Best stock market investing books according to redditors
We found 295 Reddit comments discussing the best stock market investing books. We ranked the 64 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
16. A Beginner's Guide to the Stock Market: Everything You Need to Start Making Money Today
1 mention
This phenomenon is called antifragility.
Strong marketing and branding, poor cash-flow management. Yea that sounds about right
You're right, it's not luck. Everything that happens to you makes you a little smarter and a little tougher. So I want to at least try everything. If it works, great. If it doesn't, boom, learned another lesson. A book that really cemented this concept was Antifragile *affiliate
You sir, are 100% correct. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, one of the sharpest logical minds in the world, the same guy who developed the concept of antifragility (and thus was one of the few thinkers who predicted Trump's ability to withstand attacks) has recently written on how extreme minorities make decisions for the majority. It's about a 20 minute read.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
Cryptocurrencies are the only monetary technologies that eliminate or work around counter party risk, instead of costly and (necessarily) imperfect mitigation. While it might seem like a small thing, in computer science this is the equivalent of finding the philosophers stone. It will allow such sufficiently advanced technology to emerge it will be indistinguishable from magic to those that don't understand the inner workings.
It's hard to imagine why this is important now, because it's never existed before. Hell it's the biggest reason so many people keep getting their coins ripped off, old habits die hard (almost happened to me but I got luck when my wallet host actually managed to refund me).
You have to try to imagine a world without the need for trust.
How much more could people be capable of if they didn't have to worry about chargebacks, identity theft, (hyper) inflation, banking externalities (bank profits should count against GDP it's pure cost of doing business with no upside once you have cryptocurrencies), etc?
Imagine if banking "just worked", flawlessly all the time. That's possible (implementation is going to take time and a massive investment but that's happening faster than I have ever seen before, complainers need to watch this) with cryptocurrencies, and not possible otherwise due to aforementioned counter party risk (Murphy's Law).
Richard Brown, one of IBM's chief financial architects explains what's possible (if you only click one link click this one) due to the discovery of a solution to the Bysintine Generals Problem, better than I ever could.
Cryptocurrencies aren't just "not stupid" they are actually "smart", as in programmable. On the blockchain nobody knows you are a refrigerator. The blockchain doesn't sit around just waiting for a human to interact with it, it's a complex system with a life of it's own, makes decisions, and adapts based on fitness functions. Users are just nodes in the decisions making tree.
Add all that together and you have an antifragile system, with the potential to become a black swan as we witness the world's first digital hyper-monetization event.
So if you want to get in on this revolution, if you think living in a world that's provably fair is cool and good, if you want to take a chance and be rich, if you value security and freedom, cryptocurrencies like Bitocoin are the only game in town. The good news is due to the adoption cycle, it's still in the very early adopter phase. Freedom really can cost a buck-o-five, then just wait a few years.
Sure it might fail, but really for the cost of a soda you can not only help it succeed but potentially make a shit ton of money doing so, it's the greatest hedge opportunity the world has ever seen.
I hoped that helped. Good question by the way even though you got downvoted, I know what you meant, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share. =)
I'll also be a little more charitable. You need to read this book and stop selling things based on your spurious views of biology: http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Gain-Disorder/dp/1400067820
either that or realize that you are a massive charlatan and take proper action: http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content08/suicide-booth.jpg
Alright, let's talk about Nassim Nicholas Taleb. If you're not familiar, he's the famously belligerent author of Fooled by Randomness, The Black Swan, and Antifragile, among other works. I don't think Taleb's views can be fully comprehended in a single day, so I strongly advise going out and reading all his books.
-----
Edit: What I really want to know here is: of those of you who are familiar with Taleb's technical approach to decision theory and how he applies this to the real world, is his decision theory 1) Basically correct, 2) Frequently correct but mis-applied sometimes, or 3) basically incorrect?
-----
On the one hand, I suspect that if he knew about the rationalist community, he would loudly despise it and everything it stands for. If he doesn't already know about it, that is: I remember seeing him badmouth someone who mentioned the word "rationalist" in Facebook comments. He has said in one of his books that Ray Kurzweil is the opposite of him in every way. He denounces the advice in the book "Nudge" by Thaler and Sunstein (which I admittedly have not read - is this a book that rationalists like?) as hopelessly naive. He considers himself Christian, is extremely anti-GMO, voted third-party in the election but doesn't seem to mind Trump all that much, and generally sends lots of signals that people in the rationalist community would instinctively find disturbing.
On the other hand...
Taleb the Arch-rationalist?
Despite the above summary, if you actually look closer, he looks more rationalist than most self-described rationalists. He considers erudition a virtue, and apparently used to read for 30 hours a week in college (he timed himself). I remember him saying off-hand (in The Black Swan, I think) that a slight change in his schedule allowed him to read an extra hundred books a year. When he decided that probability and statistics were good things to learn, he went out and read every math textbook he could find on the subject. Then he was a wall street trader for a couple of decades, and now runs a risk management institute based on his experiences.
He considers himself a defender of science, and calls people out for non-rigorous statistical thinking, such as thinking linearly in highly nonlinear problem spaces, or mis-applying analytical techniques meant for thin-tailed distributions on fat-tailed distributions. (Example of when thinking "linearly" doesn't apply: the minority rule). He loves the work of Daniel Kahneman, and acknowledges human cognitive biases. Examples of cognitive biases he fights are the "narrative fallacy" (thinking a pattern exists when there is only random noise) and the "ludic fallacy" (ignoring the messiness of the real world in favor of nice, neat, plausible-sounding, and wrong, theoretical knowledge).
