Hi Terry
I am not sure i follow you in your argumentation. Im falling off the wagon and might misinterpret what you are saying.
First: your definition of complicatedness, complexity and chaos are very particular and there are many other definitions that are equally valid that are not based particularly on the degree of feedback loops. I am more familiar with these definitions and views. I think the focus on feed back loops comes from the hard systems thinking (systems dynamics) together with the focus on the hierarchies of systems and the systems boundaries. Checkland states that systems do not exist in real life but the "systemness" is found in the models we apply to understand the world. I prefer to look at systems as larger fields of systemic interactions and patterns found in these fields. The systems boundaries are drawn regarding relevance to the (design) task at hand. The relations are looked upon as patterns or complex (sorry complicated) weaves. Some times we find seemingly circular loops but since time moves forward there is no such thing as a loop feeding exactly back into it self since meanwhile it has changed. These and similar reflections have lead to a more intuitive approaches to systems thinking. I think that's were I am. Hence I think of systems thinking as a skill more than hard nosed logic.
Your argument below that I have changed the context of evidence is to me a bit weird. I didn't think of what I said as evidence but rather as a conversation with some suggestions. I think what I stated is the common complexity of everyday life and I find it marvellous how good we are in navigating through all this. If you feel I changed perspective in saying so im lost. I really think my perspective was from the individual perspective and not from a helicopter view. The relativness of my argumentation might as well reflect on what you say: that we are so bad at dealing with complexity and prediction of complex systems. What is the scale of this judgment? Predictions are generally bad because its difficult to predict, especially about the future. This goes for humans and other systems as well. So we are bad at predicting compared to what?
I have a problem with your examples like the awkward way we sometimes meet people: I disagree that this is because we are weak at understanding simple feedback loops. Everybody knows how to handle this situation. If the other guy goes to the left I go to the right. The problem is more in the timing and not in the reading of the situation. Both individuals reaction time is the same and the system goes into phase. Happens with many systems. I think its more amazing how rarely we get into such situations regarding the density of people. Yes rules and regulations like passing each other at the left side help but still... Again, to what measurement standards are we bad at dealing with this?
And your example of people meeting each other the first time. Its more about information gathering than not being able to deal with social interaction? Theres so much social messaging and signalling going on in instants of seconds that its difficult for me to understand how you interpret this as a bad ability to cope with multiple feedback loops.
I agree that we in many areas tend to simplify and especially when talking of political and industrial decision, you mentioned some examples before like from IT-industry. I also couldnt agree more that we tend to fall back to simple routines. I regard them as schemata and typologies we need for our survival to avoid overloading from multiple feedback loops surrounding us. So we agree as you also observed they come in our way when we need to look beyond them. Systems act counterintuitive when we settle with our intuition as is. If we actively break schemata and rediscover the systems and gather a lot of information about them we will be able to react with an intuition that is more informed and routed. At best we are able to synthesise new innovative solutions from this intuition. This is what the concept of Systems Architecting is aiming at. Its what I try to teach.
Well this discussion is getting pretty demanding to my overly depressed time schedule. I once remember we were shortly talking about sailing. I still think the best sailors have this wonderful intuition about the complexity at play when sailing. Somehow they always tend to be at the right place at the right time. I regarded this as a holistic intuitive skill of dealing with immense complexity. I remember you sort of disagreed. Correct me if im wrong, but I just think we are in slightly different corners.
If you want to know more about my work and see visualisations that to my mind address complexity and help to cope with it you can go to
www.systemsorienteddesign.net
All the best
Birger
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence Love
Sent: 21. april 2010 04:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Are visual approaches to design outdated?
Hi David,
Thanks. Well spotted.
My perspective hasn't changed. I'd assumed people would understand the
implied insertion of 'in this particular case' in my writing (see below).
All analyses have a focus and context and reasoning that only makes valid
sense in relation to them. My comments were that Birger was using evidence
from a different context to the focus of analysis, and in relation to both
'complex system' and 'success', when his proposed evidence was replaced by
the evidence relevant to the focus, context and reasoning, the reasoning
supported a different conclusion.
You are right that there is a shift in this case, Most of the analyses I do
are of theory qua theory and hence a lot of it requires a high level view.
Looking at evidence of the limits to competence of us as individual humans
is different.
All the best,
Terry
Amended snip
> .the relevant complexity is how each individual sees it - not the
> complexity as seen from a rationalist all-seeing helicopter view. It is us
> as individual humans that are the unit of analysis, IN THIS PARTICULAR
CASE, and it is the situation
> as seen from our individual viewpoint, IN THIS CASE, rather than the
overall world view.
|