challenging informative reflective slow-paced

Не понимаю, зачем я читал до конца.
Автор всю книгу пережевывает одну мысль - что если все ваше состояние будет зависеть от вашего поведения в случающихся раз в десять лет потрясениях на фондовом рынке, то к чему остальное время тратить время на скрупулезный анализ, предсказывающий поведение рынка в отсутствии потрясений.
Вся книга посвящена неостроумному высмеиванию недальновидности такого поведения, но совет в книге всего один и трудно назвать его оригинальным - не рискуйте всем, а тем чем рискуете, рискуйте по крупному, в расчете на большой выигрыш.
Не тратьте время на чтение этого раздутого текста - там нет больше никаких мыслей!

I find the author constantly try to jam personal stories not to make a point but to tout his own credentials. I am not fond of his writing style. Despite it being about logic and statistics, I don't see a coherent narrative being made, just a bunch of stories interspersed with some over-simplified theories.

It's stuff that I really like.
informative reflective medium-paced
challenging informative reflective slow-paced
challenging informative reflective slow-paced

bseb's review against another edition

DID NOT FINISH: 11%

Arrogant self absorbed asshole with nothing to say.

The central concept of the book, the consequences of the difference between a Gaussian distribution and a distribution in which the tails do not diminish as they get further from the mean, is interesting. The book is repetitive and bloated in discussing this point, a common flaw in this genre. But the author is just *unbearable* in his arrogant small-minded fragile narcissism, making the reading of the book a real burden.
informative reflective medium-paced

The author discusses concepts which are interesting, but there’s a lack of deep dive into the topics. There’s no lack of non-fiction authors who write with grandiose pompousness, but Nassim Taleb wins the gold medal by assuming his readers did not have a clue to what a Black Swan is or even consider survival bias prior to reading his book. Also spends a good amount of the book writing smack about various people, industries and profession which I didn’t really care for, and doesn’t outright name all the different types of biasness or logical fallacies he mentioned, but instead delves into lengthy and unnecessary paragraphs to explain them.