He defends religion, tradition, and folk wisdom on the basis of statistical validity and asymmetric payoffs. An example of his type of reasoning: if old traditions had any strongly negative effects, these effects would almost certainly have been discovered by now, and the tradition would have been weeded out. Therefore, any old traditions that survive until today must have, at worst, small, bounded negative effects, but possibly very large positive effects. Thus, adhering to them is valid in a decision-theoretic sense, because they are not likely to hurt you on average but are more amenable to large positive black swans. Alternatively, in modern medical studies and in "naive scientistic thinking", erroneous conclusions are often not known to have bounded negative effects, and so adhering to them exposes you to large negative black swans. (I think this is what he means when he casually uses one of his favorite technical words, "ergodicity," as if its meaning were obvious).
Example: "My grandma says that if you go out in the cold, you'll catch a cold." Naive scientist: "Ridiculous! Colds are caused by viruses, not actual cold weather. Don't listen to that old wive's tale." Reality: It turns out that cold weather suppresses the immune system and makes you more likely to get sick. Lesson: just because you can't point to a chain of causation, doesn't mean you should dismiss the advice!
Another example: Scientists: "Fat is bad for you! Cut it out of your diet!" Naive fad-follower: "Ok!" Food companies: "Let's replace all the fat with sugar!" Scientists: "JK, sugar is far worse for you than fat." Fad-follower: "Well damn it, if I had just stuck with my traditional cultural diet that people have been eating for thousands of years, nothing all that bad would have happened." Lesson: you can probably ignore dietary advice unless it has stood the test of time for more than a century. More general lesson: applying a change uniformly across a complex system results in a single point of failure.
For the same sorts of reasons, Taleb defends religious traditions and is a practicing Christian, even though he seems to view the existence of God as an irrelevant question. He simply believes in belief as an opaque but valid strategy that has survived the test of time. Example 1. Example 2. Relevant quote from example 2:
> Some unrigorous journalists who make a living attacking religion typically discuss "rationality" without getting what rationality means in its the decision-theoretic sense (the only definition that can be consistent). I can show that it is rational to "believe" in the supernatural if it leads to an increase in payoff. Rationality is NOT belief, it only correlates to belief, sometimes very weakly (in the tails).
His anti-GMO stance makes a lot of people immediately discredit him, but far from just being pseudoscientific BS, he makes what is probably the strongest possible anti-GMO argument. He only argues against GMOs formed by advanced techniques like plasmid insertion, and not against lesser techniques like selective breeding (a lot of his detractors don't realize he makes this distinction). The argument is that these advanced techniques, combined with the mass replication and planting of such crops, amounts to applying an uncertain treatment uniformly across a population, and thus results in a catastrophic single point of failure. The fact that nothing bad has happened with GMOs in the past is not good statistical evidence, according to Taleb, that nothing bad will happen in the future. There being no good evidence against current GMOs is secondary to the "precautionary principle," that we should not do things in black swan territory that could result in global catastrophes if we are wrong (like making general AI!). I was always fine with GMOs, but this argument really gave me pause. I'm not sure what to think anymore - perhaps continue using GMOs, but make more of an effort to diversify the types of modifications made? The problem is that the GMO issue is like the identity politics of the scientific community - attempt to even entertain a possible objection and you are immediately shamed as an idiot by a facebook meme. I would like to see if anyone has a statistically rigorous reply to taleb's argument that accounts for black swans and model error.
Taleb also strongly advocates that people should put their "skin in the game." In rationalist-speak, he means that you should bet on your beliefs, and be willing to take a hit if you are wrong.
To summarize Taleb's life philosophy in a few bullet-points:
Most or all of these things are explicit rationalist virtues.
Summary
Despite having a lot of unpopular opinions, Nassim Taleb is not someone to be dismissed, due to his incredibly high standards for erudition, statistical expertise, and ethical behavior. What I would like is for the rationalist community to spend some serious time considering what Taleb has to say, and either integrating his techniques into their practices or giving a technical explanation of why they are wrong.
Also, I would love to see Eliezer Yudkowsky's take on all this. I'll link him here (/u/EliezerYudkowsky), but could someone who knows him maybe leave him a facebook message also? I happen to think that this conversation is extremely important if the rationalist community is to accurately represent and understand the world. Taleb has been mentioned occasionally on LessWrong, but I have never seen his philosophy systematically addressed.
Taleb's Youtube Channel
Taleb's Medium.com Blog
His essay on "Intellectuals-yet-idiots"
His personal site, now with a great summarizing graphic
That reminds me of something that Nassim Nicolas Taleb mentions in his book Antifragile. Apparently, quite a few scientific discoveries in the 19th century were made by English rectors with a nondemanding job and plenty of free time to devote to whatever they were interested in.
Of course, to participate in citizen science, you do need the drive to actually do something other than, for example, reading and commenting on Reddit, but I think enough people do have, or can find that drive.
Based on your questions and lack of knowledge, keep your money in a savings account. Spend a couple of months learning about investing, how to read financial reports, how to decipher an 8k and 10k report. I don't mean this to be condescending, but if you start investing now or in six months, there will be almost no difference in your earnings, but there could be a huge difference in your losses unless you take some time to learn about the various investing methods, theories, and the actual hows and whys.
Start reading Peter Lynch's One Up on Wall Street, Beating the Street and Learn to Earn.
Each brings different things to the table. Again, please take no offense, but Learn to Earn is probably where you should start. It's aimed at teens/young adults learning about investing for the first time.
I'd recommend hitting up the library for these. When you get to the library, you'll find shelves of books on how to invest. Some are useless and others really good. Read a few chapters in each. If you have questions, run it by this board. There are plenty of people here who are more than happy to share their mainly educated opinions. And the good thing about reddit is that if one of us says something wrong, others are quick to correct or offer their two cents.
