Adapt is a well written book with compelling examples that covers, in my opinion, the single most important topic in how to think about thinking:
To a first approximation, rational deduction fails 100% of the time, when applied to the messy real world. The ONLY path to success is to try, fail, and adapt.The examples are engaging, the writing is pleasant, and there are soundbites throughout that are wonderful. My favorite in the second half of the book was a joke making fun of self-help and business books.
The flow of the book goes roughly:
- We all fail a lot.
- What can we do? Feedback + Adaptation
- What about situations where we have to get it right (Nuclear power plants?)
- How do organizations adapt (Low central control).
- How do individuals adapt (It's hard).
2-3 years ago, I concluded that there was a wide open market for a book on the twin topics of ubiquitous error and feedback. Part of why I started a blog was that the topic needed addressed, and it hadn't been addressed in the modern literature. Indeed, it was contradicted by most of the modern discussions. on any topic.
This book is easily the most important of the modern big idea-books. Malcolm Gladwell's minor insights are tiny details in comparison.
Quibbles:
I was less than impressed by his treatment of point 3 above...but I'm less than impressed by my treatment of the topic as well...I don't think there is a good answer, and while Harford seems to admit as much at the end of the chapter (6), the rest of the chapter seems to be attempting to suggest a solution.
If I had written the book...I'd have pulled in 2 additional topics:
- What does this mean for government?
- My favorite prior thinkers in this direction are: John Boyd, W. Edwards Deming, and Kent Beck, and Frederich Hayek. Only Hayek is referenced.
Posts
8 comments:
Looking at the Amazon page, Nassim Taleb has endorsed it! Well, well, i'm off to order it right away
Interesting about the (post)modern doubt of rationalism.
The premoderns said that without God, there would be no knowledge, and the postmoderns say we have no God and have no knowledge. The premoderns said that without the purposefulness of final causation, all things would be equally valueless, and the postmoderns say there is no purpose and no value. The premoderns said that without an identity of reality and the Good, there would be no right and wrong, and the postmoderns say there is neither Good nor right and wrong. Though they disagree on whether God exists, premoderns and postmoderns share the major premise that knowing requires His existence. Only for a brief period in the history of the West—the period of modern times—did anyone seriously suppose that human beings could hold knowledge without God.
----Joseph Bottum, First Things 1994.
It's a comfortable fiction that we all would like to believe is true. It saves us the work of actually recognizing that all belief is conditional, and then working forward from there.
On the other hand, the theist position of no Good without God is absurd.
What is the empirical evidence for
"To a first approximation, rational deduction fails 100% of the time, when applied to the messy real world"
I was wondering what constitutes success or failure. Was the Betamax tape system a failure? Were CB radios a failure? As our last shuttles fly, was manned space flight a failure? Were tech and real estate bubbles examples of failures? Or were they successes in the sense that some people got more than they deserved?
Experimenting and failing is more possible in wealthy societies that are backstopped by modern farming and transportation. If your new idea takes too many resources away from food production, the tribe might perish. Conservatism ruled the day back in the day.
Gyan,
I've been blogging evidence for a couple years...and Tim Harford wrote a book on the topic.
Start by looking at real problems in engineering, software, project management, warfare, entrepreneurship, business success...or any other field you care to look into. NOTHING works right on the first try.
rsf,
100% agreement that experimentation is a feature of wealth. I've elsewhere argued that decreasing the cost of failure is a major factor in advancement. Bankruptcy law was the example I used...but societal poverty is the same. Doesn't bode well for the conservatives moving forward, though.
Betamax was a business failure, clearly. I'd count government sponsored space flight as a substantial fail...$ vs. value. The tech and real estate bubbles should both be counted as failures from the point of view of (stated) government purpose.
Doesn't bode well for the conservatives moving forward, though.
Liberals experiment themselves into oblivion. I wouldn't bet against conservative.
Betamax... space flight... tech and real estate bubbles
The particulars of Betamax didn't carry on, but the general business of video imaging thrives. What is the status of a dead soldier on the winning side?
Tech and housing are still around, still adding value. Does overreach and retrenchment = failure, or does it = successful adaptation?
Space flight has non-monetary value. It is someplace else to... experiment!
Post a Comment