> A polarizing figure with polarized reviews.

I came here to say the same! I’ve been thinking about this recently. It began after hearing the Weinstein brothers talk about Taleb[1]. My hunch is that a significant part of Taleb’s popularity stems from how dogmatically polarizing his views are. I’m not sure if he’s doing so authentically (I think he is), or: if he’s dogmatic in his opinions primarily because he knows doing so will result in wider distribution of his views.

I struggle with this dilemma.

On one hand, there’s a case for being strong-willed, dogmatic and polarizing. It takes courage.

On the other hand, there’s a case for being open-minded, flexible in your thinking, and uncertain. Yet, this is generally perceived as weak-willed and doesn’t attract nearly the same attention as the polarizing stance.

[1]: https://youtu.be/XxlVAbc1Vjo

Taleb's insights are wonderful and I've learned a lot from his writing, but his writing style is so obnoxious that I always have trouble finishing his books. It is very clear that he thinks he is one of the smartest people on the planet and he wants everyone to know it.

But isn't that true of most reviewers? I don't feel compelled to act unless I have strong feelings in either direction.

wow, Taleb's Barbell strategy at play

You have to understand that he probably mostly reads books he enjoy and is statistically and factually correct. The 1 star reviews is when finds lots of statistical fallacies and misuse or they're factually incorrect. He doesn't take lightly on these kinds of things. Personally I think it's great when people finds mistakes in book and publish them for others.

Why leave feedback if the book was unexceptional?

I heard the man like fat tails