A couple of years ago I was working from my parents’ kitchen table, responding to emails while my mother ground, or washed, or stirred. I was absorbed in my task and only half-present when I was recalled by my mother asking me why I was smiling. And this is how I discovered that when I am writing a friendly email, it isn’t just my words that adjust to context – it is my whole body (including the face). There might be no person to interact with, but there might as well have been. Friendliness, or niceness, in that case is not “just a thought” manifesting as disembodied words on the page, and study upon study has shown similar effects.
There’s a well-known metaphor about fish not knowing what water is, whose origins go back to the mists of time. We are the same way with bodies, so we tend to leave them out of the equation. If we think about bodies (especially in English, although the language conversation is long and fascinating), it is often as containers – an inert box in which our selves (somehow virtual) reside. This tendency has not improved with the advent of computing, software, and machine learning, which brought a host of problematic metaphors about how we tick.
In that metaphor, the brain is a master computer that continuously collects and processes data from the world around us, and then makes decisions based on that data. When things are going well, the decisions are based on rational evaluation. When not, pesky emotions interfere, clouding our clear judgement processes, and need to be weeded out so clarity can be achieved again. Emotions, of course, are almost always described in more “physical” terms (neurotransmitters might be referred to, for example). At the same time, the “higher” logical processes (in this type of account) remain as unbothered by our squishy stuff as possible.
I hardly need to say that most contemporary neuroscience is very far from this “virtual” picture. The combination of our fleshiness with the emergent nature of our intelligence and conscience (which means that our minds are not “a thing” but the result of multiple interactions without being reducible to the components of those interactions) is especially unpacked in two not-unrelated neuroscientific streams. We can call one the embedded and the other the predictive.
Embedded approaches emphasise the role played by our material and social environments, actions, and bodies in our cognition. The most typical work is the one that introduced this field to a broader audience: The Embodied Mind. Predictive approaches, on the other hand, such as the ones represented by Andy Clark, turn the typical assumptions on the “flow” of perception on its head: we do not look out into the world as a neutral camera that records everything and then processes the data we collect. Instead, we have an anticipated picture of the world and then take some quick snapshots with a Polaroid to confirm it. Only if the snapshots don’t match our expectations will we take out the much more expensive video camera and start recording more extensively, openly, and expensively.
Those approaches share two elements that I want to especially emphasise: our active meeting of the world and our relationship to novelty. Both of these are very relevant from the point of view of practice and complexity science. The first point emphasises that we don’t let the world passively make its impressions of us, but we constantly, mostly unconsciously, “select” what we see from the world. We also take small actions that allow us to test the waters continually. In complexity terms, we are probing, and the world reveals itself very much in interaction with that probing: not as a separate thing to be observed and discovered more or less fully and not as something completely inaccessible, but as a relationship. Merleau-Ponty, one of the originators of phenomenology, put it very aptly:
“Hardness and softness, roughness and smoothness, moonlight and sunlight, present themselves in our recollection, not pre-eminently as sensory contents, but as certain kinds of symbiosis, certain ways the outside has of invading us and certain ways we have of meeting this invasion […].”
The second point has implications for novelty, both as something encountered and as something deliberately sought out. We will only recognise novelty when we meet it under certain conditions: if this novelty creates enough anomaly for us to check again. Novelty also raises another thorny subject, especially around theories of predictive approaches: if many of our cognitive processes are set up to minimise energy needs, then why not stay in a dark room and eliminate costly surprises altogether? This conundrum reveals that energy expenditure minimisation matters, but it isn’t the end of the story. Not only are we equipped to deal with the novelty in our world, but we are also tending towards actively seeking it out if there isn’t enough for our liking (and our liking tends to vary from person to person and culture to culture). Perfect prediction all the time would be cheap, but it is also very unsatisfactory and fails to create the skills we need when, inevitably, that fails. In the words of a book I have recently been reading, “It is not the darkened room that is the key to mitigating surprise, it is anticipation”.
