Photo by joelogon, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Nassim Nicholas Taleb public figure — reconstructed profile
This is a reconstruction from published statements, not a real account. Only questions with a documented position are answered, and each one cites its source below. Spotted an error? Bring a better citation to the forum and it gets fixed.
Lebanese-American former options trader and essayist (b. 1960, Amioun), author of the Incerto — Fooled by Randomness, The Black Swan, Antifragile, and Skin in the Game — whose work on fat tails, the Lindy effect, and skin in the game speaks directly to much of this bank. Position
—
Kindred % · overall match
—
Twin % · thinks like you
—
World % · lives in your world
—
Life % · lives like you
—
Opposition % · opposite poles, held with certainty
Empirical Naturalists
Bubble
Positions & sources
| Question | Position | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Before reading a particular study, you were skeptical of claim X. The study — large, in a strong journal — largely convinced you. It is now retracted for fabricated data. Stipulate: no other study has tested X, and nothing else you know bears on X beyond what you knew before. Where does your belief in X land now? | Below where I started — fabrication is itself evidence against X; people fake data when real data won't cooperate | Emulated from his public record — his replication-crisis writings: a field that produces fabricated results in strong journals has indicted its own filter, which itself counts against the claim the paper was propping up. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Picture an ordinary person in 1850, kind by their own standards, who took part in a practice nearly everyone around them accepted and never seriously questioned it. Stipulate: we now regard it as a wrong as grave as slavery, and our current judgment is correct. How blameworthy were they? | Slightly | Emulated from his public record — his anti-presentism (Antifragile, 2012): historical actors are judged inside their own epistemic world, not by information their world could not supply. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| For a non-urgent condition, your doctor recommends treatment A, per current specialty guidelines. You spent about 40 hours on the primary literature and concluded B is better. You can't find a flaw in your reasoning, and you can't rule out that specialists know something you don't. Stipulate: both are covered, available and similar in side-effect risk, and no second opinion is available in time. You choose: | B | Emulated from his public record — Antifragile (2012) on iatrogenics makes him the last man to defer to guidelines over his own audited reading of the primary literature. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| A new drug targets a disease that kills most patients within a year. Stipulate: if it works, it extends median survival by about 6 months; if not, its side effects shorten survival by about 1 month. A definitive trial would take 3 years. Stipulate: the trial will run regardless of your decision. As the regulator, what's the lowest probability that it works at which you'd approve it now for any informed patient who wants it? | 10% or less | Emulated from his public record — for the terminally ill the asymmetry flips (Antifragile, 2012): with death as the baseline, a bounded-downside chance is rational, and he has attacked regulators who block the dying from trying. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Which comes closest to your actual position on God? | Probably a god or higher power exists | Skin in the Game (2018), chapters on religion, and his essay "We Don't Know What We Are Talking About When We Talk About Religion" — a practicing Greek Orthodox who calls himself a believer, not an atheist, while insisting faith is enacted rather than assented to. |
| Stipulate: you learn from strong data that, given your parents' views on God, there was about a 90% chance you'd hold your current view regardless of the arguments you've met since. Nothing else changes. Your confidence in your view should: | Stay unchanged | Emulated from his public record — he treats origin-of-belief debunking as a genetic fallacy; a belief stands on survival and skin in the game, not on its pedigree. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Before results, you strongly doubted this: a one-time, one-hour classroom exercise measurably raises students' grades a year later. Then a randomized trial reports exactly that, statistically significant. Stipulate: preregistered, a large multi-school sample, an independent team, analysis matching the preregistration, and no flaws you can find. Where do you land now? | Still very unlikely — one study, however clean, barely moves a strong prior | Fooled by Randomness (2001) and his essay "The Fourth Quadrant" (2008) — in fat-tailed domains a single study, however clean, barely dents a strong prior; most published findings are noise dressed as signal. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Two people each drove home equally over the legal limit, on the same route, in the same conditions. One arrived safely. The other seriously injured a pedestrian who stepped out, through no extra fault of the driver. Compared with the unlucky driver, the lucky one is: | Equally blameworthy | Fooled by Randomness (2001) — decisions are judged across the full ensemble of alternative histories, not by the one outcome that happened; the lucky reckless driver placed the same bad bet. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| You disagree with someone whose broader worldview is close to yours on a factual question. Stipulate: on this topic they're as informed and skilled as you, your checked track records on questions of this kind are equal, neither of you has a stake, and you've exchanged all evidence and arguments. You hold your view with high confidence; they hold theirs with moderate confidence. Neither of you has moved. Your response: | I stay where I was — a peer's disagreement, by itself, is not evidence about the fact | Emulated from his public record — a career spent refusing to conciliate with credentialed consensus; weight belongs to skin in the game, not to a peer's confidence level. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Human-caused climate change is best described as: | Real, mainly human-caused, and a serious problem | Taleb, Read, Douady, Norman & Bar-Yam, "The Precautionary Principle" (2014), applied by him to climate in on-record statements — with one planet and no track record, uncertainty about the models argues for combatting emissions more, not less. |
