The Black Swan Theory: What do you guys think?

jademarlin26 said:Global warming is simply a natural cycle the Earth undergoes periodically, regardless of human activity.

Actually... if you look at history, we've definitely had much hotter stretches before... When you step back and look at the long-term data, it's clear that current temperatures are actually below the historical average. You also have to factor in the "urban heat island" effect—cities are naturally way hotter because of all the concrete and asphalt compared to the rural areas—so those sensor readings aren't always as accurate as people think they are.

I happened to stumble upon this book recently and ended up diving into one of its chapters. It’s quite fascinating, really—the author touches on this pervasive human tendency, this almost compulsive need we have to look at every single occurrence through the lens of causality, desperately trying to stitch together some grand theory to make sense of it all. Take the stock market, for instance; you see analysts spinning these elaborate webs of reasoning to justify every little fluctuation in price, when in reality, much of it is just pure, unadulterated stochastic noise. That’s precisely why you see so many mathematicians dominating the halls of Wall Street 🙂. It’s the same pattern we see with history, too—people grasping at straws to provide deep explanations for historical turning points that, if you look closely enough, probably don't require an explanation at all.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:I am currently reading *The Black Swan*, and I find it difficult to shake the impression that there is an immense amount of truth packed into these pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(book)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

To put it succinctly, rare and entirely unpredictable events—the kind no one could possibly anticipate even in their wildest dreams—exert the most significant influence on the trajectory of human history.

The term "Black Swan" serves as a metaphor for something fundamentally contrary to expectation and impossible to foresee.
Essentially, prior to the discovery of Australia, the world believed only white swans existed; they were the universal symbol of whiteness, and it never occurred to anyone that a black swan could actually exist.

It seems logical to me that unpredictable events are what actually drive the evolution of a society, or even humanity as a whole. If you can see a shift coming, people prepare for it. They brace themselves, which softens the blow and essentially absorbs any revolutionary energy before it can even spark.

James Lee77 said:Žižek says:

Every once in a while—totally out of nowhere, totally unpredictable, and completely outside what we can actually perceive about the struggle [you know, about what’s actually happening and how things really are, the actual State of Affairs]—this Event happens. It's like it belongs to a whole different dimension.
Take late 18th-century society in France, for example: you could study the social classes, the economic clashes, the political beef, etc.—all of that is stuff we can actually wrap our heads around. But no matter how much data you collect, you'll never be able to predict or explain the truly unexplainable event called the ''French Revolution''. That's just how an Event works; it shows up ex nihilo...

To go deeper: the Event

Here's the kicker: if anyone looks at a bunch of random ''facts'' from a specific moment in history and sees them as One single Event, they're actually participating in that Event. Like, for the French aristocracy back then, what we now call the French Revolution was probably just seen as ''just another little riot...'' But honestly, everyone who decided to see it as something New—something that breaks the old status quo—became part of that Event just by doing that. If a critical mass of people hadn't realized it was this Totally New thing, this Event, then nothing new would have actually happened.
History is basically made by the people who believe in it. 🤷

It's kind of the same with 9/11: if enough people decide it's an Event that fundamentally reshapes global relationships, then it actually becomes one. On the flip side, if most people just write it off as another media circus staged by imperialist leaders, then it isn't an Event; it's just more of the same.

The big takeaway from postmodern politics is this idea that there are no Events—that ''nothing actually happens,'' that the truth event is just some fleeting, illusory glitch, a fake identification that eventually fades away when things settle back to normal, or at best, a passing promise of redemption that we should stay far away from to avoid those scary ''totalitarian'' vibes. But against all that structural skepticism, Badiou is totally right to insist that—using his term in its full theological weight—a miracle occurs...
So, I guess you can see why a truth event is ''undecidable'': from the perspective of the System, or the ontological ''state of affairs,'' it's undecidable. ...You can only identify it from the standpoint of what Badiou calls an ''explanatory intervention''—basically, if you speak from a position of subjective engagement. Or, to put it more formally, if the act of naming the situation is actually part of the situation itself. Those chaotic happenings in late 18th-century France can only be identified as the ''French Revolution'' by the people who are willing to take the ''bet'' that such an Event exists. Badiou formally defines an intervention as ''any action where a multiplicity is recognized as one event''—so, ''it will always remain uncertain whether there was even an event, except for the intervenor [l'intervenant] who decided to commit to the situation.''