Now, let me add the final bead to this necklace. I got to thinking about these questions again because I was prompted by our upcoming retreat this spring. Its theme is “Mind, Body, World”. It is the first in a sequence of events and exploration around the same theme. This series will accompany the ones among you who join it in creating methods and exploration paths around the theme. I have rarely been as personally invested in a retreat subject myself – it is a pet obsession and one that I am keen to actively work on as a participant if I can (rather than a facilitator). Although part of the point of a retreat is allowing the process to inspire you to decide what you want to use this space to work on, I have to admit I do have some things in mind that I might want to work on – for example, how can we harness physical movements and the set-up of our environments to create excitement without anxiety, putting us in just the right frame of mind for novelty, and easing the path of our imaginations? And I can’t wait to let the Retreat format take me there.
This post has been illustrated with pictures associated with dancing:
Banner image is © The Trustees of the British Museum. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence.
In-text image is a Tsimshian dance cape, part of the collections of The Met, made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
On September 16, 2019, Cognitive Edge was invited to a Research Meeting convened by the Stanford Center for Design Research and the David Ramsey Map Center. In this session, I joined our longtime friend and partner, Ade Mabogunje from the Standard D-school and his colleague, Salim Mohd, the Head of the Rumsey Center together with 15 different experts. The event was convened to integrate perspectives on Innovation Ecosystem and Design Thinking to come together to share insights.
“The concept for the meeting was a synergy of five realizations. First, from research done by Malte Jung et al. we know that the creative design process depends on two critical actions – perceiving and acting, and two critical objects – a context, and a purpose. Second, to paraphrase the research of Barbara Tversky, spatial thinking is the foundation of thought and, from moving in the world, humans construct spatial maps in the brain which supports maps of time, of social relations, of ideas, and of values. Third, technology innovations require the confluence of these same constructs viz place, time, design teams, scientific ideas, and human values expressed in terms of proxies such as needs and problems, rewards and risks, credits and debits. Fourth, the David Rumsey Map Center has the facility to prototype and test a variety of ways in which a set of researchers and practitioners can be convened and supported while nurturing the growth of mission-focused start-up ventures and organizations in an ecosystem. Fifth, given the coming challenges of global climate change, there will be a strong need to design, develop, deploy, and test the effectiveness of many such prototypes in the near future. This meeting provided us the opportunity to create and test an early prototype.” [1]
The Dave Rumsey Map Center is a revelation and an amazing place to be contemplating the narrative landscapes and cultural topography that Cognitive Edge was invited to talk about. The Center has put together an introductory video which toys with all the 15 perspectives in what we have playfully named “A Thought Experiment”. Our collective perspectives share a common perspective that shifting into more organic, natural frameworks of thinking are critical to deal with increasing complexity and uncertainty in our lives.
Back in Sept 2019, we were all still blissfully unaware of the COVID-19 virus that would soon be disrupting all our lives. The video and presentations have just been released and looking back now, we are further convinced of the need to incorporate this ecosystem approach into how we design our systems.
#becausehumans
In 1990, from a distance of more than 6 billion kilometres away, the Voyager 1 spacecraft took a now-iconic picture of our planet. The image of earth caught as a tiny “dot” suspended like a mote of dust in a ray of light, inspired Carl Sagan to write:
NASA/JPL THE PALE BLUE DOT OF EARTH This image of Earth is one of 60 frames taken by the Voyager 1 spacecraft on February 14, 1990 from a distance of more than 6 billion kilometers (4 billion miles) and about 32 degrees above the ecliptic plane. In the image the Earth is a mere point of light, a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size. Our planet was caught in the center of one of the scattered light rays resulting from taking the image so close to the Sun. Linked from: https://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/earth/pale-blue-dot.html
“It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”
— Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994
Never before has earth felt quite as small as it does now. The COVID-19 pandemic is spreading across the globe at exponential rates. This microscopic virus has done what no leader, war or disaster has managed so far: it has united all of humanity to face a collective crisis, a common enemy.
It is in this context that we pulled together some of the leading thinkers in the field of complexity to explore where we are from different perspectives. I had the pleasure of engaging with Alicia Juarerro, Ann Pendleton-Jullian, Valdis Krebs and Dave Snowden in a 90-minute conversation that was so rich it warrants more than one listen.
Some of the key points that I am still reflecting on are:
These are just a few snippets that I captured from my furiously scribbled note. We would love to know what stood out for you, so we have created a Sensemaker journal where you can capture your learnings and reflections.
You can watch the replay of the webinar here. All of us, the panellists, me as well as the technical support team, donated our time. We therefore ask that you make a donation to the donation to the International Committee of the Red Cross to help us show our support for those on the frontline of the battle against COVID19.
