Tag: complex systems

Posted on

The Problems With Scale and Scalability

The notion of scale can provide a powerful perspective to understanding. However, “scale” also can create greater confusion and deeply entangled, nasty problems.

Developing an understanding of the scale of the Solar System can be eye-opening. But, if not done appropriately can result in even greater confusion. In textbooks, the solar system may show the Sun and planets in scale according to size, but it is physically impossible to show the arrangement and distances to the same scale in a textbook. And, then there is a third dimension that is almost never represented or discussed, and that is time. To do a truly representative scale model of the Solar System, one has to find a do-able scale for size and distance. With my students, I’ve used a 1 to 20 billion scale. However, to do so makes replicating the size difficult, but the distances are pretty reasonable to scale down. We made the Sun and planets out of modeling clay, with the Sun at 6.95 cm and the Earth at about 0.6 mm (which was difficult to do and when done, was easy to lose). With each object constructed, we walked out the distances, which extended over 2.5 American football fields in length. When we included Pluto (it will always be a “planet” to me), Pluto averaged about 290 meters from the Sun, but Pluto’s orbit is elliptical and extends from inside the orbital path of Neptune to about an equal distance beyond the 290 meter scaled distance. To include the time dimension, we would need to scale down the orbital speeds by the same ratio. You can then add scaled down rotational speeds, as well. But, even doing all of this scaling down, we still misrepresent the actual solar system. And, this problem goes back to Korzybsky’s notion that the “map is not the territory.” Our representations, whether in our minds or with objects, can never completely represent the actual “thing” we are trying to represent. But, we can get close, and working towards accurate scale models can help us to refine our cognitive models.

Physical and mechanical systems are easier to scale, but not without issues. Physical and mechanical systems, such as cars, computers, etc., may be very complicated, but they are not complex. Complex systems are living systems. Such systems are unpredictable, self-regulating, and self-maintaining. Mechanical and physical systems are more predictable, but not entirely. Climate and weather systems are more unpredictable than other physical systems, such as planetary motion. And, this unpredictable quality is due to the interdependencies between climate systems and ecological systems. With mechanical systems, we may scale up some transportation system, say from bicycle to motorcycle to car to semi to ship to train to airplane. At each level of scale and change in context of use, the devices become more complicated. At each level, the variables that affect and are affected by the increase in complicated-ness make it more difficult to fully predict. And, then when we add the human component to the system, the complicated mechanical system becomes a merging of complicated and complex systems, which adds even greater uncertainty to the functioning of the complicated—complex transportation system.

Another application of scale that can be interesting, but which can become problematic involves working across levels of scale. Let’s say we identify some pattern in the dynamics of a relationship between two people or between a person and a dog. Maybe this pattern involves a lopsided control issue. One person tries to control the other or, in the case of the person and dog, the person or dog may be the one trying to control the other (I’ve seen both of these patterns of human—dog relationships). Then, say, you see two nations behaving in a similar way, where one nation is trying to control the other. This comparison across levels of scale can be insightful, but not without issues. The specifics of this more general pattern of relationship are not scalable. The danger is that we may get stuck assuming that there are more similarities to the dynamics than there really are. Within the general pattern of lopsidedness control, there are all sorts of other patterns occurring that are specific to the contexts involved. The dog—person contexts are completely different from the person—person and the nation—nation contexts. So, more generalized patterns may be interesting and informative to compare across levels of scale, while the more contextually specific patterns are much more difficult to compare.

Another version of “scalability” that is problematic from the start involves applying some strategy or approach that works well at a small scale and then trying to apply that same approach at a larger scale. The minute we try to “scale up” some approach that in any way involves living or social systems, all sorts of unexpected problems pop up. We may try to scale up the idea of community gardens then lose sight of the contexts that allowed one community garden to be successful. Every community has different characteristics, dynamics, issues, needs, and so forth. And, every community is comprised of distinctively different people. And, communities exist among diverse types of ecosystems, from deserts to rain forests. The “idea” of scaling up some great approach in one context seems wonderful, but that “idea” does not account for the complexity of each individual context or set of contexts, and especially in terms of the exponential increase in complexity encountered when “scaling up.” Even naturally increasing sizes of “things” creates tremendous difficulties. When a democratic form of government was first established in the the United States shortly after getting its independence, the designers of the system were dealing with a population of about 2,000,000 non-slaves and non-indigenous people. And, of people who could vote, that population was about half that size (women could not vote). The contexts that were at play involved a history of colonization, of a dependence on slavery, of women as of lesser status than men, of the natural and physical environments in which people lived, of the technology of the time, and so on. Even from the beginning, the democratic process was bumpy. And, much of this bumpiness arose from the unpredictability of complex social systems. As contexts change, the entire political system can crumble or, at least, face huge challenges in maintaining its stability and functionality. And, as the population increases — a naturally occurring scaling up — the difficulties of maintaining the original system increase exponentially. These “created” complex social systems never seem to address ways of adjusting to major shifts in contexts, major challenges to the viability of the system, and so forth. In the U.S., we seem to be at just this point of near collapse of the original system, where scalability fails.

