The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable

I have just presented the Black Swan problem in its historical form: the central difficulty of generalizing from available information, or of learning from the past, the known, and the seen. I have also presented the list of those who, I believe, are the most relevant historical figures.

You can see that it is extremely convenient for us to assume that we live in Mediocristan. Why? Because it allows you to rule out these Black Swan surprises! The Black Swan problem either does not exist or is of small consequence if you live in Mediocristan!

Such an assumption magically drives away the problem of induction, which since Sextus Empiricus has been plaguing the history of thinking. The statistician can do away with epistemology.

Wishful thinking! We do not live in Mediocristan, so the Black Swan needs a different mentality. As we cannot push the problem under the rug, we will have to dig deeper into it. This is not a terminal difficulty—and we can even benefit from it.

Now, there are other themes arising from our blindness to the Black Swan:

a. We focus on preselected segments of the seen and generalize from it to the unseen: the error of confirmation.

b. We fool ourselves with stories that cater to our Platonic thirst for distinct patterns: the narrative fallacy.

c. We behave as if the Black Swan does not exist: human nature is not programmed for Black Swans.

d. What we see is not necessarily all that is there. History hides Black Swans from us and gives us a mistaken idea about the odds of these events: this is the distortion of silent evidence.

e. We “tunnel”: that is, we focus on a few well-defined sources of uncertainty, on too specific a list of Black Swans (at the expense of the others that do not easily come to mind).

I will discuss each of the points in the next five chapters. Then, in the conclusion of Part One, I will show how, in effect, they are the same topic.

Chapter Five: CONFIRMATION SHMONFIRMATION!

I have so much evidence—Can Zoogles be (sometimes) Boogies?—Corroboration shmorroboration—Popper’s idea

As much as it is ingrained in our habits and conventional wisdom, confirmation can be a dangerous error.

Assume I told you that I had evidence that the football player O. J. Simpson (who was accused of killing his wife in the 1990s) was not a criminal. Look, the other day I had breakfast with him and he didn’t kill anybody. I am serious, I did not see him kill a single person. Wouldn’t that confirm his innocence? If I said such a thing you would certainly call a shrink, an ambulance, or perhaps even the police, since you might think that I spent too much time in trading rooms or in cafés thinking about this Black Swan topic, and that my logic may represent such an immediate danger to society that I myself need to be locked up immediately.

You would have the same reaction if I told you that I took a nap the other day on the railroad track in New Rochelle, New York, and was not killed. Hey, look at me, I am alive, I would say, and that is evidence that lying on train tracks is risk-free. Yet consider the following. Look again at Figure 1 in Chapter 4; someone who observed the turkey’s first thousand days (but not the shock of the thousand and first) would tell you, and rightly so, that there is no evidence of the possibility of large events, i.e., Black Swans. You are likely to confuse that statement, however, particularly if you do not pay close attention, with the statement that there is evidence of no possible Black Swans. Even though it is in fact vast, the logical distance between the two assertions will seem very narrow in your mind, so that one can be easily substituted for the other. Ten days from now, if you manage to remember the first statement at all, you will be likely to retain the second, inaccurate version—that there is proof of no Black Swans. I call this confusion the round-trip fallacy, since these statements are not interchangeable.

Such confusion of the two statements partakes of a trivial, very trivial (but crucial), logical error—but we are not immune to trivial, logical errors, nor are professors and thinkers particularly immune to them (complicated equations do not tend to cohabit happily with clarity of mind). Unless we concentrate very hard, we are likely to unwittingly simplify the problem because our minds routinely do so without our knowing it.

It is worth a deeper examination here.