I'd also recommend The Millionaire Next Door, The Black Swan and the Richest Man in Babylon. while these last ones aren't how to invest, they are books about why and how we invest.
I'm a Taleb groupie and read everything by the man. I loved Black Swan, and also loved Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorderso you may want to try that one when your reading pile dwindles.
Keep saving, but take your time investing. Learn the basics, stick your toe in and then take the plunge.
Antifragile by Nassim Taleb. Things that are Anti-Fragile are better than things that are fragile... In FI terms it means things like being debt free > being in debt, low living expenses > spending everything you earn and then some, etc.
In general being FI is inherently anti-fragile.
Book plug which you are referencing:
Antifragile
I'm actually in the middle of reading it. Great ideas!
> N Taleb claimed that, for Bitcoin to succeed, it must be banned by a few governments. I generally agree; the effects of a formal ban could be either good or bad.
Well that does it. I've gone and ordered Antifragile , Taleb is just too reasonable and I think I need to soak in his wisdom. Im a big proponent of neccessary friction in society, and I think that bitcoin needs it to succeed, which I do think it has quite a lot with statist crying terrorism, drugs, murder for hire, etc, despite all the empirical evidence pointing to the fact that it is our established banking system that is the source of the majority of these issues.
Have you read Flash Boys: Not So Fast: An Insider's Perspective on High-Frequency Trading?
Over at /r/ukpersonalfinance we have a small "recommended reading" list that's worth looking at.=: http://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/wiki/faq#wiki_recommended_reading
> Intelligent Investor - Benjamin Graham
>
> This book was written by the father of "value investing", and the mentor of Warren Buffett, who is widely accepted to be the world's most successful investor.
>
> It was originally published in 1948, but Ben Graham updated it periodically over the years, and it stands as true today as it ever has.
>
> Beating the Street - Peter Lynch
>
> Published in 1994, this is arguably showing its age more than Intelligent Investor. Either way, valuable reading from one of the best managers of money in the past few decades.
>
> Naked Trader - Robbie Burns
>
> Subtitled "How anyone can make money trading shares", this is an entertaining, tongue-in-cheek account of one financial journalist's attempt to quit his job and make £1,000,000 using a short-to-medium term trading strategy. Not very scientific, but an interesting counterpoint to the previous recommendations.
>
> Smarter Investing - Tim Hale
>
> The ultimate counterpoint to attempting to "beat the markets" - after spending 15 years working in active fund manager, Tim Hale concluded that the best outcomes for most investors in most situations would be a simple portfolio of "passive" investments (that is, funds which attempt to track a market, rather than outperform it). This style is favoured by the likes of Monevator, and many of the subscribers here.
>
> Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholder letters - Warren Buffett
>
> Not a book, but a series of essays over the years from the world's most successful investor. Makes interesting reading! Notably, the 2014 letter (not published in the above link but published here in abridged form) implies that he now feels most investors would be best served by low-cost trackers.
>
> The Financial Times guide to investing - Glen Arnold
>
> A great starter guide, going from the very basics (why businesses need shareholders) to more in-depth explanations of different types of investment, and step-by-step guides on how to execute trades.
>
I learned this concept under a different name in Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book, Antifragile
The 1 comment per hour rule is here
You know whats next
In other news i could really recommend this book , the title is a bit sensationalistic but really good history of algo and electronic trading https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Pools-Machine-Traders-Rigging/dp/0307887189
This is the book you're looking for:
Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder
Look into Scott Patterson's - Dark Pools: The Rise of the Machine Traders and the Rigging of the U.S. Stock Market.
It talks about the abuses of the make or take system in stock exchanges.
This is a long shot, but could it be Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb? He has written more than 2 books, but his last big hit, The Black Swan, may have been the controversial book your customer mentioned.
Technical analysis on its own is literally astrology. There is no feedback loop to tell you if you're right, or lucky, even if you don't lose money.
Not to say that technicals are inherently bad. It's just that the good indicators were absorbed into the quantitative school of thought some time ago, while the random shapes were largely discarded.
3rd, how you size your bets in relation to how certain you are about direction isn't really covered by technical analysis.
4th) the key insight to fundamental analysis; that a dollar is still worth a dollar regardless of whether you pay 40c, 50c, or w/e, doesn't apply to trading, because timing matters greatly. This is why you'll want to look into standardizing your volatilities.
this is a great high level book. The author breaks down exactly who would use what aspects of a quantitative system, and you only have to read those sections. Although I imagine you'll be interested enough to cover the whole thing
Nassim Taleb wrote a book called Antifragile that gives one possible perspective on your question.
By putting yourself in a "safe" place (not 100% dependent on a job to pay bills, spending all your income, etc) you're making a small contribution to the health of the whole.
A small thought experiment: If everyone in America started saving 40% of their income tomorrow, what would happen?
Plenty of jobs would disappear, but there would be more than enough reserved to fund those who lost their jobs until something else became available.
Right now I'm planning on making significant contributions for my in-laws when they can no longer work. I'm 26, and am positive that I'll be providing a lot of care for them in less than ten years. That means that the more I can save now, the more I can care for them later, and keep them healthy and happy, while preventing them from being a drain on "the system".
Last thought - there's not a fixed dollar cost per child's life saved. If it was that simple, some huge foundation (Gates, Zuckerburg) would kick all the money needed to eliminate all malaria-related deaths ever. They could afford it. The challenges are so much more nuanced than that. So you couldn't save 30 lives a year with your $100k, even if you tried.
Great question, though. I love thinking through all of these kinds of things.
PS have you read Your Money or Your Life? I think it might help answer some of these questions.
edit: spelling
My boss forces every entry-level employee to read The FT Guide to Investment. It goes from the very, very basics (why a company needs shareholders) to in-depth explanations of different types of investment.
