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.

The passage suggests that contact tracing apps could inadvertently raise risky interactions by altering local behaviour. Which one of the assumptions below is most necessary for that suggestion to hold?

Solution

✅ Correct Option: 1

The correct answer is option 1. The passage draws an explicit analogy between fish schooling and contact-tracing apps: small local adjustments by individuals feed back on one another and produce an unintended collective pattern. For the suggestion that apps could raise risky interactions to hold, it must be true that people's local movement decisions are interdependent and can aggregate into large-scale outcomes. Option 1 captures precisely this necessary assumption — that individuals respond to observed infections and to each other's behaviour, and that these responses interact to generate emergent patterns that can undercut the goal of reducing risk. This mirrors the passage's first paragraph, where local avoidance of the infected paradoxically produces higher collective contact between infected and susceptible people.

Option 2 is wrong (reversed). If most users uninstall the app quickly and no systematic bias in routing remains, then there is no mechanism by which the app could generate a harmful collective pattern. This assumption would neutralise the very effect the passage describes rather than support it.

Option 3 is wrong (out of scope). Claiming that urban traffic is uniform and that personal choices are irrelevant directly contradicts the interdependence the passage requires. If movement is perfectly predictable and independent of social signals, individual behavioural adjustments cannot cascade into unintended aggregate patterns.

Option 4 is wrong (keyword trap). It latches onto the technology of the app but shifts the issue to data accuracy, which the passage never raises. Perfect precision of alerts is not what drives the harmful collective effect; rather, it is the feedback among individual responses. Even with imperfect data, interdependent local reactions could still produce the problematic pattern the passage describes.

Keyboard Shortcuts

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