Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm only about 1/6th of the way through (listening in the car). I did have some disagreement on the specific examples, but they seemed to just be badly chosen examples (since he only really understands finance and some liberal arts, not engineering). So he's a bad writer, but not in a way which directly detracts from his philosophical argument. (and yes, the evolution parts sounded whacko too, but I think he was quoting someone else's beliefs, and had an argument that even if the explanation was wrong, it would still be a valid conclusion due to another argument)



Why would you include examples if they aren't necessary to understand the argument, or arguments that aren't required to make your point? That sounds confusing and tedious.


Because he likes to hear himself talk (well, read his own words) and show off superficial tangential knowledge (or fairly deep tangential knowledge about some humanities things, especially classics and lebanese culture).

It's kind of grating, but works for an audiobook in the car, where I might lose a few seconds due to temporary attention increase on the road. He'll reliably spend 3-4 minutes saying the same thing with minor variations when 20 seconds would do.


Nice to hear your opinion, hearing some praise of the book I was wondering what similar-minded people think of it, I wish he just stayed closer to fields he is more familiar with, as you said.


I did really like Fooled by Randomness, so I'm a bit biased toward him. Once I finish listening to the whole Antifragile I'll probably write a review and maybe send it to him -- if it's just bad examples, coming up with some replacement examples which are actually valid seems like an improvement, and not too hard.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: