Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb

This text from the article on Taleb

Living in a world we do not understand Recently, Taleb sees his main challenge in mapping how to live and act in a world we do not understand, and how to come to grips with randomness and the unknown—which includes his black swan theory of unexpected rare events

conflicts with this earlier text in the same article:

Consistent with his anti-Platonism, Taleb doesn't like to see his ideas called "theories". As he stands against general theories and top-down concepts, he never mentions theory in conjunction with the Black Swan. The phrase "Black Swan theory" is, to him, a contradiction in terms, and he urges his readers not to "Platonify" the Black Swan. Rather, Taleb in his 2007 book The Black Swan calls this an "anti-theory" or the "Black Swan idea".

````pandion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandion (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

True. Taleb only calls "Black Swan Events". Ciao tutti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.227.71.28 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In Fooled by Randomness, Taleb takes pride in his ignorance of accounting; dismissively writing of his uninterest in FASB pronouncements. This is a clear indication that he cannot possibly understand business and financial markets. 132.211.195.25 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir, before critisizing Taleb, you should learn to read.

Taleb was critical on the technical side of accounting. Not about taking care of the numbers.

The idea is that accouting is important, but not the minor technicalities. A business should be namaged in a general and wide view, and not by technocracts who know all the accounting books withouyt any [ractical common sense.

Read Henry Mintzberg research on management. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's strange that someone would accuse the author of "Dynamic Hedging" of not understanding financial markets; his disdain is for the presumed precision and correctness that is attributed to financial reporting. --MCarr (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My first response is: Why did you delete the this part of my comment, viz.:

The article should expose, to some extent, that after many career failures, (in contradistinction to the assertion of his being a "polymath"), Taleb got lucky, (a rare event to be sure), and found some publishing success with MBA-types, and Charlie Rose, who are easily impressed with mathematics; (that they generally have very little understanding of).

Second, financial accounting, when properly understood, (it takes about ten years to achieve expertise in the field), is essential to recording, analyzing, and, ultimately, understanding economic events. Your dismissive reference to "the technical side of accounting" merely indicates that you have not gone through the long, and difficult, process of achieving a complete understanding of financial accounting.

Lastly, I am a graduate of McGill University, where Henry Mintzberg spent his entire academic career; and I am fully aware of the content of his writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.195.25 (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)As a headhunter for banks I can share that most people in investment banks have only vague knowledge of accountancy, and if you turned up for a job in financial markets armed only with an accoutancy qualification, they might employ you, but in what is generically called "back office". If you quoted FASB at an interview for trading or risk it might actually damage your chances, whereas an intelligent view (for or against) NNT would help you a lot. Some interviewers specifically ask querstions they they have drawn from his book, both the popular Black Swan series, and the highly technical work on Hedging.

Why do you say "after many career failures" ? This can be constituted as libel, and it is wrong. After trading and making money for himself, he wrote a technical book that is still relevant ("Dynamic Hedging"), opened a fund with a particular goal, wrote a book ("Fooled By Randomness") that was a success even though it was published by a small house, and became a bona fide best-seller author with "The Black Swan". If this is a series of career failures, I wonder what is needed to become a success. If you want to say that financial accounting is important and the Taleb's comments are too dismissive about it, Ok. But be careful about becoming too agressive yourself, and start attacking someone personally - personal attacks can be damaging to both parties. --MCarr (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Firstly, NNT has "found favour" in people with PhDs in the subject and who lead important parts of major banks, not just MBAS. You may feel that this is a bad thing, but that does not stop it being true. He teaches quants and traders, and most of those are not MBAs, indeed few quants are MBAs. Of course his ideas are also rejected by some smart people, NNT is in the very small set of people that I know who get hate mail from Nobel prize winners.

Next NNT's career has not been monotonically successful, he'd say that himself, and over a glass of wine will quite happily and forcefully explain this to you.

At the risk of commiting the sin of original research I don't beleive he sees his goal as being right, but to attack those he sees as wrong.

