I finally finished Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder, by Nassim Taleb, and I devoured every page of it, word for word. It’s been some time I enjoyed diving deep into a book. Hence, would like to really share what I took away from it, and later try to apply the key lessons into my work.

Sharing them here as reference for myself, and for anyone who might find it useful. This is not a book review, just raw notes lifted directly from the book, with some minor edits, interpretations and categorisations of my own. This is part of my reading list for a new season.

Read past notes:

• (1) Prologue
• (2) Book 1: Intro to antifragility
• (3) Book 2: Antifragility on a systems level and interventionism
• (4) Book 3: Be 90% accountant, 10% rock star - the bimodal strategy of antifragility ?

-–

Antifragile, Book 3

Curiosity is antifragile

Antifragility is magnified by attempts to satisfy curiosity. (Question to self: what other qualities or skills are antifragile?) Things can be taken away from us—not good deeds and virtuous acts.

What a nonpredictor can predict

You can’t predict in general, but you can predict that those who rely on predictions are taking more risks. Someone who predicts will be fragile to prediction errors. You can be antifragile if you take a mirror image of these fragile prey. Identify fragilities, make a bet on the collapse of the fragile unit, collect big after the collapse.

Emotional robustification

Success brings asymmetry: you now have a lot more to lose than to gain. When you have more downside than upside to losing your possessions; if an additional $1000 doesn’t benefit you but you feel great harm from its loss, then you have an asymmetry, you are fragile. So counter this by mental write-offs - the mental exercise of writing off possessions, or assuming the worst possible thing had happened.

How to be rich without the downside

“Wealth is the slave of the wise man and master of the fool.” - Seneca. You can prefer wealthy to poverty, without the harm from wealth. Do moral bookkeeping: just track expenditures; if anyone returns it, it’s a gain; if not returned, it’s not lost but given away. So Seneca played a trick on fate: cut the downside and kept the upside. 

Foundational asymmetry of fragility-antifragility

Fragility implies more to lose than to gain, equals more downside than upside, equals unfavourable asymmetry. Antifragility implies more to gain than to lose, equals more upside than downside, equals favourable asymmetry. You are antifragile for a source of volatility if potential gains exceed potential losses, but you maybe harmed by a lack of volatility and stressors.

Efficiency is meaningless when fragile

If something is fragile, its risk of breaking makes anything you do to improve it or make it efficient inconsequential unless you first reduce that risk of breaking. Because an unforeseen terminal blowup makes whatever potential returns null.

The barbell strategy of antifragility

Bimodal strategy of combining 2 extremes kept separate, with avoidance of the middle. 2 distinct modes rather than a single central one, eg dual attitude of playing it safe in some areas (robust to negative black swans) and taking a lot of small risks in others (open to positive black swans). Extreme risk aversion on one side and extreme risk loving on the other, rather than just the medium/moderate risk in the middle. Maximally safe plus maximally speculative.

Be aggressive AND paranoid

Antifragility is the combination of aggressiveness plus paranoia—clip your downside (it has a max known loss limit), protect yourself from extreme harm, and let the upside, the positive black swans, take care of itself. Or be 90% accountant, 10% rock star. Introduce some harm and stressors as tools of discovery. Let people experience some, not too much, stress, to wake them up a but. But, at the same time, they need to be protected from high danger—ignore small dangers, invest your energy in protecting them from consequential harm. Only consequential harm. Eg in social or health policy - protect the weak while letting the strong do their job, rather than helping the middle class. “Provide for the worst; the best can take care of itself.” - Yiddish proverb. People tend to provide for the best and hope that the worst will take care of itself. People are averse to and insure for small losses, but not large infrequent ones. Exactly backwards. Or be serial barbell - something very safe, then something very speculative. Adventure then ascetic, intense then sedentary, busy than lazy, rather than a low intensity, middle combo. Eg being very good in a stable profession, then leaving for something risky, because you can fall back on previous profession.

Barbell yourself in every domain

Ensure probability of the unacceptable is nil. Don’t do stuff with known risks of terminal injury (biking). Have adventurers and aristocrats. Lift max weights then nothing, instead of high reps and long hours in gym. Do crazy things, then stay rational in larger decisions. Trashy magazine and sophisticated works. Talk to undergrads, cab drivers and highest caliber scholars, not middle academics. Leave him alone or eliminate someone you dislike, don’t attack verbally. Avoid alcohol 3 times a week, then drink liberally the remaining four, instead of reduce daily consumption.