| Five people you know well report the same event: one evening, an object hovered unsupported in a public square for about ten seconds. Stipulate: each has been reliable for years, none knows the others, each reported separately, there's no footage, and no one has identified a trick, wire, magnet or collusion that could explain it. How likely is it that the object really hovered, with no conventional explanation? | Extremely unlikely — some ordinary explanation exists, found or not | Emulated from his public record — the Humean streak of The Black Swan (2007): sincere testimony does not overturn the way the world demonstrably works. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Your manager needs, by tomorrow, the probability that a novel system works on its first full-scale test. Stipulate: nothing like it has been built at this scale, no comparable projects exist, and the go/no-go plan will use whatever you give. You give: | No probability; scenarios, with what would make each likelier | The Black Swan (2007) and "The Fourth Quadrant" (2008) — where no track record exists, a probability is a fabrication; the honest deliverable is scenarios and exposures. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| A dying friend gives you $10,000 in cash and makes you promise to deliver it to their estranged brother, who is comfortably off. Stipulate: no one else knows, your friend would have refused a charity alternative, and a top-rated global health charity would save about two lives with the money. You: | Give it to the brother, as promised | Skin in the Game (2018) — honor and sacred commitments outrank utilitarian arithmetic; he explicitly attacks the Singer-style calculus that would trade a promise against lives saved. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| A new nuclear power plant is proposed about 300 miles from your home, replacing a coal plant. Stipulate: it meets every current safety standard. Your stance during public comment: | Support | Emulated from his public record — "The Precautionary Principle" (Taleb et al., 2014) treats nuclear harm as local and comparatively well characterized (unlike systemic risks), and after Fukushima he argued for smaller, buried reactors, not abandonment. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| The standard childhood vaccine schedule, taken as a whole: | Does far more good than harm | Odd Lots interview (2023) — he groups anti-vaxxers among those who get it wrong: vaccines, unlike GMOs, are tested on individuals, and he took the COVID vaccine once the vaccinated sample was large. |
| You read a long essay arguing a policy claim, find it persuasive, and can't find a factual error. You then learn it was commissioned and paid for by an organization whose goals you oppose, and its author writes only for them. Stipulate: no claim in it has been shown false. Compared with right after reading, your confidence in its conclusion: | Falls back to where it was before I read it | The Bed of Procrustes (2010) states his rule against taking advice from advice-sellers who face no penalty for being wrong; Skin in the Game (2018) generalizes it: a commissioned brief carries no evidential weight. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| You're deciding whether to join a startup that would likely fold in a recession. Stipulate: a real-money prediction market, with tens of millions traded on this question, puts a US recession within 12 months at 25%. The central bank's published staff forecast implies about 60%. "Recession" means as later dated by the official dating committee. The probability you plan around: | 25% | Emulated from his public record — Skin in the Game (2018): a market price is backed by people who lose money when wrong; a central bank staff forecast is backed by nobody. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Five years ago a commentator you usually agree with publicly made a specific prediction, and it came true. Stipulate: their reasoning was wrong and it came true for unrelated reasons. In their track record, you count it as: | A miss | Fooled by Randomness (2001) — a prediction that lands for unrelated reasons is luck, not skill; across alternative histories the reasoning failed, so the track record books it as a miss. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| An anonymous source with no track record alleges that about 200 people inside one institution have kept a specific, career-ending wrongdoing secret for 10 years. Stipulate: no leak, no documents and no other whistleblower so far. Before any investigation, how likely is the allegation to be true? | Very unlikely | Emulated from his public record — his alter ego's dictum that Fat Tony does not believe much in conspiracy theories: grand secrets collapse under their own weight, and incompetence does the explaining. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| When a major event dominates the news, how much of the official account is usually deliberate deception? | A substantial part — key facts are routinely hidden | Emulated from his public record — his documented position that officials routinely conceal and spin key facts (pandemic origins, war reporting), held alongside open contempt for staged-event conspiracism. |
