>This gives us, the crowd, an insurance policy against an Orwellian future.
Here's a great example. Does it really, Nassim?
He is one of my favorite authors, but I am unconvinced by nearly everything he has to say. He has this cult-leader style of "everyone else is wrong, but here, you can be part of the enlightened group" that I find somewhat grating, but more importantly, he simply does not provide "extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims."
Almost nothing he asserts is empirically testable due to his reliance on fat tails and Knightian uncertainty, and when it is, it either has not been empirically tested or the entire "traditional" industry is built around the empirical results. His response to this is generally of the form "systemic failures can dominate normal effects." [1]
In the cases where he leans on statistical modelling, especially modelling with fat tails, his writing breaks down. I find his approach at that point to feel sort of "baffle them with bullshit" in the sense that he is indifferent to whether it is even possible for the reader to understand what he is saying, once he has convinced himself.
[1] e.g., https://www.facebook.com/nntaleb/posts/10155509264828375
I don't think is arrogance or anything, it is just a skill that he doesn't have naturally and also doesn't care enough to practice and improve.
I think his ideas are strong enough to find an audience even without this skill. Contrasting him with a Malcolm Gladwell who, imo, reaches a large audience much more from his communication skills than from the power of this ideas, I think I prefer Taleb's style.
Malcolm Gladwell and Daniel Kahneman (author of Thinking, Fast and Slow) both credit Nassim Taleb for a lot of inspiration in their books.
Someone mentioned to me that Benoit Mandelbrot (author of (Mis)behavior of Markets) inspired Nassim Taleb for a lot of his thoughts.
So there... read Mandelbrot, Gladwell and Kahneman to understand Nassim Taleb.
> But its mere existence is an insurance policy that will remind governments that the last object establishment could control, namely, the currency, is no longer their monopoly.
Look at how the SEC is not only keeping tabs on crypto currencies, but are monitoring ICO's and bringing charges against people they feel are committing fraud. It's been pointed out before that although the SEC can't stop CC's, then can effectively sideline them as a niche offering to investors.
I guess this is the beauty and beast of CC's right now. Yeah, it's totally unregulated, but it's also rife with fraud. It's like people want it both to be safe and regulated while still outside the control of any government.
In that statement, Taleb uses his conclusion as a premise. That doesn't make his reasoning stronger.
Took the words right out of my mouth. His recent thoughts/tweets on Deep Learning were even more confusing.
Like all the smart kids in school who rushed through math problems and wrote out the final answer rather than all the work to get there, he often skips key steps in his chain of reasoning. Since he skips them, he doesn't notice when those key steps are demonstrably wrong.
I feel he's gotten worse in this respect over time.