Teleological Bias
Taleb criticizes the assumption that action must follow a known endpoint. His account emphasizes exploration, trial and error, and outcomes that emerge without a complete plan.
THE IDEA
DO YOU REALLY KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING?
Summa Theologiae by Saint Thomas Aquinas is the kind of book that no longer exists, the book-as-monument, a summa being the comprehensive treatment of a given discipline, while freeing it from the structure the authorities had given it before—the antitextbook. In this case its subject matter is theology, meaning everything philosophical, and it comments on every body of knowledge as it relates to his arguments. And it reflects—and largely directs—the thought of the Middle Ages.
Quite a departure from the book with a simple closed-end subject matter.
The erudite mind’s denigration of antifragility is best seen in a sentence that dominates the Summa, being repeated in many places, one variant of which is as follows: “An agent does not move except out of intention for an end,” agen autem non movet nisi ex intentione finis. In other words, agents are supposed to know where they are going, a teleological argument (from telos, “based on the end”) that originates with Aristotle. Everyone, including the Stoics, but excluding the skeptics, fell for such teleological arguments intellectually, but certainly not in action. Incidentally, it is not Aristotle whom Aquinas is quoting—he calls him the Philosopher—but the Arab synthesizer of Aristotle’s thinking, Ibn Rushd, also known as Averroes, whom Aquinas calls the Commentator. And the Commentator has caused a great deal of damage. For Western thought is vastly more Arabian than is recognized, while post-Medieval Arabs have managed to escape medieval rationalism.
This entire heritage of thinking, grounded in the sentence “An agent does not move except out of intention for an end,” is where the most pervasive human error lies, compounded by two or more centuries of the illusion of unconditional scientific understanding. This error is also the most fragilizing one.
When to use it
Business strategy: Avoid over-attributing intentionality to competitors' moves; instead consider random or reactive elements.
Personal relationships: Recognize that not all actions are goal-driven, reducing misunderstandings and judgments.
Scientific research: Embrace the role of serendipity and trial-and-error, rather than forcing a linear narrative.
Policy making: Design systems that are robust to unknown future intentions, rather than assuming predictable outcomes.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
CEO assumes clear employee goals
A CEO interprets every employee action as a step in a settled plan. Some actions may instead be experiments or responses to immediate circumstances. Asking what the employee was trying to do can test the interpretation.
Scientific discovery as planned path
An account of discovery can make the result seem like the intended destination all along. Penicillin illustrates why an unexpected observation and the subsequent work to develop it need to be distinguished from a fully planned path.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Recall a situation where you attributed a clear, intended goal to someone's actions. How might that assumption have been misleading?
How can you distinguish between genuine intentionality in systems versus emergent, random behavior?
In what ways does the teleological bias make individuals or organizations more fragile?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Antifragile (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)