I archived everything up to August 2009 as this page was getting long. Lot 49a<sup>talk</sup> 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This article strikes me as a little sycophantic. I have read a few of the books by Taleb, and while I mostly agree with his ideas, I can't help but feel that some of the criticisms of his books are justified.

Many of the critics of the writer have focused on the fact that he did not properly cite his arguments. Taleb has countered that these critics were focusing on the style over the substance, but the problem with Taleb is that the style of the book impacts upon the substance. Taleb tends to freely express fairly strong opinions on a wide range of topics throughout his book (for example he hates the media, seemingly the result of a humiliating TV interview he mentions in one of his works), and I can't help feeling that that these kinds of strong opinions lead him to make flawed arguments on a number of occassions. Inchiquin (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You gave a great example.

The problem with the media is hardly an original idea of Taleb. There are various critics about the effect of the media on our mind and so on. Further, the point of Taleb against dailuy media is that most of hte data is random dailhy and weekly changes, instead of essntial changes in the state of things. This is a statistical very logical point.

Taleb despises hte media for decades, as he stopped reading newspapers decades ago.

Alas, Most of hte treatment of Taleb in the media has been highly positive. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit sycophantic. Taleb has strong defenders, and perhaps something of a cult. His financial idea is that maybe the Gaussian model used by Black-Scholes does not properly handle rare events, and this can be exploited as a trading strategy by weighting outliers more than a Gaussian curve would. Amazingly, he's been able to turn this into popular books, although its performance as a trading strategy is not impressive over a decade or so. --John Nagle (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

John Nagle is defamatory --and wrong. Do the math: from the public record, around 60% in 2000 and north of 100% in 2008. You know nothing substancial happened in other years (from the public record). This is part of the smear campaign against Nassim. Spreading wrong information is illegal. Also you should not misrepresent what Nassim is doing as he not posing as a return provider but insuring portfolios.

John Nagle you did spread messages like that in the past. It is very dangerous to spread LIES about people's performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that a legal threat? --John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is an empty threat. But the article is extremely one-sided because all contributors who wanted to extend it have been scared away by zealots with too much time like IbnAmioun - who is a family member of Taleb and takes umbrage at any detail of the article that is less than laudatory of this modern-day "polymath" -- 192.223.140.45 (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect; Prof Taleb started publishing since 2007 so it is better to keep downloads for last year and qualify. Also I removed polymath as it brings nothing and causes confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.53.99 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The style of the book is one thing, intellectual arguments are another thing. Nassim Taleb's book is philosophical but HE PUBLISHED scientific papers around it (peer-reviewed) and THESE are the one to address.

Furthermore it is wrong to say he does not cite arguments. Get a copy of his book and look at the notes and references in the back. This criticism comes from the fact that he believes that Scholes did not cite the others who developed the same equation.

There have been many attempts to smear Taleb, particularly on the parts of members of the "quant" and banking industry, (like, say user 192.223.140.45 who is from is from Fidelity Investments,or others before him. NewEconomist (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe.

I found sections of the stuff by Taleb to be quite enjoyable (even enlightening). One argument made by Taleb was that some of the strategies employed by share-traders, financial planners, CEOs etc. were comparable Russian Roulette. Taleb argues that if you win at Russian Roulette, you are a fool no matter how much money you gain, simply because the alternative to winning is just so horrible. This argument by Taleb is very powerful, and applicable to numerous fields aside from finance. This is one of Taleb's better points.

More the shame then about the vein of insecurity that runs through Taleb's works. Taleb uses his books to strike out at things he doesn't like: Some of his attacks are justified, but often not, and sometimes ill-informed. The style is comparable to that of a self-important newspaper opinion writer, which is curious given how much the said author hates the media.

Maybe there is a smear campaign against him, but Taleb is no victim. He gives as good as he gets.

