[Paleopsych] Edge: Nassim Taleb: The Opiates of the Middle Classes

[Premise Checker]

Nassim Taleb: The Opiates of the Middle Classes
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb05/taleb05_index.html

    We humans are naturally gullible -- disbelieving requires an
    extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource. I
    suggest ranking the skepticism by its consequences on our lives. True,
    the dangers of organized religion used to be there -- but they have
    been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective
    social-science ideology.

    THE OPIATES OF THE MIDDLE CLASSES [9.26.05]
    By Nassim Taleb

    NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB, an essayist and mathematical trader, is the
    author of Fooled By Randomness.

    [10]Nassim Taleb's Edge Bio Page
      _________________________________________________________________

    THE OPIATES OF THE MIDDLE CLASSES

    [NASSIM TALEB:] As a practitioner of science, I am opposed to teaching
    religious ideas in schools. But, it seems to me somewhat misplaced
    energy -- more of a fight for principles than for any bottom line. As
    an empirical skeptic, I would like to introduce a dimension to the
    debates: relevance, consequence, and our ability to correct a
    situation -- in other words the impact on our daily lives.

    My portrait of the perfect fool of randomness is as follows: he does
    not believe in religion, providing entirely rational reasons for such
    disbelief. He opposes scientific method to superstition and blind
    faith. But alas, human skepticism appears to be quite domain-specific
    and relegated to the classroom. Somehow the skepticism of my fool
    undergoes a severe atrophy outside of these intellectual debates:

      1) He believes in the stock market because he is told to do so. --
      automatically allocating a portion of his retirement money. And he
      does not realize that the manager of his mutual fund does not fare
      better than chance -- actually a bit worse, after the (generous)
      fees. Nor does he realize that markets are far more random and far
      riskier that he is being made to believe by the high priests of the
      brokerage industry.

      He disbelieves the bishops (on grounds of scientific method), but
      replaces him with the security analyst. He listens to the
      projections by security analysts and "experts"-- not checking their
      past accuracy and track record. Had he checked them he would have
      discovered that these are no better than random -- often worse.

      2) He believes in the government's ability to "forecast" economic
      variables, oil prices, GNP growth, or inflation. Economics provide
      very complicated equations -- but our historical track record in
      predicting is pitiful. It does not take long to verify these
      claims; simple empiricism would suffice. Yet we have confident
      forecasts of social security deficits by both sides (democrats and
      republicans) twenty and thirty years ahead! This Scandal of
      Prediction (which I capitalize) is far more severe than religion,
      simply because it determines policy making. Last time I checked no
      religious figure was consulted for long-term business and economic
      projections.

      3) He believes in the "skills" of the chairmen of large
      corporations and pays them huge bonuses for their "performance". He
      forgets that theirs are the least observable contributions. This
      skills attribution is flimsy at best -- there is no account of the
      possible role of luck in his success.

      4) His scientific integrity makes him reject religion but he
      believes the economist because "economic science" has the word
      "science" in it.

      5) He believes in the news media providing an accurate
      representation of the risks in the world. They don't. By what I
      call the narrative fallacy, the media distorts our mental map of
      the world by feeding us what can be made into a story that can be
      squeezed into our minds. For instance (preventable) cancer, not
      terrorism remains the greatest danger. The number of persons killed
      by hurricanes, while consequential, is dwarfed by that of the
      thousands of isolated daily victims dying in hospital beds. These
      are not story-worthy, implying; the absence of attention on the
      part of the press maps into disproportionately reduced resources
      allocated to their welfare. The difference between actual,
      actuarially defined risks and the perception of dangers is enormous
      -- and, sadly, growing with the globalization and the media, and
      our increased vulnerability to visual stimuli.

    Now I am not arguing that one should ignore the side effects of
    religion -- given the accounts of past intolerance. But it was in
    these columns that Richard Dawkins, echoing the great Peter Medawar,
    recommended bright students to find something worthwhile "to be smart
    about". Likewise, I suggest exerting our skepticism "where it
    matters". Why? Because, alas, cognitively, our resource to doubt is
    rather limited.

    We humans are naturally gullible -- disbelieving requires an
    extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource. I
    suggest ranking the skepticism by its consequences on our lives. True,
    the dangers of organized religion used to be there -- but they have
    been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective
    social-science ideology.

    Religion gives many people solace. On a personal note I have to admit
    that I feel more elevated in cathedrals than in stock markets -- be it
    only on aesthetic grounds. If I were going to be gullible about a
    subject, I would rather pick one that is the least harmful to my
    future -- and one that is rewarding to my thirst for aesthetics.

    It is high time to worry about the opiates of the middle class.

References

   10. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/taleb.html