🤷

Yeah, critical mass. Who knows how many potential Truth Events have already slipped through our fingers just because they lacked that tipping point? We’ll never know, since they never actually happened. 🤔 😁

Slavoj Žižek:
Quincy Jones:

Now we can actually see why the Truth Event is considered "undecidable." From the perspective of the System—that ontological "state of affairs"—it’s impossible to pin down. You can only identify it through what Alain Badiou calls an "interpretive intervention." In plain English: you have to speak from a position of subjective commitment. Or, more formally, you have to actually step into the situation and perform the act of naming it. Take the chaotic upheavals in France during the late 18th century. Those events only get labeled the "French Revolution" if you're willing to take the bet that such a Truth Event actually occurred. Badiou defines intervention as any process where... Plurality is being mistaken for unity. The Truth Event—so that it will forever remain doubtful whether such an event actually took place, except for those who support the intervention...The speaker."...who decided to just own his situation."

There might be some truth to this, but if these interveners want their "Truth Event" to actually count as historical, the fallout needs to be massive and impossible to ignore. For an event to truly make history, people outside the inner circle have to recognize it—even if they hate doing so—precisely because the consequences are so undeniable. If there’s no visible impact, you aren't making history; you're either just rewriting the past or suffering from some kind of collective historical autism. Or maybe it's something else entirely.
(though you could argue that acknowledging the fallout of the Truth Event is basically just a 'interpretive intervention' in itself).

goldencobra5 said:Most people simply lack the raw agency required to set major historical gears in motion. Instead, the momentum is driven either by pure, chaotic chance or by singular, brilliant minds—though, let's be honest, that often includes the sociopathic ones too.
The masses generally prefer to stay under the radar, keeping their heads down and moving through life one incremental step at a time.

But wait, isn't that a bit off? I mean, weren't there actual pilots flying those planes? Who’s really pulling the strings then—God? Fate? Some cosmic force? 😁

To me, this sounds like the mindset of someone who feels small—someone who believes they aren't even in the driver's seat of their own life because everyone else is calling the shots.
But here’s the thing: what if "average people" didn't exist? What if there were just three geniuses left on the entire planet? How would anyone even know they were special? And who exactly would they be working for?
We really shouldn't sleep on the power of the average person. Every single opinion we hold exists because it was shaped in response to someone else's perspective—so when you look at it that way, there isn't really a difference in value between a genius and an ordinary guy.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:But wait, isn't that a bit off? I mean, weren't there actual pilots flying those planes? Who’s really pulling the strings then—God? Fate? Some cosmic force? 😁

To me, this sounds like the mindset of someone who feels small—someone who believes they aren't even in the driver's seat of their own life because everyone else is calling the shots.
But here’s the thing: what if "average people" didn't exist? What if there were just three geniuses left on the entire planet? How would anyone even know they were special? And who exactly would they be working for?
We really shouldn't sleep on the power of the average person. Every single opinion we hold exists because it was shaped in response to someone else's perspective—so when you look at it that way, there isn't really a difference in value between a genius and an ordinary guy.

I get the gist of what you're saying, but I'm stuck on that word "usefulness"—what exactly are you trying to get at with that in the quote above?

Real value comes down to how much you actually grow and understand yourself. But let's be honest, that kind of progress doesn't happen in a vacuum—it only happens when we're interacting with the world around us, usually through other people. I’ve always felt that a wise person can pull a lesson from anyone they meet, whereas a total fool stays stuck because they refuse to learn from anyone. A wise person knows how to steer their own life and make things happen, while a fool just sits there acting like they're at the mercy of "fate" or some cosmic force beyond their control.

