I've never read his books, but they were on my list. However, I am not so sure I can trust his analyses, considering his apparent behavior toward people with whom he disagrees.
http://violentmetaphors.com/2015/08/14/good-science-communication-means-never-calling-them-retard-even-if-youre-nassim-taleb/
QuoteCommunicating science to people who aren't scientists is very hard to do well. Nassim Taleb should be very good at it, based on his enormous book sales and even more enormous opinion of his own skills. But we all have our demons, and Taleb has succumbed to his. Rather than encouraging a healthy discussion about science, he's picked a side and declared all-out war on the people who disagree with him. Taleb even admits that his strategy is to prevent conversations from happening by abusing and insulting people who question him, and encouraging his followers to join in. What's the point of that strategy? It doesn't help communicate science, resolve legitimate questions about the facts, or even address the supposedly evil motives of his critics. All it really does is feel good. Nassim Taleb has chosen self-gratification over real engagement. Let's talk about why that's unproductive and unethical.
Taleb has been kicking up the dust lately on Facebook and Twitter, encouraging his readers to not even listen to people who disagree with his beliefs about GMOs. I caught an edge of it when I saw his contemptuous remarks about a scientist I follow, Kevin Folta:
(https://violentmetaphors.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/lowly-individuals.jpg?w=636&h=411)
Another example:
(https://violentmetaphors.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/travel-costs.jpg?w=636&h=381)
Actually, when I saw this, my first thought was to investigate whether it was true; apparently, it is. Or, perhaps, Taleb is embarking on some sort of new experiment. So I looked for some other sources:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/11/03/is-nassim-taleb-a-dangerous-imbecile-or-just-on-the-pay-of-the-anti-gmo-mafia/
QuoteIf you think the headline of this blog is unnecessarily inflammatory, you are right. It's an ad hominem way to deal with public discourse, and it's unfair to Nassim Taleb, the New York University statistician and risk analyst. I'm using it to make a point–because it's Taleb himself who regularly invokes such ugly characterizations of others.
Taleb rocketed to seer and cult celebrity status after his 2007 book on extreme risk, The Black Swan, was followed serendipitously by the 2008 global market crash and Great Recession.
Taleb has recently become the darling of GMO opponents. He and four colleagues–Yaneer Bar-Yam, Rupert Read, Raphael Douady and Joseph Norman–wrote a paper, The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms, released last May and updated last month, in which they claim to bring risk theory and the Precautionary Principle to the issue of whether GMOS might introduce "systemic risk" into the environment. Taleb portrays GMOs as a 'castrophe in waiting'–and has taken to personally lashing out at those who challenge his conclusions–and yes, calling them "imbeciles" or paid shills.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/11/01/nassim-taleb-venomous-twitter/
QuoteWatching Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan and other books, engage on twitter, is like being ringside at a verbal boxing match with the intellectual equivalent of Clubber Lang, the snarling, contemptuous boxer played by Mr. T in Rocky 3. In the movie, Clubber Lang was so mean and nasty the performance was almost a parody.
When you see Taleb go ballistic on Twitter, as he often does, you wonder similarly if the guy is truly an angry asshole of the highest order, or if it's just some performance schtick by an egghead scholar trying to liven up his day. Then again, he can't seem to help himself: The guy did get into it one time with a parody Twitter account. As one observer noted:
Taleb has a propensity for being quite combative on Twitter, on topics ranging from bonds to GMOs, and Taleb will fight with just about anybody.
Yeah, you could say that again. Some people, such as the economist Noah Smith, make allowances for Taleb's bad behavior:
QuoteNassim Taleb is a vulgar bombastic windbag, and I like him a lot.
But Taleb is more than just a venomous, preening, brawler. It's not enough for him to slug it out with real and imagined adversaries (including journalists). He has to smear their reputations with innuendo. I learned this myself when I engaged with Taleb some months ago. I saw that he was circulating a paper on GMOs and I asked to interview him. He declined and then asked:
Quote!! RT @nntaleb: @keithkloor BTW do you get (indirect) funding from GMO corporations? Can you state this here (which is on the record)?
— keith kloor (@keithkloor) August 13, 2014
What the hell, Taleb? Is he trying to coattail on Dawkins' enormous success at being a complete asspipe?
There's a certain type of person who gets very impressed with their own C list celebrity status.
Dawkins is one excellent example, as you say. Apparently, this guy is, too.
Taleb's books are good, but he never really disguised his own sense of self-regard even in them, so I can't say I find this behaviour too surprising.
I am not sure what it is he thinks he stands to gain from alienating biologists, except maybe a cult foll... oh.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2015, 03:21:26 AM
I am not sure what it is he thinks he stands to gain from alienating biologists, except maybe a cult foll... oh.
Yep. Guru syndrome.
He'll be the Dr Oz of the anti-GMO crowd by this time next year, having pissed away his credibility for said cult following.
Sort of like how nobody remembers Dawkin's actual work.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 15, 2015, 03:31:31 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2015, 03:21:26 AM
I am not sure what it is he thinks he stands to gain from alienating biologists, except maybe a cult foll... oh.
Yep. Guru syndrome.
