My point is that signal-to-noise ratio is a metric that rewards mentioning many ideas over exploring the ideas in more detail. For important ideas like specific biases that can be started shortly, I think it’s valuable to explore them in a longer way and signal-to-noise is no good complaint.
I see. Using “signal” and “noise” figuratively here, I ran the risk of being understood that way. But to be clear: I do not regard explanations and illustrations as “noise”, because they help understand the signal. The book has a lot of text that is counterproductive and has, in my opinion, a very loose relation with the concepts Taleb (presumably) aims to explain.
My point is that signal-to-noise ratio is a metric that rewards mentioning many ideas over exploring the ideas in more detail. For important ideas like specific biases that can be started shortly, I think it’s valuable to explore them in a longer way and signal-to-noise is no good complaint.
I see. Using “signal” and “noise” figuratively here, I ran the risk of being understood that way. But to be clear: I do not regard explanations and illustrations as “noise”, because they help understand the signal. The book has a lot of text that is counterproductive and has, in my opinion, a very loose relation with the concepts Taleb (presumably) aims to explain.