6 ms·

I wish folks would write more plainly. “Antifragility characterizes the benefit of a dynamical system derived from the variability in environmental perturbation

I wish folks would write more plainly. “Antifragility characterizes the benefit of a dynamical system derived from the variability in environmental perturbations.” Geish.

_yb2s 2y ago
Well it is in a journal called "complexity." But I agree, that sentence is awful, I'm surprised they decided to lead with it, and nobody proof reading the paper objected.
- defrost 2y ago
  The leading three authors are from Germany, Mexico, and Switzerland resptfully. The sentence they want should capture the notion of being robust when poked with a stick. A pencil on it's tip is a fragile system, one burp and it falls to the table, far from the intial state. Marbles in fruit bowls are anti-fragile, given a good shake (up to a threshold) and they remain in the bowl and return to the low centre. Reading further, they want more; that repeated perturbations should deliver benefit, that systems in an warped egg carton configuration can be annealed to reveal an optimal point by vigorous shaking slowly reduced in degree. Having now read the whole paper it doesn't seem novel wrt to the state of dynamic system discussions in the mid 1980s other than the insertion of "antifragility" as nomenclature into the mix.
  - wenc 2y ago
    > A pencil on it's tip is a fragile system, one burp and it falls to the table, far from the intial state. Marbles in fruit bowls are anti-fragile, given a good shake (up to a threshold) and they remain in the bowl and return to the low centre. I believe what you're describing is a stable vs unstable system, not fragile vs antifragile. You can perturb a bowl with a marble, and the marble will still end up in the middle because it will return to stable equilibrium point (an "attractor"). Yours is an illustration of a stable system. Whereas a marble placed in an upside down bowl (with no ridges, just a half sphere), when perturbed, will fall off. This is an unstable system. These are classic examples used in (Lyapunov) stability theory. Fragility and antifragility aren't about stability (returning to equilibria), but gains or losses after perturbation, which is related to convexity/concavity. When you perturb an anti-fragile (or convex) system, it doesn't return to equilibrium but in fact improves. Conversely, when you perturb a fragile system, it degrades. The analysis is usually done with Jensen's inequality rather than Lyapunov. EDIT: not sure why the downvotes. I'm pointing out a fact. The examples do not demonstrate antifragility, but stability, which is not the same concept.
    - defrost 2y ago
      You appear to have replied the first draft of my comment as I was expanding it. Thank you for the response.
      - wenc 2y ago
        No, I replied to your full post. Just wanted to point out that your examples showed stability, not antifragility.
        defrost 2y ago
        My initial motivation was to point out the authors likely weren't native in English. I meandered onwards to waffle about the nature of what they were describing, which to my mind at least begins with a notion of stability, in pursuit of a better succint opening line (which I don't have). You've said: Fragility and antifragility aren't about stability (returning to equilibria), but gains or losses after perturbation, which is related to convexity/concavity. I've said: Reading further, they want more; that repeated perturbations should deliver benefit, that systems in an warped egg carton configuration can be annealed to reveal an optimal point by vigorous shaking slowly reduced in degree. We likely both agree that an anti-fragile system should not spiral out of control. I assume when you refer to "convexity/concavity" you mean at a scale greater than local, at the scale of the warp in an egg carton as I made reference. My principal gripe with such discussion, as I said, was I don't see much that is new other than language over what was discussed in the mid 1980s .. but perhaps I've not read enough. The downvoting of your comment is poor form.
        wenc 2y ago
        Thanks for engaging. You're right in that the ideas are not new, but I feel the language and the framing somewhat is. I'm not sure if you've come across N. N. Taleb's work -- he's the guy who coined the term "antifragility" = things things that benefit from perturbation. In it he argues that the antifragility is a property of systems that satisfy Jensen's inequality [1]. If the system's function f is convex, then: E[f(X)] > f(E[X]) X is a random variable representing perturbations to the system, and f(.) is the system's response. If Jensen's inequality is satisfied (which is only true if f is convex), the inequality tells us that the average response to variable inputs (E[f(X)]) is greater than the response to the average input f(E[X]). This means that the system benefits more from variability in the input than it would from a constant, average input. Antifragile systems, in that sense, are not conventionally "stable". Taleb describes a spectrum: Fragile -> Robust -> Antifragile Stable systems often fall into the robust category -- they can withstand stress without breaking, but they don't necessarily improve from it. It's a really subtle nuance. An example from life: the young person who takes no risks, has a stable job, does well enough but isn't really interested in moving or taking on new opportunities. They'll never make it big. This is stability. But the young person who starts a startup and keeps taking risks, iterating and pivoting. If they win, they win big. If they lose, they only lose a few years of their early life. This is antifragility, and it is actually a departure from stability. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    The sentence captures the notion clearly, it just sounds a little awkward, especially for an opening sentence in an abstract, which is usually carefully crafted. I think you're probably correct that this is because the authors aren't native English speakers.
theOGognf 2y ago
Ironically, that sentence is pretty plain for a dynamics and control paper lol
padolsey 2y ago
Yeh agree. Seems like someone's been drinking ivory tower soda-pop too long! FWIW, I tend to think of it like this: Antifragility is a property of something that benefits from a bit of hammering. Like young tree saplings tend to do better in older life when they've been whipped around by the wind a bit. It's basically "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger".
tokai 2y ago
That sentence is completely fine, and not even close to being difficult. If that is not plainly enough for you, scholarly communication is not going to be possible.
- AgentOrange1234 2y ago
  I’ve written academic papers. I’ve worked with amazing folks who aren’t native English speakers. I’ve come to prize simple writing.

