Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for syssciwg@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 2 topics

[steve wallis]

Not sure its possible to do "nothing."

And, with greater pessimism, sure... the problem may go away in the long
run. However, we will certainly not survive the long run. The ability to
differentiate exists in an effective understanding of the changes in the
system. Are you standing too close to the shore? If so, the tide will
sweep you out to sea. Are you standing further away? Then you may
observe the tsunami in restful repose.

Thanks,

Steve


- - -
Steven E. Wallis, Ph.D.
Fulbright Specialist - Consulting on strategy, theory, and policy
Speaker - To inform and inspire success
Capella University
Meaningful Evidence, LLC

Play ASK MATT to improve your strategy, policy, and theory
http://meaningfulevidence.com/services/ask-matt-game

Bring in Dr. Steve to speak with your group:
http://meaningfulevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/Steve-Wallis-speaker-sheet-Feb-9.pdf

On 7/6/2016 4:27 AM, syss...@googlegroups.com wrote:
> syss...@googlegroups.com
> <%0A%20%20https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/topics%0A>
> Google Groups
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview>
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview>
>
> Topic digest
> View all topics
> <%0A%20%20https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/topics%0A>
>
>
> * FW: Pathologies of our political system <#group_thread_0> - 12
> Updates
> * Invitation for manuscript submissions: Special Issue “Systems
> Approaches and Tools for Managing Complexity” <#group_thread_1> -
> 1 Update
>
> FW: Pathologies of our political system
> <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/e9f020f0dc56d42c?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
>
> Duane Hybertson <duanehy...@gmail.com>: Jul 05 09:26AM -0400
>
> James - I agree that "doing nothing" is a viable option to consider in
> dealing with complex systems. In some cases--arguably in this case if
> Rauch's argument has merit--maybe an "Undo" option should also be
> considered, when the evidence shows that an action we took was harmful
> rather than helpful.
>
> Len - Yes, Rauch provided a somewhat sketchy and incomplete solution.
> But I
> give him much credit for providing insight into the problem and some
> of its
> causes. That is an important first step.
>
> I am forwarding this to the full SS working group to weigh in. We are
> discussing an article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic called "How
> American Politics Went Insane", available at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> We are discussing this from the perspective of systems science, systems
> pathology, and complex systems.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> *From:* James Martin [mailto:mart...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 05, 2016 8:33 AM
> *To:* Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>
> *Cc:* Hybertson, Duane W. <dhyb...@mitre.org>; Janet Singer <
> jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>; Michael Singer (mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu) <
> mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>; david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org Rousseau <
> david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Pathologies of our political system
>
>
>
> Len,
>
>
>
> There is an overarching "pathology" with many instances of using a systems
> approach that is hardly ever mentioned. That is, the tendency to believe
> that *something must be done* to alleviate a bad situation. The
> alternative
> "fixes" are arrayed and examined to determine the best one to implement.
> However, given the unreliable predictions of any future outcomes for each
> alternative (given the complex nature of things), it is hardly wise to
> evaluate options when the eventual, actual outcomes will unlikely
> match the
> predicted outcomes.
>
>
>
> Often the real outcome ends up being worse than the current situation! In
> other words, often the best thing to do is to do nothing. However, this
> goes against people's very strong desire just to "do something". I have
> hardly seen anything in the SS or ST literature that addresses this basic
> flaw in many instances of applying a systems approach. However, there are
> some things written on this phenomenon, such as Systemantics by John Gall.
> One book that addresses this psycho-social phenomena directly is The Fatal
> Conceit by Friedrich Hayek.
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Duane,
>
>
>
> No I had not seen it. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. It is
> uncanny and impressive that this author uses an approach that sounds so
> much like SPT systems pathology and so systems oriented (altho' he really
> is mostly explaining a broad metaphor of human politics compared to the
> individual human health system).
>
>
>
> I agree that one of the futures of a broader systems engineering AND
> systems science should be giving prescriptive designs that help "cure"
> systemic diseases and better design social systems in the first place. But
> notice the lack of real detail on just how to do this in the article.
> It is
> more a plaintive cry in the desert or dark than prescriptive. He leaves
> solutions to the last couple of paragraphs and they seem rather shallow to
> me. But that is the challenge of SPT and other systems theories or
> approaches. Giving real data that shows how better systems work and don't
> work.
>
>
>
> To me the advantage of systems thinking is that it directly addresses
> social systems, that is human systems problems and gives systems naive
> participants the tools to conceive of and map their problems as systemic.
> HOWEVER systems thinking has a problem compared to systems science because
> it stops there. The problem with every one of those systems thinking tools
> is that they do not have a database that tells them in some definite and
> practical terms how systems work and don't work linking the problems of
> function with how systems have solved that problem in the past. No one
> seems to want to go to that level of detail just as the populist
> demagogues
> address major problems by touting simplistic solutions that would never
> work. The fault is in our inability to see that "systemness" addresses the
> same systems problems and challenges whether they be physical, biological,
> social, or conceptual systems. We are stuck in our humanity, in our being
> able to ONLY see manifest systems rather than the minimizations and
> maximizations accomplished no matter what the type of system is by system
> patterns that are universal.
>
>
>
> It would be good if you submitted this to the google SSWG group for
> reactions.
>
>
>
> Len
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Hybertson, Duane W. wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi all – Did you see the article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic called
> “”? It is at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> A good discussion of an example of human system patterns and pathologies,
> and a good problem for system science and the expanded scope of systems
> engineering.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Duane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> James
> "Ferris, Tim" <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk>: Jul 05 01:33PM
>
> ‘Undo’ option?
>
> In a system with a social aspect, or a human learning aspect, the
> action to make an intervention changes the situation and it is not
> possible to revert to a state where no-one in the system has
> experienced the change, and so the system will be tainted by the
> effect of the original action performed. Thus, there is no ‘undo’
> option that will return things to the ‘before intervention’ state.
>
> This would also be true for physical systems which have memory,
> through a mechanism such as hysteresis, and possibly other mechanisms
> of memory.
>
> Dr Tim Ferris
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Duane Hybertson
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 2:26 PM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [SysSciWG] Fwd: FW: Pathologies of our political system
>
> James - I agree that "doing nothing" is a viable option to consider in
> dealing with complex systems. In some cases--arguably in this case if
> Rauch's argument has merit--maybe an "Undo" option should also be
> considered, when the evidence shows that an action we took was harmful
> rather than helpful.
