4 ms·

It's my opinion that: 1. Taleb is incredibly smart 2. He is not being arrogant or trying to impress (any more than any other writer) 3. He is writing about

It's my opinion that: 1. Taleb is incredibly smart 2. He is not being arrogant or trying to impress (any more than any other writer) 3. He is writing about something that is interesting and not everyone knows

dragonwriter 9y ago
On #2, when he mispresents fields that have addressed the effect he is discussing routinely for decades as not merely addressing it inadequately but of missing it entirely, he's either being self-aggrandizingly hyperbolic or stunningly ignorant. Or maybe its a rhetorical trick to get the reader to pay attention because they are getting a nugget of secret wisdom. But certainly plenty of other writers don't play that kind of dishonest game.
- late2part 9y ago
  He doesn’t blindly accept conventional wisdom. I don’t see it how you do. That’s okay. I’ve read a fair bit of his stuff and I like his approach to framing issues, which often ignores conventional wisdom, or phrasing.
  - jacalata 9y ago
    The phrase "doesn't blindly accept x" usually has an implication that the subject is aware of x, so you seem to be totally avoiding the argument being made that Taleb seems unaware of work done on the topics he writes about.
    - late2part 9y ago
      You are begging the question. I posit that he is aware of it and is presenting it differently than others. The disagreement is whether he understands A. The issue and B. What others said. The whole of acadamia is full of different perspectives / why not here from Taleb?
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > You are begging the question. I posit that he is aware of it and is presenting it differently than others. Flatly stating that an entire field of inquiry has, up to the point at which you are publishing your commentary, failed to recognize and consider the ramifications of a phenomenon on which effect and it's ramifications numerous papers have been published in the field for several decades is not being aware of the factual circumstances and presenting them differently than others. Its either ignorance or dishonesty. And when you compound that by using the mythical failure as a jumping off point for an explanation (“skin in the game”) for the systematic incompetence that seems necessary to explain how the field could fail to address the phenomenon, this compounds the problem.
- feulistia 9y ago
  I've noticed a formula many seem to follow in drawing attention to ones self as a public intellectual: 1. Find some topic or idea that's interesting and fairly well-accepted but not receiving a lot of attention. 2. Claim ownership over the topic or idea as if the prior literature doesn't exist. Invent new terminology ideally; abandon existing terms to eliminate a trail to prior authors and ideas. 3. Present the idea or topic in a sensationalistic way. 4. When furor inevitably develops about lack of acknowledgement of previous writers and researchers and issues identified by them, frame argument as being about ad hominem critics versus solidity of your own arguments. Sidestep actual criticisms.
  - ianamartin 9y ago
    This is a much better description of the phenomenon than I could come up with. I mentioned it elsewhere in the thread, but this is truly better than what I described. Well done.

dragonwriter 9y ago

On #2, when he mispresents fields that have addressed the effect he is discussing routinely for decades as not merely addressing it inadequately but of missing it entirely, he's either being self-aggrandizingly hyperbolic or stunningly ignorant. Or maybe its a rhetorical trick to get the reader to pay attention because they are getting a nugget of secret wisdom. But certainly plenty of other writers don't play that kind of dishonest game.

late2part 9y ago
He doesn’t blindly accept conventional wisdom. I don’t see it how you do. That’s okay. I’ve read a fair bit of his stuff and I like his approach to framing issues, which often ignores conventional wisdom, or phrasing.
- jacalata 9y ago
  The phrase "doesn't blindly accept x" usually has an implication that the subject is aware of x, so you seem to be totally avoiding the argument being made that Taleb seems unaware of work done on the topics he writes about.
  - late2part 9y ago
    You are begging the question. I posit that he is aware of it and is presenting it differently than others. The disagreement is whether he understands A. The issue and B. What others said. The whole of acadamia is full of different perspectives / why not here from Taleb?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > You are begging the question. I posit that he is aware of it and is presenting it differently than others. Flatly stating that an entire field of inquiry has, up to the point at which you are publishing your commentary, failed to recognize and consider the ramifications of a phenomenon on which effect and it's ramifications numerous papers have been published in the field for several decades is not being aware of the factual circumstances and presenting them differently than others. Its either ignorance or dishonesty. And when you compound that by using the mythical failure as a jumping off point for an explanation (“skin in the game”) for the systematic incompetence that seems necessary to explain how the field could fail to address the phenomenon, this compounds the problem.
feulistia 9y ago
I've noticed a formula many seem to follow in drawing attention to ones self as a public intellectual: 1. Find some topic or idea that's interesting and fairly well-accepted but not receiving a lot of attention. 2. Claim ownership over the topic or idea as if the prior literature doesn't exist. Invent new terminology ideally; abandon existing terms to eliminate a trail to prior authors and ideas. 3. Present the idea or topic in a sensationalistic way. 4. When furor inevitably develops about lack of acknowledgement of previous writers and researchers and issues identified by them, frame argument as being about ad hominem critics versus solidity of your own arguments. Sidestep actual criticisms.
- ianamartin 9y ago
  This is a much better description of the phenomenon than I could come up with. I mentioned it elsewhere in the thread, but this is truly better than what I described. Well done.