Scan barcode
jcoker10's review
1.0
I love Nassim Taleb. I think Fooled by Randomness, Black Swan, and Antifragile are absolutely brilliant and should be required reading in every field. So it pains me to say it: this book is objectively poor. Buried beneath pettiness, unnecessary rants, distracting personal take-downs, and incoherent discussions of Mediterranean history with no context, you see a glimmer of the once great Taleb. This is especially true in the last section, Book 8. But overall, this book lacks the wit, charm, and thoroughness of Taleb's other books. I was extremely disappointed with a book I waited for anxiously-- go read all of Taleb's other books, skip this one. I hope the next installment of Incerto returns to previous form, but I fear that this book marks the end of Taleb as a preeminent thinker.
nikolai_k's review
2.0
Alternative title: "Chip on the Shoulder: The Obvious Grudges in Daily Life".
Still, N. N. T. can be amusing in small doses and he turned me onto "The Tartar Steppe", so he's not all bad.
Also, the audiobook narrator somehow managed to sound even more sarcastic & pissed off at almost everyone, which did not help.
Still, N. N. T. can be amusing in small doses and he turned me onto "The Tartar Steppe", so he's not all bad.
Also, the audiobook narrator somehow managed to sound even more sarcastic & pissed off at almost everyone, which did not help.
inquiry_from_an_anti_library's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
fast-paced
3.0
Is This An Overview?
Skin in the game is outcome symmetry of decisions. A symmetry of the benefits and harm derived from a decision. Skin in the game within a transaction means having no asymmetric uncertainty. Skin in the game is about taking risk, rather than transferring the risk. Advice that benefits the individual and the adviser, without the adviser sharing the harm, is bad advice. Those who make decisions without suffering negative repercussions of being wrong, continue making bad decisions. Alternatively, being accountable for errors of decisions, makes people learn from their mistakes and improve their decision making.
Caveats?
Although the ambiguity of language is understood, the use of language in the book creates more negative consequences than benefits. Harsh language is being used throughout the book, which is partly meant to give people skin in the game who have not taken responsibility for wrong decisions, and also to signal freedom. The consequences of the harsh language can be 1) to make society more intolerant given the influence of the author, 2) possibly enable a fundamental attribution bias for dynamic decisions are rarely made by a single person but who then becomes a scapegoat for others, and 3) make people defensive which prevents learning.
The focus of skin in the game is about those who are making wrong decisions without facing the negative consequences, but as the author recognizes, there have been those who perished even though they were right. Its uncertain if the author has skin in the game with the advice given about using skin in the game to improve situations.
ledimirnunez's review
3.0
Some great insights... overall, bleh... I loved Bed of Procrustes, and will re-read that one for the rest of my life. This one, probably will not revisit.
roxymaybe's review
2.0
This author is so far up his own was it's almost impossible to take anything he says to heart. Even when agreeing with his points I found myself rolling my eyes at his self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, self-congratulatory moaning. The only person smarter than you, dear reader, is the writer himself. And the only one stupider than anybody who disagrees with any of his opinions, is the critic who negatively reviewed his last books. I'd be interested to read another book on the same thesis by someone with a little more sympathy for the human race.
alabhyajindal's review
3.0
There are an obscene amount of references to the Middle East in this book. I was rolling my eyes 1/3 into the book. And of course, there are lots of repetitions of the central message - which I take is that the world should be run by people who have something to lose when things go south. There is considerable use of annoying words like "tawk" and "bullshitter". I didn't like reading it. The talk given by the author in relation to this book at Google was amazing, however.