Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Understanding the key properties of complex systems can help us clarify and deal with many new and existing global challenges, from pandemics to poverty . . . A recent study in Nature Physics found transitions to orderly states such as schooling in fish (all fish swimming in the same direction), can be caused, paradoxically, by randomness, or ‘noise’ feeding back on itself. That is, a misalignment among the fish causes further misalignment, eventually inducing a transition to schooling. Most of us wouldn’t guess that noise can produce predictable behaviour. The result invites us to consider how technology such as contact-tracing apps, although informing us locally, might negatively impact our collective movement. If each of us changes our behaviour to avoid the infected, we might generate a collective pattern we had aimed to avoid: higher levels of interaction between the infected and susceptible, or high levels of interaction among the asymptomatic.

Complex systems also suffer from a special vulnerability to events that don’t follow a normal distribution or ‘bell curve’. When events are distributed normally, most outcomes are familiar and don’t seem particularly striking. Height is a good example: it’s pretty unusual for a man to be over 7 feet tall; most adults are between 5 and 6 feet, and there is no known person over 9 feet tall. But in collective settings where contagion shapes behaviour – a run on the banks, a scramble to buy toilet paper – the probability distributions for possible events are often heavy-tailed. There is a much higher probability of extreme events, such as a stock market crash or a massive surge in infections. These events are still unlikely, but they occur more frequently and are larger than would be expected under normal distributions.

What’s more, once a rare but hugely significant ‘tail’ event takes place, this raises the probability of further tail events. We might call them second-order tail events; they include stock market gyrations after a big fall and earthquake aftershocks. The initial probability of second-order tail events is so tiny it’s almost impossible to calculate – but once a first-order tail event occurs, the rules change, and the probability of a second-order tail event increases.

The dynamics of tail events are complicated by the fact that they result from cascades of other unlikely events. When COVID-19 first struck, the stock market suffered stunning losses followed by an equally stunning recovery. Some of these dynamics are potentially attributable to former sports bettors, with no sports to bet on, entering the market as speculators rather than investors. The arrival of these new players might have increased inefficiencies and allowed savvy long-term investors to gain an edge over bettors with different goals. . . .

One reason a first-order tail event can induce further tail events is that it changes the perceived costs of our actions and changes the rules that we play by. This game-change is an example of another key complex systems concept: nonstationarity. A second, canonical example of nonstationarity is adaptation, as illustrated by the arms race involved in the coevolution of hosts and parasites [in which] each has to ‘run’ faster, just to keep up with the novel solutions the other one presents as they battle it out in evolutionary time.

Which one of the options below best summarises the passage?

Solution

✅ Correct Option: 4

The correct answer is option 4. The passage progresses through a clear sequence: it opens with the paradox that randomness can produce orderly states such as fish schooling, then introduces the vulnerability of complex systems to heavy-tailed distributions where extreme events are far more likely than a bell curve would predict. It next explains how a first-order tail event raises the probability of second-order tail events, illustrating this with the COVID-19 stock market disruption and the entry of sports bettors as speculators. Finally, it introduces nonstationarity as the concept that explains why initial shocks change the rules of the game, citing the evolutionary arms race as a canonical example. Option 4 faithfully captures this entire arc without distortion.

Option 1 is wrong (reversed). The passage explicitly argues that social outcomes in contagion-driven collective settings do not follow normal distributions but instead exhibit heavy tails, making extreme events significant rather than negligible. This option inverts the passage's central warning.

Option 2 is wrong (extreme). The passage mentions former sports bettors as one possible factor behind post-crash market dynamics and hedges the claim with "potentially attributable." It never states that speculative entrants "always" produce inefficiency or that long-term investors "invariably" profit; both absolutes far overshoot the tentative language of the text.

Option 3 is wrong (out of scope). The passage uses parasite-host coevolution as a "canonical example" of nonstationarity but never restricts the concept to evolutionary biology. On the contrary, it applies nonstationarity to markets and social dynamics, and it explicitly connects technology-mediated behaviour such as contact-tracing apps to complex-systems thinking. The claim that the passage "rejects" these applications is fabricated.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question