> Funny I find your comments to be doing exactly what they are critiquing.
I am really not doing it. I gave specific examples of what is wrong with his article and in what areas standard deviation works. I am not defending a view that "standard deviation describes reality better" or anything like that. I am saying why his article is bad and in what areas his solution of just using MAD doesn't work. Those are quite specific things. How can you tell I am doing the same thing I am accusing him of ?
While I didn't mention any specific fragment in his book I thought it's a useful view to add it as I've spent a lot of time developing it (I've read 3 books of him and listened to many talks). There is limited space in internet forum post and proving my point would require quoting the entire book as I claimed there is barely any paragraph without nonsense or term misuse. Also my claim is easily verifiable: just start reading "Antifragile" and see for yourself.
That can't be said about his claims.
> Nassim is not saying to get rid of the concept, but more like saying a lot of people are not using it correctly.
Really? That's the vibe you get from the article ? Let's see:
>it is time to retire it from common use and replace it with the more effective one of mean deviation
>Standard deviation, STD, should be left to mathematicians, physicists and mathematical statisticians deriving limit theorems. There is no scientific reason to use it in statistical investigations in the age of the computer
>as it does more harm than good
>It is all due to a historical accident: in 1893
He is not saying that some people in some situations misuse the concept. He is saying the concept is dangerous and should be disposed of. I get that he is easy to like as he picks on groups not generally liked but let's stick to what he is actually claiming instead of softening it for him.
Again, he doesn't give one simple example of a situation which could be handled better by using MAD instead of now used standard deviation.
> Funny I find your comments to be doing exactly what they are critiquing.
I am really not doing it. I gave specific examples of what is wrong with his article and in what areas standard deviation works. I am not defending a view that "standard deviation describes reality better" or anything like that. I am saying why his article is bad and in what areas his solution of just using MAD doesn't work. Those are quite specific things. How can you tell I am doing the same thing I am accusing him of ? While I didn't mention any specific fragment in his book I thought it's a useful view to add it as I've spent a lot of time developing it (I've read 3 books of him and listened to many talks). There is limited space in internet forum post and proving my point would require quoting the entire book as I claimed there is barely any paragraph without nonsense or term misuse. Also my claim is easily verifiable: just start reading "Antifragile" and see for yourself. That can't be said about his claims.
> Nassim is not saying to get rid of the concept, but more like saying a lot of people are not using it correctly.
Really? That's the vibe you get from the article ? Let's see:
>it is time to retire it from common use and replace it with the more effective one of mean deviation
>Standard deviation, STD, should be left to mathematicians, physicists and mathematical statisticians deriving limit theorems. There is no scientific reason to use it in statistical investigations in the age of the computer
>as it does more harm than good
>It is all due to a historical accident: in 1893
He is not saying that some people in some situations misuse the concept. He is saying the concept is dangerous and should be disposed of. I get that he is easy to like as he picks on groups not generally liked but let's stick to what he is actually claiming instead of softening it for him. Again, he doesn't give one simple example of a situation which could be handled better by using MAD instead of now used standard deviation.