#complexityscience

Systemic type mapping can communicate complexities inherent in the system under study, which allow enrichment to stakeholder understanding (especially when dealing with diverse team members). As example, team members believing the project to be simple, will allocate far fewer resources, compared to team members who think it is a complex task. Merging or aligning these views are called sense sharing. Sense sharing hold practical consequences when looking at the different sensibilities we have regarding factors like bias, time, cost, quality, effort, and resistance to the projects we undertake. Our mechanistic legacy and our obsession with quick fixes for complex challenges create a lack of discipline to investigate and truly understand problem contexts. It is common today, for consultants and vendors to apply the same solution to a host of different contexts1, 3. This cut & paste mentality, is still common, and based upon mechanistic orientations, devoid of systemic viability like ecologically integrative considerations.

 Considering that multi-disciplines or transdisciplinarity are inherent to complexity body of knowledge, the future need of these tools and insights will only grow1, requiring investment into these services and tools today, so that we can build these capacities. The systemic body of knowledge have influences from many disciplines like engineering, evolutionary biology, quantum mechanics, artificial intelligence, cybernetics, soft systems, hard systems, and more recently from architecture or design8. It adds to systemic knowledge by promoting design-centric visualisation in mapping processes and communications, like Giga-mapping - a broad map of multiple layers and scales8, useful on many levels. It also reveals inherent complexity and wickedness of real life problems8. It can be seen as an architectural variation of soft and hard system tools like: rich-pictures, concept maps, process maps, mind mapping, etc. Rich pictures are useful in building an overview, ordering and simplifying complex issues, whilst Giga-maps tend to be used to communicate design artefacts in itself8, helping to re-align and arrange complex information throughout the design process7. Systemic mapping tools help us all to understand system boundaries, which are vital in scientific theory and practice as it frame’s the system or intervention - notion of system-in-focus1. Because of systemic tools, we are better able to map, work with and engage in complex problems1, and considering that perfect information is a Newtonian flaw and mechanistic assumption that leads to divergent outcomes1. Systemic maps also tie into continuous learning1, whilst allowing expert knowledge to be accessed by laypersons as a form of self-development1, 8.

 References

1.     Udemans, F., 2008, The golden thread: escaping socio-economic subjugation: an experiment in applied complexity science, Authorhouse UK;

2.     Barness, J., & Papaelias, A., 2015, Critical making: Design and the digital humanities, Visible Language 49.3, the journal of visual communication research, special issue, December 2015;

3.     Schon, D., A., 1984, The reflective practitioner, New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.;

4.     Jones, P., and Jeremy Bowes, J., 2017, Rendering Systems Visible for Design: Synthesis Maps as Constructivist Design Narratives, Journal of design economics and innovation, Tongji University and Tongji University Press,
 Elsevier B.V., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/;

5.     Kanarinka, 2006, Art-machines, Body-ovens, and map-recipes: Entries for a psychogeographic dictionary, Cartographic perspectives, Number 53, Winter, 2006;

6.     Wikipedia, 2018, Mercator projection, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercator_projection&oldid=862917060;

7.     Firth, R., 2015, Critical Cartography, https://theoccupiedtimes.org/?p=13771, The Occupied Times of London (27),  Retrieved 16 February 2018;


8.     Sevaldson, B., 2011, Giga-mapping: Visualisation for Complexity and systems thinking in design, Conference Paper, June 2011, ResearchGate;

Western nations have experienced massive losses in trust4, 6, with public confidence crashing to 13% of Greek, 30% of Spanish and 28% of French citizens having trust in their respective governments4. The OECD has called upon governments to win back citizen trust, which is essential if the State is to have people pay taxes, obey rules, comply to regulations and the law. The more people trust the State, the more they are likely to invest and spend in economic activity. Most importantly, trust is essential in times of sacrifice, like say austerity measures and ultimately, war.

High levels of trust are considered beneficial to society in general, which include a critical and questioning disposition forming a healthy layer of critique and protection. This mistrust is really a questioning temperament that motivates people to engage in politics5 - a counter-weight ensuring equality and fairness. Loss of trust stem from corrupt practices as it opposes the four aspects that underlie trust5: Corruption undermine efficiency and effectiveness of parliamentary rule; Corruption infers a lack of moral code without care for citizens; Corruption thrives off institutional limits; Corrupt societies are deemed unreliable (uncertainty in outcomes due to lack of assurance and standards)5. Corruption is thus the antithesis of trust – indeed research recognise a negative reinforcing cycle whereby corruption breeds distrust, which in turn feeds corruption5, 1.

As noted, the 2017 Trust barometer revealed the alarming level of distrust people have toward business, government, media, and NGO’s6. This should not come as a surprise since we have been highlighting the systemic subjugation of global citizens through these very structures. The trust barometer is simply another indication of citizens being and expressing their resentment toward institutional and structural corruption across key agencies as well as the leadership that occupy them. The need for empathetic and especially systemic orientation is well overdue as continued institutional failure can only result in collapse. Rebuilding trust is not an option, but a needed act in order to restore systemic confidence and faith. Agencies and institutions can only become relevant again, if they genuinely serve the people as a priority. Trust is vital for reasons like: Public policies that depend on behavioral compliance (e.g. paying tax); Investment; Consumer confidence; Economic and financial activities (e.g. banking services). Importantly, if people believe that elected officials are not playing by the same rules, they too will “game the system”, degenerating into an “every-man-for-himself” system. It is the negative feedback loop noted earlier when citizen’s view their government as corrupt they too, will start to cut corners. It would seem the crimes of those having power, have eventually resulted in a steady decline in global trust7. Citizens from various societies believe the overall system to be broken and unable to function effectively7, they mostly have contempt and require no further evidence of corrupt and inept leadership. The result is desperate reactions expressed in: extreme politics, like Brexit, the US election choices; institutional corruption with fake news and corporate deceptions. It reveals backward and selfish positions being adopted as last resort attempts to bolster trust7.

  References:

Udemans, F., 2008, The golden     thread: escaping socio-economic subjugation, an experiment in applied complexity     science, Authorhouse UK;

2.     Dalton, R.J., 2005, The social transformation of trust in government, International Review of Sociology, Volume 15, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 133 /154;

3.     Mahmoud, Y., 2014, Pervasive disconnect between state and citizen offers two paths: Promise or Peril, International Peace Institute Global Observatory, June 16, 2014;

4.     Alex Gray, A., 2017, A question of confidence: the countries with the most trusted government, World Economic Forum, Formative Content, 15 November 2017;

5.     Van der Meer, T. and Dekker, P., 2011, Trustworthy states, trusting citizens? A multi-level study into objective and subjective determinants of political trust, In: Zmerli, S., & Marc, H., Political trust: Why context matters. Colchester: ECPR Press (995116);

6.     Edelman Trust Barometer, 2017, http://edelman.com/research/edelman- trust-barometer-archive;

7.     Vanbergen, G., 2017, The crises of trust in Democracy & Globalisation, The European Financial Review, July 26, 2017, http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=1726;

8.     Vavreck., L., 2015, The Long Decline of Trust in Government, and Why that can be patriotic, NY Times, The Upshot, July 3, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/upshot/the-long-decline-of-trust-in-government-and-why-that-can-be-patriotic.html;

9.     Stannard, M., 2016, From Wall street schemes to Debtor’s prisons: cities confront regressive debt collection, Public Banking Institute, March 26, 2016;

10.  Smith, J.W., 1989, The World’s Wasted Wealth: the political economy of waste, New World’s Press, 1989, pp.44,45;

We continue from last weeks problematic linear, mechanical thought patterns. Recall that a mechanical view cannot appreciate nor capture the fluidity that is central to socio-economic systems, which brings us back to the obsession to control and predict dynamic systems. As a practical example, the typical mechanistic response to the global financial system, is more regulations, tighter controls, greater oversight, which are all good, but highly inefficient since it only considers one static portion of an entire fluid system (dynamics of our global financial system). A more important example is where governments throughout the world try to generate jobs & stimulate their economies by using mechanical thinking, like hoping “private sector & especially large corporations can be incentivised” to create the necessary jobs. These are classic mechanistic solution to systemic problems - in other words, corporations have a primary focus of profit to their shareholders, which is inherently linked to greater consumption (we must continue to buy their products and services at a premium), thus directly opposed to alleviating poverty and joblessness. Excessive profit priorities are the selfish, greedy orientation that have created joblessness in the first place, like for example “out-sourcing & off-shoring work” due to cheap labor, tax breaks, etc., thus increasing profits without increasing overhead (creating more local jobs).

 These counterintuitive results are what leaders and policy-makers are unable to understand since they operate though a mechanical paradigm, which cannot yield any understanding about mechanisms such as feedback dynamics, self-organisation & relationships between agents and agencies having different “fields-of-power”1. Until our leaders in both public and private sectors truly understand the dynamics and inter-connectedness of our global poverty, hunger, joblessness and equality, we will continue on a downward spiral of having a minority with concentrated wealth & a majority locked in extreme poverty1.

 References:

1.              Udemans, F., 2008, The golden thread: escaping socio-economic subjugation, an experiment in applied complexity science, Authorhouse UK; Arthur, W.B. et al, 2013, Economics and the Modern Theories of Cognitive Behavior, SFI working paper; Mantega, M., & Stanley, H., 2000, An introduction to Econo-physics: correlation and complexity in Finance, Cambridge University Press; Gell-Mann, M., 1994, The quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex, New York: WH Freeman; Stacey, R.D., 1995, The science of complexity: an alternative perspective for strategic change processes, Strategic Management Journal, 16: 477-495; Stacey, R.D., 1996, Complexity and creativity in organizations, San Francisco: Berret-Koehler publishers; Sherman, H. and Schultz, R., 1998, Open Boundaries, New York: Perseus Books;

The nature typical “free markets” & the “invisible hand”, was highlighted in the previous 3-part blog. The purpose was to introduce what is implied by the idea of a “rigged system” or a “loaded dice”, i.e., a biased system that perpetuates the status quo, whereby certain groupings (the wealthy & privileged) are advantaged, at the expense of other groupings (the poor & oppressed). Rigged markets and/or systems are not rigged in the strict sense of the word, instead it is a Machiavellian-type scenario, whereby the perception of theoretical or idealistic equality & fairness are seen to be embedded in socio-economic systems themselves, through the many laws, rules & regulations. The “advantage” is neither not apparent nor discernable in such economic systems. In short, the “mechanics” of rigged systems rely on a number of subtleties like:

 High degrees of trusted networks of collaborators across industries;

Very efficient manipulation of all media;

Veiled operational power & authority;

Promote symbolic capital & cultural capital as core consumerist strategy;

High levels of governance & compliance are paraded and promoted;

Misdirection & bending of the truth;

Clandestinely allied to economic capital accumulation;

Public structures to carry the “burden of proof”;

Science & technology used to enhance “lock-in’;

Corporatisation of democracy;

This is not a comprehensive list, but core characteristics, which when wielded systemically, are virtually impossible to vanquish. These physiognomies will be unpacked so as to reveal the “mechanics of rigged capital systems”. Some or all of these characteristics will shed light on geo-political activities that ultimately are sponsored by corporations & leadership inclined to retain the status quo, often at the incalculable cost of ruining Nation States nations (for example Greece; Ukraine; Iraq; etc.).

Field-of-power = f(economic capital) x f(symbolic capital) x f(cultural capital)

Another important feature when using our individual power, is to understand that although we may be convinced that we personally lack specific aspects of the elements that comprise the population of power to our disposal, like for example lacking in symbolic capital (in other words, we may not have many symbols of wealth, like say medals of achievements; qualifications; fancy home; expensive car, designer clothes, etc.), does not mean we cannot use amplification techniques to create the perception of having all and more of these symbols of wealth and power. This is a very important message, which in practical real-life situations, often are taken to the extreme by some people, without them even knowing what it is they are doing in terms of systems science. A good example was when we had a formal appointment at our offices with a foreign private investor into one of our projects. The person arrived in a chauffer driven Rolls Royce, dressed in s smart suit and presented to our project team. After 6 weeks of flying to and from the UAE and the project, we discovered that he had rented both the limo & the suit and had no engineering experience. The idea is not to judge such people, but to appreciate their part-understanding of the importance of symbolic capital, which in this instance got him into the heart of the project for 6 weeks and direct access to the project owners and implementing team.

  This is an extreme example and may even seem funny, yet the point is that we all have a distinct tendency to respond to some or all of the elements of the field-of-power, in very predictable ways. The manner in which we use our “power” to obtain personal objectives may often appear questionable (using deception or “white lies”), or it be seen as unethical (using information or ideas of other), often it may be even immoral (using beautiful and attractive people to help close a deal). What all these examples indicate is merely how some people amplify elements of their field-of-power in pursuit of their objectives. The fact that this works exceedingly well is sufficient proof that we all need to “up our game” in terms of understanding & using our field of power more effectively.