Nassim will be pleased to know I am eager to review his new book. In his web notes (he can't figure out how to make a blog for his comments, reminds me of my dad), he states:
How dare they change Taleb's dangling modifiers! He is someone in a limo, and doesn't take advice from plebeians in the subway. But if you do say something about him, get ready, because he or his acolytes (the Taleban?) will descend swiftly. Web Vandalism he calls it. Oh joy.
I just had to withdraw a piece from publication. The copy editor wanted to “improve” the sentences. I pulled it out immediately upon hearing claims that she represented the “general public”, with the assumption that she knew what the “general public” needed –not realizing that she was talking to an empiricist who despises impressions (based on anecdotal evidence) & pompously stated superstitious. There is an expert problem with copy editors particularly when they are self-appointed representatives of the “general public”. (“Advice” from book editors reminds me of Warren Buffet’s comment about people in limos taking stock tips from people who ride the subway).This is what I love about Taleb. He is thin-skinned and pompous, even as he notes the pompousness of someone who would deign to criticize him, a consistent hypocritical stance for him. You see, he thinks his genius must be unedited and unrefereed (peer review? who is worthy?). Alas, everyone needs help, and just as most people look better with clothes on even though this obscures their real self, most people's writing needs editing even as it clouds the essence of a true person (eg, actual genius Richard Feynman was a poor writer and speaker, grammatically, and thankfully acknowledged his editors and secretaries help in making his articles more readable). Stephen J. Gould, for example, was such a good writer (I read Panda's Thumb in my introductory English Composition class in college), he was able to use this reputation to insist his articles were henceforth unedited. This lead to the decline in his scholarship, as his later books were horribly rambling compared to his much more readable and tightly argued earlier books (his last book was 1400 pages, and much unremarked).
How dare they change Taleb's dangling modifiers! He is someone in a limo, and doesn't take advice from plebeians in the subway. But if you do say something about him, get ready, because he or his acolytes (the Taleban?) will descend swiftly. Web Vandalism he calls it. Oh joy.
HedgeFundGuy - am 2007-03-10 04:54
Caravaggio (guest) meinte am 10. Mar, 13:19:
Taleb's acolytes
The Taleban ... love it !: )
Kevembuangga (guest) meinte am 10. Mar, 22:30:
"Nassim will be pleased to know I am eager to review his new book."Are you sure?
HedgeFundGuy antwortete am 11. Mar, 00:45:
clearly I was being sarcastic
He can't stand criticism, especially mine. This would be cause for sympathy, but as he's pompous, it just makes it perfect fun.
stxx meinte am 16. Mar, 16:03:
Taleb, the self-impressed
Before writing my of critisism I must confess that I have read both his prior books and actually quite liked them!Taleb admires among philosophy, mathematics and history the most his own ingenuity. Hence, the word creation self-impressed.
1.) His ongoing discussions around the black swan phenomenon are becoming fatiguing and show little new insight or original thought. The whole conversation around the BLACK swan may one easily lead to forget that the swan might also be GREEN, BLUE, RED or any other color. Building a trading strategy around outliers (betting on the black swan) appears bizzare to me. His trading suggestions do not take into account the simple fact that there outlier events can take an infinite form (unspecific) but one can only make specific bets. That might be a reason why we do not see Taleb on the Forbes list (maybe he is the black swan).
2.) His eloquent use of the English language makes his ideas appear smarter and more intimidating. Adding philosophical terms and poetry to his study field makes critics appear uneducated if critics cannot come up with quotations from Homer and Aristotle. Ideas should stand critisism and not be defended through pompous language. I dislike such rhetorical cheats.
3.) His latest research paper where he intrigued many financial professionals with a word play demonstrates his self-impressedness.
His question was:
"A stock (or a fund) has an average return of 0%. It moves on average 1% a day in absolute value; the average up move is 1% and the average down move is 1% [...] What is the daily sigma? [...] "
Solution:
The average absolute 1% moves translate into a 1.25% daily volatiliy.
(Un-)surprisingly, many professionals got the answer wrong ...
Next time I won't forget when I calculate volatility in my spreadsheet that
- I first calculate daily returns and
- then calculate the modulus of the daily returns and
- then take the sum of the modulus of the daily returns and
- then CORRECT the sum with the inverse of sqrt(2/pi)
HedgeFundGuy antwortete am 16. Mar, 17:04:
The Black Swan is supposedly this great insight--who knew there were Black Swans?--but I thought it was a bumper sticker: shit happens. Or how about 'the exception proves the rule'? His obscure references, and unwillingness or inability to publish in any serious peer review journal, highlight that any man who regards himself as a genius is lost.
