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
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
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.
Well done.
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.
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?
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.