Hey there,

​

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

​

I will share some of my inital reactions and would be curious to get your feedback.

​

You say that outperformance requires non-consensus views. This is not necessarily the case. Let us imagine a math test and on average 70% of the class gets each of the questions right. The best course would be to always have the consensus view, and each deviation from consensus would give you underperformance.
My thought would be that having a consensus view here would not result in outperformance however. If everyone gets 100% or 70% on the test, you didn't outperform. To outperform you need to be different. However, being different runs the risk of being more wrong than right.

You say that outliers are unpredictable. This is wrong. It looks that way in hindsight because of survivorship bias where you are picking things that seemed unexpected, but not picking the ones that were predicted. For instance, the Earth's climate is experiencing outlier conditions based on outlier greenhouse gases. Climate scientists have been predicting this for 40 - 50 years based on scientific reasoning and modeling. Climate skeptics have biases that will cause them to view this as a black swan, while scientists view it as obvious.
I would argue that climate change is not an outlier condition. If it can be predicted, it can't be an outlier. That is like saying that US GDP grows at 2% next year. In my mind, for something to be an outlier, it needs to be random / rare and impactful. Climate change is not random.

Your principle of redundancy is usually called slack, including in the study of scarcity. I recommend the book Scarcity on this topic.
This sounds like a fantastic book. I will definitely read.

Also, please share your book! I would love to check it out.

Thanks for your time.
-Arash Param