maintain an Olympian calm in front of others. When he worked as a trader for an investment bank, Nero had to face the typical employee-evaluation form. The form was supposed to keep track of “performance,” supposedly as a check against employees slacking o. Nero found the evaluation absurd because it did not so much judge the quality of a trader’s performance as encourage him to game the system by working for short-term pro ts at the expense of possible blowups—like banks that give foolish loans that have a small probability of blowing up, because the loan o cer is shooting for his next quarterly evaluation. So one day early in his career, Nero sat down and listened very calmly to the evaluation of his “supervisor.” When Nero was handed the evaluation form he tore it into small pieces in front of him. He did this very slowly, accentuating the contrast between the nature of the act and the tranquillity with which he tore the paper. The boss watched him blank with fear, eyes popping out of his head. Nero focused on his undramatic, slow-motion act, elated by both the feeling of standing up for his beliefs and the aesthetics of its execution. The combination of elegance and dignity was exhilarating. He knew that he would either be red or left alone. He was left alone. Chapter Eight GIACOMO CASANOVA’S UNFAILING LUCK: THE PROBLEM OF SILENT EVIDENCE The Diagoras problem—How Black Swans make their way out of history books—Methods to help you avoid drowning—The drowned do not usually vote—We should all be stockbrokers—Do silent witnesses count?— Casanova’s étoile—New York is “so invincible” Another fallacy in the way we understand events is that of silent evidence. History hides both Black Swans and its Black Swan–generating ability from us. THE STORY OF THE DROWNED WORSHIPPERS More than two thousand years ago, the Roman orator, belletrist, thinker, Stoic, manipulator-politician, and (usually) virtuous gentleman, Marcus Tullius Cicero, presented the following story. One Diagoras, a nonbeliever in the gods, was shown painted tablets bearing the portraits of some worshippers who prayed, then survived a subsequent shipwreck. The implication was that praying protects you from drowning. Diagoras asked, “Where were the pictures of those who prayed, then drowned?” The drowned worshippers, being dead, would have a lot of trouble advertising their experiences from the bottom of the sea. This can fool the casual observer into believing in miracles. We call this the problem of silent evidence. The idea is simple, yet potent and universal. While most thinkers try to put to shame those who came before them, Cicero puts to shame almost all empirical thinkers who came after him, until very recently. Later on, both my hero of heroes, the essayist Michel de Montaigne and the empirical Francis Bacon, mentioned the point in their works, applying it to the formation of false beliefs. “And such is the way of all superstition, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like,” wrote Bacon in his Novum Organum. The problem, of course, is that unless they are drilled into us systematically, or integrated into our way of thinking, these great observations are rapidly forgotten. Silent evidence pervades everything connected to the notion of history. By history, I don’t just mean those learned-but-dull books in the history section (with Renaissance paintings on their cover to attract buyers). History, I will repeat, is any succession of events seen with the e ect of posteriority. This bias extends to the ascription of factors in the success of ideas and religions, to the illusion of skill in many professions, to success in artistic occupations, to the nature versus nurture debate, to mistakes in using evidence in the court of law, to illusions about the “logic” of history—and of course, most severely, in our perception of the nature of extreme events. You are in a classroom listening to someone self-important, digni ed, and ponderous (but dull), wearing a tweed jacket (white shirt, polka-dot tie), ponti cating for two hours on the theories of history. You are too paralyzed by boredom to understand what on earth he is talking about, but you hear the names of big guns: Hegel, Fichte, Marx, Proudhon, Plato, Herodotus, Ibn Khaldoun, Toynbee, Spengler, Michelet, Carr, Bloch, Fukuyama, Schmukuyama, Trukuyama. He seems deep and knowledgeable, making sure that no attention lapse will make you forget that his approach is “post- Marxist,” “postdialectical,” or post-something, whatever that means. Then you realize that a large part of what he is saying reposes on a simple optical illusion! But this will not make a di erence: he is so invested in it that if you questioned his method he would react by throwing even more names at you. It is so easy to avoid looking at the cemetery while concocting historical theories. But this is not just a problem with history. It is a problem with the way we construct samples and gather evidence in every domain. We shall call this distortion a bias, i.e., the di erence between what you see and what is there. By bias I mean a systematic error consistently showing a more positive, or negative, e ect from the phenomenon, like a scale that unfailingly shows you a few pounds heavier or lighter than your true weight, or a video camera that adds a few sizes to your waistline. This bias has been rediscovered here and there throughout the past century across disciplines, often to be rapidly forgotten (like Cicero’s insight). As drowned worshippers do not write histories of their experiences (it is better to be alive for that), so it is with the losers in history, whether people or ideas. Remarkably, historians and other scholars in the humanities who need to understand silent evidence the most do not seem to have a name for it (and I looked hard). As for journalists, fuhgedaboudit! They are industrial producers of the distortion. The term bias also indicates the condition’s potentially quanti able nature: you may be able to calculate the distortion, and to correct for it by taking into account both the dead and the living, instead of only the living. Silent evidence is what events use to conceal their own randomness, particularly the Black Swan type of randomness. Sir Francis Bacon is an interesting and endearing fellow in many respects. He harbored a deep-seated, skeptical, nonacademic, antidogmatic, and obsessively empirical nature, which, to someone skeptical, nonacademic, antidogmatic, and obsessively empirical, like this author, is a quality almost impossible to nd in the thinking business. (Anyone can be skeptical; any scientist can be overly empirical—it is the rigor coming from the combination of skepticism and empiricism that’s hard to come by.) The problem is that his empiricism wanted us to con rm, not discon rm; thus he introduced the problem of con rmation, that beastly corroboration that generates the Black Swan. THE CEMETERY OF LETTERS The Phoenicians, we are often reminded, produced no literature, although they allegedly invented the alphabet. Commentators discuss their philistinism from the basis of this absence of a written legacy, asserting that by race or culture, they were more interested in commerce than in the arts. Accordingly, the Phoenician invention of the alphabet served the lower purpose of commercial record keeping rather than the more noble purpose of literary production. (I remember nding on the shelves of a country house I once rented a mildewed history book by Will and Ariel Durant describing the Phoenicians as the “merchant race.” I was tempted to throw it in the replace.) Well, it now seems that the Phoenicians wrote quite a bit, but using a perishable brand of papyrus that did not stand the biodegradative assaults of time. Manuscripts had a high rate of extinction before copyists and authors switched to parchment in the second or third century. Those not copied during that period simply disappeared. The neglect of silent evidence is endemic to the way we study comparative talent, particularly in activities that are plagued with winner-take-all attributes. We may enjoy what we see, but there is no point reading too much into success stories because we do not see the full picture. Recall the winner-take-all e ect from Chapter 3: notice the large number of people who call themselves writers but are (only “temporarily”) operating the shiny cappuccino machines at Starbucks. The inequity in this eld is larger than, say, medicine, since we rarely see medical doctors serving hamburgers. I can thus infer that I can largely gauge the performance of the latter profession’s entire population from what sample is visible to me. Likewise with plumbers, taxi drivers, prostitutes, and those in professions devoid of superstar e ects. Let us go beyond the discussion on Extremistan and Mediocristan in Chapter 3. The consequence of the superstar dynamic is that what we call “literary heritage” or “literary treasures” is a minute proportion of what has been produced cumulatively. This is the rst point. How it invalidates the identi cation of talent can be derived immediately from it: say you attribute the success of the nineteenth-century novelist Honoré de Balzac to his superior “realism,” “insights,” “sensitivity,” “treatment of characters,” “ability to keep the reader riveted,” and so on. These may be deemed “superior” qualities that lead to superior performance if, and only if, those who lack what we call talent also lack these qualities. But what if there are dozens of comparable literary masterpieces that happened to perish? And, following my logic, if there are indeed many perished manuscripts with similar attributes, then, I regret to say, your idol Balzac was just the bene ciary of disproportionate luck compared to his peers. Furthermore, you may be committing an injustice to others by favoring him. My point, I will repeat, is not that Balzac is untalented, but that he is less uniquely talented than we think. Just consider the thousands of writers now completely vanished from consciousness: their record does not enter into analyses. We do not see the tons of rejected manuscripts because these writers have never been published. The New Yorker alone rejects close to a hundred manuscripts a day, so imagine the number of geniuses that we will never hear about. In a country like France, where more people write books while, sadly, fewer people read them, respectable literary publishers accept one in ten thousand manuscripts they receive from rsttime authors. Consider the number of actors who have never passed an audition but would have done very well had they had that lucky break in life. The next time you visit a Frenchman of comfortable means, you will likely spot the stern books from the collection Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, which their owner will never, almost never, read, mostly on account of their uncomfortable size and weight. Membership in the Pléiade means membership in the literary canon. The tomes are expensive; they have the distinctive smell of ultrathin India paper, compressing the equivalent of fteen hundred pages into the size of a drugstore paperback. They are supposed to help you maximize the number of masterpieces per Parisian square foot. The publisher Gallimard has been extremely selective in electing writers into the Pléiade collection–only a few authors, such as the aesthete and adventurer André Malraux, have made it in while still alive. Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Hugo, and Stendhal are in, along with Mallarmé, Sartre, Camus, and … Balzac. Yet if you follow Balzac’s own ideas, which I will examine next, you would accept that there is no ultimate justi cation for such an o cial corpus. Balzac outlined the entire business of silent evidence in his novel Lost Illusions. Lucien de Rubempré (alias of Lucien Chardon), the penurious provincial genius, “goes up” to Paris to start a literary career. We are told that he is talented—actually he is told that he is talented by the semiaristocratic set in Angoulême. But it is di cult to gure out whether this is due to his good looks or to the literary quality of his works—or even whether literary quality is visible, or, as Balzac seems to wonder, if it has much to do with anything. Success is presented cynically, as the product of wile and promotion or the lucky surge of interest for reasons completely external to the works themselves. Lucien discovers the existence of the immense cemetery inhabited by what Balzac calls “nightingales.” Lucien was told that this designation “nightingale” was given by bookstores to those works residing on the shelves in the solitary depths of their shops. Balzac presents to us the sorry state of contemporary literature when Lucien’s manuscript is rejected by a publisher who has never read it; later on, when Lucien’s reputation has developed, the very same manuscript is accepted by another publisher who did not read it either! The work itself was a secondary consideration. In another example of silent evidence, the book’s characters keep bemoaning that things are no longer as they were before, implying that literary fairness prevailed in more ancient times—as if there was no cemetery before. They fail to take into account the nightingales among the ancients’ work! Notice that close to two centuries ago people had an idealized opinion of their own past, just as we have an idealized opinion of today’s past. I mentioned earlier that to understand successes and analyze what caused them, we need to study the traits present in failures. It is to a more general version of this point that I turn next. How to Become a Millionaire in Ten Steps Numerous studies of millionaires aimed at guring out the skills required for hotshotness follow the following methodology. They take a population of hotshots, those with big titles and big jobs, and study their attributes. They look at what those big guns have in common: courage, risk taking, optimism, and so on, and infer that these traits, most notably risk taking, help you to become successful. You would also probably get the same impression if you read CEOs’ ghostwritten autobiographies or attended their presentations to fawning MBA students. Now take a look at the cemetery. It is quite di cult to do so because people who fail do not seem to write memoirs, and, if they did, those business publishers I know would not even consider giving them the courtesy of a returned phone call (as to returned e-mail, fuhgedit). Readers would not pay $26.95 for a story of failure, even if you convinced them that it had more useful tricks than a story of success.* The entire notion of biography is grounded in the arbitrary ascription of a causal relation between speci ed traits and subsequent events. Now consider the cemetery. The graveyard of failed persons will be full of people who shared the following traits: courage, risk taking, optimism, et cetera. Just like the population of millionaires. There may be some di erences in skills, but what truly separates the two is for the most part a single factor: luck. Plain luck. You do not need a lot of empiricism to gure this out: a simple thought experiment su ces. The fund-management industry claims that some people are extremely skilled, since year after year they have outperformed the market. They will identify these “geniuses” and convince you of their abilities. My approach has been to manufacture cohorts of purely random investors and, by simple computer simulation, show how it would be impossible to not have these geniuses produced just by luck. Every year you re the losers, leaving only the winners, and thus end up with long-term steady winners. Since you do not observe the cemetery of failed investors, you will think that it is a good business, and that some operators are considerably better than others. Of course an explanation will be readily provided for the success of the lucky survivors: “He eats tofu,” “She works late; just the other day I called her o ce at eight P.M. …” Or of course, “She is naturally lazy. People with that type of laziness can see things clearly.” By the mechanism of retrospective determinism we will nd the “cause”—actually, we need to see the cause. I call these simulations of hypothetical cohorts, often done by computer, an engine of computational epistemology. Your thought experiments can be run on a computer. You just simulate an alternative world, plain random, and verify that it looks similar to the one in which we live. Not getting lucky billionaires in these experiments would be the exception.* Recall the distinction between Mediocristan and Extremistan in Chapter 3. I said that taking a “scalable” profession is not a good idea, simply because there are far too few winners in these professions. Well, these professions produce a large cemetery: the pool of starving actors is larger than the one of starving accountants, even if you assume that, on average, they earn the same income. A HEALTH CLUB FOR RATS The second, and more vicious, variety of the problem of silent evidence is as follows. When I was in my early twenties and still read the newspaper, and thought that steadily reading the newspapers was something useful to me, I came across an article discussing the mounting threat of the Russian Ma a in the United States and its displacement of the traditional Louie and Tony in some neighborhoods of Brooklyn. The article explained their toughness and brutality as a result of their being hardened by their Gulag experiences. The Gulag was a network of labor camps in Siberia where criminals and dissidents were routinely deported. Sending people to Siberia was one of the puri cation methods initially used by the czarist regimes and later continued and perfected by the Soviets. Many deportees did not survive these labor camps. Hardened by the Gulag? The sentence jumped out at me as both profoundly awed (and a reasonable inference). It took me a while to gure out the nonsense in it since it was protected by cosmetic wrapping; the following thought experiment will give the intuition. Assume that you’re able to nd a large, assorted population of rats: fat, thin, sickly, strong, well- proportioned, et cetera. (You can easily get them from the kitchens of fancy New York restaurants.) With these thousands of rats, you build a heterogeneous cohort, one that is well representative of the general New York rat population. You bring them to my laboratory on East Fifty-ninth Street in New York City and we put the entire collection in a large vat. We subject the rats to increasingly higher levels of radiation (since this is supposed to be a thought experiment, I am told that there is no cruelty in the process). At every level of radiation, those that are naturally stronger (and this is the key) will survive; the dead will drop out of your sample. We will progressively have a stronger and stronger collection of rats. Note the following central fact: every single rat, including the strong ones, will be weaker after the radiation than before.  An observer endowed with analytical abilities, who probably got excellent grades in college, would be led to believe that treatment in my laboratory is an excellent health-club replacement, and one that could be generalized to all mammals (think of the potential commercial success). His logic would run as follows: Hey, these rats are stronger than the rest of the rat population. What do they seem to have in common? They all came from that Black Swan guy Taleb’s workshop. Not many people will have the temptation to go look at the dead rats. Next we pull the following trick on The New York Times: we let these surviving rats loose in New York City and inform the chief rodent correspondent of the newsworthy disruption in the pecking order in the New York rat population. He will write a lengthy (and analytical) article on the social dynamics of New York rats that includes the following passage: “Those rats are now bullies in the rat population. They literally run the show. Strengthened by their experience in the laboratory of the reclusive (but friendly) statistician/philosopher/trader Dr. Taleb, they …” Vicious Bias There is a vicious attribute to the bias: it can hide best when its impact is largest. Owing to the invisibility of the dead rats, the more lethal the risks, the less visible they will be, since the severely victimized are likely to be eliminated from the evidence. The more injurious the treatment, the larger the di erence between the surviving rats and the rest, and the more fooled you will be about the strengthening e ect. One of the two following ingredients is necessary for this di erence between the true e ect (weakening) and the observed one (strengthening): a) a degree of inequality in strength, or diversity, in the base cohort, or b) unevenness, or diversity, somewhere in the treatment. Diversity here has to do with the degree of uncertainty inherent in the process. More Hidden Applications We can keep going with this argument; it has such universality that once we get the bug it is hard to look at reality with the same eyes again. Clearly it robs our observations of their realistic power. I will enumerate a few more cases to illustrate the weaknesses of our inferential machinery. The stability of species. Take the number of species that we now consider extinct. For a long time scientists took the number of such species as that implied from an analysis of the extant fossils. But this number ignores the silent cemetery of species that came and left without leaving traces in the form of fossils; the fossils that we have managed to nd correspond to a smaller proportion of all species that came and disappeared. This implies that our biodiversity was far greater than it seemed at rst examination. A more worrisome consequence is that the rate of extinction of species may be far greater than