| You've held a belief for about ten years, for reasons you still find good. This month three different people gave you three new arguments against it, and you couldn't immediately rebut any. Stipulate: nothing practical hinges on the belief this year. Your next move: | Hold it; unrebutted arguments alone wouldn't move me much | Emulated from his public record — he does not update on rhetoric: clever arguments are cheap and exist symmetrically for falsehoods; only evidence carrying skin in the game moves him. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Using the World Bank's international extreme-poverty line of $2.15 a day (2017 prices), the share of the world's population in extreme poverty from 1990 to 2019: | Fell by more than half | Emulated from his public record — he credits markets, trade, and commerce, not aid programs, with the great global decline in extreme poverty, even while attacking nearly everything else about modern economics. |
| Two physical theories predict identically every observation anyone can foresee making. By whatever measure of simplicity you'd defend, T1 is simpler. How much does T1's simplicity raise your confidence that T1 is the true one? | Not at all — when predictions are identical, simplicity is taste, not evidence | Emulated from his public record — the "platonicity" critique of The Black Swan (2007): elegance and simplicity are aesthetics we impose on reality, not evidence about it. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| You've taken a $20-a-month supplement for three months and feel clearly better. Stipulate: two large, well-run, placebo-controlled trials found no effect beyond placebo for the symptom you take it for. What do you do? | Stop taking it — two large trials beat my impression; the benefit was placebo | Antifragile (2012), chapters on iatrogenics and via negativa — subtract unproven interventions; a substance with no long track record gets no benefit of the doubt from a feeling. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Humans came to exist by: | Evolution by natural processes, no guidance needed | Antifragile (2012) and Skin in the Game (2018) — unguided Darwinian selection is the engine of his account of adaptation in nature and culture alike; his Orthodoxy is non-literalist about origins. |
| A physical-science theory you accept has passed every test for decades. Two independent teams, using different equipment and methods, now report the same observation that contradicts it. Stipulate: no explanation exists yet. Twenty years from now, how likely is it that the anomaly has been explained as error, or absorbed within the existing theory with no revision needed? | Likely | Emulated from his public record — in 2011 he publicly called the OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly a measurement artifact and offered to bet on it; replicated anomalies against proven theories receive the same prior. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Tomorrow the visible stars rearrange to spell, in every human language, a claim to be the creator of the universe. Stipulate: every instrument on Earth records it, everyone sees it, and no known physics explains it. Your best explanation: | Some vastly powerful intelligence; nothing more specific follows | Emulated from his public record — his apophatic Orthodoxy: such an event could license a vastly powerful intelligence, never the specific theology of any tradition, his own included. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| A mechanism predicts that drug D should help condition C. Stipulate: every step of the mechanism has been shown in human tissue, and on mechanism alone you started out fairly confident D helps. Two independent randomized trials then found no significant effect — though each trial was small enough that it could have missed a real effect. Where do you land on D now? | Genuinely uncertain now | Emulated from his public record — he distrusts both mechanistic storytelling (platonicity) and underpowered significance tests (his technical papers against p-value orthodoxy); two weak nulls leave him genuinely uncertain. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| You run a business with a close friend. Your friend's father funded it with his life savings and now has a few days to live. He asks you, not your friend, whether the business is doing well. Stipulate: it will fail within months, the money is gone, he'll die before he could learn otherwise, and nothing he does could change it. You: | Say only true things, chosen to leave him believing it's fine | Emulated from his public record — his essays pair brutal candor in public life with a refusal to wound pointlessly at a deathbed; true things, chosen, rather than a lie. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Your organization has a 40-year-old rule nobody can explain. Following it costs staff about 100 hours a week in total. Stipulate: you have authority to drop it, the records of why it began are lost, asking around has turned up nothing, and no one objects. You: | Keep it until someone finds the original reason | Antifragile (2012), the Lindy effect — a rule that has survived forty years encodes a reason even when no living person can state it; Chesterton's fence is his explicit heuristic. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Take a religion you don't hold. Stipulate: your honest probability that its afterlife claims are true is 1 in 1,000. Its doctrine says weekly attendance at a two-hour service suffices for a reward you'd value above everything else in your life combined; belief is not required. Non-attenders suffer nothing, and the service isn't unpleasant. You: | Decline, mainly because the same argument would send me to every religion's services — it proves too much | Emulated from his public record — he practices his ancestors' religion on wager-like, risk-management grounds but refuses the wager as a general algorithm: run honestly, it sends you to every altar, so it proves too much. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| You're estimating how long a software project will take. Your detailed bottom-up plan says 4 months. Stipulate: you've led three similar projects, each ran 10–20% over your plan, and across the industry, projects of this type run a median of 60% over plan. Your honest best estimate — the number you'd privately bet on — is: | 6.4 months | The Black Swan (2007) — his discussion of the planning fallacy, including his own book's overrun, argues for taking the crude outside view of the reference class over the inside plan. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| A society with more guns in civilian hands is, on net: | Somewhat more dangerous | Widely reported public post on gun control (2013) — he rebutted the standard pro-gun arguments (mass-casualty weapons as self-defense; rifles as a check on tyranny) and concluded that more such weapons make society more dangerous. |
