The concept of antifragility: Shockingly Happy • Hacker News Board

Re: The concept of antifragility: Shockingly Happy

#21

Post by sp332 » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 5:34 PM UTC

maxwin wrote: post #13

There seems to be a trend to invent new words for an old concept when writing articles. I don't know if the intention is to attract eye balls or to claim that "hey I invent this concept". But most of the times, what you discover is not new. Why invent "The concept of antifragility" when there is a word called "resilience" . Since English is not my first language, please correct me if I am wrong.

In general I agree with you. But in this case the point of the term is to highlight the contrast against the "fragile".

Re: The concept of antifragility: Shockingly Happy

#22

Post by diego » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 6:00 PM UTC

yyyytttt wrote: post #20

Antifragility sounds exciting, but there's really nothing there. In the context of economics, it simply means relying on competition instead of central planning (by government or by TBTF banks). Outside of economics Taleb has no real examples of antifargility. Engineering is always about robustness, you have 0 examples of engineering systems that are "antifragile".

The idea is that the evolution of engineering systems is antifragile because they benefit from trial and error. Computers keep getting better over time because of how the industry identifies and fixes issues. An obvious (but not the best) example would be the Macbook power connector. A given system cannot be antifragile (unless it learns on its own), but the evolution of technology can be. Contrast with economics, where (he argues) policy makers learn little or nothing after each boom-bust cycle.

Re: The concept of antifragility: Shockingly Happy

#23

Post by unoti » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 6:24 PM UTC

thoughtcriminal wrote: post #9

Rejection Therapy [1] is what I would think a perfect example of antifragility in the wild. [2] People learn to manage their anxiety in stressful social situations and become more resilient to rejection after playing for awhile. Entrepreneurs like Jia Jiang even leverage rejections to launch and grow their startups. [3] [1] http://rejectiontherapy.com [2] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/healt..…

Rejection therapy has its ideological roots in Stoicism, just as the central ideas of this article does. Seneca talks about spending a few days each month wallowing in the things that you fear the most, so that they can't control you.

And with regard to the anti-fragility thing, this is discussed at length also in Letters from a Stoic. Seneca talks about not being overly dominated by your fears, but also you can be a slave to hope as well. The idea of being happy and free when poor, and cautious when prosperous is also straight out of stoicism.

When I read Seneca in Letters from a Stoic, I get the impression that he's a mental martial arts master, constantly training to be in control of his mind and his happiness, always pursuing excellence.

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/04/13/stoicism-101...

Re: The concept of antifragility: Shockingly Happy

#24

Post by wpeng » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 6:30 PM UTC

dpapathanasiou wrote: post #8

" The prototypical entrepreneur is highly risk-seeking to the point of irrationality. A simple cost-benefit analysis would dissuade most people from traveling down this path; yet, the entrepreneur is an entrepreneur because of the risk involved. " If that is his understanding of Taleb's book, then he has misread it completely. Taleb says the best approach is a dumbell strategy, combining conservative choices with con…

Thanks for the comment - appreciate it and thanks for reading. I qualify that point with the following paragraph:

"When you look at the decision tree from that perspective, it seems not so bad: failure is always the same, a zero, while the return (however you define it: monetary, happiness, utility, etc.) is astronomical, and worth it."

Re: The concept of antifragility: Shockingly Happy

#25

Post by wpeng » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 6:35 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #10

I really hate this "entitled Millennial" schtick. It's complete fucking bullshit. Are there some overprivileged, sheltered assclowns in my generation? Sure, as with every other. The idea that this applies to the whole set is insulting and ridiculous. Most of us just want a fair shake. We don't want to be given the prize for doing nothing, because that makes it vacuous, but we want a fair opportunity to compete-- not…

Sorry you found that insulting - wasn't my intention at all. It was a generalization I used to make a point, but would take an entire separate post to unpack, so I didn't do it justice. I agree with you completely.

