Originally posted by **edzob** May 2, 2022
1. Overall - do we need a colon : after the figure integer? For example figure 2.2.:
2. Overall - I like the pyramid writing. Be careful you introduce terms (fuzzy) and point people deeper into the pyramid
**2.2. Antifragile**
1. “as an answer to Black Swan events” -> “as his answer to Black Swan events”
2. “events are large-scale unpredictable” -> ik denk dat large-scale op deze plek niet thuis hoort. Of ik moet het verkeerd onthouden hebben.volgens mij vangt “massive” al de impact die een black swan event kan hebben.
3. “ the less tractable” -> wat betekend less tractable?
4. “ the less we know about how frequent its occurrence“ -> Ik denk dat het engels hier niet klopt. Misschien “the less we know about how frequent it’s occurring” oid. En is de truuk van een black swan juist niet dat je geen idee hebt wanneer het plaats vindt? Dan snap ik inhoudelijk niet helemaal wat je hier probeert te communiceren.
5. “The odds of rare events are not computable ()” -> “The odds of black swan events to occur are not computable ()” . Tenminste ik denk dat je dat probeert te zeggen
6. “With random events robust is not good enough.’ -> for who/ which is it not good enough? Why is it not good enough? Abstract formulation leads to implicit generalisation leads to the need of proof.
7. “Everything with the most minute vulnerability breaks” -> everything has a vulnerability and therefor everything always breaks. So what is the need of writing this? And is the word vulnerability not the implicit in the name the fragility? Else it would not be called a vulnerability :) aka.. rephrase , put in context or..
8. “Robustness cannot just be it, perfect robustness is needed not to end up crashing the system” -> see previous feedback on wording and context.
9. “. Fragile systems fail when exposed to stressors “ -> Did we introduce fragile, did we introduce stressors? Do we need to define fail?
10. “ Antifragility goes beyond resiliency or robustness” -> please cross check if we introduced/ defined resilience and robustness enough to place this statement. Key is to make certain the reader does not need to think.
11. “Triade of fragile” -> the dimensions in this figure are not as such defined in the text. Double check.
12. “Antifragile means that a system gains more than it loses.” -> i think this is ok.. Later on double check if this is what you want to state.
13. “Positive asymmetry is achievable by reducing possible losses “ -> we understand this because we have read Taleb. A reader who has not read it, can not place this statement. Since the asymetrie is our translation of this first sentence. The reader can not make this translation.
14. “Reducing possible losses will reduce the harmful effects of exposure to damaging elements such as stressors and Black Swan event” -> advice: re-read a few times and perhaps rephrase. For example end of sentence move to the beginning of the sentence
15. “Fragility and antifragility mean potential gain or harm from exposure to something related to volatility” -> I do not understand this sentence and the term “to something related to volatility” is not introduced. So the reader is blind-sided. Take a moment what you want to tell here, and rephrase. Perhaps this paragraph is two paragraphs in 1?
**2.2.1. Stressor**
1. Here you introduce stressor but have used it often in the previous subsubsection
2. “to an unintended
3. condition (Turner II et al., 2003; Chrousos, 2009).” (Ghasemi & Alizadeh, 2017, p. 23).” -> You can remove turner, chrousos and ghasemi here, since you already attribute them in the beginning of the sentence.4. “stressors include natural disasters, customer demand randomness, financial crises, volatile customer tastes, and other unanticipated factors” -> Wat is de link tussen ghasemi, taleb aan de ene kant en Dongxia aan de andere kant? Kunnen we de definitie van Dongxia zonder problemen in deze context schuiven?
**2.2.2. Antifragile as a systems property**
1. “a function of its internal structure” -> Function and internal structure are words people have an opinion about. Good to have clear how Barry used these terms.
2. “The ability to change under stress is governed by the interconnectedness of its sub-systems, how loosely coupled those subsystems are and how much of a change ripples through the system” -> This is a statement as a summary. This states not why, etc.
3. Overall this paragraph needs some love. Since now these are various statements without the why, and the relation to each other. For example “are some of the properties” makes it difficult for the reader.
4. “. Botjes et al. (2021) used multiple sources (table 2.1) to define a list of attributes.” -> see previous remarks on tables/ figures etc
5. In the second part of the paragraph you use Botjes () 1 or more times for every sentence. This reads badly.
6. I would remove “Botjes et al. (2021) used a data set collected by Botjes (2020).”
7. “Searching for new literature makes sure that Botjes et al. (2021) is recent and is not Rebutted.” -> This needs an introduction or linked to the previous sentence. Perhaps state why you want to do this. :)
8. Make explicit if you applied the same search criteria and repositories I used for your new search, or did you use same and extended the search?
