Taleb's New Skin In The Game Paper

[workathome]

To wit: there is a very important difference between physics and the "thoughts of many great theologians and religious philosophers". That difference is externality. Physics exists whether we think about them or not. Our thoughts on physics may align with them sometimes, and not sometimes. This is the big difference between the pursuit of science and science.

The thoughts of many great theologians and religious philosophers, on the other hand, is not external in the same way. Those thoughts may be in line with a spiritual truth external to all human thought--they may not.

I disagree. While the Middle Ages had a much better grasp of metaphysical realities, we seem to lack that and instead focus our understanding on material realities.

That Taleb leaves his mind open to the possibility of understanding metaphysical realities is a positive, not a negative.

[secretwealth]

I disagree. While the Middle Ages had a much better grasp of metaphysical realities, we seem to lack that and instead focus our understanding on material realities.

The Middle Ages covers over a thousand years, and I'm not sure if you're talking about western Europe or some other area. In any case, a lot of philosophical disagreements existed in just about every region, so I don't know what you mean.

On top of that, how can you know if they had a "much better grasp of metaphysical realities" without knowing what those metaphysical realities are? Or do you know something that the rest of humanity doesn't?

[Chad]

Quit arguing with WAH. You can't argue with belief/faith. No matter how many facts, figures, logical falicies, etc. you identify, it won't be enough. It's not up to you to disprove it, but up to the believer to find the proof.

[Ego]

I disagree. While the Middle Ages had a much better grasp of metaphysical realities,......

While I agree with what Chad said above about burden of proof, I would really be interested in a few examples of how the Middle Ages had a better grasp on metaphysics than we do today.

[workathome]

The Middle Ages covers over a thousand years, and I'm not sure if you're talking about western Europe or some other area. In any case, a lot of philosophical disagreements existed in just about every region, so I don't know what you mean.

On top of that, how can you know if they had a "much better grasp of metaphysical realities" without knowing what those metaphysical realities are? Or do you know something that the rest of humanity doesn't?

You're trying to argue with something I'm not asserting. I think I'm doing a poor job communicating my thoughts, but you're looking for specifics while I'm just mentioning generalities - like not dismissing the possibility of religious thought having profound importance or significance. Historically society was more focused on religious thought and spirituality than it is at the present. Religion wasn't external or attributive to society, but was society and life, lived as reality.

I can't explain it well, but I find books like this interesting: http://www.amazon.com/Transcendent-Unit ... 835605876/

[workathome]

Quit arguing with WAH. You can't argue with belief/faith. No matter how many facts, figures, logical falicies, etc. you identify, it won't be enough. It's not up to you to disprove it, but up to the believer to find the proof.

That's what I'm suggesting, such automatic bias may not be personally helpful. You shouldn't dismiss all beliefs/religion because you don't understand them. Even if I was X religion, I could be a poor representative and my failure doesn't disprove X.

[jacob]

I disagree. While the Middle Ages had a much better grasp of metaphysical realities,......

While I agree with what Chad said above about burden of proof, I would really be interested in a few examples of how the Middle Ages had a better grasp on metaphysics than we do today.

I can't give you any examples/citations, but it's my understanding that religion in the medieval ages was to people's framework what consumerism and government (nation states) generally is to people today. It would have been inconceivable for people not to frame their existence and daily life in other terms as those given by the church as well as their identity in other terms than their faith; solving/blaming their problems by praying/some sin ... much like today people think of themselves in terms of what brand they buy and what nationality they have and solve problems by shopping.

I do not whether this grasp was better as much as it was the dominant one. Today, metaphysics has less relevance to most people than their choice of smartphones.

It is interesting to note that religious institutions persist even 500 years after losing dominance and power to materialism and the nation state. Perhaps this persistence can be generalized. One can only wonder what will replace the current world-view in 500 years... although I'm sure people will still refer to themselves as British, German, Chinese,... (according to their ancestry or tradition) and make voluntary donations to certain ancient institutions, called "taxes".

