Six months ago, I found myself walking away from a coffee meeting at a cafe at the National University of Singapore feeling like a bit of a douche.
The day before, I had been sitting in my apartment in Saigon, Vietnam scrolling down my Facebook feed when I saw that Nassim Taleb, author of Antifragile and The Black Swan, was going to be in Singapore. He had invited anyone in town to meet up for coffee.
Twenty minutes later, I bought a ticket from Tiger Air for a $120 round trip to Singapore. An hour later, I had thrown my weekend gear into a backpack, hopped in a Mai Linh Taxi and was on my way to the airport.
I’d just finished reading his latest book, Antifragile, and I was fixated on how I could apply the concepts in the book to be successful.
The theory behind Antifragile is that certain things actually benefit from disorder and that as the world grows more complex, it’s those Antifragile things that will benefit.
Taleb developed the theory through his work as an options trader. He systematically made very improbable bets with even higher pay offs. Most were wrong, but if he was right, the rewards were so huge as to make up for all the mistakes.
Basically, he used Stoic philosophy (to keep from going insane) and the volatility of modern markets to get rich. He did extremely well during the 2008 collapse by shorting a lot of the players in the mortgage market.
Sitting outside the cafe with a mix of students, traders and entrepreneurs, I hopped in and asked him the question that I’d been fixating on –
“How can entrepreneurs use the concepts in Antifragile to make sure they become financially wealthy – to make sure they’re successful?”
His response crushed me.
He told me that I’d entirely missed the point of the whole book. That a life well lived does not mean assuring financial success, it means having what he calls “Soul in the Game.” It means living with integrity, taking risks and exposing yourself not just to downside for yourself, but for others.
And this is why I was feeling like a bit of a douche, which was, as it turns out, a good thing in the long run.
Taleb praises entrepreneurship not because of its ability to make a few people wealthy but because of the systemic benefit of having a segment of society commit to working on stuff that is highly likely to fail – understanding that the overall systemic benefit was positive.
And I’ve come to see that is what I find inspiring about entrepreneurship. The vast majority of it on a day-to-day level is just a repeating cycle of failing and learning. It’s just a lot of struggle and hustle.
And that’s what Antifragile people do. They accept that most of what they do will fail. Most of what they say, think and believe will be wrong. And yet they keep going – doing, saying , believing, and being wrong.
The Antifragile Person: Good Criticism
I was talking to some other attendees after the meetup and one of his old friends from Lebanon said something about Taleb that’s stuck with me –
“Nassim doesn’t care about normal people. Normal people don’t get it.”
And that’s true. None of his writing makes sense unless you’ve been through “some shit.”
For Taleb it was his father being shot, his country falling apart, and the collapse of financial markets as a trader.
I’ve found it to be an extremely effective heuristic for figuring out if a relationship is worth pursuing.
How long into a conversation does a person go before they call you out on your bullshit?
The Antifragile person both appreciates being called out and aren’t afraid to do it to others. They aren’t so insecure.
Antifragile people take failure, criticism and feedback and actually get stronger.
I’ve always felt that one of my problems is that I’m non-confrontational and agreeable. Besides having a nasty habit of showing up 5 minutes late for all my meetings, I’m pretty easy to get along with.
However, a lot of people that I respect tend to be more polarizing than I am.
Not polarizing in an attentions seeking way but in the sense that they have strong convictions and express them confidently. By the nature of social dynamics, that turns off most people.
I was talking to a friend recently and he did something I would normally never do. He cut me off and said “Taylor – It sounds like you’re using this as a rationalization for a decision you’ve already made for entirely different reasons. Which is fine and may be a convenient excuse, but realize that it’s a rationalization.”
I stopped and thought about it for a couple seconds before I realized that he was absolutely right.
It was an extremely valuable insight.
One of the characteristics that people I really connect with is that they’re exceptionally good at calling me out on my bullshit.
It’s hard to find people that will do that because most people are insecure. They’re afraid that if they call people out then those people won’t like them.
And for the most part, they’re right. Most people don’t like getting called out on their BS.
