Professor Bonevac, I have been enjoying your videos for the past few weeks now. Your breadth of knowledge and ability to present is a wonderful service to those who take the time to watch. A few days ago, I learned you were a Trump supporter in 2016 (unsure about 2020) and I must say, this information changed nothing. You and I would disagree politically, but you present information clearly and without noticeable bias. I hope you keep on making videos, particularly videos of your lectures with students.
But does it realy have to be that some of the tops have to fall in order to make space for others? Im thinking in terms of mean and average not being the same
Professor i wish i could attend your clases. When You speak about conformity and status quo in academia, they don't want dissidents and loose cannons. Dr John Mack, a Pulitzer prize winner, is a prime example. A brillant mind that exemplifies why nobody in academia dares challenge the rules
2:44 This attitude of mindless competition, conflict and zero sum game is insane, a relic of our primitive ape psyche. It’s fantastically pretentious to talk of mobility when we still have systemic issues with the most basic requirements for human life-access to healthcare, minimum wage, education that doesn’t burry you in debt for the rest of your life! For the belligerent ape value decreases along with sharing, but for any educated and intelligent human being it becomes obvious that value increases with sharing and cooperation. Each human being is part of a network and each of these human nodes are reaping the strength and health of the entire network. If you maintain a culture of zero-sum game you generate a massive disorder and breaking in the network’s links. Zero-sum thinking is what cancer follows as a rule of conduit within the economy of your body.
One must also remember that in the nature of conflict between two entities, two of them profit, for example : In competition , both companies get better and therefore the people who work in the company can get a better product to buy, etc, etc. The Falling of people from the 1%, doesn't help only the one who takes their place, but to everyone in the game, because being rich is based on satisfying the rest of your fellow men, if one person is no longer the richest, it's because the one who replaced him, is better overall.
*It’s hugely more profitable to make money with the marketing department instead of the R&D dept! Engineering quality consumers is vastly cheaper than engineering and producing quality products.* You may think that competition would drive companies in the other direction, thus correcting their behavior - wouldn’t it? The highly influential ‘Game theory’ which is a mathematical study into strategies for competitive situations - a sort of Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of war’ for economic conquests - states that it’s in your own interest to maintain a close relationship with your greatest economic opponent, while manufacturing the external *impression* of real rivalry. This rivalry energizes consumers on both sides and gives them the impression of freedom to choose between two giants that are in a ‘real competition to produce only the best’. For economic experts it should be clearly obvious that direct competitors like Apple and Samsung are closely cooperating behind closed doors, and a billion $ lawsuit between them once in a while is small change - especially to what they would have to lose in a real fight to win the markets by pushing newer, greater, cheaper, more useful technology and services to consumers. Win-win for the corporations, loss for people and society. In general people fail to realise just how cold and pragmatic ‘big business’ is! They relate it to their own grudgy competition with some neighbor or to the two butcher-shops fighting for clients. But at the top level things are as serious as they can get, and if mathematics tells you that you have to sleep mouth to ass with the competition for maximizing your profit you cannot ignore it. *In this the Capitalist free market, anyone who’s focused on the benefit of the clients is destined to die. Companies are forced before anything else to become pros in making money!*
I was concerned that with the thumbnail of Nietzsche that this would have nothing to do with the mathematical definition. About the 'conformity', people can be fired even after tenure. People are being fired or the campus blows up.
The problem isn't really stemming from access to capital. It's the cultural effects of the means of production on solidarity (Durkheim, or what you talked about with ethical reconfiguration), the psychological effects of being alienated from our labor(Marx), etc.
I misread my own notes; it should have been 12%. 73% spend time in the top 20%. Here's a nice summary of the data: www.aei.org/carpe-diem/evidence-shows-significant-income-mobility-in-the-us-73-of-americans-were-in-the-top-20-for-at-least-a-year/
What is misleading is to use statics like half the population will spend at least 1 year in the 10% of income earners to suggest that there is a lot of churn in economic status. In the year a middle-class person sells their house they might report income in the top 10% but in reality, their economic position hasn't changed much. Such rare events, black swan events, happen but they don't represent economic reality any more than black swans represent swans. The fact that black swans are such outliers tells you something about swans and isn't that they are black. The best predictor of an individual's income rank is their parent's income rank.
There are many reasons for this: sale of a house or business, inheritance, a large bonus, sale of stocks, withdrawal from a tax-deferred account, marriage to someone with a higher income, promotion to a significantly higher-paying position, etc. What Taleb is mostly concerned about is that people ignore the dynamics tat affect almost all of us: rises and then declines in income over time. Studies have shown that people in the bottom 20% of earners are more likely to be in the top 20% ten years later than to remain in the bottom 20%. Why? They graduate. They get a job, or a different job, or are promoted. They marry. People earn more in their 50s than they do in their 20s.
@@PhiloofAlexandria The bottom 20% of earners might get out of the bottom 20% simply because of regression to the mean, there is no other direction for them to go. The problem with all these narrow slide statistics is there will likely always be one or two that will fit any argument you want to make, much like p-value hacking, try enough test and you'll find the result you want. Twenty percent of earners ignores those who can't get a job, which might be the majority of the bottom 20%.
