Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder

There are some good points made in the book, but overall I cannot recommend. The author spends entirely too many pages on things he doesn't like (which is just about everything). A short list: doctors, businessmen, politicians, economists, psychologists, scientists, lawyers, ebooks, anything invented since the dark ages, and so on. He very much comes across as both a Luddite and a curmudgeon.

To summarize the book: The author has found that there is no word for the opposite of ‘fragile', so he cleverly coins the word ‘anti-fragile'. He then mocks everyone past and present who has not thought of this themselves or or applied to their lives and work. Einstein.. what an idiot- he didn't even know what anti-fragile was! He is quick to label others as charlatans, hacks,etc. He does not live up to his own impossible standards.

Most of his argument is semantics. A line repeated throughout the book: ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. I do not believe he was successful in describing what anti-fragile was. No attempt is made to apply his theory to current events or the future, only to the all to convenient past.

He recalls with glee telling a student who asks what books he should be reading (none written in the last 100 years certainly!). I will end this by saying that while i don't believe his premise that there are no modern worthy books, his is one you can afford to skip.