[Chad]

Quit arguing with WAH. You can't argue with belief/faith. No matter how many facts, figures, logical falicies, etc. you identify, it won't be enough. It's not up to you to disprove it, but up to the believer to find the proof.

That's what I'm suggesting, such automatic bias may not be personally helpful. You shouldn't dismiss all beliefs/religion because you don't understand them. Even if I was X religion, I could be a poor representative and my failure doesn't disprove X.

That is not what I meant. I understand them fine.

[Chad]

I disagree. While the Middle Ages had a much better grasp of metaphysical realities,......

While I agree with what Chad said above about burden of proof, I would really be interested in a few examples of how the Middle Ages had a better grasp on metaphysics than we do today.

I can't give you any examples/citations, but it's my understanding that religion in the medieval ages was to people's framework what consumerism and government (nation states) generally is to people today. It would have been inconceivable for people not to frame their existence and daily life in other terms as those given by the church as well as their identity in other terms than their faith; solving/blaming their problems by praying/some sin ... much like today people think of themselves in terms of what brand they buy and what nationality they have and solve problems by shopping.

I do not whether this grasp was better as much as it was the dominant one. Today, metaphysics has less relevance to most people than their choice of smartphones.

It is interesting to note that religious institutions persist even 500 years after losing dominance and power to materialism and the nation state. Perhaps this persistence can be generalized. One can only wonder what will replace the current world-view in 500 years... although I'm sure people will still refer to themselves as British, German, Chinese,... (according to their ancestry or tradition) and make voluntary donations to certain ancient institutions, called "taxes".

Religion was as much community in the Middle Ages, as it was spiritual. Even before that. Rome mostly didn't give a damn what your beliefs were, just that you acknowledged the reality of theirs too.They used to pull a lot of conquered people's into the empire and create community.

We are missing community now, as we have discussed before. This does not mean we need religion back in its old place. We just need a community again.

[CS]

Agreed on the latter part (I dislike academics too, but only in the humanities and I think some important distinctions between applied, theoretical, field, and other aspects need to be considered). But as for the first part--are you serious? Contempt for academia has been going higher and higher since the 50s. How often have you NOT seen anyone challenge an academic? The "elite" are a common target, and it's a presumed truism in American society that academics are out of touch, deluded, politically biased, etc. etc.

Merely suggesting that a college degree indicates some level of education and/or intelligence will immediately get you attacked as an elitist snob, even on this board that has a disproportionate number of academics.

This is one of the few I have seen it with some well thought out arguments. There are some, I believe Jacob has some good points, as well as some of the critics of the MFA factory, but unfortunately a lot of the attacks on the academics seem to be more along the line of sour grapes. That sort of approach holds a less weight with me, rather than giving me a valid reason to think they are erroneous in their work. Jealousy is not the same as having a good argument that they are wrong.

[Ego]

Granted, we can be nincompoops, but saying that the average medieval person or the average medieval philosopher had a better grasp on metaphysics than the average person or philosopher today is.... a suspect claim.

[secretwealth]

@CS: Yes, I agree--I think Taleb's venom about academia (much like Soros's own quiet angst at not being a philosopher) have a lot to do with insecurity and jealousy. It's fascinating that billionaires envy the prestige of an Ivy League or Oxbridge chair, which are more likely to be gotten through an accident of birth than is a billion dollars.

[Chad]

@CS: Yes, I agree--I think Taleb's venom about academia (much like Soros's own quiet angst at not being a philosopher) have a lot to do with insecurity and jealousy. It's fascinating that billionaires envy the prestige of an Ivy League or Oxbridge chair, which are more likely to be gotten through an accident of birth than is a billion dollars.

Actually, I would bet statistically, it's easier to get a billion dollars. What are there? Twenty extreme top tier universities in the world? And, of those only a handful have the "old knowledge" feel and super notoriety. So, we have 4-5 universities and a handful of chairs at each university, but 1,324 billionaires per Forbes. Plus, probably at least another couple hundred they don't know about (I would bet it's more).