There's plenty of literature that promotes the same things:
Drive by Daniel H. Pink
[Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb]
(http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465069079&sr=8-1&keywords=antifragile)
Organize for complexity by Niels Pflaeging
Reinventing organizations by Frederic Laloux
Management 3.0 by Jurgen Appelo
Agile is a paradigm, not an instruction guide, and so all of these including the one you mentioned can be incorporated. Agile is not some stubborn point-by-point fieldbook, its a general attitude.
Many of the books I mentioned never make a single reference to Agile, because its being implemented in fields completely unrelated to software engineering (nurses doing homecare for seniors, auto part manufacturing, etc..)
The author of the article has a highly-rated book, Free Range Kids.
> FREE RANGE KIDS has become a national movement, sparked by the incredible response to Lenore Skenazy's piece about allowing her 9-year-old ride the subway alone in NYC. Parent groups argued about it, bloggers, blogged, spouses became uncivil with each other, and the media jumped all over it. A lot of parents today, Skenazy says, see no difference between letting their kids walk to school and letting them walk through a firing range. Any risk is seen as too much risk. But if you try to prevent every possible danger or difficult in your child?s everyday life, that child never gets a chance to grow up. We parents have to realize that the greatest risk of all just might be trying to raise a child who never encounters choice or independence.
^ I remember reading about that story a while ago and wishing that my parents had taken a page out of her book.
I'd also make the same criticism of my school/education experience. My education was "touristified," to use a term coined by Nassim Taleb in his book Antifragile, which, in my view, prevented me from being able to learn as much as I would have been able to otherwise.
Recommended reading: Dark Pools: The Rise of the Machine Traders and the Rigging of the U.S. Stock Market from the same guy that wrote the book "The Quants".
Counterpoint: https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Pools-Machine-Traders-Rigging-ebook/dp/B006OFHLG6/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Dark+Pools&qid=1557524597&s=digital-text&sr=1-1
A much more well researched version of Flash Boys.
And my own thoughts on that book after reading it (it's one of my favorite books, better than Flash Boys, which I liked): https://twomorepages.com/2016/08/26/dark-pools-twomorepages-book-review/
You might be interested in reading Taleb's Antifragile. It touches on models ("solutions") that are predicated upon assumptions prone to prediction error and how the models' outputs changes when the "improbable" occurs.
Get your hands on a copy of the Financial Times Guide to Investing. It's a great place to start.
The problem with censoring "hateful talk" is that it really is just "let's censor opinions I disagree with." Hate speech laws are very subjective, and typically used by those in power to censor those who they want to keep out. ("Criticizing the King or his political allies is now hate.") Hate speech laws are censorship, and antithetical to freedom of speech.
When you are a leader, you get shit all the time, and if that triggers you or offends your delicate sensibilities, you are not cut out for leadership.
Competent, effective people are opinionated and will tell their leadership exactly what they think, because they're the most invested and the ones who want success the most. They're full of energy. They get things done. Even disagreeing with them is energizing.
What I can't stand are the belly aching whiners who never do anything and want to pull down everyone else to their same level of staid ineffectiveness. Their ideas are lame and their execution is a guaranteed failure (if they ever get around to actually doing any of their time wasting ideas). These people are energy sucking vampires. Even listening to them is draining.
If you want to be a leader of effective men, you need to become antifragile.
I was reading the book Antifragile.
There was a part where the author describes the major shock he had when first introduced into the forex trading pit. He describes the sheer cognitive dissonance watching traders who could barely write their names and appeared to have an education of a high school level trading so much money. He came from quant like style of trading and was expecting sharp traders. The reality was that these traders knew next to nothing about countries and generally not bright. However, these below average intelligence people were making money hand-over-fist in the currency market. It was such an entertaining part of the book to hear how he describe the reality of large traders.
His take away message is, theory and practice are two very different thing. Practitioners are the ones who wins, not the academics with fancy forumlas.
My uncle recommended a few Buddhist-based books to me:
Only Don't Know: Selected Teaching Letters of Zen Master Seung Sahn (http://www.amazon.com/Only-Dont-Know-Selected-Teaching/dp/1570624321)
A Zen Wave: Basho's Haiku and Zen (http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Wave-Bashos-Haiku/dp/083480137X)
My uncle is a really smart guy who identifies as atheist. He also recommended the following as books that helped him in his journey:
Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder (http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Gain-Disorder/dp/1400067820)
From Dawn to Decadence (http://www.amazon.com/From-Dawn-Decadence-Western-Cultural/dp/0060928832)
Beowulf, Seamus Heaney translation (http://www.amazon.com/Beowulf-Verse-Translation-Bilingual-Edition/dp/0393320979)
The Iliad, Robert Fagles translation (http://www.amazon.com/Iliad-Penguin-Classics-Deluxe-Edition/dp/0140275363/)
The Odyssey, Robert Fagles translation (http://www.amazon.com/The-Odyssey-Homer/dp/0140268863)
>Things people should be actually be angry or interested in:
>1. News/economic releases being released early to traders
>2. Quote stuffing
>3. Exotic, undocumented order types
I've still got about 100 pages to read in [i]Flash Boys[/i] so maybe they'll be discussed later, but so far I'm surprised by the absence of issues 1 & 3.
I'm with you that early access to news is a different animal than latency arbitrage. The potential consequences are greater and the crowd it preys on is larger and more vulnerable. On a lighter note, it reminded me of the Anne Hathaway crash.
