Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Nassim Taleb rips Dawkins 'crude reasoning' Nassim Taleb rips Dawkins 'crude reasoning'

05-16-2009 , 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PairTheBoard
It sounds like he's saying evolution produces highly specialized species with relatively little genetic diversity. With a broad spectrum of possible future black swan environmental shifts out there, the greater the specialization and lack of genetic diversity the less likely the species can adapt to black swan events - thus the higher the hidden risk versus environmental shifts. I suppose you could argue that a species perfectly specialized to an environmental niche could not handle even the slightest shift in that environment.
Well, you could argue it, but its certainly logically fallacious. For example, any organism perfectly specialized to ALL possible environments would also be perfectly specialized to any particular environment. But it does not follow that he could not handle the slightest shift. Being perfectly specialized for you niche and also supremely adaptable are not mutually exclusive categories.
Quote:
Its perfect specialization would make it appear as strong as it could possibly be as far as having adapted to that environment. But it's at that point of ultimate strength it is at highest risk for the slightest change in its environment. Fit as it appears it's really a Turkey for handling evironmental change.
For the reasons mentioned earlier, there is no reason for this to be generally true, even if it is from time to time true in practice.
Quote:
I have no idea what the merits of such observations might be. My understanding was that evolution has produced a vast wealth of genetic diversity residing in recessive genes which is a big factor in explaining how species have managed to evolve as quickly has they have at times.

I used to play chess with a science minded friend who would always bring me up short whenever I misspoke and used the phrase "survival of the fittest". He insisted the proper principle is "natural selection" and that it's an important distinction. I believe he was right.

PairTheBoard
Meh, if it leads to confusion, use the better term, but I dont see there being all that much difference.
Nassim Taleb rips Dawkins 'crude reasoning' Quote
07-12-2010 , 01:29 PM
he means species evolve in 1 random sample path, without taking into account (hidden) risks. So if some small probability but huge impact event doesnt happen for a long time, we might evolve in a way so that we will be completely erased when it does happen.

Most of the critics in this topic just didnt understand his argument...
Nassim Taleb rips Dawkins 'crude reasoning' Quote
07-12-2010 , 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen
he means species evolve in 1 random sample path, without taking into account (hidden) risks. So if some small probability but huge impact event doesnt happen for a long time, we might evolve in a way so that we will be completely erased when it does happen.
He didn't say that they don't take hidden risk into account, he said that they maximize hidden risk. Very different claim.

But yeah, this is kind of a dead thread now.
Nassim Taleb rips Dawkins 'crude reasoning' Quote
07-14-2010 , 04:06 PM
was shocked to read a thread that wasnt clogged with gunth/splendour posts before realizing it was from over a year ago...ahhh the good old days.
Nassim Taleb rips Dawkins 'crude reasoning' Quote
07-14-2010 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by madnak
I don't know what he thinks he's arguing against, he seems to be trying a rhetorical flourish and not much else. But it's stilted, "that we will evolve not into the fittest, but that those who survive will embody the highest amount of hidden risk" doesn't make sense from a logical or verbal standpoint. You really have to stretch to make something out of that. What does "those who survive will embody the highest amount of hidden risk" mean? That those who were not fit would be expected to have a lower level of risk if they had survived to the present?
I haven't read any Taleb, and perhaps I'm reading something that isn't there. But I think what he means is that the fittest do not turn out to be very fit if the entire species is so easily wiped out by a black swan event. Perhaps humans too, are not as fit as we assume ourselves to be, if we doom ourselves to peril by continuing to look at events in a way that precludes the possibility of extreme happenings. Just as an entire species of investors who thought they were fit during the housing boom, turkeys thought they were fit until Thanksgiving. But, I haven't read Taleb, only seen him on TV, so I may be off base. But I would like to ask, is any species 'fit', if all species eventually become extinct?
Nassim Taleb rips Dawkins 'crude reasoning' Quote
07-14-2010 , 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PairTheBoard

I used to play chess with a science minded friend who would always bring me up short whenever I misspoke and used the phrase "survival of the fittest". He insisted the proper principle is "natural selection" and that it's an important distinction. I believe he was right.
Yes, that's what I'm thinking, and I am a science minded chess player to boot.
Nassim Taleb rips Dawkins 'crude reasoning' Quote
07-14-2010 , 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butcho22
was shocked to read a thread that wasnt clogged with gunth/splendour posts before realizing it was from over a year ago...ahhh the good old days.
+1

also, i owned this thread.
Nassim Taleb rips Dawkins 'crude reasoning' Quote
07-14-2010 , 06:01 PM
the latest of his three econtalk interviews

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/201...n_black_1.html
Nassim Taleb rips Dawkins 'crude reasoning' Quote

      
m