QuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsHBR really like TalebQuoteBut Taleb has bigger game than Keynes and his followers in his crosshairs. He is really asserting a point of view that aligns him with Seneca, Montaigne, Hume and other "reasonable" thinkers, and against the pure "rationalizers" that descended from Aristotle through DescartesQuoteCan I say whether he is right at every turn? Certainly, I am unqualified to evaluate Taleb's use of statistics and probability (few are, to judge from the long list of technical papers on his CV)they sound like a bunch of Taleb groupies

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsHBR really like TalebQuoteBut Taleb has bigger game than Keynes and his followers in his crosshairs. He is really asserting a point of view that aligns him with Seneca, Montaigne, Hume and other "reasonable" thinkers, and against the pure "rationalizers" that descended from Aristotle through DescartesQuoteCan I say whether he is right at every turn? Certainly, I am unqualified to evaluate Taleb's use of statistics and probability (few are, to judge from the long list of technical papers on his CV)they sound like a bunch of Taleb groupiesTaleb's review of the review is of course "Excellent!" LOLhttp://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

FAP CIRCLE

Lol, that picture crossed my mind too. It's a bit funny that almost everyone here faps to NNT's money, while what's far more impressive is that his name will go down in history next to Keynes, Friedman, Schumpeter, ...

QuoteOriginally posted by: Ultraviolethis name will go down in history next to Keynes, Friedman, Schumpeter, ...I disagree with that. Taleb tries to take on broad topics. But I don't think he has broken through yet with a simplified way of thinking that is both resonant with the thought processes of mainstream college graduates, and revolutionary or important on issues they think about. Keynes is an idiot, but any unemployed person can understand the invalid idea of government spending stirring the pot (when it actually drains the pot).

I tried doing some reading on wikipedia about the major macroeconomic leaders & theories- of the 20th century. 500 links later I still haven't scratched the surface.i'll sum it up as best as I can:good is better than badthe goal of economics: maximize good

QuoteOriginally posted by: investor82I tried doing some reading on wikipedia about the major macroeconomic leaders & theories- of the 20th century. 500 links later I still haven't scratched the surface.i'll sum it up as best as I can:good is better than badthe goal of economics: maximize goodTry Science fiction novesl for economists ? But in short, the reason macroeconomics does not work too well: uninformative date and and difficulty to select from competing (say, DSGE) models which fit the data best. DSGE - Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium. A principle difficulty, because if there are equilibriums there are many and of different types?(BTW, "good" weather forecasters do select a set of models related to the problem, not one for all ...)

Is anybody jealous of Nassim Taleb? He does project a sort of misery. Though that time I met him, he seemed a ball of childish glee. That was perhaps in his more youthful age.

Am I allowed to be utterly indifferent about NNT? I think he's mostly harmless (and useless, IMHO)...

Never buy a product that the owner of the company that makes it doesn't use, or, in the case of, say, medication, wouldn't contingently use.hmm how about a casket? http://www.businessinsider.com/nassim-t ... z2ZE7PoBBs

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalYes. But there's a REAL Bruno. Quite remote from his picture.Gamal, if you only read "De l'infinito, universo e mondi" or "Lo spaccio della bestia trionfante" (maybe you'll find some English translation) you will understand why he is a top thinker, paving the way to modern science starting with Galilei and Newton.And maybe you will also undestand why Italian renaissance, building on the Latin and Greek ground, is the origin of the current (declining) civilisation which you belong to (as the rest of the world).GC (ciao GC, btw) wasted even too much time explaining to you why Bruno is not just an alchemist (he is also that, and I make you sure that you can learn a lot also from his Opere Mnemotecniche, even if they do not fit the current mainstream of thinking). But it is also true that modern education in many countries is, how to say, "journalistic", so Bruno is depicted as some lunatic dude burnt in a wonderful square of Rome for being mad. He was burnt actually because many of his ideas were disruptive, much more than the "fragility" or the "antifragility", which are in the end quite trivial and naive concepts.By the way, it is really ridiculous how some of you guys liken names as Seneca, Montaigne or Hume to NNT: also this very "journalistic", ie.: shallow statements, based on deep ignorance. Plus, if Montaigne and Hume are skeptics, Seneca is a Stoic philosopher with many Epicurean influences. Maybe you consider the three of them moral philosopher, but the disproportion of the comparison is in any case abismal, even without regards to the common aspects of their theories.Anyway, I really agree with martinghoul and I wouldn't take part to this thread if there weren't such blunders about Bruno Seneca, Montaigne and Hume, much more interesting topic at any rate.P.S: I realised, after I wrote the post above, that the comparison with Seneca, Montaigne or Hume was proposed by some Larry Prusak, on the HBR, and it was not by one of the thread partcipants. My apologies. On the other hand, this confirms my definition of "journalistic" statements (and the connection with modern education, since HBR is published by Harvard Business School).

QuoteOriginally posted by: ancastGamal, if you only read "De l'infinito, universo e mondi" or "Lo spaccio della bestia trionfante" (maybe you'll find some English translation) you will understand why he is a top thinker, paving the way to modern science starting with Galilei and Newton.Yes, I did. It's nice to talk to someone who knows the subject and not only some XIX-century propaganda. I really do not know what do you find scientic in "Lo spaccio della bestia trionfante", it's pure poetry. Multiple worlds cared by angels and demons... It's not more scientific than Swedeborg.BTW - did you know that Lewis' Space Trilogy was based on Bruno?

QuoteAnd maybe you will also undestand why Italian renaissance, building on the Latin and Greek ground, is the origin of the current (declining) civilisation which you belong to (as the rest of the world).I think Giambattista Vico would not even raise an eyelid; for him it would be another cycle.

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalQuoteOriginally posted by: ancastGamal, if you only read "De l'infinito, universo e mondi" or "Lo spaccio della bestia trionfante" (maybe you'll find some English translation) you will understand why he is a top thinker, paving the way to modern science starting with Galilei and Newton.Yes, I did. It's nice to talk to someone who knows the subject and not only some XIX-century propaganda. I really do not know what do you find scientic in "Lo spaccio della bestia trionfante", it's pure poetry. Multiple worlds cared by angels and demons... It's not more scientific than Swedeborg.BTW - did you know that Lewis' Space Trilogy was based on Bruno?No I did not read Lewis' Trilogy, I did not know it was based on Bruno's work. I will do, thank you for nice suggestion.I mentioned Lo spaccio not for its scientific theories, but for its attempt to establish a modern ethic based not on religious rules, and a new relationship with Nature, whose laws should be discovered by a scientific approach and not by the revelation in the Bible (at that time the earth-centric theory of the universe mainly hinged on the tale in the Bible where God stopped the Sun's course to allow the winning of a battle by the jewish army).I do not think its just pure poetry, but I yield it's very allegorical. Also at that time there was a strong check on the mainstream thinking: you had to be politically correct or you risked to be burnt (exactly as it happens today when you do not follow the thinking for the masses we are fed with, although not exactly on a stake in Campo dei Fiori as Bruno).I think the figure of Bruno as a medioeval alchemist is strongly influenced in the Anglosaxon world by the interpretation of his works by Yeats. Being Italian, I was influence by his interpretation in Italy in the last century, manily by the philosopher Gentile. Cuchulainn: maybe you right, we should simply prepare to a new Age of Gods, if we can ever identify the current age as an Age of Men. But I was thinking to the Sprengler's theory of the historical cycles, rather than Vico's, and more generally to the interpretation of the western nihilism by Severino, a contemporary philosopher.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ancastI think the figure of Bruno as a medioeval alchemist is strongly influenced in the Anglosaxon world by the interpretation of his works by Yeats. Being Italian, I was influence by his interpretation in Italy in the last century, manily by the philosopher Gentile.True, Gentile did try to "to establish a modern ethic based not on religious rules, and a new relationship with Nature, whose laws should be discovered by a scientific approach and not by the revelation in the Bible" together with his boss Mussolini. The new man to be educated was called by him l'uomo fascista. In Germany we had similar "thinkers" and practcioneers more or less in the same time. That's one of the reasons I remain skeptical about Bruno and his followers.