I wish folks would write more plainly. “Antifragility characterizes the benefit of a dynamical system derived from the variability in environmental perturbations.” Geish.

_yb2s 2y ago

Well it is in a journal called "complexity." But I agree, that sentence is awful, I'm surprised they decided to lead with it, and nobody proof reading the paper objected.

defrost 2y ago
The leading three authors are from Germany, Mexico, and Switzerland resptfully. The sentence they want should capture the notion of being robust when poked with a stick. A pencil on it's tip is a fragile system, one burp and it falls to the table, far from the intial state. Marbles in fruit bowls are anti-fragile, given a good shake (up to a threshold) and they remain in the bowl and return to the low centre. Reading further, they want more; that repeated perturbations should deliver benefit, that systems in an warped egg carton configuration can be annealed to reveal an optimal point by vigorous shaking slowly reduced in degree. Having now read the whole paper it doesn't seem novel wrt to the state of dynamic system discussions in the mid 1980s other than the insertion of "antifragility" as nomenclature into the mix.
- wenc 2y ago
  > A pencil on it's tip is a fragile system, one burp and it falls to the table, far from the intial state. Marbles in fruit bowls are anti-fragile, given a good shake (up to a threshold) and they remain in the bowl and return to the low centre. I believe what you're describing is a stable vs unstable system, not fragile vs antifragile. You can perturb a bowl with a marble, and the marble will still end up in the middle because it will return to stable equilibrium point (an "attractor"). Yours is an illustration of a stable system. Whereas a marble placed in an upside down bowl (with no ridges, just a half sphere), when perturbed, will fall off. This is an unstable system. These are classic examples used in (Lyapunov) stability theory. Fragility and antifragility aren't about stability (returning to equilibria), but gains or losses after perturbation, which is related to convexity/concavity. When you perturb an anti-fragile (or convex) system, it doesn't return to equilibrium but in fact improves. Conversely, when you perturb a fragile system, it degrades. The analysis is usually done with Jensen's inequality rather than Lyapunov. EDIT: not sure why the downvotes. I'm pointing out a fact. The examples do not demonstrate antifragility, but stability, which is not the same concept.
  - defrost 2y ago
    You appear to have replied the first draft of my comment as I was expanding it. Thank you for the response.
    - wenc 2y ago
      No, I replied to your full post. Just wanted to point out that your examples showed stability, not antifragility.
      - defrost 2y ago
        My initial motivation was to point out the authors likely weren't native in English. I meandered onwards to waffle about the nature of what they were describing, which to my mind at least begins with a notion of stability, in pursuit of a better succint opening line (which I don't have). You've said: Fragility and antifragility aren't about stability (returning to equilibria), but gains or losses after perturbation, which is related to convexity/concavity. I've said: Reading further, they want more; that repeated perturbations should deliver benefit, that systems in an warped egg carton configuration can be annealed to reveal an optimal point by vigorous shaking slowly reduced in degree. We likely both agree that an anti-fragile system should not spiral out of control. I assume when you refer to "convexity/concavity" you mean at a scale greater than local, at the scale of the warp in an egg carton as I made reference. My principal gripe with such discussion, as I said, was I don't see much that is new other than language over what was discussed in the mid 1980s .. but perhaps I've not read enough. The downvoting of your comment is poor form.
        wenc 2y ago
        Thanks for engaging. You're right in that the ideas are not new, but I feel the language and the framing somewhat is. I'm not sure if you've come across N. N. Taleb's work -- he's the guy who coined the term "antifragility" = things things that benefit from perturbation. In it he argues that the antifragility is a property of systems that satisfy Jensen's inequality [1]. If the system's function f is convex, then: E[f(X)] > f(E[X]) X is a random variable representing perturbations to the system, and f(.) is the system's response. If Jensen's inequality is satisfied (which is only true if f is convex), the inequality tells us that the average response to variable inputs (E[f(X)]) is greater than the response to the average input f(E[X]). This means that the system benefits more from variability in the input than it would from a constant, average input. Antifragile systems, in that sense, are not conventionally "stable". Taleb describes a spectrum: Fragile -> Robust -> Antifragile Stable systems often fall into the robust category -- they can withstand stress without breaking, but they don't necessarily improve from it. It's a really subtle nuance. An example from life: the young person who takes no risks, has a stable job, does well enough but isn't really interested in moving or taking on new opportunities. They'll never make it big. This is stability. But the young person who starts a startup and keeps taking risks, iterating and pivoting. If they win, they win big. If they lose, they only lose a few years of their early life. This is antifragility, and it is actually a departure from stability. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality
- _yb2s 2y ago
  The sentence captures the notion clearly, it just sounds a little awkward, especially for an opening sentence in an abstract, which is usually carefully crafted. I think you're probably correct that this is because the authors aren't native English speakers.

theOGognf 2y ago

Ironically, that sentence is pretty plain for a dynamics and control paper lol

padolsey 2y ago

Yeh agree. Seems like someone's been drinking ivory tower soda-pop too long! FWIW, I tend to think of it like this: Antifragility is a property of something that benefits from a bit of hammering. Like young tree saplings tend to do better in older life when they've been whipped around by the wind a bit. It's basically "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger".

tokai 2y ago

That sentence is completely fine, and not even close to being difficult. If that is not plainly enough for you, scholarly communication is not going to be possible.

AgentOrange1234 2y ago
I’ve written academic papers. I’ve worked with amazing folks who aren’t native English speakers. I’ve come to prize simple writing.