Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Pedro
regarding social openness: very tenuous rumor may destroy an entire company,
or put a sector on its knees.. This can only happen if there is a
fundamental reason for the company or the sector to get into trouble (e.g. time
before the collapse the WorldCom had been in financial troubles but was
corrupting its accounting data to hide it). Therefore, a rumor is only a
trigger, and if it is rumor only, nothing will happen to the system.
When I refer to {biological {sociocultural }} constraints in understanding and
managing complexity I primarily have in mind the nature of constraints as such,
in terms that certain things cannot or are not likely to happen under their
influence. For example, our brains cannot handle more than 3 or 4 variables at
one time and grasp their causative interrelations, so we have a natural
heuristic process that cuts trough the many and reduces it to few. This
results in oversimplification of the reality and overemphasizing of the
variables that were not left out. A lot political and economic reasoning
suffers from that bias. Mathematical procedures and modeling can help us with
this biological constraint but math, unfortunately, did not prove itself yet to
be helpful to deal complex social problems. Artificial societies may be a
hopeful way, but this is yet to be seen.
Another biological constraint on our capacity to manage complex social reality
is that we intermittently use rational procedures and emotions, so a situation
which may be solved by an analytic process can erupt in conflict only because
certain words have been uttered or misinterpreted, which steers the whole
interaction and the problem solving process in a different direction. This
biological trait is only partially controlled by the culture at the next
integrative level, trough norms and rules of behavior (institutions).
The impact of sociocultural constraints on managing complexity is evident form
my last example on managing the energy sector: there is no reason as why the
energy sector could not be managed in a fully planned and rational way by a
group of experts who would optimize the production and transmission processes.
Did we need the market process to send the spacecraft to the Moon or it was a
large-scale project carefully managed for years before it succeeded? Or, is the
carbon trading the best response to climate change problem? However, the
primacy of markets is part of our dominant worldview, so we have the propensity
to exclude other options that may do the job better or with less uncertainty.
So I have the feeling that as we continue to build more socio-economic
complexity our biological and cultral capabilities to manage it are lagging
seriously behind.
The best
Igor
Original Message -
From: Pedro Marijuan
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Igor and colleagues,
I have the impression that there is an agreement about the existence of
biological and sociocultural constraints that impact on our ability to
understand and manage socioeconomic complexity. These constraints are organized
hierarchically, as Stan puts it, {biological {sociocultural }}.
I would agree that this is the way to organize our explanations. But
dynamically the real world is open at all levels: very simple amplification or
feed forward processes would produce phenomena capable of escalating levels and
percolate around (e.g., minuscule oxidation-combustion phenomena initiating
fires that scorch ecosystems, regions). Socially there is even more openness:
a very tenuous rumor may destroy an entire company, or put a sector on its
knees... Arguing logically about those hierarchical schemes may be interesting
only for semi-closed, capsule like entities, but not really for say
(individuals (cities (countries)))... My contention is that we should produce
a new way of thinking going beyond that classical systemic, non-informational
view.
To some extent, it may be a sign of diminishing returns to complexity in
problem solving that Joe addressed in his book The collapse of complex
societies... If we cannot manage the energy sector to serve certain social and
economic goals, how can we hope to be able to manage more complex situations
like the climate change, poverty reduction and population growth in the South?
Did we reach the limits (cognitive and cultural) to manage our complex
world?
After the industrial revolution, on average every passing generation (say
each 30 years) has doubled both the material and the immaterial basis of
societies: social wealth, income, accumulated knowledge, scientific fields,
technological development, social complexity... provided the environment could
withstand, maybe the process of generational doubling would continue around
almost indefinitely, or maybe not! Euristic visions like
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Yes, Igor, I agree that we participate in two layers and with different
capacities to differentiate (e.g., rationally). Our (and the politicians')
reflexive capacities to communicate with a double (or even more complex)
hermeneutics are limiting the capacity of the social system to process
complexity. The remaining uncertainty will remain unresolved, and thus the
system of inter-human communications is failure-prone. One can expect it to
produce unintended consequences.
I don't share your optimism about experts who would be able to leave this
human condition behind them. It is like Marx's dream of a state of freedom.
:-)
With best wishes,
Loet
_
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Igor Matutinovic
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:21 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Pedro
regarding social openness: very tenuous rumor may destroy an entire
company, or put a sector on its knees.. This can only happen if there is
a fundamental reason for the company or the sector to get into trouble (e.g.
time before the collapse the WorldCom had been in financial troubles but was
corrupting its accounting data to hide it). Therefore, a rumor is only a
trigger, and if it is rumor only, nothing will happen to the system.
When I refer to {biological {sociocultural }} constraints in understanding
and managing complexity I primarily have in mind the nature of constraints
as such, in terms that certain things cannot or are not likely to happen
under their influence. For example, our brains cannot handle more than 3 or
4 variables at one time and grasp their causative interrelations, so we have
a natural heuristic process that cuts trough the many and reduces it to
few. This results in oversimplification of the reality and overemphasizing
of the variables that were not left out. A lot political and economic
reasoning suffers from that bias. Mathematical procedures and modeling can
help us with this biological constraint but math, unfortunately, did not
prove itself yet to be helpful to deal complex social problems. Artificial
societies may be a hopeful way, but this is yet to be seen.
Another biological constraint on our capacity to manage complex social
reality is that we intermittently use rational procedures and emotions, so a
situation which may be solved by an analytic process can erupt in conflict
only because certain words have been uttered or misinterpreted, which steers
the whole interaction and the problem solving process in a different
direction. This biological trait is only partially controlled by the culture
at the next integrative level, trough norms and rules of behavior
(institutions).
The impact of sociocultural constraints on managing complexity is evident
form my last example on managing the energy sector: there is no reason as
why the energy sector could not be managed in a fully planned and rational
way by a group of experts who would optimize the production and transmission
processes. Did we need the market process to send the spacecraft to the Moon
or it was a large-scale project carefully managed for years before it
succeeded? Or, is the carbon trading the best response to climate change
problem? However, the primacy of markets is part of our dominant worldview,
so we have the propensity to exclude other options that may do the job
better or with less uncertainty. So I have the feeling that as we continue
to build more socio-economic complexity our biological and cultral
capabilities to manage it are lagging seriously behind.
The best
Igor
Original Message -
From: Pedro mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Marijuan
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Igor and colleagues,
I have the impression that there is an agreement about the existence of
biological and sociocultural constraints that impact on our ability to
understand and manage socioeconomic complexity. These constraints are
organized hierarchically, as Stan puts it, {biological {sociocultural }}.
I would agree that this is the way to organize our explanations. But
dynamically the real world is open at all levels: very simple amplification
or feed forward processes would produce phenomena capable of escalating
levels and percolate around (e.g., minuscule oxidation-combustion phenomena
initiating fires that scorch ecosystems, regions). Socially there is even
more openness: a very tenuous rumor may destroy an entire company, or put
a sector on its knees... Arguing logically about those hierarchical schemes
may be interesting