I don't think rich people being likely to stay rich is evidence against ergodicity in economic flow. Even a particle in Brownian motion which has traveled say, to the far right by chance, will from that time, travel with an expected position being so far right
Professor, have you considered a video podcast? Guests such as J.Peterson, Eric Weinstein, Gad Saad, and others would be very valuable to modern discourse. Please consider!!
@@JS-dt1tn Nassim Nicholas Taleb is also a populatizer, he took relatively obscure ideas from statistics, financial econ and complex systems etc. and made them into digestiable forms for the public. The concept of ergodicity wouldn't be brought up nearly as much as it is if it werent for his writings. One also can argue that the contributions Stephan Hawking made to physics is not limited only to the academic fields, but also educating the dozens of millions of people about modern physics as we know today. You could disagree with the content JBP and the others talk about, and obviously it is much harder to be objective and comprehensive when it comes to popularizing philosophy compared to physics or stats. But I would definitely prefer to see philosophy being discussed, ideas being brought into synthesis, even loosely, at a general level, instead of it being just a niche science.
Other people are already doing that. I'd rather do one where I interview philosophers-people like Jonathan Dancy, Gideon Rosen, Roger White, Christine Korsgaard, Lara Buchak, Keith DeRose, etc. But it would take a lot of work to coordinate it and do it well.
Jesus Christ I didn't realise Bonevac had so many pretentious followers. Do something with your own goddamn lives before criticising those like Peterson. Pathetic to the core.
Thank you for your explanation of this interesting topic, and sharing your insights.
Another parlously underrated video.
Fantastic job explaining. Thank you Daniel
Fascinating concept. Thanks Prof. Bonevac for the lucid explanation!
Thank you, I love how enthousiastic you are about the subject, keep going
Thank you.
Professor Bonevac, I have been enjoying your videos for the past few weeks now. Your breadth of knowledge and ability to present is a wonderful service to those who take the time to watch.
A few days ago, I learned you were a Trump supporter in 2016 (unsure about 2020) and I must say, this information changed nothing. You and I would disagree politically, but you present information clearly and without noticeable bias.
I hope you keep on making videos, particularly videos of your lectures with students.
Brilliant lecture
Great analysis 👍 and most important, clear flowing and most like a crystal stream. Moreover,the explanation is very unexpected and counterintuitive.
Glad it was helpful!
Wow great synthesis, thank you
Whenever I watch your videos, it feels like those books in bg are talking to me
But does it realy have to be that some of the tops have to fall in order to make space for others? Im thinking in terms of mean and average not being the same
Iam going to watch all of your lecture after the exams.
Professor i wish i could attend your clases. When You speak about conformity and status quo in academia, they don't want dissidents and loose cannons. Dr John Mack, a Pulitzer prize winner, is a prime example. A brillant mind that exemplifies why nobody in academia dares challenge the rules
Well done
This is great. Brilliant thoughts. Thank you for the teaching
Thank you for your risk-taking.
Your cat is one of my favorite parts of your videos. XD
Also, great information. Thanks for teaching!
Thanks! I sometimes have to stop filming to quiet some mewing.
I hope it's not Parkinson's. In any case, stay strong. Your intelligence is an inspiration to many people.
love this, I bet he is a pro Bitcoiner :)
2:44 This attitude of mindless competition, conflict and zero sum game is insane, a relic of our primitive ape psyche. It’s fantastically pretentious to talk of mobility when we still have systemic issues with the most basic requirements for human life-access to healthcare, minimum wage, education that doesn’t burry you in debt for the rest of your life!
For the belligerent ape value decreases along with sharing, but for any educated and intelligent human being it becomes obvious that value increases with sharing and cooperation. Each human being is part of a network and each of these human nodes are reaping the strength and health of the entire network. If you maintain a culture of zero-sum game you generate a massive disorder and breaking in the network’s links. Zero-sum thinking is what cancer follows as a rule of conduit within the economy of your body.
One must also remember that in the nature of conflict between two entities, two of them profit, for example : In competition , both companies get better and therefore the people who work in the company can get a better product to buy, etc, etc.
The Falling of people from the 1%, doesn't help only the one who takes their place, but to everyone in the game, because being rich is based on satisfying the rest of your fellow men, if one person is no longer the richest, it's because the one who replaced him, is better overall.
