Understanding Is A Poor Substitute For Convexity (antifragility) | Nassim Nicholas Taleb | Dec. 12, 2012 | edge.org

@nntaleb argues that payoffs from progress are related to gain over pain, rather than teleology (i.e. pursuit of goals) and formal science (i.e. analysis of data).  Convexity bias favours uncertainty when gains and harm are assymnetric.

… we have vastly more evidence for results linked to luck than to those coming from the teleological, outside physics—even after discounting for the sensationalism. In some opaque and nonlinear fields, like medicine or engineering, the teleological exceptions are in the minority, such as a small number of designer drugs. This makes us live in the contradiction that we largely got here to where we are thanks to undirected chance, but we build research programs going forward based on direction and narratives. And, what is worse, we are fully conscious of the inconsistency. […]

… logically, neither trial and error nor “chance” and serendipity can be behind the gains in technology and empirical science attributed to them. By definition chance cannot lead to long term gains (it would no longer be chance); trial and error cannot be unconditionally effective: errors cause planes to crash, buildings to collapse, and knowledge to regress.

The beneficial properties have to reside in the type of exposure, that is, the payoff function and not in the “luck” part: there needs to be a significant asymmetry between the gains (as they need to be large) and the errors (small or harmless), and it is from such asymmetry that luck and trial and error can produce results. The general mathematical property of this asymmetry is convexity (which is explained in Figure 1); functions with larger gains than losses are nonlinear-convex and resemble financial options. Critically, convex payoffs benefit from uncertainty and disorder. The nonlinear properties of the payoff function, that is, convexity, allow us to formulate rational and rigorous research policies, and ones that allow the harvesting of randomness.

Figure 1- More Gain than Pain from a Random Event. The performance curves outward, hence looks
Figure 1- More Gain than Pain from a Random Event. The performance curves outward, hence looks “convex”. Anywhere where such asymmetry prevails, we can call it convex, otherwise we are in a concave position. The implication is that you are harmed much less by an error (or a variation) than you can benefit from it, you would welcome uncertainty in the long run.

[….]

Let us call the “convexity bias” the difference between the results of trial and error in which gains and harm are equal (linear), and one in which gains and harm are asymmetric ( to repeat, a convex payoff function). The central and useful properties are that a) The more convex the payoff function, expressed in difference between potential benefits and harm, the larger the bias. b) The more volatile the environment, the larger the bias. This last property is missed as humans have a propensity to hate uncertainty.

Antifragile is the name this author gave (for lack of a better one) to the broad class of phenomena endowed with such a convexity bias, as they gain from the “disorder cluster”, namely volatility, uncertainty, disturbances, randomness, and stressors. The antifragile is the exact opposite of the fragile which can be defined as hating disorder.

In the full article, Taleb lists “Seven rules for antifragility (convexity) in research”.

See “Understanding Is A Poor Substitute For Convexity (antifragility)” | Nassim Nicholas Taleb | Dec. 12, 2012 | edge.org at http://edge.org/conversation/understanding-is-a-poor-substitute-for-convexity-antifragility.

Understanding Is A Poor Substitute For Convexity (antifragility) | Conversation | Edge

Advertisements
About

David Ing blogs at http://coevolving.com , photoblogs at http://daviding.com , and microblogs at https://ingbrief.wordpress.com . See .

Posted in status
One comment on “Understanding Is A Poor Substitute For Convexity (antifragility) | Nassim Nicholas Taleb | Dec. 12, 2012 | edge.org
  1. Mushin says:

    David,
    Very funny 1 minute video that is truly priceless. Thank you.

    I love this notion “convexity bias” and distinction of “antifragility” that emerges in embracing shocking disorder and uncertainties. In my own situational condition I see how a PTS experience I encountered at 17 years old has been transformed from a “shocking stressor” into a “U~Stressor of Growth Generating Creative Intelligence” as a praxis in my central nervous system. Embracing a sudden shocking death experience is extremely isolating in hidden reflections questioning what is life, who am I and why did this happen to me? One may die from the loss of maintaining coherences with the medium surrounding them. So its intense and forces deeper reflection on the roots of realizations within one own’s biological experiences. The recurrent vortex of self reflective hidden conversations are stressful in the sense of being removed from the taken for granted patterns in the cultural matrix and many times I experienced shame and humiliation for my fixated questioning of the painful wound. Simultaneously the isolation and separation cultivates a virtual autonomy in a new identity and character as a narrative, independent of suuroiunding medium, and the notion of physician heal thyself takes on full engagement. Therein is the convexity bias developing this notion of anitfragility as one walks in enactive embodied engagements in the constellations of behavioral languaging in discourses, institutions and standrad practices with others. One begins to connect in meaningful interactions in the big picture and the shocks are funny and no longer disturbing at all.

    BS Detector is eventually an autopoietic responsiveness arising in a mood of joyful creativity.
    Thank you and really appreciate the video which is very funny and healing in my assessment.
    Mushin

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Beyond this microblog
This content is syndicated to Twitter. For professional perspectives, look to Coevolving Innovations; for a photoblog, look to Reflections, Distractions.
  • 2017/01 Moments January 2017
    Toronto, Ontario. (A whole month without leaving town, since Don Mills and Scarborough are Metropolitan Toronto)
  • 2016/12 Moments December 2016
    Helsinki; Finland; London, England; Dublin, Ireland; Toronto, Ontario; Fairfield, Iowa
  • 2016/11 Moments November 2016
    Markham, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; Scarborough, Ontario; London, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec; Brussels, Belgium; Woluwe Saint Pierre, Belgium; Amersfoort, Netherlands; Hameenlinna, Finland
  • 2016/10 Moments October 2016
    Toronto, Ontario; Richmond Hill, Ontario; Don Mills, Ontario; San Francisco, California; Oakland, California; Berkeley, California; San Jose, California; Mountain View, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Los Gatos, California
  • 2016/09 Moments September 2016
    Toronto, Ontario (all images within bicycling distance of home)
  • 2016/08 Moments August 2016
    Washington, Iowa; Fairfield, Iowa; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Toronto, Ontario
Contact
I welcome your e-mail. If you don't have my address, here's a contact page.
%d bloggers like this: