The "John Doe" Posts No.3 - Envy: The Consolations (or not) of 'The Black Swan'

Jan 22, 2010



In Nassem Nicholas Taleb’s ‘The Black Swan’, in a chapter called ‘Giacomo Casanova’s Unfailing Luck’, he points out the inevitable narrative bias in the stories that we read. Taleb relates how ‘Casanova felt that every time he got into difficulties, his lucky star… would pull him out of trouble’. But Casanova’s luck, it is argued, should not necessarily be seen as evidence that destiny favoured him above all others. Rather, out of all the ‘risk-takers’ in history who got themselves into scrape after scrape, there is going to be someone (or a few someones) that will pretty much always get out of them. And the stories we read will be written by these winners (the losers may well not live to tell their tales), who will attribute their success to their cunning, their charm, or their outlook on life, and pretty much anything besides their dumb luck in being one of the fortunate survivors.

Another example that Taleb gives are the books written by self-made millionaires providing tips and insights into how they made their dough. They will talk about what happened to them, and then make the generalisation that, if others only follow the same steps, they will get the same result. What they don’t see is that many other people with similar attributes did not turn out to have the same extraordinary level of success (while some were even miserable failures), because very few people want to read about those who did not succeed.

This line of reasoning potentially provides some consolation as to why you may be an excellent writer, musician, or stock market speculator and still, no matter how hard you try, not have the world at your feet. Or does it? The problem is that what Taleb calls the ‘narrative fallacy’ is so widespread that you will have a hard time convincing those smug, successful stock market speculators (or conversely, those who were abject failures) that their position in life is due in large part to blind luck. No doubt many of them will say you are making excuses for your lack of similar success. And they may well be right to an extent, but not as right as they think. In that case, if you want to wipe the smile off their face, perhaps the best you can do is hope that their dose of bad luck is just around the corner.

The "John Doe" Posts No.2 - And God Bespoke

Jan 16, 2010

The term ‘bespoke’, used in Britain, is (according to Uncle Wiki) derived from the verb bespeak, meaning ‘to speak for something’, and is used to refer to items that are made according to a particular buyer’s specifications. I became familiar with the term from reading the UK version of Esquire magazine, which primarily used it in relation to suits. A writer for Esquire claims that a bespoke suit helps ‘you achieve the perfect figure’ and ‘moves like a second skin’ (Esquire, Jan 2008, p. 141). The magazine then devotes several more pages to suggesting that one’s whole wardrobe be bespoken, including shirts, ties, shoes, sweaters, and even one’s scent.

But why stop there? Surely there are other items in life that one would like to have made to one’s exact specifications or to express who they really are? Here are at least five examples that I can think of that would be ripe for bespoking:

Bespoke desktop computer – Mine would have tightly fit, absorbent keys to protect it from crumbs and errant beverages. I would also want a monitor that instantly vanishes whenever someone attempts to peep at my screen and a function that automatically saves documents every ten seconds to save my paranoid self from doing so. Oh, and I’d need an Ana Ivanovic screensaver too.

Bespoke car – To truly express my attitude towards driving I would have my car do all my driving for me while I sat back and drank margaritas, and have it fitted out with mechanical arms with permanently raised middle fingers.

Bespoke Christmas tree – All layers of the tree should start at my chest level so as to facilitate the easy hanging of baubles (hence, saving my already 50 year-old back), and then be raised and lowered as required. This latter function would also allow my somewhat shorter partner to complete most of the festive decorating.

Bespoke theme music – I reckon some ‘Morning Glory’ by Oasis when I woke up (won’t the neighbours love that?), followed by some Grizzly Bear for when I’m walking to work, particularly if there’s some light rain, otherwise maybe Peter Gabriel’s ‘Solsbury Hill’, Radiohead is appropriate for pretty much any situation in the workplace (‘Paranoid Android’, ‘Everything In Its Right Place’, ‘A Wolf At The Door’, etc.), and then when I go out, I’ll choose whatever is the hit single from whatever album I bought in the past four days. Yes, I know I could just play all these songs on my iPod, but everyone should have to listen to and appreciate my musical taste, dammit!

