Patterns in the Dark: Understanding Risk and Financial Crisis with Complexity Theory (Wiley Investment) (Hardcover)

Lest the rank-and-file practitioner forget, the most humble methods one has for interpreting any information in the market have their conceptual grounding from the 1930's application of equilibrium in physics to economics. These humble methods include the Portfolio Theory of the 1970s and Graham & Dodd of the 1930s. What most practitioners fail to appreciate is that once that conceptual foundation is changed from equilibrium to complexity, every metric and every conclusion drawn from those metrics change also.

The changes Peters highlights, while based on solid science, challenge much of the convetional wisdom. It is the millenium and age of enlightenment. Investors should treat themselves to some of the same and read this book.

Christopher MAY - author Nonlinear Pricing

I was therefore shocked and extremely disappointed to find "Patterns in the Dark" to be a collection of vague, banal observations about risk and uncertainty. On the few occasions when Peters attempts to make actual statements of fact, he's wrong as often as he's right (see below). It's almost inconceivable that this book was written by the same person. I can only conclude that Mr. Peters deliberately dumbed down this book in an attempt to reach a broader audience. Unfortunately, he went way too far. That a firm like Wiley would publish a book like this is disturbing.

If you don't mind 200 large-print pages of simplistic generalities, factual errors, anecdotes devoid of insight, and cartoons (no joke), this book is for you. But if you'd like to actually learn something about the nonlinear nature of markets, read Peters' excellent "Fractal Market Analysis".

Finally, for those interested in some details of the factual errors I mentioned above, I'll provide two glaring examples.

First, the author dredges up that old chestnut of probability, the "Monte Hall Dilemma". This is an often-quoted probability question that, while trivial once understood, is counter-intuitive and hence widely misunderstood. Peters gives the correct solution, but he states that the question "has caused a great deal of debate in statistical circles" and that there is "not universal agreement" on the answer, as if it were some great unsolved problem of mathematics. This is absolute hogwash. While it has caused much confusion among the general public and the press, to someone with a basic knowledge of probability, or to anyone willing to make the effort to really think about it, it's a very simple problem.

Second, and much more disturbing, is the author's assertion that "Darwin was essentially wrong", that "the basic premise of Darwinian evolution has deep flaws". This conclusion is based on his profound misunderstanding of Darwin's theory. Peters' argument is essentially as follows: the number of possible combinations of genes in even the most simple organism is astronomical, so to "search through these combinations to find the best one" would take "longer than the age of the known universe". Of course, as any high school biology student should know, Darwinian natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with the absurd notion of exhaustively "trying out" every possible organism that could conceivably exist. If the author is interested in understanding what Darwin actually theorized, and why nearly all biologists now think he was essentially right, I would refer him to Darwin's own "The Origin of Species", and to the excellent books by Richard Dawkins.