Comments on: ⇥ The importance of failure http://blog.tabini.ca/2009/08/the-importance-of-failure/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-importance-of-failure Stumbling on since 1997 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:06:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Marco Tabini http://blog.tabini.ca/2009/08/the-importance-of-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-445 Marco Tabini Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:30:47 +0000 http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=116#comment-445 Since we agree on the first part of the post, let's focus on the second—which, you know, <i>follows</i> from the first.<br /><br />The whole point of the post is the concept that (as you also note), risk management is no longer a deterministic affair—you don't plan for absolute success, but for the best possible resolution. Therefore, it's implicit that you cannot control everything.<br /><br />At the same time, risk doesn't happen in isolation—usually, there is a group of concurrent, interrelated and antagonistic risks: a zero-tolerance risk for family doesn't mean that I expect absolute success in that area; it's possible that tomorrow I will die of a heart attack, orphaning my children and widowing my wife. Or, my wife could get run over by a car. There is nothing I can reasonably do to prevent these things, so these are not true risks.<br /><br />Once you accept that "risk" cannot be eliminated, "zero tolerance" means simply that you choose not to intentionally create any sort of risks in a specific category and that, when presented with a choice (for example, do I take the high-paying job in China if the family doesn't like it?) you use risk tolerance as a means to classify your actions (that is, "no"). Since we agree on the first part of the post, let's focus on the second—which, you know, follows from the first.

The whole point of the post is the concept that (as you also note), risk management is no longer a deterministic affair—you don't plan for absolute success, but for the best possible resolution. Therefore, it's implicit that you cannot control everything.

At the same time, risk doesn't happen in isolation—usually, there is a group of concurrent, interrelated and antagonistic risks: a zero-tolerance risk for family doesn't mean that I expect absolute success in that area; it's possible that tomorrow I will die of a heart attack, orphaning my children and widowing my wife. Or, my wife could get run over by a car. There is nothing I can reasonably do to prevent these things, so these are not true risks.

Once you accept that "risk" cannot be eliminated, "zero tolerance" means simply that you choose not to intentionally create any sort of risks in a specific category and that, when presented with a choice (for example, do I take the high-paying job in China if the family doesn't like it?) you use risk tolerance as a means to classify your actions (that is, "no").

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.tabini.ca/2009/08/the-importance-of-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-444 Anonymous Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:48:20 +0000 http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=116#comment-444 It's ironic that the second part of the post undoes all the good that was done in the first part. Risks are involved in anything you do. They might be estimated and reduced, but can not be eliminated but eliminating the risky activity itself, or aiming for as low as possible. So if your family related risk tolerance is 0, you should not have a family, since there is no amount of planning, effort or commitment that can eliminate risk altogether. The second part of the post perpetuates the illusion that you can plan for success at least in matters of family and law abiding behavior, whereas business and craft belong to the realm of intrinsically risky activities. But the powerful message of the first part is that determinism is an illusion, no matter what the domain. That message should be not diluted carving exceptions to it. See also "The new alliance" by Prigogine and Stengers. It's ironic that the second part of the post undoes all the good that was done in the first part. Risks are involved in anything you do. They might be estimated and reduced, but can not be eliminated but eliminating the risky activity itself, or aiming for as low as possible. So if your family related risk tolerance is 0, you should not have a family, since there is no amount of planning, effort or commitment that can eliminate risk altogether. The second part of the post perpetuates the illusion that you can plan for success at least in matters of family and law abiding behavior, whereas business and craft belong to the realm of intrinsically risky activities. But the powerful message of the first part is that determinism is an illusion, no matter what the domain. That message should be not diluted carving exceptions to it. See also "The new alliance" by Prigogine and Stengers.

]]> By: Justin Kownacki http://blog.tabini.ca/2009/08/the-importance-of-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-443 Justin Kownacki Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:14:46 +0000 http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=116#comment-443 Michelangelo tried to destroy all of his sketches for his most famous works (David, etc.) because he didn't want people to think he had to work toward an eventual success. Even in ages past, success went hand-in-hand with divine providence, not man-made, hard-earned work.<br /><br />Today, when we don't include failure as a natural element of the learning / growth cycle, we promote an alternate reality: that all successes happened because they were *supposed* to. (Either that, or all successful people are geniuses.)<br /><br />And since success really *is* such hard work, should we be surprised that the world's finest aren't so eager to leave behind a trail of failure-flavored breadcrumbs? Michelangelo tried to destroy all of his sketches for his most famous works (David, etc.) because he didn't want people to think he had to work toward an eventual success. Even in ages past, success went hand-in-hand with divine providence, not man-made, hard-earned work.

Today, when we don't include failure as a natural element of the learning / growth cycle, we promote an alternate reality: that all successes happened because they were *supposed* to. (Either that, or all successful people are geniuses.)

And since success really *is* such hard work, should we be surprised that the world's finest aren't so eager to leave behind a trail of failure-flavored breadcrumbs?

]]> By: thehatchcloud http://blog.tabini.ca/2009/08/the-importance-of-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-442 thehatchcloud Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:39:48 +0000 http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=116#comment-442 Excellent post. I agree that we do not have a healthy outlook on failure as a society anymore. As a young person, when we have less responsibility and fewer people depending on us, we are not allowed to fall on our face enough. And this makes us more fearful of failure as we get older.<br /><br />Respect the risks that exist, but do not let failure slow you down. Excellent post. I agree that we do not have a healthy outlook on failure as a society anymore. As a young person, when we have less responsibility and fewer people depending on us, we are not allowed to fall on our face enough. And this makes us more fearful of failure as we get older.

Respect the risks that exist, but do not let failure slow you down.

]]>