we think—close to 99.5 percent of species that transited through earth are now extinct, a number that scientists have kept raising through time. Life is a great deal more fragile than we have allowed for. But this does not mean we (humans) should feel guilty for extinctions around us; nor does it mean that we should act to stop them—species were coming and going before we started messing up the environment. There is no need to feel moral responsibility for every endangered species. Does crime pay? Newspapers report on the criminals who get caught. There is no section in The New York Times recording the stories of those who committed crimes but have not been caught. So it is with cases of tax evasion, government bribes, prostitution rings, poisoning of wealthy spouses (with substances that do not have a name and cannot be detected), and drug tra cking. In addition, our representation of the standard criminal might be based on the properties of those less intelligent ones who were caught. Once we seep ourselves into the notion of silent evidence, so many things around us that were previously hidden start manifesting themselves. Having spent a couple of decades in this mind-set, I am convinced (but cannot prove) that training and education can help us avoid its pitfalls. The Evolution of the Swimmer’s Body What do the popular expressions “a swimmer’s body” and “beginner’s luck” have in common? What do they seem to share with the concept of history? There is a belief among gamblers that beginners are almost always lucky. “It gets worse later, but gamblers are always lucky when they start out,” you hear. This statement is actually empirically true: researchers con rm that gamblers have lucky beginnings (the same applies to stock market speculators). Does this mean that each one of us should become a gambler for a while, take advantage of lady luck’s friendliness to beginners, then stop? The answer is no. The same optical illusion prevails: those who start gambling will be either lucky or unlucky (given that the casino has the advantage, a slightly greater number will be unlucky). The lucky ones, with the feeling of having been selected by destiny, will continue gambling; the others, discouraged, will stop and will not show up in the sample. They will probably take up, depending on their temperaments, bird-watching, Scrabble, piracy, or other pastimes. Those who continue gambling will remember having been lucky as beginners. The dropouts, by de nition, will no longer be part of the surviving gamblers’ community. This explains beginner’s luck. There is an analogy with what is called in common parlance a “swimmer’s body,” which led to a mistake I shamefully made a few years ago (in spite of my specialty in this bias, I did not notice that I was being fooled). When asking around about the comparative physical elegance of athletes, I was often told that runners looked anorexic, cyclists bottom-heavy, and weight lifters insecure and a little primitive. I inferred that I should spend some time inhaling chlorine in the New York University pool to get those “elongated muscles.” Now suspend the causality. Assume that a person’s genetic variance allows for a certain type of body shape. Those born with a natural tendency to develop a swimmer’s body become better swimmers. These are the ones you see in your sample splashing up and down at the pools. But they would have looked pretty much the same if they lifted weights. It is a fact that a given muscle grows almost the same way whether you take steroids or climb walls at the local gym. WHAT YOU SEE AND WHAT YOU DON’T SEE Katrina, the devastating hurricane that hit New Orleans in 2005, got plenty of politicizing politicians on television. These legislators, moved by the images of devastation and the pictures of angry victims made homeless, made promises of “rebuilding.” It was so noble on their part to do something humanitarian, to rise above our abject sel shness. Did they promise to do so with their own money? No. It was with public money. Consider that such funds will be taken away from somewhere else, as in the saying “You take from Peter to give to Paul.” That somewhere else will be less mediatized. It may be privately funded cancer research, or the next e orts to curb diabetes. Few seem to pay attention to the victims of cancer lying lonely in a state of untelevised depression. Not only do these cancer patients not vote (they will be dead by the next ballot), but they do not manifest themselves to our emotional system. More of them die every day than were killed by Hurricane Katrina; they are the ones who need us the most—not just our nancial help, but our attention and kindness. And they may be the ones from whom the money will be taken—indirectly, perhaps even directly. Money (public or private) taken away from research might be responsible for killing them—in a crime that may remain silent. A rami cation of the idea concerns our decision making under a cloud of possibilities. We see the obvious and visible consequences, not the invisible and less obvious ones. Yet those unseen consequences can be—nay, generally are—more meaningful. Frédéric Bastiat was a nineteenth-century humanist of a strange variety, one of those rare independent thinkers—independent to the point of being unknown in his own country, France, since his ideas ran counter to French political orthodoxy (he joins another of my favorite thinkers, Pierre Bayle, in being unknown at home and in his own language). But he has a large number of followers in America. In his essay “What We See and What We Don’t See,” Bastiat o ered the following idea: we can see what governments do, and therefore sing their praises—but we do not see the alternative. But there is an alternative; it is less obvious and remains unseen. Recall the con rmation fallacy: governments are great at telling you what they did, but not what they did not do. In fact, they engage in what could be labeled as phony “philanthropy,” the activity of helping people in a visible and sensational way without taking into account the unseen cemetery of invisible consequences. Bastiat inspired libertarians by attacking the usual arguments that showed the bene ts of governments. But his ideas can be generalized to apply to both the Right and the Left. Bastiat goes a bit deeper. If both the positive and the negative consequences of an action fell on its author, our learning would be fast. But often an action’s positive consequences bene t only its author, since they are visible, while the negative consequences, being invisible, apply to others, with a net cost to society. Consider job-protection measures: you notice those whose jobs are made safe and ascribe social bene ts to such protections. You do not notice the e ect on those who cannot nd a job as a result, since the measure will reduce job openings. In some cases, as with the cancer patients who may be punished by Katrina, the positive consequences of an action will immediately bene t the politicians and phony humanitarians, while the negative ones take a long time to appear—they may never become noticeable. One can even blame the press for directing charitable contributions toward those who may need them the least. Let us apply this reasoning to September 11, 2001. Around twenty- ve hundred people were directly killed by bin Laden’s group in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. Their families bene ted from the support of all manner of agencies and charities, as they should. But, according to researchers, during the remaining three months of the year, close to one thousand people died as silent victims of the terrorists. How? Those who were afraid of ying and switched to driving ran an increased risk of death. There was evidence of an increase of casualties on the road during that period; the road is considerably more lethal than the skies. These families got no support—they did not even know that their loved ones were also the victims of bin Laden. In addition to Bastiat, I have a weakness for Ralph Nader (the activist and consumer advocate, certainly not the politician and political thinker). He may be the American citizen who saved the highest number of lives by exposing the safety record of car companies. But, in his political campaign a few years ago, even he forgot to trumpet the tens of thousands of lives saved by his seat belt laws. It is much easier to sell “Look what I did for you” than “Look what I avoided for you.” Recall from the Prologue the story of the hypothetical legislator whose actions might have avoided the attack of September 11. How many such people are walking the street without the upright gait of the phony hero? Have the guts to consider the silent consequences when standing in front of the next snake-oil humanitarian. Doctors Our neglect of silent evidence kills people daily. Assume that a drug saves many people from a potentially dangerous ailment, but runs the risk of killing a few, with a net bene t to society. Would a doctor prescribe it? He has no incentive to do so. The lawyers of the person hurt by the side e ects will go after the doctor like attack dogs, while the lives saved by the drug might not be accounted for anywhere. A life saved is a statistic; a person hurt is an anecdote. Statistics are invisible; anecdotes are salient. Likewise, the risk of a Black Swan is invisible.*  Giacomo Casanova, a.k.a. Jacques, Chevalier de Seingalt. Some readers might be surprised that the legendary seducer did not look quite like James Bond. THE TEFLON-STYLE PROTECTION OF GIACOMO CASANOVA This brings us to gravest of all manifestations of silent evidence, the illusion of stability. The bias lowers our perception of the risks we incurred in the past, particularly for those of us who were lucky to have survived them. Your life came under a serious threat but, having survived it, you retrospectively underestimate how risky the situation actually was. The adventurer Giacomo Casanova, later self-styled Jacques, Chevalier de Seingalt, the wannabe intellectual and legendary seducer of women, seems to have had a Te on-style trait that would cause envy on the part of the most resilient of Ma a dons: misfortune did not stick to him. Casanova, while known for his seductions, viewed himself as some sort of a scholar. He aimed at literary fame with his twelve-volume History of My Life, written in bad (charmingly bad) French. In addition to the extremely useful lessons on how to become a seducer, the History provides an engrossing account of a succession of reversals of fortune. Casanova felt that every time he got into di culties, his lucky star, his étoile, would pull him out of trouble. After things got bad for him, they somehow recovered by some invisible hand, and he was led to believe that it was his intrinsic property to recover from hardships by running every time into a new opportunity. He would somehow meet someone in extremis who o ered him a nancial transaction, a new patron that he had not betrayed in the past, or someone generous enough and with a weak enough memory to forget past betrayals. Could Casanova have been selected by destiny to bounce back from all hardships? Not necessarily. Consider the following: of all the colorful adventurers who have lived on our planet, many were occasionally crushed, and a few did bounce back repeatedly. It is those who survive who will tend to believe that they are indestructible; they will have a long and interesting enough experience to write books about it. Until, of course … Actually, adventurers who feel singled out by destiny abound, simply because there are plenty of adventurers, and we do not hear the stories of those down on their luck. As I started writing this chapter, I recalled a conversation with a woman about her amboyant ancé, the son of a civil servant, who managed through a few nancial transactions to catapult himself into the life of a character in a novel, with handmade shoes, Cuban cigars, collectible cars, and so on. The French have a word for this, flambeur, which means a mixture of extravagant bon vivant, wild speculator, and risk taker, all the while bearing considerable personal charm; a word that does not seem to be available in Anglo-Saxon cultures. The ancé was spending his money very quickly, and as we were having the conversation about his fate (she was going to marry him, after all), she explained to me that he was undergoing slightly di cult times, but that there was no need to worry since he always came back with a vengeance. That was a few years ago. Out of curiosity, I have just tracked him down (trying to do so tactfully): he has not recovered (yet) from his latest blow of fortune. He also dropped out of the scene and is no longer to be found among other flambeurs. How does this relate to the dynamics of history? Consider what is generally called the resilience of New York City. For seemingly transcendental reasons, every time it gets close to the brink of disaster, the city manages to pull back and recover. Some people truly believe that this is an internal property of New York City. The following quote is from a New York Times article: Which is why New York still needs Samuel M. E. An economist who turns 77 today, Mr. E. studied New York City through half a century of booms and busts. … “We have a record of going through tough times and coming back stronger than ever,” he said. Now run the idea in reverse: think of cities as little Giacomo Casanovas, or as rats in my laboratory. As we put the thousands of rats through a very dangerous process, let’s put a collection of cities in a simulator of history: Rome, Athens, Carthage, Byzantium, Tyre, Catal Hyuk (located in modern- day Turkey, it is one of the rst known human settlements), Jericho, Peoria, and, of course, New York City. Some cities will survive the harsh conditions of the simulator. As to others, we know that history might not be too kind. I am sure that Carthage, Tyre, and Jericho had their local, no less eloquent, Samuel M. E., saying, “Our enemies have tried to destroy us many times; but we always came back more resilient than before. We are now invincible.” This bias causes the survivor to be an unquali ed witness of the process. Unsettling? The fact that you survived is a condition that may weaken your interpretation of the properties of the survival, including the shallow notion of “cause.” You can do a lot with the above statement. Replace the retired economist Samuel E. with a CEO discussing his corporation’s ability to recover from past problems. How about the touted “resilience of the nancial system”? How about a general who has had a good run? The reader can now see why I use Casanova’s unfailing luck as a generalized framework for the analysis of history, all histories. I generate arti cial histories featuring, say, millions of Giacomo Casanovas, and observe the di erence between the attributes of the successful Casanovas (because you generate them, you know their exact properties) and those an observer of the result would obtain. From that perspective, it is not a good idea to be a Casanova. “I Am a Risk Taker” Consider the restaurant business in a competitive place like New York City. One has indeed to be foolish to open one, owing to the enormous risks involved and the harrying quantity of work to get anywhere in the business, not counting the nicky fashion-minded clients. The cemetery of failed restaurants is very silent: walk around Midtown Manhattan and you will see these warm patron- lled restaurants with limos waiting outside for the diners to come out with their second, trophy, spouses. The owner is overworked but happy to have all these important people patronize his eatery. Does this mean that it makes sense to open a restaurant in such a competitive neighborhood? Certainly not, yet people do it out of the foolish risk-taking trait that pushes us to jump into such adventures blinded by the outcome. Clearly there is an element of the surviving Casanovas in us, that of the risk-taking genes, which encourages us to take blind risks, unaware of the variability in the possible outcomes. We inherited the taste for uncalculated risk taking. Should we encourage such behavior? In fact, economic growth comes from such risk taking. But some fool might argue the following: if someone followed reasoning such as mine, we would not have had the spectacular growth we experienced in the past. This is exactly like someone playing Russian roulette and nding it a good idea because he survived and pocketed the money. We are often told that we humans have an optimistic bent, and that it is supposed to be good for us. This argument appears to justify general risk taking as a positive enterprise, and one that is glori ed in the common culture. Hey, look, our ancestors took the challenges—while you, NNT, are encouraging us to do nothing (I am not). We have enough evidence to con rm that, indeed, we humans are an extremely lucky species, and that we got the genes of the risk takers. The foolish risk takers, that is. In fact, the Casanovas who survived. Once again, I am not dismissing the idea of risk taking, having been involved in it myself. I am only critical of the encouragement of uninformed risk taking. The überpsychologist Danny Kahneman has given us evidence that we generally take risks not out of bravado but out of ignorance and blindness to probability! The next few chapters will show in more depth how we tend to dismiss outliers and adverse outcomes when projecting the future. But I insist on the following: that we got here by accident does not mean that we should continue to take the same risks. We are mature enough a race to realize this point, enjoy our blessings, and try to preserve, by becoming more conservative, what we got by luck. We have been playing Russian roulette; now let’s stop and get a real job. I have two further points to make on this subject. First, justi cation of overoptimism on grounds that “it brought us here” arises from a far more serious mistake about human nature: the belief that we are built to understand nature and our own nature and that our decisions are, and have been, the result of our own choices. I beg to disagree. So many instincts drive us. Second, a little more worrisome than the rst point: evolutionary tness is something that is continuously touted and aggrandized by the crowd who takes it as gospel. The more unfamiliar someone is with the wild Black Swan– generating randomness, the more he or she believes in the optimal working of evolution. Silent evidence is not present in their theories. Evolution is a series of ukes, some good, many bad. You only see the good. But, in the short term, it is not obvious which traits are really good for you, particularly if you are in the Black Swan–generating environment of Extremistan. This is like looking at rich gamblers coming out of the casino and claiming that a taste for gambling is good for the species because gambling makes you rich! Risk taking made many species head for extinction! This idea that we are here, that this is the best of all possible worlds, and that evolution did a great job seems rather bogus in the light of the silent- evidence e ect. The fools, the Casanovas, and the blind risk takers are often the ones who win in the short term. Worse, in a Black Swan environment, where one single but rare event can come shake up a species after a very long run of “ tness,” the foolish risk takers can also win in the long term! I will revisit this idea in Part Three, where I show how Extremistan worsens the silent-evidence e ect. But there is another manifestation that merits a mention. I AM A BLACK SWAN: THE ANTHROPIC BIAS I want to stay closer to earth and avoid bringing higher-up metaphysical or cosmological arguments into this discussion—there are so many signi cant dangers to worry about down here on planet earth and it would be a good idea to postpone the metaphysical philosophizing for later. But it would be useful to take a peek (not more) at what is called the anthropic cosmological argument, as it points out the gravity of our misunderstanding of historical stability. A recent wave of philosophers and physicists (and people combining the two categories) has been examining the self-sampling assumption, which is a generalization of the principle of the Casanova bias to our own existence. Consider our own fates. Some people reason that the odds of any of us being in existence are so low that our being here cannot be attributed to an accident of fate. Think of the odds of the parameters being exactly where they need to be to induce our existence (any deviation from the optimal calibration would have made our world explode, collapse, or simply not come into existence). It is often said that the world seems to have been built to the speci cations that would make our existence possible. According to such an argument, it could not come from luck. However, our presence in the sample completely vitiates the computation of the odds. Again, the story of Casanova can make the point quite simple— much simpler than in its usual formulation. Think again of all the possible worlds as little Casanovas following their own fates. The one who is still kicking (by accident) will feel that, given that he cannot be so lucky, there had to be some transcendental force guiding him and supervising his destiny: “Hey, otherwise the odds would be too low to get here just by luck.” For someone who observes all adventurers, the odds of nding a Casanova are not low at all: there are so many adventurers, and someone is bound to win the lottery ticket. The problem here with the universe and the human race is that we are the surviving Casanovas. When you start with many adventurous Casanovas, there is bound to be a survivor, and guess what: if you are here talking about it, you are likely to be that particular one (notice the “condition”: you survived to talk about it). So we can no longer naïvely compute odds without considering that the condition that we are in existence imposes restrictions on the process that led us here. Assume that history delivers either “bleak” (i.e., unfavorable) or “rosy” (i.e., favorable) scenarios. The bleak scenarios lead to extinction. Clearly, if I am now writing these lines, it is certainly because history delivered a “rosy” scenario, one that allowed me to be here, a historical route in which my forebears avoided massacre by the many invaders who roamed the Levant. Add to that bene cial scenarios free of meteorite collisions, nuclear war, and other large-scale terminal epidemics. But I do not have to look at humanity as a whole. Whenever I probe into my own biography I am alarmed at how tenuous my life has been so far. Once when I returned to Lebanon during the war, at the age of eighteen, I felt episodes of extraordinary fatigue and cold chills in spite of the summer heat. It was typhoid fever. Had it not been for the discovery of antibiotics, only a few decades earlier, I would not be here today. I was also later “cured” of another severe disease that would have left me for dead, thanks to a treatment that depends on another recent medical technology. As a human being alive here in the age of the Internet, capable of writing and reaching an audience, I have also bene ted from society’s luck and the remarkable absence of recent large-scale war. In addition, I am the result of the rise of the human race, itself an accidental event. My being here is a consequential low-probability occurrence, and I tend to forget it. Let us return to the touted recipes for becoming a millionaire in ten steps. A successful person will try to convince you that his achievements could not possibly be accidental, just as a gambler who wins at roulette seven times in a row will explain to you that the odds against such a streak are one in several million, so you either have to believe some transcendental intervention is in play or accept his skills and insight in picking the winning numbers. But if you take into account the quantity of gamblers out there, and the number of gambling sessions (several million episodes in total), then it becomes obvious that such strokes of luck are bound to happen. And if you are talking about them, they have happened to you. The reference point argument is as follows: do not compute odds from the vantage point of the winning gambler (or the lucky Casanova, or the endlessly bouncing back New York City, or the invincible Carthage), but from all those who started in the cohort. Consider once again the example of the gambler. If you look at the population of beginning gamblers taken as a whole, you can be close to certain that one of them (but you do not know in advance which one) will show stellar results just by luck. So, from the reference point of the beginning cohort, this is not a big deal. But from the reference point of the winner (and, who does not, and this is key, take the losers into account), a long string of wins will appear to be too extraordinary an occurrence to be explained by luck. Note that a “history” is just a series of numbers through time. The numbers can represent degrees of wealth, tness, weight, anything. The Cosmetic Because This in itself greatly weakens the notion of “because” that is often propounded by scientists, and almost always misused by historians. We have to accept the fuzziness of the familiar “because” no matter how queasy it makes us feel (and it does makes us queasy to remove the analgesic illusion of causality). I repeat that we are explanation-seeking animals who tend to think that everything has an identi able cause and grab the most apparent one as the explanation. Yet there may not be a visible because; to the contrary, frequently there is nothing, not even a spectrum of possible explanations. But silent evidence masks this fact. Whenever our survival is in play, the very notion of because is severely weakened. The condition of survival drowns all possible explanations. The Aristotelian “because” is not there to account for a solid link between two items, but rather, as we saw in Chapter 6, to cater to our hidden weakness for imparting explanations. Apply this reasoning to the following question: Why didn’t the bubonic plague kill more people? People will supply quantities of cosmetic explanations involving theories about the intensity of the plague and “scienti c models” of epidemics. Now, try the weakened causality argument that I have just emphasized in this chapter: had the bubonic plague killed more people, the observers (us) would not be here to observe. So it may not necessarily be the property of diseases to spare us humans. Whenever your survival is in play, don’t immediately look for causes and e ects. The main identi able reason for our survival of such diseases might simply be inaccessible to us: we are here since, Casanova-style, the “rosy” scenario played out, and if it seems too hard to understand it is because we are too brainwashed by notions of causality and we think that it is smarter to say because than to accept randomness. My biggest problem with the educational system lies precisely in that it forces students to squeeze explanations out of subject matters and shames them for withholding judgment, for uttering the “I don’t know.” Why did the Cold War end? Why did the Persians lose the battle of Salamis? Why did Hannibal get his behind kicked? Why did Casanova bounce back from hardship? In each of these examples, we are taking a condition, survival, and looking for the explanations, instead of ipping the argument on its head and stating that conditional on such survival, one cannot read that much into the process, and should learn instead to invoke some measure of randomness (randomness, in practice, is what we don’t know; to invoke randomness is to plead ignorance). It is not just your college professor who gives you bad habits. I showed in Chapter 6 how newspapers need to stu their texts with causal links to make you enjoy the narratives. But have the integrity to deliver your “because” very sparingly; try to limit it to situations where the “because” is derived from experiments, not backward-looking history. Note here that I am not saying causes do not exist; do not use this argument to avoid trying to learn from history. All I am saying is that it is not so simple; be suspicious of the “because” and handle it with care—particularly in situations where you suspect silent evidence. We have seen several varieties of the silent evidence that cause deformations in our perception of empirical reality, making it appear more explainable (and more stable) than it actually is. In addition to the con rmation error and the narrative fallacy, the manifestations of silent evidence further distort the role and importance of Black Swans. In fact, they cause a gross overestimation at times (say, with literary success), and underestimation at others (the stability of history; the stability of our human species). I said earlier that our perceptual system may not react to what does not lie in front of our eyes, or what does not arouse our emotional attention. We are made to be super cial, to heed what we see and not heed what does not vividly come to mind. We wage a double war against silent evidence. The unconscious part of our inferential mechanism (and there is one) will ignore the cemetery, even if we are intellectually aware of the need to take it into account. Out of sight, out of mind: we harbor a natural, even physical, scorn of the abstract. This will be further illustrated in the next chapter. * The best noncharlatanic nance book I know is called What I Learned Losing a Million Dollars, by D. Paul and B. Moynihan. The authors had to self-publish the book. * Doctors are rightfully and vigorously skeptical of anecdotal results, and require that studies of drug e cacy probe into the cemetery of silent  evidence. However, the same doctors fall for the bias elsewhere! Where? In their personal lives, or in their investment activities. At the cost of being repetitive, I have to once again state my amazement at the aspect of human nature that allows us to mix the most rigorous skepticism and the most acute gullibility. * Silent evidence can actually bias matters to look less stable and riskier than they actually are. Take cancer. We are in the habit of counting survival rates from diagnosed cancer cases—which should overestimate the danger from cancer. Many people develop cancer that remains undiagnosed, and go on to live a long and comfortable life, then die of something else, either because their cancer was not lethal or because it went into spontaneous remission. Not counting these cases biases the risks upward. Chapter Nine THE LUDIC FALLACY, OR THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE NERD Lunch at Lake Como (west)—The military as philosophers—Plato’s randomness FAT TONY “Fat Tony” is one of Nero’s friends who irritates Yevgenia Krasnova beyond measure. We should perhaps more thoughtfully style him “Horizontally-challenged Tony,” since he is not as objectively overweight as his nickname indicates; it is just that his body shape makes whatever he wears seem ill- tted. He wears only tailored suits, many of them cut for him in Rome, but they look as if he bought them from a Web catalog. He has thick hands, hairy ngers, wears a gold wrist chain, and reeks of licorice candies that he devours in industrial quantities as a substitute for an old smoking habit. He doesn’t usually mind people calling him Fat Tony, but he much prefers to be called just Tony. Nero calls him, more politely, “Brooklyn Tony,” because of his accent and his Brooklyn way of thinking, though Tony is one of the prosperous Brooklyn people who moved to New Jersey twenty years ago. Tony is a successful nonnerd with a happy disposition. He leads a gregarious existence. His sole visible problem seems to be his weight and the corresponding nagging by his family, remote cousins, and friends, who keep warning him about that premature heart attack. Nothing seems to work; Tony often goes to a fat farm in Arizona to not eat, lose a few pounds, then gain almost all of them back in his rst-class seat on the ight back. It is remarkable how his self-control and personal discipline, otherwise admirable, fail to apply to his waistline. He started as a clerk in the back o ce of a New York bank in the early 1980s, in the letter-of-credit department. He pushed papers and did some grunt work. Later he grew into giving small business loans and gured out the game of how you can get nancing from the monster banks, how their bureaucracies operate, and what they like to see on paper. All the while an employee, he started acquiring property in bankruptcy proceedings, buying it from nancial institutions. His big insight is that bank employees who sell you a house that’s not theirs just don’t care as much as the owners; Tony knew very rapidly how to talk to them and maneuver. Later, he also learned to buy and sell gas stations with money borrowed from small neighborhood bankers. Tony has this remarkable habit of trying to make a buck e ortlessly, just for entertainment, without straining, without o ce work, without meeting, just by melding his deals into his private life. Tony’s motto is “Finding who the sucker is.” Obviously, they are often the banks: “The clerks don’t care about nothing.” Finding these suckers is second nature to him. If you took walks around the block with Tony you would feel considerably more informed about the texture of the world just “tawking” to him. Tony is remarkably gifted at getting unlisted phone numbers, rst-class seats on airlines for no additional money, or your car in a garage that is o cially full, either through connections or his forceful charm. Non-Brooklyn John I found the perfect non-Brooklyn in someone I will call Dr. John. He is a former engineer currently working as an actuary for an insurance company. He is thin, wiry, and wears glasses and a dark suit. He lives in New Jersey not far from Fat Tony but certainly they rarely run into each other. Tony never takes the train, and, actually, never commutes (he drives a Cadillac, and sometimes his wife’s Italian convertible, and jokes that he is more visible than the rest of the car). Dr. John is a master of the schedule; he is as predictable as a clock. He quietly and e ciently reads the newspaper on the train to Manhattan, then neatly folds it for the lunchtime continuation. While Tony makes restaurant owners rich (they beam when they see him coming and exchange noisy hugs with him), John meticulously packs his sandwich every morning, fruit salad in a plastic container. As for his clothing, he also wears a suit that looks like it came from a Web catalog, except that it is quite likely that it actually did. Dr. John is a painstaking, reasoned, and gentle fellow. He takes his work seriously, so seriously that, unlike Tony, you can see a line in the sand between his working time and his leisure activities. He has a PhD in electrical engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. Since he knows both computers and statistics, he was hired by an insurance company to do computer simulations; he enjoys the business. Much of what he does consists of running computer programs for “risk management.” I know that it is rare for Fat Tony and Dr. John to breathe the same air, let alone nd themselves at the same bar, so consider this a pure thought exercise. I will ask each of them a question and compare their answers. NNT (that is, me): Assume that a coin is fair, i.e., has an equal probability of coming up heads or tails when ipped. I ip it ninety-nine times and get heads each time. What are the odds of my getting tails on my next throw? Dr. John: Trivial question. One half, of course, since you are assuming 50 percent odds for each and independence between draws. NNT: What do you say, Tony? Fat Tony: I’d say no more than 1 percent, of course. NNT: Why so? I gave you the initial assumption of a fair coin, meaning that it was 50 percent either way. Fat Tony: You are either full of crap or a pure sucker to buy that “50 pehcent” business. The coin gotta be loaded. It can’t be a fair game. (Translation: It is far more likely that your assumptions about the fairness are wrong than the coin delivering ninety-nine heads in ninety-nine throws.) NNT: But Dr. John said 50 percent. Fat Tony (whispering in my ear): I know these guys with the nerd examples from the bank days. They think way too slow. And they are too commoditized. You can take them for a ride. Now, of the two of them, which would you favor for the position of mayor of New York City (or Ulan Bator, Mongolia)? Dr. John thinks entirely within the box, the box that was given to him; Fat Tony, almost entirely outside the box. To set the terminology straight, what I call “a nerd” here doesn’t have to look sloppy, unaesthetic, and sallow, and wear glasses and a portable computer on his belt as if it were an ostensible weapon. A nerd is simply someone who thinks exceedingly inside the box. Have you ever wondered why so many of these straight-A students end up going nowhere in life while someone who lagged behind is now getting the shekels, buying the diamonds, and getting his phone calls returned? Or even getting the Nobel Prize in a real discipline (say, medicine)? Some of this may have something to do with luck in outcomes, but there is this sterile and obscurantist quality that is often associated with classroom knowledge that may get in the way of understanding what’s going on in real life. In an IQ test, as well as in any academic setting (including sports), Dr. John would vastly outperform Fat Tony. But Fat Tony would outperform Dr. John in any other possible ecological, real-life situation. In fact, Tony, in spite of his lack of culture, has an enormous curiosity about the texture of reality, and his own erudition—to me, he is more scienti c in the literal, though not in the social, sense than Dr. John. We will get deep, very deep, into the di erence between the answers of Fat Tony and Dr. John; this is probably the most vexing problem I know about the connections between two varieties of knowledge, what we dub Platonic and a-Platonic. Simply, people like Dr. John can cause Black Swans outside Mediocristan—their minds are closed. While the problem is very general, one of its nastiest illusions is what I call the ludic fallacy—the attributes of the uncertainty we face in real life have little connection to the sterilized ones we encounter in exams and games. So I close Part One with the following story. LUNCH AT LAKE COMO One spring day a few years ago, I was surprised to receive an invitation from a think tank sponsored by the United States Defense Department to a brainstorming session on risk that was to take place in Las Vegas the following fall. The person who invited me announced on the phone, “We’ll have lunch on a terrace overlooking Lake Como,” which put me in a state of severe distress. Las Vegas (along with its sibling the emirate of Dubai) is perhaps one place I’d never wish to visit before I die. Lunch at “fake Como” would be torture. But I’m glad I went. The think tank had gathered a nonpolitical collection of people they called doers and scholars (and practitioners like me who do not accept the distinction) involved in uncertainty in a variety of disciplines. And they symbolically picked a major casino as a venue. The symposium was a closed-doors, synod-style assembly of people who would never have mixed otherwise. My rst surprise was to discover that the military people there thought, behaved, and acted like philosophers—far more so than the philosophers we will see splitting hairs in their weekly colloquium in Part Three. They thought out of the box, like traders, except much better and without fear of introspection. An assistant secretary of defense was among us, but had I not known his profession I would have thought he was a practitioner of skeptical empiricism. Even an engineering investigator who had examined the cause of a space shuttle explosion was thoughtful and open-minded. I came out of the meeting realizing that only military people deal with randomness with genuine, introspective intellectual honesty—unlike academics and corporate executives using other people’s money. This does not show in war movies, where they are usually portrayed as war-hungry autocrats. The people in front of me were not the people who initiate wars. Indeed, for many, the successful defense policy is the one that manages to eliminate potential dangers without war, such as the strategy of bankrupting the Russians through the escalation in defense spending. When I expressed my amazement to Laurence, another nance person who was sitting next to me, he told me that the military collected more genuine intellects and risk thinkers than most if not all other professions. Defense people wanted to understand the epistemology of risk. In the group was a gentleman who ran a group of professional gamblers and who was banned from most casinos. He had come to share his wisdom with us. He sat not far from a stu y professor of political science, dry like a bone and, as is characteristic of “big names,” careful about his reputation, who said nothing out of the box, and who did not smile once. During the sessions, I tried to imagine the hotshot with a rat dropped down his back, putting him in a state of wriggling panic. He was perhaps good at writing Platonic models of something called game theory, but when Laurence and I went after him on his improper use of nancial metaphors, he lost all his arrogance. Now, when you think of the major risks casinos face, gambling situations come to mind. In a casino, one would think, the risks include lucky gamblers blowing up the house with a series of large wins and cheaters taking away money through devious methods. It is not just the general public that would believe so, but the casino management as well. Consequently, the casino had a high-tech surveillance system tracking cheaters, card counters, and other people who try to derive an advantage over them. Each of the participants gave his presentation and listened to those of the others. I came to discuss Black Swans, and I intended to tell them that the only thing I know is that we know precious little about them, but that it was their property to sneak up on us, and that attempts at Platonifying them led to additional misunderstandings. Military people can understand such things, and the idea became recently prevalent in military circles with the expression unknown unknown (as opposed to the known unknown). But I had prepared my talk (on ve restaurant napkins, some stained) and was ready to discuss a new phrase I coined for the occasion: the ludic fallacy. I intended to tell them that I should not be speaking at a casino because it had nothing to do with uncertainty. The Uncertainty of the Nerd What is the ludic fallacy? Ludic comes from ludus, Latin for games. I was hoping that the representatives of the casino would speak before me so I could start harassing them by showing (politely) that a casino was precisely the venue not to pick for such a discussion, since the class of risks casinos encounter are very insigni cant outside of the building, and their study not readily transferable. My idea is that gambling was sterilized and domesticated uncertainty. In the casino you know the rules, you can calculate the odds, and the type of uncertainty we encounter there, we will see later, is mild, belonging to Mediocristan. My prepared statement was this: “The casino is the only human venture I know where the probabilities are known, Gaussian (i.e., bell-curve), and almost computable.” You cannot expect the casino to pay out a million times your bet, or to change the rules abruptly on you during the game—there are never days in which “36 black” is designed to pop up 95 percent of the time.