Meetup : Washington, DC: Goals
post by maia · 2013-08-30T20:13:42.473Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 4 commentsContents
Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, DC: Goals Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, DC: Goals None 4 comments
Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, DC: Goals
We'll be meeting to talk about goals, both long-term and short-term. Do you have a Plan? Do you think you need one? What projects are you working on / do you want to start? I'd also like to start a regular system (used by the NY self-improvement group) where we talk about our goals for the next few weeks, and check in on them after that time has passed. I will also be bringing an array of toys (a PowerBall, a cylindrical sliding puzzle, and similar items). We'll be meeting in the courtyard adjoining the National Portrait Gallery, as usual.
Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, DC: Goals
4 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Jayson_Virissimo · 2013-08-30T22:57:07.402Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In the book, does he explain why he doesn't use "robust" or "rugged," instead of a neologism?
Replies from: Torello↑ comment by Torello · 2013-08-31T13:40:42.719Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I imagine you meant to post this in the Antifragile thread.
Anyway, he does explain why he didn't use robust or another existing word. He gives and example of shipping an item in the mail.
The item is "fragile" if if will be harmed by being dropped (or more broadly "volatility").
A "robust" item will remain unchanged if it is dropped (experiences volatility).
An "antifragile" item will improve in value if it experience volatility. For example, muscles improve if they are exposed to volatility (exercise). The quality of restaurant food improves when volatility strikes--that is, when restaurants go out of business (as a category--the quality of food/service improves for clients, not for individual restaurants that close), because only the best food remains, and future competitors need to continually up the ante, like biological evolution.
His basic argument is that robust means "remains unchanged" and resilient means "returns to former state" and that there was not a word to describe things that require volatility for growth/benefit.