Custom/undocumented order-types are also disturbing, though from my understanding they are more of a problem for the HFT players than regular investors. For anyone interested in learning about custom order-types and the implications, check out the work of Haim Bodek, former HFT trader-turned whistleblower. Bodek was also profiled in Scott Patterson's 2012 book Dark Pools. I highly recommend Dark Pools for anyone interested in HFT - it's a great read and similar writing style to Lewis.
I'm blanking on your second issue though, quote stuffing - could you elaborate? Are you referring to order-canceling?
I use TA as one engagement tool among many. One book I enjoyed was The Joy of Charting by Tim Knight. I've been a reader of Tim's blog SlopeofHope for nearly ten years. I don't follow him or any other single person exclusively but his methods have helped me develop some profitable trades.
Short CAKE and long QD are two profitable positions I have on now that I first found out about on Slope.
Disclosure: No association with the blog other than being a reader/subscriber.
Fucking charlatans. For more: Antifragile
Thanks for the links! That article was interesting indeed. I didn't realize that Nassim only bought calls/puts and never wrote them. Also, this is the first reference to Niederhoffer that I've paid attention to, aside from slight mentions of the Matador fund here and there.
I did read Fooled by Randomness but haven't read The Black Swan yet. Time to breakout the statistics book and order Options, Futures, & Derivatives - Hull.
Postmortem -- https://landing.google.com/sre/sre-book/chapters/postmortem-culture/
Do one. Learn from it.
Be ANTIFRAGILE -- https://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680
There are a few things to unpack, here.
>CMV: Holding opinions so dearly that you consider them part of your identity is fundamental damaging to pubic discourse and conversation.
I think it is only damaging to public discourse if you let it be. It's damaging when you believe you are being assaulted and refuse to listen or debate calmly and rationally.
>Changing opinions is usually seen as a sign of weakness or incompetence, and most people are subconsciously terrified of being wrong.
I think there is a happy medium. If you're stubborn in the face of truth and facts, then you're also showing fragility.
>With that being said, I believe that the reason why the split between the political community is so much larger than before isn’t solely because if echo chambers, but the unneeded ego-centric reinforcement of opinions that convince the holder that any attack of their ideas translates to an attack on them.
Bingo. Check out The Coddling of the American Mind. It's a highly impactful article which saw the trend you mentioned years before it spread. There is also a book with the same title. I found out about it on the Joe Rogan podcast.
There are 3 implicit harmful rules:
This style of thinking is at odds with cognitive behavior therapy. It causes distress and depression. If you want to be antifragile then you must expose yourself to different viewpoints. Your mind works similarly to an immune system: If you limit exposure to minor stressors, you will only be more distressed when you encounter something in the future.
I disagree that it is wrong to hold an opinion so deeply you consider it part of your identity. We are all a culmination of our experiences and beliefs. Some of those beliefs have a stronger impact than others and define us more. I think it is okay to have a belief define you but you should be willing to slow down and listen to an opposing viewpoint.
There's a book by the same name. I thought it was a good read, but I read it out of interest, not so much looking for technical knowledge.
>Speech is a physical, tangible thing that can and does do damage to people's mental health when misused.
Lots of things could potentially damage people's mental health. Strong criticism could potentially harm my mental health. Insults (they don't have to based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender) could harm my mental health. Honest criticisms could harm me mentally. Expressions of hatred based on my political leanings could harm me mentally. Honest criticism has the potential to harm me mentally.
What are you going to do about them? Ban people from insulting one another and using strong language? Are you going to stop people from calling Tories evil scum because that could mentally harm someone who is a conservative ? Are you going to stop people from celebrating the punching of Nazis because neo-Nazis might me harmed by the celebration of violence against them? Are you going to stop people from calling Brexiteers stupid and idiots because that has the potential to harm them mentally? Yes, speech does have the potential to affect someone mentally. The problem is that the mental harm is so subjective that everything is potentially harmful mentally to someone. What another person might brush off easily might make a fragile person hurt. The subjectivity of experience of speech is one of the reason why you just can't go around forming objective policies around this issue.
Another thing is that we human beings are anti-fragile. Our bones get stronger the more they are used. Our muscles build when we tear them through exercise. Our immune system gets stronger when they encounter viruses and bacteria. A great book to read is Anti-fragile by Nassim Taleb who goes into this whole question and shows that a lot of what people believe about human fragility is counter productive. The more you shield others from things you think might hurt them emotionally and mentally, the more mentally fragile they are going to become. There is a perfect analogy with allergies and fragility. The more sanitized the environment, the greater the risk for that becomes.
I also take objection to your characterization of speech.
Speech =/= action. One of the thought experiments I think about around these issues is regarding somebody who sincerely holds a belief that the Holocaust didn't happen.
Now no country has banned thinking such things because they couldn't. However, most of continental Europe has decided to ban expression of such opinions. Now suppose a hypothetical case where this person who sincerely believes that the Holocaust didn't happen is asked a question about it in public. Based on the laws of Continental Europe, that person has to lie in public. The person can't sincerely tell the world that he doesn't believe in the Holocaust because that would mean jail. So we have government requiring/forcing people to lie.
I consider this just an egregious violation of a person's freedom of conscience, and while it is just a hypothetical, it does have bearings on what actually happens, because a lot of people who sincerely don't believe the Holocaust happened do have to lie at the threat of being imprisoned.
You cannot separate the freedom of thought/opinion/feeling and the freedom to express those thoughts/opinions/feelings as you have done. They are inextricably linked.
Speech is not the same thing as an act. A politician can say that he is going to do something. That politician's speech is not the same thing as an act, as most people participating in democratic societies quickly realize.
Stephen Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People contains a bunch of principles that I really internalized and still rely on, almost a decade after reading it.
Nassim Nicholas Talib's Antifragile changed my outlook on life and got me thinking about viable long-term strategies.
