You are here:   Reputations >  Overrated > Overrated: Nassim Nicholas Taleb
 

 

You cannot know the chance of very unlikely events by observing how often they occur. They do not occur often enough for that. But you can still sometimes know their probability. For example, we know that the probability of 100 consecutive coin tosses landing heads is 1/2100, not because we have seen this happen, but because we know that the probability of each toss landing heads is 1/2.

For many other improbable events, however, the matter is not so simple. Not only are they too rare to observe their long-run frequency, but we do not understand their underlying causes well enough. For example, because the causes of weather and of economic events are so varied and complicated in their interactions, meteorology and economics remain inexact sciences, unable to tell us the chances of unlikely, extreme events. 

And because we humans are inclined to certain errors of reasoning, such as seeing patterns where there are none and underestimating the chance of things we have not previously seen, we get shafted by unlikely events more often than is strictly necessary.

This is a short version of The Black Swan, the 2007 best-seller by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a (now) 50-year-old Lebanese former investment banker. His Fooled by Randomness, published in 2001, explored similar themes. But it did not enjoy the same success because its timing was not as good: Black Swan was published during a financial crisis that Taleb had predicted. 

He was quickly propelled to stardom. Bryan Appleyard described him in the Sunday Times as "the hottest thinker in the world". He has since added a post at Oxford University's Said Business School to his position at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University, and he is in great demand on the speaking circuit. 

It is ironic that Taleb should be credited with genius on account of the coincidence of Black Swan's publication with a financial crisis he had predicted. It displays exactly the kind of erroneous thinking that he complains of. If the financial crisis were an unlikely "black swan" event of the kind that Taleb discusses, then he could not have known its probability.

Taleb's central hypothesis in Black Swan is right. But it is simple and worth only a chapter rather than an entire book. Taleb inflates its significance with an absurdly combative and grandiose writing style. It is Taleb versus the corrupt fools of the financial establishment; Taleb versus the false mathematical rigour of the academy; Taleb returning us to the wisdom of the ages.

The padding that fattens the Black Swan up from a chapter to a book is worse than irrelevant fluff; it is angry, righteous and self-congratulatory. It also hints at a flimsy grasp of the non-financial subjects he strays on to and of the philosophy of science. 

Taleb's scepticism is not restricted to the chance of very unlikely events. He thinks that we generally know less than we think, and that economics and much of modern science is bunkum. The Nobel Prize for economics and its winners cause him special psychic pain. At a conference in Mexico in 2009 (which you can see on YouTube) he claimed that the supposed knowledge of modern doctors has made no contribution to extending our life expectancy. The human body, like the weather and the economy, is too complex to be amenable to science. As evidence, he claimed that when elective surgery is briefly suspended (perhaps because of a strike), death rates do not increase. I will not insult you by pointing to the well-known facts that contradict this scepticism about modern medicine, nor explain how Taleb's "evidence" could be correct without supporting his conclusion. 

Taleb's extra-curricular absurdities are often expressed in the style of a post-modernist literature student. He talks about "narratives", "reductive categories" and "what lies on the other side of the veil of opacity". He thinks that claims about the origins of the universe or the reality of death need no evidence when uttered by the religious, because they are using holy terms rather than scientific ones. He thereby endorses the relativists' fantasy that a mere choice of jargon can absolve you of all intellectual obligations. 

He has now published a book of aphorisms, The Bed of Procrustes, heavily promoted on the BBC Today programme. A collection of aphorisms would usually be assembled by a fan after a lifetime of brilliant work and pithy nuggets of wisdom. But Taleb cannot wait, nor rely on others fully to appreciate his wisdom. So he has delivered his own collection of freshly-cooked nuggets. It is not only the vanity of the enterprise but the aphorisms themselves that are excruciating. They reveal Taleb's obsession with a handful of topics, but mainly with himself: erudition (that's him), charm (him), wisdom (him), nerds (not him), the internet (which is for nerds, not him), philosophers (him), suckers (not him), hard work (which is not for geniuses like him), paid academics (not him, except in fact) and the great men of antiquity (of whom he is a late example). If only it were true.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
DCWhatthe
December 28th, 2010
10:12 PM
Of course he's overrated. Anybody who hits the bestseller list is going to be on the overrated top of the curve, at least for a while, and get more attention than their 'intrinsic greatness' entitles them to. And there will be many immensely talented individuals, who will forever remain underrated & unrecognized. So what? My only question is whether he has something of value to offer me, something to make it worth purchasing or reviewing Fooled by Randomness, Black Swan & Procrustes. The answer is yes; Taleb's work, not necessarily the man himself, has made a difference in my perspective of the world. Similarly for other fans. Whether he's arrogant or full of himself, doesn't really matter to me. The 10-20 bucks spent on each of his books, is worth spending.

