You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.81 AVERAGE
3.81 AVERAGE
rambling, tangential and awesome. Taleb, once again, has caused me to rethink and reevaluate how I interact with the world.
My first read of the author and I'll admit that some of it went over my head but what I did grok was amazing. Made me question a lot of assumptions. Challenging book about fragility and life. I disagree with a lot of his conclusions but not his methodology. Randomness is something we are definitely ignoring in our prediction of human and system events. As the world becomes more complex, the more fragile but is that always a bad thing? Another book that I wish I had read years ago.
I thought the subject matter was really interesting, but he could have said it in a well-worded essay. As it is, I read maybe 50 pages and was bored. Such a pity.
The central idea of the book is that certain systems, entities, or individuals not only withstand shocks, randomness, and disorder but actually benefit and improve from them. Key concepts: 1) Fragility, Robustness, and Antifragility: Taleb introduces the concept of fragility, which refers to systems that are vulnerable to shocks and disruptions. Robustness, on the other hand, refers to systems that are resilient and can withstand shocks without being affected. Antifragility goes a step further, denoting systems that become stronger, more adaptable, and better equipped when exposed to randomness, volatility, and uncertainty. 2) Nonlinear Effects: Taleb emphasizes that many systems exhibit nonlinear behaviors, meaning that the magnitude of their response is not proportional to the magnitude of the input. In antifragile systems, small disturbances can lead to disproportionately positive outcomes, whereas large disturbances may have little effect. 3) Barbell Strategy: The author advocates for a "barbell strategy" in various aspects of life. This strategy involves combining extreme risk avoidance (placing the majority of resources in safe, robust investments) with exposure to high-risk, high-reward opportunities (a small portion of resources allocated to highly speculative ventures). This approach allows one to benefit from positive black swan events while limiting exposure to catastrophic losses. 4) Via Negativa: Taleb suggests that in many situations, it is more effective to focus on what to avoid rather than pursuing complex interventions or optimizations. Via negativa, or subtractive thinking, involves removing harmful elements, reducing complexity, and eliminating unnecessary interventions to achieve better outcomes. 5) Optionality and Convexity: The book discusses the importance of having options and the ability to capitalize on favorable opportunities. Taleb argues that having convex (asymmetric) payoffs, where the potential gains outweigh the potential losses, can provide a significant advantage in uncertain environments. 6) Skin in the Game: Taleb emphasizes the concept of "skin in the game," which means that individuals or decision-makers should have personal exposure to the consequences of their actions. He argues that having accountability and bearing the costs of one's decisions is essential for fostering antifragility and avoiding reckless behavior.
Overall, "Antifragile" challenges the prevailing wisdom of stability and control, highlighting the benefits of embracing randomness, volatility, and uncertainty. It encourages individuals and systems to cultivate resilience, flexibility, and adaptability to thrive in an unpredictable world.
Appreciated the concept of stressors needed for growth in any system and its explanation of this concept through evolutionary processes. Also, liked the investment concept of keeping some money in high risk venture with the potential of seeing a 'black swan' event being probable.
Overall, "Antifragile" challenges the prevailing wisdom of stability and control, highlighting the benefits of embracing randomness, volatility, and uncertainty. It encourages individuals and systems to cultivate resilience, flexibility, and adaptability to thrive in an unpredictable world.
Appreciated the concept of stressors needed for growth in any system and its explanation of this concept through evolutionary processes. Also, liked the investment concept of keeping some money in high risk venture with the potential of seeing a 'black swan' event being probable.
I'm having a hard time rating this book; I don't really know how I feel about it. It's complicated.
I finished "Black Swan" and immediately looked this book up, recalling the title but not realizing at the time that it was written by the same author. What intrigued me from "Black Swan" was exactly this concept of systems that actually benefit from random Black Swan events, becoming stronger as a result of them. I wanted to know how one becomes "antifragile," which is why I read it.
I don't feel like I exactly got an answer to that question, though the concept fleshed out what I'd already intuitively understood but lacked the language to describe about the intervention-heavy approach to regulating large systems of every kind. Our economy, our government, our approach to climate, our system of medicine, are all predicated on the idea that WE know best, and WE can intervene to "fix" the thing that broke. Even if this seems to work temporarily, the long-term effect is always, always, to make the system more brittle than it was before. When the system finally breaks the next time, it's going to be that much more catastrophic and irreparable. That's why quantitative easing is such a stupid idea, as are nearly all economic interventions meant to artificially prop up the economy. It's why suppressing inflammation with steroids (except in life-threatening situations) is completely counter-productive. Our bodies, our economy, our environment, etc all operate via intricate, self-regulating feedback systems. But if we intervene to prevent these systems from doing what they do best, we will invariably cause side effects, and (worse), the underlying problem will still be there. When it finally reemerges, it will take ever more heroic measures to kick that can down the road again, and the final collapse will be that much more disastrous.
Taleb uses a lot of examples in the book of hormesis, or the concept that "the dose makes the poison," in medicine (though he made a point early on that this is NOT the same thing as antifragility, which is where something becomes better in response to randomness, rather than simply being resilient). Most of my favorite therapies in medicine are hormetic, but I was put off by his browbeating of anyone too stupid to understand the nuanced difference between hormesis and true antifragility. (A lot of hormetic therapies I think *do* make people stronger than they would have been without them.) Much of my distaste for the book comes from this overall sense that the author would almost certainly call me a moron if he ever met me.