Re: The concept of antifragility: Shockingly Happy

#26

Post by codex » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 6:39 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #10

I really hate this "entitled Millennial" schtick. It's complete fucking bullshit. Are there some overprivileged, sheltered assclowns in my generation? Sure, as with every other. The idea that this applies to the whole set is insulting and ridiculous. Most of us just want a fair shake. We don't want to be given the prize for doing nothing, because that makes it vacuous, but we want a fair opportunity to compete-- not…

So, you could be successful if only the morons in the previous generation would let you? Is that how the previous generation became successful? Sounds like entitlement to me.

Re: The concept of antifragility: Shockingly Happy

#27

Post by scarmig » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 6:47 PM UTC

codex wrote: post #26

michaelochurch wrote: post #10

I really hate this "entitled Millennial" schtick. It's complete fucking bullshit. Are there some overprivileged, sheltered assclowns in my generation? Sure, as with every other. The idea that this applies to the whole set is insulting and ridiculous. Most of us just want a fair shake. We don't want to be given the prize for doing nothing, because that makes it vacuous, but we want a fair opportunity to compete-- not…

So, you could be successful if only the morons in the previous generation would let you? Is that how the previous generation became successful? Sounds like entitlement to me.

"Is [the morons in the previous generation letting you] how the previous generation became successful?"

More or less, yes.

Some people, by luck or otherwise, end up moving up the food chain; others down. But one's parents' social class is a strong predictor of one's own social class.

Re: The concept of antifragility: Shockingly Happy

#28

Post by SatvikBeri » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 7:08 PM UTC

maxwin wrote: post #13

There seems to be a trend to invent new words for an old concept when writing articles. I don't know if the intention is to attract eye balls or to claim that "hey I invent this concept". But most of the times, what you discover is not new. Why invent "The concept of antifragility" when there is a word called "resilience" . Since English is not my first language, please correct me if I am wrong.

The whole point of the word is that "resilience" has different associations. Resilience is typically associated with the ability to withstand damage, whereas antifragility is the ability to recover from damage.

Re: The concept of antifragility: Shockingly Happy

#29

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 7:08 PM UTC

maxwin wrote: post #13

There seems to be a trend to invent new words for an old concept when writing articles. I don't know if the intention is to attract eye balls or to claim that "hey I invent this concept". But most of the times, what you discover is not new. Why invent "The concept of antifragility" when there is a word called "resilience" . Since English is not my first language, please correct me if I am wrong.

[deleted]

Re: The concept of antifragility: Shockingly Happy

#30

Post by michaelochurch » Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 7:39 PM UTC

codex wrote: post #26

michaelochurch wrote: post #10

I really hate this "entitled Millennial" schtick. It's complete fucking bullshit. Are there some overprivileged, sheltered assclowns in my generation? Sure, as with every other. The idea that this applies to the whole set is insulting and ridiculous. Most of us just want a fair shake. We don't want to be given the prize for doing nothing, because that makes it vacuous, but we want a fair opportunity to compete-- not…

So, you could be successful if only the morons in the previous generation would let you? Is that how the previous generation became successful? Sounds like entitlement to me.

So, you could be successful if only the morons in the previous generation would let you?

This isn't about me, personally. I'm fine. However, I think most people in my generation have been screwed, and the ones who have avoided it (present company included) tend to be fairly privileged. If you were born in 1990 in the U.S. with average means, then chances are that you're not beating away venture capitalists with a stick.

What's especially hilarious to me is that the age obsessions of VC-istan are thinly-veiled classism. A meritocracy wouldn't give a shit how old you are. The age narcissism is just a way for rich people to brand themselves, because people of average means don't get their startups bought at age 24. They have to work normal people jobs for a few years. The age bullshit is to keep the latter crowd out.

We need a society where the best people are free to excel, rather than wasting their lives taking orders. We'd have such a better world if the incompetent morons currently running it just stepped down and let some actually smart people take the reins. They can keep all their private jets and gaudy houses, but the decision-making power should go to people who actually have a few brain cells to rub together.

Entitlement, to me, suggests people wanting to be rewarded for just existing, with no desire to actually do anything. I don't see that in my generation. Yes, there's some of it, as there is everywhere, but it's not a defining trait. I see a lot of pissed-off people, but I see people who work really hard.