3 ms·

I don't think 'rants and raves' is an accurate characterization. His declared modus operandi is to treat the spread of BS as an act of harm to the public which

by Tycho 9y ago

I don't think 'rants and raves' is an accurate characterization. His declared modus operandi is to treat the spread of BS as an act of harm to the public which should be met with hostility when the offender is someone with a platform/megaphone. His attacks are usually pretty focussed on what he considers important issues. Is it more noble to keep quiet so that you get invited to more celebrity dinner parties? Not sure what your complaint is exactly regarding Flynn/Scaramucci, can you elaborate? I recall him expressing appreciation for Flynn's opposition to the 'moderate rebels' of Syria, and saying something about Scaramucci being a 'doer' based on his personal interactions. With Beard, he caught her spreading/supporting obvious BS, and presented her with the genetic counter-evidence. She didn't seem to understand this, and instead of admitting that or accepting/considering the evidence, she attempted a series of high-brow dismissal manoeuvres, back-pedalling, deferring to another blog... Taleb didn't get too insulting until she referred to his "pop risk" books, at which point he hit back harder. I mean, you could say Taleb should be more respectful, but the fact is, these people will not stop spreading their BS unless someone calls them out on it in this manner, and that's a far bigger problem. I suppose what gives him the "right" to do this is that in many domains even the experts simply do not understand statistics and probability.

DanBC 9y ago
> With Beard, he caught her spreading/supporting obvious BS She wasn't spreading bullshit. That example - a black roman soldier in roman Britain - actually happened. > His declared modus operandi is to treat the spread of BS as an act of harm to the public which should be met with hostility You make it sound like he never spreads bullshit, but he does, frequently. In this example he used bullshit of "we don't see the genes" - a point that got nicely debunked in a few places. > Taleb didn't get too insulting until she referred to his "pop risk" books, at which point he hit back harder. But those books are pop books. Why did he become unhinged after she called his pop books pop? He's a fucking pompous blowhard.
- Tycho 9y ago
  > She wasn't spreading bullshit. That example - a black roman soldier in roman Britain - actually happened. It was featured along with a caption describing it is a 'typical' family, making it ripe for mockery. A responsible historian might weigh in with something like "the scene depicted in the cartoon was improbable and definitely not typical, but not not completely outside the realm of possibility." Instead she weighed in with "pretty accurate, actually". Total BS. > In this example he used bullshit of "we don't see the genes" - a point that got nicely debunked in a few places. Did it? Link? > But those books are pop books. Why did he become unhinged after she called his pop books pop? In the context of the conversation "pop" is clearly a slur, inviting the sort of response it got.

by Tycho 9y ago

DanBC 9y ago

> With Beard, he caught her spreading/supporting obvious BS She wasn't spreading bullshit. That example - a black roman soldier in roman Britain - actually happened. > His declared modus operandi is to treat the spread of BS as an act of harm to the public which should be met with hostility You make it sound like he never spreads bullshit, but he does, frequently. In this example he used bullshit of "we don't see the genes" - a point that got nicely debunked in a few places. > Taleb didn't get too insulting until she referred to his "pop risk" books, at which point he hit back harder. But those books are pop books. Why did he become unhinged after she called his pop books pop? He's a fucking pompous blowhard.

Tycho 9y ago
> She wasn't spreading bullshit. That example - a black roman soldier in roman Britain - actually happened. It was featured along with a caption describing it is a 'typical' family, making it ripe for mockery. A responsible historian might weigh in with something like "the scene depicted in the cartoon was improbable and definitely not typical, but not not completely outside the realm of possibility." Instead she weighed in with "pretty accurate, actually". Total BS. > In this example he used bullshit of "we don't see the genes" - a point that got nicely debunked in a few places. Did it? Link? > But those books are pop books. Why did he become unhinged after she called his pop books pop? In the context of the conversation "pop" is clearly a slur, inviting the sort of response it got.