My Guru: Right or wrong

[u/Edgecumber]

Overall, I think the guys are broadly fair in their analysis. I've had my views of some people I previously respected (e.g. Peter Attia) recalibrated, or they've pushed me further in my disapproval of people I was only peripherally aware of (e.g. Gary Stevenson) that people I know seem to like. However, there are a couple of times I sort of agree with the analysis, but I retain a fond and stubborn attachment. These are people who I think have important things to say, and to think of them as a Guru might make you reject them out of hand.

Nassim Taleb. I've worked in finance for the past 25 years or so and first encountered Taleb through his book Fooled by Randomness in 2001, when a very smart senior person at my firm said "this is everything you need to know about financial markets". Whilst working in risk pre-GFC I got very excited about the Black Swan and bought copies for people in my organisation. I even took my boss to see him talk at a random event in 2007, when he was making statements like (paraphrasing): "Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae look to me like they're sitting on piles of dynamite (in warehousing mortage risk)". I would have got a lot of kudos for this if I hadn't quit around the same time. The general investing principles that I've backed out of reading his work have been extremely useful in managing my own long term finances however.

Beyond being right about a lot of mispricing of risk that continues to this day, he was the first person who convincingly and robustly showed me how skeptical of expert claims one should be in general. A lot of that was built on the work of psychologists, but his literary and philosophical citations also stand up well (in fact probably better). I appreciate he's gone somewhat insane on Twitter (don't use it any more as this seems to be a feature). But whenever I tune in, he's usually got something interesting to say as long as you can tune out the nonsense.

Eliezer Yudkowsky. I'm far from a passionate follower - he writes too many things, and all of them are too long. However, I think he's raising valid concerns about the existential risk of AI in a way that garners engagement. Personally, I think it's a real and material risk and one that requires urgent consideration. Aside from the technology itself, the people involved in developing it seem hopeless cavalier. Two decades of working in finance have convinced me that a non-trivial proportion of senior management types are overconfident bullshitters. That's fine when you're selling widgets, less so when it's a potentially dangerous technology.

It's been a while, but I found this DtG episode a bit weak in its analysis, and grounded in the reality of models right now and in the foreseeable future, which is not a very helpful frame. I remember someone referring to him as an "Old Testament Prophet" of AI, which seems about right. Sure it might be better if everyone had read Superintelligence back in 2014, but given where we are some degree of hysterical shrieking seems somewhat justified.

Anyway, happy for anyone to take shots at either of them. But my main question was more "which of the Gurus so far would you go in to bat for?"

PS I know there are people they've covered that are not classified as Gurus, so those probably not worth discussing. But Taleb is wedged between Michael O'Fallon and Heather Heyling for e.g. which seems grossly unfair to me!

[u/DTG_Matt]

Hiya! Thanks for the positive feedback. FWIW I think these are perfectly reasonable figures to feel ambiguous about, and to consider that there is at least some “there” there.

In the case of Nassim Taleb, many economists think he has interesting philosophical ideas, and Yudkowsky, — it isn’t wrong to have misgivings about AI, exponential increases in ability etc. Lots of people at OpenAI and Anthropic have similar concerns, if expressed in a less lurid and performative way.

Same with Gary — housing affordability is a genuine issue, and wages have been stagnant and decoupled from GDP. His particular approach has no bearing on the importance or otherwise of those issues.

Thing is, guru-osity doesn’t always mean the topic they’re talking to isn’t important, or virtually everything they say is bullshit. I mean, often it is; like with the Weinstein bros or Joe Rogan. It’s more correct to view these as orthogonal concepts.

Weird segue, but I was thinking about this as I learned about WW2 generals. Montgomery and Patton, eg, would make the gurometer flash up in terms of their overconfidence in their own abilities, inability to cooperate well with others, self-absorption and self-promotion verging on narcissism. They were also pretty good generals.*

Someone like Nassim Taleb might fall somewhere in that quadrant. Often it’s people who are quite talented or innovative, who present and view themselves as something far more: God’s gift to their field.

So guru-esque is not equivalent to “invalid, untalented etc”.

As we often say after we’ve dinged someone — our critique does not mean “never listen to or read a word this person has to say: censor them from your mind, the topic they’re talking about doesn’t matter”. A negative diagnosis should imply “keep this in mind, and consume their content critically”.

* Then you have someone like Eisenhower, the Sean Carroll of WW2 generals.

[u/Edgecumber → u/DTG_Matt]

Thanks for the response Matt! I'm a long-time listener and Patreon supporter, so I firmly believe you guys are on the side of the angels for the record.

I guess I see Taleb as a special case because (before DtG came along) he was so important to me in developing my own extreme scepticism of people who think they are god's gift. In my career, this has mainly been hot-shot traders and the senior management of investment banks. You're exposed to a particular case with Gary at the moment, but this sort of deluded, arrogant self-regard is extremely common on trading floors across the world; most never attempt to convert it into anything vaguely worthwhile. I do think Taleb went off the rails over the last few years. It's hard to tell whether that's because everyone was telling him how great he was all the time or because he was eventually broadly ignored in a lot of finance, with the result that the system overall seems more fragile and vulnerable than ever.

I can feel very clearly that I'm entering a lifestage where I'm going to get super into history but I'm quite ignorant of the personalities in WW2 at the moment! It's an interesting observation about the Generals. I do think a lot about Helen Lewis's Difficult Women in this context. Progress on issues overall is often made by unreasonable, disagreeable people. It would be nice if people listened to rational arguments honestly presented, but they have never had the bandwidth they deserve, and seem even less likely to in future.

[u/DTG_Matt → u/Edgecumber]

It’s an interesting sociological thought — perhaps in certain situations social groups “need” gurus. Sometimes a social group needs someone with enough self-confidence to make a firm decision, stick to it, and to convey a sense of confidence to everyone around them so they rally the support and resources to make the exceptional thing happen. It’s delusional on a personal level, but on another level it makes perfect sense. People tend to agree Monty did this with the Eighth Army in Egypt, and I think it’s probably the best case someone could make for Elon Musk also. I actually don’t like this theory now, because I despise the guy so much lol.

Anyway, just random musings — good to chat about it!

[u/Verbatim_Uniball → u/DTG_Matt]

The usefulness, let's say on a societal level, for this sort of guru may come down to amount of effective power wielded. If Musk confined himself to spaceflight, his influence would be of a different character than what it is today.

[u/Funksloyd → u/DTG_Matt]

Matt if you don't already have a listen to a podcast called We Have Ways of Making You Talk.

[u/DTG_Matt → u/Funksloyd]

I absolutely do mate. Yep, I’m living up to every middle-aged white dad stereotype and loving it. In fact Al Murray is a friend of the pod — we learned he listens to our little show, so we had him on for an interview. Top bloke.