Posted on

Karma: It “Is” & Isn’t What You Think

The word “karma” has become fairly common in English conversations. However, like far too many other words in common and not so common usage, I get the distinct feeling that what others mean when using “karma” is not at all close to what I mean when thinking about or using this word. This gap in meaning can be so problematic that I tend to avoid using this word at all. So, I’d like to explore this meaning-gap issue, this word, and the concept to which it refers in some detail. 

Let me begin with some mullings on the nature of meaning. The term “meaning” is another relatively slippery word, especially when combined with the baggage carried by words that often accompany “meaning.” For instance, in contexts in which I worked in education, “meaning-making” was bandied about as if everyone understood exactly what that means. — You can see the circularity coming! — The idea of “making” has all kinds of baggage from mechanistic senses of intentionally constructing something to a general sense of intentionality and personal “agency,” which is another heavily loaded word I try to avoid. With these pitfalls in mind, let me try to provide a sense of “meaning” that has as little baggage as possible. 

“KowEkvusnru,” a randomly typed set of letters, has no particular meaning, while “F*@k” may communicate a bit of meaning even though this set of letters and symbols do not explicitly spell an English word. We infer meaning from our personal experiences. The word “president,” on the other hand, can trigger all sorts of meanings, again, depending upon our personal and social experiences. Does everyone hold the same “meaning” for president? Is your meaning for president the same now as it was 10, 20, 30 years ago? I suspect the answers to both questions are “no.” In fact, meaning seems to morph all of the time, depending on the physical, cognitive, and emotional contexts in which we are functioning at any particular moment. At the same time, there may be aspects of meaning that are persistent over time. Our prior experiences, particularly those that have had a large impact on us, and knowledge, whether accurate or not, can provide some degree of consistency. 

From my research with children and adults, I found that meaning includes much more than what has been emphasized during our experiences with school. Meaning is more than the “official” knowledge of a particular subject or field of study. Meaning can involve emotions, values, aesthetics or senses of beauty and ugliness, a huge range of biases, a range of belief frames, a huge variety of interpretive frameworks, humor, fantasy, hopes and fears, desires, imagery, memories of personal experiences, and all sorts of tenuous “understandings” of our world that may or may not be accurate, but which we assume are self-evident truths. In other words, meaning is a complex and fluid, ever-shifting set of “information” that provides rich contexts around all sorts of words, ideas, and experiences at any particular moment. 

With that little divergence into meaning, let’s move on to karma. There seem to be two common frameworks, lenses, or filters that affect people’s understandings and meanings associated with “karma.” Theistic religious traditions seem to contribute some sense of external authority exerting a moral evaluation and pay-back to the meaning of karma. You are getting what you deserve from your actions. The positivistic and mechanistic paradigms or worldviews provided by the philosophical work of René Descartes infiltrate much of our thinking, including karma as a simple cause and effect mechanism. We punch someone. We get punched back. But, both of these filters over-simplify and distort the notion of karma from Buddhist and Hindu perspectives, although the Hindu perspectives may occasionally be influenced by the theistic lens. 

The 7th stage or “nidana” of the cycle of Karma: Feeling.

In order to understand karma from the perspective of Buddhism, we need to situate this concept in a bit more context. Some of the fundamental ideas in Buddhism are based on egolessness. “Ego,” from a Buddhist perspective, is not the same as ego in Western psychology. In Buddhism, ego has to do with our patterns of clinging, attachment, and attempts to solidify our senses of self and of our world. Achieving a state of egolessness does not mean you don’t know who you are or how to function in the world. Such a state is probably just the opposite. We see our patterns of thinking and manifesting clearly, but without any attachment or desire to maintain them. And, we can function in the world with greater clarity and compassion. The practice of Buddhist meditation is really about simplifying, seeing clearly, and sharpening our perception and innate intelligence, which can lead to a cessation of clinging to all of our strategies for maintaining a faulty sense of solid self and solid entities in our world. 

Within this context, the notion of karma involves more of a sense of patterning, as presented by Gregory Bateson and, his daughter, Nora Bateson. This patterning is situated in the way we think. We may find that we tend to respond in certain ways to other people. We may find that we do not open up to others and are always covering up certain things and are always manifesting in a certain way. Maybe we are always critical of other people and focus in on their perceived weaknesses. Or, maybe we are always trying to please others and to be liked. We may find that we are always angry, whether we manifest that anger or not. We may feel misunderstood, marginalized, or victimized and react to these feelings with anger or avoidance. These patterns of thinking and acting are difficult to change. If you have ever had or been around a male dog that was neutered too late in his life, you may have noticed how this dog continues with the same hormonal-affected behaviors it had before being neutered. The patterns of behavior had become so embedded in such a dog’s thinking that they continue after removing the initial hormonal factors. In people, patterns of thinking, reacting, acting, and so forth also become deeply embedded. This is karma. We keep heaping it on ourselves as we go about our everyday lives. 

We also may have heard of “good karma” and “bad karma.” Good karma can be patterns of always trying to help or care for other people. Bad karma can be patterns of aggressive attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors toward others. Although “good karma” is better than bad karma, from a Buddhist practitioner’s perspective, both are problematic. From this view, good karma may continue to build up our sense of ego. We may see our good karma as a way of enhancing our senses of self to which we continue to cling as some sort of confirmation. 

An angry group of men in New York City. PHOTO: © 1975 by Jeffrey W. Bloom

Our accumulation of karma may bite us in the butt, which is more closely associated with the popular usage of the word “karma.” However, as you may have gathered, the accumulation of karma, especially bad karma, can have all sorts of effects on oneself. By always trying to take advantage of others, metaphorically or literally stabbing others in the back, criticizing others, demeaning others, and so forth, one’s life has to be pretty miserable. Think of someone who manifests such bad karma — there are certainly a lot of well-known examples — and imagine that you are that person. When I’ve tried that, I seem to immediately get claustrophobic and want to escape! The suffering must be incredibly intense. But, what seems to happen all too often in such personal contexts is for the person to keep returning to the same strategies and patterns of thinking, while assuming such strategies will offer some sense of relief or success. 

Karma, from this perspective, is really just another way of looking at the feedback loops, non-linearity, and perpetuation of the system from the perspective of complexity. Complex systems are living and/or social systems that self-maintain, self-generate, and self-perpetuate themselves. In many complex systems, such as ecosystems, they maintain their continuity over time by adjusting to changes. Even, after major catastrophes, such systems, if they are not destroyed, may return to a healthy state after a long period time. However, it seems that in the complex systems of human beings, such systems can diverge into more pathological or unhealthy self-maintaining systems. Our political, economic, educational, and the other social systems, which are all intertwined and interdependent, can veer off from what may have been a well-intended system to one that perpetuates further problems and suffering for those participating in and living in those systems. So, there seems to be a sense of social karma, as well. 

Posted on

A Short Discussion on “Senate Adopts Resolution Declaring ‘The Press Is Not the Enemy of the People'”

“Senate Unanimously Passes Resolution Declaring the press Is Not the Enemy of the People”

View Video Here

It would be nice if Congress would take more stands like this, but I think this action is superficial and all too politically safe.

I’m getting to the point where I think the whole system has become pathological (and Democrats are equally responsible for what’s happening). And, by the “whole system,” I really mean multiple systems (political, economic, educational, social, etc.). And, electing new people isn’t going to fix it. There might be a temporary shift, but we are collapsing (along with most other societies).

We (almost all people) have been “trained” to think in linear ways, where cause and effect are simplistic and blame is easy to assign. But, living systems are complex (they don’t operate according to simplistic linear rules and processes). Thinking that blames Trump or even the Republicans for our ills is way too simplistic. The current situation has arisen and continues due to a multiplicity of interacting systems. Capitalism and the rise of neoliberalism are big contributing factors. The systemic dumbing down of children through public schooling since the mid/late 1800’s is another factor, along with the mechanistic approaches to education that have prevented the learning of flexible, creative, and critical thinking. And, we can see how the social system has been created to respond to fear and anger, while maintaining an animal realm nose-to-the-ground existence. We can go on talking about how all of these systems interact and reinforce one another, but it’s too much to cover here.

The big characteristic of complex systems is that they are self-maintaining. At this point, the cluster of interacting systems has “learned” to maintain itself in generally the way we are seeing them manifest. Let’s say we elect a great Democratic president and Congress, we may notice a shift in certain characteristics, but the underlying patterns of money, power, and control will remain, just as they have for many decades. And, then as global warming continues to increase exponentially, the population continues to grow beyond the limits of resources that can maintain the population, and people (including millions of North Americans) are driven from their homes from these previously mentioned conditions, the deeply embedded patterns of reacting with fear and aggression comes storming back into the social-political-educational-economic-etc. contexts, and we get politicians who will be even worse than the ones we have now. And then, I suspect everything starts to collapse… and this is probably within the next decade or two.

It seems to me that the only things we can do to prevent a total collapse involve:

  • not creating divisions between people, but getting everyone to begin caring for and supporting one another and working together;
  • changing the way we think by moving from the linear and simplistic cause and effect ways of thinking to complex systems thinking; and
  • not depending on politicians and governments to “solve” the problems, but working with others in the liminal spaces between institutions to explore ways of dealing with the big issues we’re facing.