Title: meandering, inconsistent, and pompous
Product review: While trying to pass himself off as Nero Tulip, the fictional protagonist of this annoying book, he comes across more as a simple... His points are banal: that successful people are often lucky but don't acknowledge it, or that empirical distributions have fatter tails than predicted by normal distributions. Further, he's inconsistent, one moment praising the truth and beauty offered by mathematical analysis, the next slamming simpletons who make assumptions in order apply those tools (e.g., stationarity). Lastly, his pomposity would be only mildly irksome if it didn't also reflect an ignorance of why his insights are not that new, true, or interesting. I wish I didn't wast time reading the first half of this book, and have no plans to read the last half.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