* In real life you do not know the odds; you need to discover them, and the sources of uncertainty are not de ned. Economists, who do not consider what was discovered by noneconomists worthwhile, draw an arti cial distinction between Knightian risks (which you can compute) and Knightian uncertainty (which you cannot compute), after one Frank Knight, who rediscovered the notion of unknown uncertainty and did a lot of thinking but perhaps never took risks, or perhaps lived in the vicinity of a casino. Had he taken economic or nancial risks he would have realized that these “computable” risks are largely absent from real life! They are laboratory contraptions! Yet we automatically, spontaneously associate chance with these Platoni ed games. I nd it infuriating to listen to people who, upon being informed that I specialize in problems of chance, immediately shower me with references to dice. Two illustrators for a paperback edition of one of my books spontaneously and independently added a die to the cover and below every chapter, throwing me into a state of rage. The editor, familiar with my thinking, warned them to “avoid the ludic fallacy,” as if it were a well-known intellectual violation. Amusingly, they both reacted with an “Ah, sorry, we didn’t know.” Those who spend too much time with their noses glued to maps will tend to mistake the map for the territory. Go buy a recent history of probability and probabilistic thinking; you will be showered with names of alleged “probability thinkers” who all base their ideas on these sterilized constructs. I recently looked at what college students are taught under the subject of chance and came out horri ed; they were brainwashed with this ludic fallacy and the outlandish bell curve. The same is true of people doing PhD’s in the eld of probability theory. I’m reminded of a recent book by a thoughtful mathematician, Amir Aczel, called Chance. Excellent book perhaps, but like all other modern books it is grounded in the ludic fallacy. Furthermore, assuming chance has anything to do with mathematics, what little mathematization we can do in the real world does not assume the mild randomness represented by the bell curve, but rather scalable wild randomness. What can be mathematized is usually not Gaussian, but Mandelbrotian. Now, go read any of the classical thinkers who had something practical to say about the subject of chance, such as Cicero, and you nd something di erent: a notion of probability that remains fuzzy throughout, as it needs to be, since such fuzziness is the very nature of uncertainty. Probability is a liberal art; it is a child of skepticism, not a tool for people with calculators on their belts to satisfy their desire to produce fancy calculations and certainties. Before Western thinking drowned in its “scienti c” mentality, what is arrogantly called the Enlightenment, people prompted their brain to think— not compute. In a beautiful treatise now vanished from our consciousness, Dissertation on the Search for Truth, published in 1673, the polemist Simon Foucher exposed our psychological predilection for certainties. He teaches us the art of doubting, how to position ourselves between doubting and believing. He writes: “One needs to exit doubt in order to produce science— but few people heed the importance of not exiting from it prematurely. … It is a fact that one usually exits doubt without realizing it.” He warns us further: “We are dogma-prone from our mother’s wombs.” By the con rmation error discussed in Chapter 5, we use the example of games, which probability theory was successful at tracking, and claim that this is a general case. Furthermore, just as we tend to underestimate the role of luck in life in general, we tend to overestimate it in games of chance. “This building is inside the Platonic fold; life stands outside of it,” I wanted to shout. Gambling with the Wrong Dice I was in for quite a surprise when I learned that the building too was outside the Platonic fold. The casino’s risk management, aside from setting its gambling policies, was geared toward reducing the losses resulting from cheaters. One does not need heavy training in probability theory to understand that the casino was su ciently diversi ed across the di erent tables to not have to worry about taking a hit from an extremely lucky gambler (the diversi cation argument that leads to the bell curve, as we will see in Chapter 15). All they had to do was control the “whales,” the high rollers own in at the casino’s expense from Manila or Hong Kong; whales can swing several million dollars in a gambling bout. Absent cheating, the performance of most individual gamblers would be the equivalent of a drop in the bucket, making the aggregate very stable. I promised not to discuss any of the details of the casino’s sophisticated surveillance system; all I am allowed to say is that I felt transported into a James Bond movie—I wondered if the casino was an imitation of the movies or if it was the other way around. Yet, in spite of such sophistication, their risks had nothing to do with what can be anticipated knowing that the business is a casino. For it turned out that the four largest losses incurred or narrowly avoided by the casino fell completely outside their sophisticated models. First, they lost around $100 million when an irreplaceable performer in their main show was maimed by a tiger (the show, Siegfried and Roy, had been a major Las Vegas attraction). The tiger had been reared by the performer and even slept in his bedroom; until then, nobody suspected that the powerful animal would turn against its master. In scenario analyses, the casino had even conceived of the animal jumping into the crowd, but nobody came near to the idea of insuring against what happened. Second, a disgruntled contractor was hurt during the construction of a hotel annex. He was so o ended by the settlement o ered him that he made an attempt to dynamite the casino. His plan was to put explosives around the pillars in the basement. The attempt was, of course, thwarted (otherwise, to use the arguments in Chapter 8, we would not have been there), but I shivered at the thought of possibly sitting above a pile of dynamite. Third, casinos must le a special form with the Internal Revenue Service documenting a gambler’s pro t if it exceeds a given amount. The employee who was supposed to mail the forms hid them, instead, for completely unexplainable reasons, in boxes under his desk. This went on for years without anyone noticing that something was wrong. The employee’s refraining from sending the documents was truly impossible to predict. Tax violations (and negligence) being serious o ences, the casino faced the near loss of a gambling license or the onerous nancial costs of a suspension. Clearly they ended up paying a monstrous ne (an undisclosed amount), which was the luckiest way out of the problem. Fourth, there was a spate of other dangerous scenes, such as the kidnapping of the casino owner’s daughter, which caused him, in order to secure cash for the ransom, to violate gambling laws by dipping into the casino co ers. Conclusion: A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the dollar value of these Black Swans, the o -model hits and potential hits I’ve just outlined, swamp the on-model risks by a factor of close to 1,000 to 1. The casino spent hundreds of millions of dollars on gambling theory and high-tech surveillance while the bulk of their risks came from outside their models. All this, and yet the rest of the world still learns about uncertainty and probability from gambling examples. WRAPPING UP PART ONE The Cosmetic Rises to the Surface All of the topics in Part One are actually only one. You can think about a subject for a long time, to the point of being possessed by it. Somehow you have a lot of ideas, but they do not seem explicitly connected; the logic linking them remains concealed from you. Yet you know deep down that all these are the same idea. Meanwhile, what Nietzsche calls bildungsphilisters,* or learned philistines, blue collars of the thinking business, tell you that you are spread out between elds; you reply that these disciplines are arti cial and arbitrary, to no avail. Then you tell them that you are a limousine driver, and they leave you alone—you feel better because you do not identify with them, and thus you no longer need to be amputated to t into the Procrustean bed of the disciplines. Finally, a little push and you see that it was all one single problem. One evening I found myself at a cocktail party in Munich at the apartment of a former art historian who had more art books in its library than I thought existed. I stood drinking excellent Riesling in the spontaneously formed English-speaking corner of the apartment, in the hope of getting to a state where I would be able to start speaking my brand of fake German. One of the most insightful thinkers I know, the computer entrepreneur Yossi Vardi, prompted me to summarize “my idea” while standing on one leg. It was not too convenient to stand on one leg after a few glasses of perfumed Riesling, so I failed in my improvisation. The next day I experienced staircase wit. I jumped out of bed with the following idea: the cosmetic and the Platonic rise naturally to the surface. This is a simple extension of the problem of knowledge. It is simply that one side of Eco’s library, the one we never see, has the property of being ignored. This is also the problem of silent evidence. It is why we do not see Black Swans: we worry about those that happened, not those that may happen but did not. It is why we Platonify, liking known schemas and well-organized knowledge—to the point of blindness to reality. It is why we fall for the problem of induction, why we confirm. It is why those who “study” and fare well in school have a tendency to be suckers for the ludic fallacy. And it is why we have Black Swans and never learn from their occurrence, because the ones that did not happen were too abstract. Thanks to Vardi, I now belonged to the club of single-idea people. We love the tangible, the con rmation, the palpable, the real, the visible, the concrete, the known, the seen, the vivid, the visual, the social, the embedded, the emotionally laden, the salient, the stereotypical, the moving, the theatrical, the romanced, the cosmetic, the o cial, the scholarly-sounding verbiage (b******t), the pompous Gaussian economist, the mathematicized crap, the pomp, the Académie Française, Harvard Business School, the Nobel Prize, dark business suits with white shirts and Ferragamo ties, the moving discourse, and the lurid. Most of all we favor the narrated. Alas, we are not manufactured, in our current edition of the human race, to understand abstract matters—we