4 ms·

I've never felt more conflicted over a public person than I am about Nassim Taleb. He's clearly brilliant, and makes bold statements that he stands behind- that

I've never felt more conflicted over a public person than I am about Nassim Taleb. He's clearly brilliant, and makes bold statements that he stands behind- that takes guts and is to be applauded. On the other hand, he can be an outright prick and I don't understand some of the fights he picks. Dude is polarizing and fascinating.

formalsystem 7y ago
I used to be thrown off by the fights he picked but then I had a thought. The fact that's it's considered rude to criticize people with influence means it's difficult to gauge their performance. If anything public figures should be harshly criticized because they make tons of money when things go well and don't seem to be taking on any risk from their bad decisions.
781 7y ago
One of the reasons for the replication crisis in science is the lack of more people like Taleb who are not afraid to say "this study is bullshit" instead of being ultra-polite and never daring to put into doubt the integrity of the authors (p-hacking, data falsification, ...) I've read quite a number of blog posts about scientists who were certain a paper was p-hacked (and proven right later) but who said they would never dare raise their voice publicly because it would kill their career.
- justin66 7y ago
  I don't know what the equivalent to Taleb would be in the hard sciences, but it wouldn't be an antidote to bullshit research. The answer to a bad paper is generally a better paper, not loud whining.
  - cgiles 7y ago
    Funny, I'm a postdoc (in biomedical research), and I and my boss, a PI, had this exact debate last night. I took the side of 781, and he was justin66. My perspective is that you cannot take data, or a concept, that is fundamentally broken, add a little effort, and fix it. For example, if a collaborator sends data for analysis where the sample size was too small for the effect, or worse, asked to find statistical differences between 1-2 samples per group, you can't fix that with any amount of algorithmic mumbo-jumbo. You can only fix it by redoing the experiment properly. Although we are asked to do this sort of thing almost daily (not always this blatantly). His perspective is, and maybe I'm being a bit uncharitable, you take what you're given, do your best, clearly describe what you did and honestly note the limitations, and move on. Even if the result is something highly dubious, that is for the reviewers to decide. But I personally think a little loud whining is called for in the sciences to discourage totally half-baked ideas and data from ever seeing the light of day. But the trouble is the pressures are so intense and funding is so tight, people feel compelled to halfass many things, which is the real problem. EDIT: I should add I am not talking about data falsification or major ethical breaches like that. I'm talking about things that more amount to a form of pressure-induced willful stupidity, no dishonesty involved. I would speculate this is much more of a cause of the replication crisis than outright dishonesty. People don't like to outright lie because it could cost them their careers. But they certainly can conveniently forget some basic scientific principles at times if it suits them and they can't get a decent story while being rigorous. And their excuse will be -- well, we clearly documented everything we did in the paper, and the reviewers thought it was OK (because the reviewers do the same sorts of thing). And this, folks, is how you get a lot of shitty papers.
    - 781 7y ago
      > I'm talking about things that more amount to a form of pressure-induced willful stupidity, no dishonesty involved. Isn't that still dishonesty though? If you know that you are misapplying statistical techniques to get what you want, how is that different from a pseudo-scientist talking about quantum mumbo-jumbo to get what he wants. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission On a bigger scale, this just fuels public anti-science, who is fed up of reading in the news "coffee is good for your heart" and the next day "coffee causes heart attacks". And it's not only because of journalists writing sensational titles, you can actually find meta-analysis pro/against any major food group.
      - cgiles 7y ago
        It is honestly hard to tell in these situations when they are lying by omission and when they are plain stupid. I think it is usually a form of apathy whereby what is produced is bullshit (in the technical meaning of the essay, "On Bullshit", whereby people don't care whether a thing is true or false so long as it's published). > On a bigger scale, this just fuels public anti-science Yep... But people have careers to maintain and grants to get. I totally agree with you and take your side on this issue but the systemic issues are huge and I don't know what exactly it would take to fix them.
    - justin66 7y ago
      > You can only fix it by redoing the experiment properly. I don't disagree.
    - astazangasta 7y ago
      >For example, if a collaborator sends data for analysis where the sample size was too small for the effect, or worse, asked to find statistical differences between 1-2 samples per group, you can't fix that with any amount of algorithmic mumbo-jumbo. Au contraire: a few years back my colleagues came to me with an shRNA screen with no replication. I said you can't do this, without an estimate of variability this is meaningless (NOT the first, or last, time i gave this lecture). The reply was, analyze it anyway. I made up some bullshit. The reviewers did nothing. We published in Nature Genetics.
vbuwivbiu 7y ago
boy do I feel the same. He recently tweeted something to the effect that 'all employees should worship entrepreneurs for taking the risk of starting a business'. Now apart from the fact that only a minority of people can afford to take such a risk, have the right personality for business, the right connections, education....just...what a condescending thing to say and coming from a man who has no 'skin in the game' himself. On the other hand his work on unveiling the myth of IQ is laudable. His writing is hard to read and his acrobatic algebraic manipulations are impossible to follow. He's a dick but I like him.

formalsystem 7y ago

I used to be thrown off by the fights he picked but then I had a thought. The fact that's it's considered rude to criticize people with influence means it's difficult to gauge their performance. If anything public figures should be harshly criticized because they make tons of money when things go well and don't seem to be taking on any risk from their bad decisions.