In keeping with the format we have been following for our Cynefin Retreats, we are doing a virtual version of Dave’s Tricopticon method.
The process works broadly as follows:
The whole process is designed to integrate and build a theory-informed practice base.
We have scheduled two Raven Conversations with a diverse group of some of our most experienced international practitioners. To cater for different time zones, we have scheduled them ten hours apart.
We are making these available free of charge to our Premium Members, and in order to help cover costs we are charging a minimal fee of $9 to non-members (this will give you access to both webinars and both recordings).
Raven Conversation 1 – Thursday, 16 April 0600 GMT | 0700 BST
Sonja Blignaut in conversation with Anne Caspari, Hannes Entz, Friso Gosliga and Gary Wong
Click here to register for this session @ $9. Premium Members – find details for sign-up in Our Haunt.
Raven Conversation 2 – Thursday, 16 April 1600 GMT | 1800 BST
Sonja Blignaut in conversation with Andrew Blain, Chris Corrigan, Jesko von den Steinen and Vivienne Read
Click here to register for this session @ $9. Premium Members – find details for sign-up in Our Haunt.
As our business contexts become increasingly complex, the success rate of large scale transformation efforts and projects are rapidly decreasing. Many have been looking for answers to improve their performance and results, often jumping from one method to the next in search of “The Answer”. It is not uncommon nowadays for people to have studied and attempted to apply the work of different thought leaders like Deming, Goldratt, Senge and Snowden. This often leads to more confusion in an already confusing context.
The seeming similarities between the CynefinTM Framework and the Theory of Constraints are quite obvious. Both were created by thinkers with a foundational knowledge of Physics, both seek to provide insight into systems, both provide focus for meaningful change, and of course, both mention constraints. What is less obvious is whether they are complementary or contradictory approaches; for example, it is unclear whether the word “constraint” means the same thing in both approaches.
The CynefinTM Framework is primarily a sensemaking typology that enables us to identify the kind of systems we are dealing with and the appropriate responses or approaches for each context. It is not intended to be any sort of simple “recipe book” or step-by-step problem-solving approach. Complex Adaptive Systems are such that any sort of prescribed approach is likely to fail, especially simply copying “Best Practices” that worked for someone else. The CynefinTM Framework provides a way to engage with these complex systems with a pragmatic theory of change:
The CynefinTM body of knowledge doesn’t tell one how to answer these questions but can help guide you in sense-making and using your domain knowledge to find answers.
The Theory of Constraints, on the other hand, actually did start out as a more prescriptive method, specifically intended to handle problems in factories that led to late deliveries, high cost, and poor quality. Eli Goldratt’s first book, “The Goal”, tells the story of a factory manager who has 90 days to significantly increase his plant’s profits to avoid it being shut down. He realized that many of the means of traditional management are either of no use or are actively harmful. He, therefore, focused on improving flow by removing physical bottlenecks, or constraints, in his factory to enable success.
Goldratt originally wrote the book partly as marketing for his production planning software company, but he discovered that people were getting good results from simply copying the approach in the book. This piqued his curiosity and led him to abandon the software industry and concentrate instead on, in his words, “how to teach the world to think.” TOC branched out to look at other types of constraints and created a more generic approach to problem-solving. The TOC Logical Thinking Process is designed to solve any problem by using necessity and sufficiency logic to find the answer to 3 key questions:
At first the three questions from the CynefinTM Framework and the Logical Thinking Process of TOC seem similar, but are they?
One of the biggest potential disconnects between the two methods is around dealing with complexity. In the CynefinTM Framework, the Complex Domain is where analysis cannot give you a sure answer and the best way forward will often be obscured (as if in a fog) and can only be found through experimentation. But in Goldratt’s last books he embraced the idea of what he called Inherent Simplicity in which a complex system can be understood and the fog blown away to expose a simple underlying approach to management.
