What Does Not Kill Me Kills Others
The fallacy of mistaking systemic strengthening that results from the elimination of the weakest (selection) as the individual strengthening effect of an ordeal (hormesis or Mithridatization). The system appears stronger because the weak are gone, not because the survivors were individually improved by the trial.
THE IDEA
WHAT DOES NOT KILL ME KILLS OTHERS
Time to debunk a myth.
As an advocate of antifragility I need to warn about the illusion of seeing it when it is not really there. We can mistake the antifragility of the system for that of the individual, when in fact it takes place at the expense of the individual (the difference between hormesis and selection).
Nietzsche’s famous expression “what does not kill me makes me stronger” can be easily misinterpreted as meaning Mithridatization or hormesis. It may be one of these two phenomena, very possible, but it could as well mean “what did not kill me did not make me stronger, but spared me because I am stronger than others; but it killed others and the average population is now stronger because the weak are gone.” In other words, I passed an exit exam. I’ve discussed the problem in earlier writings of the false illusion of causality, with a newspaper article saying that the new mafia members, former Soviet exiles, had been “hardened by a visit to the Gulag” (the Soviet concentration camps). Since the sojourn in the Gulag killed the weakest, one had the illusion of strengthening. Sometimes we see people having survived trials and imagine, given that the surviving population is sturdier than the original one, that these trials are good for them. In other words, the trial can just be a ruthless exam that kills those who fail. All we may be witnessing is that transfer of fragility (rather, antifragility) from the individual to the system that I discussed earlier. Let me present it in a different way. The surviving cohort, clearly, is stronger than the initial one—but not quite the individuals, since the weaker ones died.
Someone paid a price for the system to improve.
When to use it
Analyzing startup accelerator outcomes to determine if they genuinely help companies grow or simply select for pre-existing winners.
Evaluating military boot camps to distinguish between building combat resilience and merely screening out recruits with lower initial resilience.
Assessing personal development narratives to honestly evaluate whether an outcome was due to genuine learning and growth from adversity, or simply due to being a lucky survivor of a harsh selection event.
Debating the efficacy of 'tough love' approaches in education or parenting where the system discards those who cannot cope.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Gulag Survivors and Mafia Members
A newspaper described former Soviet exiles who joined the mafia as having been 'hardened by a visit to the Gulag.' Taleb questions that inference: the survivors may have been unusually resilient before imprisonment, while more vulnerable prisoners died. A stronger surviving group does not by itself show that the ordeal strengthened its members.
Business Survivors in a Market Crash
After an economic downturn, the surviving companies are praised for their resilience and 'lessons learned.' However, the crash may have simply killed the weakest businesses, while the surviving ones were already better capitalized or luckier. The system appears stronger, but the individual survivors did not necessarily gain strength from the ordeal.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Identify a personal experience or historical event where a 'surviving' group was praised for its resilience, but the adversity actually selected for specific traits rather than developing them. How does this change your interpretation?
How can organizations ensure their 'trial by fire' processes are genuinely building resilience in individuals rather than merely filtering for those who were already resilient?
What current success narratives in society (e.g., surviving a war, a famine, or a tough business market) might actually be examples of this fallacy?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Antifragile (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)