Glenn- It would be refreshing to find a venue in which my definition of complexity (and the one described by Snowden, Stacey, Arthur, etc.) can be discussed. "Interconnectivity" and "interwoven" things are present in "complicated" and even "simple" systems as well. The difference is in how cause and effect function in the system. Different dynamics are operative.
This forum, on the other hand, usually has countless threads dissecting the exact meaning of this or that word, with voluminous rants on just why one particular individual is "wrong" and the author always "right". Then there is a counter rant, complete with the carefully annotated bits of the prior post, like yours below, describing how much in error the first (or was it the second) poster is or was and forever will be. In short, it dwells on the "complicated" and ignores the "complex". The "laws" assume more importance than the "interactions" and "emergence". The code of Conway's Game of Life assumes the real importance, instead of the patterns that emerge. I seem to recall scads of arguments from people wishing to assert just why "their" particular definition of emergence was correct, and others' wrong. Is this really people's idea of what complexity is all about? Such intellectual exercise is no doubt enjoyable to many people, but I tired of that long ago. If "suitable attractor" in the context of complexity theory is vague to you, I honestly don't know how we can have a discussion, as we are talking about such vastly different things. It would be better just to argue ideology and stop the charade of discussing complexity. Glen, I would suggest you read "Tribal Leadership" by David Logan. You can download an mp3 version for free from their website: www.triballeadership.net. Perhaps that will give you some insight into what I am talking about. Russ#3 Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ [email protected] www.emergenthealth.net
<<inline: PastedGraphic-3.tiff>>
On May 10, 2010, at 4:36 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > Russell Gonnering wrote circa 10-05-10 02:02 PM: >> We seem to be using a different definition of "complexity". Mine is >> in line with the Stacey diagram of agreement/certainty or the Cynefin >> Framework of Snowden that deals with cause and effect. Perhaps >> therein lies the difficulty, and why I see something you do not, and >> vice-versa. > > My definition of "complex" is the (relatively) simple English one: > "Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts; composite." When I > need something more ... fallutin' ;-) ... I tend toward Gell-Mann's > "plectics". > > That's why I cited the _other_ law that interconnects with the new > immigration law, because the context is critical. You can't just read > the 1 single law and think you understand it's implications. > >> That seems to describe a Complex Adaptive System-an attempt to adapt >> to a novel, and untenable, change in the system. Why do you feel I >> do not see logic in describing it as such?? > > Because you said that. You said: > > "The straw man argument that police in Arizona (many of whom are > Hispanic themselves) will harass people because they don't like the way > they look BECAUSE of this bill does not seem logical." > > You said it didn't seem logical. So, I attempted to point out the > logic, which is there. It's not illogical. Those who claim the police > in AZ will harass people because they don't like the way they look are > being _logical_. > > Again, of course, whether their logic is valid or sound is up for debate. > >> You seem to be critical >> because I do not condemn the bill in the way you feel I should. Ok, >> that's fine. > > No, actually. I'm not being critical of your position because you don't > condemn the bill. I'm being critical of your position because you're > not giving enough respect to the opposing viewpoint to make a robust > evaluation. > > The gist of it is that it's _true_ that there are no "show me your > papers" provisions in the new law. But _together_ with the other laws, > predisposition of LEOs, and the real correlation between immigrants, > poverty, and education level, this law amounts to a "show me your > papers" law... at least for a particular demographic. > >> We differ on the weight and validity we place on our >> observations. > > Wrong again. I don't place more or less weight or validity on my > observation. In fact, I have no idea how much weight or validity you > place on your observation. ;-) > >> You see the police itching to trample on the rights of >> brown people, and I do not. > > No. I don't see the police itching to trample anyone's rights. I see a > _systemic_ effect cascading from the implementation of a complex of > laws. The systemic effect I see is that the poor and uneducated will > experience a police state, while the wealthy won't. It just so happens > that in this region of the country, many of the poor and uneducated are > brown people. > >> But what does that have to do with >> looking at the complex system into which the bill was introduced?? >> It doesn't change the fact that a suitable attractor needs to be >> found to bring the system into stability. > > That's true enough, though it's incredibly vague... I'd argue too vague > to be operational. Before we can talk about attractors, we need to > define the measures (metrics, axes) we intend to use, even if it's to > give a huge set of measures we'll explore to look for the attractors. > > My first guess at a candidate would be the GPI (Genuine Progress > Indicator) and its constituents: Income Distribution, Housework, > Volunteering, and Higher Education, Crime, Resource Depletion, etc. But > I have no idea if we could identify any attractors in the spaces defined > by those measures, much less figure out how to tweak the laws so that > the system stays on or moves between attractors. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > 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
