It seems like there are a few predictions that the famous antifragility literature got wrong (and if you point it out on Twitter, you get blocked by Taleb).
But the funny part starts when you consider the consequences of such failed predictions on the theory of antifragility itself.
One possible interpretation is that, ironically, antifragility itself is an example of a Big Intellectual Idea that tries to explain everything, and then fails horribly when you start relying on it. From this perspective, Taleb lost the game he tried to play.
Another possible interpretation is that the theory of antifragility itself is a great example of antifragility. It does not matter how many wrong predictions it makes, as long as it makes one famous correct prediction that people will remember while ignoring the wrong ones. From this perspective, Taleb wins.
Going further meta, the first perspective seems like something an intellectual would prefer, as it considers the correctness or incorrectness of a theory; while the second perspective seems like something a practical person would prefer, as it considers whether writing about theory of antifragility brings fame and profit. Therefore, Taleb wins… by being wrong… about being right when others are wrong.
I imagine a truly marvelous “galaxy brain” meme of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
I am confused about metaantifragility.
It seems like there are a few predictions that the famous antifragility literature got wrong (and if you point it out on Twitter, you get blocked by Taleb).
But the funny part starts when you consider the consequences of such failed predictions on the theory of antifragility itself.
One possible interpretation is that, ironically, antifragility itself is an example of a Big Intellectual Idea that tries to explain everything, and then fails horribly when you start relying on it. From this perspective, Taleb lost the game he tried to play.
Another possible interpretation is that the theory of antifragility itself is a great example of antifragility. It does not matter how many wrong predictions it makes, as long as it makes one famous correct prediction that people will remember while ignoring the wrong ones. From this perspective, Taleb wins.
Going further meta, the first perspective seems like something an intellectual would prefer, as it considers the correctness or incorrectness of a theory; while the second perspective seems like something a practical person would prefer, as it considers whether writing about theory of antifragility brings fame and profit. Therefore, Taleb wins… by being wrong… about being right when others are wrong.
I imagine a truly marvelous “galaxy brain” meme of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain.