I finally got around to putting the requisite time into this book (2nd edition) during the family trip to Wales a month and a half back. Similarly to Nietzsche, I found that jotting down notes while reading was helpful to both solidify my thoughts, remind myself of convergences, and point out questionable arguments. I'll just summarize some of them briefly.
In short, I thought the book was excellent, made a very good argument, and helped to pull together some of my disparate concerns with probability, statistics, econometrics, and knowledge in general, retroactive explanations/justifications and what it means to be an expert in a soft field in particular.
It tied together many questions I've had from philosophy of science and biology classes. Philosophy of science was largely above my head at the time. I'd like to take it again.
His style reminded me a lot of reading Nietzsche. It is bombastic, witty, bold, and powerful. Both of them find aphorism very useful. Aphorism is tricky, but they both do it well.
I can easily see the influence of thinkers such as Nietzsche, Hayek, and Hume, three of my favorites. This is especially evident in views on the inherent weakness of empiricism, the importance of art and aesthetics to knowledge (cue Joanna Newsom's excellent line, "never get so attached to a poem you forget truth that lacks lyricism"), the problem of knowledge dissemination in an increasingly complicated world, the vacuity of most modern philosophizing, the human need to force reality into simple molds to our own demise (ecce
Procrustes), the unimportance of free will vs. determinism,
amor fati, the value of having a sense of control over one's life and time, respect for Stoicism, and general zeal for living.
The only real place that I think he risks misapplying his theory, or rather should show some more epistemic humility, is in his treatment of diet and general health based on our evolutionary past. I might write more about this elsewhere, so for now I'll just say that empirically he and the
paleos may be right, but theoretically are guilty of strong adaptationism. A minor critique of an excellent body of thought.
I really enjoyed the book and actually smiled when I finished the main body. There are several points of disagreement that I won't get into further, and I'm not sure of some of the life lessons he draws from his theories, but I highly recommend giving yourself the benefit of reading Taleb.
A few scattered quotes I jotted down:
"Being an executive does not require very developed frontal lobes, but rather a combination of charisma, a capacity to sustain boredom, and the ability to shallowly perform on harrying schedules."
"A theory is like medicine (or government): often useless, sometimes necessary, always self-serving, and on occasion lethal. So it needs to be used with care, moderation, and close adult supervision."
"Worry less about small failures, more about large, potentially terminal ones."
"Worry less about embarrassment than about missing an opportunity."
"Half the time I hate Nietzsche, the other half I like his prose."
"Missing a train is only painful if you run after it."
"But an aggressively stoic prior disdain and rejection of
the grapes is even more rewarding. Be aggressive; be the one to resign, if you have the guts."
"It is the duty of every author to represent the ideas of his adversaries as faithfully as possible."
"Let human mistakes and miscalculations remain confined."