Something to make you curious about…

Lets get you started on some of these ideas, and at least make you curious about them. Even more fun if you can can rediscover them, down the track, by yourself.

Evolution, species evolve from natural selection of the best specimens, discarding the less able, and keeping the ones better adapted to it.

A key part of it, is the mechanism where two individuals needs one another to be able to duplicate,  expand the diversity of the species, and create multiple random copies of their combinations from where selection takes place. The process creates a distribution of mutations. Some individuals poorly adapted and quickly discarded, some individuals supremely adapted, acquire a guarantee to procreate a subsequent generation.

In evolution, even this close to perfect specimens need to die, as perfection is momentary, and a need for a new batch of copies better adapted to the future, is always present  Death is a guarantee of renewal of the species, finiteness of the individual is a shot to eternity for the race.

This is natural design, it gains from change and disruption, is simple yet difficult to be controlled. Actually, no control is required. Is like flying by instruments, you don’t need to care for the system, the system takes care of itself, is more than robust and resilient, it grows from attacks, rather than just remain the same in spite of attacks.

Yet one believes intervention is the only real action, and inaction to let the system work itself is an act of  mediocrity or recognition of ignorance on how to manipulate a system of such kind.

But yet one really understands little of dynamically balanced and random designed systems, where the variables and permutations are just simply out of any control and calculation. Then the fallacy becomes trying to deduce the system and feel the illusion of control, while one might just be seeing a reflection of what they wanted to see, not a reality driven by the understanding of what it’s trying to control. If one realizes the dilemma, then what is the right course of action? Where is the humble solution that brings you back closer to your role in natural design?

A few people in history have deduced this, and they didn’t try to game the system. Or even attempt at knowing what is not meant for them to know. They just assume their limitations and play to the best of their knowledge. You can know, that you don’t know. And you can know what is the worst outcome that right here, right now, can affect you. Death, bankruptcy, loss of health, reputation, etc. One will take risks up to a point where the worst outcome is reduced to the minimum probability, and all of the other outcomes combined will be neutral or negative. This will insure survival for the critical things, and participation on the upside when odds are in your favor.

One is not equipped to think in probabilistic terms, it wants certainty, it wants to control, it wants to feel that it understands. When is really out of its reach. Only the humble ones, the ones attuned to its natural being, understand that chances and probabilities are so ingrained into nature design, that gaming the system is not possible, yet gaming the individuals fool enough to game the system, is actually at their fingertips.

Then the quest is not about understanding this fabricated knowledge of the establishment. Is actually being humble enough to demonstrate your Antifragile natural design quality, by winning them on their flaws. Consistently, and decisively. Then ultimately proving that only systems based on a fallacy of control, are actually able to be controlled and manipulated. Just from a design failure.

Couldn't resist it!Creative Commons License blinking idiot via Compfight

The exploitation of system design failures, one example to see the concept in action…

“An organisation in search for an scalable and repeatable business model” (The Startup Owners Manual)

Different to what many people believe startups are not smaller versions of a big company. They don’t have a natural place, they are in search for one, they don’t have a natural method of growing, they are discovering it. Startups are just a concept that goes hand in hand with the human being behind them, the entrepreneur. An individual crazy enough to feel that something must be reinvented, that success against the odds is possible, that an idea is the first step for a bigger change.

Yet entrepreneurship is possible only in systems that allow for change via the individual, not in centralized, not in planned economies. Entrepreneurship is also random, no one knows where they are going to start, neither how successfully one is going to be. Without these guys there is no business renewal, there is no better customer service, lower prices, or access to technology that radically improves our everyday.

And is not less full of drama and very basic motivations, sometimes even of the low kind. Funny how relentless pursuit of one own interests, the most egocentric ones, ends up being stuff for the greater good in their industry. I cannot imagine founders seeing their efforts as a sacrifice for the greater good,…nothing further from it… they want to make a buck, and make it big!

However, when looking at their place in the renewal of the system, is difficult to deny, and almost very simple to understand the effect of what they do.

Thanks to Nassim Taleb and Steve Blank for inspiring this post.

Send to Kindle

Leave a Reply