This makes me wonder—what of the missing two Knights?
The Green Knight is spoken of in legend and it seems appropriate. If you strike the Green Knight, it adopts and strikes you back. You can think you’ve got it under control, but you’re wrong - ‘life can’t be contained’ and all that. Green Knight might seem to agree to things, but it doesn’t take. This legend was also the origin of what, when I was trying to model fair values for things in various non-efficient markets, my partner called The Green Knight Test—you get to bet into the market (at its midpoint) but the market then gets to bet into your model. And you’re fully ready only if you can beat that. Because that means you actually understand the whole of its nature. Until then all you have is a Zeroing Out.
What then of the Blue Knight? Presumably he is the rationalist sphere writ large that champions the pursuit of knowledge—and who also resists, in the form of wanting to constantly reason everything out rather than exist in the moment or allow the rituals to work. The hidden enemy of the experiment, who we have met, and the enemy is us.
I suspect that this is a part that some people might not have understood:
This legend was also the origin of what, when I was trying to model fair values for things in various non-efficient markets, my partner called The Green Knight Test—you get to bet into the market (at its midpoint) but the market then gets to bet into your model. And you’re fully ready only if you can beat that. Because that means you actually understand the whole of its nature.
My attempted paraphrase—let’s say you have a model that prices assets that you can bet on (stocks, odds on a boxing match), and you think the model is pretty good. But is it actually good?
Well, the obvious test is whether you can make money from your model, by placing bets when it disagrees with the market. But Zvi is pointing out that there’s really two different versions of this test: the Level 1 test, and the Level 2 test. And he calls Level 2, The Green Knight Test.
For the Level 1 test, when your model disagrees with the market, you get to decide whether to bet or not, and you get to bet at the current market price. So maybe you only bet when the model strongly disagrees with the market, or when the model is highly confident.
For the Level 2 test, you don’t get to decide when to bet. You state your price, and then the market gets to decide whether to bet with you or not. And as long as others are willing to trade at your price you have to keep buying or selling. (Zvi calls this the Green Knight Test, because you’re not just on the offense placing bets—you gotta handle whatever the market throws back at you, like the Green Knight who strikes back.)
To make money on the Level 1 test, you just have to sometimes be more right than the market (and be able to tell when that is). To make money on the Level 2 test, you have to be more right than the market on average, even when the market gets to pick its battles.
Whoa. Thanks for the clarification/elaboration. I’m a big Zvi enthusiast but was unable to follow the idea until you commented. Interesting. It’s the difference between needing to be be able to spot occasional exploitable inefficiencies and to have full-on defenses against everything bad.
(This is an entirely meta post, which feels like it might not be helpful, but I’ll post it anyway because I’m trying to have weaker babble filters. Feel free to ignore if it’s useless.
I generally enjoy your writing style, and think it’s evocative and clear-in-aggregate. But I find this comment entirely inscrutable. I think there’s something about the interaction between your “gesturing” style and a short comment, that doesn’t work as well for me as a reader compared to that style in a longer piece where the I can get into the flow of what you’re saying and figure out your referents inductively.
Either that or you’re referencing things I haven’t read or don’t remember.)
Thank you, good feedback. My feeling was that as a short comment it was 100% fine if it didn’t make sense to non-MtG people (or at least, anyone without the color wheel), and I’d rather keep it short than give the necessary background. Plus, it was more of a ‘fun exploration’ thing than trying to make a serious point.
Likely I should have linked back to the color wheel post, though.
For the record, I play Magic regularly and have for a long time, and I didn’t get it. I’m still not sure to what extent the colors really align with the descriptions given by either Duncan or Zvi.
The red knight values individual sovereignty, yes, but is not risk-averse or cautious. Red is certainly capable of forming armies that follow a leader.
Black doesn’t particularly care about “convincing arguments.”
Green could be a plant-like thing that’s hard to kill, but it could also be a very fragile plant that shrivels up and dies. Or judgy, racist elves, or whatever.
Perhaps these are not so much absolute representations, as the representation of each color that is most likely to appear in a rationalist house (basically, these are all X/u knights, not pure X knights).
FWIW I understood Zvi’s comment, but feel like I might not have understood it if I hadn’t played Magic: The Gathering in the past.
EDIT: Although I don’t understand the link to Sir Arthur’s green knight, unless it was a reference to the fact that M:tG doesn’t actually have a green knight card.
I also think I wouldn’t have understood his comments without MTG or at least having read Duncan’s explanation to the MTG color wheel.
(Nitpicking) Though I’d add that MTG doesn’t have a literal Blue Knight card either, so I doubt it’s that reference. (There are knights that are blue and green, but none with the exact names “Blue Knight” or “Green Knight”.)