>
> Len - Yes, Rauch provided a somewhat sketchy and incomplete solution.
> But I give him much credit for providing insight into the problem and
> some of its causes. That is an important first step.
>
> I am forwarding this to the full SS working group to weigh in. We are
> discussing an article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic called "How
> American Politics Went Insane", available at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> We are discussing this from the perspective of systems science,
> systems pathology, and complex systems.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James Martin
> [mailto:mart...@gmail.com<mailto:mart...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 8:33 AM
> To: Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>>
> Cc: Hybertson, Duane W.
> <dhyb...@mitre.org<mailto:dhyb...@mitre.org>>; Janet Singer
> <jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>>; Michael Singer
> (mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>)
> <mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>>;
> david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org<mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org>
> Rousseau
> <david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org<mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org>>
> Subject: Re: Pathologies of our political system
>
> Len,
>
> There is an overarching "pathology" with many instances of using a
> systems approach that is hardly ever mentioned. That is, the tendency
> to believe that something must be done to alleviate a bad situation.
> The alternative "fixes" are arrayed and examined to determine the best
> one to implement. However, given the unreliable predictions of any
> future outcomes for each alternative (given the complex nature of
> things), it is hardly wise to evaluate options when the eventual,
> actual outcomes will unlikely match the predicted outcomes.
>
> Often the real outcome ends up being worse than the current situation!
> In other words, often the best thing to do is to do nothing. However,
> this goes against people's very strong desire just to "do something".
> I have hardly seen anything in the SS or ST literature that addresses
> this basic flaw in many instances of applying a systems approach.
> However, there are some things written on this phenomenon, such as
> Systemantics by John Gall. One book that addresses this psycho-social
> phenomena directly is The Fatal Conceit by Friedrich Hayek.
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Lenard Troncale
> <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>> wrote:
> Duane,
>
> No I had not seen it. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. It
> is uncanny and impressive that this author uses an approach that
> sounds so much like SPT systems pathology and so systems oriented
> (altho' he really is mostly explaining a broad metaphor of human
> politics compared to the individual human health system).
>
> I agree that one of the futures of a broader systems engineering AND
> systems science should be giving prescriptive designs that help "cure"
> systemic diseases and better design social systems in the first place.
> But notice the lack of real detail on just how to do this in the
> article. It is more a plaintive cry in the desert or dark than
> prescriptive. He leaves solutions to the last couple of paragraphs and
> they seem rather shallow to me. But that is the challenge of SPT and
> other systems theories or approaches. Giving real data that shows how
> better systems work and don't work.
>
> To me the advantage of systems thinking is that it directly addresses
> social systems, that is human systems problems and gives systems naive
> participants the tools to conceive of and map their problems as
> systemic. HOWEVER systems thinking has a problem compared to systems
> science because it stops there. The problem with every one of those
> systems thinking tools is that they do not have a database that tells
> them in some definite and practical terms how systems work and don't
> work linking the problems of function with how systems have solved
> that problem in the past. No one seems to want to go to that level of
> detail just as the populist demagogues address major problems by
> touting simplistic solutions that would never work. The fault is in
> our inability to see that "systemness" addresses the same systems
> problems and challenges whether they be physical, biological, social,
> or conceptual systems. We are stuck in our humanity, in our being able
> to ONLY see manifest systems rather than the minimizations and
> maximizations accomplished no matter what the type of system is by
> system patterns that are universal.
>
> It would be good if you submitted this to the google SSWG group for
> reactions.
>
> Len
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Hybertson, Duane W. wrote:
>
> Hi all – Did you see the article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic
> called “”? It is at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> A good discussion of an example of human system patterns and
> pathologies, and a good problem for system science and the expanded
> scope of systems engineering.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> James
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> Duane Hybertson <duanehy...@gmail.com>: Jul 05 10:01AM -0400
>
> Tim - Well, I agree. I did not mean undo in a literal sense of
> returning to
> the before intervention state. We do want to learn from our mistakes! I
> meant that if we take some action, such as passing a law or implementing a
> practice, that turns out to be harmful not helpful, one plausible
> action to
> take is to rescind the law or the practice (undo it). Another is to modify
> the law or practice, based on what we have learned from the consequences.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Ferris, Tim
> <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> "Ferris, Tim" <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk>: Jul 05 02:15PM
>
> Duane,
>
> I’ll accept that.
>
> The biggest problem with this is that there is some kind of inhibition
> (losing face?) associated with reversion to what it was before we did
> something. To ‘undo’ in a socio-XXX situation is associated with
> needing to admit that the proposal one put in place was not adequate,
> and that, perhaps, how it was before was rather better.
>
> Undo in the looser sense of reverting to substantially what it was
> before, perhaps with tweaks, is possible. Inhibition and admission of
> inadequacy works against it actually happening.
>
> Dr Tim Ferris
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Duane Hybertson
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 3:01 PM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Fwd: FW: Pathologies of our political system
>
> Tim - Well, I agree. I did not mean undo in a literal sense of
> returning to the before intervention state. We do want to learn from
> our mistakes! I meant that if we take some action, such as passing a
> law or implementing a practice, that turns out to be harmful not
> helpful, one plausible action to take is to rescind the law or the
> practice (undo it). Another is to modify the law or practice, based on
> what we have learned from the consequences.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Ferris, Tim
> <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk<mailto:Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk>>
> wrote:
> ‘Undo’ option?
>
> In a system with a social aspect, or a human learning aspect, the
> action to make an intervention changes the situation and it is not
> possible to revert to a state where no-one in the system has
> experienced the change, and so the system will be tainted by the
> effect of the original action performed. Thus, there is no ‘undo’
> option that will return things to the ‘before intervention’ state.
>
> This would also be true for physical systems which have memory,
> through a mechanism such as hysteresis, and possibly other mechanisms
> of memory.
>
> Dr Tim Ferris
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Duane Hybertson
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 2:26 PM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [SysSciWG] Fwd: FW: Pathologies of our political system
>
> James - I agree that "doing nothing" is a viable option to consider in
> dealing with complex systems. In some cases--arguably in this case if
> Rauch's argument has merit--maybe an "Undo" option should also be
> considered, when the evidence shows that an action we took was harmful
> rather than helpful.
>
> Len - Yes, Rauch provided a somewhat sketchy and incomplete solution.
> But I give him much credit for providing insight into the problem and
> some of its causes. That is an important first step.
