Нассим Талеб - The Black Swan. The Impact of the Highly Improbable

Think of the difficulty in forecasting in terms of branches growing out of a tree; at every fork we have a multiplication of new branches. To see how our intuitions about these nonlinear multiplicative effects are rather weak, consider this story about the chessboard. The inventor of the chessboard requested the following compensation: one grain of rice for the first square, two for the second, four for the third, eight, then sixteen, and so on, doubling every time, sixty-four times. The king granted this request, thinking that the inventor was asking for a pittance—but he soon realized that he was outsmarted. The amount of rice exceeded all possible grain reserves!

This multiplicative difficulty leading to the need for greater and greater precision in assumptions can be illustrated with the following simple exercise concerning the prediction of the movements of billiard balls on a table. I use the example as computed by the mathematician Michael Berry. If you know a set of basic parameters concerning the ball at rest, can compute the resistance of the table (quite elementary), and can gauge the strength of the impact, then it is rather easy to predict what would happen at the first hit. The second impact becomes more complicated, but possible; you need to be more careful about your knowledge of the initial states, and more precision is called for. The problem is that to correctly compute the ninth impact, you need to take into account the gravitational pull of someone standing next to the table (modestly, Berry’s computations use a weight of less than 150 pounds). And to compute the fifty-sixth impact, every single elementary particle of the universe needs to be present in your assumptions! An electron at the edge of the universe, separated from us by 10 billion light-years, must figure in the calculations, since it exerts a meaningful effect on the outcome. Now, consider the additional burden of having to incorporate predictions about where these variables will be in the future . Forecasting the motion of a billiard ball on a pool table requires knowledge of the dynamics of the entire universe, down to every single atom! We can easily predict the movements of large objects like planets (though not too far into the future), but the smaller entities can be difficult to figure out—and there are so many more of them.

Note that this billiard-ball story assumes a plain and simple world; it does not even take into account these crazy social matters possibly endowed with free will. Billiard balls do not have a mind of their own. Nor does our example take into account relativity and quantum effects. Nor did we use the notion (often invoked by phonies) called the “uncertainty principle.” We are not concerned with the limitations of the precision in measurements done at the subatomic level. We are just dealing with billiard balls!

In a dynamical system, where you are considering more than a ball on its own, where trajectories in a way depend on one another, the ability to project into the future is not just reduced, but is subjected to a fundamental limitation. Poincaré proposed that we can only work with qualitative matters—some property of systems can be discussed , but not computed. You can think rigorously, but you cannot use numbers. Poincaré even invented a field for this, analysis in situ, now part of topology. Prediction and forecasting are a more complicated business than is commonly accepted, but it takes someone who knows mathematics to understand that. To accept it takes both understanding and courage.

In the 1960s the MIT meteorologist Edward Lorenz rediscovered Poincaré’s results on his own—once again, by accident. He was producing a computer model of weather dynamics, and he ran a simulation that projected a weather system a few days ahead. Later he tried to repeat the same simulation with the exact same model and what he thought were the same input parameters, but he got wildly different results. He initially attributed these differences to a computer bug or a calculation error. Computers then were heavier and slower machines that bore no resemblance to what we have today, so users were severely constrained by time. Lorenz subsequently realized that the consequential divergence in his results arose not from error, but from a small rounding in the input parameters. This became known as the butterfly effect, since a butterfly moving its wings in India could cause a hurricane in New York, two years later. Lorenz’s findings generated interest in the field of chaos theory.

Naturally researchers found predecessors to Lorenz’s discovery, not only in the work of Poincaré, but also in that of the insightful and intuitive Jacques Hadamard, who thought of the same point around 1898, and then went on to live for almost seven more decades—he died at the age of ninety-eight. *

They Still Ignore Hayek

Popper and Poincaré’s findings limit our ability to see into the future, making it a very complicated reflection of the past—if it is a reflection of the past at all. A potent application in the social world comes from a friend of Sir Karl, the intuitive economist Friedrich Hayek. Hayek is one of the rare celebrated members of his “profession” (along with J. M. Keynes and G.L.S. Shackle) to focus on true uncertainty, on the limitations of knowledge, on the unread books in Eco’s library.

In 1974 he received the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, but if you read his acceptance speech you will be in for a bit of a surprise. It was eloquently called “The Pretense of Knowledge,” and he mostly railed about other economists and about the idea of the planner. He argued against the use of the tools of hard science in the social ones, and depressingly, right before the big boom for these methods in economics. Subsequently, the prevalent use of complicated equations made the environment for true empirical thinkers worse than it was before Hayek wrote his speech. Every year a paper or a book appears, bemoaning the fate of economics and complaining about its attempts to ape physics. The latest I’ve seen is about how economists should shoot for the role of lowly philosophers rather than that of high priests. Yet, in one ear and out the other.

For Hayek, a true forecast is done organically by a system, not by fiat. One single institution, say, the central planner, cannot aggregate knowledge; many important pieces of information will be missing. But society as a whole will be able to integrate into its functioning these multiple pieces of information. Society as a whole thinks outside the box. Hayek attacked socialism and managed economies as a product of what I have called nerd knowledge, or Platonicity —owing to the growth of scientific knowledge, we overestimate our ability to understand the subtle changes that constitute the world, and what weight needs to be imparted to each such change. He aptly called this “scientism.”

This disease is severely ingrained in our institutions. It is why I fear governments and large corporations—it is hard to distinguish between them. Governments make forecasts; companies produce projections; every year various forecasters project the level of mortgage rates and the stock market at the end of the following year. Corporations survive not because they have made good forecasts, but because, like the CEOs visiting Wharton I mentioned earlier, they may have been the lucky ones. And, like a restaurant owner, they may be hurting themselves, not us—perhaps helping us and subsidizing our consumption by giving us goods in the process, like cheap telephone calls to the rest of the world funded by the overinvestment during the dotcom era. We consumers can let them forecast all they want if that’s what is necessary for them to get into business. Let them go hang themselves if they wish.