So pretty much every single thing here is answered in the essay, but you obviously put a lot of effort into it, so I will respect that, ignore all the vitriol, and pretend you are making arguments in good faith.
“Then why include rhetoric such as this, which you know is dishonest? I get that you’re, ‘ in character,’ but when the entire article is attempting to characterize this horrible Twitter persona, doesn’t it pay to be accurate?”
Answers itself. In character. He wasn’t involved in the conversation to that point.
“when there’s both no HARD evidence presented by yourself that he doesn’t understand it”
This is an insane and sycophantic standard of proof. What do you suggest would count? Should I kidnap him and make him sit a test? His persistent imbecility on Twitter and in SITG is more than enough.
“and no, the left-boundedness tweet doesn’t fucking mean anything”
Yes it does. It means he thinks zero is a “left bound”. It is not. This is not surprising because he doesn’t understand the topic.
“There’s also no real evidence that Taleb was actually incorrect in the exchange regarding prospect theory.”
lololololol. Yes, now that I think about it, read the fucking paper then bullshit, has a lot of insight.
“You didn’t perform due diligence and neither did Peters in the exchange as he didn’t look at the paper until after.”
I was on Taleb’s side at the time (so young, so naive) and admitted in the essay I was wrong in this respect. I performed excessive due diligence in the sense that I had already read the paper and understood it. Trying to tell Ole Peters to do due diligence on Taleb’s retarded Twitter spoutings is insulting. You are doing a very good impression of being in a cult and being offended on behalf of a slight of your dear leader.
“Have you asked Peters what he ultimately concluded?”
Yes, he has been complaining about Taleb’s toxic influence for years.
“If so, it’d be useful to include that information here.”
Nope, it’s hearsay.
“You never even get around to describing your OWN understanding of ergodicity or any sort of technical refutation of Taleb’s understanding of it. You want to be credible? Stop referencing your own credibility and explain the ideas you actually know in a more formal way (very little of this in this paper)”
This is getting really painful, and I notice that shortly you start bashing the all-cap. Oh well, I’m in deep already. So your criticism here is: you meticluously debunked this, but what about you? do you know it? The essay is not about me at all. I am doing an impression of an egotistical cunt, but an egotistical cunt I am not, so you can keep on wondering what my expertise is exactly, and be terrified that perhaps it is vast …
“Further, the idea that none of Taleb’s ideas are original (and thus, he must not be that wonderful) is a strawman. This is inherently obvious.”
You are either ignorant or deluded. He claims to have invented to concept of antifragility and the IYI. One is retarded, one is stolen.
“The term ‘Black Swan’ is literally a reference to Popper.”
It’s a reference to Juvenal, and elsewhere he describes “his” related Turkey problem, which is stolen from Bertrand Russell.
“The majority of philosophers, famous thinkers, famous influencers throughout history have merely ripped off of and REFRAMED someone else. It’s sad that I’m even saying this, because this is an idea taught in middle school.”
It’s also sad you didn’t quote me saying this in the essay, because I worded it a lot better.
“What Taleb does that is useful is create reference, consolidation and evidence for ideas which many of us already know to be true.”
That’s why I was very complimentary of his writing.
“Arguing that Taleb has not FRAMED these ideas in an interesting, original and productive way is asinine.”
Good thing I didn’t argue that, then, eh? Good thing that I actually said the exact opposite, that he has FRAMED them in a very interesting, original, and productive way … but also doesn’t actually understand them much beyond that.
“The way I view it, when Taleb is an asshole to people, he’s not accusing them of being too dumb to understand these ideas (because they are rather obvious). He’s accusing them of discarding them in a dishonest way for the sake of expedience, ‘efficiency’ or personal gain (maybe, for the sake of being able to say that they have ‘knowledge.’)”
I don’t give a flying fuck what you think he’s doing or what he thinks he’s doing. I’ve meticulously described what he is doing. I won’t repeat that here.
“The idea that Taleb wrote a foreword on bitcoin, where he oversimplified and was semantically inaccurate or was otherwise not insightful in his description of it, THEREFORE [anything aside from that Taleb doesn’t really understand the inner workings and nuance of bitcoin], is fucking retarded.”
No, it’s hilarious. He could easily have filled out 2 pages with Incertospeak, but he couldn’t help but tip his hand that he doesn’t have a clue.
“The idea that he forgot that a person was referenced in the book, so therefore he MUST not have read it is an unbelievably dumb premise UNLESS the person is mentioned throughout. Nevermind the fact that, according to you, in order to write a foreword on a book, you must soak in EVERY FUCKING WORD AND REFERENCE. I went on Google Books (where I admit pages are obviously omitted) and performed a search and “Selgin” was mentioned one time. Would you say this is accurate?”