While those certainly sound contradictory, we invite you to join Steve and Dave for the upcoming Masterclass Exploration which will show that they are actually very similar and, again, open up the path for complementary uses of the CynefinTM Framework and TOC. This Exploration will explore this relationship, the respective underlying principles, and show how they are fundamentally complementary and can have a catalytic result when used together
I discovered the CynefinTM Framework after practising Theory of Constraints for about 10 years. I knew that TOC was especially good at finding ways to deal with difficult situations, but there still seemed to be problems that defied solution. When I began learning about CynefinTM, it became clearer to me under which conditions different problem solving and management systems worked or didn’t work. It helped me get out of a “Tool War” mindset of “My method is better than yours” and to realize that the context and the method needed to match. All methods work in a context they map to. That, then, led to the realization that the sensemaking of CynefinTM and the methods of TOC were a good match. What I’m looking forward to in this Exploration is the opportunity to share those thoughts with others. And, I’ve always found that I learn a lot whenever I can interact with people. In this Exploration I’m looking forward to sharing some of what I’ve learned and then learning even more from everyone’s collective insights. – Steve Holt
Click here to register for this event: Cynefin™ and Theory of Constraints: Explorations with Dave Snowden and Steve Holt, February 20-21, Seattle
Steve wrote a series of guest blogs in 2010 where he also looked at the synergies and interaction between the CynefinTMFramework and Theory of Constraints.
Photo by Greta Farnedi on Unsplash
The last day of the festival and I had to grab a quick breakfast. I thanked my hosts at The Cammarch Hotel for yet another good stay and did a high speed dash down the Wye Valley to make breakfast with Jasper Fforde. I bought his first book in Sydney simply for the idea of Jurisfiction and I have kept up with everything he had read ever since. Aside from my love of his imagination there are a few other connections. A lot of his books are situated in and around North Wiltshire, my son was a contemporary of his son at St John's Marlborough and he has adopted Wales as his country. In his alternative universe, Wales is portrayed as a dark socialist republic, smuggling cheese into England and still suffering the after effects of its own Vietnam in Patagonia. Just to wet your appetite further, croquet is the English national sport, played with violence aforethought in the national stadium in Swindon, George Formby as President for life of the English Republic and Miss Havisham is a literary detective who likes to drive fast cars. All of that before I get onto the wonderful use of Kafka in Thursday Next's trial.
Jasper started the day by allowing his fingers to load a camera with film and talked about his use of film in preference to digital. We had a delightful story of his building his own darkroom in the cupboard under the stairs using a lightbulb painted red and salt as a fixer giving limited cash. It turns out film sales are going up after their initial decline. Using film is tricky ,which he thinks may account for its attraction. I made the wider point about the role of craft, referencing the time it takes for a taxi driver to acquire The Knowledge and the physical changes that happen to their brain over a two year plus period in consequence and the discussion then ranged far and wide. Some key points that came up:
There was a lot more, and I had to leave before it finished to get to a session on Metaphysics on the other side of the Wye. I gather from a later session that the question of the monetisation of time was raised as one negative aspects of a modern art and craft movement. More on that in a future post
Great session, needed twice the time and a less time consuming process of getting breakfast!
My second and last day dawns with heavy rain which will persist throughout the day. Pathways become mud baths and the organisers finally give up trying to make us queue outside the tents for a programmed start. Every chairperson apologies for the noise of rain on canvass which is the background to every talk.
First up for me is the campaigner Peter Tatchell. Its a surprisingly small audience for what is a considered and valuable presentation on the dangers of confusing the acquisition of rights and equality with real change.
I got a chance to ask an extended question here. I argued that gaining rights before you have changed attitudes means that attitudinal change is delayed. You also get accommodation in the face of threat such as the British Aristocracy responded to the French Revolution by allowing extended franchise etc in the 1832 Reform Act and others. I gave other illustrations such as the technical but not real abolition of slavery. I also raised the issue of a shift from racism to culturalism and my idea that we should link government funding of education to spending time overseas. The idea here is to change people's attitudes before they get entrained within the higher education system.
He broadly agreed with several other examples of premature success which means the campaigning energy subsides. His main solution is to challenge the idea, I am less sure. Better to put people in a position where those ideas cannot sustain themselves. And yes I have changed a lot since the 70s when I would probably have been with him on the lets tell them they are wrong approach.
MY NOTES
Why rights are not enough using gay and transgender issues but applies more generally
At first sight who could deny the value of equality but he takes a more scpetical view that although its important by itself it is nt sufficient. In LPBG now on) quality has become a mantra, in this day it was about liberation there was no mention of equality. Wanted to create a new framework for society as a whole. The shift happnened in the 1990s with a move into the main stream, greater acceptance by establishment meant greater compromise by the movement. More about fitting in with the heterosexual consensus.
