Hey,
It has been such a long time.
Too many things on the personal front. Not that this is directed toward the thousands of fans who keep commenting on my writings anyway..sigh..I have come to realize over the past few weeks that writing helps. This time, however, I am going to try and be more organized in my thoughts and consistent in my flow.
Among the conversations that I have had in the ensuing period, there is one that I want to put up for further deliberation–Nassem Nicholas Taleb. The Black Swan. I would love for anyone to comment on his thoughts and I have one such instance to share. It was fun.
Reaction to Taleb’s The Black Swan
I have heard a lot about Mr. Taleb, and this article really proves that whatever i had heard from reliable sources is not wrong. I am not really sure how high you hold him in your eyes but for me he is not that great from what selected articles i have read from him. I don’t generally disagree with him on one aspect that most of the things happening around us, our analysis of it is highly influenced by a logical fallacy called “Observational Selection” (please click on the link and CTRL+F the term to find a small description on that topic). But the problem with his theory is that he attributes almost all of the success to randomness, which is another logical fallacy, and undermines the individual contribution. I am making this statement with special reference to share markets, which Taleb specifically criticizes. And the reason of his success is that he boosts the ego of general masses by attributing success as just randomness rather than personal effort.
I know you may not agree with me at this point but your forwarded article was a classic example where he cherry-picked Europeans, scientists, economist to bash them, but hardly you could take any positive aspect from his writing other than a sense of false happiness. I don’t even know if manipulation of this kind is good or bad. In one way it’s good because people may have a solace that their failure is not their fault but how far it’s beneficial in long run is a matter of debate.
As far as i am aware, scientific researchers are fully aware of randomness. If you pick up any analysis, reliability of statistics in scientific community is proportional to sample size on which it was conducted. Any compelling statistics on a smaller population has to be corroborated with larger samples to make any substantial claim. Apart from that any new age medicine has to prove its efficacy against placebo (random healing), and that too by substantial difference. This again takes care of randomness. The whole theory of evolution is primarily based upon random mutation of genes. I again would like to reiterate the fact that “empirical observation/analysis” is important aspect in research but it only helps in fomulating a hypothesis, not a theory.
Research will only get published according to the methodology of research. The novelty of findings has no affect on a research getting published. You would be amazed by amount of “irrational research” (in quotes), which gets published. Actually, they don’t even see a research as irrational because a research could be useful for any random person, which can be a base of a very big future invention. So if you want to base an invention on a research, it’s better that the base resaerch be solid in its methodology. For example, “Theory of Relativity” by Einstein may sound a big crap, but it turned out to be the perfect explanation of planetary motion, reverse motion of Mercury, Big Bang, our GPS navigation, etc.
Scientific research are not done to prove a point. They don’t have a specific target. They are just done to create hypothesis and later further evidence is used to strengthen or disprove that hypothesis. So “not exciting the intellect” or “beyond the comprehension” is never considered.
I accessed his website but didn’t find a place where i can leave some comments. But, yes, i found an e-mail id where i can send him a mail, but he himself has confessed that he will only reply to brief e-mails (less than 70 words), which i think is very difficult. Another funny aspect which i found in his website is that he has boasted that his book was No 1 in Amazon for 17 weeks consecutively, which raises a question that according to his theory some random book had to be No. 1. So it’s just a coincidence that his was the one. So why is boasting about it? He himself proves that his efforts to write a good book has made it number 1, not just randomness.
Sorry, but i couldn’t keep this e-mail brief. Hope you don’t mind.
Regards,
My response to the above:
Thank you for your detailed response. Let me clarify at the outset that it is not my agenda to convince people that Mr. Taleb is right in his thinking or even his viewpoints. Further, it is your decision to judge the “greatness” of Mr. Taleb based on what you have heard from reliable sources and from the select articles that you have read of him.
On my part, I consider his book as a different viewpoint that warrants consideration. Extremely interesting and a good read. There is nothing about Mr. Taleb that amazes me. After 1 week of reading his book, I figured that his writing could be a “Black Swan” if you know what I mean.