And those people are fragile. If you can’t see criticism and failure and stress as an opportunity for growth then you have no ability to improve.
I’ve started being more openly critical of people lately.
You might say that’s not fair of me that I have tons of things wrong with me too.
That it’s not fair to be critical of other people when I’m just as messed up as they are.
And you’d be right. And that’s the point.
I do have tons of things wrong with me that I’m overwhelmingly blind to it. You don’t know what you don’t know.
“You Suck at First Impressions”
When I was living in Vietnam, a friend came to stay with me for a week.
I had met him at a conference a month earlier and invited him to stay at my apartment if he was ever in Saigon.
He took me up on it, dropped me an email, and came to stay at my place.
One of the last days he was there we went to a Vietnamese cafe and talked about people’s trajectories, futures and what we wanted out of life.
During that conversation – he told me that after he had met me at the conference that first time and we’d talked that he thought I wasn’t very interesting or intelligent, that I sucked at first impressions.
The only reason he had emailed me to stay with me was that he happened to run across my website and realized I had at least a bit more depth than he’d first thought.
Two things happened – the first was that our relationship got a lot stronger, a lot faster. For the people that do take being called out, I find that the relationships gets much deeper much faster. I feel closer to people I’ve known for much less time just because of that level openness. You both accept that you’re human and vulnerable and mess up and trust builds much faster.
The second is that I’ve become dramatically better at first impressions. Primarily because I’ve actually known to work on it actively.
I’m actively seeking to call people out sooner after I meet them. And I’m looking for people that do the same to me.
I suspect at least 95%+ of people are offended by this.
That’s perfect. Because those people aren’t going to help you move your life forward.
I have a friend that sends me email updates once a week. He’s got this great narrative, flowy writing style that matches his personality and he shares a lot of actionable and helpful stuff.
I’ve told him before that I think he should blog instead of just send an email out. He’s an in-the-trenches practitioner and there aren’t enough practitioners out there blogging – there are way too many gurus.
And so I wrote a reply to his email where I actually gave him the same feedback Sebastian Marshall gave me. The breadth and depth of him as a human being once I got to know him was astounding. But it didn’t really come across until I’d hung around him for a while.
I thought blogging had helped me make some connections and clarify thoughts so I thought he should do it too.
I got nervous about sending the email, that he’d be offended, but sent it anyway.
He sent back an email saying he’d been in a slump lately and needed someone to push back and we started talking about getting things set up and action steps to get something going.
Don’t go out and start trying to offend people, but do reframe criticism not as a bad thing but as a good trigger for growth. Focus both on becoming more Antifragile yourself and surrounding yourself with more of those kinds of people. It’s the Antifragile people that have the power to move both you and the world forward.
Last Updated on July 30, 2019 by Taylor Pearson
I really enjoyed this article Taylor. Ever since discovering Taleb I’ve tried to find ways to introduce antifragility into my life, like:
Traveling to new cities with very little cash, no credit or debit cards and limited access to the internet.
Locking myself out of my apartment at night and being forced to sleep on the street.
Going to events and talking with people that I have no business talking to.
Being in these situations is awkward, painful, scary and humiliating, but these experiences have taught me important things about myself, my environment and social dynamics that I wouldn’t have learned otherwise.
I really like this quote and am going to start pursuing more relationships of this kind.
“The Antifragile person both appreciates being called out and aren’t afraid to do it to other[s].”
Not enough people call me out on my bullshit and that’s slowed down my growth. People in Brazil almost never call each other out on their bullshit and it slows down the growth of this country. Or they do it so indirectly that you might not even notice that they’re doing it.
Great writing as always.
Proof reading not so great.
“first though[t].”
“afraid to do it to other[s].”
Love it Josh.
Just re-read Seneca and re-reading 4HWW right now and after reading “Being in these situations is awkward, painful, scary and humiliating, but these experiences have taught me important things about myself, my environment and social dynamics that I wouldn’t have learned otherwise.” – I thought of Ferriss’s quote – “I believe that success can be measured in the number of uncomfortable conversations you’re willing to have.”