Inchiquin (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point --whether one disagrees or does not disagree with ideas, discussions are not smearing, so long as it does not translate into personal attacks against Taleb and distortion of the record. Furthermore the attacks are suspiciously coming from members of the banking and investment industry who seem to have an axe as Taleb has been siding with the common guy against the banks NewEconomist (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any smear campaign against Taleb, normal reporting of his financial activities - whether he likes this or not - and ordinary reviews and criticism of his published works - whether for style or substance - does not constitute a "smear campaign" nor ad hominem attacks. There is often smearing of editors on this page though. Ktlynch (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that most of the criticisms of Taleb on this page are fair. However, I'll give NewEconomist the benefit of the doubt as a few comments could be interpreted as smears. For example consider the recent anonymous edit on January 30. Of course some of the Taleb supporters are equally myopic (I wouldn't be surprised if one of the regular pro-Taleb editors is in fact the subject in question).

My main issue about the books by Taleb is the feel of insecurity that runs through them... the guy seems determined to prove that he is a modern day Pliny the Elder of something. I suspect the problem is that Taleb spent to long working in the Finance industry; Taleb is critical of the culture in the Finance industry but he may have unconsciously inherited some of the wanky elitism this industry is famous for.

Inchiquin (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree There is no sign of smear campaigne on this page. The problems have been addressed. But there have been attempts on the World wide web. Also if a reader does not like Nassim Taleb's work and writes a published criticism, it would not be a smear campaign. A smear campaigne is when organized attacks aiming at discrediting and smearing someone reputation.IbnAmioun (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is all that notable, but Taleb is mentioned in this NYT article. —Ashley Y 07:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been following the evolution of this article intermittently through the past one year, after I finished reading the Black Swan. I was very impressed with the book. But the kind of one-sided hype on this wiki page and the aggressive way in which that hype is defended really makes me sad. Taleb could actually have something useful to say. The manner in which he's saying it, and the way his defenders are defending him is going to eventually backfire. That is all. This article definitely does NOT read like an encyclopedia article, but more like a hagiography. Someone from wiki needs to take note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.112 (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with everything you said.Ktlynch (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cannot give a final opinion. There were editor conflicts here of all kinds and colors. On some cases, however, there were anti Taleb editors who tried to play with whatever word possible to degrade Taleb. Looks like Taleb is quite colorful with many lovers and enemies, which makes the wiki editing quite a cacophony Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any hype. The text seems to reflect facts. They may not agree with you but they are facts.80.227.123.219 (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There's hype alright. Look, I don't want to get into an argument over whether there is hype or not. The text does NOT reflect facts uniformly. Parts of the text are factual, parts are not. My agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with it. For instance, "Taleb put a psychological, mathematical, and (mostly) practical framework around the philosophical problems in a long lineage of skeptical philosophers, including Socrates, Sextus Empiricus, Al-Ghazali, Pierre Bayle, Montaigne, David Hume and Karl Popper in believing that we know much less than we think we do, and that the past should not be used naively to predict the future. Furthermore, as a practitioner he creates a decision-making framework of "how to act under incomplete understanding, imperfect information". Taleb believes that most people ignore consequential rare events that he calls "Black Swans" because we are more comfortable seeing the world as something structured, ordinary, and comprehensible". Where is the citation for this? How exactly does the work of all these philosophers and thinkers relate to Taleb's work? As it stands, that sentence is nothing more than academic name-dropping. To give another example, in what ways exactly is Taleb an "epistemologist", rather than a philosopher in a more general sense, (which is how I regard him even if many others do not)?

The wiki article should not be used to degrade the man. But at the moment it is not fair and balanced. It reads awfully. A lot of the sentences have the phrase "Taleb considers himself", which is fine. But what do others consider him to be? Not just the so-called experts, but lay people - cite books reviews, blog reactions, TV spots - whatever. Just don't restrict it to how Taleb wants to see himself. I consider myself a great shower singer. Should that make it into my autobiography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.103 (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

According to refers to sources.The arguments above are random. Visibly when you discuss an author, you would say "according to " as reference to article, particularly when autobiographical. The text by the previous author is "there is hype alright" and "I don't want to get into argument whether..." is rather confused. The "great shower singer" is a severely unrigorous argument. And saying "I don't want to degrade the man" is rather misplaced in the context above.

