The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable

I prefer Horowitz—How to fall from favor—The long tail—Get ready for some surprises—It’s not just money

Let us see how an increasingly man-made planet can evolve away from mild into wild randomness. First, I describe how we get to Extremistan. Then, I will take a look at its evolution.

The World Is Unfair

Is the world that unfair? I have spent my entire life studying randomness, practicing randomness, hating randomness. The more that time passes, the worse things seem to me, the more scared I get, the more disgusted I am with Mother Nature. The more I think about my subject, the more I see evidence that the world we have in our minds is different from the one playing outside. Every morning the world appears to me more random than it did the day before, and humans seem to be even more fooled by it than they were the previous day. It is becoming unbearable. I find writing these lines painful; I find the world revolting.

Two “soft” scientists propose intuitive models for the development of this inequity: one is a mainstream economist, the other a sociologist. Both simplify a little too much. I will present their ideas because they are easy to understand, not because of the scientific quality of their insights or any consequences in their discoveries; then I will show the story as seen from the vantage point of the natural scientists.

Let me start with the economist Sherwin Rosen. In the early eighties, he wrote papers about “the economics of superstars.” In one of the papers he conveyed his sense of outrage that a basketball player could earn $1.2 million a year, or a television celebrity could make $2 million. To get an idea of how this concentration is increasing—i.e., of how we are moving away from Mediocristan—consider that television celebrities and sports stars (even in Europe) get contracts today, only two decades later, worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars! The extreme is about (so far) twenty times higher than it was two decades ago!

According to Rosen, this inequality comes from a tournament effect: someone who is marginally “better” can easily win the entire pot, leaving the others with nothing. Using an argument from Chapter 3, people prefer to pay $10.99 for a recording featuring Horowitz to $9.99 for a struggling pianist. Would you rather read Kundera for $13.99 or some unknown author for $1? So it looks like a tournament, where the winner grabs the whole thing—and he does not have to win by much.

But the role of luck is missing in Rosen’s beautiful argument. The problem here is the notion of “better,” this focus on skills as leading to success. Random outcomes, or an arbitrary situation, can also explain success, and provide the initial push that leads to a winner-take-all result. A person can get slightly ahead for entirely random reasons; because we like to imitate one another, we will flock to him. The world of contagion is so underestimated!

As I am writing these lines I am using a Macintosh, by Apple, after years of using Microsoft-based products. The Apple technology is vastly better, yet the inferior software won the day. How? Luck.

The Matthew Effect

More than a decade before Rosen, the sociologist of science Robert K. Merton presented his idea of the Matthew effect, by which people take from the poor to give to the rich.[45] He looked at the performance of scientists and showed how an initial advantage follows someone through life. Consider the following process.

Let’s say someone writes an academic paper quoting fifty people who have worked on the subject and provided background materials for his study; assume, for the sake of simplicity, that all fifty are of equal merit. Another researcher working on the exact same subject will randomly cite three of those fifty in his bibliography. Merton showed that many academics cite references without having read the original work; rather, they’ll read a paper and draw their own citations from among its sources. So a third researcher reading the second article selects three of the previously referenced authors for his citations. These three authors will receive cumulatively more and more attention as their names become associated more tightly with the subject at hand. The difference between the winning three and the other members of the original cohort is mostly luck: they were initially chosen not for their greater skill, but simply for the way their names appeared in the prior bibliography. Thanks to their reputations, these successful academics will go on writing papers and their work will be easily accepted for publication. Academic success is partly (but significantly) a lottery.[46]