I’ve found that so true in the last couple years of my life.
P.S. I do suck at proofreading, thanks for the call out.
In addition to being willing to take said criticisms in stride, it is also important to know what criticisms to give consideration to and which to smile kindly, nod your head, say thank you, and then go do whatever the fuck you were gonna do anyway. Some criticisms will help us grow and achieve our antifragility, others will deter and distract us from our goals and purpose.
(Related – I did not have a bad first impression of you, certainly not that you were unintelligent nor uninteresting. Maybe I didn’t realize the depth of either at first impression, but you were a good enough person for me to invest in knowing better to learn the others. Now I am not nearly as intelligent or interesting as Sebastian, so there’s that, but I *am* someone who frequently refers to people’s intelligence as “dumber than a bag of hammers” so I’m not exactly kind in my assessments.)
Agreed (to your former point, not the latter).
Taylor, I really resonate with this article. This is something that I could personally use work on myself. I often find myself just letting something go, instead of calling someone out or “making a scene.”
Logically it makes sense to speak your mind, but it it’s not your first inclination it can still be hard to do.
Thanks for another great article.
Cheers, thanks for the comment. I’ve thought about this more this week and I think it’s not always just being confrontational – it’s just getting real. I was talking to someone about some masculinity/personal development stuff and the conversation and relationship got interesting faster not because either of us were confrontational but because we were both just honest.
I totally agree. Keep these great posts rolling! Are you still in SD?
Yup!
Dude, you seriously need to read some Sartre.
Noted. Care to recommend a good place to start?
Gary Cox, “How to be an existentialist”.
That is absolutely horrible advice, if you wanted to learn about the Odyssey, or the Bible would you want to start with “modern cliff notes?” You should begin with the original work from Soren Kierkegaard, Satyr, Heidegger. Friedrich Nietzsche and Albert Camus. After you have a solid understanding of the originators I would go on to read modern authors such as Gary Cox.
I have a site dedicated to Existential thought, lots of quotes from Existentialists. I also have a letter on my blog that I wrote to Taleb that you may find of interest.
http://www.existential-musing.com
I agree that the Stranger is a reasonably easy read, but most people are not going to have a clue what Nietzsche is on about if they start with Zarathustra. To most modern readers he sounds, on a first reading, like some kind of sexist narcissist, and that’s once you’ve got past the Victorian language in the translation.
Cox is a good starting point because he’s a Sartre nerd (in a way that he isn’t with Heidegger or Nietzsche) and his insights into Sartre’s version of authenticity might, ISTM, be useful for Taylor.
You make a good point, existentialism and philosophy in
general are not easy reads, but they are necessarily difficult due to their nature and objective. As in all works, they should be taken in the context of the era they were written. To read an interpretation of one of the greats as a substitution is in my opinion is to do great disservice to yourself. There is a certain dilution and bias that goes into modern interpretations. There are few things more frustrating than to read a modern account of great work and then go read the original work and reach a drastically different opinion only to realize you’ve based opinions on false/different/misguided interpretations.
I would say a culmination of our suggestions would be to use
Cox’s book as guide to wade through Sartre. Though I would personally lean more heavily on the original work, and use Cox’s book as a crutch when it becomes dense. How does reading Sartre compare to Nietzsche?
I’ll be honest; I’m still hung up on Cox’s title. Can you
recall how he defines an existentialist? Kierkegaard, the ‘father’ of existentialism never referred to himself as an existentialist, nor did Nietzsche but without doubt they wrote existential treatises. The dispute over what constitutes
an existentialist is pervasive; it seems audacious to title a book as such. It’s such a broad term that without further information, it becomes meaningless.
The book I recommended is “baby steps”. Cox wrote another book which accompanies (notably) Being and Nothingness, called “Sartre: A Guide for the Perplexed” (it’s part of a series by various authors, with the same last five words in the title of each one). I’m currently attempting B&N in the original French, and I’m glad I have Gary with me. 🙂
On the impenetrability scale, I find Sartre harder than Nietzsche, but easier than Merleau-Ponty and way easier than Heidegger. Sartre’s novels are quite readable.