Bespoke nose – To fit the specifications of my face.

The "John Doe" Posts No.1 - Greed: In Appreciation of Scrooge McDuck or 'Scrooge and Society'

Over the next several weeks, I will reproduce on this site the "John Doe" posts that I wrote for the seemingly-defunct Sins Weekly blog. As you will see, each of the posts was based on one of the seven deadly sins. Enjoy! - TW

Jan 7, 2010

In an interview in ’93, comic book writer/artist Don Rosa talked about the first appearance of Uncle Scrooge and the scene in that issue which, to him, ‘just seemed to perfectly crystallize the personality’ of Scrooge McDuck. This scene, Rosa argued, indicated that the reason Scrooge wanted all his money wasn’t greed at all. As his nephew Donald is leaving he says that, “You may not know it, Uncle Scrooge, but for all your money you’re only a poor old man.” The next panel shows Scrooge wondering if Donald may be right, and then he replies, “No man is poor who can do what he likes to do! And I like to dive in my money like a porpoise. And burrow in it like a gopher. And toss it up in the air and let it hit me on the head!” Rosa suggests that perhaps Scrooge’s words meant more to him than anything in his life, as it showed that ‘you’re not poor as long as you can do what you dream about.’ (Advance Comics, Number 54, June 1993, p.24)

Recently I’ve been involved in editing an article on social inclusion, which is essentially the idea of providing people with the resources, rights and opportunities to engage in society. The case of Scrooge McDuck though presents an intellectual quandary to social inclusion theorists. Scrooge has all the resources he could ever need, yet has little interest in interacting with his fellow man (or duck, as the case may be). And yet he’s perfectly happy to keep it that way. Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud (1999) struggled with the notion of whether the concept of social exclusion should be extended to those who choose not to participate in society (Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud, Social Exclusion in Britain 1991-95, Social Policy and Administration, Vol.33(1), p.227-44.). Their concern was that while the individual may prefer to spend their days sitting alone in their mansion staring angrily over their spectacles, it may not be a positive thing for society as a whole. In the end they basically create two different definitions of ‘social exclusion’, one in which voluntary exclusion is a problem and one in which it isn’t, and they concentrate their efforts on exploring the former.

But the other issue here is who the exclusion is really a problem for? Not for Scrooge I think – maybe the Dickensian version had his Christmas epiphany, but the whole point of the passage above, as Rosa understood it, is that his feathered successor wouldn’t change a thing. Really the concern here seems to be that others could benefit if the Scrooge McDucks of this world cared more about what was going on outside their money bins. But if all those who wanted to be included in society could do so without Scrooge’s help, would we really care about what that crazy old bird did? I suspect not. In other words, Scrooge’s inclusion in society would be a means to an end, but not an end in itself. Tax him for all he’s worth sure, if that’s how you think those ends can be achieved, but when all is said and done perhaps Scrooge’s preferred attitude towards society is to reject it. And, you know what, que sera sera ... not everyone wants to be a Donald, and maybe very few people want to be a Scrooge, but surely a fully functioning society is big enough to accommodate both of them… isn’t it?

More of the Same #s 1, 2 and 3 Recaptioned

Following on from yesterday's discovery, let's see how this blog's own comic strips would benefit from the use of a certain phrase:

The Finger Points Outwards - No. 23

It has been suggested that all 'New Yorker' cartoons should be re-captioned this way.

Which led to the suggestion that all cartoons should be re-captioned this way.

Questions to Ponder About the Melbourne Storm's Punishment for Salary Cap Breaches

(Hooray! My first and probably last Rugby League post ever!)

