5 Comments
User's avatar
João Landeiro's avatar

The paradox: Non-Fungibility is not really anti-fragile. But it is somewhat in the same family of ideas.

The main issue with Non-Fungibility is legibility.

People who don't get it massively outnumber those with the necessary perspective that can detect and nurture it when necessary.

Expand full comment
MC's avatar

Never thought about it that way. The comparison with anti-fragility is somehow flattering!

What do you mean the issue is in legibility? Are you referring to the fact that non-fungibility is a hard skill to train?

Expand full comment
João Landeiro's avatar

Legibility as in people being able to correctly read the signs of non-fungibility as signs of skill and not just the costs of “hard to manage”.

“Communication of value” places the focus on the emitter.

“Legibility” focuses on the receiver (over whom the emitter has less effect).

Carpenters are legible

Consultants are less so

Expand full comment
MC's avatar

Got it. I still assign the responsibility to the consultant, who must be able to communicate value in a way that the receiver can understand.

The onus of communication is on the emitter, not the receiver (something I only understood and truly appreciated after too many mistakes).

Expand full comment
João Landeiro's avatar

Exactly! I think I’m messing up the way I explain this (ironic) but yes.

Some occupations can offload that explanation effort to the culture and let others just refer to what they already know about it (lawyers, doctors, butchers, painters, etc) but if you have an uncommon and abstract job, you need to think a bit deeper about this.

For those, the question “what signals am I emitting that make it easier for others to understand what I do” becomes more crucial.

Expand full comment