Fair enough, I suppose we have different strategies when it comes to wading through new material. I prefer to start at the original, though I suppose it’s a matter of preference, as long as the reader understands he’s getting a interpretation. I cringe whenever I think of the ‘existential fad,’ and those who dub themselves existentialists without even understanding the term.
I envy your ability to read philosophical work in the native tongue, there is nothing more authentic. I’m certain many insights are lost in translation.
Great I’ve downloaded some of his work, I just haven’t made it to it yet. Cheers.
So I started with Camus and The Stragner over this weekend. Frankly because it was the most popular on GoodReads and also seemed the most accessible. I’m compelled to go on.
I’ve read On the Genealogy of Morals (and it mindfucked the shit out of me in the best way possible). Seems like Sartre then Kierkegaard are the next steps.
Which work would you start with for each?
Being and Nothingness or Nausea for Sartre?
I’m assuming Fear and Trembling for Kierkegaard?
Ah great, it’s a very subtle book with a profound ending. If you’d like to discuss the book after you’re finished I’m all ears.
Haha, yes that does sound like Nietzsche and oh how I love him for it. I’m halfway through Beyond Good & Evil now, I plan on going directly into Genealogy of Morals afterward. If you handled that and enjoyed it I would say you’re more than prepared for Thus Spoke Zarathustra (A story rather than his typical essay style).
Sounds like a good track, I’ve only read excerpts of Sartre, so I couldn’t comment there and I’ll agree with Fear and Trembling for Kierkegaard.
How about the Stoics? Have you read any of their work? I would say they’re allies with Existentialism in breaking yourself from the herd and promoting independence/individual happiness but they fundamentally separate and butt heads after that.
Haha after I finished Nietzche, I sat down and had a very serious conversation with myself about whether or not I wanted to become the Anti-Christ. Not a conversation I’d ever expected to have. I decided on No – would be way too lonely.
The Stoics is probably who I’m most influenced by – mainly Seneca with a good dose of Marcus Aurelius and Epicetus.
Seneca’s On the Shortness of Life is one of my favorites to come back to.
Hah, your reaction reflects that you understood Nietzsche as he intended to be understood. It was his goal to bring you to that edge, I walked the opposite direction than you, though I prefer the term Uberman over Anti-Christ. It can be lonely, the further you sail away from land the quieter it becomes, I tend to think of it as a long-distance relationship with the world. You’ll go long periods of time isolated, but than you collide with a kindred spirit and instantly remember why you chose the path. Everything seems a little richer, more meaningful.
My favorite quote from Nietzsche is; “Man is a tightrope between animal and uberman(superman).” The rope seems to become thinner the further you walk, hence the necessity to shrug unnecessary weight the further you walk.
I can see the stoic influence in you’re writing, it’s a noble position, one of value and benefit to the world. We’ll disagree on many things but at least we’re allies in the evolution of humanity. I’m big fans of Aurelius and Seneca, though Epicetus was too religious for my taste. I haven’t read On the Shortness of life yet, but I found many insights in Of a Happy Life and On benefits.
I noticed you place both Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People, and Anti-Fragile as Pillars. I find them in eternal conflict with each other, Carnegie’s book as a manifesto for the fragilite. How do you reconcile their differences?
Cool site! I just read your letter to Taleb and relate to a lot of what you’re saying.
It’s largely why I’ve pursued a more entrepreneurial path – I just couldn’t fit in otherwise.
Have you read Outliers by Gladwell or Social Intelligence by Goleman? I’ve been thinking about social intelligence a lot lately as I feel it’s one of my major weaknesses and I suspect one of yours too.
P.S. Don’t know if you put any stock in Myers Briggs, but I’m guessing you’re an INTJ?
Thanks for checking it out, it’s still relatively new but I’ve really enjoyed the outlet. I really related to the friend you mentioned who sent email updates, I was in my own funk with all these ideas bouncing through my head and no where to unleash them.
