You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.81 AVERAGE
3.81 AVERAGE
A three star turd - some interesting, at times even compelling ideas that are occasionally presented with some rigor, mixed in with thousands of words worth of self aggrandizement, personal vendettas, self righteousness, braggadocio (“I’m not only smart, I’m a BAD ASS, did I mention I’m a BAD ASS MAN OF ACTION ((except he disapproves of speed and guns, apparently)), I have AMAZING TASTE in FOOD AND WINE, and my traditional religion is the best! I’m so smart! God damn I’m amazing.”) F*ck this guy. But still, hold your nose and read the book, because the ideas don’t care who presents them, and they’re worth a look. I wish he’d had a better editor, by which I mean pruner or clipper. This book is far, far longer than necessary.
This is the kind of book that I’ve noticed is popular with the Ayn Rand / Fight Club sort of “intellectual,” typically neither as smart nor as skilled in fighting as they believe of themselves. You may have met some persons of this type. Draw your own conclusions from that; but, as I said, I think it’s still worth reading. Nevertheless, I was extremely happy to have finished this turd.
This is the kind of book that I’ve noticed is popular with the Ayn Rand / Fight Club sort of “intellectual,” typically neither as smart nor as skilled in fighting as they believe of themselves. You may have met some persons of this type. Draw your own conclusions from that; but, as I said, I think it’s still worth reading. Nevertheless, I was extremely happy to have finished this turd.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Some interesting ideas, marred by a combative and arrogant tone and sweeping generalization
informative
reflective
medium-paced
First half is interesting second half is a bit more yap but still ok
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Listened to the audiobook. Probably has some great concepts, but I found the writing style completely unbearable. Just didn’t dig the snark. Will be seeking an explainer YouTube summary.
At first I wasn't sure what to make of this book, but I suppose that's understandable, what with me not having read Taleb's previous work, that is, Fooled by Randomness and The Black Swan. Eventually, I came to be convinced that this book is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant, most intelligent analyses of our economic society, of risk, personal as well as systemic, that I've read in a long, long time.
To be fair, I do not understand the full implication of the message, of what fragility vs antifragility entails, and I will be reading this book again soon, because --- there is so much to gain by understanding the principle.
Basically, there exists in the world today, those things that suffer from stress and damage, which Taleb calls "fragile": you drop a glass, it breaks; mechanics in general. And then there exists other things, those that suffer the damage, and not only do they recover from the damage, they grow stronger: for example, the body, muscles, organic material.
Apply this principle and analyze your surroundings, that's what Taleb does. It's brilliant!
Do read.
To be fair, I do not understand the full implication of the message, of what fragility vs antifragility entails, and I will be reading this book again soon, because --- there is so much to gain by understanding the principle.
Basically, there exists in the world today, those things that suffer from stress and damage, which Taleb calls "fragile": you drop a glass, it breaks; mechanics in general. And then there exists other things, those that suffer the damage, and not only do they recover from the damage, they grow stronger: for example, the body, muscles, organic material.
Apply this principle and analyze your surroundings, that's what Taleb does. It's brilliant!
Do read.
When I read most nonfiction, I think it's more important to talk about the ideas than the style (though the latter does matter). Taleb's ideas are interesting, but I nearly gave up several times because I found his tone nearly insufferable. He makes a lot of sweeping statements and loves to shit on other scientists and areas of study. Except for Daniel Kahneman, which I suppose I appreciated since I'm a fan of him and his work (which is super interesting, and unlike Taleb's work, TOTALLY readable). I've heard Taleb is even worse in interviews, which I can easily believe.
His MO seems to be "(insert established idea) is bullshit." And instead of cogently and clearly breaking down the argument, he just makes a flippant observation.
That said, I did learn about some interesting things about the way systems operate, but all in all, it was not a pleasant experience.
His MO seems to be "(insert established idea) is bullshit." And instead of cogently and clearly breaking down the argument, he just makes a flippant observation.
That said, I did learn about some interesting things about the way systems operate, but all in all, it was not a pleasant experience.
His ideas are mostly correct, but nothing beyond using probability and expected value. His tone is very off putting, very arrogant and dismissive of opinions he disagrees with.
It was pretty good! This title has been the topic of a lot of debate and controversy but I'm just a silly undergraduate so I won't try to contribute to that fire. I'll just point out a few things:
1. I liked that what was defined as [fragile/robust/antifragile] at the beginning was, as the book went on, revealed to be mostly [things Taleb doesn't like/things Taleb does like/things Taleb does personally]. I know it's probable that he does things he thinks are antifragile and not the other way around, but I thought it was funny how often weird specific examples (like e-readers) came up.
2. I think the book sometimes tries to do too much. Like there's a difference between erudition and saying a bunch of stuff that is kind of related. But who knows.
3. My favorite part of the book was the self-insert fanfiction near the middle. I thought that was cool and not cringe.
1. I liked that what was defined as [fragile/robust/antifragile] at the beginning was, as the book went on, revealed to be mostly [things Taleb doesn't like/things Taleb does like/things Taleb does personally]. I know it's probable that he does things he thinks are antifragile and not the other way around, but I thought it was funny how often weird specific examples (like e-readers) came up.
2. I think the book sometimes tries to do too much. Like there's a difference between erudition and saying a bunch of stuff that is kind of related. But who knows.
3. My favorite part of the book was the self-insert fanfiction near the middle. I thought that was cool and not cringe.