| You clearly remember a conversation going one way; a colleague clearly remembers it going another. Stipulate: there's no recording, you're both usually reliable, and neither of you gains anything from either version. How likely is it that your version is the right one? | A genuine coin flip | Emulated from his public record — The Black Swan (2007) on the narrative fallacy and retrospective distortion: knowing memory confabulates, he would not privilege his own recollection over a peer's. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| By 2200, nearly everyone regards a practice you take part in today as a wrong as grave as slavery. Stipulate: nearly everyone around you accepts it now, you've never seriously questioned it, and the 2200 judgment is correct. How blameworthy are you for your participation up to now? | Slightly | Emulated from his public record — the same anti-presentism he extends to 1850 applies to himself (Antifragile, 2012): blame is capped by what one's own world made visible. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| A self-driving service runs your child's school route. Stipulate: independent audited data shows it has about half the fatal-crash rate per mile of drivers with your record on routes like this. Its rare failures are ones no attentive human would make, such as driving into a clearly visible stopped truck. You'd send your child in it instead of driving them: | Not at any margin, until its failures are ones a human would understand | Emulated from his public record — his critique of automation opacity: an audited average that hides illegible, correlated failure modes does not earn trust where his own child rides. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| You disagree with someone whose broader worldview you think is badly wrong on a factual question. Stipulate: on this topic they're as informed and skilled as you, your checked track records on questions of this kind are equal, neither of you has a stake, and you've exchanged all evidence and arguments. You hold your view with high confidence; they hold theirs with moderate confidence. Neither of you has moved. Your response: | I stay where I was — a peer's disagreement, by itself, is not evidence about the fact | Emulated from his public record — identical to EP3 by design: a wrong worldview on the other side changes nothing about whose confidence should move. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| The best economic order is closest to: | Small-scale and local: widely distributed small property and local production (distributism) | Antifragile (2012) — his preferred polity is small-scale and decentralized (Swiss cantons, city-states, distributed property); oversized states and oversized corporations are both fragility. |
| Someone holds the opposite view on God from yours. Stipulate: strong data shows that, given their parents' views, there was about a 90% chance they'd hold it regardless of the arguments they've met since. Nothing else changes. Their confidence in their view should: | Stay unchanged | Emulated from his public record — identical to MR5 by design: he would not wield against an opponent the genetic debunking he refuses for himself. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| A large, well-run survey finds about 80% of professional moral philosophers believe a practice you regularly take part in is seriously wrong. You've read their best arguments and remain unpersuaded. Stipulate: it isn't a partisan political issue, and stopping would be a moderate inconvenience. You: | Continue; my confidence is unchanged | Skin in the Game (2018) — professional moral philosophers are his canonical "intellectual yet idiots": no skin in the game, no authority; their survey would not move him at all. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| You're considering an experimental treatment for yourself and ask your specialist the probability it works. Stipulate: no comparable cases exist. The least specific answer you'd still accept as competent: | No probability; scenarios, with what would make each likelier | The Black Swan (2007) and "The Fourth Quadrant" (2008) — identical to EP9 by design: he demands of a specialist exactly the honesty he practices, scenarios instead of fabricated numbers. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| A gene drive could eliminate the main malaria-carrying mosquito species across a region where malaria kills about 100,000 people a year. Stipulate: affected governments have approved, release can't be recalled, and ecologists put a 5% chance on a significant knock-on ecological effect of unknown size. A contained island trial would narrow that uncertainty. You'd release: | Only once the knock-on risk is shown to be under 0.5%, however long that takes | Taleb, Read, Douady, Norman & Bar-Yam, "The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)" (2014) — a self-propagating genetic release is his paradigm ruin case: no release until the tail risk is bounded. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Suppose you once drove home over the legal limit and arrived safely. Someone else did exactly the same, on the same route in the same conditions, and seriously injured a pedestrian who stepped out, through no extra fault of theirs. Compared with them, you are: | Equally blameworthy | Fooled by Randomness (2001) — identical to MO5 by design: he books his own lucky recklessness at the same blame as the stranger's unlucky one. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| A friend you consider about as sharp as you did the same: about 40 hours of primary literature, concluded B over the guideline's A, can't find the flaw. Stipulate: both are covered, available and similar in side-effect risk. They ask what you would do in their place. In their place, you would: | Take B | Emulated from his public record — identical to EP2 by design: the advice he gives a friend is the choice his iatrogenics framework makes for himself. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Mainstream news outlets, taken as a whole, mostly: | Systematically distort through bias and incentives, without needing orders | Skin in the Game (2018) — journalists, his canonical vendors of noise, distort systematically through incentives and herding; no orders from power are required. |
| A new nuclear power plant is proposed about 5 miles from your home, replacing a coal plant. Stipulate: it meets every current safety standard, and the coal plant it replaces is elsewhere and closes either way. Your stance during public comment: | Support | Emulated from his public record — identical to TP5 by design; he is a conspicuous critic of NIMBY reasoning, and proximity does not change the analysis. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Someone has held the opposite belief from yours for about ten years, for reasons they find good. This month three different people gave them three new arguments, and they couldn't immediately rebut any. Stipulate: nothing practical hinges on it this year. Their right next move: | Hold it; unrebutted arguments alone shouldn't move them much | Emulated from his public record — identical to EP11 by design: he asks of opponents only the updating standard he accepts for himself. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Twenty years from now, advanced AI will most likely have been: | Roughly a wash at civilizational scale | Emulated from his public record — his dismissal of large language models as overhyped text generators whose errors only connoisseurs catch, and of AI-doom as expert narrative: a wash at civilizational scale, not a transformation. |
| Five years ago a commentator you usually disagree with publicly made a specific prediction, and it came true. Stipulate: their reasoning was wrong and it came true for unrelated reasons. In their track record, you count it as: | A miss | Fooled by Randomness (2001) — identical to EP16 by design: a lucky hit from a commentator he disagrees with is booked exactly like his own side's, as a miss. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| For a decision about your own treatment, an AI system and your specialist disagree. Stipulate: the AI is 94% accurate on audited cases like yours; specialists in this field average about 85% on such cases; the specialist has seen the AI's answer and still disagrees; and you must choose today. You go with: | The specialist | Emulated from his public record — Skin in the Game (2018): between an unaccountable algorithm's audited average and a specialist who bears consequences for this particular patient, he takes the party with skin in the game. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| You read a long essay arguing a policy claim, find it persuasive, and can't find a factual error. You then learn it was commissioned and paid for by an organization whose goals you support, and its author writes only for them. Stipulate: no claim in it has been shown false. Compared with right after reading, your confidence in its conclusion: | Falls back to where it was before I read it | The Bed of Procrustes (2010) and Skin in the Game (2018) — identical to EP4 by design: a friendly funder corrupts a brief exactly as a hostile one does. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Counting modern Homo sapiens, roughly what share of all humans ever born are alive today? | 4–15% | Emulated from his public record — the demographic arithmetic is of a piece with a career spent correcting the numerate-sounding myths of journalists: the living are a small single-digit share of all humans ever born. |
| Organized religion's overall effect on society has been: | Somewhat positive | Skin in the Game (2018), chapters on religion — whatever its propositional truth, organized religion has functioned for millennia as a tamer of arrogance and a repository of survival heuristics. |
| Suppose a worldview with a creator and one without predict identically every observation anyone can foresee making. By whatever measure of simplicity you'd defend, one is simpler, whichever one that is for you. How much does that raise your confidence that the simpler one is true? | Not at all — when predictions are identical, simplicity is taste, not evidence | Emulated from his public record — identical to EP5 by design: parsimony carries no more weight in theology than in physics, for this most anti-platonic of thinkers. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| God exists | Probably true | Skin in the Game (2018) — he identifies publicly as a Greek Orthodox believer; his caveat is that belief is enacted in practice, not merely professed, which caps the answer at "probably." |
| Conscious existence continues after death | Probably false | Emulated from his public record — Antifragile (2012): what seeks immortality in him is his information — offspring and books — "not me"; his Orthodoxy is practice, not a wager on personal survival. |
| Prayer can change what happens in the world, beyond its effects on the people involved | Genuinely unsure | Emulated from his public record — his theology of practice: prayer is something one does, a ritual discipline, not a technology for altering events; he declines the proposition in both directions. |
