When Taleb speaks about rationality he points towards what’s meant in philosophy with the term with is a bit different from the sense we use the word in our community.
Antifragilism looks like a word you made up without defining it (your post ranks first for it on Google). Using it this way also seems to confuse the distinction that Taleb makes between antifragility and robustness. Plenty of old traditions aren’t antifragile, they are just robust because they stand the test of time.
In using the term Antifragilism, I am simply referring to the broad pursuit of Antifragility (to avoid conflating this with the property of something itself being Antifragile). This seemed unambiguous to me, but perhaps I should edit to add this, if it is a cause for confusion. I have resisted the temptation to define Antifragility myself, as Taleb does a better job.
“Plenty of old traditions aren’t antifragile, they are just robust because they stand the test of time.”
This is basically one of the things I’m getting at—it seems to be a common failure mode of people trying to pursue Antifragility, that they instead settle upon a robust tradition. Taleb rails against conflating Antifragility with robustness in his book, but it still seems easy for people to do.
When Taleb speaks about rationality he points towards what’s meant in philosophy with the term with is a bit different from the sense we use the word in our community.
Antifragilism looks like a word you made up without defining it (your post ranks first for it on Google). Using it this way also seems to confuse the distinction that Taleb makes between antifragility and robustness. Plenty of old traditions aren’t antifragile, they are just robust because they stand the test of time.
In using the term Antifragilism, I am simply referring to the broad pursuit of Antifragility (to avoid conflating this with the property of something itself being Antifragile). This seemed unambiguous to me, but perhaps I should edit to add this, if it is a cause for confusion. I have resisted the temptation to define Antifragility myself, as Taleb does a better job.
“Plenty of old traditions aren’t antifragile, they are just robust because they stand the test of time.”
This is basically one of the things I’m getting at—it seems to be a common failure mode of people trying to pursue Antifragility, that they instead settle upon a robust tradition. Taleb rails against conflating Antifragility with robustness in his book, but it still seems easy for people to do.