Antifragile summary

A good example of antifragility is the evolutionary process; it thrives in a volatile environment. With each shock, evolution forces life forms to transform, mutate and improve to become better suited to their environment.

Yet when you look closely at the evolutionary process, something very interesting becomes clear. While the process itself is undoubtedly antifragile, each individual organism itself is fragile. For evolution to occur, all that matters is that the successful genetic code is passed on. The individuals themselves are unimportant and die in the process. In fact, the system needs this to happen to free up living space for more successful individuals to thrive.

We often experience antifragility without even knowing it. Exercising is a good example of this. When we exercise we put our bodies through unusual stress. In doing this, our bodies react to the shock and grow stronger. In this way our bodies are antifragile.

The example of exercising also highlights how the concept of antifragility works. When confronted by stressors, in this case weights or a treadmill, an antifragile system will respond by overcompensating: it will improve its capacity to deal with possible future shocks. This is a crucial element of antifragility; strength comes from overcompensating against adversity.

Antifragility is typically found in natural, or biological, systems. Most man-made items cannot be antifragile as they cannot self-improve based on failures or unexpected stressors. At best, they can only be robust. A washing machine, for example, will eventually wear down after repeated use; it may be able to stand a fair amount of shocks, but it cannot benefit from them.

There are, however, a few artificial systems that are also antifragile. The economy is a good example. Although it is a man-made system, it is incredibly antifragile. Such systems are almost biological in nature, due to their complexity: they consist of a series of interdependent layers and sub-units.

When the author was working in highly volatile global currency markets, he was surprised to find that often the most successful traders were also the most uneducated. They didn’t understand complicated economic theory or the finances of the countries whose currencies they were trading. They just knew when to buy and when to sell.

In general, society places far too much value on theoretical, or academic, knowledge and not nearly enough on practical knowledge. We assume that the former inevitably leads to the latter, though, in fact, the two are completely separate. Knowing why planes fly does not make you a qualified pilot.

You cannot go through life without encountering periods of volatility and uncertainty; unexpected events such as economic collapses or natural disasters can happen in the blink of an eye.

In order to make yourself antifragile, you have to accept this and try to “domesticate” the uncertainty, rather than avoid or eliminate it. The best way to achieve this is to follow a barbell strategy: much as a barbell has weights on both ends but nothing in the middle, you must prepare for extremes, both negative and positive, and ignore the middle path.

Imagine you have to attend an important conference in Iceland. Naturally, you book your flight well in advance to get it at the cheapest price. Unfortunately, a day before the conference, the airline informs you that your flight is cancelled. You can’t miss the conference, so you have no choice but to book a much pricier, last-minute flight.

This kind of nightmare is known as a squeeze: a situation where you have no choice but to do something, regardless of the cost. Squeezes are the opposite of options.

In the months preceding the 2008 financial crisis, a great many financial experts in the world’s business schools and newspapers confidently informed us that there was no need to worry about the economy. The “experts” were of course very wrong: the global economy did collapse and many people lost their investments, homes and pensions.

Now, you’d think that because of their failure to predict one of the biggest financial collapses of all time, these experts would find themselves in hot water. In fact, a vast majority of them kept their influential positions without even having to apologize for their mistakes. This is because the field they work in is relatively narrow, and all the experts were familiar with each other and interdependent, which meant they weren’t too eager to criticize each other. Soon their mistakes were largely forgotten.

Many politicians and economists have viewed the economic cycle of boom and bust as inefficient and unpredictable. In an attempt to make the process better, they developed complex theories about when and how they should intervene in the cycle to smooth it out.

This is a crucial problem with modern thinking: it tries to make society as smooth and tranquil as possible. As human knowledge grows, we become more arrogant about what we can and should control. We view volatility as something we can’t predict, so we try to control it.

Imagine you were a turkey on a brisk October day, happily clucking away. If you were to predict the future from looking at the recent past, you would have little reason to worry. Every day your owner has fed you well and made sure you are healthy; you may, therefore, confidently predict that your owner loves turkeys and that the future for you looks rosy. On Thanksgiving Day you would be in for a shock.

This reflects one of the main problems of modern times: making predictions about the future based on a narrow view of the past. Universities, business schools and newspapers are full of people telling us what will happen in the future. Companies spend millions hiring strategists and risk managers, hoping to take advantage of the predictions.

We are taught in school that the Industrial Revolution was a product of scientific progress: developments in theoretical knowledge drove technological advances which, in turn, transformed manufacturing, business and society.

Yet, this narrative is wrong. The Industrial Revolution was, in fact, largely instigated not by academics and professionals theorizing, but by hobbyists and amateurs tinkering. The submarine, for example, wasn’t invented by a university or a naval institution, but by a religious minister, Rev. George Garrett, who worked on it in his spare time. Inventions like these were the result of hundreds of amateurs working independently, constantly trying out new technologies and ideas, often failing but occasionally hitting success, from which society as a whole benefitted. They therefore formed an antifragile system.

Antifragility is a quality which has propelled human progress from the earliest times. It allows systems to grow and improve in an unpredictable and volatile world. However, modern society is in the process of trying to dismantle the volatile environment that is vital for antifragility. In doing so, we are making ourselves more fragile.

This book in blinks answered the following questions:

3-5 great quotes from the book

Actionable ideas from this book in blinks