The beauty of human language lies at it’s ability to transfer the sensation wannabe, from one subject into another subject within similar language. When I’m thinking into something, while observing the internal or external of mine, not any finding could be defined accurately using proper semantic, and that’s quite confusing.
When I read any books, could be classical or any contemporary, my brain observing the pattern of thinking method belong into the writer, and I collect some of the memorable quotes, that accurately depicting my perception about any phenomenon, based on sensoric observation, or mind deduction, here:
You may not be able to change the world but can at least get some entertainment and make a living out of the epistemic arrogance of the human race.
We should reward people, not ridicule them, for thinking the impossible.
Lucky fools do not bear the slightest suspicion that they may be lucky fools – by definition, they do not know that they belong to such a category.
We favor the visible, the embedded, the personal, the narrated, and the tangible; we scorn the abstract.
[E]conomists are evaluated on how intelligent they sound, not on a scientific measure of their knowledge of reality.
[In] economics… you can disguise charlatanism under the weight of equations and nobody can catch you since there is no such thing as a controlled experiment. Now the spirit of such methods, called scientism by its detractors, continued into the discipline of finance as a few technicians thought their mathematical knowledge could lead them to understand markets. The practice of financial engineering came along with massive doses of pseudoscience.
Probability is a liberal art; it is a child of skepticism, not a tool for people with calculators on their belts to satisfy their desire to produce fancy calculations and certainties.
If you want to get an idea of a friend’s temperament, ethics, and personal elegance, you need to look at him under the tests of severe circumstances, not under the regular rosy glow of daily life. Can you assess the danger a criminal poses by examining only what he does on an ordinary day? Can we understand health without considering wild diseases and epidemics? Indeed the normal is often irrelevant.
The casino is the only human venture I know where the probabilities are known, Gaussian (i.e., bell-curve), and almost computable
Economic life should be definancialised. We should learn not to use markets as storehouses of value: they do not harbour the certainties that normal citizens require. Citizens should experience anxiety about their own businesses (which they control), not their investments (which they do not control).
The economics establishment (universities, regulators, central bankers, government officials, various organisations staffed with economists) lost its legitimacy with the failure of the system. It is irresponsible and foolish to put our trust in the ability of such experts to get us out of this mess. Instead, find the smart people whose hands are clean.
In science you need to understand the world; in business you need others to misunderstand it.
Asking science to explain life and vital matters is equivalent to asking a grammarian to explain poetry.
You are rich if and only if money you refuse tastes better than money you accept.
Hard science gives sensational results with a horribly boring process; philosophy gives boring results with a sensational process; literature gives sensational results with a sensational process; and economics gives boring results with a boring process.
All quotes above belong into compilation of books by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.