9. “ Of those thirty-one new sources, three were already in the literature set of Botjes (2020). Eight were not found or publicly available, and thirteen were not relevant. Only seven were of interest to look at.” -> perhaps one sentence?
10. “After finalising the research, none of the literature added something new or rebutted the work of Botjes (2020).” -> In your view ;) or did you apply another process to come to this conclusion?
11. “The Extended Antifragile Attribute List classifies attributes” -> double check if we introduced the terms of variety, learning organisation and resilience, or inform the reader that this will be explained in the following subsubsection.
12. Important: Botjes et al did scope the validation to the organisation design. The title of the section implies scope to all systems. Be cafefull
**2.2.3. Resilience**
1. I need to ponder
**2.2.4. Learning organisation**
1. I am not certain how to deal with Garvin. It is here stated as fact and not as lens how to approach the LO. ANd how Senge and Garvin match is also not clear.
2. Denk goed na wat je hier wilt vertellen en met welke waarde naar de lezer toe. Weet de lezer nu meer dan daarvoor?
**2.2.5. Attenuate variety and amplified variety**
1. "Ashby and Beer stated the Law of Requisite Variety as ’variety can destroy variety ’ (Ashby, 1956, p. 207) and ’variety absorbs variety’ (Beer, 1979, p. 286).” (Botjes, 2020, p. 31). -> quote in quote is niet nodig :)
2. “described it” -> Don’t use IT but write the word or concept :) In this case requisite variety
3. “ But what about the types of attenuate and amplify?” -> adjust to a bit more scientific ;)
**2.2.6. Agility = Antifragility?**
1. “What is the relation between agile and antifragile?” -> is dit een logische vraag voor de lezer nadat ze iets over Req. var. Hebben gelezen? Misschien 1 of 2 inleidende zinnen van resilience, adapt to antifragile.
2. Ik zou na een paar dagen 2.2.6 beetje herschrijven naar de verhalende wijze. Dus met oreilly aan het einde van een zin. En bv Het einde van Aghina + Edzo -> Oreilly is als een memo aan jezelf maar niet aan de lezer.
Discussed in https://github.com/JRBliekendaal/master-thesis/discussions/158
1. “as an answer to Black Swan events” -> “as his answer to Black Swan events”2. “events are large-scale unpredictable” -> ik denk dat large-scale op deze plek niet thuis hoort. Of ik moet het verkeerd onthouden hebben.volgens mij vangt “massive” al de impact die een black swan event kan hebben. 3. “ the less tractable” -> wat betekend less tractable? 4. “ the less we know about how frequent its occurrence“ -> Ik denk dat het engels hier niet klopt. Misschien “the less we know about how frequent it’s occurring” oid. En is de truuk van een black swan juist niet dat je geen idee hebt wanneer het plaats vindt? Dan snap ik inhoudelijk niet helemaal wat je hier probeert te communiceren. 5. “The odds of rare events are not computable ()” -> “The odds of black swan events to occur are not computable ()” . Tenminste ik denk dat je dat probeert te zeggen 6. “With random events robust is not good enough.’ -> for who/ which is it not good enough? Why is it not good enough? Abstract formulation leads to implicit generalisation leads to the need of proof. 7. “Everything with the most minute vulnerability breaks” -> everything has a vulnerability and therefor everything always breaks. So what is the need of writing this? And is the word vulnerability not the implicit in the name the fragility? Else it would not be called a vulnerability :) aka.. rephrase , put in context or.. 8. “Robustness cannot just be it, perfect robustness is needed not to end up crashing the system” -> see previous feedback on wording and context. 9. “. Fragile systems fail when exposed to stressors “ -> Did we introduce fragile, did we introduce stressors? Do we need to define fail? 10. “ Antifragility goes beyond resiliency or robustness” -> please cross check if we introduced/ defined resilience and robustness enough to place this statement. Key is to make certain the reader does not need to think. 11. “Triade of fragile” -> the dimensions in this figure are not as such defined in the text. Double check. 12. “Antifragile means that a system gains more than it loses.” -> i think this is ok.. Later on double check if this is what you want to state. 13. “Positive asymmetry is achievable by reducing possible losses “ -> we understand this because we have read Taleb. A reader who has not read it, can not place this statement. Since the asymetrie is our translation of this first sentence. The reader can not make this translation. 