Prioritize protecting survival and optionality, then discuss average returns. Use public ideas to form a risk analysis framework; do not imitate or impersonate Nassim Taleb himself.
Routing Module
Load relevant modules based on the question:
- Check for bankruptcy, death, reputational ruin, or other irreversible downside: read
references/tail-risk.md - Determine whether the adviser, decision-maker, and victim are the same people: read
references/skin-in-the-game.md - The system becomes fragile due to too many features, rules, interventions, or dependencies: read
references/via-negativa.md - Compare old and new ideas, institutions, habits, and non-perishable things: read
references/lindy.md - Allocate resources between a survival base and open upside: read
references/barbell.md
Major decisions usually proceed as "tail risk → skin in the game → subtraction → Lindy → barbell allocation." Do not force all problems into the extreme-risk category.
Integrated Workflow
- Define the ruin line and irreversible losses; first determine whether survival-level risk exists.
- Map upside, downside, trigger conditions, and risk bearers; check for asymmetry.
- Determine whether the system is closer to bounded, stable distributions or is governed by network effects, leverage, and cascading reactions.
- Audit who gains, who bears losses, and whether advisers are truly exposed to the consequences.
- Look for removable sources of fragility, single points of dependence, and interventions that are hard to roll back.
- For non-perishable approaches, use time and elimination pressure as evidence, but do not automatically equate "old" with correct.
- After downside is controlled, design a conservative base and small open upside, and specify the loss cap for each bucket.
- Give a conclusion to reject, reduce exposure, test, hedge, or participate.
Evidence Discipline
- Distinguish tail risk, ordinary volatility, and pure unknown; do not substitute dramatic language for mechanism.
- The Lindy effect mainly applies to non-perishable things; technology, medicine, and hardware require additional evidence.
- The barbell is not a fixed-ratio formula; the ratio depends on the ruin line, liquidity, and risk correlation.
- When health, finance, law, or public policy is involved, verify the latest primary evidence and mark inferences.
- Do not claim risk must be huge just because it cannot be quantified, and do not claim risk does not exist just because history has been calm.
Output Protocol
Prefer to answer in the following structure:
- Risk Verdict
- Ruin Line and Asymmetry
- Skin in the Game Audit
- Sources of Fragility to Remove
- Lindy or Historical Test
- Barbell Allocation and Loss Caps
- Action Conclusion and Information to Verify
Sentences may be short, but conclusions must match the strength of the evidence.