781 7y ago

One of the reasons for the replication crisis in science is the lack of more people like Taleb who are not afraid to say "this study is bullshit" instead of being ultra-polite and never daring to put into doubt the integrity of the authors (p-hacking, data falsification, ...) I've read quite a number of blog posts about scientists who were certain a paper was p-hacked (and proven right later) but who said they would never dare raise their voice publicly because it would kill their career.

justin66 7y ago
I don't know what the equivalent to Taleb would be in the hard sciences, but it wouldn't be an antidote to bullshit research. The answer to a bad paper is generally a better paper, not loud whining.
- cgiles 7y ago
  Funny, I'm a postdoc (in biomedical research), and I and my boss, a PI, had this exact debate last night. I took the side of 781, and he was justin66. My perspective is that you cannot take data, or a concept, that is fundamentally broken, add a little effort, and fix it. For example, if a collaborator sends data for analysis where the sample size was too small for the effect, or worse, asked to find statistical differences between 1-2 samples per group, you can't fix that with any amount of algorithmic mumbo-jumbo. You can only fix it by redoing the experiment properly. Although we are asked to do this sort of thing almost daily (not always this blatantly). His perspective is, and maybe I'm being a bit uncharitable, you take what you're given, do your best, clearly describe what you did and honestly note the limitations, and move on. Even if the result is something highly dubious, that is for the reviewers to decide. But I personally think a little loud whining is called for in the sciences to discourage totally half-baked ideas and data from ever seeing the light of day. But the trouble is the pressures are so intense and funding is so tight, people feel compelled to halfass many things, which is the real problem. EDIT: I should add I am not talking about data falsification or major ethical breaches like that. I'm talking about things that more amount to a form of pressure-induced willful stupidity, no dishonesty involved. I would speculate this is much more of a cause of the replication crisis than outright dishonesty. People don't like to outright lie because it could cost them their careers. But they certainly can conveniently forget some basic scientific principles at times if it suits them and they can't get a decent story while being rigorous. And their excuse will be -- well, we clearly documented everything we did in the paper, and the reviewers thought it was OK (because the reviewers do the same sorts of thing). And this, folks, is how you get a lot of shitty papers.
  - 781 7y ago
    > I'm talking about things that more amount to a form of pressure-induced willful stupidity, no dishonesty involved. Isn't that still dishonesty though? If you know that you are misapplying statistical techniques to get what you want, how is that different from a pseudo-scientist talking about quantum mumbo-jumbo to get what he wants. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission On a bigger scale, this just fuels public anti-science, who is fed up of reading in the news "coffee is good for your heart" and the next day "coffee causes heart attacks". And it's not only because of journalists writing sensational titles, you can actually find meta-analysis pro/against any major food group.
    - cgiles 7y ago
      It is honestly hard to tell in these situations when they are lying by omission and when they are plain stupid. I think it is usually a form of apathy whereby what is produced is bullshit (in the technical meaning of the essay, "On Bullshit", whereby people don't care whether a thing is true or false so long as it's published). > On a bigger scale, this just fuels public anti-science Yep... But people have careers to maintain and grants to get. I totally agree with you and take your side on this issue but the systemic issues are huge and I don't know what exactly it would take to fix them.
  - justin66 7y ago
    > You can only fix it by redoing the experiment properly. I don't disagree.
  - astazangasta 7y ago
    >For example, if a collaborator sends data for analysis where the sample size was too small for the effect, or worse, asked to find statistical differences between 1-2 samples per group, you can't fix that with any amount of algorithmic mumbo-jumbo. Au contraire: a few years back my colleagues came to me with an shRNA screen with no replication. I said you can't do this, without an estimate of variability this is meaningless (NOT the first, or last, time i gave this lecture). The reply was, analyze it anyway. I made up some bullshit. The reviewers did nothing. We published in Nature Genetics.

vbuwivbiu 7y ago

boy do I feel the same. He recently tweeted something to the effect that 'all employees should worship entrepreneurs for taking the risk of starting a business'. Now apart from the fact that only a minority of people can afford to take such a risk, have the right personality for business, the right connections, education....just...what a condescending thing to say and coming from a man who has no 'skin in the game' himself. On the other hand his work on unveiling the myth of IQ is laudable. His writing is hard to read and his acrobatic algebraic manipulations are impossible to follow. He's a dick but I like him.