Fragile refers to things that break when exposed to shock. Robustness refers to things that are resistant to shock. Antifragile refers to systems that become stronger as a consequence of exposure to shock. Living systems (including people) are Antifragile.

In the mental health field we talk about resilience a lot. But it's not always clear weather resilience means being 1: Robust i.e. resistant to shock and therefore less sensitive, or 2: Antifragile i.e. optimized to learn and grow from life's inevitable stresses. The second would view willingness to experience intensity as prerequisite to personal growth. I see the need for both, but I vote for stepping to the Antifragile when ever possible.

Antifragile is a "game changer" (please excuse the tiered phrase) for me, particularly for introducing me to the term: iatrogenic - loosely defined as harm caused via medical treatments, but more broadly applied to harm caused by any sort of intervention. The authors point in elaborating on the term is that living things (including people) often benefit from exposure to appropriate stressors. Interfering with said stressors (via medical or other types of intervention) however well intended, can be harmful in the long term.

I could smooch Talb for digging up these ol chestnuts: Mollification, Mithridatism and Hormesis. Mollification means intervening with the intent to calm, sooth or pacify a symptom e.g. palliative medicine and pain management. Mithridatism is the practice of protecting oneself against a stressor by gradually administering non-lethal amounts e.g. exposure therapy for trauma and phobia. Hormesis is the practice of impelling a generally favorable biological response via exposure to stressors e.g. any kind of athletic training, weight lifting, running etc. Currently psychotherapy tends to promote the agenda of Mollification. In my ideal world, psychotherapy and psychological training promotes the agenda of Mithridatism and ideally Hormesis.

The author is "refreshingly irreverent" (please excuse the tiered phrase) towards fancy, overly complex explanations and practices, and particularly skeptical (even hostile) regarding the too often unchallenged status and claims of academia. You have to love that even (no especially) if your an ivory tower resident.

Taleb pits "tinkerers" (inventors and entrepreneurs) e.g. Steve Jobs against "thinkers" (philosophers and economists - so fashionable to bash lately) e.g. Paul Krugman, and asserts that tinkerers drive innovation while thinkers hitchhike and claim the credit. A neat observation, but similar to the equally brilliant and bombastic Matt Ridley, Taleb goes too far when dismissing the contributions of scholars and researchers to the greater good.

Taleb posits "Fat Tony" as the archetypical Brooklynite, smash mouth, nobel savage, anti-philosopher who makes money by the bushel while the "Harvard Fragilistas" sit on their tweed asses and blah, blah, blah. The observation has merit, but much of reality simply doesn't conform to this caricature.

For instance characters like Robert Oppenheimer, Richard Feynman and John von Neumann. Can you honestly call these guys effete intellectuals? They were all great humanists, theorists and hard drinking, bare knuckled men of action. They dreamed up and built the A-bomb and the "thinking machines" that facilitated it's creation, and then wrestled with the monster ethical and political issues that emerged as a result of its use. Let's see Fat Tony do that!

As someone who has spent the better part of 30 years doing blue collar jobs, ones that entail mopping floors, swinging hammers and lifting lots of heavy things on and off of big ass trucks, I'm here to tell ya, despite what Dr Taleb says, sometimes those Fat Tony types are actually idiots. As someone who is also a college professor and community mental health clinician, some academics are not petty leaches. A few of them do good things and are actually kinda generous and smart.

It takes all kinds of people to innovate. Some people push the ball forward from the arm chair e.g. Einstein. Some people push the ball forward from the wheel chair e.g. Stephin Hawking. Some people push the ball forward from someone else's sofa e.g. Paul Erdos, and sadly some great thinkers are "regular guys" who never get their due, but that doesn't mean that our celebrated intellectuals are all a pack of frauds.

Additionally, Taleb lets his libertarian intuitions get the better of him when he try's to reframe the accomplishments of Denmark and Sweden as not in fact examples of effective centralized government, but rather cleverly disguised confederations of small, independent micro municipalities. Oh really? Now who's being all fancy pants?

Call it what you want, but Denmark and Sweden have some of the highest tax rates and most top down interventionist social policies of anywhere, and still manage to squeak out a decent little standard of living for their citizens (Ooops, I mean the highest standard of living on the planet). Not the most innovative countries granted. But not exactly the gulag either.

And as far as education failing to pay out in terms of higher income and opportunity. Would Dr Taleb like to explain his theory to the some of the first generation Mexican Americans that are students at the university I teach at? I'd be willing to venture that finishing college will equate to enhanced "optionality" for at least a few of those individuals. Maybe a few others.

Don't get me wrong. I love the book. It's brilliant and it fully lives up to the hype. But as Dr Taleb says, Antifragile things love criticism, so here's a little love and criticism for him and Fat Tony.