14. “Reducing possible losses will reduce the harmful effects of exposure to damaging elements such as stressors and Black Swan event” -> advice: re-read a few times and perhaps rephrase. For example end of sentence move to the beginning of the sentence 15. “Fragility and antifragility mean potential gain or harm from exposure to something related to volatility” -> I do not understand this sentence and the term “to something related to volatility” is not introduced. So the reader is blind-sided. Take a moment what you want to tell here, and rephrase. Perhaps this paragraph is two paragraphs in 1? **2.2.1. Stressor** 1. Here you introduce stressor but have used it often in the previous subsubsection 2. “to an unintended3. condition (Turner II et al., 2003; Chrousos, 2009).” (Ghasemi & Alizadeh, 2017, p. 23).” -> You can remove turner, chrousos and ghasemi here, since you already attribute them in the beginning of the sentence.4. “stressors include natural disasters, customer demand randomness, financial crises, volatile customer tastes, and other unanticipated factors” -> Wat is de link tussen ghasemi, taleb aan de ene kant en Dongxia aan de andere kant? Kunnen we de definitie van Dongxia zonder problemen in deze context schuiven?**2.2.2. Antifragile as a systems property** 1. “a function of its internal structure” -> Function and internal structure are words people have an opinion about. Good to have clear how Barry used these terms. 2. “The ability to change under stress is governed by the interconnectedness of its sub-systems, how loosely coupled those subsystems are and how much of a change ripples through the system” -> This is a statement as a summary. This states not why, etc. 3. Overall this paragraph needs some love. Since now these are various statements without the why, and the relation to each other. For example “are some of the properties” makes it difficult for the reader. 4. “. Botjes et al. (2021) used multiple sources (table 2.1) to define a list of attributes.” -> see previous remarks on tables/ figures etc 5. In the second part of the paragraph you use Botjes () 1 or more times for every sentence. This reads badly. 6. I would remove “Botjes et al. (2021) used a data set collected by Botjes (2020).” 7. “Searching for new literature makes sure that Botjes et al. (2021) is recent and is not Rebutted.” -> This needs an introduction or linked to the previous sentence. Perhaps state why you want to do this. :) 8. Make explicit if you applied the same search criteria and repositories I used for your new search, or did you use same and extended the search? 9. “ Of those thirty-one new sources, three were already in the literature set of Botjes (2020). Eight were not found or publicly available, and thirteen were not relevant. Only seven were of interest to look at.” -> perhaps one sentence? 10. “After finalising the research, none of the literature added something new or rebutted the work of Botjes (2020).” -> In your view ;) or did you apply another process to come to this conclusion? 11. “The Extended Antifragile Attribute List classifies attributes” -> double check if we introduced the terms of variety, learning organisation and resilience, or inform the reader that this will be explained in the following subsubsection. 12. Important: Botjes et al did scope the validation to the organisation design. The title of the section implies scope to all systems. Be cafefull **2.2.3. Resilience** 1. I need to ponder **2.2.4. Learning organisation** 1. I am not certain how to deal with Garvin. It is here stated as fact and not as lens how to approach the LO. ANd how Senge and Garvin match is also not clear. 2. Denk goed na wat je hier wilt vertellen en met welke waarde naar de lezer toe. Weet de lezer nu meer dan daarvoor? **2.2.5. Attenuate variety and amplified variety** 1. "Ashby and Beer stated the Law of Requisite Variety as ’variety can destroy variety ’ (Ashby, 1956, p. 207) and ’variety absorbs variety’ (Beer, 1979, p. 286).” (Botjes, 2020, p. 31). -> quote in quote is niet nodig :) 2. “described it” -> Don’t use IT but write the word or concept :) In this case requisite variety 3. “ But what about the types of attenuate and amplify?” -> adjust to a bit more scientific ;) **2.2.6. Agility = Antifragility?** 1. “What is the relation between agile and antifragile?” -> is dit een logische vraag voor de lezer nadat ze iets over Req. var. Hebben gelezen? Misschien 1 of 2 inleidende zinnen van resilience, adapt to antifragile. 2. Ik zou na een paar dagen 2.2.6 beetje herschrijven naar de verhalende wijze. Dus met oreilly aan het einde van een zin. En bv Het einde van Aghina + Edzo -> Oreilly is als een memo aan jezelf maar niet aan de lezer.