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.