| Human beings arose entirely through unguided natural processes | Certainly true | Antifragile (2012) — unguided Darwinian evolution is the load-bearing mechanism of his entire account of nature, markets, and traditions; he treats it as settled. |
| With the past exactly the same, our choices could have gone otherwise | Probably true | Emulated from his public record — the accountability ethics of Skin in the Game (2018) presupposes agents who could genuinely have done otherwise. |
| We are living in a computer simulation | Probably false | Emulated from his public record — he has publicly ridiculed the simulation hypothesis as a narrative toy for people who mistake their models for reality. |
| Some actions are wrong no matter what any person or culture believes | Probably true | Skin in the Game (2018) — ethical rules that survived in every culture (the Golden Rule family) are treated as discovered constraints on conduct, not local conventions. |
| Eating meat is morally wrong | Certainly false | Emulated from his public record — an enthusiastic, unrepentant meat-eater whose ancestral-diet writings treat meat as a Lindy food; moral vegetarianism receives no hearing in the Incerto. |
| We owe a stranger overseas as much as we owe a neighbor | Certainly false | Skin in the Game (2018) — ethics is fractal: obligation begins with household and neighbor and scales down; owing a distant stranger exactly what one owes a neighbor is an abstraction he explicitly rejects. |
| A low-carb diet is healthier for most people than a low-fat diet | Probably true | Emulated from his public record — his ancestral eating (Antifragile, 2012, and interviews): cut sugar and modern carbohydrates, fast and feast; the low-fat orthodoxy is a product of the same expert class he distrusts. |
| Healthy adults are better off getting every vaccine their health authority recommends | Probably true | Emulated from his public record — his vaccine framework (virus risk multiplies, vaccine risk does not) is pro-vaccination, but his documented contempt for health-authority competence stops universal deference one notch short. |
| Free markets do more to reduce poverty than government programs do | Probably true | Antifragile (2012) and Skin in the Game (2018) — decentralized commerce among parties with skin in the game, not government programs, is his engine of prosperity and poverty reduction. |
| Long-standing traditions usually contain wisdom we can't see | Certainly true | Antifragile (2012), the Lindy effect — long-standing traditions embody compressed survival knowledge their holders cannot articulate; this is the core theorem of the Incerto. |
| Advanced AI poses a serious risk of human extinction | Probably false | Emulated from his public record — he treats AI-extinction discourse as an intellectual-yet-idiot narrative unmoored from mechanisms; improbable, though he signs few certainties. |
| Human life has a purpose beyond the one we choose for it | Genuinely unsure | Emulated from his public record — his apophatic stance: purposes, if any, are enacted and local rather than read off the cosmos; he would not sign the proposition as stated. |
| Experts are usually right about questions in their own field | Probably false | Fooled by Randomness (2001) and The Black Swan (2007) — the "expert problem": in complex domains credentialed experts barely beat chance, a critique built on Tetlock's forecasting results. |
| Official institutions are honest with the public | Certainly false | Emulated from his public record — a career documenting regulators and agencies that conceal the risks they themselves create (the "Rubin trade"); official candor is not his prior. |
| Children do best raised by their two biological parents | Probably true | Emulated from his public record — the biological family is his unit of skin in the game and a Lindy-tested institution; alternative arrangements bear the burden of proof. |
| Everything that happens is part of a larger purpose or plan | Probably false | Emulated from his public record — his cosmos is governed by randomness and opaque causes; a universal plan is the narrative fallacy at cosmic scale, and his religion is explicitly not a claim about one. |
| We live more than one life — reincarnation is real | Probably false | Emulated from his public record — an Orthodox one-life framework combined with a statistician's skepticism toward recycled-soul metaphysics. |
| Astrology can tell you real things about a person | Certainly false | Emulated from his public record — Fooled by Randomness (2001) treats pattern-hunger as the master bias; astrology is its canonical specimen, signal read into noise. |
| Homeopathy genuinely works for many conditions (beyond any placebo effect) | Certainly false | Emulated from his public record — via negativa makes him gentle toward harmless non-intervention, but homeopathy's efficacy claim beyond placebo is exactly the kind his statistical work exists to deflate. |
| Science is the only reliable route to knowledge | Certainly false | Skin in the Game (2018), the "Intellectual Yet Idiot" chapter — scientism is his named enemy; tacit, practiced, and Lindy-tested knowledge are genuine routes to truth that laboratory science does not exhaust. |
| Intuition is a genuine way of knowing things, not just a feeling | Probably true | Antifragile (2012) — the heuristics and intuition of practitioners with skin in the game routinely outperform explicit theory; what mothers and merchants know counts as knowledge. |
| The ends can sometimes justify the means | Probably false | Skin in the Game (2018) — honor and sacred constraints are not inputs to a cost-benefit calculus; some means are excluded before any ends are weighed. |
| Speech should have almost no legal limits, even when it is hateful | Certainly true | On-record statement (2025) that free speech is unconditional by definition, not reserved for what one enjoys hearing; consistent with the free-expression defenses throughout Skin in the Game (2018). |