Anonymous
December 26th, 2010
11:12 PM
Well written article. Thank you for criticizing this new age snake oil sales man.

Dave Lull
December 25th, 2010
2:12 PM

EimZ
December 25th, 2010
8:12 AM
...and that's why don't read Taleb, read ABOUT Taleb @ Standpoint. It doesen't matter Taleb everything he get as academic give away. Oh, but author didn't know that, rigt? Using Taleb's ways of thinking make you nonsucker, even if you are one, you has chance to learn way not to be one, but stop! Why do you need that? You have Jamie Whyte, his GREAT way of thinking, that everything is right, everything is good (Taleb is greatest sucker, he doesn't understand what he talks about) BUT problems around the world- they just are there, and part of them happen not because of such professionals as Jamie Whyte, no, they JUST happen ;)

haig
December 25th, 2010
3:12 AM
>"If the financial crisis were an unlikely "black swan" event of the kind that Taleb discusses, then he could not have known its probability." No, but he would have and did know how susceptible the financial systems were in the event of a catastrophic shock, regardless of the probability. That's the whole point, to build your house of bricks, not straw, even if you don't ever expect a wolf to come huffing and puffing your way. His other thoughts may not be to your taste, and though I do disagree with the extent of both his sympathies towards religion and his skepticism towards science, you cannot claim that his central thesis of 'anti-fragility' is overrated at all.

Alex
December 25th, 2010
1:12 AM
This is such a poorly written review I am not sure where to begin. First of all, Economics != Meteorology. Economics is the pseudo-scientific study of human interactions, meteorology is the scientific study of naturally occurring weather systems. Economics is inexact because human behavior is non-reproduceable, meteorology is inexact because of our inability to measure with enough accuracy and precision. Meteorology IS empirically testable, and Economics is not. As a follow on point, Taleb's main problem with Economics is not that it is studied, but that decisions are made based on its flawed foundations without acknowledging the flaws inherent in that foundation (homo economicus, for one). A "Black Swan" is not necessarily 'unpredictable' to the entire populace, just those who are embedded in the system and for various reasons cannot or will not see it. Your definition is in fact a tautology. 'A black swan is an unforeseen event, therefore it is unpredictable.' This is not what a black swan is. In fact, your assertion that "if the financial crisis were an unlikely "black swan" event of the kind that Taleb discusses, then he could not have known its probability" misses the whole point. Black swans do not have probabilities. They either happen or they do not, at some uncertain frequency, and generally at an unknowable level of impact. Your review clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of the very material differences between risk and uncertainty. Risk is quantifiable, uncertainty is not. Throughout his books, Taleb skewers those (like economists) who claim to know more than they actually do. However, the thrust of his argument is that most of these folks have no better chance of making a right call than someone has in making a decision by flipping a coin. Due to agency costs, these people actually have a worse return than a coin flip, and take dramatic risks that they fail to truly understand because of mis-aligned incentives (moral hazard). I do enjoy how the review degrades into a series of ad hominem attacks. That, perhaps more than anything, condemns it to the rubbish bin.

Nick
December 25th, 2010
12:12 AM
I have to agree with the author Nassim is overrated and is a none academic stuck in a dream world.

Coleman Sharra
December 24th, 2010
11:12 PM
why waste space and time writing something which is utterly untrue about Nassim, if you thought what he said was so simple and deserve mere a page or two then why didnt you write those pages, it common for people who envy him to say what you say, i may not angry with him but surely he has good insight and much wisdom to think a head and confess he doesnt know everything about everything. if the idea he has is applicable to so many parts of science ( hard and social) why then shouldnt he write book about it, what you have demostrate here is merely epistemic arrongance which according to another philosopher Tariq Ramadan lacks Humility in the face of opacity. get youself checked.

James
December 24th, 2010
9:12 PM
Yes, only those who are ordained "experts" by corrupt acedamia are allowed to act as though they are smart. Everyone knows that! Only the "experts" can select others to be "experts", it's a wonderful practice in pure intellectual solipstry.

Adam
December 22nd, 2010
4:12 PM
Thank you! I was briefly subjected to his insufferable Twitter feed.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.