I am probably biased but I think he makes the same mistake he is arguing against. Base rate neglect is due to an inability to calculate a conditional probabilit

I am probably biased but I think he makes the same mistake he is arguing against. Base rate neglect is due to an inability to calculate a conditional probability properly - assuming P(A given B) = P(B given A). In a similar type of fallacy, looking at the joint probability of 95% or whatever of businesses failing and saying you only have 5% chance to succeed is nonsense. First this frequentist approach is inapplicable to the real world (Taleb's thesis actually) and secondly you have to look at it as your degree of belief of success given: team, communication ability, industry, environment, economic state, competition, potential usefulness, market saturation, skill, climate, education, timing, confidence, willingness and dozens of other variables. This will , can only be a rough estimate. So don't just look at arbitrary success stories but don't just look at arbitrary failures either. Pick a set of criteria and look at all those most similar to you, whether they be analogues or dopplegangers. Find the success rate in this smaller space. Your chance of failure might be much lower but it could also be much higher than the base rate. Basically, do your homework. Consider your situation, risk tolerance, odds, utility and act accordingly.