Today, in LPBG its all about equal rights and law reform, no questioning of society a shift to a resignation and acceptance and fitting in not transformation. Means a loss of confidence. The dominant status quo was devised by the heterosexual majority so conformity/equality (the same thing) means fitting in with the previaling agenda. Means submission and conformity.
Changing the law is only one aspect also have to change attitudes. There is still racism despite legal changes so formal legal equality does not equate with equality in practice. There is an issue beyond homphobia and transphobia to what he calls erotophoebia, anglo saxon puritanism, feat of sex has been aroud for a long time. Issue of under age sex is one, most have them from 14 onwards not 16 yet our attitude in law sees it as criminal. Consenting sex between two young people of 15 are committing an offence punishable by imprisonment and placement on the sex offenders register.
Issue about censorship of sexual imagery. Same sex porn was more liable to prosecution where equivalent heterosexual porn was not. He is opposed to porn which arises from violence etc. but for co-equal, erotic not abusive is OK. Norms and attitudes in society are an issue. Sex education lessons also an issue, there is meant to be a LPBG reference but its rare but it is there. However despite this the real issue is the whole education which is about biology, not about relationships, what you should do if abused etc. etc No information or education provided. Netherlands has a culture by which its my body I have a right to do with it what i want and no one has a right to invade it without my permission Means Netherlands has fewer teenage pregnacy and abortion that UK (7&11 times but he is not sure which way round). Education needs to give people the confidence to stand up to and report abuse.
These drawbacks also apply to women not just LPBG. There are still class ceilings and concrete walls. WOmen have to compete on male terms. Likewise with black and ethnic majority people – only OK if assimilate into the dominant culture. So this is a broader issue about experience. The equal rights agenda is often not about being able to get on with things it requires a degree of conformism to the way a particular organisation operates. Equal earnings in law but still major differences.
As a result of oppression the LPBG created its own sub-culture but as we have achieved greater acceptance and equality many aspects of that sub-culture are dying out. need an acknowledgement that minority cultures have something to give the majority. Lesbians has had to be more assertive and that has given them a different perspective on women's place. So many are in the vanguard ofthe feminist movement. A disproportionate number of gay men are in caring and creative professions, they bring a different perspective to masculinity. The Gay model is having an effect or influence on mainstream masculine culture – metro-sexual etc. Pressure to conform on gay pride parades etc in order to get right to marry, adopt children etc. etc. So self policing based on desire to conform.
Nouveau gay reformism seems to involve an abandonment of any criticism of heterosexual culture, discernment is abandoned in favour of compliance. A lot of people in LBPG are hetero-homos, trapped in a gay body.
Need to achieve a new form of equality where all people can find their lives transformed for the better
QUESTIONS
Existential equality is more difficult than legal equality. Hunter gatherers had equality to survive while in our hierarchical society we compete. Respect would be more valuable.
How do we recapture the energy of the original liberation movement so how do we do the consciousness raising
A lot of battles have been lost and there is frustration. History moves in waves and cycles, the 60s and early 70s may not repeat for some time. Maybe if we hit a major economic catastrophe then there would be a new radicalism but it could be the far right.
How do you think people find the voice and power to question things
Response: Through organisations that raise these issues.
You haven't mentioned the Church, is it your greatest adversity
There are wonderful supportive people of faith 58% of people of faith support same sex marriage. Organised religion is the single greatest threat to human rights across the board.
I'd been looking forward to this session with Simon Glendinning of the LSE. The issue was the role of Europe a topic which is a difficult one for the English (less so interestingly for the Welsh and the Scots). He was addressing Habermas's ideas for a unified Europe with those implied in Kant and that is a combination that was always going to be interest. My summary below is pretty comprehensive and as it was a smallish audience we got into an interesting discussion.
I suggested that the homogeneity implied by Habermas was dangerous, but the idea of a collection of sovereign state interests was not sustainable in a modern world. In that I was harking back to yesterday and some of the issues over how you control multi-national companies. However I also think Europe needs to create a counter balance to the US and China not just for our own sake, but for the world. I coined the phrase culturally cohesive historical groups to represent nations such as Wales and Scotland together with regions such as Catalonia. I suggested that a European super-state for economics and defence was the only way that Europe as a future, but that there were a range of issues that were better handled in said historical groupings. He confirmed that this idea of subsidiarity is talked about in the Commission, as I knew from some of my own meetings. He was not sure it might not be difficult but I argued after the session that this could be messy. You start to shift things as people change. So Scottish independence would trigger a different type of relationship, Catalonia might take longer but London (if you believe Boris) wants to move faster and so on. I also argued for delegative voting – you elect people you know who then elect the next level and so on. My argument was that European elections like those for the American President do not really represent the considered choice of the people, but the people herded by the media.
