Parenting is pretty predictable, isn’t it? With the first
child, parents are super cautious, they panic about everything, worry that
every pause in breathing is a sign of terror, they coddle their child constantly,
find it heartbreaking when the little one gets a cold or cries in pain after
bumping their head. The new parent goes
to great lengths to ensure their precious darling faces no danger of harm or disease
– they clean everything continually with antibacterial agents, they avoid play
groups when rumour of an ill child attending spreads around the other new
parents they have coffee with. The child
is wrapped in cotton wool and handled with care, like a fragile crystal doll.
And then the second child arrives. Oh, sod it.
They can be thrown around, allowed to play in the dirt. A sneeze?
Oh, so what? They’ll get over it
quickly enough. Banged their head, well
they all do that, no need to worry, everything will be fine. The parent has learnt how malleable children
really are and that there is no need to coddle and coo all of the time.
Children are not fragile.
Fragility describes those things that are irrevocably damaged
or made useless by randomness, breakage, stress or being forced to operate beyond
their current limit.
A wine glass is fragile.
Drop it on a hard kitchen floor and it will shatter into countless
useless pieces. Its function is
completely destroyed by the damage it has endured. Fragile things are defined by the very fact
that such out of the ordinary events end their utility.
What is the opposite of fragility? Is it robustness? Robust things do not break when dropped or
thrown around, robust things maintain their utility even under stress and even
when attacked.
But the utility of robust items does not improve when out of
the ordinary events impose stress, harm or damage upon them. They remain constant.
The opposite of fragility is not robustness, it is
antifragility.
Antifragile things or systems improve when out of the ordinary
events impose stress upon them. The
action of harming an antifragile system makes it stronger and even more useful
than it was previously.
There are many antifragile things and systems. Take, for example, the human immune
system. It is an incomplete system at
birth – even though it is remarkably complex and sophisticated, the immune
system is not designed to stop the attacks and potential illnesses it will face
throughout a lifetime. Instead, the immune
system is a learning, adaptive system.
It must encounter randomness and stress before it can learn and adapt to
overcome those stresses.
The enlightened new parent knows that wrapping the child in
cotton wool only serves to make them weak, not strong. The enlightened new parent carefully and deliberately
exposes their child to risk. They let them
play with the child with chicken pox, they let them mess around in the dirt,
they encourage them to climb trees and know that each small fall improves their
ability to both assess and deal with the inevitable risks that will come along
in life.
Children are antifragile, not fragile. They need to encounter problems and harm –
carefully and deliberately and appropriate to their developmental stage – such that
they learn to adapt and become strong, not weak, adults.
The parent drip feeds risk and randomness into their child’s
life in a calculated and compassionate way.
Antifragile systems become stronger through exposure to randomness and
stress, but antifragile systems lose their utility and become weaker if the stresses
imposed upon them are beyond their ability to adapt at that developmental stage. Exposing children to severe or sustained harm
irrevocably damages them and the result is a weak adult who cannot cope with
the demands of life. It is a heinous abuse
of the child to deliberately impose upon them severe harm. But, this should not be used as a case for
treating the child as a fragile system, keeping them in a bubble away from all
harm – such children will not be able to overcome the challenges that their
life will undoubtedly present to them at some point. It is extremely unhelpful to treat children
as fragile and it is disingenuous to attempt to justify such treatment by wielding
the argument that abusing children is wrong.
Of course it is wrong. But so is
treating children as though the universe holds within it no harm or risk or
randomness or stress.
Children are antifragile.
This is true of their biological systems – sometimes bones
get broken and when they do those bones reform stronger; their immune system grows
more capable at defending them from disease by encountering disease – and it is
also true of their cognitive systems.
In order to become sophisticated thinkers, children need to encounter
randomness, stress, emotional shock and the stark fact that they are at times
simply wrong. These encounters, handled
correctly by the expert teacher, make children stronger. The civilisations humanity has built over
hundreds of thousands of years, the arts, the music, the insights, the
knowledge, the skills, the disciplines and the unquenchable thirst for new
enlightenment define our very souls.
Humanity has, through great endeavour and pain, established profound
thoughts and ideas. To engage with these
ideas is difficult and requires sustained effort and the ability to overcome
uncomfortable emotions.
Learning new ideas is hard.
It requires a significant shift in the knowledge structures and schema already embedded in an individual at the moment of meeting the new idea. Many new ideas are uncomfortable, particularly
when they require us to re-evaluate our own beliefs. This discomfort is painful – to be told that
you are wrong or to face such tricky ideas to grasp that it might take many
years of very hard, very purposeful thinking is not an easy state of mind for
most people to adopt.
The child who is treated as though their cognitive systems are
fragile is the child who is always told they are correct. They are the child whose parents and teachers
will pussyfoot around them, never wanting to ask them to do anything difficult,
never wanting to question and correct their naïve beliefs. The fragile child is praised whenever they present
an idea, no matter how foolish it is, no matter its utility. And this treatment is often justified by
claiming it is compassionate. Claiming
that feelings are more important than thoughts and ideas. But it is not kind to praise the child who is
incorrect, it serves only to make them ill-informed and frustrated.
Children are antifragile.
The expert teacher should carefully and deliberately manufacture
scenarios for their pupils to meet tricky ideas and to feel discomfort in the
moment for the long term gain of enlightenment.
The incorrect child should be told they are incorrect. This creates an emotional shock that alerts
the child to the fact that they better listen really carefully to the correct knowledge
that the teacher will now explain to them.
Teachers should seek to make children truly resilient. Children should be able to face tricky, sometimes
hurtful, ideas head on so that they can overcome and continue to learn. The randomness and stresses the expert teacher
places on their pupils are calculated and careful, designed to make the child
stronger and more knowledgeable. This is
what resilience means – the child who can grapple with ideas, debate, justify,
adapt to new knowledge or put right those who are wrong. The resilient child grows into the resilient
adult who is not afraid of thoughts and ideas, who knows that harm exists but
who is ready to take up arms against it and help make humanity better.
There is nothing resilient or moral about the education that
some pupils face in schools with policies that instruct teachers to always
praise or never point out a child is wrong or to award every child a medal on
sports day. There is nothing resilient
about the child who has been conditioned to block out challenging ideas – the child
who hits the block or mute button on their social media at the slightest hint
of an opposing idea is not strong, they are weak and they will not cope well
with the demands of life.
The case for antifragility was first put forward by Nassim
Taleb in his 2012 book “Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder.” Taleb describes systems in economics,
business and society that are antifragile, which led me to think about antifragility
as applied to children and learning. In
2018, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt published “The coddling of the American
mind.” Lukianoff and Haidt also apply
Taleb’s thinking to children. It was
attending a lecture given by Haidt last year that brought me to further think
about the fact that children truly are antifragile and that this has been known
in the teaching profession for a very long time as an item of simple common
sense. Whenever I speak with teachers
about antifragility, the response is always that it is clear that pupils must
carefully encounter tricky situations if they are to become free thinkers capable
of navigating through life with autonomy and a sense of purpose. Yet, so many schools and colleges have adopted
policies that clearly position children as fragile. These policies are counterproductive and are
restricting the beautiful and meaningful intellectual journey that all pupils could be taking if viewed
as antifragile.