He seems to have successfully completed the job and the people who call it annoying are a minority, it’s always some inflammatory side-attack and it gets old. Correctly predicted the crisis and calls out people who are harmful, seems like a great guy to me.
It would be useful to not evaluate a person as one whole person, or not as one whole set of works. Otherwise you are susceptible to halo or horn effects. It is more useful to see multiple different aspects. I can hate Ayn Rand and yet find her solution for the problem of the universals quite respectable. I can say Taleb’s math is excellent, was very predictive and just what the world needs while his way of writing books that attempt to talk about everything superficially not so good and wish he would focus more narrowly on his expertise instead of talking about everything.
Good ideas and annoying style are orthogonal issues, these are arguments to the first, not the other. The both can be seen side by side: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/12/05/nassim-taleb-is-annoying-but-antifragile-is-still-worth-reading/
He seems to have successfully completed the job and the people who call it annoying are a minority, it’s always some inflammatory side-attack and it gets old. Correctly predicted the crisis and calls out people who are harmful, seems like a great guy to me.
It would be useful to not evaluate a person as one whole person, or not as one whole set of works. Otherwise you are susceptible to halo or horn effects. It is more useful to see multiple different aspects. I can hate Ayn Rand and yet find her solution for the problem of the universals quite respectable. I can say Taleb’s math is excellent, was very predictive and just what the world needs while his way of writing books that attempt to talk about everything superficially not so good and wish he would focus more narrowly on his expertise instead of talking about everything.
You’re pushing it -_- give me a break.
OK