Ah, I definitely foresee myself pursuing the entrepreneurial path, ever since I was a kid I would get frustrated with what was around me and recreate it in my own vision. I just haven’t materialized the ideas I want to run with yet, but the seeds are definitely planted. I’ve been a private contractor for the past three years, so I suppose it’s a similar lifestyle, at least a higher degree of freedom than traditional careers. If you don’t mind me asking, what has your path looked like?
I haven’t read Outliers yet, but it’s downloaded and I’m a huge fan of Gladwell (I’ve read Blink and Tipping point). But I’m familiar with the 10,000 hour principle and strongly agree with it, hell Macklemore wrote a song about it!
I have not read Goleman’s book, would you recommend it? Social intelligence is bit of a broad term so I based my response on wikipedia’s explanation. As far as social intelligence, I think whether or not it’s a weakness depends on your perspective. As you wrote in your article 95% of the world will probably be offended by honest criticism, so to those 95% your ‘social intelligence’ skills will probably be considered weak. But among the 5% who have the capacity to appreciate and implement constructive criticism you’ll be a paragon. Have you read Dale Carnegie’s “How to win friends and influence people?” It’s first ‘commandment’ is thou shall not criticize, and considering its popularity over the century, it’s no wonder people respond so poorly to it (also part of the reason for my abhorrence to ‘how to books’).
Personally I think my social intelligence skills are strong, perhaps too strong, to the point where I no longer have the patience to communicate on a friendlier level. Generally based on a person’s demeanor, language, listening and conversational ability I can determine their capacity and depth. It might be considered cold or cruel to make such calculations but when time is the most precious commodity I am very particular about how I spend it and with who. I think there is an epidemic of delusion in America, being propagated by our media and entertainment and when I encounter someone caught in that web I generally prefer to continue on my way. I simply don’t care about whether or not the Cowboys won (I’ll gladly play a game of football), who received the Grammy (I’ll discuss a movie’s plot or theme) or what the latest political puppet vomited in his speech (but I enjoy political theory).
For a long time I wore the sheep’s clothing better than most, as a thoughtful active listener people gravitated towards me. I didn’t mind, found it interesting and tried to learn as much as possible. As I became older I realized how much BS existed and felt like I was carrying too much of other people’s weight on my shoulders. I finally decided that I only wanted to surround myself with people who were a positive influence on me, and helped me reach my fullest potential instead of being dragged down. Don’t get me wrong, I still love to help people, but people are quick to take advantage of that so I have established boundaries that may or may not put me in a low social intelligence ranking. Taleb is also very particular about this, and I identified well with him on it.
You know I took the Myers Briggs test in College but I can’t remember what exactly I was, I’m certain you have the INT correct but I was very perceptive up until recently. I sort of feel like I perceived as much as I could, clearly defined my values (Virtue Ethicist) and have gravitated towards the Judgment attribute since. Similarly to your main article I find criticism essential to progress and those who can’t handle it probably won’t give it either. I don’t go out of my way to bash people, I may have been a little hard on Nick (i’m passionate about Philosophy and wanted to make sure you received a broader perspective) but I think I do people a disservice by tolerating delusion. What is your your score on the test? Do you find it accurate (I’ve never put all that much thought into it)?
I’ve never put a ton of stock into those tests but recently have started believing in them more. I’m an INTJ with a very strong INT and pretty close to the P/J border though I usually end up in J. I’m not sure how true they are, but I think it’s a valuable framework to gain some self perspective.
Re: Social Intelligence – I think this comes down a lot to what you want. The framework of being critical out is effective for filtering out a lot of people that aren’t good uses of energy. However, it also constricts you to the margins to a great extent as you say in your letter to Taleb.
People that aren’t willing to play power games and politics are limited in the impact they can make because the reality of modern society is that those are the biggest levers. See Tesla, Kierkegaard, the classic developer w/ an amazing product that can’t sell as examples of people w/ great ideas that worked really hard but never made a substantial impact in their lifetimes.
I’m not naturally inclined to want to play politics and power games, but increasingly the ability to do so seems more critical to having an impact (again, if that’s what you want).