The other problem I had with the book was that, beyond what I mentioned above, I'm not sure I came away with any concrete action steps, which is why I read it in the first place. If they were there, I missed them. (Probably because I'm a moron, I'm sure.)
I finished "Black Swan" and immediately looked this book up, recalling the title but not realizing at the time that it was written by the same author. What intrigued me from "Black Swan" was exactly this concept of systems that actually benefit from random Black Swan events, becoming stronger as a result of them. I wanted to know how one becomes "antifragile," which is why I read it.
I don't feel like I exactly got an answer to that question, though the concept fleshed out what I'd already intuitively understood but lacked the language to describe about the intervention-heavy approach to regulating large systems of every kind. Our economy, our government, our approach to climate, our system of medicine, are all predicated on the idea that WE know best, and WE can intervene to "fix" the thing that broke. Even if this seems to work temporarily, the long-term effect is always, always, to make the system more brittle than it was before. When the system finally breaks the next time, it's going to be that much more catastrophic and irreparable. That's why quantitative easing is such a stupid idea, as are nearly all economic interventions meant to artificially prop up the economy. It's why suppressing inflammation with steroids (except in life-threatening situations) is completely counter-productive. Our bodies, our economy, our environment, etc all operate via intricate, self-regulating feedback systems. But if we intervene to prevent these systems from doing what they do best, we will invariably cause side effects, and (worse), the underlying problem will still be there. When it finally reemerges, it will take ever more heroic measures to kick that can down the road again, and the final collapse will be that much more disastrous.
Taleb uses a lot of examples in the book of hormesis, or the concept that "the dose makes the poison," in medicine (though he made a point early on that this is NOT the same thing as antifragility, which is where something becomes better in response to randomness, rather than simply being resilient). Most of my favorite therapies in medicine are hormetic, but I was put off by his browbeating of anyone too stupid to understand the nuanced difference between hormesis and true antifragility. (A lot of hormetic therapies I think *do* make people stronger than they would have been without them.) Much of my distaste for the book comes from this overall sense that the author would almost certainly call me a moron if he ever met me.
The other problem I had with the book was that, beyond what I mentioned above, I'm not sure I came away with any concrete action steps, which is why I read it in the first place. If they were there, I missed them. (Probably because I'm a moron, I'm sure.)
This book is full of interesting ideas but it’s REALLY BIG, and I say that as someone who regularly reads >800 pg books. You can see how everything ties together into a grand theory, and you can see how many different examples there are of the things he talks about in every aspect of society. But that’s part of the problem—he is intent on showing them ALL.
He’s also disdainful of anyone who sees things differently, and with any grand theory, there are bound to be places where people disagree with whether it really applies that universally. Often, it’s that he starts out with an example I can agree with, but when he starts enumerating all the specific ways this thing is done, I can’t agree with all of them.
I’ll probably try to come back to this at some point, but it’s a project of a book that takes a long time to read because you both need a while to absorb each concept as they’re presented, and to reconcile how he says that they all fit together and compound the greater theory he’s building.
He’s also disdainful of anyone who sees things differently, and with any grand theory, there are bound to be places where people disagree with whether it really applies that universally. Often, it’s that he starts out with an example I can agree with, but when he starts enumerating all the specific ways this thing is done, I can’t agree with all of them.
I’ll probably try to come back to this at some point, but it’s a project of a book that takes a long time to read because you both need a while to absorb each concept as they’re presented, and to reconcile how he says that they all fit together and compound the greater theory he’s building.
So, the takeaway here is that any system that relies on one idea or one technology and uses it as the reaction to everything misses the opportunity to learn from problems and adjust, leading to the big day when a problem arises that the single idea or technology can't handle and the system crashes with collateral disasters resulting. This is pretty much every culture's Aesop that the willow bends and the oak falls over and squashes the village, only delivered in labored prose with interminable, name-dropping examples.
It's a bit hard to summarize this book, not at all because the subject matter is too complex to do so, but I find it personally hard to do so in a way that does justice to its breadth, so I'll do so with a couple of quotes:
"The worst problem of modernity lies in the malignant transfer of fragility and antifragility from one party to the other, with one getting the benefits, the other (unwittingly) getting the harm, with such transfer facilitated by the growing wedge between the ethical and the legal."
And one from a friend of Taleb's commenting on the book: "Everything gains or loses from volatility. Fragility is what loses from volatility and uncertainty."
I also think it's important to note that unlike most of the other socio-economics-psychology non-fiction that I love reading, Taleb has much more information which is easily applicable to daily life (notably health, and habits) and won't just get stuck in the back of my mind.
"The worst problem of modernity lies in the malignant transfer of fragility and antifragility from one party to the other, with one getting the benefits, the other (unwittingly) getting the harm, with such transfer facilitated by the growing wedge between the ethical and the legal."
And one from a friend of Taleb's commenting on the book: "Everything gains or loses from volatility. Fragility is what loses from volatility and uncertainty."
I also think it's important to note that unlike most of the other socio-economics-psychology non-fiction that I love reading, Taleb has much more information which is easily applicable to daily life (notably health, and habits) and won't just get stuck in the back of my mind.
Ugh. Brilliant ideas surrounded by trite annoying nonsense. Read the first section (or better yet an intelligent review) and don't bother with the rest. Unless you want to find out what kind of fruit Taleb doesn't eat, based on applying his theory way too broadly. Or how many books he reads. Or who exactly he looks down on (hint: pretty much everyone).