margaretcampbell's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
joyleaf's review against another edition
4.0
Concetti interessanti, anche se talvolta ridondanti. Non mi sono trovata del tutto d'accordo con l'autore (piuttosto antipatico ed autoreferenziale, btw!) ma molti punti li ho trovati illuminanti e sicuramente formativi.
turnercore's review against another edition
5.0
I think this is the most important book I've ever read.
ben_sch's review against another edition
5.0
I started out reading this book thinking that Taleb was an egotistical moneyed, asshole, in love with honor culture for some reason, with an interesting idea. By the middle of the book I had decided that the idea his book was supposedly centered around wasn't the most interesting part, and that he was quite an endearing asshole. Maybe all of his raging against bankers, his FU-money, and general mud-slinging was all because he really was just a guy who wants to hang out and read all day and hang out with his real friends and not be bothered by having to go to awful rich-people parties or give academic talks. Who just happens be learning some social skills later in life. I had already fallen in love with him when I decided he succeeds best as a moralist. Not as an ethicist, but more as a rich guy who openly talks calls out / lists names and behaviors of bankers trying to screw people in unethical ways. It makes a lot more sense why he talked about considering hiring a bodyguard near the beginning.
I didn't quite understand what about the book was supposed to that revalatory - I guess maybe that was his previous book -The Black Swan? The gist is "everything gains or loses from volatility. Fragility is what loses from volatility and uncertainty" as he handily summarizes. A lot of the book is about nonlinearities, how something gains or loses increase disproportionately to some other metric. This wasn't new to me as I took a class on it.
The author has references to classical literature that I haven't heard of and makes up his own fables and philosophical characters to illustrate points. It was a little hard to read at times - (I'm mainly thinking of how many times I had to look up the definition of 'iatrogenics' and other words, some of which he made up). He flowed from anecdote to math to discussions of history and made me not really care what point he was trying to make. Therefore 5 stars.
I didn't quite understand what about the book was supposed to that revalatory - I guess maybe that was his previous book -The Black Swan? The gist is "everything gains or loses from volatility. Fragility is what loses from volatility and uncertainty" as he handily summarizes. A lot of the book is about nonlinearities, how something gains or loses increase disproportionately to some other metric. This wasn't new to me as I took a class on it.
The author has references to classical literature that I haven't heard of and makes up his own fables and philosophical characters to illustrate points. It was a little hard to read at times - (I'm mainly thinking of how many times I had to look up the definition of 'iatrogenics' and other words, some of which he made up). He flowed from anecdote to math to discussions of history and made me not really care what point he was trying to make. Therefore 5 stars.
bcd001's review against another edition
I find the notion of antifragility fascinating, and so was looking forward to reading this book. However, I ran away after only a few pages.
I admit a bias -- when I see blurbs from the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Harvard Business Review, etc., my interest generally plummets. They've been so right about so much the last few decades, I don't feel a strong need to absorb yet more of anything they care to recommend. But I tried anyway.
Then, after finding Taleb's clotted writing style a bit of a slog, in the first few pages I read:
"While in the past people of rank or status were those and only those who took risks, who had the downside for their actions, and heroes were those who did so for the sake of others..."
Which makes me wonder what planet he's been living on where only the cream rises to (or is born at) the top.
And later that same page I see that the "inverse heroes" who have displaced our former ranked and status-bearing worthies are bureaucrats, bankers, Davos-attendees, and academics, I'm fairly satisfied that his planet has little enough to do with this one that I can safely set his book far, far aside.
I admit a bias -- when I see blurbs from the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Harvard Business Review, etc., my interest generally plummets. They've been so right about so much the last few decades, I don't feel a strong need to absorb yet more of anything they care to recommend. But I tried anyway.
Then, after finding Taleb's clotted writing style a bit of a slog, in the first few pages I read:
"While in the past people of rank or status were those and only those who took risks, who had the downside for their actions, and heroes were those who did so for the sake of others..."
Which makes me wonder what planet he's been living on where only the cream rises to (or is born at) the top.
And later that same page I see that the "inverse heroes" who have displaced our former ranked and status-bearing worthies are bureaucrats, bankers, Davos-attendees, and academics, I'm fairly satisfied that his planet has little enough to do with this one that I can safely set his book far, far aside.
mpigsley's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
catalystcafe's review against another edition
slow-paced
3.0
This was a disordered book, long, and more felt like I was reading Taleb’s day to day thoughts than a whole thought commentary on a phenomena.
rossbm's review against another edition
4.0
(Read as ebook)
What's it about?
I would say that it is a book of philosophy about the concept of antifragility and why it is important. Taleb says that something is antifragile if it benefits from disorder/volatility. This is opposed to something that is robust that merely weathers volatility, or things that are fragile that break from fragility.
The book is kind of a collection of essays. Some essays are autobiograpical, some are historical andedoctes, some are somewhat technical explanations, and some are weird parables. There are a lot of personal attacks, and invented names for things, such as "lecturing birds to fly" and "the green wood fallacy".
What did I think?
I liked the book. I though that there were some really good points in it. For example, the idea that the best way to predict the future is subtract things. We can expect that new, fragile, things (bitcoin?) will be gone in the future, while things that have been around for a while (gold?) will still be here. The point about it being unethical to transfer fragility to others while reaping the upsides was compelling.
