Nassim Taleb's Top 10 Life Tips
ben.casnocha.com
ben.casnocha.com
The following quote from the article:
"Take away religion, he says, and people start believing in nationalism, which has killed far more people. Religion is also a good way of handling uncertainty. It lowers blood pressure. He’s convinced that religious people take fewer financial risks. "
is a pretty lame conjecture. Has nationalism really killed more people? Even if it has, is there any proof that atheists are more prone to nationalism? And even if that is so, is there any proof that nationalistic atheists are responsible for any significant proportion of deaths attributable to nationalism?
Contrary to the above, I did like most of the original article.
It's certainly plausible. Top 10 genocides of the 20'th century:
1: Great Leap Forward (Communist)
2: Soviet Purges/Ukrainian Famine (Communist)
3: Nazis (Nationalist)
3 (Roughly Tied): Congo Wars (Nationalist)
4: Imperial Japanese (Nationalist)
5: Pol Pot (Communist)
6: Kim (Communist)
7: Mengistu in Ethiopia (Mix of Communist and Nationalist)
8: Armenian Genocide by Turks (Nationalist)
9: Igbo genocide of Nigeria (Nationalist)
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
(Note: some of these numbers are sketchy, especially towards the bottom of the list. The list also missed the Congo (WTF!), which I added.)
The Soviet regime also did have a great amount of Nationalism built into it as well. The people who are also in the "religion kills" camp will also argue (and not without good arguments) that you could call communism a religion.
And of course for every single one of these genocides religion, class warfare and nationalism played a role (targetting of ethnic minorities under Pol Pot, state Shinto in Japan, Socialist and volk-Religion elements in Nazism, "communism as religion" so on).
(Overall I'll tend to fall within the "nationalism kills more" camp.)
And do not forget about Hiroshima...
p.s. world isn't black and white.
Also, the study your article describes (and it's followup) is seriously flawed.
rather, i think he's saying that there will always be people who want to 'believe in' or 'belong to' something - and w/o religion, that hole would be filled with nationalism... which has problems in its own right.
Thus, things like Digg will be a huge factor in the creation of world peace! Or something!
I like Taleb.
For anyone who has read The Black Swan, you will see how this DARPA project may have to do with his Las Vegas casino visit. http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrusts/math/appliedcompmath/rum/in...
This is kinda dangerous. Many times you don't know if a matter is of large or small consequences unless you first approach it skeptically.
Will do. Thanks for the tip. (Frankly, I'm surprised no one thought of that before...)
You can’t even start to know what you may find on the envelope of serendipity.
Parsing...parsing...
Okay, so for envelope he must mean one of the following definitions:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/envelope
This? "something that envelops; a wrapper, integument, or surrounding cover."
Or this? (As a metaphor) "the technical limits within which an aircraft or electronic system may be safely operated."
Okay, let's look at the context: "...parties...envelope...of serendipity". Serendipity is a sort of accidental discovery. So at parties we find the envelope (wrapper? limit?) of "Serendipity" Okay... maybe he means that parties are a good place to accidentally discover things?
If you suffer from agoraphobia, send colleagues.
Right, because people who have agoraphobia typically have colleagues they can order around. Howard Hughes and no one else maybe.
That's his #2 life tip. My #2 life tip is: "...but no simpler". My #1 tip is: "Make everything as simple as possible". I can't possibly be alone in seeing this list as combining the worst of banality and inscrutability.
It's also not uncommon for individuals who are people-shy to have friends, partners who aren't, nor is it always necessary to "order around" these people to convince them to go.
It's called being charitable. In other words, don't assume that a stupid interpretation of what someone said is what they actually meant. If that's what you're looking for, it's easy enough to find. Fox News talking heads are great at this.
maybe he means that parties are a good place to accidentally discover things?
You translated it thus:
some of the best things may come from those most accidental, least expected of serendipitous events that parties are, in a sense, designed to generate in the first place.
So, miy translation is shorter but the same, and so I don't thing it is fair to describe it as a "stupid interpretation".
My point is this: His style is pointlessly convoluted----obfuscation for the sake of obfuscation----and that is an age-old rhetorical trick to make a humdrum idea seem profound.
Also, I didn't mean to call your interpretation stupid...rather, that you're interpretation assumes a sort of stupidity on behalf of the speaker.
But unlike many others, I recognized that he's using poor style as a substitute for meaningful content. That's my point, which I apparently did not make sufficiently clear for native speakers like yourself.
Just that clause is arresting.