This is wikipedia. Articles need to be SOURCED and for someone who sold 3 million copies of books, his books are de facto sources, particularly when it comes to his ideas and his papers. Other sources of criticism are fine, as well, except that Talib's peer-reviewed articles have not been criticized technically yet, alas.80.227.123.219 (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The arguments above are indeed "random" in the sense that they are a "random sampling" (a statistical term!) from the article. I do not have time to go through it systematically. I am sorry to have confused you - but I am sure your deliberate misreading and attempt to shift the focus from the original article itself to my comment on it has something to do with your confusion. I yield on "the great shower singer" being an unrigorous argument. And saying I do not want to de-grade the man is true, whether you believe it or not. I found myself nodding along to many chapters from the Black Swan.

I agree his books are sources. But then, instead of waving retail figures at me, it would be nice if you acknowledged they cannot be the ONLY sources. Taleb's peer-reviewed articles were not the issue at all (unless they have also sold 3 million copies!). Anyway, alas indeed that his supporters have the same sort of fanaticism that turns every good idea sour at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.111 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

HarlaCo (talk)I agree that this article is not at the quality that should make any of us proud to have helped build it. Bits are good, objective and referenced, but the structure is poor, and it is hard to read it without picking up the opinions of the person writing it, which to me fails the neutal point of view rule in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarlaCo (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the structure of this article is very poor. This article needs serious attention to bring it in line with the manual of style. Specifically, the introduction paragraph is too long and needs to be simplified. From what I recall, references in the intro are not necessary because everything in the intro is expanded in the main body, where information would be referenced. Also, the article pays FAR too much attention on his own opinions, which a Wikipedia article should not. "Taleb considers himself..." "Taleb is focused on..." "He also believes..." "Taleb doesn't like..." The article should give an overview of his views and describe his works, not give the reader a class on every thought he's ever had. These types of articles make me suspicious. I feel like there's either some conflict of interest editing or a group of uber-fans that are dedicated to having this article capture his every single accomplishment. Call me unenlightened, but I've never heard of this man until I saw this page requested for assessment on the Bio wikiproject page, so I don't have an axe to grind. ~Pesco<sup>So say•we all</sup> 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this has point has been noted by a number of people and I think it is true that the article is at times embarrassingly sycophantic. I wonder if Taleb himself at one point had a hand in writing up this article; one of the earlier anonymous editors in particular seems to have had a singular fascination with the topics and historical figures dealt with by Taleb in his books. Inchiquin (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed? That is not what he is saying -don't use self-serving interpretations. He is concerned with structural matters. "Sycophantic" is your angle. 67.87.132.170 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel like there's either some conflict of interest editing or a group of uber-fans that are dedicated to having this article capture his every single accomplishment. Which from where I stand is a polite way to say 'sycophantic'. Incidentally user 67.87.132.170, if you are going to hide behind this cloak of anonymity then any arguments you make are hardly going to hold much strength. At the very least you could register. Inchiquin (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to explain why listing credentials constitute sycophantic behavior --and violates non-neutrality. Please do so here.IbnAmioun (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Credentials are backed by facts so there is no harm in listing them. I agree. The whole unnamed sources and unverifiable slander is not required. Wikipedia is about listing out facts and thats pretty much what I see here, No need to glorify/slander .Also to the other anonymous person- if an accomplishment is worth listing, why is listing it sycophantic? Thanks!

Asim samiuddin (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

May we rather conentrate on constructive changes? As I see it, much of the argument here is about style and order, let's move on to make it a better article. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think all editors involved here should be subject to a sockpuppet investigation. I have never seen such a large number of non-native English speakers on one article. Our friend Mr Asim samiuddin for example has only just joined wikipedia. His first edit was to vandalise another article with the words "Nassim Taleb" his second to inexplicably revert the tag I placed on the article. His third, to happily jump into this debate with a sure opinion.--Ktlynch (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

well- Our good friend Ktlynch seems to have bigger problems that smearing people. The other article I "vandalized" with a "z" and not a "s" ( just a little English lesson from another non-native English speaker for you Dear native English speaker) was on a guy named Fernando Vargas.

