You're right, that book like "The Logic and Statistics of Fat Tails" is academically focused (again ironically) and so doesn't involve nearly as much of the massive massive ego trip that you see in the "pop style" books. Of course if one is a fan of Dynamic Hedging then they probably don't ascribe to the anti-intellectualism that's being spouted here (which I know you don't).
There is a difference between anti-intellectualism and preventing people from making decisions who have no stake in the outcome. That's what a IYI is. Here is the best summary: The IYI is particularly dangerous because he has been certified to be an intellectual and therefore his say should hold more weight, but as per Ray Dalio, is he believable? What is his track record? As far as economists go, their track record is failure after failure.
We have a far bigger problem at this point of the "everyone's opinion in equally valid" concept that somehow has permeated at least the U.S. and is representative of this line of thought. Read something on Facebook that vaccines cause autism? You're opinion is equally as valid as the entire medical research community that has determined otherwise. See something on Fox that said a climate change study was flawed? Your opinion is now equally as valid as the majority of climate scientists. Or let's go even further, the doctors and scientists who have been studying these things for decades should actually not be trusted because they KNOW TOO MUCH about the area of their expertise and are therefore suffering a conflict of interest. But that the rube who had a hard time in HS algebra somehow is qualified on opine on the topic. Does an education and years of experience guarantee that person knows more about something than a random dude? No, I'm sure that out there somewhere there is a truck driver who could perform brain surgery better than at least one brain surgeon. When getting brain surgery, do you go to a truck driver or a brain surgeon? And continuing on your logic, should we prevent that brain surgeon from doing your brain surgery because he doesn't have "skin in the game"? After all, you're the one who can die if he makes a mistake and the only impact to him is that he'll feel bad about it and maybe his malpractice rates will go up? What an "IYI" that dude is, right? As opposed to Taleb, who as I pointed out wrote this very book (and several others) for which he received an advance up front, before he'd even written it and that he got regardless of if the book failed to sell a single copy! Talk about an "IYI", right? As far as AIDS researchers go, their record is failure after failure. As far as Alzheimer's researchers go, their record is failure after failure. As far as economists go, well we do live in the most prosperous and productive eras in history, much of it built on modern economics. Like curing AIDS or Alzheimer's, it's structurally a damn hard field to study, and we don't often have the chance for a Kansas Experiment style use of the scientific method where an experiment can be done with a control. (And when we do, as in Kansas, the people who could learn from it pointedly ignore it). To say, as you apparently seem to be, that it's a worthless field made up entirely of morons that your uneducated in economics self is far superior to because you've got "skin in the game" is as asinine as saying that we should only let people with Alzheimer's study the disease.
Oh man I can't maintain this text to reply ratio so I'll pick one point that I can utterly destroy: He does have skin in the game. If he makes a mistake due to negligence, he's going to pay for it. If he shouldn't have been a brain surgeon, his alma mater will get raked through the coals. So yeah,mic drop.
So you have no reply to the rest of the points, good to know you're at least somewhat rational in acknowledging that. In the one item you did choose to reply to you added a key word that effectively negates your entire point. That word is "negligence". Taleb, and up to now your, point was that you have to have "skin in the game" or you're a worthless "IYI". Nothing about negligence, you pretty clearly maintained that economists no matter how earnest and diligent and well meaning and qualified to be economists that they are, even if they are in no way negligent, are "IYIs" solely because they lack "skin in the game". But a Dr. isn't an IYI, because if they're negligent they face consequences. Or shouldn't have been a Dr. their alma mater faces consequences (which is bullshit, by the way). What happened to "skin in the game"? Is it now only a barrier to negligence or schools graduating unqualified people? That's pretty much an entirely different assertion, perhaps the term "utterly destroy" doesn't mean what you think it means? BTW, your whole "I'm not an anti-intellectual" thing died with the whole "mic drop" thing.
Translation, I can't maintain an intelligent conversation because it requires too many words? Seriously, from a guy who maintains that he's not anti-intellectual? OK then.
If there's anything in what I typed that you consider so called "word vomit" please let us all know specifically what that would be. A better warning would be not to automatically consider anything over 25 words to be "word vomit" simply because you can't be bothered to read, one would think? By that criteria pretty much all of science is "word vomit", but then that is the anti intellectual viewpoint. Or more specifically not to be so transparent in avoiding addressing inconvenient points you simply can't rebut, which let's be crystal clear is what you're doing here.
Listen man just because you take one sentence and blow it up doesn't mean you're right. Passion doesn't equal correct, feelings aren't facts. IYIs miss the big picture, so they tend to delve into trivialities of language to make their point.