>
> I am forwarding this to the full SS working group to weigh in. We are
> discussing an article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic called "How
> American Politics Went Insane", available at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> We are discussing this from the perspective of systems science,
> systems pathology, and complex systems.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James Martin
> [mailto:mart...@gmail.com<mailto:mart...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 8:33 AM
> To: Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>>
> Cc: Hybertson, Duane W.
> <dhyb...@mitre.org<mailto:dhyb...@mitre.org>>; Janet Singer
> <jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>>; Michael Singer
> (mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>)
> <mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>>;
> david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org<mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org>
> Rousseau
> <david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org<mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org>>
> Subject: Re: Pathologies of our political system
>
> Len,
>
> There is an overarching "pathology" with many instances of using a
> systems approach that is hardly ever mentioned. That is, the tendency
> to believe that something must be done to alleviate a bad situation.
> The alternative "fixes" are arrayed and examined to determine the best
> one to implement. However, given the unreliable predictions of any
> future outcomes for each alternative (given the complex nature of
> things), it is hardly wise to evaluate options when the eventual,
> actual outcomes will unlikely match the predicted outcomes.
>
> Often the real outcome ends up being worse than the current situation!
> In other words, often the best thing to do is to do nothing. However,
> this goes against people's very strong desire just to "do something".
> I have hardly seen anything in the SS or ST literature that addresses
> this basic flaw in many instances of applying a systems approach.
> However, there are some things written on this phenomenon, such as
> Systemantics by John Gall. One book that addresses this psycho-social
> phenomena directly is The Fatal Conceit by Friedrich Hayek.
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Lenard Troncale
> <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>> wrote:
> Duane,
>
> No I had not seen it. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. It
> is uncanny and impressive that this author uses an approach that
> sounds so much like SPT systems pathology and so systems oriented
> (altho' he really is mostly explaining a broad metaphor of human
> politics compared to the individual human health system).
>
> I agree that one of the futures of a broader systems engineering AND
> systems science should be giving prescriptive designs that help "cure"
> systemic diseases and better design social systems in the first place.
> But notice the lack of real detail on just how to do this in the
> article. It is more a plaintive cry in the desert or dark than
> prescriptive. He leaves solutions to the last couple of paragraphs and
> they seem rather shallow to me. But that is the challenge of SPT and
> other systems theories or approaches. Giving real data that shows how
> better systems work and don't work.
>
> To me the advantage of systems thinking is that it directly addresses
> social systems, that is human systems problems and gives systems naive
> participants the tools to conceive of and map their problems as
> systemic. HOWEVER systems thinking has a problem compared to systems
> science because it stops there. The problem with every one of those
> systems thinking tools is that they do not have a database that tells
> them in some definite and practical terms how systems work and don't
> work linking the problems of function with how systems have solved
> that problem in the past. No one seems to want to go to that level of
> detail just as the populist demagogues address major problems by
> touting simplistic solutions that would never work. The fault is in
> our inability to see that "systemness" addresses the same systems
> problems and challenges whether they be physical, biological, social,
> or conceptual systems. We are stuck in our humanity, in our being able
> to ONLY see manifest systems rather than the minimizations and
> maximizations accomplished no matter what the type of system is by
> system patterns that are universal.
>
> It would be good if you submitted this to the google SSWG group for
> reactions.
>
> Len
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Hybertson, Duane W. wrote:
>
> Hi all – Did you see the article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic
> called “”? It is at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> A good discussion of an example of human system patterns and
> pathologies, and a good problem for system science and the expanded
> scope of systems engineering.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> James
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> Duane Hybertson <duanehy...@gmail.com>: Jul 05 10:29AM -0400
>
> Tim - I agree that acknowledging a mistake is sometimes
> difficult--although
> it has been accomplished on occasion, such as when we passed the 21st
> Amendment to the US Constitution to repeal the 18th Amendment on
> prohibition of alcohol. But often people can save face by calling it a
> modification rather than outright repeal, and in many cases some tweaking
> can be done on the "before intervention" situation. For example, in this
> situation of American politics, if we go back to pork barrel projects,
> maybe we could define a slightly improved version of it...
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Ferris, Tim
> <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk
> "Richard Martin" <rich...@tinwisle.com>: Jul 05 11:25AM -0400
>
> Duane,
>
>
>
> ‘doing nothing’ as a viable option response to harm arising from a
> complex system behavior seem to me untenable, unless of course the
> complex system is static, which they never are, or we lack the
> capacity to effect the appropriate remediation action, which is too
> often the situation. While true we may not comprehend all of the
> consequences of a particular remedial action, such failing indicates
> our lack of understanding concerning the complexity of that system’s
> response to our intervention.
>
>
>
> I was struck by the article’s chronicling of the demise of the
> political middleware that functions to buffer the binding of the
> electorate to those charged with its governance. In contrast, and
> about the same time as the demise of political middleware, we
> experience the rise of middleware as the linchpin of technological
> progress and that rise as a powerful contributor to the demise of the
> former.
>
>
>
> More speculatively, will the demise of technological middleware, the
> means by which we now manage and control outcomes of technology use,
> result in the populist uprising of machines? Where will the next wave
> of middleware arise?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Duane Hybertson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 10:01 AM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Fwd: FW: Pathologies of our political system
>
>
>
> Tim - Well, I agree. I did not mean undo in a literal sense of
> returning to the before intervention state. We do want to learn from
> our mistakes! I meant that if we take some action, such as passing a
> law or implementing a practice, that turns out to be harmful not
> helpful, one plausible action to take is to rescind the law or the
> practice (undo it). Another is to modify the law or practice, based on
> what we have learned from the consequences.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Duane
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Ferris, Tim
> <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> ‘Undo’ option?
>
>
>
> In a system with a social aspect, or a human learning aspect, the
> action to make an intervention changes the situation and it is not
> possible to revert to a state where no-one in the system has
> experienced the change, and so the system will be tainted by the
> effect of the original action performed. Thus, there is no ‘undo’
> option that will return things to the ‘before intervention’ state.
>
>
>
> This would also be true for physical systems which have memory,
> through a mechanism such as hysteresis, and possibly other mechanisms
> of memory.
>
>
>
> Dr Tim Ferris
>
>
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of Duane Hybertson
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 2:26 PM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [SysSciWG] Fwd: FW: Pathologies of our political system
>
>
>
> James - I agree that "doing nothing" is a viable option to consider in
> dealing with complex systems. In some cases--arguably in this case if
> Rauch's argument has merit--maybe an "Undo" option should also be
> considered, when the evidence shows that an action we took was harmful
> rather than helpful.
