My observations are as anecdotal as anyone else's, but my experience is that there is a moderate negative correlation between someone's raw analytical ability and the capacity to appreciate the kind of ambiguity that good literature carries. Of course there are those rare gems who can juggle both pretty well- Poincare or Mandelbrot for examples.
And most of my personal experiences of very high raw analytical ability comes from academia, people who made through ICPC world finals & are doing their PhDs at top schools, and not startup world- where smart people are of a somewhat different mold.
Now there is nothing negative with not appreciating a broad set of literature, or having a more deterministic/ utilitarian view of life. They are to some extent different personalities and different mindsets.
I appreciate Taleb's world view to a decent extent [1], but I used to actively keep it in my head/ life when I was in pure research/ grad-school mode. Now as I am building shit/ taking big risks, my mindset is much more generic HN'ish view. For instance, earlier I used to read substantially more poetry, literature [2] and biological papers. Now I primarily focus on my core area - stats/ML/AI etc. and general HN stuff.
[1] To the extent of corresponding with him at length
[2] If there is a single book I would suggest to you or anyone else, it would be Kolyma Tales. It is probably the most despairing/ darkest thing I have ever read and made me appreciate human nature a lot more.