Taleb is a great example. I suspect he’ll go down in history as a Kierkegaard – brilliant ideas, but his inability (or unwillingness – again depends on what you want) to play power games/politics will make it very difficult for is ideas to ever get mainstream traction.
I’m still not super clear on what I want so I don’t have a very clear path either way.
Ah ya, well the description seems accurate enough. I’m sure you could probably sub-categorize even more attributes. Despite our similar results I’m sure we have distinct behavioral differences.
I’ll regrettably agree with your comment on social intelligence, the older I become the more glaring it is. There is a clear conflict in ideologies. Tesla an Kierkegaard are prime examples, though the benefit they bestowed upon society is irrefutable. Ah well it’s a lot easier to accept a fate you’re responsible for and I believe society will miss us a lot more than we will miss society.
Have you read anything by Ayn Rand? I haven’t read The Fountainhead, but Atlas Shrugged depicts the dichotomy we’ve identified and a eerily realistic dystopia. I high recommend it if you haven’t read it and want a thoughtful fictional interpretation of Fragilites, Robustness, Antifragile and Nietzschen Ubermen. You’ll have to disregard the heavily propagated slander that’s tarnished her reputation though.
That’s creepy, literally started reading Atlas Shrugged 2 days ago…
Hah looks like we’ve fallen down similar rabbit holes, enjoy it’s a great read. I’d recommend Cloud Atlas (the book) and Waking Life (The movie)as well, if you haven’t gone through those yet.
If you don’t mind me intruding, why Sartre? What Antifragilty has got to do with Existentialism?
Antifragility doesn’t, particularly. Taylor’s personal story does, I think.
Existentialism is a very misunderstood term, essentially any subject that pertains to the individual as an agent is existential in nature. Antifragile certainly prods the important of individual experience and culpability.
The scope of existentialism is quite wide, I would put Skepticism on one end and a Nietzschen Uberman on the opposite end.
However, despite infrequent existential quotes I would say Taleb is a staunch Stoic, who draws heavily from Seneca the Younger, Epictetus and other stoic teachers.
A stoic would say something like live like a mountain, unmovable (antifragile). The existential response would be, (Skeptic/Camus) live as you want, it does not matter or become godlike (Nietzche/Kierkegaard), move beyond/higher than the mountain.
I’ll chip in if I may.
Speaking also from the “non-confrontational and agreeable” camp, I think it’s important to understand that “calling BS” works best if you are doing it in the context of helping someone.
There is a satisfaction in calling out a douche, especially if it serves to warn/protect others from their douchery. But the feeling of satisfaction should not be the motivation, otherwise you risk no-one learning anything and making enemies. If they are a douche and not going to change anyway, why waste your time on the confrontation?
Of course it’s often hard to know in advance if calling someone out is going to enlighten them or simply piss them off. So a few cuts and grazes are to be expected.
I’d suggest a little self observation to make sure you’re not being self righteous and not motivated mainly by douche call out satisfaction.
disclaimer: I don’t have a big track record of calling BS
Love your writing sir! have to get you on the hoboCEO podcast.
I think I’m coming from your camp on this one Chris. Calling people out, even if they are a douche, doesn’t give me a lot of satisfaction. Generally it just makes me feel socially uncomfortable.
I think it’s worth it with the call out only if you’re not sure if they’re a douche. If you already know, just walk away. If they turn out to be a douche, I’d rather them get upset and end the relationship right away instead of wasting time and energy on it.
Would be honored to speak with hoboCEO anytime 🙂
I find your post/article much helpful, thank you for this. A very important insight of how Antifragility is (may be) incorporated in our everyday life.
Would you mind if I translated it to russian? I would really like to show it to some of my friends who don’t know English very well.
Glad you liked it. Feel free to translate!
I was wondering if antifragility could have a cultural/country issue. Here in Brazil, I always feel that I’m walking on eggshells when criticizing other people. Some people just feel hurt and close themselves up instead of taking the advice and making a move.
A very enlightening piece indeed.
Stole it from Taleb 🙂
My best friends all make fun of me constantly. And I do the same. Tough love is the best kind of love.