This would be a 5 star review, but the style and the format of the book really drags it down. I don't mind the weird style with the stories and made up names for things. It is an interesting way of structuring things, and probably helps make the ideas stick. However, it is too long, and so some of the weirdness could be chopped out and the points still made. I disliked how condescending and arrogant Taleb is throughout the book. Probably some of it is warranted. For example, I recently read [b:When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management|10669|When Genius Failed The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management|Roger Lowenstein|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1435292091l/10669._SY75_.jpg|13308] which described how LTCM lost $4.6 billion in a few months despite the involvement of two economics Nobel Laureates. Hard to believe the arrogance and short sightedness that led to that, and hard to believe that these people continued to be privileged and part of the "elite". These kind of people deserve some attacks.
However, I don't think that it is fair to tar entire professions. Especially when combined with the high degree of arrogance that Taleb displays in this book.
What's it about?
I would say that it is a book of philosophy about the concept of antifragility and why it is important. Taleb says that something is antifragile if it benefits from disorder/volatility. This is opposed to something that is robust that merely weathers volatility, or things that are fragile that break from fragility.
The book is kind of a collection of essays. Some essays are autobiograpical, some are historical andedoctes, some are somewhat technical explanations, and some are weird parables. There are a lot of personal attacks, and invented names for things, such as "lecturing birds to fly" and "the green wood fallacy".
What did I think?
I liked the book. I though that there were some really good points in it. For example, the idea that the best way to predict the future is subtract things. We can expect that new, fragile, things (bitcoin?) will be gone in the future, while things that have been around for a while (gold?) will still be here. The point about it being unethical to transfer fragility to others while reaping the upsides was compelling.
This would be a 5 star review, but the style and the format of the book really drags it down. I don't mind the weird style with the stories and made up names for things. It is an interesting way of structuring things, and probably helps make the ideas stick. However, it is too long, and so some of the weirdness could be chopped out and the points still made. I disliked how condescending and arrogant Taleb is throughout the book. Probably some of it is warranted. For example, I recently read [b:When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management|10669|When Genius Failed The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management|Roger Lowenstein|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1435292091l/10669._SY75_.jpg|13308] which described how LTCM lost $4.6 billion in a few months despite the involvement of two economics Nobel Laureates. Hard to believe the arrogance and short sightedness that led to that, and hard to believe that these people continued to be privileged and part of the "elite". These kind of people deserve some attacks.
However, I don't think that it is fair to tar entire professions. Especially when combined with the high degree of arrogance that Taleb displays in this book.
daniell's review against another edition
5.0
Beautiful, though he misstates modus ponens as "if (if A then B), then (if B then A)" in chapter 22. It's really just "if A, then B," though I understand the more general point he makes that "if (if A then B), then (if B then A)" is invalid, it's just not what he says.
"
As a case study, consider mammograms. It has been shown that administering them to women over forty on an annual basis does not lead to an increase in life expectancy (at best; it could even lead to a decrease). While female mortality from breast cancer decreases for the cohort subjected to mammograms, the death from other causes increases markedly. We can spot here simple measurable iatrogenics. The doctor, seeing the tumor, cannot avoid doing something harmful, like surgery followed by radiation, chemotherapy, or both—that is, more harmful than the tumor. There is a break-even point that is easily crossed by panicked doctors and patients: treating the tumor that will not kill you shortens your life—chemotherapy is toxic. We have built up so much paranoia against cancer, looking at the chain backward, an error of logic called affirming the consequent. If all of those dying prematurely from cancer had a malignant tumor, that does not mean that all malignant tumors lead to death from cancer. Most equally intelligent persons do not infer from the fact that all Cretans are liars that all liars are Cretan, or from the condition that all bankers are corrupt that all corrupt people are bankers. Only in extreme cases does nature allow us to make such violations of logic (called modus ponens) in order to help us survive. Overreaction is beneficial in an ancestral environment.
"
He repeatedly pans nitpicking in this book, so the above is a very minor gripe.
His big point, that we underrate the total risk of risks we deem rare, overrate the total risk of risks we deem common, and can find considerable value in embracing the things we often attempt to hedge and control is variously supported by perspectives from econ, epistomology, medicine, and math, among others, all in an essay-ish format.
"
As a case study, consider mammograms. It has been shown that administering them to women over forty on an annual basis does not lead to an increase in life expectancy (at best; it could even lead to a decrease). While female mortality from breast cancer decreases for the cohort subjected to mammograms, the death from other causes increases markedly. We can spot here simple measurable iatrogenics. The doctor, seeing the tumor, cannot avoid doing something harmful, like surgery followed by radiation, chemotherapy, or both—that is, more harmful than the tumor. There is a break-even point that is easily crossed by panicked doctors and patients: treating the tumor that will not kill you shortens your life—chemotherapy is toxic. We have built up so much paranoia against cancer, looking at the chain backward, an error of logic called affirming the consequent. If all of those dying prematurely from cancer had a malignant tumor, that does not mean that all malignant tumors lead to death from cancer. Most equally intelligent persons do not infer from the fact that all Cretans are liars that all liars are Cretan, or from the condition that all bankers are corrupt that all corrupt people are bankers. Only in extreme cases does nature allow us to make such violations of logic (called modus ponens) in order to help us survive. Overreaction is beneficial in an ancestral environment.
"
He repeatedly pans nitpicking in this book, so the above is a very minor gripe.
His big point, that we underrate the total risk of risks we deem rare, overrate the total risk of risks we deem common, and can find considerable value in embracing the things we often attempt to hedge and control is variously supported by perspectives from econ, epistomology, medicine, and math, among others, all in an essay-ish format.