when I read NN Taleb at first I’m intrigued. The ideas and language clicks together. He says ‘I’m a trader’ but really he is a philosopher courtesan. He has the sensibility of a wise man.
But after some time, and some more reading, the feel-good effect ends abruptly.
High praise for autocrats? Criticizing the leaders liberal west as intrinsically defective? Observations on “renting” women to f*? It’s all much too boorish, and _it gets in the way_ of some really solid ideas.
Personally, I’m not sure his ideas are worth the effort of redemption. Maybe after a good editor cleans it up? I stopped following him on Twitter. But every time I see some new fragment of his writing I perk up, only to be disappointed in the end.
This pretty much perfectly sums up my opinion of NN Taleb as well.
Initially, you are in awe of his near-prose like writing, and a couple hundred pages later, you realise that writing style is just about everything he has (all style, less substance). His ideas as well are usually pseudo-philosophical and I'm unsure if any of his writings would hold ground if it wasn't tied along with the fact that he made millions hedging on a black swan event (Again, which is a combination of picking your bets and sheer dumb luck).
Also, the more NN Taleb I read, the more pretentious he comes across as being.
off topic: the word prose refers to ordinary written language, as opposed to, say, poetry, so when you describe his writing as near-prose like, i'm not sure what you're getting at, but i think you mean to say he writes fairly poetic prose.
My guess is that "near-prose like" refers to writing that feels like it is being spoken as you read it. I can somewhat understand that.
I've never read any of this guy's work before. Despite the "preliminary draft" footnote, he strikes me as not a very thoughtful writer. I can forgive "Sometimes around the fifth century" but not "beggars who flouted they scorn of material possessions". Flouted material possessions? Flaunted their scorn of material possessions? Once I get the impression that someone is using words without fully understanding their meaning, it's hard for me to seriously consider what they are trying to convey. Perhaps that's a little harsh, but he is supposed to be a writer.
He made nearly a billion hedging on dozens of events, and thousands upon thousands of trades. I bet you haven't read a single page of his actual published papers, just his poplit stuff.
His trading results aren't clear. When editing the Wikipedia article, we kept running into the fact that he boasts about the performance of his funds in the years they're up, but refuses to release results for the years they're down. His funds buy options that are way out of the money, which means they lose money in years nothing bad happens. In years with a big crash, they win big. It's not clear that this is a net win over time.
I guess it depends on how much they lose in each good year, ie it's subjective. This kind of investing is not for someone like myself, who doesn't like spending too much time managing money in the first place but I can see how it might work for someone more involved in the process.
What it depends on is whether the people selling way out of the money options are underpricing them due to underestimating the probability of unlikely events.
I don't think he has anglosaxon or PC sensibilities, so he doesn't agree on what is "boorish" or not with liberals (or sensitive old WASP church ladies for that matter).
Not all cultures agree on the same things -- nor are the "truths" of some particular place akin to physical laws. Taleb's from the Levant, and he shares part of that culture.
Which is also an ancient one at that.
Sure, some parts of the world don't appreciate that attribute to a culture either ("why should we care that a thing is ancient/tradition") it's all about being modern or justifiable in some (usually pseudo-) "scientific" way.
But part of Taleb's point (and he does make a rational argument for that, e.g. [1]) is that survivability, in ideas and in culture, matters just as much if not more.
I have just encountered this writer for the first time. Not sure I'll read more. But from the excerpt, I wouldn't say he has "high praise for autocrats". He is just saying they are less constrained in their actions and hence have more personal effectiveness. That might be true, even if morally unpalatable (don't confuse the two).
Also that 'three Fs' quip I have heard elsewhere. Looking past the deliberate provocativeness, he's making the point that it's actually nonsense for most of us.
Maybe his other writings go further, I don't know?
> High praise for autocrats? Criticizing the leaders liberal west as intrinsically defective? Observations on “renting” women to f*? It’s all much too boorish, and _it gets in the way_ of some really solid ideas.
I notice that you disagree with his conclusions, not with his logic or arguments that he uses to come to those conclusions.
If you think that his conclusions are incorrect (which, btw, is mostly my viewpoint as well), can you point in the direct location in his logic where he makes a mistake? Or an axiomatic assumption that he uses that you don't agree with?
I notice that you disagree with his conclusions,
not with his logic or arguments
I don't know about the autocrats and liberal west, but I did read the linked article far enough to get to 'never buy when you can rent the three "Fs" '
In that paragraph I can't really see any explicit "logic or arguments".
Or more precisely, I can put a bunch of words into Taleb's mouth to convert that paragraph into an argument taking small steps and supported by statements of fact; but even the strongest interpretation I can come up with seems so weak it would look like I was attacking a straw man.
Perhaps denom didn't dispute Taleb's logic because it isn't stated clearly enough for him to do so?
Taleb is a gifted statistician who often wanders out of his element to make broad, bold, but perfunctory claims about various subjects. You kind of have to take his work for what it is: the work of a really smart, but arrogant guy who likes to shoot first and aim later.
Personally, I prefer his academic papers to his pop-sci blogging and books. But I still can't help reading him. He isn't always right, but he's usually interesting.
I agree with you that he would benefit tremendously from a strong editor.
But after some time, and some more reading, the feel-good effect ends abruptly.
High praise for autocrats? Criticizing the leaders liberal west as intrinsically defective? Observations on “renting” women to f*? It’s all much too boorish, and _it gets in the way_ of some really solid ideas.
Personally, I’m not sure his ideas are worth the effort of redemption. Maybe after a good editor cleans it up? I stopped following him on Twitter. But every time I see some new fragment of his writing I perk up, only to be disappointed in the end.