Like what he says, but not how he says it - Rated 
I think the reviews here probably sum this book up quite well. There is a realtively simple, and as far as I can see, valid point being made, but the book is written in a long-winded, verbose style, which I found very off-putting. I agree with the reviewers who point out that the strongest message to emerge is that the author considers himself to be very, very clever.
For instance, there is a lot of space devoted to discussion of the bell-shaped curve, or normal distribution, which forms the basis for many types of statistics. Some variables, such as height and weight are normally distributed. However, other variables, such as personal wealth, and many things related to economics, have a very skewed distribution, hence sayings like the 80/20 rule. Even the most basic course in statistics will tell you that assuming scores are normally distributed, when they are not, will give you misleading and incorrect results. NNT tells you that here also, but does so by using an analogy of lands called Mediocristan (the normal distribution) and Extremistan (non-normal distribution). Why make up terms for something where perfectly adequate terminology already exists? I do not take issue with what he had to say, but I do think there is a much more simple, and clear, way of saying it.
Consequently, I ended up skimming through a great deal of this book because it was taking far too long to get to the point, and a constant feeling of irritation seriously hindered my reading pleasure.
Difficult finding the gold in the dust - Rated 
This book is written by a proud sceptic, who challenges all our assumptions about systems and beliefs in modern science and particularly economics. The author worked in large financial firms, and saw the downfall of current beliefs.
He argues strenuously for people to avoid believing in the charlatans, and demonstrates numerous failings of the systems. But he fails to offer a better way so, despite his displayed intellect and thinking prowess, he comes across as a whiner. This is unfortunate, as I warmed to his message, but I found myself constantly waiting for the great revelation of how things could be run better. It never really appeared.
A very important book - Rated 
This is one of the most enjoyable and interesting books I have ever read. I have now read it about 20 times but keep finding something new every time I read it. I have also noticed that now after the credit crunch everything he says has additional meaning though the book itself was written before the credit crunch. I have even noticed politicians and central bankers start talking a bit like he does. We don't know what we don't know and we can only be as prepared as possible or pick up the pieces as well as we can after the fallout. A good book to pair with this is The Wisdom of the Crowd. It covers the stuff not covered in this book and this book covers the stuff not covered in that book.
Good stuff! - Rated 
This is a very good book. It is thought provoking and works well as a new way of looking at the randomness in the world. A lot of people here have criticized Taleb for displaying a massive ego, and putting forward things that they dont agree with. Indeed, he is very opinionated and forward and I also disagree with some of the things he says (comments about the uncertainty principle mainly) BUT it is much more entertaining to read this way. Ultimately who wants to read a book that just confirms what they thought was true already? You read a book to challenge yourself, and your preconceptions about the world. This book does that. Just thinking about the extreme stuff helps give an insight into how some people see the world, and even if you dont agree, surely it is interesting to find out about?
Up the Swanee - Rated
There may be the germ of a good pamphlet in this book, but I wonder whether it might be reduced to a single trite aphorism like 'the wise man knows that he knows nothing'. Taleb's intellectual self-regard is so overpowering that it's almost comic, particularly since he has to concede that what he calls 'my ideas' have all been appropriated from others, and he rants away for page after structureless page about his pet hates(economists and other soothsaying social scientists). I do like the turkey feeding/confidence graph as an illustration of the trouble with inductive reasoning, but he blows that highlight early on. I mean, the guy is right enough - but anyone with the most moderate self-starting insight has probably come to much the same conclusions about life already.
|
