Antifragility: notes on prologue
What strikes me about reading Taleb is that i often do not understand his sentences. there is bot ah exuberance and a (unnecessary?) complexity that is difficult. example: "sensitivity to harm from volatility is tractable, more so than forecasting the event that would cause harm." Is that saying that we can control the sensitivity of harm in a volatile environment and if so what does controlling sensitivity mean? Does he mean its easier to decrease sensitivity of the "victim so to speak" in a volatile situation than it is to predict the harm itself? Ten minutes later maybe I figured it out. I still really love reading him because it is very stimulating.
Fragile is measurable, does not like volatility or risk and has more downside
Antifragile is not measurable. Thrives on volatility and has more upside
Understanding the antifragile can lead to better decision making in high risk situations and decreases our fear of their role in events
If you remove volatility and risk from many natural systems you harm or destroy the system. Many systems grow through stress (like people? What does it so to them when we make life so easy? Do they atrophy as well?)
Some use anti fragility to their advantage by passing on the harm to others while they benefit from the outcome. This problem is often hidden because of the complexity of the system
The whole game changes if those who take the profits absorb none of the risk.
Fragilista goes for where the benefits are small but predictable and ignores the usually large, unpredictable and dangerous effects.
Taleb offers a road map to let the natural thrive
Two types of risk managers. Those who attempt to forecast risk(fools) and those who look at how things respond to risks, himself. Look at what's fragile
At the end is a long justification for his tone, I think, which seems unnecessary and even a bit self aggrandizing. One need not protest his ethics so much, need one? And denigrate academia with such pleasure and generalizing when one is discussing the antifragile unless there is an agenda here other than arguing the point. A lot of the problems he points out are probably true for some people in all institutions?
Makes the point that commerce is the only avenue to tolerance. This seems a bit simplistic. Just read in the Nyt (which he might consider part of the Harvard soviet crew) that watching videos of others is the best way to build tolerance.
The antifragile might be robust or resilient but is not necessarily so.
Three categories: fragile (thrives on order), robust ( doesn't care much) and the antifragile (thrives on disorder).
First rule: we will not have antifragility at the expense of fragility of others.
Order comes from embracing randomness; pseudo order comes from order
As complexity increases, unpredictability increases, increasing our black swan probability. This desire to build more complex systems Taleb calls neomania.
Fragile is measurable, does not like volatility or risk and has more downside
Antifragile is not measurable. Thrives on volatility and has more upside
Understanding the antifragile can lead to better decision making in high risk situations and decreases our fear of their role in events
If you remove volatility and risk from many natural systems you harm or destroy the system. Many systems grow through stress (like people? What does it so to them when we make life so easy? Do they atrophy as well?)
Some use anti fragility to their advantage by passing on the harm to others while they benefit from the outcome. This problem is often hidden because of the complexity of the system
The whole game changes if those who take the profits absorb none of the risk.
Fragilista goes for where the benefits are small but predictable and ignores the usually large, unpredictable and dangerous effects.
Taleb offers a road map to let the natural thrive
Two types of risk managers. Those who attempt to forecast risk(fools) and those who look at how things respond to risks, himself. Look at what's fragile
At the end is a long justification for his tone, I think, which seems unnecessary and even a bit self aggrandizing. One need not protest his ethics so much, need one? And denigrate academia with such pleasure and generalizing when one is discussing the antifragile unless there is an agenda here other than arguing the point. A lot of the problems he points out are probably true for some people in all institutions?
Makes the point that commerce is the only avenue to tolerance. This seems a bit simplistic. Just read in the Nyt (which he might consider part of the Harvard soviet crew) that watching videos of others is the best way to build tolerance.
The antifragile might be robust or resilient but is not necessarily so.
Three categories: fragile (thrives on order), robust ( doesn't care much) and the antifragile (thrives on disorder).
First rule: we will not have antifragility at the expense of fragility of others.
Order comes from embracing randomness; pseudo order comes from order
As complexity increases, unpredictability increases, increasing our black swan probability. This desire to build more complex systems Taleb calls neomania.
Comments
Post a Comment