You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.81 AVERAGE
3.81 AVERAGE
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I had a hard time staying engaged with the amount of times Taleb talks out of the side of his mouth. The points resonated, the ideas made sense, but the delivery did not align with me.
Still, I’m better from having read it and would recommend to have antifragile in more vocabularies.
Still, I’m better from having read it and would recommend to have antifragile in more vocabularies.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
informative
slow-paced
The core thesis of this book is extremely compelling and at times Taleb makes a strong argument. Unfortunately, large swaths of it are devoted to what I guess I'll describe as rambling. I would've enjoyed this book much more if it were more concise. I do recommend engaging his argument, but I might recommend people read specific sections or chapters instead of the entire book to familiarize themselves with the concept he presents.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Amazing, he managed to solve every single issue the world has ever faced throughout all of history, in just 500 pages.
If only everyone listened to his advice we would be living in a utopia.
Similarly amazing that every single profession in history has been working against his ideas.
If only everyone listened to his advice we would be living in a utopia.
Similarly amazing that every single profession in history has been working against his ideas.
Tough read to get through, dense and packed with fresh ideas. Can’t remember a book that has left such a practical impact on my life.
What a remarkable book, it is a sound criticism of many practices we think little about because of how pervasive they have become. Taleb lays bare the necessity of risk, hardship, and pragmatism our society moves further away from with each passing year.
After reading Fooled by randomness by Taleb, I decided to read Anti-fragile as reviews indicated that it may have a broader appeal and was less focused on the financial examples that were prevalent in his earlier work. Taleb is known for his sharp wit, provocative commentary, and direct criticism of others in fields like economics, finance, and academia. While some readers may appreciate his boldness and unfiltered honesty, I find his dismissive attitude toward opposing views to be a significant drawback. This style is very characteristic in both Fooled by Randomness as well as this book, AntiFragile. His frequent use of terms like "intellectual yet idiot" (IYI) to criticize academics and experts can feel unnecessarily antagonistic and detract from his arguments. This is a stark contrast to the more measured, humble tones of authors I like, like Malcolm Gladwell and Jonathan Haidt. Taleb's confidence in his theories sometimes comes across as dogmatic, especially when he dismisses perspectives or fields he disagrees with. This lack of acknowledgment for opposing viewpoints or potential flaws in his own ideas can alienate readers who value open-mindedness. Further, his dismissiveness can feel contradictory to his core ideas about uncertainty, randomness, and the limits of human knowledge. His unwillingness to engage with alternative perspectives undermines his credibility when discussing the very unpredictability he champions. While some readers may appreciate his biting humor and irreverent critiques, I felt that it overshadows the substantive points he makes. His style can make it difficult to separate the message from the messenger. Taleb’s work undoubtedly contains valuable insights, but tone and style can shape the reader’s experience. My biggest complaint is that I find his arrogance off-putting.
My second biggest complaint, related to the first, is that the first half of the book seems very organized, planned and focused, but the latter half seems like a stream of consciousness and is a little all over the place. I believe this is why it's so hard to connect with the content in the latter part of the book, and instead focus on his arrogant style of writing. Taleb seems to jump from one concept to another without clear transitions or a unifying narrative. This makes the later sections feel more like a collection of loosely related essays than a structured argument. He also revisits the same themes repeatedly in the later chapters without adding much new insight. This repetition can make the content feel both overwhelming and underwhelming simultaneously—overwhelming in volume, underwhelming in substance. While the earlier chapters feel engaging and tangible
in his use of examples, the later chapters delve into more abstract discussions that I find harder to connect with. The lack of concrete illustrations or tighter arguments contributes to a sense of disorganization. Further, Taleb delves deeply into philosophical musings and personal grievances, which some readers feel detracts from the actionable, insightful tone of the earlier sections.
While Taleb doesn’t explicitly use the term "group selection" in Antifragile, the underlying concept aligns with his arguments about systems becoming stronger by eliminating or challenging their weakest elements. In fact, Taleb’s focus on how systems (whether biological, economic, or social) improve through disorder, volatility, and stress mirrors some of the ideas discussed in the context of group selection and evolution. His thinking does resonate with ideas from Darwin and evolutionary theory, though Taleb seems to be more focused on practical, real-world applications of these principles rather than engaging directly with evolutionary theory as a whole.
Authors like Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, or Jared Diamond also explore how societies, human behaviors, and even cultures can evolve through a kind of natural selection, in which beneficial traits persist and weaker traits are discarded. Taleb, like them, is interested in how large, complex systems can evolve through challenges, often without a clear, deliberate guiding force, but more through a process of natural “selection” of what works best in the long term.
Taleb makes the point early on in the book how this work is a result of his earlier work in Fooled by Randomness and the Black Swan, and it is easy to see how this book is a very clear continuation of his earlier ideas. However, I felt that some parts of this book were almost a direct contradiction of his earlier writing. For example, in his chapter about the Two types of professions, Taleb compares two brothers, one in the financial industry and the other a taxi cab driver, and shows how we would think of the financial career as more stable, while in reality, could be terminated at any time, while the taxi career is actually more anti-fragile as it is not dependent on a single employer or event, but can more easily adjust to changes in the market. His earlier work, Fooled by Randomness points out how all systems are susceptible to 'black swan' events, and I see this in his example of the two professions, as both could be very fragile systems, but not to the same events. For example, the recent corona virus epidemic ended the careers of many gig jobs like taxi drivers as overnight, nobody was traveling. However, jobs like financial analysts were relatively safe from such events as they could easily work from home. Taleb argues that a robust system can withstand stress but remains largely unchanged by it, while an antifragile system grows stronger in response to stress and volatility. On the surface, his comparison between the two brothers illustrates the difference between jobs with single points of failure (the financial analyst) and jobs with multiple sources of income and less immediate dependence on a single entity (the taxi driver). But both professions are indeed fragile to different stressors. This distinction is important because it reveals that fragility isn’t just about the type of career or job, but the nature of the risks that the career faces. Some careers are fragile to certain shocks and robust to others, but they can also be highly susceptible to specific types of volatility. The key takeaway is that all systems and careers are fragile in different ways. Taleb’s argument in Antifragile is about how we can build systems that thrive under stress, but all systems—whether it's a taxi driver’s or a financial analyst’s career—are vulnerable to particular stressors. The key is to understand what those stressors are and build resilience against them. Taleb’s broader point is that in complex systems, having a diversity of options and being able to respond to a wide range of shocks (whether expected or not) can make a system not just robust, but antifragile.
Taleb critiques the reliance on data-driven models, particularly when they ignore the potential for Black Swan events—unexpected, high-impact occurrences that can't be predicted based on historical data alone. He positions himself in contrast to thinkers like Pinker, who he believes may be too optimistic or confident about the future based on past trends. it’s highly probable Taleb was referencing Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature (2011), where Pinker argues that, over the long term, human violence has decreased significantly, largely because of the rise of government, trade, and other civilizing influences. Taleb, however, seems to take issue with Pinker’s optimism, suggesting that just because violence has decreased in the past doesn't mean it will continue along that same trajectory. Pinker’s Better Angels is indeed about trends and probabilities, using data to show that violence has declined over time and that humanity has generally made moral progress. His premise is not that violence will never return, but rather that we have become less violent as a species and that the forces of progress (human rights, democracy, education) will continue to push us in the right direction. However, Taleb’s perspective is more about the limitations of predicting long-term outcomes using historical data. He contends that, while it’s true that violence may have decreased over the long term, we are still susceptible to sudden, unpredictable bursts of violence (or other Black Swan events), and thus, relying on the past to predict the future is inherently flawed. For Taleb, the past is not a sufficient guide for what will happen next, especially in a world where extreme events (like world wars, pandemics, or financial crashes) can change the trajectory of progress in unpredictable ways. Taleb's comments about Pinker and possibly other data-driven thinkers like Malcolm Gladwell come as a glancing blow for really no apparent reason. I think Taleb should have excluded this from his book, unless he planned on exploring the differences in these ideas in more detail
Taleb's tendency to blend anecdote, opinion, and fact, especially in later sections can also be frustrating. His writing style can feel polarizing because earlier chapters often present thought-provoking ideas with more clarity and focus, while later parts, like "History is Written by the Losers," delve into broader, less substantiated claims.
This departure could reflect Taleb's broader agenda to challenge conventional narratives and emphasize uncertainty, but it often sacrifices the rigor and cohesion that make his earlier sections so engaging.
My second biggest complaint, related to the first, is that the first half of the book seems very organized, planned and focused, but the latter half seems like a stream of consciousness and is a little all over the place. I believe this is why it's so hard to connect with the content in the latter part of the book, and instead focus on his arrogant style of writing. Taleb seems to jump from one concept to another without clear transitions or a unifying narrative. This makes the later sections feel more like a collection of loosely related essays than a structured argument. He also revisits the same themes repeatedly in the later chapters without adding much new insight. This repetition can make the content feel both overwhelming and underwhelming simultaneously—overwhelming in volume, underwhelming in substance. While the earlier chapters feel engaging and tangible
in his use of examples, the later chapters delve into more abstract discussions that I find harder to connect with. The lack of concrete illustrations or tighter arguments contributes to a sense of disorganization. Further, Taleb delves deeply into philosophical musings and personal grievances, which some readers feel detracts from the actionable, insightful tone of the earlier sections.
