From: Black Swan Guy - People With Asperger's Cannot Think

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/asperger.pdf

I read this. He does not say what you are attributing to him. He merely uses Asperger's to illustrate his point about Theory of Mind, a well-document area of study on the spectrum. No need to be alarmist or try to rouse others.

If anything, his treatment of the topic of AS is more respectful than I've read in mainstream media and this reference is but a small excerpt from a larger book.

Some quotes from the referenced material. Nothing offensive here:

Note that the rest of the article is dealing with something completely different and he leaves the reference to AS behind after his discussion about Theory of Mind.

DISCLAIMER: I know nothing of this guy and only a little about his book. I make no claims or judgments about the author's character or views. He could be a saint or the anti-christ as far as I know. This post merely deals with the claims of the thread title.

If you feel differently, could you perhaps offer a quote from the article where you believe he is stating "People With Asperger's Cannot Think"?

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make from this. This excerpt could be interpreted both ways (positive and negative).

How on earth is his treatment of AS respectful? He is basically saying that people with AS should not be employed in the financial services industry. Since people with AS are sometimes highly intelligent but socially awkward, they end up in back room type functions like risk management instead of the headier and sexier front desk. But Taleb - [content removed by sinsboldly]- says that because many of the risk managers on Wall Street are known to have AS, their lacking in the theory of mind, which he equates to a lack of common sense, allowed the recent financial crisis to occur. Apparently, people with AS have no idea how human beings think and behave. If you buy into his arguments, you are basically dehumanizing people with AS.

The lack of a theory of mind does not imply that people with AS are insensitive to human needs, emotions and beliefs. Indeed, the abuse we receive often means that we are extremely sensitive to the motivations of others, but at a distance. Up close, something gets jammed and the reactions often come out wrong; hence the awkwardness.

I read the first edition of Black Swan and have a copy in my office. The excerpt quoted seems to be from the just-released second edition.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Black Swan even though it was, in quite a few places, not a particularly easy read for me with an IQ that just squeezes into the 98th percentile.

Taleb is an intellectual and also happens to work outside the ivory towers of the intellectual world, when he is not writing books.

He sometimes seems to take longer than I would prefer to make his points in Black Swan and some of his anecdotes (particularly about his interesting genealogy) seem quite Aspiesque; But I don't remember reading anything in Black Swan that might have been considered offensive.


Quite the opposite.

He uses the term 'middle brow' for the masses of the well educated and well read (where he in fact catalogues himself) to distinguish from the term 'high brow' which he seems to reserve mostly for physics PhDs.

He amusingly coins the term 'physics envy' for the truly intellectually tortured 'middle brows' (including some math Phds )

I really can't imagine Taleb making any reckless claims (about AS or anything else) without properly weighing ALL the information and ALL of the evidence; if for no other reason than it would be ripped to shreds by people (far greater than me) who DO know what they are talking about and in the process damage his intellecual standing and become just another tabloid reporter.

As the British used to say in the last days of the Empire; 'All we have left now is our behaviour'

But that doesn't mean he hasn't written something that reckless.

This is in fact the essence of the Black Swan which is that; just because Taleb never said or wrote anything like this before we shouldn't assume that he won't write like this now.

I'll study the article in question, which at 11 pages and written by Taleb will take me a little longer than 5 minutes to digest.

Thanks for letting me know that his second edition is out.

I'll go and get a copy.

If I may borrow from Judge Judy: Don't tell me what he's "basically" saying, tell me what he's saying. But even if this were true, why can he not hold this opinion? He's not saying we're unable to think or mentally ret*d.


This is NOT what he says. I'm afraid there is no basis for this conclusion based solely on the excerpt. Again, I come to this as a neutral third-party.


This (and the diatribe that follows) is not stated anywhere in the article. You're stating it like it is a counter-argument to the text. It is not.


Oh... kay. Agenda, I see. I expressly mentioned that I have no idea whom this gentleman is, and what you say may be absolutely true. I was making the mistake of giving an independent analysis. This is not what you wanted. I'm going to back away from you slowly now and you can go rail against others you're trying to catch in this spider-web. At least this "Talib" gent is making his case without calling people offensive names.

