5 ms·

It's funny. Normally I place a high value on civility and decency in discourse. But I don't have any problem with this style of communication from Taleb. I th

It's funny. Normally I place a high value on civility and decency in discourse. But I don't have any problem with this style of communication from Taleb. I think it's because I've read/heard enough of his material over many years, and I understand the game he's playing. He's not cruel, and he means no harm to people personally. Indeed he cares a lot about the general wellbeing of society and individuals, about avoidance of violence, poverty, oppression etc. His whole approach designed to cut through bullshit and seek the truth. That means being ruthless in breaking down the mechanisms people use to hide bullshit or smuggle it into important discussions - e.g., status/authority signals like titles, honorifics, academic/professional qualifications, academic processes, group memberships like Mensa, corporate/academic jargon, and politeness/courtesy when it's used to subdue people's efforts to seek truth. His abrasive style is also a test: people who care about truth will not be offended, as they will welcome their ideas being challenged and scrutinised, because they'll win either way; either they'll be proven right, or they'll be shown to be wrong and they'll learn something. People who have something to hide will respond by getting offended at his tone, rather than simply defending/explaining their ideas on their merits. Related to that, he's fine with people being rude to him; indeed he prefers it, and he hates it when people try to flatter him or build rapport with him, because he knows that's the first step to being bullshitted. There have been times when he's been savage about issues I hold dear, and that's been uncomfortable. But it's been a signal that I've needed to keep working to understand those issues more deeply so they'd hold up to any scrutiny.

toasterlovin 8y ago
The guy is a fucking primadonna who has built a massive echo chamber around himself by simply ignoring everyone who disagrees with him. It’s pathetically juvenile.
username90 8y ago
> His whole approach designed to cut through bullshit and seek the truth. This is not the problem, the problem is that most of what he is saying in this article is bullshit veiled behind enough low level math to fool the masses.
jdietrich 8y ago
>His whole approach designed to cut through bullshit and seek the truth. If that's the case, then why did he expend so many words on matters that were irrelevant to his core thesis? Why not just concisely set out the evidence demonstrating the inadequacy of IQ? >People who have something to hide will respond by getting offended at his tone, rather than simply defending/explaining their ideas on their merits. There is an overwhelming amount of information and opinion on the internet. Most of it is very bad. Winnowing it down requires some heuristics. The heuristic "do these words look like those of a careful and thoughtful person making a good-faith argument?" has served me well. I do often encounter bad ideas dressed up in faux erudition, but I very rarely encounter good ideas delivered with a string of irrelevant insults and ad-hominem attacks. More broadly, being polite in your writing is a simple matter of neighbourliness. Causing upset or inflaming anger is occasionally necessary to pierce the veil of indifference, but we should do so only with great caution. There is already more than enough discord in the world without us adding to it. I see abundant evidence for the fact that civilisation is a fragile and precious thing, held together with the glue of civility. We should think twice before discarding the norms of social behaviour that most of us learned in kindergarten.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  Yep, it's a heuristic I observe too. But heuristics, by definition, are imprecise and subject to exceptions, and in my experience he's one of the exceptions. > Causing upset or inflaming anger is occasionally necessary to pierce the veil of indifference, but we should do so only with great caution. I think he does. He only attacks people who are powerful enough to be able to handle it. And the stuff he talks about is important. The way IQ testing is revered and misused arguably does great harm to many. And the stuff he's been banging on about for years - the way governments, big corporate execs, academics and media insiders work together to benefit themselves at the expense of the powerless majority is important, and could well lead to another economic crisis in the next few years - is critically important. That said, you don't have to listen to him, of course. But it's worth examining if there's some deeper reason why you find his ideas unpalatable, beyond just tone and style. My own motivation has been to pay attention to what he says, as he turns out to be right when it matters most, and by applying his ideas about things like stoicism and "anti-fragility", my life has vastly improved.
peteretep 8y ago
> His abrasive style is also a test: people who care about truth will not be offended, as they will welcome their ideas being challenged and scrutinised, because they'll win either way; either they'll be proven right, or they'll be shown to be wrong and they'll learn something. Really? My mental heuristic is that the more aggressive and flowery language someone uses, the less they believe in the strength of their argument; they’re trying to erect barriers to discussion and debate
- tomhoward 8y ago
  As I said in my reply to a sibling comment, heuristics, by definition, have exceptions. I also adhere to the heuristic you describe, but Taleb's the lead exception.
wtracy 8y ago
> His whole approach designed to cut through bullshit and seek the truth. The ad hominem attacks (particularly the "losers in Birkenstocks" remark) in this essay are the exact opposite of that.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  Comments like that are included for a kind of shock humour effect. It's mostly satirical and designed to get a rise out of people who will take it seriously and get defensive. But nobody would react if it didn't contain at least a grain of truth :)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - wtracy 8y ago
    Again, "shock humor" and satire are antithetical to "cutting through the bullshit".
    - tomhoward 8y ago
      It’s petty well established that the entire purpose of forms of humour like satire and charicature is to cut through bullshit.
      - wtracy 8y ago
        Well then, Mr. Taleb needs to learn how to use satire constructively. We started with what could have been an interesting discussion about the validity of IQ tests, and suddenly it turned into a passive-aggressive discussion about fashion. Now the discussion spans multiple disjoint topics, several of which are emotionally charged. Any good points that might have been there are buried in, well, bullshit.
        tomhoward 8y ago
        He knows what he's doing, and if trolling the likes of Stefan Molyneux were considered a worthy pursuit, which it is IMO, he seems to be doing great. https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1081309219377369088 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1081309219377369088 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1081336627664961536 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1081336627664961536 Everyone else would do well to be less defensive. Having a reasoned, sober debate about IQ is a worthy aim, but right now there are highly prominent and influential figures like Molyneux using IQ to justify some horrible ideological positions, and that's the fish Taleb is trying to fry. Good on him, I say.
talebreturns 8y ago
If he was posting here on HN, he'd have been banned already because of his conflicting style. Imagine how many such insightful people who can't help their style and will never post on HN. Sadly, that makes HN a place where only certain kind of people can post which excludes leagues of Taleb.
kinleyd 8y ago
I'm inclined to agree with you.

