The finance guys may have been aware of it, but their actions were clearly not in line with this knowledge as evidence by the year 2008.
From the article you linked: "None of this implies, however, that the existence of outliers undermines modern portfolio theory or asset pricing theory."
In fact, that's exactly what it does. This is what happens when you build houses on top of sand.
Black Swan theory isn't about denying science; it's about recognizing the limits of science.
Taleb's position (and argument in this paper) is that we need to recognize instances where we don't know the answer instead of making decisions based on assumptions that we do.
Your initial reply to me can be rephrased as "I wouldn't want to accomplish all the amazing things that Ghandi did because I wouldn't want to live in poverty my whole life." I hope you understand that his accomplishments outweigh his lifestyle and that if everyone were able to accomplish what he had in his lifetime the world would be a much better place.
I think what you are trying to say is "You don't need to live in poverty in order to accomplish great things." In which case, I agree with you, but I believe you should pick your words more carefully.
This will be my last reply; I don't want this thread to become a pissing contest.
The accomplishments of Ghandi far outweigh both his reasons for achieving them and the methods he used. Passing judgment on his lifestyle in spite of his feats would be like saying we should disregard the works of Darwin because they offend people. Ghandi didn't get his name in the history books because he lived like a pauper.
I have no desire to emulate Ghandi and I never stated that I did. I recognize when to respect the accomplishments of others.
You are always 100% in control of your emotions: the choice to be happy is up to you regardless of what you're doing or what's happening to you. Money (or value) will come from following fundamental principles of success: diligence, hard work, honesty, etc. You often find the two together, but neither is required for the other.
For more information read Dan Gilbert's "Stumbling on Happiness" and Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning."
Realty's value as a profession is not completely without merit. Just because the true nature of the job has been obfuscated doesn't mean it should be eliminated.
The industry may have created that phrase in a conveniently ambiguous way; still, in English, positives are always better than negatives when giving a command. Consider the difference between "I don't eat junk food" and "I always eat healthy foods." The first contains the proposition that you have the capability of eating junk foods; the second does not.
Perhaps "Always Drive Safely" or "Always be Responsible" as the link text would be better?
I'm not advocating one site with a meritocracy filter; have as many as you'd like. One for Math PhDs, Chemistry PhDs, just having a bachelor's degree, CEO's, car salesmen, etc. The barrier to entry filter just assures that the community members share experience or ability, not just interest. The extent to which you wanted to quantify their experience or ability is up to you.
I see TED as the ultimate meritocracy-based conference. TED's official website is pretty fluffy about who gets invited to speak, but the reality is that everyone who gets on stage has done something amazing. If you're some college freshmen with an amazing idea to change the world but you haven't implemented it, you're not going to get invited to TED. Great ideas are a dime a dozen; implementing a great idea is what's amazing.
When I referenced "those sorts of comments/attitudes would be voted down" I was not referring to your post. I was referring to the sort of post you mentioned: the "mutual masturbation" posts. I apologize for any confusion.
I would change the text: "If you do decide to drink, DO NOT Drive. Drink Safely." to simply "Always drink responsibly." and have that section of the text be a link to a new page with a paragraph about drinking and driving. You also might include some external links on that page (MADD, AA, etc).
It is more direct to use a command instead of a conditional and use a positive instead of a negative.
I can't know this for sure, but I would hope those sorts of comments/attitudes would be voted down.
A modification on the idea would be to only allow a site with people who have a net worth greater than a certain amount or who are in certain positions of responsibility or power (like CEOs of companies with a market cap greater than 10 million). You could extend this for any classification system: people with doctorate degrees, people with X many years of experience in Y field, etc.
Basically I would be interested to see what sort of news and discussions would evolve from a meritocracy-based community. Think of the benefit that comes from the TED speaker's community.