*It’s hugely more profitable to make money with the marketing department instead of the R&D dept! Engineering quality consumers is vastly cheaper than engineering and producing quality products.*
You may think that competition would drive companies in the other direction, thus correcting their behavior - wouldn’t it? The highly influential ‘Game theory’ which is a mathematical study into strategies for competitive situations - a sort of Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of war’ for economic conquests - states that it’s in your own interest to maintain a close relationship with your greatest economic opponent, while manufacturing the external *impression* of real rivalry. This rivalry energizes consumers on both sides and gives them the impression of freedom to choose between two giants that are in a ‘real competition to produce only the best’. For economic experts it should be clearly obvious that direct competitors like Apple and Samsung are closely cooperating behind closed doors, and a billion $ lawsuit between them once in a while is small change - especially to what they would have to lose in a real fight to win the markets by pushing newer, greater, cheaper, more useful technology and services to consumers. Win-win for the corporations, loss for people and society. In general people fail to realise just how cold and pragmatic ‘big business’ is! They relate it to their own grudgy competition with some neighbor or to the two butcher-shops fighting for clients. But at the top level things are as serious as they can get, and if mathematics tells you that you have to sleep mouth to ass with the competition for maximizing your profit you cannot ignore it.
*In this the Capitalist free market, anyone who’s focused on the benefit of the clients is destined to die. Companies are forced before anything else to become pros in making money!*
lol you're kidding, right?
Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and for expounding on Talebs concepts.
I was concerned that with the thumbnail of Nietzsche that this would have nothing to do with the mathematical definition.
About the 'conformity', people can be fired even after tenure. People are being fired or the campus blows up.
The problem isn't really stemming from access to capital. It's the cultural effects of the means of production on solidarity (Durkheim, or what you talked about with ethical reconfiguration), the psychological effects of being alienated from our labor(Marx), etc.
Wow!!!
What is your source on 20% of the population spending time in the 1% of earners, and so on?
I misread my own notes; it should have been 12%. 73% spend time in the top 20%. Here's a nice summary of the data: www.aei.org/carpe-diem/evidence-shows-significant-income-mobility-in-the-us-73-of-americans-were-in-the-top-20-for-at-least-a-year/
Here is an interesting video I saw a week ago or so about the distribution
ruclips.net/video/If3dANh-3c8/видео.html
What is misleading is to use statics like half the population will spend at least 1 year in the 10% of income earners to suggest that there is a lot of churn in economic status. In the year a middle-class person sells their house they might report income in the top 10% but in reality, their economic position hasn't changed much. Such rare events, black swan events, happen but they don't represent economic reality any more than black swans represent swans. The fact that black swans are such outliers tells you something about swans and isn't that they are black.
The best predictor of an individual's income rank is their parent's income rank.
There are many reasons for this: sale of a house or business, inheritance, a large bonus, sale of stocks, withdrawal from a tax-deferred account, marriage to someone with a higher income, promotion to a significantly higher-paying position, etc. What Taleb is mostly concerned about is that people ignore the dynamics tat affect almost all of us: rises and then declines in income over time. Studies have shown that people in the bottom 20% of earners are more likely to be in the top 20% ten years later than to remain in the bottom 20%. Why? They graduate. They get a job, or a different job, or are promoted. They marry. People earn more in their 50s than they do in their 20s.
@@PhiloofAlexandria The bottom 20% of earners might get out of the bottom 20% simply because of regression to the mean, there is no other direction for them to go. The problem with all these narrow slide statistics is there will likely always be one or two that will fit any argument you want to make, much like p-value hacking, try enough test and you'll find the result you want. Twenty percent of earners ignores those who can't get a job, which might be the majority of the bottom 20%.
You need to address what ergodicity really is about...
I don't think rich people being likely to stay rich is evidence against ergodicity in economic flow. Even a particle in Brownian motion which has traveled say, to the far right by chance, will from that time, travel with an expected position being so far right
I guess this guy is not a socialist. LoL.
Professor, have you considered a video podcast? Guests such as J.Peterson, Eric Weinstein, Gad Saad, and others would be very valuable to modern discourse. Please consider!!
This man is too busy doing real philosophy to spend time with mere popularizers. sorry.
@@JS-dt1tn Nassim Nicholas Taleb is also a populatizer, he took relatively obscure ideas from statistics, financial econ and complex systems etc. and made them into digestiable forms for the public. The concept of ergodicity wouldn't be brought up nearly as much as it is if it werent for his writings. One also can argue that the contributions Stephan Hawking made to physics is not limited only to the academic fields, but also educating the dozens of millions of people about modern physics as we know today. You could disagree with the content JBP and the others talk about, and obviously it is much harder to be objective and comprehensive when it comes to popularizing philosophy compared to physics or stats. But I would definitely prefer to see philosophy being discussed, ideas being brought into synthesis, even loosely, at a general level, instead of it being just a niche science.
"Professor have you considered a video podcast in which you invite undercover fascist bullshit artists like Jordan Peterson?"
Other people are already doing that. I'd rather do one where I interview philosophers-people like Jonathan Dancy, Gideon Rosen, Roger White, Christine Korsgaard, Lara Buchak, Keith DeRose, etc. But it would take a lot of work to coordinate it and do it well.
Jesus Christ I didn't realise Bonevac had so many pretentious followers. Do something with your own goddamn lives before criticising those like Peterson. Pathetic to the core.
Your lecture are too long winded. You waste time, jakkas
Wrong, they're substantive
Please show us how you would explain ergodicity.
@@AndersBedraad-uo7ed I dont know how to build a bridge, but I know the designers of the Minneapolis bridge stunk at it.