This was so dumb. Gelman which is the bayesian statistics textbook Less Wrong recommends from/author of says this
http://andrewgelman.com/2007/04/09/nassim_talebs_t/
"That said, I admit that my two books on statistical methods are almost entirely devoted to modeling “white swans.” My only defense here is that Bayesian methods allow us to fully explore the implications of a model, the better to improve it when we find discrepancies with data. Just as a chicken is an egg’s way of making another egg, Bayesian inference is just a theory’s way of uncovering problems with can lead to a better theory. I firmly believe that what makes Bayesian inference really work is a willingness (if not eagerness) to check fit with data and abandon and improve models often."
That told me that you are making such a crippling interpretation, that you have not read any of the works, and you have no idea what you are saying. If all you got was that statement, you are severely behind. Please tell me why you think antifragility is a packaged name, or whatever you are saying.
I'm seriously cringing at why you even mentioned bayesian in this. It's so funny, "Bayesians" almost never know probability theory, large deviations, cramer conditions, non-ergodicity etc etc. They know absolutely no extreme value theory.
By the way, assuming your probability distribution via monte-carlo sampling will be robust to time has been demonstrated false over and over again.
anti-fragility is related to jensen's inequality which is related to a larger class of functional inequalities, and related to information theory.
I'm willing to talk to you this over time and generate a discussion to see what you mean, but from first glance, you have not read any piece of work or have completely misrepresented his work. Statements like that are why people don't know what they're saying.
"Bayesian's" especially people who dostatistics have such a malnourished view on convergence of limit theorems that I wonder what they're even talking about. It takes too long to establish convergence. Even Jaynes gets that wrong in his book.
The recent discussion on neo-reactionary-ism brought out some references to (intellectual hipsters and) meta-contrarianism linking to a 2010 posting by Yvain.
For some time I've been thinking about "narcissistic contrarians" -- those who make an art form of their exotically counterintuitive belief systems, who combine positions not normally met in the same person. There can be good reasons for being a contrarian. If you're looking for a scarce resource, it may help to not look where everyone else is looking, hence contrarian stock market investors may do very well, if they actually see something others don't; same with oil explorers. Less creditably, I believe Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise made reference to the way a novice pundit or prognosticator may have nothing to gain by saying anything like what other people are saying, and much to gain, in taking some wild extravagant position or prediction if it happens to attract an audience others have ignored, or if the predictions happens to be right.
The Narcissistic Contrarian is much like the Intellectual Hipster, but more extreme. The Intellectual Hipster usually stakes out a few unusual or incongruous positions, to create an identity that stands out from the crowd. The Narcissistic Contrarian is constantly dazzling her fans. Something written by Camille Paglia made me think of the idea in the first place. Nicholas Taleb is another suspect although I think he started out with some good ideas. If she/he manages to get a fan-base, they are apt to be pretty worshipful -- they can't imagine being able to come up with such a wild set of insights. The contrarianism is for its own sake rather than an attempt to find and settle on some previously undiscovered thing, so it particularly likely to lead people astray, into unproductive avenues of thought.
Does anyone else think this is a real and useful distinction?