need context. Randomness and uncertainty are abstractions. We respect what has happened, ignoring what could have happened. In other words, we are naturally shallow and super cial —and we do not know it. This is not a psychological problem; it comes from the main property of information. The dark side of the moon is harder to see; beaming light on it costs energy. In the same way, beaming light on the unseen is costly in both computational and mental e ort. Distance from Primates  There have been in history many distinctions between higher and lower forms of humans. For the Greeks, there were the Greeks and the barbarians, those people of the north who uttered amorphous sentences similar, to the Attic ear, to an animal’s shrieks. For the English, a higher form of life was the gentleman’s—contrary to today’s de nition, a gentleman’s life was practiced through idleness and a code of behavior that included, along with a set of manners, the avoidance of work beyond the necessities of comfortable subsistence. For New Yorkers, there are those with a Manhattan zip code and those with such a thing as a Brooklyn or, worse, Queens address. For the earlier Nietzsche, there was the Apollonian compared to the Dionysian; for the better-known Nietzsche, there was the Übermensch, something his readers interpret however it suits them. For a modern stoic, a higher individual subscribes to a digni ed system of virtue that determines elegance in one’s behavior and the ability to separate results from e orts. All of these distinctions aim at lengthening the distance between us and our relatives among other primates. (I keep insisting that, when it comes to decision making, the distance between us and these hairy cousins is far shorter than we think.) I propose that if you want a simple step to a higher form of life, as distant from the animal as you can get, then you may have to denarrate, that is, shut down the television set, minimize time spent reading newspapers, ignore the blogs. Train your reasoning abilities to control your decisions; nudge System 1 (the heuristic or experiential system) out of the important ones. Train yourself to spot the difference between the sensational and the empirical. This insulation from the toxicity of the world will have an additional bene t: it will improve your well-being. Also, bear in mind how shallow we are with probability, the mother of all abstract notions. You do not have to do much more in order to gain a deeper understanding of things around you. Above all, learn to avoid “tunneling.”  A bridge here to what is to come. The Platonic blindness I illustrated with the casino story has another manifestation: focusing. To be able to focus is a great virtue if you are a watch repairman, a brain surgeon, or a chess player. But the last thing you need to do when you deal with uncertainty is to “focus” (you should tell uncertainty to focus, not us). This “focus” makes you a sucker; it translates into prediction problems, as we will see in the next section. Prediction, not narration, is the real test of our understanding of the world. * My colleague Mark Spitznagel found a martial version of the ludic fallacy: organized competitive ghting trains the athlete to focus on the game and, in order not to dissipate his concentration, to ignore the possibility of what is not speci cally allowed by the rules, such as kicks to the groin, a surprise knife, et cetera. So those who win the gold medal might be precisely those who will be most vulnerable in real life. Likewise, you see people with huge muscles (in black T- shirts) who can impress you in the arti cial environment of the gym but are unable to lift a stone. * What Nietzsche means by this term are the dogma-prone newspaper readers and opera lovers who have cosmetic exposure to culture and shallow depth. I extend the term here to the philistine hiding in academia who lacks in erudition out of lack of curiosity and is closely centered on his ideas.  When I ask people to name three recently implemented technologies that most impact our world today, they usually propose the computer, the Internet, and the laser. All three were unplanned, unpredicted, and unappreciated upon their discovery, and remained unappreciated well after their initial use. They were consequential. They were Black Swans. Of course, we have this retrospective illusion of their partaking in some master plan. You can create your own lists with similar results, whether you use political events, wars, or intellectual epidemics. You would expect our record of prediction to be horrible: the world is far, far more complicated than we think, which is not a problem, except when most of us don’t know it. We tend to “tunnel” while looking into the future, making it business as usual, Black Swan–free, when in fact there is nothing usual about the future. It is not a Platonic category! We have seen how good we are at narrating backward, at inventing stories that convince us that we understand the past. For many people, knowledge has the remarkable power of producing con dence instead of measurable aptitude. Another problem: the focus on the (inconsequential) regular, the Platoni cation that makes the forecasting “inside the box.” I nd it scandalous that in spite of the empirical record we continue to project into the future as if we were good at it, using tools and methods that exclude rare events. Prediction is rmly institutionalized in our world. We are suckers for those who help us navigate uncertainty, whether the fortune-teller or the “well-published” (dull) academics or civil servants using phony mathematics. From Yogi Berra to Henri Poincaré The great baseball coach Yogi Berra has a saying, “It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” While he did not produce the writings that would allow him to be considered a philosopher, in spite of his wisdom and intellectual abilities, Berra can claim to know something about randomness. He was a practitioner of uncertainty, and, as a baseball player and coach, regularly faced random outcomes, and had to face their results deep into his bones. In fact, Yogi Berra is not the only thinker who thought about how much of the future lies beyond our abilities. Many less popular, less pithy, but not less competent thinkers than he have examined our inherent limitations in this regard, from the philosophers Jacques Hadamard and Henri Poincaré (commonly described as mathematicians), to the philosopher Friedrich von Hayek (commonly described, alas, as an economist), to the philosopher Karl Popper (commonly known as a philosopher). We can safely call this the Berra- Hadamard-Poincaré-Hayek-Popper conjecture, which puts structural, built- in limits to the enterprise of predicting. “The future ain’t what it used to be,” Berra later said.* He seems to have been right: the gains in our ability to model (and predict) the world may be dwarfed by the increases in its complexity—implying a greater and greater role for the unpredicted. The larger the role of the Black Swan, the harder it will be for us to predict. Sorry. Before going into the limits of prediction, we will discuss our track record in forecasting and the relation between gains in knowledge and the o setting gains in con dence. * Note that these sayings attributed to Yogi Berra might be apocryphal— it was the physicist Niels Bohr who came up with the rst one, and plenty of others came up with the second. These sayings remain, however, quintessential Berraisms. Chapter Ten THE SCANDAL OF PREDICTION Welcome to Sydney—How many lovers did she have?—How to be an economist, wear a nice suit, and make friends—Not right, just “almost” right—Shallow rivers can have deep spots One March evening, a few men and women were standing on the esplanade overlooking the bay outside the Sydney Opera House. It was close to the end of the summer in Sydney, but the men were wearing jackets despite the warm weather. The women were more thermally comfortable than the men, but they had to su er the impaired mobility of high heels. They all had come to pay the price of sophistication. Soon they would listen for several hours to a collection of oversize men and women singing endlessly in Russian. Many of the opera-bound people looked like they worked for the local o ce of J. P. Morgan, or some other nancial institution where employees experience di erential wealth from the rest of the local population, with concomitant pressures on them to live by a sophisticated script (wine and opera). But I was not there to take a peek at the neosophisticates. I had come to look at the Sydney Opera House, a building that adorns every Australian tourist brochure. Indeed, it is striking, though it looks like the sort of building architects create in order to impress other architects. That evening walk in the very pleasant part of Sydney called the Rocks was a pilgrimage. While Australians were under the illusion that they had built a monument to distinguish their skyline, what they had really done was to construct a monument to our failure to predict, to plan, and to come to grips with our unknowledge of the future—our systematic underestimation of what the future has in store. The Australians had actually built a symbol of the epistemic arrogance of the human race. The story is as follows. The Sydney Opera House was supposed to open in early 1963 at a cost of AU$ 7 million. It nally opened its doors more than ten years later, and, although it was a less ambitious version than initially envisioned, it ended up costing around AU$ 104 million. While there are far worse cases of planning failures (namely the Soviet Union), or failures to forecast (all important historical events), the Sydney Opera House provides an aesthetic (at least in principle) illustration of the di culties. This opera-house story is the mildest of all the distortions we will discuss in this section (it was only money, and it did not cause the spilling of innocent blood). But it is nevertheless emblematic. This chapter has two topics. First, we are demonstrably arrogant about what we think we know. We certainly know a lot, but we have a built-in tendency to think that we know a little bit more than we actually do, enough of that little bit to occasionally get into serious trouble. We shall see how you can verify, even measure, such arrogance in your own living room. Second, we will look at the implications of this arrogance for all the activities involving prediction. Why on earth do we predict so much? Worse, even, and more interesting: Why don’t we talk about our record in predicting? Why don’t we see how we (almost) always miss the big events? I call this the scandal of prediction. ON THE VAGUENESS OF CATHERINE’S LOVER COUNT Let us examine what I call epistemic arrogance, literally, our hubris concerning the limits of our knowledge. Epistēmē is a Greek word that refers to knowledge; giving a Greek name to an abstract concept makes it sound i