2/ First, the basics. The antifragile (a term coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his homonymous book) is what benefits from variation, usage, problems, and feedback.
Example: using our muscles to lift weights makes them stronger.
3/ The antifragile also exhibits robust and fragile behaviors.
(In the picture below, the former diagram represents the fragile and the latter represents the antifragile.)
4/ You can read the diagram as follows: the stronger a stressor (a hit, a problem…), the higher the chances that it will cause a fragile reaction (a breakdown).
The weaker the stressor, the higher the chances it won't cause a reaction.
(w/ some simplification, addressed below)
5/ Of course, being hit in the red area is bad (it can mean injury, death, bankruptcy, etc.).
And of course, being hit in the green area is good (it triggers an antifragile reaction that makes us stronger).
But what about being hit in the yellow area?
6/ A hit in the yellow area causes no reaction. So it's not bad.
However, if the green area doesn't get hit at least once in a while, the system gets weaker.
Examples:
- no exercise for too long → muscles atrophy.
- no problems for too long → complacency.
7/ In organizations, the following happens.
8/ If the green area doesn't get hit for too long, it shrinks.
As a result, a stressor that used to cause an antifragile reaction now causes a fragile one (in the case of the couple of red arrows to the right) or a robust one (in the case of the left one).
9/ Long story short: if the antifragile doesn't receives stressors that cause an antifragile reaction for too long,
- it becomes more likely to break down, and
- it becomes less likely to adapt
10/ (I made a *huge* simplification in the movement of the left threshold in the previous set of diagrams: it might move left for some layers of the system and right in others. I plan to produce another video soon to explain this complex point. Still, the previous point holds.)
11/ Is having a large yellow area good or bad?
Early on, it feels good: less pain & disruption
However, you become less likely to adapt & thus out of sync with your environment
That's bad: in the short term, adaptation doesn't matter; but in the long one, it's all that matters
12/ Now that I covered the basics, let's see how this visual framework can be useful.
First of all, it clearly shows the relationship between stressor, damage, and reaction.
It's important, because…
(continues below)
13/ It allows you to turn questions around, from the generic "how do I become more antifragile" to a more actionable "how do I become less likely to be broken and more likely to adapt?"
And it makes it more visual.
14/ The diagram provides an easy way to interpret what it means to be "more antifragile":
- you are more likely to adapt to what you wouldn't have adapted before
- you are less likely to be broken by what would have broken you before
(some limitations in the thread)
15/ You can split the diagram in two halves: adaptation and survival.
Though they are not independent: to adapt, you must survive; and the more you adapt (to the right thing), the more likely you are to survive. I explore this dependence elsewhere.
16/ Here is an example of the questions and answers you can explore in the first half…
17/ …in the second half…
18/ …and a summary.
(There are limitations, e.g. the diagram doesn't consider the possibility to change the exposure to stressors, which is an extremely important lever to both survival and adaptation. Here, I focus on changes within the entity represented by the diagram)
19/ More on the limitations.
In this thread, I'm making a lot of simplifications for the purpose of facilitating the introduction to a complex topic.
20/ I talk in more practical terms about antifragility in my cohort-based course, which focuses less on the what and more on the how, in particular from the point of view of organizations: maven.com/luca/antifragi…
21/ Here is a video that illustrates the framework.
I recently got a small grant (courtesy of Kanro, Vitalik Buterin's foundation) to produce some educational materials regarding the pandemic response.
These 10 one-pagers are the first batch of educational materials.
Any feedback?
1/10
Some more background about the one-pagers. They are meant for people who are already onboard with the need to properly react to an eventual future pandemic but don't have the vocabulary or examples to explain to others what they can do and why.
2/10
A simple model to understand indoor infection risk
Nothing about graduation rates (literacy rates, yes).
Instead:
– Knowing what matters for society to work well
– Being able to find a value-adding role in society
– Having learned that personal improvement is achievable
Things such as:
– What brings prosperity?
– What did countries that were wealthy and democratic do (or didn't do) that caused them to become poor or totalitarian
Seems banal, but…
2/6
…we only discuss how good it's to be prosperous or democratic without discussing how to get there or how not to fall back to the default state (poverty / absence of rights)
3/6
A problem of many organizations is that they are aware of the needs of employees (impact, recognition, growth, fair salary, etc) but fulfill them as they would with a checklist: let's do this superficially, checked, done.
Some examples (& solutions) ↓
1/8
Example #1: recognition.
Many companies and managers know that employees want recognition.
But they fulfill this need in a very superficial way. With a small internal award, a certificate, etc. Top red flag: it's HR-driven and/or feels cringe.
2/8
The alternative:
– make it personal: it should come from the boss or the boss' boss.
– make it congruent: a moment of recognition followed by a year of no recognition feels (and likely is) fake.
3/8
Whenever we desire an outcome but not the actions that would make us achieve it, we end up with inaction, busywork, shortcuts, excuses, and, ultimately, frustration.
(a thread of highlights from the first chapter of my book "The Control Heuristic")
1/14
You probably do not have a decision-making problem, but an action-taking one
2/14
Decision-making is not the same as action-taking.
The cortex is mostly responsible for taking decisions, and the ~basal ganglia determines whether we act on our decisions.