This proves that neither you nor he understands the topic. Selgin is indeed mentioned one time, and I alluded to that mention in the essay, so you didn’t really need to do this at all. But it is absolutely seminal. If you know anything at all about this topic, you know who Selgin in, and you know what the reference is without even having to check the book. And if you don’t understand a topic, why do you write forewords about it? Doesn’t that seem like something Taleb might criticise somebody for? Might an expert in this topic be pissed off that Taleb shows up and swings around his big stupid dick?
“The statement that crypto is definitively ‘the most important’ financial development of our lifetimes was vomit-worthy. There’s a chance it may well be, but why you feel this is enough of a likelihood to be boasted as a fact, I have no fucking idea.”
I didn’t say crypto, I said Bitcoin. More proof you have no clue. Once you clean up your vomit, will you accept my offer of a 10 year currency swap, maturing 25/4/30, USD:BTC on $10k notional? If not, kindly pipe down on things you don’t understand.
“Why the fuck would you make that presumption instead of presupposing the higher likelihood that was an honest mistake?”
Because it proves he didn’t read the paper he referenced. There is no way this could possibly have been an honest mistake. If you disagree, please explain how you think this happened.
“You have a certain indecisiveness in this paper. Is Taleb a genius or is he an idiot?”
This is completely clear, but for your benefit: he is a brilliant popular writer, but everything beyond that shows he can’t help himself and doesn’t actually understand the material he is expositing at any deep level, beyond what can make his books entertaining. This isn’t so much of a problem so long as it is entertaining, but when he wades into topics he doesn’t understand and tells people to shut the fuck up, it is a huge fucking problem and I am going to put an end to it.
“Do you really think that Joe Norman, Yaneer Bar-Yam and fucking Mark Spitznagel would literally pretend to respect and just let him hang around like a vestigial appendage if he was actually that useless?”
I don’t care. Ask them. But I do know, after one single week, that people are fucking terrified of even being seen to be indifferent on Taleb, never mind negative. I had people at the top of their careers, with over 100k Twitter followers, etc., reach out to me to tell me a story about Taleb and then refused to let me name them. That isn’t normal.
“Yeah, sorry, that’s just bullshit and, honestly, defames the integrity of those guys.”
If it’s false, they are standing up for a fraudulent bullshitting charlatan. I can completely believe they are too scared or too compromised to do anything about it. That would be a shame. If it’s true, they defame themselves.
“but the idea that he’s prone to mathematical error is not at all original.”
I didn’t say he is prone to error. I said he doesn’t understand any of this in any depth whatsoever. Please feel free to show me where that has been said before.
“All you have to do is go on Quora to see the hundreds of people who have expressed many of the same concerns.”
Lol. Didn’t go to Quora once. Didn’t even consider it might be helpful. Hard as it might be to believe, I actually understand all of this better than you and better than him.
“And while, I am aware of this and you are, and many others are, Nassim seems to be as well. He is constantly making corrections and revisions to his work, but often, the underlying point still stands once the revisions are made.”
Mmmhmm. Is he revising out the fraudulent references and the concepts he has no grasp of whatsoever? I look forward to edition of Antifragile in which he adds a new introduction starting, “Friends, I actually have no idea what “linear” or “second order” means.”
“And despite the asshole persona and the mistakes, I’ve seen him apologize or otherwise act apologetically and make concessions on the platform on numerous occasions.”
What a fucking hero. And for such a big ol’ smarty pants, no less! He apologised! Fuck me sideways, get a screenshot before he deletes it!”
“As for your paper as a whole, it’s largely repetitive, bloated and filled with impertinent information. Even if you were to keep all of the camp, you probably could have cut it in half and said all of the same shit.”
It’s filled with references that were over your head. I could have made it less than half as long, but I am playing to an audience that is smart and well read. I know they are out there because they told me they loved it.
“It’s my personal opinion after reading a quite a bit of Taleb and several hundred minutes of yourself, that you are more presumptuous, egotistical, and less-educated. If your friends are truly that wonderful and bright, they should come out and say what they’d like to say, because it doesn’t really matter how much of an asshole he is if he looks like a moron. This only makes you look like one.”
You’ve literally only read my impression of Taleb, you absolute buffoon, so this is a compliment. this means my satire was spot on. Thanks!
I’ll conclude by adding something I said elsewhere on Medium, to a similarly triggered commenter: I have no doubt you believe all of this and even are putting it forward in relatively good faith, despite the Tourette’s-like ad hominem. But ask yourself this: you are bending over backwards to defend Taleb on the minutest of minutiae that my essay throws up. You don’t dispute academic fraud, or total misunderstanding of comments he writes forewords to books on, or despicable personal behaviour.
which of these two really matters more?
how would he treat somebody in that position? Would he bend over backwards and grasp at straws to defend them? Or would he do what I did and beat the living shit out of them?
I choose violence.