Charlie Rose

anne4444  08/06/2010 06:47 PM Report

Thank you for sharing the view. I will definitely read his book this week.

Regardless I disagree with his view of randomness. If none would want war, it would have no war. War is the outcome of social imbalance. Same as the home price bubble, many have been predicted this outcome. To definite things, which we don’t know as randomness, is very depressing.

One day.. It may take us another 1000 years, but we will know where we are from and where we will go… Then… They will be no RANDOMNESS.

Adel Anwar,Esq  09/20/2008 08:42 AM Report

Excellent interview and hits the nail on the head, perhaps more so than the book!

1. Nassim appears to me to be into skepticism, but that means his own theory is subject to doubt. He admits in other interview that he is a paranoid skeptic. In reality he is inconsistent as are all those into skepticism. They need a proper correct philosophy.

For example, if there was only physics without philosophy then all life is merely matter, so life is not valuable. If there was only biology then eugenics and survival of fittest humans would be correct [which it is not\.The reality is all humans have equal right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is individual effort: smart and hard work that makes the deserved difference, purposeful inequality, which is to be celebrated. No one takes from another, but one must create for oneself [i.e. re-arrange matter, information and/or energy , and then trade that value\.

2. Although Black Swan is correct, what Nassim misses out on is the fact that the theoretician is able to "spot anomaly" due to requisite knowledge developed over time. Therefore great academic geniuses [e.g. Newton discovering or inducting gravity\ develop expertise BUT great ones also are prepared to contemplate different perspectives and look out for anomalies [e.g. Einstein did this too with Sirius' data\.

3. 9/11 and wars. Although such things are black swans, nevertheless linking up effect with causes, helps create an environment to look out for other would be terrorists. Indeed terrorists were "created" and "thrawted" such as Richard Reed - shoe bomber. Linking effect-with-cause though is not "enough", and the point of Black Swan is to "creatively predict" many alternative scenarios that are possible, ahead of black swan events. This is not a perfect solution , but is better than nothing.

David Langston  11/21/2007 03:42 AM Report

NNT's Black Swan is an interesting read. I agree with him on two of his major points - that is people know very little to no fault of our own and as he puts it "tinkering" produces. Experimentation, trial and error, doing things, trying things should be focused on because they work better than theorizing, or sitting in a box and meditating. However, I disagree with his randomness theories though i do find them interesting and worth considering which i still do. I haven' dismissed them. For example though, 911 he says was a black swan, random, and unpredictable, and obviously extremely consequential but how many terrorist attacks have there been in the US, even particularly aimed at the world trade center. There has been a history of terrorist attacks aimed at the US so why were we so shocked, one, and two, why did we think we were going to continue to get an onslaught of terrorist attacks? This as he would say is explaining events with the advantage of being able to look back at events in hindsight. Essentially, what Taleb calls random, I would call perspectival - especially in the case of 911. The attack to the point of view of the terrorists was not random at all - it was Intelligently Designed and premeditated worked out beautifully in their minds. Natural disasters seem more random but in my ignorant opinion are just systems we don't understand much like the machines or people who inhabit Earth that we also don't understand because people are random - not so much to themselves but to professionals and professions who seek to predict them, write them and understand them.

TJ  09/09/2007 02:38 PM Report

Great interview! However, there is a bit of a contradiction in this 'randomness' philosophy. For example, if you believe everything is random, then your belief itself becomes random, which leads to a sort of chaos or even nihilism. Also, I am not sure that I agree with Naseem's statement that life today is more random than it was in early hunter-gather societies. In fact, we have much more non-randomness in terms of food supply, medicine, access to clean water, etc. Perhaps we have a different type of randomness than they did, one that is more information oriented, but that doesn't necessarily mean that our lives today have become more random.

fred corbello  08/15/2007 12:38 PM Report

This Nassim Taleb is a slippery fellow, not to speak derogatorily. I like him and his demeanor. I especially like the part about our inherent limitations and immediately wonder if we could better adapt ourselves to these limitations. If the greater part of creation is indeed what is at hand to begin with, then all that we are on this perhaps overburdened planet is quite a lot to start with in the cause of creation. Maybe Marlon Brando, if he were still around, would ask, yes, but what is your meaning? Meaning to do with?

Mary Lasko  08/13/2007 11:46 PM Report

Compare the Black Sawn to the book Complexity. Quite interesting.

Doug Kamp  08/09/2007 06:00 PM Report

This guy was good, very good. I watched the program twice, the first time got my attention, the second, hooked me. When I get the time, and the brain space, I'll definitely consider purchasing his book, The Black Swan. It speaks to a cutting edge topic that the persistant will study and understand for personal and societal benefits. --Doug Kamp, author, Growing Up in America: The Inside Story

Ellen Zapf  08/08/2007 12:42 AM Report

Charlie Rose,

Have you noticed that the highly intelligent have a very hard time explaining what they are saying in their book....you seemed a bit "WHAT?' as Nassin talked but I understood from the start and became excited as this is the perfect reading for my son.

The people are very good at voicing "reason for" after the fact.....Ha!-now that I think about it...it IS hard to explain!

My only question would have been "why title the book "Black Swan" and not 'Matter over Mind"

Anyway, I watch each night...ya do good, (although you did seem to be a bit edgy with my friend Dennis??

Ellen