1) We know that the Melbourne Storm were stripped of their 2007 and 2009 premierships and their 2006, 2007 and 2008 minor premierships, but what about the years in which they did not win anything? Shouldn't they be deemed to have finished last from 2005 to 2010? Does this mean that a team's punishment for salary cap breaches is dependent upon whether they have actually achieved anything?

2) What happens now if other teams are retrospectively found guilty of breaching the salary cap? Could we have a season in which five or six teams are unable to earn premiership points? Could we have a five year period in which no premiership is deemed to have been awarded?

3) Why should the Storm try in any game this season? Why should they turn up? Could they use this opportunity to take out the kneecaps of the Broncos back half or the Sea Eagles front line? Could other teams pay Storm players to do this? Should the Storm field a team of under-10s? What about them having, say, Rob Mills go up against Willie Mason? Can't the Storm now fix any match they play in?

4) What will Molly Meldrum do with the front of his house?

Richmond and that Stupid Draft!

In today’s Age, Jake Niall essentially argues that Richmond is being screwed over as a result of Gold Coast’s entry into the competition, in that even if they finish last they can pick no higher than No.4 (and if they finish 2nd last, could potentially pick as low as 8th). Niall’s position is that Richmond should receive some sort of compensation from the AFL. While I’m normally against this type of thing, even for my own team, I say hell yeah! You may think that the National Draft would have considerably helped Richmond over the years, but no team has been screwed over by the draft system as much as Richmond has. Don’t believe me? Read this sorry history of draft misfortunes…

1987 – Richmond gets first pick in second-ever National Draft, in which almost all players drafted do not play a senior VFL/AFL game. Uses first pick to take Richard Lounder, who plays 4 VFL games.
1989 – Richmond gets first pick in fourth-ever National Draft, in which most players drafted do not play a senior AFL game. Uses first pick to take Anthony Banik, who plays 49 AFL games.
1992 – Richmond win final home-and-away game to finish 3rd last, made to pick 7th as Sydney and Brisbane get two priority picks each (and Sydney trades both of them). Justin Leppitsch picked at No.4.
1993 – Richmond also made to pick 7th in ’93 pre-season draft as Sydney and Brisbane share first six picks, snagging Richard Osborne, Brendan McCormack and Adrian Fletcher. Richmond gets Stuart Steele.
1999 - Richmond finishes 5th last, gets 7th pick (although trades up to 3rd pick).
2002 – Richmond finishes 3rd last, gets 4th pick and trades it to Kangaroos in Carey-Kane Johnson-Torney deal. Carlton gets stripped of first two picks and pick 4 becomes pick 2.
2003 – Richmond finishes 4th last, gets 6th pick (although trades it for Nathan Brown).
Do receive 4th pick in pre-season draft, and watch as first three teams take Jade Rawlings, Nick Stevens and Phillip Read. Richmond gets Ben Marsh.
2004 - Richmond gets its only priority pick ever! Yes, I wish I was freaking joking! (Technically, they did receive a priority pick in 2007, but not until the end of the first round.) Richmond picks 1st in pre-season draft, no-one important available, resorts to picking Trent Knobel.
2005 – Richmond finishes 5th last, gets 8th pick. Scott Pendlebury is taken with 5th pick, and Patrick Ryder with 7th pick.
2007 – Rules for receiving priority picks changed. Richmond becomes first team ever to finish last and not pick first in National Draft, as Carlton receives priority pick (and trades its No.3 pick in Chris Judd deal). Richmond picks 1st in pre-season draft, no-one important available, resorts to picking David Gourdis.
2009 – Richmond finishes 2nd last, gets 3rd pick. Richmond picks 2nd in pre-season draft, after Melbourne has taken Joel Macdonald.

The Secrets To Winning Your Football Tipping Competition

Against my better judgment, I entered a football tipping competition this year. I say against my better judgment, because over the years I have come to realise that my performance, for better or worse, will be mainly determined by luck. Luck, you say? Allow me to explain …

First, let’s imagine that you know very little about football. In this case, a simple strategy for choosing winners would be just to pick the favourite with the bookmakers. This strategy is likely to get you a pretty good score, and probably isn’t too far off what a lot of other people will do. Now, if everyone in your competition chooses this strategy you will all end up no better or worse than anyone else. Of course that doesn’t happen, but it gives us a useful benchmark for explaining how and why people get different results.

