You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.72 AVERAGE
3.72 AVERAGE
Some interesting ideas, but the book lacked an overall organizational scheme. The attempts at humor didn't sit right with me either. I did finish it, but I had wanted to read it for a long time, so I'm attributing the fact that I finished it to that and force of will.
Much has been written about this book and perhaps enough has been said. So nothing to add here.
I think most of my thoughts on this book are encapsulated by Aaron's review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/20542896?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1
Anyway, I hate the insufferable author of this book and I hate myself more to, in the end, having to agree that his central idea is wrong.
The book is drag, filled with name-dropping anecdotes, arrogant displays of humility, and sometimes a narrative bit that tells me that NNT would be more interesting if he decided to write straight-up fiction.
I wish a better author had written about the central idea of uncertainty he exposes here. Someone that wouldn't fall for the narrative fallacy that he himself exposes as a central source of errors humans make and make very shallow political conclusions and analysis.
But he is on the spot about the crucial failure about modeling and forecasting in the realm of black swans (the fourth quadrant, or extremistan, or one of the other terms he keeps making up so he can't go on for more than two pages without forging a new concept that was already previously named). The wake up call for a sort of skepticism that actively and effortfully makes us question predictions and our knowledge of probability is so important that despite hating the experience of reading this book, I have to admit that it changed me.
Anyway, I hate the insufferable author of this book and I hate myself more to, in the end, having to agree that his central idea is wrong.
The book is drag, filled with name-dropping anecdotes, arrogant displays of humility, and sometimes a narrative bit that tells me that NNT would be more interesting if he decided to write straight-up fiction.
I wish a better author had written about the central idea of uncertainty he exposes here. Someone that wouldn't fall for the narrative fallacy that he himself exposes as a central source of errors humans make and make very shallow political conclusions and analysis.
But he is on the spot about the crucial failure about modeling and forecasting in the realm of black swans (the fourth quadrant, or extremistan, or one of the other terms he keeps making up so he can't go on for more than two pages without forging a new concept that was already previously named). The wake up call for a sort of skepticism that actively and effortfully makes us question predictions and our knowledge of probability is so important that despite hating the experience of reading this book, I have to admit that it changed me.
Couldn't get through it the first few times I tried reading it (due to the author's meandering style), but this time it's riveting. It's a good combination of psychology, math, and societal commentary. The author comes across as confident, and likes being a contrarian. He spoke eloquently about the pain of having his theories ignored by society, and living on his own hopes rather than societal validation. He writes pretty honestly.
He may be very repetitive and one of the haughtiest authors I've read from in a while. But, Taleb challenged my views of uncertainty, which I can appreciate.
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Premise is very good. Unfortunately with the sweeping, unsupported statements insulting just about everyone, and an author who doesn't come across as very likeable, I can't recommend reading the whole thing. Read the intro, skim the middle, read the conclusion.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
slow-paced
The author does a good job of explaining the main issues regarding prediction in today's financial markets, with an extension really to most human matters. Taleb is the philosopher in this book; the finance part is just his background and what the news could immediately latch on to. His essential claim (I hope I got this right) is that many real-life things have a scalable distribution which exposes them to very extreme events in linear scale: something twice as strong is half as likely to happen. This is in direct contract to basic Central Limit Theorem approximations, which say something twice as strong is usually much much less likely to happen (it has exponential scale).
The four stars is for the readability as well as the theory. It is a very accessible book for non-mathematicians yet it wasn't too frustrating for me. That's because a) he has chapters that have some math terms to satiate me like sugar crystals, and b) the philosophy is still very interesting and scientific. His style is preachy and in spite of that you are not put off by his words. Part of the reason is that he is playing the negation: he is not claiming to predict an event's time, just its future existence. By laying off, he invites you to admit the possibility first and the eventuality later.
I docked him a star because when he started applying it to other events (eating schedules, etc.) it seemed more like him defining a philosophy by its ubiquity. That's not the case; a philosophy does not need to universally fit to teach a lesson and set a path that is better than the past. In this case, it is clear that for many real-life and asymmetric instances, using basic statistics is not going to cut it. We don't need to preach it onto other things like eating.
The book is still a fun read and in my opinion far better than Fooled by Randomness, which is just different. This is the book from Taleb that you want to read; it's the one that speaks to what you've inherently considered in the contradiction between models & performance.
The four stars is for the readability as well as the theory. It is a very accessible book for non-mathematicians yet it wasn't too frustrating for me. That's because a) he has chapters that have some math terms to satiate me like sugar crystals, and b) the philosophy is still very interesting and scientific. His style is preachy and in spite of that you are not put off by his words. Part of the reason is that he is playing the negation: he is not claiming to predict an event's time, just its future existence. By laying off, he invites you to admit the possibility first and the eventuality later.
I docked him a star because when he started applying it to other events (eating schedules, etc.) it seemed more like him defining a philosophy by its ubiquity. That's not the case; a philosophy does not need to universally fit to teach a lesson and set a path that is better than the past. In this case, it is clear that for many real-life and asymmetric instances, using basic statistics is not going to cut it. We don't need to preach it onto other things like eating.
The book is still a fun read and in my opinion far better than Fooled by Randomness, which is just different. This is the book from Taleb that you want to read; it's the one that speaks to what you've inherently considered in the contradiction between models & performance.