Antifragility

In 2012, Nassim Taleb identified an interesting limitation of the English language.  In his book Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, he observed that the word fragile is a rare anomaly because there isn’t a word that represents its opposite, and because an antonym isn’t readily available, any discussion attempting to remedy the fragility embedded in our systems becomes challenging. 

We often use words like robust or resilient as contrary ideas to fragility, but this isn’t necessarily true. For something to be fragile, it admits that the more stress something endures, the more brittle it becomes. Words like robust and resilient mean something can endure more stress before ultimately failing. They, by their nature, look to prolong the inevitable brittleness of a situation. However, the opposite of fragile wouldn’t focus on delaying failure; it would explain the process of how something becomes stronger precisely because of the stress it endures. That is why the idea of antifragility is important.

The classic example of antifragility is the Hydra, a Greek mythological creature with numerous heads. When one head gets cut off, two grow back in its place. But there are more modern applications. Take, for example, the growing telehealth industry. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, many healthcare leaders projected that a fully functional telehealth ecosystem would take 4 to 6 years to achieve. Then the pandemic occurred, and in mere months, a functioning telehealth system was up and running (in many cases, extremely well) to serve the needs of our communities and was not dialed back after the emergency subsided. COVID-19 provided an undeniable strain on our healthcare system, which, in the case of telehealth services, sparked an antifragile response – one that made our healthcare system better despite the stressors.

The value of this idea primarily rests in its ability to clearly separate strategies that aim to provide resiliency (especially in the short term) from those that seek to implement concerted efforts to offer antifragile solutions. While both considerations are often valid, especially in areas such as community development and healthcare, understanding the difference between the two approaches is critical when working to solve complex problems.

It’s problematic to assume the adoption of resilient strategies will garner antifragile results. They are fundamentally two distinct approaches, and without a clear language to effectively discuss the differences, distinguishing between them can become complex and confusing. Therefore, when defining the metrics of success for any design problem, especially in areas such as community development and healthcare, it becomes essential to discuss the approaches most relevant to the assumed goals. Will an investment be measured by its ability to make a system more resistant to stress? Or does a design solution need to define an environment that becomes more effective when exposed to growing stress? While these stressors can range from operational costs and shifting political pressures to industry trends and consumer preferences, the ability to differentiate between resilient and antifragile strategies is a critical moment when looking to solve complex problems effectively.