One reason is that people may be loyal to their team. Doing this is likely to hamper your results, in some cases severely. The worst case scenario is your team is not expected to win any game, and this expectation turns out to be correct. In this case, all other things being equal, in a 22-game season you will end up 22 points behind your rivals. Obviously, the shortfall will lessen the more games your team wins; however, this strategy can really hurt your chances even if you follow a successful team. For example, if your team wins 15 games, you will still be wrong for the other seven – so other tipsters need to also be wrong about your team 7 times for you to remain on par with them. Conversely, having an irrational hatred for a team that ensures you never or rarely pick them will also hurt your chances. Other strategies that are likely to be harmful are picking teams based on colours or names, since you are making no use whatsoever of the information about a team’s actual likelihood of winning. You may indeed get lucky, but the odds are against you.

Let’s put aside for now all the people that pick teams based on loyalty, colours, or anything else that’s not based on a team’s actual likelihood of winning. That just leaves what we will call the informed, rational tipsters. Now, you don’t have to be a football nerd to fall into this category, you just need to have a rough idea of the ability of each team and actually make your tips based on this. Indeed, it is crucial to the argument that it is relatively easy for a person to fall into this category – if they didn’t the ‘nerds’ would be much more likely to win. Many tipsters will have a good idea of who the favourite is; for example, you could just follow the bookmakers’ favourites as suggested above. But the ‘favourite’ need not strictly be the bookmaker’s favourite, even without that information many tipsters would have a good idea which team other tipsters are more likely to pick.

Now obviously, of the informed, rational tipsters, not everyone can outperform the rest of the group. Half of them will be average or above, and half of them will be average or below. What determines whether you outperform the average or not? I believe it’s essentially random chance. What this means is that it is unlikely that you can systematically do better than the average informed, rational tipster. As evidence of this, consider how often people who do really well one year do remarkably average or worse the next. Now this doesn’t preclude people from doing well for three, or five, or even ten years on end. But no matter how much they like to think otherwise, for many of them it will just be because they got really lucky.

Nor does it preclude some people continuously doing well for reasons other than luck. One way to be continuously above average would be to recognise biases in other tipsters’ perceptions. For example, if the informed, rational tipsters tend to overrate a particular team – perhaps because that team is popular – then if you recognise that bias you will improve your chances of being above average. A similar way of outperforming the average would be to devise some sort of system that allows you to rate teams’ chances of winning more accurately than the consensus. This could be through, for example, some statistical model, but I doubt that many people use those. Or you could have better information about teams than the other informed tipsters (but what would that be?), or you could process the available information about teams in a more effective way. While I’m sure that many people would like to think they fall into one of these categories, again I doubt that they do. (I include myself here – maybe, just maybe, I could have a slightly better idea about football than your average informed, rational tipster, but not enough to make a significant difference.)

I’m not saying that everything is down to random chance, for you at least need to know enough about football to make a rough assessment of each team’s actual likelihood of winning. Similarly, I’m not saying that a person who has completely no idea about a team’s chance of winning can not do well, but their odds of doing so are far lower than those who do actually make their tips based on an informed and rational assessment of each team’s actual likelihood of winning. And I’m not saying that people can not do well for years in a row, or that if they do it can not be because they are somehow more skilled at tipping. What I’m saying is that skill is less important than commonly thought, and that luck is the more likely explanation for their success.

So what does mean for football tipping? Well, if you’re just in it for the sake of it, probably not much at all. But if you’re taking your ability to tip correctly as some measure of your intellect, then eventually - maybe not now, maybe not next year, but eventually - you’re probably going to end up somewhat disappointed.