To me, true rationality isn't about dissecting isolated objects; it's about understanding relationships. Everything in this universe is interconnected and complex. We are complex beings ourselves. If you want to actually move forward in life, you have to grasp the connections between what’s happening inside your own head and what’s going on in the outside world, and how those two massive spheres interact. Trying to study things as if they exist in total isolation is a complete waste of time. It assumes there’s something out there that is absolute and unchanging, something that doesn't react or form bonds with anything else. But that's just not how reality works. Everything is constantly shifting and everything is defined by its relationship to something else. Your logic can help you wrap your head around pieces of that complexity bit by bit, but your spirit is what lets you feel the big picture...

I have to say, it honestly stresses me out seeing how much people misunderstand the concept of *ratio*. First, everyone treated it like some untouchable god, and then suddenly, everyone started bashing it and calling it outdated. The real problem isn't rationality; it's irrationality. Someone who truly understands how things relate to one another won't go around breaking those connections. It’s only the people who don't know how to use their heads—those who can't balance their logic with their emotions and their physical reality—who end up causing chaos for themselves and everyone else around them.

Look, if we’re talking about "utility"—you know, as in actual self-awareness and personal growth—then isn't it just common sense that the way a mediocre person evolves is fundamentally different from how a genius does it?

Then there's this whole thing you mentioned about being balanced; that idea of weighing logic against gut feelings when making calls. Honestly, wouldn't a genius figure out that achieving that exact state of balance is the ultimate goal way before anyone else does?

So, I’m still totally lost on that sentence you put in parentheses in your last post—the one where you said, "don't underestimate the average; every opinion we hold is just a reaction to someone else's, meaning there's no real difference in utility between geniuses and the average Joe." That's what I was questioning.

Please, just try to walk me through your thought process again. Maybe I’m just totally misreading you here.

From the perspective of the observer—the one actually doing the perceiving—it honestly doesn't matter if you're deep in conversation with some absolute genius, an average Joe, or even just a total idiot. You’re still gaining insight either way.
But look, only someone truly wise understands that nuance and actually makes a conscious effort to lean into it. Just because some fool doesn't realize there's a real lesson to be learned from it, doesn't change the fact that everything we are is shaped by our interactions with others, no matter how much they might annoy us. To me, true growth means constantly reminding yourself of that reality. I'm just throwing that out there, that's all...

Lawrence Robinson5 said:From the perspective of the observer—the one actually doing the perceiving—it honestly doesn't matter if you're deep in conversation with some absolute genius, an average Joe, or even just a total idiot. You’re still gaining insight either way.
But look, only someone truly wise understands that nuance and actually makes a conscious effort to lean into it. Just because some fool doesn't realize there's a real lesson to be learned from it, doesn't change the fact that everything we are is shaped by our interactions with others, no matter how much they might annoy us. To me, true growth means constantly reminding yourself of that reality. I'm just throwing that out there, that's all...

The author argues that those positioned at the source of information—the so-called intellectual elite—possess the exact same capacity to predict "black swan" events or the future as the general public.

The only distinction is that these elite thinkers operate under the delusion that they can actually predict anything, whereas the average person at least understands their own limitations.

ironmarlin1 said:I happened to stumble upon this book recently and ended up diving into one of its chapters. It’s quite fascinating, really—the author touches on this pervasive human tendency, this almost compulsive need we have to look at every single occurrence through the lens of causality, desperately trying to stitch together some grand theory to make sense of it all. Take the stock market, for instance; you see analysts spinning these elaborate webs of reasoning to justify every little fluctuation in price, when in reality, much of it is just pure, unadulterated stochastic noise. That’s precisely why you see so many mathematicians dominating the halls of Wall Street 🙂. It’s the same pattern we see with history, too—people grasping at straws to provide deep explanations for historical turning points that, if you look closely enough, probably don't require an explanation at all.