While Taleb doesn’t explicitly use the term "group selection" in Antifragile, the underlying concept aligns with his arguments about systems becoming stronger by eliminating or challenging their weakest elements. In fact, Taleb’s focus on how systems (whether biological, economic, or social) improve through disorder, volatility, and stress mirrors some of the ideas discussed in the context of group selection and evolution. His thinking does resonate with ideas from Darwin and evolutionary theory, though Taleb seems to be more focused on practical, real-world applications of these principles rather than engaging directly with evolutionary theory as a whole.
Authors like Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, or Jared Diamond also explore how societies, human behaviors, and even cultures can evolve through a kind of natural selection, in which beneficial traits persist and weaker traits are discarded. Taleb, like them, is interested in how large, complex systems can evolve through challenges, often without a clear, deliberate guiding force, but more through a process of natural “selection” of what works best in the long term.
Taleb makes the point early on in the book how this work is a result of his earlier work in Fooled by Randomness and the Black Swan, and it is easy to see how this book is a very clear continuation of his earlier ideas. However, I felt that some parts of this book were almost a direct contradiction of his earlier writing. For example, in his chapter about the Two types of professions, Taleb compares two brothers, one in the financial industry and the other a taxi cab driver, and shows how we would think of the financial career as more stable, while in reality, could be terminated at any time, while the taxi career is actually more anti-fragile as it is not dependent on a single employer or event, but can more easily adjust to changes in the market. His earlier work, Fooled by Randomness points out how all systems are susceptible to 'black swan' events, and I see this in his example of the two professions, as both could be very fragile systems, but not to the same events. For example, the recent corona virus epidemic ended the careers of many gig jobs like taxi drivers as overnight, nobody was traveling. However, jobs like financial analysts were relatively safe from such events as they could easily work from home. Taleb argues that a robust system can withstand stress but remains largely unchanged by it, while an antifragile system grows stronger in response to stress and volatility. On the surface, his comparison between the two brothers illustrates the difference between jobs with single points of failure (the financial analyst) and jobs with multiple sources of income and less immediate dependence on a single entity (the taxi driver). But both professions are indeed fragile to different stressors. This distinction is important because it reveals that fragility isn’t just about the type of career or job, but the nature of the risks that the career faces. Some careers are fragile to certain shocks and robust to others, but they can also be highly susceptible to specific types of volatility. The key takeaway is that all systems and careers are fragile in different ways. Taleb’s argument in Antifragile is about how we can build systems that thrive under stress, but all systems—whether it's a taxi driver’s or a financial analyst’s career—are vulnerable to particular stressors. The key is to understand what those stressors are and build resilience against them. Taleb’s broader point is that in complex systems, having a diversity of options and being able to respond to a wide range of shocks (whether expected or not) can make a system not just robust, but antifragile.
Taleb critiques the reliance on data-driven models, particularly when they ignore the potential for Black Swan events—unexpected, high-impact occurrences that can't be predicted based on historical data alone. He positions himself in contrast to thinkers like Pinker, who he believes may be too optimistic or confident about the future based on past trends. it’s highly probable Taleb was referencing Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature (2011), where Pinker argues that, over the long term, human violence has decreased significantly, largely because of the rise of government, trade, and other civilizing influences. Taleb, however, seems to take issue with Pinker’s optimism, suggesting that just because violence has decreased in the past doesn't mean it will continue along that same trajectory. Pinker’s Better Angels is indeed about trends and probabilities, using data to show that violence has declined over time and that humanity has generally made moral progress. His premise is not that violence will never return, but rather that we have become less violent as a species and that the forces of progress (human rights, democracy, education) will continue to push us in the right direction. However, Taleb’s perspective is more about the limitations of predicting long-term outcomes using historical data. He contends that, while it’s true that violence may have decreased over the long term, we are still susceptible to sudden, unpredictable bursts of violence (or other Black Swan events), and thus, relying on the past to predict the future is inherently flawed. For Taleb, the past is not a sufficient guide for what will happen next, especially in a world where extreme events (like world wars, pandemics, or financial crashes) can change the trajectory of progress in unpredictable ways. Taleb's comments about Pinker and possibly other data-driven thinkers like Malcolm Gladwell come as a glancing blow for really no apparent reason. I think Taleb should have excluded this from his book, unless he planned on exploring the differences in these ideas in more detail
Taleb's tendency to blend anecdote, opinion, and fact, especially in later sections can also be frustrating. His writing style can feel polarizing because earlier chapters often present thought-provoking ideas with more clarity and focus, while later parts, like "History is Written by the Losers," delve into broader, less substantiated claims.
This departure could reflect Taleb's broader agenda to challenge conventional narratives and emphasize uncertainty, but it often sacrifices the rigor and cohesion that make his earlier sections so engaging.