toasterlovin 8y ago

The guy is a fucking primadonna who has built a massive echo chamber around himself by simply ignoring everyone who disagrees with him. It’s pathetically juvenile.

username90 8y ago

> His whole approach designed to cut through bullshit and seek the truth. This is not the problem, the problem is that most of what he is saying in this article is bullshit veiled behind enough low level math to fool the masses.

jdietrich 8y ago

>His whole approach designed to cut through bullshit and seek the truth. If that's the case, then why did he expend so many words on matters that were irrelevant to his core thesis? Why not just concisely set out the evidence demonstrating the inadequacy of IQ? >People who have something to hide will respond by getting offended at his tone, rather than simply defending/explaining their ideas on their merits. There is an overwhelming amount of information and opinion on the internet. Most of it is very bad. Winnowing it down requires some heuristics. The heuristic "do these words look like those of a careful and thoughtful person making a good-faith argument?" has served me well. I do often encounter bad ideas dressed up in faux erudition, but I very rarely encounter good ideas delivered with a string of irrelevant insults and ad-hominem attacks. More broadly, being polite in your writing is a simple matter of neighbourliness. Causing upset or inflaming anger is occasionally necessary to pierce the veil of indifference, but we should do so only with great caution. There is already more than enough discord in the world without us adding to it. I see abundant evidence for the fact that civilisation is a fragile and precious thing, held together with the glue of civility. We should think twice before discarding the norms of social behaviour that most of us learned in kindergarten.

tomhoward 8y ago
Yep, it's a heuristic I observe too. But heuristics, by definition, are imprecise and subject to exceptions, and in my experience he's one of the exceptions. > Causing upset or inflaming anger is occasionally necessary to pierce the veil of indifference, but we should do so only with great caution. I think he does. He only attacks people who are powerful enough to be able to handle it. And the stuff he talks about is important. The way IQ testing is revered and misused arguably does great harm to many. And the stuff he's been banging on about for years - the way governments, big corporate execs, academics and media insiders work together to benefit themselves at the expense of the powerless majority is important, and could well lead to another economic crisis in the next few years - is critically important. That said, you don't have to listen to him, of course. But it's worth examining if there's some deeper reason why you find his ideas unpalatable, beyond just tone and style. My own motivation has been to pay attention to what he says, as he turns out to be right when it matters most, and by applying his ideas about things like stoicism and "anti-fragility", my life has vastly improved.

peteretep 8y ago

> His abrasive style is also a test: people who care about truth will not be offended, as they will welcome their ideas being challenged and scrutinised, because they'll win either way; either they'll be proven right, or they'll be shown to be wrong and they'll learn something. Really? My mental heuristic is that the more aggressive and flowery language someone uses, the less they believe in the strength of their argument; they’re trying to erect barriers to discussion and debate

tomhoward 8y ago
As I said in my reply to a sibling comment, heuristics, by definition, have exceptions. I also adhere to the heuristic you describe, but Taleb's the lead exception.

wtracy 8y ago

> His whole approach designed to cut through bullshit and seek the truth. The ad hominem attacks (particularly the "losers in Birkenstocks" remark) in this essay are the exact opposite of that.

tomhoward 8y ago
Comments like that are included for a kind of shock humour effect. It's mostly satirical and designed to get a rise out of people who will take it seriously and get defensive. But nobody would react if it didn't contain at least a grain of truth :)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wtracy 8y ago
  Again, "shock humor" and satire are antithetical to "cutting through the bullshit".
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    It’s petty well established that the entire purpose of forms of humour like satire and charicature is to cut through bullshit.
    - wtracy 8y ago
      Well then, Mr. Taleb needs to learn how to use satire constructively. We started with what could have been an interesting discussion about the validity of IQ tests, and suddenly it turned into a passive-aggressive discussion about fashion. Now the discussion spans multiple disjoint topics, several of which are emotionally charged. Any good points that might have been there are buried in, well, bullshit.
      - tomhoward 8y ago
        He knows what he's doing, and if trolling the likes of Stefan Molyneux were considered a worthy pursuit, which it is IMO, he seems to be doing great. https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1081309219377369088 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1081309219377369088 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1081336627664961536 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1081336627664961536 Everyone else would do well to be less defensive. Having a reasoned, sober debate about IQ is a worthy aim, but right now there are highly prominent and influential figures like Molyneux using IQ to justify some horrible ideological positions, and that's the fish Taleb is trying to fry. Good on him, I say.

talebreturns 8y ago

If he was posting here on HN, he'd have been banned already because of his conflicting style. Imagine how many such insightful people who can't help their style and will never post on HN. Sadly, that makes HN a place where only certain kind of people can post which excludes leagues of Taleb.

kinleyd 8y ago

I'm inclined to agree with you.