And don't even get me started on the astrologers. You could have a pigeon drop a little gift right on your shoulder, and they’d immediately start hunting for cosmic significance in the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus, babbling about trines and sextiles, all while obsessing over Savic’s Ophiuchus or some constellation sitting way outside the ecliptic plane.

goldencobra5 said:And don't even get me started on the astrologers. You could have a pigeon drop a little gift right on your shoulder, and they’d immediately start hunting for cosmic significance in the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus, babbling about trines and sextiles, all while obsessing over Savic’s Ophiuchus or some constellation sitting way outside the ecliptic plane.

It isn't just them, though—it seems like "experts" are cropping up everywhere lately, people claiming to have deep insights into phenomena that simply lack any causal link. It’s a bit like trying to argue why one specific set of numbers popped up on a Powerball ticket instead of another; there's just no logic to be found in the chaos.

ironmarlin1 said:It isn't just them, though—it seems like "experts" are cropping up everywhere lately, people claiming to have deep insights into phenomena that simply lack any causal link. It’s a bit like trying to argue why one specific set of numbers popped up on a Powerball ticket instead of another; there's just no logic to be found in the chaos.

You actually gave me a good laugh there, because you reminded me of something quite specific:

A whole certain breed of people have now turned their entire attention toward sports betting.
And when they inevitably lose, they suddenly need an excuse—some mystical force or hidden magic that supposedly rigged the outcome against them. I find myself having to stifle a laugh every single time, mostly because some of these people are actually dear friends of mine, and I just don't have the heart to tell them plainly that they're simply screwing up.

goldencobra5 said:You actually gave me a good laugh there, because you reminded me of something quite specific:

A whole certain breed of people have now turned their entire attention toward sports betting.
And when they inevitably lose, they suddenly need an excuse—some mystical force or hidden magic that supposedly rigged the outcome against them. I find myself having to stifle a laugh every single time, mostly because some of these people are actually dear friends of mine, and I just don't have the heart to tell them plainly that they're simply screwing up.

It’s the exact same story on my end. I have people telling me they’ve cracked the code with some "system" for roulette or a sportsbook. You try to explain the math to them—like how hitting a single number on a roulette wheel is a 36:1 shot with a 35:1 payout—but they insist their system works by simply "managing their stakes" differently. 😂
I can wrap my head around poker, for instance, because you actually see professional players making regular appearances at the final tables of major tournaments, but I’ve yet to hear of anyone who qualifies as a "professional" roulette player or anything of that nature.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:The author argues that those positioned at the source of information—the so-called intellectual elite—possess the exact same capacity to predict "black swan" events or the future as the general public.

The only distinction is that these elite thinkers operate under the delusion that they can actually predict anything, whereas the average person at least understands their own limitations.

For instance, apparently, not a single expert in international relations saw the collapse of the USSR or the Eastern Bloc coming.

goldencobra5 said:I find myself agreeing with your perspective, though I would probably lean even harder into another phenomenon we're currently witnessing while collectively choosing to look the other way: global warming, along with the floods, freak storms, and natural disasters that come with it.
People are still far too attached to their precious gas-guzzling SUVs; they try to ignore the reality by just cranking up the AC, and when the inevitable disaster hits, they'll act like it was some bolt from the blue that nobody could have seen coming.

this is absolutely the next black swan event, and honestly, it’s such a perfect illustration of human stupidity—that whole "oh, we're just tiny little humans, how could we possibly impact the climate" mindset.😠

frozenotter232 said:For instance, apparently, not a single expert in international relations saw the collapse of the USSR or the Eastern Bloc coming.

Well, I have a memory like an elephant myself. I still vividly remember picking up those old news magazines back in the late '80s—around '88, '89, '90, and even... '91.

Do you have any idea what they were mostly printing back then?
They’d write about this supposed spiritual awakening that was going to turn the Middle East into a literal paradise on earth. They claimed some great spirit would emerge to restrain all those reckless politicians, leading to a massive purification where people would finally find true unity and brotherhood, providing a blueprint for the rest of the world on how to live in peace and harmony.

And then, everything shifted during that summer. By October 13, 1991, I was heading off to the front lines.