I'm very pleased you also see the curve as reflecting a pattern in the phenomenon of public trust, and I think you're right on to observe that the decay pattern started *prior* to any of the big mistakes that later confirmed it. One thing that might produce that pattern is excessive original expectations, that we may have had 'irrational exuberance' for things we thought we could do about 9/11 and as a community, we held on to the desire to retaliate even as our ability to believe it possible kept getting steadily harder and harder...
For phenomena there tends to be a small constellation of workable models for what the system dynamic was. That there was anything this consistent going on I think was well below everyone's radar. I see the media as primarily an entertainment service rather than a truth seeking process. A truth seeking process homes in on things and the media tend to multiply any entertaining new idea politicians can 'score points' with, thus Al Gore's observation that the scientific literature develops broad consensus and the popular literature doesn't. The decay of public trust is one that both literatures missed entirely I think. Does this give you any hint of why I highly value reading the sustained system developmental processes displayed in growth curves? Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:15 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 38, Issue 3 > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > Well that curve is the clearest kind of complex systems > inforation we > > ever get. This is one beautiful and dramatic bullet of > information, > > and I think if we ask a hundred systems scientists what it > means we'll > > get a lot of opinion, much of it not based on systems theory. > > > > I think what's amazing about the curve is that it shows a > remarkably > > clear dynamic in the trust of the nation, a long period on > the same path > > of decay. What I read it as, and others may differ, is > that out trust > > in war as a response to terror actually never had a growth, > climax or > > stability period, only a decay period. > > > I think it is reasonable to posit that the lack of trust that > explains > these general trends. However, in this case it appears to > have started > before 9/11 (and before military actions in Afghanistan or > Iraq). The > same plots for other presidents could give a baseline for general > properties of presidential popularity. There may be a common > friction. One could compare the general slope for one and two term > presidents with the idea that two term presidents did > something right. > (I would think someone has done this, but have not investigated.) > > Another interpretation is that popularity decays just in the face of > steady negative media coverage. That some people are > sensitive to the > news and some are less sensitive and that it takes a long period of > exposure for some people to take a negative opinion. In this model, > introducing a concept like trust is not necessary. > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