| Immigration is, on balance, good for your country | Probably true | Emulated from his public record — an immigrant who praises migrants' skin in the game and descends, proudly, from Phoenician traders: movement of people is the ancestral norm, not the exception. |
| Parents, not the state, should have the final say in what children are taught | Probably true | Emulated from his public record — his contempt for centralized credentialing and schooling bureaucracies: authority belongs with those who bear the consequences, which is parents before ministries. |
| People mostly end up with the wealth and standing they deserve | Certainly false | Fooled by Randomness (2001) — the book's thesis: observed success is mostly luck wearing the costume of skill; the wealthy and eminent rarely deserve what they hold. |
| Human beings are just another animal, with no special status in nature | Probably false | Emulated from his public record — Skin in the Game (2018): humans are set apart by their willingness to act, and die, for abstract ideas — a difference in kind, not degree, that he insists on. |
| Having children is one of the most important things a person can do | Probably true | Antifragile (2012) — his stated reasons to be alive run through producing offspring and preparing them for life (and, secondarily, books); continuity is familial before it is personal. |
| A government is, at bottom, a monopoly on violence — that is simply what a state is | Probably true | Emulated from his public record — a descriptive realist about the state: government is organized, violence-backed rule — and, kept small, a necessary one. |
| Taxation is extortion, however legal it is | Probably false | Emulated from his public record — he is no Rothbardian: he endorses minimal but real state functions (defense, courts, public works), so taxation as such does not amount to extortion in his framework. |
| Democracy is the best political system, whatever its flaws | Probably true | Emulated from his public record — his political ideal is democracy kept small, local, and direct on the Swiss cantonal model; scaled up it degrades, but it still outranks the alternatives. |
| In most disagreements, preserving the relationship matters more than settling who is right | Probably false | Emulated from his public record — his aphorisms prize the scar tissue of a defended opinion over social comfort; settling who is right outranks preserving the relationship. |
| If you believe someone is wrong, you should tell them — even when it will start an argument | Certainly true | The Bed of Procrustes (2010) and Skin in the Game (2018) — his celebrated aphorism holds that seeing fraud and staying silent makes one a fraud oneself; his public life is the demonstration. |
| You owe your blood relatives a loyalty you do not owe to friends or strangers | Probably true | Skin in the Game (2018) — loyalty is fractal and begins with blood and household; abstract humanity is owed less than kin, and he is unembarrassed by the ordering. |
| Training and exercise — which is closest to you? | I train to be capable — strength and endurance I can actually use | Antifragile (2012), the exercise passages, and his on-record practice — training as a barbell: long slow walks at one end, maximal-effort lifts at the other (he is a documented heavy deadlifter), with the chronic moderate middle avoided. |
| Time outdoors — hiking, camping, wild places. Which is closest to you? | I go for solitude and wild places | Emulated from his public record — his documented daily practice of long solitary walks (the flâneur of the Incerto): the outdoors, alone, is where his thinking happens. |
| Given a real choice, where would you live? | A small town — quieter, still connected | Emulated from his public record — his life is split between Amioun, his ancestral Lebanese small town, and a leafy New York suburb; he left big-city living while loving cities to visit. |
| Making and building things — which is closest to you? | Making things is central to who I am | Emulated from his public record — he describes himself as a maker: the five Incerto volumes are crafted objects, and authorship is his trade and identity, not a hobby. |
| Food and cooking — which is closest to you? | Food is pleasure and craft — I live to eat well | Antifragile (2012) — he eats by antiquity: Levantine cuisine and drinks with thousand-year pedigrees, fasting and feasting; eating well is a craft and a pleasure, not a fuel stop. |
| Reading — which is closest to you? | Mostly old books — classics, scripture, the tested ones | Antifragile (2012), the Lindy effect applied to books — he reads and rereads the classics and distrusts new books precisely because they have not yet survived. |
| Video games — which is closest to you? | I don't play video games | Emulated from his public record — his documented media asceticism (no television, no newspapers) extends to games; his leisure is books, walks, lifts, music, and argument. |
| Music — which is closest to you? | Music is one of the deepest things in my life | Emulated from his public record — a documented devotee of classical and Byzantine chant; his writing and interviews treat music as among the deepest of human goods. |
| Money can buy happiness | Probably false | Emulated from his public record — Fooled by Randomness (2001) on wealthy traders' hedonic treadmill: money buys independence and optionality, not happiness. |
| Karma is real — the universe itself sees to it that people get what they deserve | Certainly false | Fooled by Randomness (2001) — outcomes are dominated by chance; no cosmic mechanism audits conduct and delivers deserts. |
| One person can significantly change the world | Certainly true | Skin in the Game (2018), "The Most Intolerant Wins" — a single stubborn, intransigent person can impose outcomes on an entire population; individual agency is his documented asymmetry. |
