For comments: It takes time for things to break…

1 Reply

For comments:
It takes time for things to break, but they eventually break, & there should be no rush although our impulse is to think that they will collapse immediately after we become aware of the problem. Give things time… 3 to 8 years in today’s complex system. By definition the fragile cannot be selfsustaining as the probability of a collapse increases with time.
—
We had to wait 4 years for Fannie Mae to go bust (after detection of their fragility), but it did go bust; 5 years for Syria to blow up, but it did; bankers are losing power 5 years after the crisis. We thought in 2009 that the econ establishment would be discredited and… it is starting to happen about 5 years later. We thought in 2010 that the Greeks would be in the streets and here they are…
—
So what’s on the list (of the unsustainably fragile)? For me, Saudi Arabia, Elsevier/Wiley (academic publishing will be Uberized), the Fed’s monopoly, Monsanto, bureaucrats in Europe w/lifetime employment, Oligarchs, etc.Please be specific, avoid the vague and the general.

via For comments: It takes time for things… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

How to Read Antifragile | Patrick Geoghegan

Leave a reply

It is important to read anti-fragile twice.

Mostly, because it is all about the same thing. It is not a sequence, development or progression. The author defines his idea in the first section, but it only emerges out of repeated oscillations between more theoretical and technical descriptions, and real-world examples. Here’s a model I’ve used before to show specificity:

It is self referential.

The book does not “move-on”, or develop an idea into something new. It only adds specificity. In doing so, it uses previous conclusions as starting points. It describes an example to identify a concept, then applies that concept to another example from which to draw a further point. Be ready to go back and forth, or

Write your own glossary.