By applying the idea of the first paper to this second idea of a system’s horizontal and vertical classifications, I thought of resilience / antifragility as the emergent result of concurrent behavioral interplays taking place across the involved systems’ [ wholes / sets of parts / hierarchies of nodes ].
Let me clarify this through two examples:
- A bullet is shot and passes through the body of a living being. Such a traumatic event directly affects a number of organs and systems of that being. Interdependence among organs and systems is likely to lead to cascading effects that may in turn lead to severe injuries or the loss of life.
- A hurricane hitting a region. Catastrophic events such as this one typically ripple across the involved hierarchies of nodes triggering the concurrent reactions of multiple crisis management organizations.
In both cases, resilience may be modeled as the result of the effects of an external event on a system’s horizontal and vertical organization. The external event manifests itself at all systems and networks levels and activates a response that is both individual and social.
Now, I believe a good way to model such response could be in terms of Game Theory. The idea is to consider:
- GT players as the involved whole / parts / nodes (let me call them “opponents”).
- Behavior classes as the strategic choices available to the opponents.
- GT strategies as the behaviors planned and enacted by the opponents.
- Moreover, I propose to assign energy budgets specific of the involved opponents. Said energy budgets serve as global constraints shared by all of the nodes of the GT players across their horizontal and vertical organizations.
- Finally, I propose to associate GT payoffs to the possible behavioral responses, with costs (in terms of consumed energy budget resources) proportional to the complexity of the chosen behavior.
- (↦ A simple purposeful behavior only requires sensory / actuator parts, thus calls for less energy than a complex proactive behavior, which requires analytical / planning parts; in turn, that behavior would cost less energy than a complex antifragile behavior, which requires in addition complex knowledge/wisdom management parts.)
(↦ Think once more of the case of the bullet passing through a living body and of the cascading effects of the many concurrent “confrontations” between the involved organs and the bullet.)
I would be happy to discuss the basic ideas and possible “implementations” of the just sketched model. In particular I would welcome discussing with experts in game theory and evolutionary game theory willing to co-write a paper on the above idea for ANTIFRAGILE’16.