Nassim Nicholas Taleb is wrong

At least about wine. Where he is very wrong.

Actually I've used wine most of my life as a marker for stupidity, lack of realism, social climbing/poor social confidence, desire to attend Davos, financial insecurity, education in economics, sucker-proneness, etc. Drink what your taste buds like.

I read this yesterday on X (formerly-known-as-Twitter) or X(FKAT).

To misquote Chandler in Friends (RIP): "Bulls, red rags, everywhere!"

It was a Tweet by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. And Nassim Nicholas Taleb is wrong. Yes, yes. He's best known for a raft of best-selling books about being clever. And I'm best known for being shouted at by a Russian man on television. But he's still wrong.

In fairness this is a tweet. A challenging medium to make a nuanced point. And it would be unfair to use a Substack post to pick it apart. But just because it's unfair it doesn't mean we can't do it. Not least because this is exactly the sort of cynical oversimplification beloved by edgy-pub-bore-contrarians that we hear all too much of. Even if pub bores rarely mention Davos. Of which more shortly.

So where do we begin?

I can accept that on X(FKAT) the word count of the unsubscribed leads to reductionism. But are wine's traits only negative? Is wine just all about stupidity, social climbing, financial insecurity...? Or are there aspect to wine that might act as counterweights?

It’s true. Wine can sometimes function as a status symbol. A marker of class. A tool for social signaling. That's half the point of this Substack. And frankly half the fun of wine. That's why I had an Instagram story last week of a bottle of Alion I enjoyed in a restaurant in California. I want you to know I drink better and more expensive wines than you do. And in more glamorous places too. Ergo, I am a better person. Obvs.

But it's also possible my friends and I enjoyed the sensory pleasure of the wine too. We just liked it because it was… nice.