NewEconomist
Welcome
editБългарски | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Lietuvių | 한국어 | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe | 简体中文 | The main embassy page edit
 Getting Started Getting help
 The Commmunity |
 Policies and Guidelines
 Things to do | |
Thank you for your contributions so far, NewEconomist, :-) Maedin\talk 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Taleb article
editHi NewEconomist.
Regarding the Taleb page, I should say that despite my criticisms, many of the ideas of the author are interesting and I generally felt his books were worthwhile read.
The concern I have is that biography articles on Wikipedia tend to devolve into simplistic hagiographies or (what is even worse) hatchet jobs. I tend to feel the Taleb article falls a bit too much into the former category. Admittedly, this issue is by no means a simple one, as Taleb seems to have as many detractors as he does fans.
Some of Taleb's detractors are simple partisans defending a vested interested (as you suggested, probably a couple of critics on the 'Taleb' talk page fell into this category.) However, I feel that some of the critics of Taleb do have more of a justification.
Something about Taleb's personality reminds me of Paracelsus, the Alchemist/Physician of the 16th century. Paracelsus had some very original ideas, but he managed to isolate himself from his colleagues by his vitriolic attacks on the medical establishment of the day. Taleb is a bit like this, he writes like a machine gunner when a rifle is the required instrument. Personally, I found a few of the writer’s throw-away remarks irritating, but I still appreciated the substance of the books. That said, I am fairly forgiving, but I can't blame some other lay readers for taking umbrage at the authors various random barbs.
The tragic thing is that many of Taleb's targets are worthy of criticism; but he weakens his argument by striking at the wrong places. A concrete example here is Warren Buffet. I feel Taleb is quite justified in attacking the (cult-like) Warren Buffet 'cheer squad'; undoubtedly Buffet is a very canny investor, but (as Taleb points out) so are thousands of others in the US. For anyone to become as massively wealthy as Buffet, there has to have been a huge amount of luck involved.
But when Taleb attacks Buffet for his (relatively) austere lifestyle, he is pushing it a bit. Why should a Billionaire be criticised for an austere lifestyle?. There are some calculations that suggest that if the entire population of earth lived the lifestyle of those in the first-world, several planet Earths would be needed to sustain everyone. This is what I mean by Taleb's 'machine gun' approach, many of his attacks are spot on but a few are way off the mark.
Admittedly, it is easier to be a critic of a book than to write one, and as I said I generally respect the books by the author in question. However, I feel that in that Taleb article there needs to be some recognition that the critics of Taleb's ideas are not all simply blockheads defending a vested interests (even if there are a few of them).
blackswan theory section
editsee [1] the section you have delted I am not sure it should be deleted. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)