>
>
>
> Len - Yes, Rauch provided a somewhat sketchy and incomplete solution.
> But I give him much credit for providing insight into the problem and
> some of its causes. That is an important first step.
>
>
>
> I am forwarding this to the full SS working group to weigh in. We are
> discussing an article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic called "How
> American Politics Went Insane", available at
> <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> We are discussing this from the perspective of systems science,
> systems pathology, and complex systems.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Duane
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> From: James Martin [mailto:mart...@gmail.com
> <mailto:mart...@gmail.com> ]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 8:33 AM
> To: Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu <mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu> >
> Cc: Hybertson, Duane W. <dhyb...@mitre.org
> <mailto:dhyb...@mitre.org> >; Janet Singer <jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu
> <mailto:jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu> >; Michael Singer (mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu
> <mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu> ) <mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu
> <mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu> >; david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org
> <mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org> Rousseau
> <david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org
> <mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org> >
> Subject: Re: Pathologies of our political system
>
>
>
> Len,
>
>
>
> There is an overarching "pathology" with many instances of using a
> systems approach that is hardly ever mentioned. That is, the tendency
> to believe that something must be done to alleviate a bad situation.
> The alternative "fixes" are arrayed and examined to determine the best
> one to implement. However, given the unreliable predictions of any
> future outcomes for each alternative (given the complex nature of
> things), it is hardly wise to evaluate options when the eventual,
> actual outcomes will unlikely match the predicted outcomes.
>
>
>
> Often the real outcome ends up being worse than the current situation!
> In other words, often the best thing to do is to do nothing. However,
> this goes against people's very strong desire just to "do something".
> I have hardly seen anything in the SS or ST literature that addresses
> this basic flaw in many instances of applying a systems approach.
> However, there are some things written on this phenomenon, such as
> Systemantics by John Gall. One book that addresses this psycho-social
> phenomena directly is The Fatal Conceit by Friedrich Hayek.
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu
> <mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu> > wrote:
>
> Duane,
>
>
>
> No I had not seen it. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. It
> is uncanny and impressive that this author uses an approach that
> sounds so much like SPT systems pathology and so systems oriented
> (altho' he really is mostly explaining a broad metaphor of human
> politics compared to the individual human health system).
>
>
>
> I agree that one of the futures of a broader systems engineering AND
> systems science should be giving prescriptive designs that help "cure"
> systemic diseases and better design social systems in the first place.
> But notice the lack of real detail on just how to do this in the
> article. It is more a plaintive cry in the desert or dark than
> prescriptive. He leaves solutions to the last couple of paragraphs and
> they seem rather shallow to me. But that is the challenge of SPT and
> other systems theories or approaches. Giving real data that shows how
> better systems work and don't work.
>
>
>
> To me the advantage of systems thinking is that it directly addresses
> social systems, that is human systems problems and gives systems naive
> participants the tools to conceive of and map their problems as
> systemic. HOWEVER systems thinking has a problem compared to systems
> science because it stops there. The problem with every one of those
> systems thinking tools is that they do not have a database that tells
> them in some definite and practical terms how systems work and don't
> work linking the problems of function with how systems have solved
> that problem in the past. No one seems to want to go to that level of
> detail just as the populist demagogues address major problems by
> touting simplistic solutions that would never work. The fault is in
> our inability to see that "systemness" addresses the same systems
> problems and challenges whether they be physical, biological, social,
> or conceptual systems. We are stuck in our humanity, in our being able
> to ONLY see manifest systems rather than the minimizations and
> maximizations accomplished no matter what the type of system is by
> system patterns that are universal.
>
>
>
> It would be good if you submitted this to the google SSWG group for
> reactions.
>
>
>
> Len
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Hybertson, Duane W. wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi all – Did you see the article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic
> called “”? It is at
> <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> A good discussion of an example of human system patterns and
> pathologies, and a good problem for system science and the expanded
> scope of systems engineering.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Duane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> James
>
>
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> Duane Hybertson <duanehy...@gmail.com>: Jul 05 11:51AM -0400
>
> Richard - If a complex system is doing harm, then doing nothing is not a
> good option. I assume it is a viable option when a complex system is
> functioning more or less adequately, but we would like it to perform
> better. When we are considering options, if the only ones achievable
> at the
> current time are likely to make it worse rather than better, then doing
> nothing may be the best option, until circumstances change.
>
> Your point about political middleware is intriguing. That analogy may be
> worth further thought and discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Richard Martin <rich...@tinwisle.com>
> wrote:
>
> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>: Jul 05 09:10AM -0700
>
> Only a corpse does nothing. The live body is continually repairing and
> even preventing chaos.
>
> A worthwhile alternative to ‘do nothing’ is ‘learning’ particularly
> learning how a multi-constituent entity can pursue common purpose
> while avoiding conflicting purpose and preventative structure.
>
> Meanwhile, note carefully the possible biases of the author.
> 1. "By itself, the Constitution is a recipe for chaos.”
> Perhaps the Constitution is a recipe for dialog thus a recipe to be
> overcome by those who favor democracy, aka, mob rule AND by those who
> would rule, aka, founders of political parties and as typified by
> Barack Obama’s statement, ‘the Constitution says only what the Federal
> Government must not do, instead of what the federal government must do.'
> 2. "The trick is to be able to govern through them.”
> Perhaps the trick is to identify those interests that strive to
> overcome the Constitution, e.g., political parties and make them
> participants in the dialogue, not the interlocutors.
>
> Please consider what could happen if we learned how to
> A. Refocus the United States of America on being a federation of the
> States including a Commons for ensuring their common needs, that
> Commons being a Federal Government instead of a FEdeRAL Government.
> B. We reclaimed the original design of a House of Representatives that
> represent the people in the respective States as counterbalanced by a
> Senate that ensured application of systemics. Wymore’s NOT! paper is a
> good clue.
> C. Elected a President capable of running an enterprise consisting of
> 1,500,000 unionized members plus 1,700,000 soldiers and NOT pretending
> to tell is how to live.
>
>
>
> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>: Jul 05 09:13AM -0700
>
> Too bad the 21st Amendment only nullified the 18th instead of fixing
> the ‘system' that produced the 18th.
>
> Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>: Jul 06 12:11AM
>
> Duane and Tim,
>
> I am moved by your comments to mention thoughts on the "undo" option
> and "admitting mistakes" difficulties.