John Medina's Brain Rules is especially useful if you're in school, studying, or in some line of creative or intellectual work. I've applied its principles to my presentations, teaching, and personal studies, and I'm really happy with the results.
Happy reading!
Jo-der. No se si sos un economista, un biologo, o un sabelotodo -- pero la gente como vos es peligrosa... Agarras el narrativo ideal y lo justificas atacando la cruda realidad (y sin fundamento). Espero que seas un interlocutor valido o que por lo menos, vos tambien, tengas autores a quienes haces referencia.
Aca van los mios:
"The Delphic Boat: What Genomes Tell us" by: Antoine Danchin (un groso..... en serio.)
"The Free Market Existentialist" by: William Irwin (phD philosophy).
"Antifragile" by: Nassim Taleb (este tipo es una eminencia, lee su CV
Ademas, tal vez te interese este video informativo (porque no tenes ganas de leer tanto) acerca de la historia del capitalismo... son 11 mins. y bastante claro.
"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. (si no leiste esto todavia, te lo recomiendo!!!! mucho!!!!! pero me parece raro que seas biologo y no entiendas a lo que me refiero con decir que el gen es la unidad basica)
Ito Calculus es un buen lugar para comenzar.
Este video course de MIT acerca de finanzas es basicamente TODO la matematica que necesitas para entender finanzas o macroeconomia moderna.
Este video course de MIT es mas orientado a la economia y el rol de la politica en el desarrollo economico.
Cualquier duda NO QUEDO a disposicion por consultas, pero espero que contribuyas algo de tu parte.... para enriquecer la discusion
Y a los downvoters: You're all dirty slags.
EDIT - agregue un video
Top books to get into Finance and trading. This first one is by far the most fundamental book. Most jobs you get you will be asked to read this, and even if you aren't its still an amazing read. Published in 1931, still very relevant today, you will read 10+ times over your Finance career
Reminiscences of a stock operator
Then the Market Wizards series by Jack Schwager
Market Wizards
Hedge Fund Market Wizards
The New Market Wizards
This is where I would start. GL
Also 2 books I recommend are by Nassim Taleb, he talks about a guy, fat Tony. In real life, you want the BS detecting skills of fat Tony:
The real bad thing with trading (which investing actually is, just longer term) is that there really is no place to go for a good advice.
If the OP doesn't have time to do the research, then I would recommend looking into some managed accounts or funds (and doing the research there - it still requires research work).
I trade differently from the parent, I'm a techie/quant (well I do some fundie stuff too) so depending on your history, I would look into different methods on how to trade. There are plenty.
Buy and hold is what some people praise, especially those newbie stock books but I really wouldn't like to advocate that approach but that's just me.
edit: As some people posted links, I'll post some good books - forums tend to be full of crap and it takes at least of 6 months (at least, possibly years) to be able to understand who know something and what really is somehing you should be reading so here are some great books:
This is an easy to read, good book for beginners in a form of a story
http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Currency-Trader-Trading-Courage/dp/0470049480
These two are must
http://www.amazon.com/Market-Wizards-Interviews-Top-Traders/dp/0887306101
http://www.amazon.com/New-Market-Wizards-Conversations-Americas/dp/1592803377
This is a real classic and still relevant
http://www.amazon.com/Reminiscences-Stock-Operator-Investment-Classics/dp/0471770884
This is good if you are interested in technical analysis/trading system design (and not too complicated)
http://www.amazon.com/Reminiscences-Stock-Operator-Investment-Classics/dp/0471770884
Dark Pools is another good book http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Pools-Machine-Traders-Rigging/dp/0307887189
The best strategy, the one JBP and DJT employ, is to become anti-fragile, meaning that attacks make you stronger.
Nice. Great post. I couldn't agree more. So I'll just help (circlejerk?).
The intuitive, irrational, and crazy part of my personality I only just started developing as I realized I mistyped myself as an INTJ for over 20 years (unhealthy INFJ for that long). The book Antifragile by Nassim Taleb points out the valuable Dionysian part of our nature and just how fragile these social-economic models are in the face of time.
When BP asks "Fine. RP works, but will that make you happy in the long-term?" the jaded RP reply is "Probably not, but what choice is there for men like me?" Others live and die by the Redpill, but can anyone really believe Chateau Heartiste is a happy, healthy, secure individual? No extreme personality and total rejection of the Other emerges from a healthy psyche. You can't take a man who naturally values long-term mating into a short-term mating box and not expect -- nevermind. You already get it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0812979680/
Go get the 7th edition used. It's worth it. Note the 7th Edition Errata though.
Skin in the game. Read Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
http://amzn.com/0812979680
Depends on what New Age Tech faction you belong to. "Antifragile," from Nassim Taleb's Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder is supposed to mean that some processes, when properly engineered, gain additional resilience from disorder. Apologies for any mischaracterization.
This is not, as I understand it, the same as getting stronger from being stressed, as you might expect a system to get more resilient from lessons learned from the usual "game day" exercises. It's more the concept: "Make armor better by establishing an anti armor team whose job it is to find the weak spots in the armor."
I like the way things were expressed in the video, but I find Taleb a bit much. He actively despises academic work in his area, especially if it contradicts his thinking. YMMV.
Io ho letto Flash Boys. Parla degli High Frequency Trading e di come abbiano cambiato la finanza mondiale.
I like the general way you're thinking. I've become interested lately in why states form and how they are destabilized or prevented from forming from an anthropological standpoint. What conditions, technological, ecological, cultural, can place limits on their growth and aggregation? Shatter them into small manageable pieces or keep them from forming in the first place?