Thanks for a good read. Thinking about it, you might get surprise at how people react to your being bluntly honest with them. It happened to me so many times. Typically, I’d send some email starting “Dear X, sorry to be harsh but I think those few truths might help you:” and think they’ll never talk to me again after that. But they in most cases they did answer with something like “thank you so much”, which never fails to surprise me. It’s a very arrogant thing to say but I believe that with this method you swiftly scare the uninteresting people away while the good ones stick around.
Taylor, I loved this article. I often find myself saying little of what I see, despite clearly knowing what isn’t working for someone. I, amongst other things, coach people on social fluency and developing self knowledge and it’s one outlet that I do have to give others insight into their behaviours and actioned thoughts.
I really connected to your comments on having someone to give you that insight and being the type of person that takes it and it becomes a point of growth leverage and not a weight to bear. Those type of people are hard to find. Most people, as you have said, prefer to say little of value and a lot of fluff.
Fun fact from the Taleb’s Black Swan book: He always shows up early to meetings.
If making a good impression matters, show up on time. It’s elegant for yourself (Taleb’s point) but it’s also a sign of respect that’s valued across all cultures, all ages.
I call Bullshit
Ugh- a good read and unfortunately spot on. Most people I know spend all their time trying to project a persona of perfection and are terrified of any form of acknowledgement that it is complete ridiculousness to assume that there is such a thing. I have pretty much given up trying to give or get feedback (I am not sure I like the word criticism- seems like a misnomer) because people just aren’t comfortable with it. Maybe I am just hanging in the wrong crowd.
“Get to the truth quickly”, Ray Dalio style
Maybe the old adage of “your success depends on how many uncomfortable conversations your willing to have” can be modified to say “your success depends on how much criticism you’re able to receive”
Great article! I always feel the same way. I enjoy when people are critical of me as I know it means they are being straight forward and honest but as Elisa said you can always take the advice with the grain of salt.
Maybe only 5% of people enjoy critisicm but most people can sense when you’re holding back and not being genuine with your thoughts on them which shows a lack of vulnerability which in turn prevents real connections from being made.
Hey Taylor,
Great article on on being honest and calling people out on their BS. You know I never really thought about it before, but the people I’ve become closest friends with, and the people I respect the most, have ALWAYS been the people who have been willing to call me out on my bullshit. And they immediately gained my respect, because they were equally willing to be called out on their own bullshit.
I think in today’s world of carefully crafted online personas and brands, being authentic, transparent, and “raw” is not only the best way to connect with people on a personal level, but is (ironically) the best way to build a memorable brand. For an entrepreneur, it’s literally a competitive advantage.
“In Antifragile, Taleb praises entrepreneurship not because of it’s ability to make a few people wealthy… ”
“It’s” in the above sentence shouldn’t have an apostrophe. If you want people to take you seriously, you NEED to find a proofreader (or two). You need to respect your own writing enough to do that, or no one else will respect your writing. Proper Grammer is like wearing a nice suit to a formal event. It shows respect for yourself and others. Poor Grammer is like wearing a wrinkley suit and stained tie to your friend’s wedding. Informality has its (see, no apostrophe?) place, like having a friend over for a beer and wearing sweats, or having typos in a casual personal email, but emailing numerous strangers an invitation to read a blog that isn’t thoroughly proofread shows a lack of respect for others. Publishing a book with typos is the same. You don’t have to be perfect, but just like how it’s better to be late but presentable, because you took the time to press your suit, it is not better to be early yet shabby. Showing up shabby is a bad first impression. And people remember those.
“Grammer” is spelt “grammar”.
Also the use of all-caps and random capitalization. It’s… well, it’s like wearing a shabby suit.
Well, in formal writing, perhaps. As for informal writing, it’s debatable. It’s more like wearing a casual outfit with bold colors, but in this situation I’m not required to be in formal attire, so it’s not a big deal. Comments aren’t the main presentation. Also, in the absence of a way to italicize for emphasis, caps show inflection. Much like bold colors, though, they do need to be limited so as to not overwhelm.
You seem… fun.