I will not post more in this thread. I daresay that my having the temerity to dare disagree with you has put me in the same category as the author. In the interim, please think on what UrsaMinor said about how this small fragment can be interpreted both ways. You haven't given us much to go on.

You know, I believe that the common psychological interpretation of "theory of mind" contains a basic logical error. The assumption is that the incorrect answer is given because the child (or the autistic person) can't "put himself in another's shoes", to realize that the older child didn't see where the item was placed.

However, they never did ask the autistic person about his/her POV on the topic. For much of my life, I assumed that anything I knew, everybody knew - after all, they always had this mysterious knowledge of what other people were thinking, through some method that I could not detect in any major way. Why shouldn't they be able to know where the toy was through this same mystery? It wasn't a lack of empathy, it was a lack of knowledge of this "body language" thing.

BINGO!!

Finally a clear and understandable explanation.

Zeno, it's good to see you here. I have enjoyed reading your posts on exercise, meditation, etc. I find we often think alike.

I meant to post that excerpt here a few days ago. What I thought was interesting here is that asperger's/autism is being used metaphorically, like deaf, dumb, or blind frequently are. I would argue that his point about financial services (the industry from which I am currently unemployed) can't be taken to mean AS people in any literal sense or perhaps more accurately it cannot be meant to describe AS people as a class. The weird network effects in fields like Risk Management require not just AS type tendencies of generating rules, but a heavy dose of conformity and rigidity. While many of us may be rigid, I don't see much conformity around AS circles like WP. I think what Taleb does convey is that risk management, especially the modern 'financial engineering' kind, is blind to certain concepts. I would argue that AS people, as independent thinkers, are more likely to find the flaws in a simplistic 'ideaology' like Value At Risk (VAR), than the typical person on the street. But as metaphor for describing the imperviousness of much of financial engineering to outside input, I think AS might be helpful here.

I deem his writing style to be unprofessional. He gets lost in his own huge fantasy world of ideas and speculations without providing enough context to introduce the reader to his world of thinking (which is interesting, nonetheless).

He refers to some of his colleagues and forebears with tactless disrespect.

He does not use proper citations. And the work has no bibliography.

He essentially published and placed a copyright notice on a version of the text that is very obviously in the process of being edited.

Interesting thinker, but I think he needs a little bit of "academic bootcamp" if he wants to be taken seriously by people with higher levels of education.

And when an author seems to be targeting only less educated people as his audience, that raises a lot of red flags.

Of course I can think. I'm thinking, right now.

Who cares what he says? Just ignore it and get on with your day.

Having read Black Swan, I don't think it was EVER Taleb's intention to be taken seriously by people with higher levels of education, particularly those who are 'tenured'

However the principles of Black Swan are now the subject of some very serious 'academic' research by people with VERY high levels of education

He is also taken VERY serious at 'The Edge' whose mission is to;

'Promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society'.

Edge Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit private operating foundation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.



I was lost with this statement.

Having read Black Swan and seen interviews with Taleb, I don't see how it could be concluded that Taleb is targetting the less educated (although you don't define 'less educated')

He certainly isn't targetting the less intelligent.

My IQ tests (just) inside the 98th percentile, (which is probably lower than most if not ANY of the contributors at 'The Edge') and I found Black Swan heavy going in places.

In my opinion, Taleb is a philospher (as are the contributors at 'The Edge');

Black Swan (in my opinion) is a philosophical work and if he is writing for ANYONE (other than himself) it is (in my opinion) the audience of philosophers, regardless of their level of education.

Philosophy is the convergence point of all of our (human attempts at) learning and understanding.

That is why the Doctoral degrees in all subjects bestow the term PhD to the recipients; they are ALL Doctors of Philosphy.

Interestingly, philosophers are what they are because they have the ability to think differently to the mainstream, 'established' and 'accepted' way of thinking and their ideas have often resulted in quantum changes in the development of mankind.