Point 1
As I see it from what you have written, it is no longer about what Mr. Taleb is stating; it seems more to do with the general concept that in attributing outcomes of any event to randomness, one cannot undermine human contribution. Thats part 1 of your argument if I understand correctly. You are right in what you say; you are wrong in thinking that his writing does not convey so. Rather than undermining human contribution, he suggests that attributing everything to human contribution is not a very good thing to do. Further, in attributing a certain element of any outcome to randomness, his writing gives an impression that there is “something” that the researcher cannot account for; researchers generally find it difficult to accept that.
Point no 2
I dont know if the general masses, as you say, would read his book and gloat on the fact that there isnt much difference between their ability to predict [considering his intellectual paucity] and the ability of an expert; I dont know and am frankly not concerned about the success of his concept and the whys for it. In this regard, success is a vague word. Receptivity is probably better. I am not even sure it matters but it would be safe to say that people who read such books are at some level driven by the need to understand whether or not the cause and effect relationship is for us, as humans, to confirm or reject.
Point no 3
Ok..if at the end of the excerpt you felt that there was an attempt to inform the common man that it is alright if one does not achieve much in life since everything is random, or that failure is ok, or create a false sense of comfort /false happiness then I cant say much. In a way you make it seem like an umbrella that can be wielded by the commoners to protect themselves against the intellectuals–like a self-confidence booster. Its not that at all. It is pretty clear that you have only read what you want to read and not what is being said.
Part no 4
From what i understand, reliability and validity both undermine the nature of the study and results. A greater sample size decreases the margin of error in the results obtained; I agree. But the issue I am emphasizing on is not as much about the reliability as much as it is about the validity of the findings. While a greater sample size increases the confidence of the researcher and his peers in the results and the accuracy of the results obtained, it does not indicate, and correct me if I am wrong, about the validity of the findings.
Part 5
His writing targets anyone who thinks that the world is understandable and predictable and are closed on the idea. This includes weather forecasters, economists and researchers. By allowing every researcher to be target of his writing, you are generalizing far too much.
Evolution was always there to begin with. While Darwin was one of the other biologists who were spending time studying evolution, he accepted the possibility of a result that was beyond his existing knowledge. Similarly, researchers have been aware of randomness; they have not been entirely receptive to it. When Darwin came out with the theory of evolution, every living scientist in his day condemed his finding saying “nothing extraordinary to revolutionize science.” Talking of medicines, penicillin is one such example as well; Galileo had the same issues. Most famous discoveries that have probably proceeded to revolutionize the world have been chanced occurrences by individuals who have been regarded as least likely to see it
Everyone’s a researcher; some have the quest for knowledge that is limited to those adding or confirming to the existing information while others refuse to be limited by it. More often than not, the latter is followed by discoveries.
Part 6
Your explanation regarding the need for concrete methodology as the basis for inventions is unnecessary. That was not even the point. The issue I was trying to highlight was the people who decide on the appropriateness of the methodology.”What I am trying to suggest is that the system of enquiry in empirical research is attempting to reason expert human mind
Part 7
I am most surprised by this
Scientific research are not done to prove a point. They don’t have a specific target. They are just done to create hypothesis and later further evidence is used to strengthen or disprove that hypothesis. I am not sure what to make of this but I assume that the basis for research is a research question and the next step in answering that question is to know where to find the answer.
Finally, while one is free to interpret the knowledge to ones own liking and understanding, to condemn views of someone else because it does not confirm to that of self is perhaps a classical example of an intelligent person engaging in the act of arrogance acquired through that same knowledge that enabled his understanding. It is the willingness to see things from the other perspective while holding ones own that gives a much better idea.
So, I dont see Talem with any different eyes than I see my high school teacher who tried to teach me Mathematics. He taught. I heard. The things I see of use in my life, I take with me; the things I dont, I discard.
You seem to have found and continue to find reasons to support your idea that Mr Taleb is not a great guy after all. While I dont have any opinion on his greatness, I am pretty sure that even if Mr. Taleb has anything that might be worthwhile for you to listen, you will discard it immediately. Coincidentally, this is exactly what Mr. Talem warns us not to fall prey to
Lack of brevity is not a concern for me. Dont apologize for it
