With respect. Yes. it was a rather critical post. It was, in part, sparked by the following less than positive assessment of a book that I and many intelligent and thoughtful people consider to be a worthwhile contribution to philosophical discussion of matters affecting the investment universe. This was Clark's statement:
"I read his 'Fooled by randomness' book. Nothing original there. All this stuff about fat-tails, extreme outliers, chaos theory etc has been done much better by others many years ago.
"There is nothing of practical importance there."
This commentary from Clark is, in my opinion, somewhat temperate compared to many of his contributions to the HC forum.
He delights in riling people, in getting up their noses, in provoking them. Not, usually, in engaging them in any sensible or positive discussion. Not offering sensible advice. Just setting out to irritate them. Using one liners and sarcastic shibboleths.
In my assessment of Clark's contribution - I attempted to dissect what I considered to be very weak arguments against a very powerful, considered and, yes, positive book by Taleb. I gave good reasons for why I disagree with Clark.
I believe that Taleb has made a worthwhile contribution to the literature of financial theory, which, I might add, is backed up by years of successful practical activity at the very highest level of the industry.
But Clark dismisses this work.
Should he be allowed to dismiss such a work without rejoinder? Well, in my opinion, no.
And in that sense, I believe that I was putting forward something which is positive. Arguing against arrogance, intolerance, and lack of understanding is, I believe, to be a worthwhile and positive activity.
