Nassim Nicholas Taleb, in his book, Antifragile, suggests that there are three types of things (people): fragile, resilient, and antifragile. I speak often of resiliency. Apparently, I sell it short.
Fragile people, like china, break easily. It should be clear why we don’t want to raise fragile children (despite the fact, sadly, that is precisely what we—as a society—are doing). We want communities of individuals who can withstand the challenges that are the opportunities life invariably affords us.
So, we encourage resiliency—that characteristic of being able to withstand life’s hard knocks. Is it enough to teach kids just to be able to resist damage? Of course, not. Rocky was able to take punches, but the movies would have been less successful if he never fought back.
This brings us to the concept of “antifragility”. I have been reading The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt (great read, in my opinion). The authors capitalize on the idea that we can raise children who “learn, adapt, and grow” in response to life’s stressors. Like bone and muscle, we grow—Spiritually, Physically, Intellectually, Emotionally, and Socially—only when we are stressed beyond that to which we are accustomed. Remember the “overload principle”? Things that (people who) are antifragile thrive when appropriately overloaded.
I have a great appreciation for the immune system (in part, thanks to one of my graduate school mentors, Dr. Michael Flynn). By design and/or evolution, the human immune system is amazingly capable of adapting to pathogens—e.g., disease-causing viruses, bacteria, etc. I am a firm follower of the “5-second rule”. Okay, I don’t make a habit of eating off of the floor. I do, however, believe in the benefit of moderate exposure to pathogens. This is how our immune system strengthens. The worst thing we can do for our health is to over-protect ourselves from viruses, bacteria, and the like. I don’t run from these. As a result, I am rarely sick. (Track the sick-day history of any of your “germophobic” friends. I would bet they have a high frequency of illness.)
I suggest we take a “antifragility” approach to raising our children—and to living our lives. Don’t run from “danger” (don’t run into it unnecessarily, however). Likewise, don’t create an obstacle-free environment for children. View challenges as opportunities—as stimuli for growth.
The other day, I received an e-mail from my daughter’s school regarding an upcoming fieldtrip to a ropes course. I trust that the message was unintentional (and leave it up to me to pick up on it), but the e-mail stated that they will have the students “trying the challenges within their comfort zone.” I understand that the intended message is that they will not make the child do anything they are not comfortable doing. I understand that they have to say this or certain parents would cause a stir. Personally, I want my daughter to reach beyond her comfort zone. Anything “within” one’s comfort zone is not a challenge.
I would like to see schools once again have permission to contest the fragility of our children. This means that we as parents have to stop creating an imaginary comfort zone and stop overprotecting. We have to accept that there will be failure and heartache. There will be tears, as well as celebration. There will be bumps and bruises and hurt feelings, but there will be amazing growth.
Be your best today; and be better tomorrow.
Carpe momento!