This book really got me thinking about that angle, and you might enjoy it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Not-Being-Governed/dp/0300169175
This one also carries some similar thoughts, I recall an excerpt about the advantages of smaller city-states vs. large modern nations:
http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680
This one also has some interesting thoughts about the vulnerabilities of modern states and what enables the groups that are currently able to resist them, though I'm still undecided as to how much of it was just current conventional military thought regarding guerilla warfare repackaged as Silicon Valley fluff for people that have never had a standard western military officer's education. I've read a couple of books by David Kilcullen, who I believe closely represents the current "establishment" thinking on western counterinsurgency doctrine, and he repeated some of Robb's points about the decentralized network nature of modern guerrilla movements. Still, food for thought.
http://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-War-Terrorism-Globalization/dp/0470261951/ref=la_B001ILOBMI_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409237873&sr=1-1
Reminisces of a Stock Operator by Edwin Lefèvre is a biography of Jesse Livermore. It gives a good overview of stock trading during the early part of the twentieth century, but also provides great insights into investing in general. http://www.amazon.com/Reminiscences-Stock-Operator-Edwin-egrave/dp/1592801943
Portfolios with 100% equities are pointlessy risky: allocatin a little to bonds reduces risk with no significant effect on geometric returns.
Page 81.-82.
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:
amazon.com
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.com.mx
amazon.de
amazon.it
amazon.es
amazon.com.br
amazon.nl
amazon.co.jp
amazon.fr
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
>This article goes into a lot of details, the lowdown is
wow. the article is really in depth. it will take me a while to go through that one though. thanks for sharing.
​
>I'd ditch currency hedged funds do a mix of
>
>1. Euro bonds
>
>2. Unhedged global bonds
Robert Carver in the Smart Portfolios is of the opinion that hedged funds should be avoided. Mostly due to hedging, carry, transaction and TER costs. There he also recommends investing in unhedged global bonds.
I'd personally rather not have currency fluctuation in the stable part of the portfolio. My preferred option would be eurozone government bonds. That is similar to Lars Kroijer's Rational Portfolio (but he uses short-term government bonds from your high credit quality government). But the low yields, coupled with concentration risk in debt from places like Italy (~ 23%) is worrisome. A global bond fund mitigates the concentration risk but you get less predictability on potential returns (from a YTM standpoint)
>Jesus Christ dude, learn English. That is not what I wrote, I quoted exactly what your unfalsifiable statement was. Trying to explain even the most basic things to you is a massive hassle.
>And yeah, I'm sure you're going to cry now that I'm being a meanie. But seriously, you have shown a failure to comprehend the most basic form of discussion. I explicitly stated, using quotes, what your unfalsifiable claim was, and you completely missed that.
Hahaa you make me laugh man..
You quoted nothing,
I have made no unfalsifiable statement, if I did one please quote it to me.
I am waiting.
>$>So Bitcoin being anti-fragile is an unfalsifiable statement?
>And the answer to your question is no, I've already explained to you why it is not anti-fragile. You failed to address that and just repeated what was written previously like the braindead zombie you are:
>> Him: Bitcoin is antifragile
It show you basic misunderstanding of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin clearly show characteristics of anti-fragile system.
I recommend you educate yourself a little bit:
https://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680
Your are the classic small blocker that feel that Bitcoin need "expert" to adjust his economic property or it will break.
You love central planning I recommend returning to FIAT :) you will love it, some many smart people involved in it. Wow!! The future I can tell you!!
Another read, but I am not sure that's you thing :) easier to follow authorities than educate yourself!
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2905459-rivalry-and-central-planning
>You made no attempt to actually justify what you wrote, let alone argue against what I wrote. Seriously, what do you think you were contributing there? Are you just here to regurgitate what you've heard others write on /r/btc in broken English?
You keep repeating yourself, you have yet to make an arguments.
It is almost like, you have no idea what you are talking about :)
I am still waiting for your arguments.. but I don't hold my breath, English man!
>But why should I even bother? Do you even understand the words I'm writing now?
Well I can pick up when someone use personal attack to hide ignorance :)
>Do you have the mental capacity to learn basic English?
Obviously I don't!
Hahaa thank for the good laugh!
If you're further interested in this idea I think that Antifragile by Taleb is definitely along this vein
https://smile.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680?sa-no-redirect=1
I also have to recommend Antifragile by Taleb. Extraordinary.
Read this..
https://www.amazon.ca/6-Pack-Portfolio-Canadian-Stock-Market/dp/1983979880/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_4?crid=8JDRF668QLPA&keywords=how+to+beat+the+canadian+stock+market&qid=1555767539&s=gateway&sprefix=how+to+beat+the+cana%2Caps%2C219&sr=8-4-fkmrnull
All of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books, but especially Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder.
Also, get yourself an Audible account.
I am going to apologise in advance if this sounds unclear but this is me trying to articulate a world view I have developed over years of contemplating the existence of mankind and reading volumes of what others have concluded (this, this and this among others)
Before societies and civilisations were formed, groups existed by meeting the challenges of basic survival:
Each of the above led to an exponential growth in all the areas of human development:
Groups therefore developed systems and tools to more efficiently meet these challenges.
The more these groups grew into societies and civilisations, the more efficient their methods of survival, the larger the distance between the group and these dangers.
Societies reach a fork in the road where they have two choices:
I have concluded from my years contemplating this cosmic riddle, that taking the second path which leads to an equilibrium generally leads to the society leaving it's survival capabilities to stagnate and atrophy. This might sound like I am saying the society is decaying but it's actually the opposite, they have reached such a status in terms of organisation and command of their environment that they can exist and thrive in a stable state almost indefinitely.
