The Year is 2005. A tiny number of heretics are yelling that the entire economics profession & all major central bankers are wrong.

“There is no Great Moderation. All the ‘Experts’ are wrong. They have built a financial time bomb.”

Q: Would Twitter ban & downrank the heretics?
I was one of them. So was @nntaleb.
I remember Nassim being publicly ridiculed by the most prestigious people in finance at Cannes.

@jack: Would @TwitterSafety know that everything was flipped? That the bad guys were the Fed and the Professors. The good guys were the gadflies??
Jack: your team is failing. You are endangering us all by confusing dissenters with safety concerns. Wake up. You don’t have the wisdom for Twitter to play god with our ability to talk to each other and suppress heterodox dissent.

This isn’t Twitter’s right as a platform.
My 1st paper on Mortgage Backed Security Valuation problems was peer reviewed in 2001. After 4-5 years of constant “chicken little” style ridicule at conference after conference, I gave up.

Thank god @nntaleb did not. @jack: your team is out of control.…
Sadly, My tweets reach my detractors but not as much my colleagues. But no one knows why certain tweets are hidden. Please RT

Cc: @BretWeinstein @esaagar @joerogan @SamHarrisOrg @jordanbpeterson @MsMelChen @benshapiro @clairlemon @cvaldary @seanonolennon @PiaMalaney @timurkuran

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Eric Weinstein

Eric Weinstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EricRWeinstein

19 Feb
Isadore Singer & Raoul Bott worked in almost exactly the same area. They collaborated with exactly the same people. They worked in adjacent zip codes (02138 vs 02139). They both had claims to the "greatest topological theorem" of the 20th century.

They never co-authored a paper.
I've known only three minds personally who I'm convinced will be discussed 1000 years from now if humans survive: James Watson, Raoul Bott and Isadore Singer (I met Atiyah & Witten but did not know them).

Is & Raoul however both collaborated on my rescue in Graduate school.
Perhaps with both of these giants now gone it is time to tell my story. I'm not sure. I have never told it publicly in full. But they both are heroic men beyond being great minds.

Had they surmounted their personal difficulties their collaborations could have changed the world.
Read 13 tweets
19 Feb
I don’t talk at all about Shaka and his impact on me. But it’s not small.

The least interesting interesting thing about Shaka is that he killed someone many years ago.

Now that that is out of the way, let him into your heart if you dare. He’s a next level spirit & human being.
Truth be told, I don’t like choking up in public & I don’t know how to get around the fascination w/ his past. Those are the main reasons I haven’t reached out to him since we met years ago.

But then we talked the other night on a zoom call and I realized he doesn’t know either.
Put simply, I believe that Shaka better understands that we are all trapped in a structural drama than just about anyone. That is, we are holding each other individually responsible for many things that no individual can change and we are all partially lying to ourselves in this.
Read 4 tweets
18 Feb
I fear my take will surprise many folks. But it is basically this:

A) Mathematics itself is objective.

B) Its culture is not unbiased.

C) SocJus objections are insane and biased. But there are *very* different versions of these objections that are both sensible and rational.
A simple analogy is music. Is Piano biased against the vision impaired? Clearly we have no shortage of brilliant blind folks who have played the piano. But they can’t sight read.

Now ask yourself: is western classical music w/ dependence on sheet music biased against the blind?
So clearly SOME music is biased by whether you have all expected abilities.

How do we *know*? Because most music in the world isn’t written as sheet music. So we have a controlled experiment. Thus We proved that western orchestral music is biased against the visually impaired.
Read 5 tweets
15 Feb
Dear @jack:

I believe I must repeatedly violate @vijaya & @TwitterSafety rules to be honest about official lies. I believe you/they are also manipulating my reach. I call for an end to the opaque manipulation of the national conversation: we have a right to know your algorithms.
@jack, I am asking you as a friend and as a STEM PhD who has been responsible on your platform for over a decade to grant some heterodox tweeters academic freedom. Let some of be those who watch the watchers of your @TwitterSafety. We all need oversight of the oversight.
No one believes in your opaque Terms of Service. @TwitterSafety is artificially controlling our conversation determining who I can see & who I cannot.

Point Blank: You do *not* have the right to manipulate the US national conversation just because it takes place on your servers.
Read 5 tweets
12 Feb
Thanks for the invitation. I can try to explain my concern.

There really *is* a problem w MAGA, Trump, Qanon & conspiracy theories running rampant. And it will result in death & destruction if it spins out of control.

However it is being fueled by those who claim to fight it.
The entire war over fact checking is a war of 2 low resolution teams.

One team wants absolute freedom to spread wild eyed theories that just about everything is a psyop or a false flag.

The other team wants to impose institutional consensus reality on everyone via media & tech.
Unfortunately, I can’t live under either. So each of the warring parties thinks I’m against them & for the other team. In their mentalities if you aren’t on their simplistic team you are, de facto, working for the other side. There’s no basic concept of *responsible* heterodoxy.
Read 14 tweets
10 Feb
Note the totally regular pattern. Our authorities synonymize the Wuhan Lab origin with a synthetically engineered virus and deny this.

Yet, the idea of lab accelerated natural selection is *never* engaged. Then their conclusion is that COVID must therefore have a natural origin.
Who is this designed to fool? Why the pressure never to engage the competent version of the Wuhan Lab Leak? Why demonize the competent?

This is obvious war on reputations of smart competent truthful folks who ask the question media will not: is this lab accelerated selection?
If there is a conclusive argument against lab accelerated natural selection let’s hear that specifically.

This is like the Epstein situation. An entire planet is asked to believe that no press want to ask the most obvious questions. Why does anyone believe this?!? Does anyone???
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!