I said "No need to glorify/slander" which goes both ways. Wikipedia is about stating facts not glorifying or slandering. So you got this whole "sure" opinion part wrong too. Opinions are supposed to be fairly sure (but flexible) thats lesson number 3 for you.

Now that that is resolved. Can we actually get constructive- Lets point out what exact items are causing the ruckus here. I suggest we go through them one at a time and resolve this peacefully and like adults without taking petty shots at one another. Thanks A 19:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim samiuddin (talk • contribs)

One last thing- (and I apologize for a fiesty reply earlier) is that we do seem to agree that the page needs to be improved. There is a consensus on the need to improve and not lack of neutrality. If there are any specific points which pertain to this supposed lack of neutrality lets bring it up and discuss it fairly without accusing each other or pulling ranks or sounding narrow minded.Asim samiuddin (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)A

The main point to consider on this discussion is that Taleb does not follow the standards most writers/philosophers do. He publishes articles on SSRN, he updates his website, he posts on Twitter, and therefore exposure of his ideas will be inherently "messy", as new sources are discovered and new fields of enquiry appear. I'll be glad to help in organizing the ideas, but there's no NPOV question here. Some people will focus too much on his career in finance, some are put off by the way he expresses himself, but I think that the exposure of his ideas is fairly represented. See the entry for Charles Sanders Peirce for an example of a rather long exposition of ideas and work. Perhaps an adequate formalization of his ideas will take some time to produce, and it won't be achieved as they are being produced. No NPOV here (and I've edited other pages that had NPOV problems, like "Strange Piece of Paradise"). Ktlynch, if you read Peirce's page you won't have the same opinion. --MCarr (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm the reader who started this thread - just wanted to quickly point out three things:

1. I myself am a non-native English speaker. While I'm on your side Ktlynch, I have to disagree that a large number of non-native English speakers automatically call for a sock puppet investigation.

2. Do note how, whenever a criticism of the style of this article is made, the arguments are once again brought back to how "unorthodox"/"unjustly maligned" a figure Taleb is. For instance, MCarr tells us that his ideas are "inherently 'messy'" because he publishes on SSRN, twitter etc. Fine. But if they ARE messy, why does THIS article simply not say that and withhold judgement on these ideas until they are made less messy? Why does it, repeatedly, come down in favour of Taleb and his (as of now) messy ideas?

3. Some specific criticisms were made by me on this very thread - I ask again - in what ways exactly is Taleb an epistemologist rather than a philosopher in a more general sense? What are the key ideas - not just a general framework - of Hume's and Al-Ghazzali's that he has given a "psychological, mathematical and (mostly) practical" framework to? Remember, the general framework is that one must not make the Inductivist Turkey mistake of thinking the future shall be like the past. Are we really to think that Taleb is the first one to have put a psychological or practical framework around this? And in what ways has he put a mathematical framework around it? That last is not a rhetorical question. I, like many others, will benefit from a citation on the "mathematical" claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.117 (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I did not intend to offend anybody's literary ability, but I'm not the first editor to see some level of organisation or similarity between the gung-ho Taleb brigade. I was merely offering some evidence in support of the hypothesis.

2. The "Inherently messy" idea is ridiclous. Lots of people disseminate their ideas through the same media. Just as the POV editors have tried to deflect accusations of a POV by saying "we agree the article is messy and poor, but it's neutral", the claim his ideas are "inherently messy" is an attempt to obfuscate the fancruft inserted into this article. The poor style is a result of sentences like: "According to Taleb, so far no direct published criticism has been directed at his ideas, rather at his person and style". Several experienced editors have noticed this, including a reviewer from Wikiproject:Biography

3. This article needs to be based on real sources, not blogs, wikis. Taleb himself is a reliable source, expect when he is writing ridiclous self-help, which is quite often. Yours truly, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Even when he is writing ridiculous self-help"? This seems a quite strange reply. Wikipedia is not about YOUR opinion. And you claim violation of NPOV? Clearly we need to make sure that what is on this page comes from sources, but not from the opinion of taleb-allergic editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.92.45.30 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, A couple of things, trying to counter the "messy" point with "its just meant to obfuscate the facts" does not help anybody does it?

