"Black Swan" is business-speak for a single observation that demolishes a previously plausible theory.
The phrase comes from Nassim Taleb's excellent book - The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Suppose one had a theory that "all swans are white". This would have been a really solid theory for a while, it would have been consistent with available evidence, robust to skeptical inquiry. The theory would have held until Australia was discovered, and black swans were observed, at which point the theory is toast. Personally, I find the metaphor a little awkward. But now that it has become a part of the language, it is quite helpful in talking about the limitations of statistics, and the problems that come from looking in the rear view mirror to get a view of the road ahead.
The phrase comes from Nassim Taleb's excellent book - The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Suppose one had a theory that "all swans are white". This would have been a really solid theory for a while, it would have been consistent with available evidence, robust to skeptical inquiry. The theory would have held until Australia was discovered, and black swans were observed, at which point the theory is toast. Personally, I find the metaphor a little awkward. But now that it has become a part of the language, it is quite helpful in talking about the limitations of statistics, and the problems that come from looking in the rear view mirror to get a view of the road ahead.
Taleb's book is about finance, but his concept applies to any aspect of life, including tennis.
Peter Bodo's preview of the 2012 French Open in Tennis magazine talks about why Rafael Nadal is a black swan (though he doesn't use that phrase). Until Rafa burst on the scene, the prevailing theory was that Bjorn Borg would be the last dominant French Open champion. After Bjorn Borg, who played with a wooden Donnay racquet, French Open champions had been a succession of one-slam-wonders.
"There were solid, well thought out, inter-related reasons for this. The men's field was getting deeper and deeper. At the same time, advances in racquet and string technology gave everyone a boost of power and a more lethal return game. Combine these comparably superior and fit athletes with more powerful weapons, and put them to work on a relatively slow court, and it was a bit like tennis roulette.
It seemed that Roland Garros had been transformed from the tournament that only the best and most consistent players could win into the one that anybody could win. And that was only heightened by the fact that so many of its more successful players were developed on clay in emerging tennis nations like Spain, Sweden, France, and Argentina. When you looked back upon the Borg years, you were apt to think, "We'll not see the likes of him again. . ."
And when Bruguera, who had even more radical technique than Borg, was unable to add to his Roland Garros haul of two, it seemed that the days when style-of-play and particularly vicious topspin might yield a huge advantage were definitely over.
Well, Nadal has exposed all that as just so much fancy-pants theorizing..."
6 comments:
Hey Prithvi -
I'm a long time follower of TW...occasionally I post as 'freddy' on that site. Bodo's all right - he can be needlessly provocative and doesn't reason things through too clearly...Steve Tignor on the same site is much better
Anyway, on this particular article I had posted my objections to various statements he made as freddy. Esp. the part where he hints that Rafa's wins are worth more than Borgs because 4 of them came agains Federer in the finals.
Re Black Swan, Taleb's books are quite good (you should check out Fooled By Randomness if you havent' already) - his interests are of course behavioural economics / finance, heuristics, biases and so on. But the concept has been around for ages....Induction / Deduction in logic - the problem with arguing by induction...David Hume's famous insistence that 'the past is no indicator of the future.'
Cheers.
Hi Sriram. Saw your comments on TW. Spot on, this is really sloppy journalism by Peter Bodo. Attaching value to who you play in the finals is random nonsense. I liked your earlier description, that Peter Bodo just tends to "dial them in" instead of making a tight argument or a telling point.
@ Sriram...one thing I like about Taleb is that he doesn't claim or imply that any of these ideas are his own. In fact, I reading Daniel Kahneman's autobiography. While doubts about modes of reasoning have been around forever, Kahneman and Tversky are guys who really advanced the thinking here.
Taleb was actually the beneficiary of good timing. His book Fooled by Randomness came out in 2001, at a time when the extreme "market is always right" orthodoxy was a balloon waiting to be popped.
Agree Prithvi....Kahnemann and Tversky are dudes...I use some of their questionnaires in sessions I conduct on subjectivity and behavioural biases in problem solving...
Re TW, there are some very good long time posters on that site. If you ignore most of the "my fav x will beat your guy Y' type posts, you'll find some posters are very knowledgeable and passionate about the game.
Pete Bodo used to write well - he wrote a couple of books in the 70s - and at least 2 outstanding articles on TW (you could check it out in the archives) - one was called Sprezzatura and was about Roger...the other was when he called Djokovic 'The Perfect Tennis Player' back in 2007 when Nole was just breaking onto the scene...quite prescient...However, last couple of years, he just mails them in. Also I get the feeling a lot of his posts are made with one eye on the # of hits / comments
Pete's post right after Rafa beat Roger in the 2008 Wimbly final was also wonderful.
BTW, you must read Spinoza's Ethics, if you haven't already. It's a project - I must warn you - but for a rational mind, I can't think of a better recommendation.
Magnificent mind, wonderful human being.
Чудо свершилось
Post a Comment