Meh, it was OK. I am deeply sympathetic to lots of his ideas, most especially the psychology and ubiquity of the drunk-under-the-streetlamp problem. (If you don't know that one: drunk guy stumbles out of the bar, wanders around the empty street under the streetlamp. His friend asks what he's doing, he says he's lost his car keys and he's looking for them. Friend points out that the car is on the other side of the street and that they hadn't crossed near the street lamp, so the keys likely aren't there. Drunk concedes that, but justifies his search because the light is so much better where he is.)

So I get and agree with his main points, which are that there's a lot more randomness in the world than we generally allow ourselves to recognize, that we frequently use totally irrelevant tools as a result, etc. etc. But as many other reviewers have noted, he could have made these very good points a) much more briefly, b) without multiplying his own little toy terms ad nauseum, and c) without being so obnoxious.

I picked up Fooled By Randomness, which I hope is better. This one underperformed my expectations by quite a long way.