4 ms·

> coconut on Coconut Island He means "missing the obvious". > circularities He means being unable to define something in terms of its referents, instead defi

> coconut on Coconut Island He means "missing the obvious". > circularities He means being unable to define something in terms of its referents, instead defining it in terms of the properties you've already prescribed as being the thing. Can you define what love is without using terms like "affection"? Typically you need to start giving examples. Overall he's using rhetoric to make fun of self-proclaimed intellectuals that can't, won't, or don't actually think. > ensemble modulus linear aggregation Sometimes, a collection of things is more than just the sum of its parts. I think his "minority rule" chapter was about how if you have a majority willing to make concessions and a minority unwilling to make concessions, the minority can control the actions of the majority. So their effect is more than the sum of their presence. Trust me when I say he's intelligible. But it looks like his writing style is not for everyone.

khedoros 10y ago
It's well-organized, but exhausting to read. I can't help but think that the ideas would be communicated more clearly if the author wrote in plainer language.
jimmywanger 10y ago
> Trust me when I say he's intelligible. I shouldn't have to trust you, his writing should speak for itself. There are multiple reasons to write. One is to, you know, actually communicate ideas. I guess that wasn't his goal. Another reason is to virtue signal. "Hey, I know more big words than you do and can string them together, therefore I am cultured." Maybe that's his motive. His essay reads like every single post-modern paper that dresses up simple ideas in big words to try to make them seem profound. Like putting spinning rims on a Toyota Corolla.
- bordercases 10y ago
  Rhetoric has been a key part of communication for quite literally epochs and is used to entertain us while making a point. I think that may be where the difference between us lies. Taleb has an axe to grind and is quite boisterous about it. For me watching Taleb go is like watching an intellectual WWF, the showmanship itself is thrilling and aggressive. For someone who brands himself as, and in terms of his ideas actually is, a contrarian, this aesthetic befits the material. But I understand if that's a turn off for some. Either way I don't think it's something to become upset about.
- bertiewhykovich 10y ago
  I'm almost positive that's not what virtue signaling means.

khedoros 10y ago

It's well-organized, but exhausting to read. I can't help but think that the ideas would be communicated more clearly if the author wrote in plainer language.

jimmywanger 10y ago

> Trust me when I say he's intelligible. I shouldn't have to trust you, his writing should speak for itself. There are multiple reasons to write. One is to, you know, actually communicate ideas. I guess that wasn't his goal. Another reason is to virtue signal. "Hey, I know more big words than you do and can string them together, therefore I am cultured." Maybe that's his motive. His essay reads like every single post-modern paper that dresses up simple ideas in big words to try to make them seem profound. Like putting spinning rims on a Toyota Corolla.

bordercases 10y ago
Rhetoric has been a key part of communication for quite literally epochs and is used to entertain us while making a point. I think that may be where the difference between us lies. Taleb has an axe to grind and is quite boisterous about it. For me watching Taleb go is like watching an intellectual WWF, the showmanship itself is thrilling and aggressive. For someone who brands himself as, and in terms of his ideas actually is, a contrarian, this aesthetic befits the material. But I understand if that's a turn off for some. Either way I don't think it's something to become upset about.
bertiewhykovich 10y ago
I'm almost positive that's not what virtue signaling means.