>
> If my use of the "undo" command across many applications on the
> computer, especially writing, is any indication, then "undo" is an
> absolutely essential part of living and social systems. I have many
> times thanked whomsoever for thinking of the control-Z command. But
> the march of entropy, which ensures the march of time itself, makes it
> rather impossible to go backwards to exactly the same track.
>
> There was much observation and discussion of this in the evolutionary
> sciences. Where it was concluded that there is pretty much no
> possibility of ever getting back to exactly the previous state because
> of the immense number of branch points in evolutionary events. So
> while it was once named "back evolution" it was pretty much
> discredited. Even in cases of parasites that seem to lose functions as
> they evolve, it is regarded more of a case of forward evolution, not
> backward.
>
> So why is it so difficult, if we need undo's so much in practice, is
> it difficult to admit mistakes in social situations, especially
> politics. Ego? Surely. Habit? Probably. Resistance to any change?
> Probably. Recall there is recent research that shows statistically
> that humans presented with factual evidence that impeaches their
> previous attitudes or biases or decisions actually causes them to
> double-down and increase their belief in the erroneous previous
> conclusions. This does not bode well for politics or the future of the
> human conditions.
>
> Perhaps the multiple perspectives or facetism of systems science, if
> imbibed and becoming habitual at early ages, would improve such
> conditions. The other possibility would be the appearance of "reward"
> systems that actually provide benefits or praise when someone changes
> thru undoing.
>
> Len
>
> On Jul 5, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Duane Hybertson wrote:
>
> Tim - I agree that acknowledging a mistake is sometimes
> difficult--although it has been accomplished on occasion, such as when
> we passed the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution to repeal the 18th
> Amendment on prohibition of alcohol. But often people can save face by
> calling it a modification rather than outright repeal, and in many
> cases some tweaking can be done on the "before intervention"
> situation. For example, in this situation of American politics, if we
> go back to pork barrel projects, maybe we could define a slightly
> improved version of it...
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Ferris, Tim
> <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk<mailto:Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk>>
> wrote:
> Duane,
>
> I’ll accept that.
>
> The biggest problem with this is that there is some kind of inhibition
> (losing face?) associated with reversion to what it was before we did
> something. To ‘undo’ in a socio-XXX situation is associated with
> needing to admit that the proposal one put in place was not adequate,
> and that, perhaps, how it was before was rather better.
>
> Undo in the looser sense of reverting to substantially what it was
> before, perhaps with tweaks, is possible. Inhibition and admission of
> inadequacy works against it actually happening.
>
> Dr Tim Ferris
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Duane Hybertson
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 3:01 PM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Fwd: FW: Pathologies of our political system
>
> Tim - Well, I agree. I did not mean undo in a literal sense of
> returning to the before intervention state. We do want to learn from
> our mistakes! I meant that if we take some action, such as passing a
> law or implementing a practice, that turns out to be harmful not
> helpful, one plausible action to take is to rescind the law or the
> practice (undo it). Another is to modify the law or practice, based on
> what we have learned from the consequences.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Ferris, Tim
> <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk<mailto:Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk>>
> wrote:
> ‘Undo’ option?
>
> In a system with a social aspect, or a human learning aspect, the
> action to make an intervention changes the situation and it is not
> possible to revert to a state where no-one in the system has
> experienced the change, and so the system will be tainted by the
> effect of the original action performed. Thus, there is no ‘undo’
> option that will return things to the ‘before intervention’ state.
>
> This would also be true for physical systems which have memory,
> through a mechanism such as hysteresis, and possibly other mechanisms
> of memory.
>
> Dr Tim Ferris
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Duane Hybertson
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 2:26 PM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [SysSciWG] Fwd: FW: Pathologies of our political system
>
> James - I agree that "doing nothing" is a viable option to consider in
> dealing with complex systems. In some cases--arguably in this case if
> Rauch's argument has merit--maybe an "Undo" option should also be
> considered, when the evidence shows that an action we took was harmful
> rather than helpful.
>
> Len - Yes, Rauch provided a somewhat sketchy and incomplete solution.
> But I give him much credit for providing insight into the problem and
> some of its causes. That is an important first step.
>
> I am forwarding this to the full SS working group to weigh in. We are
> discussing an article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic called "How
> American Politics Went Insane", available at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> We are discussing this from the perspective of systems science,
> systems pathology, and complex systems.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James Martin
> [mailto:mart...@gmail.com<mailto:mart...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 8:33 AM
> To: Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>>
> Cc: Hybertson, Duane W.
> <dhyb...@mitre.org<mailto:dhyb...@mitre.org>>; Janet Singer
> <jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>>; Michael Singer
> (mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>)
> <mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>>;
> david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org<mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org>
> Rousseau
> <david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org<mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org>>
> Subject: Re: Pathologies of our political system
>
> Len,
>
> There is an overarching "pathology" with many instances of using a
> systems approach that is hardly ever mentioned. That is, the tendency
> to believe that something must be done to alleviate a bad situation.
> The alternative "fixes" are arrayed and examined to determine the best
> one to implement. However, given the unreliable predictions of any
> future outcomes for each alternative (given the complex nature of
> things), it is hardly wise to evaluate options when the eventual,
> actual outcomes will unlikely match the predicted outcomes.
>
> Often the real outcome ends up being worse than the current situation!
> In other words, often the best thing to do is to do nothing. However,
> this goes against people's very strong desire just to "do something".
> I have hardly seen anything in the SS or ST literature that addresses
> this basic flaw in many instances of applying a systems approach.
> However, there are some things written on this phenomenon, such as
> Systemantics by John Gall. One book that addresses this psycho-social
> phenomena directly is The Fatal Conceit by Friedrich Hayek.
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Lenard Troncale
> <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>> wrote:
> Duane,
>
> No I had not seen it. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. It
> is uncanny and impressive that this author uses an approach that
> sounds so much like SPT systems pathology and so systems oriented
> (altho' he really is mostly explaining a broad metaphor of human
> politics compared to the individual human health system).
>
> I agree that one of the futures of a broader systems engineering AND
> systems science should be giving prescriptive designs that help "cure"
> systemic diseases and better design social systems in the first place.
> But notice the lack of real detail on just how to do this in the
> article. It is more a plaintive cry in the desert or dark than
> prescriptive. He leaves solutions to the last couple of paragraphs and
> they seem rather shallow to me. But that is the challenge of SPT and
> other systems theories or approaches. Giving real data that shows how
> better systems work and don't work.