He'll be the Dr Oz of the anti-GMO crowd by this time next year, having pissed away his credibility for said cult following.
Sort of like how nobody remembers Dawkin's actual work.
Why would he even want this? One of the core elements of his philosophy is that unpredictable elements make you stronger. Why would anyone with that basic worldview ever choose to surround themselves with sycophants? Has he been an idiot all along?
Quote from: President Television on August 15, 2015, 03:39:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 15, 2015, 03:31:31 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2015, 03:21:26 AM
I am not sure what it is he thinks he stands to gain from alienating biologists, except maybe a cult foll... oh.
Yep. Guru syndrome.
He'll be the Dr Oz of the anti-GMO crowd by this time next year, having pissed away his credibility for said cult following.
Sort of like how nobody remembers Dawkin's actual work.
Why would he even want this? One of the core elements of his philosophy is that unpredictable elements make you stronger. Why would anyone with that basic worldview ever choose to surround themselves with sycophants? Has he been an idiot all along?
You can be Nobel Prize-quality smart and still be a total dumbfuck.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 15, 2015, 03:31:31 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2015, 03:21:26 AM
I am not sure what it is he thinks he stands to gain from alienating biologists, except maybe a cult foll... oh.
Yep. Guru syndrome.
He'll be the Dr Oz of the anti-GMO crowd by this time next year, having pissed away his credibility for said cult following.
Sort of like how nobody remembers Dawkin's actual work.
Yep. And he's discrediting the work he's done, for whatever value it has, with his play for charismatic leader cred.
I can't help suspect he's also compromising the already tenuous credibility of his field, as well.
Quote from: President Television on August 15, 2015, 03:39:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 15, 2015, 03:31:31 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2015, 03:21:26 AM
I am not sure what it is he thinks he stands to gain from alienating biologists, except maybe a cult foll... oh.
Yep. Guru syndrome.
He'll be the Dr Oz of the anti-GMO crowd by this time next year, having pissed away his credibility for said cult following.
Sort of like how nobody remembers Dawkin's actual work.
Why would he even want this? One of the core elements of his philosophy is that unpredictable elements make you stronger. Why would anyone with that basic worldview ever choose to surround themselves with sycophants? Has he been an idiot all along?
I am paraphrasing one of his critics, but I think one of the core elements of his philosophy is that sometimes someone gets famous for writing a book and being an asshole.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 15, 2015, 03:31:31 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2015, 03:21:26 AM
I am not sure what it is he thinks he stands to gain from alienating biologists, except maybe a cult foll... oh.
Yep. Guru syndrome.
He'll be the Dr Oz of the anti-GMO crowd by this time next year, having pissed away his credibility for said cult following.
Sort of like how nobody remembers Dawkin's actual work.
Not convinced Dawkins ever did any actual scientific work.
OK, actually, having done a search of Dawkins' scientific work, I take that back. He did do a bit of actual research, some of which probably advanced the science. His "Arms Races Between and Among Species" certainly was a significant contribution. But most of his career appears to be devoted almost solely to disproving creationism, which, by the time he was doing the research, was no longer a hotly disputed subject in the scientific spheres in which he was circulating. I would love to get his advisor's take on him.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2015, 08:31:51 AM
OK, actually, having done a search of Dawkins' scientific work, I take that back. He did do a bit of actual research, some of which probably advanced the science. His "Arms Races Between and Among Species" certainly was a significant contribution. But most of his career appears to be devoted almost solely to disproving creationism, which, by the time he was doing the research, was no longer a hotly disputed subject in the scientific spheres in which he was circulating. I would love to get his advisor's take on him.
As far as his popular science contributions, I remember The Greatest Show on Earth being pretty good. I got the impression from the book that he was someone who was truly in love with evolutionary biology and was very excited to share all the weird cool things with the reader. Since I didn't read the physical book and just listened to the audiobook, it's possible that I missed or forgot huge chunks of him being a douchebag, though. I know "writing about science" and "being a scientist" aren't the same thing.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 15, 2015, 01:07:30 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2015, 08:31:51 AM
OK, actually, having done a search of Dawkins' scientific work, I take that back. He did do a bit of actual research, some of which probably advanced the science. His "Arms Races Between and Among Species" certainly was a significant contribution. But most of his career appears to be devoted almost solely to disproving creationism, which, by the time he was doing the research, was no longer a hotly disputed subject in the scientific spheres in which he was circulating. I would love to get his advisor's take on him.
As far as his popular science contributions, I remember The Greatest Show on Earth being pretty good. I got the impression from the book that he was someone who was truly in love with evolutionary biology and was very excited to share all the weird cool things with the reader. Since I didn't read the physical book and just listened to the audiobook, it's possible that I missed or forgot huge chunks of him being a douchebag, though. I know "writing about science" and "being a scientist" aren't the same thing.
I really enjoyed many of his popsci books, but I can't take them into account when considering his research contributions. He really did not come across as a douchebag in the books of his that I read in the 90's, though.
I think Taleb's ideas are good & worth reading - even if he is not polite on the Internet.
Sometimes bad people can have good ideas. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yeah, I don´t think that´s in question, although I´m certain to be more skeptical of his reasoning processes given his failure in that area.