Taleb's New Skin In The Game Paper

[secretwealth]

I think only a complete idiot would say all scientific pursuits are logical. However, science is not the pursuit of science any more than food is hunger.

[Chad]

After starting Taleb's book about Antifragile, I feel like I have finally found a voice of reason. The rambling cuts down as he gets into the meat of the book, and I am okay with that.

1. He has ethics, something sorely lacking from most everything and everyone these days it seems. Personal responsibility is like a foreign notion to most.

2. His hatred of academics is completely reasonable. First off, like any authority figure, they are given too much credibility for zero reason except their title. A little shocking language to challenge that is needed just to push people to think about that. I find most people will squabble amongst themselves about who follows the 'rules' the best, rather than challenge the rules and the underlying assumptions themselves. Independent thinking is a precious and rare commodity. Maybe not so much here, but here is a special place.

I don't think the level of hate he has for the academics is reasonable. It seems to be on the level of the Palestinians vs. the Israelis. Yes, the academics do some really dumb things, but it's obvious it is more than just the piece of their position/job that is a drag on society/economy. He had to be personally slighted by some professor. Probably someone from Harvard given how many times he derisively brings up "Soviet-Harvard."

All in all, he is coming across as a genius-idiot in the book (I'm about half-way now). Some of his ideas and thoughts are really good, and others are really shallow and lack a lot of rigorous thought (no, I'm not talking about the times he mentions religion).

[CS]

I don't think the level of hate he has for the academics is reasonable. It seems to be on the level of the Palestinians vs. the Israelis. Yes, the academics do some really dumb things, but it's obvious it is more than just the piece of their position/job that is a drag on society/economy. He had to be personally slighted by some professor. Probably someone from Harvard given how many times he derisively brings up "Soviet-Harvard."

All in all, he is coming across as a genius-idiot in the book (I'm about half-way now). Some of his ideas and thoughts are really good, and others are really shallow and lack a lot of rigorous thought (no, I'm not talking about the times he mentions religion).

How often have you seen anyone challenge an academic? Also, have you dealt with any of them? In my limited experience, many members of that class are the most insecure, least trustable people on earth.

And he has a great point, they are extremely fragile. They must beat down any challenges because to lose an argument is to lose reputation, is to lose the only thing of value they have in the world.

It can be the most anti-free thinking group I can think of. I stand by my statement of its reasonableness.

[Ego]

Steven Pinker (Taleb's archenemy) wrote a good piece in the New Republic the other day about being accused of scientism.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1141 ... humanities#

There were a few beautifully written paragraphs including this one:

To begin with, the findings of science entail that the belief systems of all the world’s traditional religions and cultures—their theories of the origins of life, humans, and societies—are factually mistaken. We know, but our ancestors did not, that humans belong to a single species of African primate that developed agriculture, government, and writing late in its history. We know that our species is a tiny twig of a genealogical tree that embraces all living things and that emerged from prebiotic chemicals almost four billion years ago. We know that we live on a planet that revolves around one of a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, which is one of a hundred billion galaxies in a 13.8-billion-year-old universe, possibly one of a vast number of universes. We know that our intuitions about space, time, matter, and causation are incommensurable with the nature of reality on scales that are very large and very small. We know that the laws governing the physical world (including accidents, disease, and other misfortunes) have no goals that pertain to human well-being. There is no such thing as fate, providence, karma, spells, curses, augury, divine retribution, or answered prayers—though the discrepancy between the laws of probability and the workings of cognition may explain why people believe there are. And we know that we did not always know these things, that the beloved convictions of every time and culture may be decisively falsified, doubtless including some we hold today.

[KevinW]

Could we all try to tone down the negative generalizations and stereotyping about groups of people? It's making this place a lot less fun.

[CS]

Could we all try to tone down the negative generalizations and stereotyping about groups of people? It's making this place a lot less fun.

My apologies if I contributed to that.

I do value free thinking over mindless respect for authority. If shocking language is what it takes to get the thought processes going, I am in favor. My take is that is what Taleb is doing.

That being said, not every member of a group is the same. Loved working with my final advisers and respect them highly. I would not say "all of one group is just this, either good or bad". Judge them for yourselves, and not just because of a PhD, MD or what-the-f-D.

[secretwealth]

How often have you seen anyone challenge an academic? Also, have you dealt with any of them? In my limited experience, many members of that class are the most insecure, least trustable people on earth.

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.

[workathome]

I think only a complete idiot would say all scientific pursuits are logical. However, science is not the pursuit of science any more than food is hunger.

Agreed! I think we should just apply the same thought to "religion" in to not dismiss all good that may be associated with religion/spirituality. Just as physics are beyond most peoples ability to grasp, so are the thoughts of many great theologians and religious philosophers. We have a bias though to trust the science authorities and ignore the possibility of religious authorities though now. So in the case of Taleb, perhaps his religious beliefs shouldn't be dismissed as a flaw (just because one has already formed a bias against religious thought), but instead be thought of as a potential indicator that Eastern Orthodox thought may have something worth exploring.

To draw on another thread, a biased "Boglehead" might always dismiss value investing, though evidence indicates that a competent value investor could do much better than indexing. Once you've adopted a technique (e.g. indexing) some people have a bias to dismiss other possibilities, because admitting - perhaps not indexing - there is an area one lacks understanding. This would open the possibility of hard work to "do better" and so an indicator of lacking or otherwise hurt self-esteem. The "if ($tool == 'hammer') {$problem = 'nail';}" analogy again.

[secretwealth]

I can't understand your line of thinking, WAH. You seem to conflate religion with the pursuit of religion and the same with science.

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. But to begin to have an intelligent conversation about that possibility, we first need to distinguish between thoughts about metaphysical reality and metaphysical reality itself, external to the thoughts of individuals.

[jacob]

Good point! I meant "assuming all religious beliefs are illogical..."

But you could flip it on its head and say "assuming all scientific pursuits are logical...", which are often flawed, more often than not determined by grant funding, personal bias, etc.

The pursuits may not be logical, but science, by definition, and thus by construction is logical.

Of course, not all parts of reality follow the rules of logic. Choosing scientific pursuits comes to mind

[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.