>
> To me the advantage of systems thinking is that it directly addresses
> social systems, that is human systems problems and gives systems naive
> participants the tools to conceive of and map their problems as
> systemic. HOWEVER systems thinking has a problem compared to systems
> science because it stops there. The problem with every one of those
> systems thinking tools is that they do not have a database that tells
> them in some definite and practical terms how systems work and don't
> work linking the problems of function with how systems have solved
> that problem in the past. No one seems to want to go to that level of
> detail just as the populist demagogues address major problems by
> touting simplistic solutions that would never work. The fault is in
> our inability to see that "systemness" addresses the same systems
> problems and challenges whether they be physical, biological, social,
> or conceptual systems. We are stuck in our humanity, in our being able
> to ONLY see manifest systems rather than the minimizations and
> maximizations accomplished no matter what the type of system is by
> system patterns that are universal.
>
> It would be good if you submitted this to the google SSWG group for
> reactions.
>
> Len
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Hybertson, Duane W. wrote:
>
> Hi all – Did you see the article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic
> called “”? It is at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> A good discussion of an example of human system patterns and
> pathologies, and a good problem for system science and the expanded
> scope of systems engineering.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> James
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>: Jul 06 12:26AM
>
> Richard, Duane,
>
> If you are interested in the use of systems science in law, politics,
> legislation and public policy, are you aware of a special interest
> group, who meets with the INCOSE San Diego Chapter, that has exactly
> that as the focus for their books, meetings (some co-sponsored by the
> local SE's), own journal, etc.? To my knowledge of them, they are
> mostly M.D.'s and professor's who joined INCOSE.
>
> Perhaps what Richard means is like the Hipprocrates Oath "do no harm."
> altho Hippo actually never said exactly that. When facing a complex
> system that is doing documentable harm, sometimes more harm is added
> in trying to stop the system. But generally I agree with Duane that
> not doing anything is allowing the harm to continue and becoming a
> part of it. But how do we really know what to do? Specifically?
>
> That is where the prescriptive part of systems theory comes in, altho'
> it is mostly missing in systems thinking. There they only talk about
> prescriptive and the need for values and morals without giving any
> specific input. Knowledge of isomorphic systems processes that have
> showed sustainability for millions to billions of years might come in
> use for this. They might be considered as tried and true
> prescriptions, but would have to be rigorously deabstracted each time
> (like applying the Golden Rule of love your neighbor in an immense
> number of very different situations).
>
> That is why I agree with Duane that is great that this author,
> independently (because he is not part of these conscious systems
> deliberations) hits on his version of systems pathology is so great
> and supportive. But also that his knowledge is shallow. For example,
> in this stream of comments I have noted many times how "chaos" is a
> systems way of allowing for variants until one comes up to solve the
> problems. May be true of our current political situation, tho'
> stressing to go thru. It also allows for more rapid realignment of
> parts and functions. So the chaos may seem disfunctional but is
> actually functional. The so-called systems Deutsch's Law states that
> N+1 level comes from the n-1 level, not the n level because n is in a
> state of chaos before revolution. And so on. There is so much of
> systems knowledge that could be applied in these cases.
>
> Len
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Duane Hybertson wrote:
>
> Richard - If a complex system is doing harm, then doing nothing is not
> a good option. I assume it is a viable option when a complex system is
> functioning more or less adequately, but we would like it to perform
> better. When we are considering options, if the only ones achievable
> at the current time are likely to make it worse rather than better,
> then doing nothing may be the best option, until circumstances change.
>
> Your point about political middleware is intriguing. That analogy may
> be worth further thought and discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Richard Martin
> <rich...@tinwisle.com<mailto:rich...@tinwisle.com>> wrote:
> Duane,
>
> ‘doing nothing’ as a viable option response to harm arising from a
> complex system behavior seem to me untenable, unless of course the
> complex system is static, which they never are, or we lack the
> capacity to effect the appropriate remediation action, which is too
> often the situation. While true we may not comprehend all of the
> consequences of a particular remedial action, such failing indicates
> our lack of understanding concerning the complexity of that system’s
> response to our intervention.
>
> I was struck by the article’s chronicling of the demise of the
> political middleware that functions to buffer the binding of the
> electorate to those charged with its governance. In contrast, and
> about the same time as the demise of political middleware, we
> experience the rise of middleware as the linchpin of technological
> progress and that rise as a powerful contributor to the demise of the
> former.
>
> More speculatively, will the demise of technological middleware, the
> means by which we now manage and control outcomes of technology use,
> result in the populist uprising of machines? Where will the next wave
> of middleware arise?
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Duane Hybertson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 10:01 AM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Fwd: FW: Pathologies of our political system
>
> Tim - Well, I agree. I did not mean undo in a literal sense of
> returning to the before intervention state. We do want to learn from
> our mistakes! I meant that if we take some action, such as passing a
> law or implementing a practice, that turns out to be harmful not
> helpful, one plausible action to take is to rescind the law or the
> practice (undo it). Another is to modify the law or practice, based on
> what we have learned from the consequences.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Ferris, Tim
> <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk<mailto:Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk>>
> wrote:
> ‘Undo’ option?
>
> In a system with a social aspect, or a human learning aspect, the
> action to make an intervention changes the situation and it is not
> possible to revert to a state where no-one in the system has
> experienced the change, and so the system will be tainted by the
> effect of the original action performed. Thus, there is no ‘undo’
> option that will return things to the ‘before intervention’ state.
>
> This would also be true for physical systems which have memory,
> through a mechanism such as hysteresis, and possibly other mechanisms
> of memory.
>
> Dr Tim Ferris
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Duane Hybertson
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 2:26 PM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [SysSciWG] Fwd: FW: Pathologies of our political system
>
> James - I agree that "doing nothing" is a viable option to consider in
> dealing with complex systems. In some cases--arguably in this case if
> Rauch's argument has merit--maybe an "Undo" option should also be
> considered, when the evidence shows that an action we took was harmful
> rather than helpful.
>
> Len - Yes, Rauch provided a somewhat sketchy and incomplete solution.
> But I give him much credit for providing insight into the problem and
> some of its causes. That is an important first step.
>
> I am forwarding this to the full SS working group to weigh in. We are
> discussing an article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic called "How
> American Politics Went Insane", available at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> We are discussing this from the perspective of systems science,
> systems pathology, and complex systems.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James Martin
> [mailto:mart...@gmail.com<mailto:mart...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 8:33 AM
> To: Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>>
> Cc: Hybertson, Duane W.
> <dhyb...@mitre.org<mailto:dhyb...@mitre.org>>; Janet Singer
> <jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>>; Michael Singer
> (mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>)
> <mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>>;
> david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org<mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org>
> Rousseau
> <david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org<mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org>>
> Subject: Re: Pathologies of our political system
>
> Len,
>
> There is an overarching "pathology" with many instances of using a
> systems approach that is hardly ever mentioned. That is, the tendency
> to believe that something must be done to alleviate a bad situation.
> The alternative "fixes" are arrayed and examined to determine the best
> one to implement. However, given the unreliable predictions of any
> future outcomes for each alternative (given the complex nature of
> things), it is hardly wise to evaluate options when the eventual,
> actual outcomes will unlikely match the predicted outcomes.
>
> Often the real outcome ends up being worse than the current situation!
> In other words, often the best thing to do is to do nothing. However,
> this goes against people's very strong desire just to "do something".
> I have hardly seen anything in the SS or ST literature that addresses
> this basic flaw in many instances of applying a systems approach.
> However, there are some things written on this phenomenon, such as
> Systemantics by John Gall. One book that addresses this psycho-social
> phenomena directly is The Fatal Conceit by Friedrich Hayek.
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Lenard Troncale
> <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>> wrote:
> Duane,
>
> No I had not seen it. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. It
> is uncanny and impressive that this author uses an approach that
> sounds so much like SPT systems pathology and so systems oriented
> (altho' he really is mostly explaining a broad metaphor of human
> politics compared to the individual human health system).
>
> I agree that one of the futures of a broader systems engineering AND
> systems science should be giving prescriptive designs that help "cure"
> systemic diseases and better design social systems in the first place.
> But notice the lack of real detail on just how to do this in the
> article. It is more a plaintive cry in the desert or dark than
> prescriptive. He leaves solutions to the last couple of paragraphs and
> they seem rather shallow to me. But that is the challenge of SPT and
> other systems theories or approaches. Giving real data that shows how
> better systems work and don't work.
>
> To me the advantage of systems thinking is that it directly addresses
> social systems, that is human systems problems and gives systems naive
> participants the tools to conceive of and map their problems as
> systemic. HOWEVER systems thinking has a problem compared to systems
> science because it stops there. The problem with every one of those
> systems thinking tools is that they do not have a database that tells
> them in some definite and practical terms how systems work and don't
> work linking the problems of function with how systems have solved
> that problem in the past. No one seems to want to go to that level of
> detail just as the populist demagogues address major problems by
> touting simplistic solutions that would never work. The fault is in
> our inability to see that "systemness" addresses the same systems
> problems and challenges whether they be physical, biological, social,
> or conceptual systems. We are stuck in our humanity, in our being able
> to ONLY see manifest systems rather than the minimizations and
> maximizations accomplished no matter what the type of system is by
> system patterns that are universal.
>
> It would be good if you submitted this to the google SSWG group for
> reactions.
>
> Len
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Hybertson, Duane W. wrote:
>
> Hi all – Did you see the article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic
> called “”? It is at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> A good discussion of an example of human system patterns and
> pathologies, and a good problem for system science and the expanded
> scope of systems engineering.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> James
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>: Jul 06 12:29AM
>
> I should also mention that systems thinker Russ Ackoff challenged the
> mere use of the word "Optimization" so popular in the field he is
> recognized as founder of, OR. He insisted the better word is
> "sufficing." It is a more evolutionary honest word. We never know
> optimization. Really. A slight change in the context or environment
> throws any claim to that off. But a complex system should be
> challenged to be "sufficing" to a number of needed functions or not
> exist. With this view, some policies and laws are sufficing for short
> periods but must be updated constantly. Change is a good think in our
> political system, not a bad thing. Our institutions are struggling to
> remain sufficing as circumstances change.
>
> Len
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Ferris, Tim wrote:
>
> Duane,
>
> I’ll accept that.
>
> The biggest problem with this is that there is some kind of inhibition
> (losing face?) associated with reversion to what it was before we did
> something. To ‘undo’ in a socio-XXX situation is associated with
> needing to admit that the proposal one put in place was not adequate,
> and that, perhaps, how it was before was rather better.
>
> Undo in the looser sense of reverting to substantially what it was
> before, perhaps with tweaks, is possible. Inhibition and admission of
> inadequacy works against it actually happening.
>
> Dr Tim Ferris
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Duane Hybertson
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 3:01 PM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Fwd: FW: Pathologies of our political system
>
> Tim - Well, I agree. I did not mean undo in a literal sense of
> returning to the before intervention state. We do want to learn from
> our mistakes! I meant that if we take some action, such as passing a
> law or implementing a practice, that turns out to be harmful not
> helpful, one plausible action to take is to rescind the law or the
> practice (undo it). Another is to modify the law or practice, based on
> what we have learned from the consequences.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Ferris, Tim
> <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk<mailto:Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk>>
> wrote:
> ‘Undo’ option?
>
> In a system with a social aspect, or a human learning aspect, the
> action to make an intervention changes the situation and it is not
> possible to revert to a state where no-one in the system has
> experienced the change, and so the system will be tainted by the
> effect of the original action performed. Thus, there is no ‘undo’
> option that will return things to the ‘before intervention’ state.
>
> This would also be true for physical systems which have memory,
> through a mechanism such as hysteresis, and possibly other mechanisms
> of memory.
>
> Dr Tim Ferris
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Duane Hybertson
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 2:26 PM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [SysSciWG] Fwd: FW: Pathologies of our political system
>
> James - I agree that "doing nothing" is a viable option to consider in
> dealing with complex systems. In some cases--arguably in this case if
> Rauch's argument has merit--maybe an "Undo" option should also be
> considered, when the evidence shows that an action we took was harmful
> rather than helpful.
>
> Len - Yes, Rauch provided a somewhat sketchy and incomplete solution.
> But I give him much credit for providing insight into the problem and
> some of its causes. That is an important first step.
>
> I am forwarding this to the full SS working group to weigh in. We are
> discussing an article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic called "How
> American Politics Went Insane", available at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> We are discussing this from the perspective of systems science,
> systems pathology, and complex systems.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James Martin
> [mailto:mart...@gmail.com<mailto:mart...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 8:33 AM
> To: Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>>
> Cc: Hybertson, Duane W.
> <dhyb...@mitre.org<mailto:dhyb...@mitre.org>>; Janet Singer
> <jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:jsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>>; Michael Singer
> (mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>)
> <mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu<mailto:mjsi...@soe.ucsc.edu>>;
> david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org<mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org>
> Rousseau
> <david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org<mailto:david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org>>
> Subject: Re: Pathologies of our political system
>
> Len,
>
> There is an overarching "pathology" with many instances of using a
> systems approach that is hardly ever mentioned. That is, the tendency
> to believe that something must be done to alleviate a bad situation.
> The alternative "fixes" are arrayed and examined to determine the best
> one to implement. However, given the unreliable predictions of any
> future outcomes for each alternative (given the complex nature of
> things), it is hardly wise to evaluate options when the eventual,
> actual outcomes will unlikely match the predicted outcomes.
>
> Often the real outcome ends up being worse than the current situation!
> In other words, often the best thing to do is to do nothing. However,
> this goes against people's very strong desire just to "do something".
> I have hardly seen anything in the SS or ST literature that addresses
> this basic flaw in many instances of applying a systems approach.
> However, there are some things written on this phenomenon, such as
> Systemantics by John Gall. One book that addresses this psycho-social
> phenomena directly is The Fatal Conceit by Friedrich Hayek.
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Lenard Troncale
> <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>> wrote:
> Duane,
>
> No I had not seen it. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. It
> is uncanny and impressive that this author uses an approach that
> sounds so much like SPT systems pathology and so systems oriented
> (altho' he really is mostly explaining a broad metaphor of human
> politics compared to the individual human health system).
>
> I agree that one of the futures of a broader systems engineering AND
> systems science should be giving prescriptive designs that help "cure"
> systemic diseases and better design social systems in the first place.
> But notice the lack of real detail on just how to do this in the
> article. It is more a plaintive cry in the desert or dark than
> prescriptive. He leaves solutions to the last couple of paragraphs and
> they seem rather shallow to me. But that is the challenge of SPT and
> other systems theories or approaches. Giving real data that shows how
> better systems work and don't work.
>
> To me the advantage of systems thinking is that it directly addresses
> social systems, that is human systems problems and gives systems naive
> participants the tools to conceive of and map their problems as
> systemic. HOWEVER systems thinking has a problem compared to systems
> science because it stops there. The problem with every one of those
> systems thinking tools is that they do not have a database that tells
> them in some definite and practical terms how systems work and don't
> work linking the problems of function with how systems have solved
> that problem in the past. No one seems to want to go to that level of
> detail just as the populist demagogues address major problems by
> touting simplistic solutions that would never work. The fault is in
> our inability to see that "systemness" addresses the same systems
> problems and challenges whether they be physical, biological, social,
> or conceptual systems. We are stuck in our humanity, in our being able
> to ONLY see manifest systems rather than the minimizations and
> maximizations accomplished no matter what the type of system is by
> system patterns that are universal.
>
> It would be good if you submitted this to the google SSWG group for
> reactions.
>
> Len
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Hybertson, Duane W. wrote:
>
> Hi all – Did you see the article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic
> called “”? It is at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
> A good discussion of an example of human system patterns and
> pathologies, and a good problem for system science and the expanded
> scope of systems engineering.
>
> Thanks,
> Duane
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> James
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> Back to top <#digest_top>
> Invitation for manuscript submissions: Special Issue “Systems
> Approaches and Tools for Managing Complexity”
> <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/81efe79636d56e3c?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
>
> James Martin <mart...@gmail.com>: Jul 05 08:20AM -0400
>
> fyi
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nam Nguyen <nam.n...@adelaide.edu.au>
> Date: Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 3:04 AM
> Subject: Invitation for manuscript submissions: Special Issue “Systems
> Approaches and Tools for Managing Complexity”
> To: Nam Nguyen Malik <Nam.N...@mzsg.com>
> Cc: "Malik, Constantin" <constant...@mzsg.ch>, Tuan Minh Ha <
> tua...@adelaide.edu.au>, Systems Editorial Office <sys...@mdpi.com>
>
>
> *Dear Friends and Colleagues,*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *You are cordially invited to submit your manuscripts to the Special Issue
> “Systems Approaches and Tools for Managing Complexity” (Systems journal).
> This Special Issue aims to update the use of both existing and emerging
> systems approaches and relevant tools in managing complexity in any
> area of
> interest; deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 January 2017. Special
> Issue Information and Submission: *
> *http://www.mdpi.com/journal/systems/special_issues/systems_tools*
> <http://malik-mzsg.net/go/15/1QWBT3QB-1QUEIYGP-1QUEIYGM-N5EQB0.html>
>
>
>
> *We are looking forward to receiving your contributions to this Special
> Issue! *
>
> *Best regards,*
>
> *Nam*
>
>
>
> *(on behalf of the Guest Editors: Dr. Nam Nguyen, Dr. Constantin Malik,
> MSc. Tuan Ha) *
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Dr Nam Nguyen*
>
> Director Australia and SE Asia – Malik Institute
> <http://www.malik-management.com/en>, Switzerland
>
> *Director – SysPrac Pty Ltd, Australia*
>
> *Vice President – International Society for the Systems Sciences (**ISSS*
> <http://isss.org/world/administration/board>*)*
>
> *Hon. Fellow – **University of Adelaide **Business School*
> <https://business.adelaide.edu.au/>*, Australia*
>
>
>
> *Malik **∙ St. Gallen ∙ Zurich ∙ Vienna ∙ Berlin ∙ London ∙ Toronto ∙
> Beijing ∙ Shanghai ∙ Adelaide ∙ Hanoi ∙*
>
> *10 Pulteney Street, Adelaide, SA 5005 AUSTRALIA (Level 9, Room 9.05)*
>
> *P: +61 (0)8 8313 1491 <%2B61%20%280%298%208313%201491> / F: +61 (0)8 8223
> 4782 <%2B61%20%280%298%208223%204782> / M: +61 (0)423 506 901
> <%2B61%20%280%29423%20506%20901> *
>
> *E: **nam.n...@adelaide.edu.au* <nam.n...@adelaide.edu.au>* / W: *
> *http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/nam.nguyen*
> <http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/nam.nguyen>
>
>
>
> --
> James
>
> Back to top <#digest_top>
> You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this
> group. You can change your settings on the group membership page
> <%0A%20%20https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/join%0A>.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send
> an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
>