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#pag ... l%20states

For me, the odd part is that Taleb advocates at least some form of libertarianism, but seems oddly fixated on positions he claims aren't earned through worthwhile means. This is not a comment on libertarianism, but a comment on Taleb.

Another thing that bothers me about him is that he seems to prefer "old" to "new." Not that there aren't good things that are old or quality wisdom from ancient people and civilizations, but in the first half of Anti-Fragile I don't think he has said one good thing about anything that is new. I know we have problems, but so has every era in human history. There has to be something good that's new.

I know I'm bitching a lot about Taleb, but I actually do like Anti-Fragile, so far.

[secretwealth]

Do those 20 extreme top tier universities have 66 tenured faculty across all disciplines? I'd assume there are more.

[Ego]

Another thing that bothers me about him is that he seems to prefer "old" to "new." Not that there aren't good things that are old or quality wisdom from ancient people and civilizations, but in the first half of Anti-Fragile I don't think he has said one good thing about anything that is new. I know we have problems, but so has every era in human history. There has to be something good that's new.

One of his points is that there is an inherent strength in something that has been tested and refined over time and conversely there is more likely to be potential unforeseen weakness in the new. The ruthless refinement of evolution, for instance, or the adaptive fluidity of city-state powers.

Seeing that he is the grandchild and child of the ruling elite I've wondered if he isn't openly embracing the Marx-opiate for its time-tested control elements.

[Chad]

Another thing that bothers me about him is that he seems to prefer "old" to "new." Not that there aren't good things that are old or quality wisdom from ancient people and civilizations, but in the first half of Anti-Fragile I don't think he has said one good thing about anything that is new. I know we have problems, but so has every era in human history. There has to be something good that's new.

One of his points is that there is an inherent strength in something that has been tested and refined over time and conversely there is more likely to be potential unforeseen weakness in the new. The ruthless refinement of evolution, for instance, or the adaptive fluidity of city-state powers.

Seeing that he is the grandchild and child of the ruling elite I've wondered if he isn't openly embracing the Marx-opiate for its time-tested control elements.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. It is probably a major influence.

I was attributing a lot of it to the ancientness of where he is from. He actually thinks Beirut is good example of an anti-fragile city. I guess it has survived, but it hasn't even made it back to the level it was in the early part of the last century.

He is also infatuated with the Levant and Aleppo. Not that the area isn't interesting or important in history, but it's not quite as impressive as he makes it out to be.

[JasonR]

o

[CS]

@CS: Yes, I agree--I think Taleb's venom about academia (much like Soros's own quiet angst at not being a philosopher) have a lot to do with insecurity and jealousy. It's fascinating that billionaires envy the prestige of an Ivy League or Oxbridge chair, which are more likely to be gotten through an accident of birth than is a billion dollars.

SW, haha, that is exactly the opposite of what I meant. I don't think Taleb is jealous or insecure from what I have read. Not in the least.

From what I have read about places like Harvard, the people that come out are shockingly uniform, at least for the Businessman/CEO groomed people. They want extroverts that do A, B and C. And only A, B, and C. And they hire people who do A, B and C. So Taleb's independent thinking is a breath of fresh air. That it happens to run contrary to what is being pushed is perhaps why he is getting push back. It sounds like he is getting quite a few threats

I have seen people criticize school for no other reason than they are sick of not getting same respect because they did not go to school. They have some valid points, but that is the jealousy I had meant.

[secretwealth]

One of his points is that there is an inherent strength in something that has been tested and refined over time and conversely there is more likely to be potential unforeseen weakness in the new.

Seriously, I say this with zero snark: can anyone explain to me how this isn't completely fucking obvious?

[jacob]

One of his points is that there is an inherent strength in something that has been tested and refined over time and conversely there is more likely to be potential unforeseen weakness in the new.

Seriously, I say this with zero snark: can anyone explain to me how this isn't completely fucking obvious?

Obviously, because "new is always better", otherwise "they" wouldn't have invented it.

Also see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neophile