Taleb's thesis is that by constructing stories when writing history, we ascribe a causality that simply isn't justified by events. Random events happen. After the fact, historians provide post-hoc reasons for those random events, making them seem as though they could have been predicted at the time. Taleb argues that this habit badly distorts our view of reality, making us blind to the probability - and more importantly, the impact - of random events.

Taleb is simultaneously thought-provoking and infuriatingly smug. He prides himself on his non-academic background, yet consistently appeals to the same classical and enlightenment authorities (well, apart from Fat Tony) as academics do.

What sets this book apart is the author's style, tone and approach. He doesn't construct his arguments case by case - it's more of a dialectic (which is a way to discuss processes and complex systems in flux) with diversions along the way into morality tales, Taleb's personal story of growing up in the Levant (anecdote is not evidence, Nassim) and frankly boastful lists of the authors he's read whom he feels bolster his case. There are contradictions, blind alleys, clever insights and funny asides. Just when you think he's about to get to the kernel of his argument and provide some blinding insight, he's off on some new tangent, laughing at you for not predicting the unexpected swerve.

I found myself gritting my teeth at Taleb's undergraduate arrogance in some passages and cheering him on in others, as he exposes (for example) the field of economics for the charlatanry it really is.

I'm not sure if I like this book - the author doesn't build as strong a case or as tightly-argued a case as he could have. I'm not sure if I like Taleb - his arrogance, combined with his transparent lack of confidence in his non-academic background really grates. Taleb's no anti-intellectual, but his appeals to authority - and simultaneous iconoclasm towards many of those same authorities - undermine his case.

Taleb's currently working on an idea he callls 'antifragility'. (What's the opposite of fragility? Not robustness, but antifragility, a characteristic which allows an entity to benefit from knocks and bumps - think of evolution.) He's making early drafts available to his fans (find him on Facebook) and undoubtedly he's on to something worthwhile. Reading an early draft is very enlightening - the inconsistencies and contradictions in his argument are plain to see. I expect he's going to work the same idea into a book-length treatise and give it the same rambling, self-indulgent treatment that unpredictability gets in the Black Swan. I'm not sure I'll have the stomach for it.