Last edited by Blindspot149 on 01 Feb 2010, 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think Nassim Taleb has committed a gross error in his analysis. Hearding together and walking off a financial cliff is a very neurotypical thing to do. Provided everybody is thinking the same thing and their advanced theory of mind tells them so, they are safe in the group and do not look for black swans. That kind of thinking is much more responsible for market bubbles and crashes. The truth is closer to the 180 degree opposite of what Nassim Tabel has written.

Being the CEO of a financial institution with an over leveraged balance sheet relying on political connections is a very neurotypical thing to do. A lack of confidence and arrogance is a common characteristic of Aspergers.

Consider this, what percentage of the worlds wealth is controlled by autistic people? Very low I suspect. Now what does that say about the logic of an argument that links financial crisis to autism? To link the two is just plain nonsense.

If Nassim Taleb wants to observe an Asperger (or proto-Asperger) mind in the financial markets perhaps he should go to Omaha. Ask to talk to the guy how said derivatives where weapons of financial mass destruction years before the global financial crisis. Point taken Nassib?

I am afraid Nassim Taleb has found his own black swan: he can think he knows something but be totally wrong too.

Nassim Table, should you read this, you owe us a retraction and apology.

I find it mildly offensive. He can draw together as many abstract concepts as he likes, but I certainly knew the financial crisis was coming and I have AS. I know next to nothing about economics but there were obvious indicators that things could not continue as they were indefinately.

In fact the only research I know about risk management and Aspergers Syndrome indicated that those with AS actually have superior risk management skills rather than inferior as this person is asserting.

I think that it is ignorant and discriminatory to claim in the absence of any tangible direct evidence (given that evidence indicates the contrary) that people with AS are unsuited to risk management just as blind people are not suited to driving cars.

Blindspot:

On the first part of what you said, thanks for filling me in. That was very informative.

As for the second part, I think you misunderstood me (should have worded it better), but what you said was interesting.

I wasn't really referring to a distinction between people with more formal education and those with less, or some IQ cut-off point or something.

Let me put it this way:

Some authors intentionally target readers who don't habitually engage in critical thinking, and are not especially driven to pursue knowledge (either on their own or through an educational system or anything).

Jenny McCarthy is a good example of an author whose target audience consists of people who will probably not critically analyze her ideas, or wonder where she got them, or look for differing opinions on the subject in order to get a sense of perspective. Her aim seems to be to draw readers into her own way of thinking without having to be asked any challenging questions about it. She presents herself as though you're either for her or against her, no questions asked. And this is counter-productive to inquiry in her supposed area of interest.

In contrast, writers who want to inspire readers to think will at least provide a bibliography. Bibliographies allow the reader to check out the author's sources to see if the statements s/he makes based on them are accurate, what particular works of writing inspired the author, etc. They encourage readers to pursue further knowledge / thought on the subject, whether it supports or conflicts with the author's opinion.

I was just using the reference to academia as a broad generalization. I did so because the concept of "writing in a professional style" exists for a reason. Professionally styled writing gives respect and credit to other thinkers and supports further debate around the issue. It inspires readers to think in greater depth. If you offer no context for your argument, and provide no bibliography or citations, you're basically saying, "Listen to me because I'm right. And that's it."

Generally, people who are fortunate enough to have a good education (formal or informal) and / or good critical thinking skills and / or a decent awareness of a topic, etc can quickly dismiss an author like Jenny McCarthy because it's obvious that her ideas are unfounded and that she expects some kind of blind faith from her readers. Those who are not fortunate enough to be able to assess an author and their statements critically can get swept up in such a tide of purely emotionally based writing about a topic deserving of more critical analysis.

Expecting blind faith from your readers is dangerous. Black Swan seems to be walking a thin line in this area. He writes in a style that draws the reader into HIS way of thinking and doesn't seem interested in the idea that some readers might question his ideas or ask where some of their foundations came from.

And yes, I'm a real stickler for bibliographies. I work with them.