Haha, thank you. I appreciate you correcting my grammar. And for proving the point that people do notice and get distracted by it.
I thoroughly enjoyed both the article and the comments. I know this is an old thread but it’s fascinating to meet people that are somewhat like me… willing to view criticism as fuel for growth. Willing to call bullshit though it’s usually not the most sociable trait. Antifragile is one of my favorite books and I’ve just finished reading lots of Seneca. Thank you all for your book recommendations and comments they mean more than you might realize.
This was great. For the most part, I love finding out that I’ve been doing it all wrong – as an introspective person, this gets harder to do as time goes on…the low hanging fruit is all picked. Some are more painful than others to realize, but – for antifragile people – ignorance is not bliss. Glad to have a term for it now.
One word of caution. It’s easy to let something become part of ‘your story’ – “I’m bad at first impressions.” You then react to fix this – perhaps successfully, but it’s a problem / solution pair that becomes part of your story nonetheless.
Being bad at first impressions is a symptom, not a problem. Why are you bad at first impressions? Too quiet / too agreeable / physical appearance? There are unintended effects of changing each. Perhaps this “problem” actually serves you well and it doesn’t need to be fixed – say, as a filter against superficial people. Perhaps it doesn’t serve you well and you can fix it with a tiny change. Perhaps – most likely – it’s a combination.
I suppose what I’m saying is: don’t live your life as someone who is bad at first impressions, but does X in order to overcome that (I.e. patch the bug). First figure out why – then understand why you’ve developed that way (how does / did it serve you) – then decide what needs to be changed, if anything, and how (I.e. rewriting the original code).
“I’m very agreeable when I first meet someone and that makes me come across as unintelligent. But I’m not actually so agreeable – I’m just being polite, which serves to make people like me. But that’s attracting the wrong sort of people, so it isn’t serving me very well. So I’m going to be less agreeable.”
That frames the issue without creating a judgmental story that defines you. Cleaner code, fewer patches.
***save***
This is an awesome response and extremely helpful advise!!
And sometimes the “glitch” in us (bad at first impressions) causes something strength-based down the road (learn to take criticism because I end up dealing with a lot of jerks, or I deal better with loss because of the cost of that “glitch”). Sometimes the fix fixes stuff that didn’t really need fixing.
I’m starting to notice that too – great piece on that from Reid Hoffman here – http://casnocha.com/reid-hoffman-lessons#weaknessstrength
I love it. I had never found people like this until now.
That’s how I felt too 🙂
You should read, “How to win friends and influence people”. The author shows how direct criticism doesn’t work and I think he’s right. But of course, there are exceptions.
I’ve read it a couple times, very helpful book
I feel like Carnegie’s book could complement AntiFragile but neither book refuted the other. AntiFragile serves as a guidebook to authenticity in a different way than Carnegie. Two approaches, but if you think that Nassim Taleb’s books have not influenced greatly and raised awareness universal principles in an important way, you miss the point being made here by Taylor.
So much this. Unfortunately there’s a fine line between calling people out on Bullshit and being an overly-critical cunt of everybody, and that fine line’s very easy to miss when we start feeling confident in our calling people out. Because most of the time we lack context.
Hi Taylor,
Thank you for writing this 🙂
Instead of calling it “openly critical” of people I think a better way to put it is you are being Authentic. Yes, your criticisms of them are your opinions but I would be wiling to bet they are the truth. I’m often too authentic for others so I have to gauge just how deep I get- I’ve found that for most people they are just not there in their own authentic journey so if I take a stab at being authentic and they squirm I will just back off and let them be vs forcing it (which I used to do no matter what) How do you handle the balance? Do you keep pressing or do you back off if you can tell they are just not there in their authentic journey yet?
the problem is that for some people criticizing others is the sole goal in life and they derive some sick pleasure out of it, mostly to compensate for their own insecurities and flaws..
So the intention of the criticizing person is also very important, actually most important: does he want to help you by pointing at things you’re doing wrong or he just wants to hurt you to pleasure himself?
that’s why for me personally the rule is only criticize people you know well and care about, do not tell strangers or enemies what’s wrong with them..