Wouldnt it be a lot more helpful if you could be more specific as to what exactly is "fanboy" stuff and what are the real "facts" that it is trying to fudge? The "According to Taleb" part is something that I believe is there because he has mentioned that enough times and the fact that it says "According to Taleb" means just that. I'll try to research if someone has actually published verifiable research critiques on his ideas and I suggest you do that too. Also you might think he isnt reliable when he writes "ridiculous" self help, but then again you are being judgemental and thats your opinion. Again IF (not that I am actually suggesting so)I were to counter by saying it is "groundbreaking" and "perfect", it would be my judgement but neither of our judgements should belong on Wikipedia

I think if you do feel it is poor style, you are definitely entitled to it and I think we can definitely discuss modifications and even other ideas to address that "messy" stuff. Also I would recommend to the other reader who has questions about mathematical framework to check out some of those SSRN papers. There definitely is some level of effort to put together the mathematical framework you mention. Thanks:: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim samiuddin (talk • contribs) 13:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be no discussion of Taleb's orthodox roots in the article and his theology.94.200.71.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

yeah you find links on the net where he does mention he is an orthodox chrisitan and he is a practicing christian. he comes the Taleb family whic are a prominent family in amioun also hes ancestor built the Taleb Palazzo in Amioun he even posted pics of this.

i think this is a quote from him

I am originally from Amioun (Amyoun) but, the family has not lived there since 1890 outside of vacations; it is in the Greek Orthodox Levantine heartland (we are what Cavafy calls ellenosuron or, what people call less poetically the Antiochans --and I am a native French speaking Ελληνοσύρος (Syrian-Lebanese blood, Arabic tongue,Greek heart ) son of Jesuit educated French citizens to confuse matters (though I am not myself a French citizen). http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

he is where he talks about religion and criticizes scientists who are against religion he is very proud of his Orthodox roots. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article4022091.ece?print=yes&randnum=1212475411171 ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

HarlaCo (talk)I think this could be important, but it's going to be tough getting references. Also in this context, it will be important to distinguish culture from faith, which in this region not only is intertwined, but also as his own family demonstrates, interact with politics. —Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

Quotes:

"Before scientific enlightenment we were much wiser"

"Up until very recently, about seventy years ago probably, anything that took you away from the doctor extended your life."

"Visiting a doctor in france in late 19 century multiplied your chance of death by eight" (no citation)

"Science has not been very good at saving lives"

"Even today, I don't know if you know it, we live longer in spite of the family doctor, we live longer because of sanitation because of a lot of things"

"When hospitals have strikes we dont live less"

In other words, making a case that science has had no positive effect and has not extended our life span from something like 30 to 80 in the last 2000 years...

Reference: [1] Around 50:00 and 1:17:40

My comments: Later he likens religion to art, that we should believe it just like we believe tomato juice is real blood in movies -- and this is a case against taking theism seriously even though he is on the theist side in that debate...

This guy is great at manipulating the statistics. If he found one black sand particle on a beach, I wouldn't be surprised that he would go on a world tour claiming to have found beaches with black sand on it.

This is a distortion of Nassim's position on religion lifted from a few minutes soundbites. He is not a theist. His principal point is that religion is not about beliefs, but "customs and heuristics in an opaque world". See his notebook and what he wrote in The Black Swan on religion as culture to deal with areas in which science has incompleteness.IbnAmioun (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb05/taleb05_index.html Edge article: The Opiates of the Middle Class IbnAmioun (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)