A son, a friend, a brother and a future fable frustrated and limited by his own ineptitude.
When I tell people how it is revolutionary and incredible and blah blah, they ask why. And I can't explain the premise of the book succinctly and the conversation ends with them thinking I'm mad or stupid. Or both.
So, in a way that can be edited and revised, here goes...
We used to believe that all swans were white. But then someone found a black swan in Australia, and suddenly not all swans are white. The important fact is that no matter how many white swans we saw, it didn't allow us to accurately say "all swans are white" as witnessing any number of white swans did not prove the non-existance of black swans. Yet we said it, and took it as an absolute, unequivocal truth. And we naturally do this with the entire world every day. And we're wrong.
A black swan 'event' is one that is unforeseen due to this (and four other) illogical tendencies of humans, that also has massive consequences and that we apply post-event explanations to.
You're now on page 135.
Now read Malcolm Gladwell's 2002 piece on the author's investment fund:
http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_04_29_a_blowingup.htm
The idea of a 'perfect storm' of unlikely events is commonly understood. It's the explanation for air crashes and financial crashes and other disasters. And as humans we accept the 'perfect storm' explanation. But we shouldn't, we should understand that nearly all events of note, good or bad, are caused by 'perfect storm' black swan events. Our very existence is a black swan event. Yet our daily routine is betting *against* black swan events, which are bound to happen eventually!
Look, I'm not mad. Or stupid. Just read the damn book, OK?
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable/dp/1400063515
[taken from http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/ Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'. It's rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that's grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise - that's a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is it is. In the case of an idea, if we think 'Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity', what does it mean? Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard (Dawkins) creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.
Imagine the Telegraph or Times having a similar lead story in the UK.
RECENT GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE WORKING WELL or CAMERON'S PLAN WORKING It would just never happen. I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong, but the truth often lies between the two extremes. Singapore will hail failures as successes and the UK will hail successes as failures. How about calling a win a win, a fail a fail and getting on with our lives?