This makes me wonder—what of the missing two Knights?
The Green Knight is spoken of in legend and it seems appropriate. If you strike the Green Knight, it adopts and strikes you back. You can think you’ve got it under control, but you’re wrong - ‘life can’t be contained’ and all that. Green Knight might seem to agree to things, but it doesn’t take. This legend was also the origin of what, when I was trying to model fair values for things in various non-efficient markets, my partner called The Green Knight Test—you get to bet into the market (at its midpoint) but the market then gets to bet into your model. And you’re fully ready only if you can beat that. Because that means you actually understand the whole of its nature. Until then all you have is a Zeroing Out.
What then of the Blue Knight? Presumably he is the rationalist sphere writ large that champions the pursuit of knowledge—and who also resists, in the form of wanting to constantly reason everything out rather than exist in the moment or allow the rituals to work. The hidden enemy of the experiment, who we have met, and the enemy is us.
I suspect that this is a part that some people might not have understood:
My attempted paraphrase—let’s say you have a model that prices assets that you can bet on (stocks, odds on a boxing match), and you think the model is pretty good. But is it actually good?
Well, the obvious test is whether you can make money from your model, by placing bets when it disagrees with the market. But Zvi is pointing out that there’s really two different versions of this test: the Level 1 test, and the Level 2 test. And he calls Level 2, The Green Knight Test.
For the Level 1 test, when your model disagrees with the market, you get to decide whether to bet or not, and you get to bet at the current market price. So maybe you only bet when the model strongly disagrees with the market, or when the model is highly confident.
For the Level 2 test, you don’t get to decide when to bet. You state your price, and then the market gets to decide whether to bet with you or not. And as long as others are willing to trade at your price you have to keep buying or selling. (Zvi calls this the Green Knight Test, because you’re not just on the offense placing bets—you gotta handle whatever the market throws back at you, like the Green Knight who strikes back.)
To make money on the Level 1 test, you just have to sometimes be more right than the market (and be able to tell when that is). To make money on the Level 2 test, you have to be more right than the market on average, even when the market gets to pick its battles.
@Zvi, did I get it right?
Whoa. Thanks for the clarification/elaboration. I’m a big Zvi enthusiast but was unable to follow the idea until you commented. Interesting. It’s the difference between needing to be be able to spot occasional exploitable inefficiencies and to have full-on defenses against everything bad.
(This is an entirely meta post, which feels like it might not be helpful, but I’ll post it anyway because I’m trying to have weaker babble filters. Feel free to ignore if it’s useless.
I generally enjoy your writing style, and think it’s evocative and clear-in-aggregate. But I find this comment entirely inscrutable. I think there’s something about the interaction between your “gesturing” style and a short comment, that doesn’t work as well for me as a reader compared to that style in a longer piece where the I can get into the flow of what you’re saying and figure out your referents inductively.
Either that or you’re referencing things I haven’t read or don’t remember.)
Thank you, good feedback. My feeling was that as a short comment it was 100% fine if it didn’t make sense to non-MtG people (or at least, anyone without the color wheel), and I’d rather keep it short than give the necessary background. Plus, it was more of a ‘fun exploration’ thing than trying to make a serious point.
Likely I should have linked back to the color wheel post, though.
For the record, I play Magic regularly and have for a long time, and I didn’t get it. I’m still not sure to what extent the colors really align with the descriptions given by either Duncan or Zvi.
The red knight values individual sovereignty, yes, but is not risk-averse or cautious. Red is certainly capable of forming armies that follow a leader.
Black doesn’t particularly care about “convincing arguments.”
Green could be a plant-like thing that’s hard to kill, but it could also be a very fragile plant that shrivels up and dies. Or judgy, racist elves, or whatever.
Perhaps these are not so much absolute representations, as the representation of each color that is most likely to appear in a rationalist house (basically, these are all X/u knights, not pure X knights).
FWIW I understood Zvi’s comment, but feel like I might not have understood it if I hadn’t played Magic: The Gathering in the past.
EDIT: Although I don’t understand the link to Sir Arthur’s green knight, unless it was a reference to the fact that M:tG doesn’t actually have a green knight card.
The Arthurian Green Knight lets Gawain cut off his head, then picks it up and puts it back on. Trying to use force on the Green Knight is useless.
I also think I wouldn’t have understood his comments without MTG or at least having read Duncan’s explanation to the MTG color wheel.
(Nitpicking) Though I’d add that MTG doesn’t have a literal Blue Knight card either, so I doubt it’s that reference. (There are knights that are blue and green, but none with the exact names “Blue Knight” or “Green Knight”.)
Also the Red Knight card is named “Blood Knight”.