That is, until they come into contact with a civilisation that remained on the hard road of honing the mechanisms of survival. Building on the fundamentals of survival (by that I mean tool building to production, skills to science, tribal councils to political machinery) do not lead to equilibrium, they lead to conflict yes but ultimately growth and strength.
To sort of clarify:
the native americans and their culture had a full command of their environment, they no longer feared nature and their fellow man posing an existential threat to them. As a result they diverted their attentions inwards, towards the meaning of nature, spirituality and identity. That was great when they were the only ones roaming the lands in full command of it. Unfortunately, having not built on their already solid base from 20,000 years of survival skills/mechanisms in the americas, they left themselves defenceless in the face of a civilisation that was forged in the fires of centuries of chaos, war, conquest and disease. Technology, politics and the art of war are not these monoliths that are thrust upon humanity. They are incremental advances over centuries by hard work, risk taking and sacrifice from millions of society's best and brightest. The fatal flaw that the native americans committed was that their best and brightest gradually turned away from working on the basics of survival and instead chose to focus on the metaphysical. The rich and beautiful culture they accumulated was useless as tools in the face of gunpowder, iron and germ warfare.
---
How does this relate to the trends in western countries in relation to restructuring the systems of gender identity? I believe that it is a small thread in a grand tapestry of ideologies meant to create an artificial form of equilibrium, drawing the energies of its citizenry down a path diverting them from building on those tools/mechanisms based on the basics of survival and into the metaphysical/spiritual. The general consensus being that society has reached a peak that leaves them unchallenged by outsiders: the advances of previous generations in science, technology and military prowess have been perfected, are no longer a pressing matter for society at large.
There is nothing inherently wrong with seeking an equilibrium or focusing on the metaphysical, it is the vector that society is set to follow, the vector veering away from the basics of survival, which is the danger.
Hope that clarifies my initial reply.
AntiFragile: Things that gain from disorder.
While we're making book recommendations, you should try this, this, or this. Or maybe these, or this, or hell, this if my summary of the current situation of the state as universal malefactor and the alternatives as looking better every day are unconvincing to you.
As for some misguided belief that the people will "rise up" in some faux revolution with onward marching and people's councils and all that kind of jazz; not at all, generally speaking, people are stupid. For example those that think that it's a paranoid fantasy the state operates in its own interests first despite the cacophony of evidence supporting this fact all over the world and the simple fact that it has always been so. But people also don't like being fucked over, and they're not stupid enough that they won't take whatever actions are necessary to directly counteract being fucked over as those actions become clearer and easier for them to take.
http://www.amazon.com/Flash-Boys-Insiders-Perspective-High-Frequency/dp/0692336907
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/04/michael-lewis-repeat-omission-crimes-committed.html
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/michael-lewis-shilling-for-the-buyside/
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3PJO6KJGRMWUE/#R3PJO6KJGRMWUE
http://meanderful.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/flash-boys-misleading-information.html
This kind of thinking is called Antifragile and if you're interested in reading about it, you can find it at this non-affiliate Amazon link.
That's quite a range of investments from quant equities to private companies and real estate. Thanks for the other book recommendation - just ordered it. I was recently reading this book by a former AHL portfolio manager. Found it a bit confusing since he uses a lot of heuristics which he doesn't fully explain.
Not if you're studying something valuable in STEM. There's too many bullshitters selling bullshit courses on campuses.
Why do you want tenure? I'm sure you have good reasons, but couldn't morally be tenured, if I wasn't 100% sure that I was teaching something valuable. If I didn't feel that what I am teaching, that is something people actually need and want despite my tenure. Just like if I were a drug dealer or a slaver, then my success would be dependent on people suffering from it.
What are you studying?
The books I am paraphrasing from are Antifragile, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Worthless, by Aaron Clarey.
This book is a pretty good place to start. I also like A Random Walk Down Wall Street which is a little less dry. For equities algo trading Flash boys is a good read too.
Also networking is important if you want to make your way into the industry as it's very competitive. It gives tou opportunity to soak up knowledge and advice like a sponge.
Here is the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Day-Trading-Advanced-Patterns-Identifying-ebook/dp/B07Q4QZ7LL/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=jesus+arreola&qid=1554490387&s=gateway&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1592801943
Depends on if you're sticking to the business-centric category or not. For instance, I think Antifragile (although the author is a bear to listen to) has even more impact than Zero to One. I personally know several startup founders or funded companies who swear by it and immediately dove into their systems to purposefully break the heck out them.
Similarly in slightly different direction, I found How They Succeeded: Life Stories of Successful Men Told By Themselves to be incredibly unknown and worthwhile, and Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant to be a "quake" book leading you down the rabbit-hole of marketing.
One last book, because I can't help myself, would be Traction. Although not necessarily a "must read," I perhaps took more notes from this than any of the others, save Antifragile.
I would love to discuss more with you, but I simply don't have time. So I'll invite you to check out this book instead, since it's this author's ideas that I'm basing my arguments on:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0083DJWGO/
Check this book out:
https://www.amazon.ca/6-Pack-Portfolio-Canadian-Stock-Market/dp/1983979880/ref=sxts_sxwds-bia-wc1_0?keywords=canadian+6+pack&pd_rd_i=1983979880&pd_rd_r=2ae36043-3cc2-4b5e-8351-a6a5fc5cbce6&pd_rd_w=hcfWs&pd_rd_wg=XF3ev&pf_rd_p=f21c7dda-bfa4-44c9-bd1c-d5e8d504b7f8&pf_rd_r=2SCEV80FQRP9Q1AW7NM1&psc=1&qid=1567714808&s=gateway
I seriously do not understand why people don't read books...
You should check out the book Antifragile for very well researched reasons why Elon's foolishness is exactly what he needs to succeed.