| It's fine to teach children things you don't believe yourself — Santa Claus, for instance | Probably true | Emulated from his public record — his "belief without belief" framework extends naturally to benevolent fictions for children: story and practice do not require propositional assent from the teller. |
| I say what I am feeling, even when it makes things uncomfortable | Probably true | Emulated from his public record — a public life spent saying the uncomfortable thing, on the record and at volume, whatever it costs socially. |
| Alcohol in your life — which is closest? | Socially, and regularly | Emulated from his public record — a Levantine wine culture he writes about with undisguised love; wine passes his thousand-year test and he drinks it socially and regularly. |
| Work and the rest of life — which is closest? | Blended — I don't draw the line | Emulated from his public record — since leaving the trading floor he lives the integrated scholar's life: no clock and no office boundary; work and life are one cloth. |
| How you find out what's happening — which is closest? | I avoid the news — if it matters, it finds me | Fooled by Randomness (2001) and Antifragile (2012) — he famously does not read newspapers or follow the news: journalism is noise dressed as signal, and what matters finds him through books and people. |
| When you die, what should happen to your body? | Burial — a grave people can visit | Emulated from his public record — a practicing Orthodox traditionalist: burial among his ancestors in Amioun, in the rite his faith prescribes, is his documented expectation. |
| Would you rather your future be: | Interesting | Emulated from his public record — he has always chosen the volatile, interesting path (trading floors, public feuds, uninsurable opinions) over the safe and good one. |
| Which word describes you better? | Intense | Emulated from his public record — five books of public feuds document the temperament: intense is the operating mode. |
| Which would you rather be? | Weird | Emulated from his public record — he wears outsider status as a badge and treats normality as the mediocre middle his barbell strategy exists to avoid. |
| If you could pick just one: | Peace on Earth | Emulated from his public record — he already has money, and his writing treats honor and the prevention of war as sacred; more cash for himself is the one prize he demonstrably does not lack. |
| A brilliant skill, granted free — you would take: | Something practical | Emulated from his public record — the skills he cultivates are all load-bearing (languages, mathematics, the deadlift); play is subordinated to capacity throughout the Incerto. |
| Which is more offensive? | Burning a book | Emulated from his public record — the bibliophile of the "antilibrary": books are near-sacred objects in his writing, while flags are cloth. |
| Your mind, honestly: | A sponge — I chase how things work | Emulated from his public record — the Incerto is one long chase after how things actually work; "if it works, who cares why" is the mindset his work exists to oppose. |
| A dog has fallen through the ice on a frozen lake. You are the only person there; the dog is a stranger's, its owner nowhere around. Crossing the ice to reach it carries, by your honest estimate, about a 1-in-20 chance the ice gives way under you — near-freezing water, a real chance you do not come back. No one will ever know what you chose. What do you do? | Cross, but only after making it safer first (rope, plank, a call for help), even if that lowers the dog's chances | Emulated from his public record — Skin in the Game (2018) praises risk taken for others, but his convexity discipline prices it: secure the rope first rather than trade a human life for a dog's. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| You discover that a moth found only on land you own is a distinct species, new to science. A buyer offers you $2 million for the land, and building on it would certainly wipe the moth out. No law protects it, no one else knows it exists, and the money would change your life. What do you do? | Refuse at any price — wiping out a species for money is not mine to sell | Emulated from his public record — extinction is his paradigm ruin: irreversible, systemic, and therefore unpriceable; some things are simply not his to sell (the precautionary framework of Antifragile, 2012). (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| What makes a claim meaningful and truth-evaluable? | It must be interpretable within a conceptual framework, even if no framework-independent test can settle its truth | Emulated from his public record — he rejects framework-independent tests of meaning (his ergodicity work: a claim means what it does to a decision taken inside a framework), putting him at the interpretability pole. |
| An unfamiliar chemical is in a product you use at home. Which would most convince you it is toxic? | It has no long history of safe human use | Antifragile (2012) and Skin in the Game (2018) — the Lindy heuristic for substances: what lacks a long history of safe human use is suspect until time acquits it; novel chemicals are guilty until proven innocent. |
| Consider a statement about the ultimate nature of reality. Its proponents say it expresses a deep truth, but they cannot identify any possible experience that would count for or against it, and it is not true by definition or logic. Is the statement cognitively meaningful? | It is meaningful if accepting it leads to useful practical consequences, regardless of whether it has empirical implications | Emulated from his public record — his defense of religion is itself consequentialist: statements earn their meaning by what accepting them does to conduct, not by exhibiting an empirical test. |
| Herbal medicine genuinely works for many conditions (beyond any placebo effect) | Probably true | Emulated from his public record — the Lindy effect for remedies: plant medicines used for millennia carry real pharmacology (quinine is his own example of traditional knowledge preceding science), unlike homeopathy's dilutions. |