It may be a pipe dream, but something has to change. No individual State really has the power anymore on its own and the compromises that are Europe today are getting to be worse than useless.
MY NOTES
This is the third in a series of essays on the philosophy of political union in Europe. Developing ideas based on Kant and Jürgen Habermas. He has been trying to avoid Habermas for sometime but has to take him on.
For our purposes the old Europe is one of nation states marked by wars and preparation for wars. Within this Europe each tate should be able to make sovereign decisions without seeking permission from other states. However there were huge inter-dependencies. The new Europe is one we don't have yet. The current institutions are founded on treaties between states. In the conext of the current monetary crisis it is not surprising that the European Council has taken the initiative – heads of government not the commission or the parliament. Those heads of state are still reflecting primarily on the interests of their own nations. So its rather like the old Europe
The new Europe, if there is to be one, has to be a unprecedented act of radical self-sacrifice of sovereignty to create a supera national democracy. An irreversible transfer, shift to political and economic union. Habbermas favours this, the overcoming of national particularisms. He wants this as soon as possible. He accepts it is not an extension of the current set up. The red line of classical understanding of sovereignty would be abandoned. Retention of some national integrity but the role is very limited by retaining role of implementing administration.
Monetary Union without political union is problematic so people are realising this. Bond change etc significant here.
Simon thinks he is right about the way it would look but it does not mean opposition is skeptic, there are people who reject both sovereign states and Habermas vision of the new Europe Kant offers a third way. Kant thinks there will have to be transfer of sovereignty but it will be an enhancement of what is left which may be the most important. Habermas says Kant saw this as a transitionary state. Habermas calls it a League of Nations, Kant called it a federation but not in the modern meaning of that word. habermas sees it as weak, conceptually flawed and sterile.
Simon suspects the opposite, something short of an international state is paradoxically ideal and that is what Kant thought. Kant projects a possibility for Europe's future which acknowledges interdpendency of trade etc which means that the political body of Europe exists in some form and all have interests in maintaing the whole. The Rational Step says that only one way to emerge from lawlessness, they have to adapt to public coercive laws that will ultimatel embrace the whole earth.
Kant thinks that this requires of states something that is not only difficult but may be impossible. So this is not the will of the Nations. Simon thinks this is not weak and contingent, what he means is that it is not the sort of thing that a nation can will. So we need a negative substitute as the rational ideal is not possible. So there is something that cannot be bettered. So create an enduring federation likely to prevent war. He also said that the State would be too big. the laws loose their impact as the government scales, germ of goodness but application would create a souless despotism. A nation in ruins could will it, but not otherwise.
Nations in ruins coujld will it, but a strong nation and strong enough to see its interests as coinciding with Europe as a whole could will it too. So Habermas says the German government holds the key, but his dogmatic rationalism has the opposite result.
J B White was billed as a Philosopher turned management consultant (one of several with a book to sell at this event) but his session was more pop science than anything else. He was making the legitimate point that a lot of what is called evidence in government is nonsense but there are a lot better targets that the unit price of alcohol. The one good thing he brought out was the substitution issue, but his wider argument of the right to enjoy was based on a primitive concept of exchange and rational decision making which to be honest was pathetic. He really was not interested in any idea which challenged his thinking and managed his questioning accordingly.
There is a lot of nonsense in so called evidence based policy but it will be be countered by libertarian (my judgement) nonsense in response. Becoming a duck is not the way to stop quacking.
MY NOTES
Looking at one piece of evidence based policy. The phrase means if you argue with it you are a bigot which he disputes. Minimum alcohol pricing is considered as a perfect example of evidence based policy. Will use it as an example of where tings are wrong. All tend to go wrong in the same way.
Scary slide – The English drink a lot
British politicians want people to drink less, would mean less absenteeism etc, etc
A 2008 scientific study claimed that a minimum price of 50p a unit would benefit society by £7.5bn
Government went with 45p. Sheffield group assumed that alchol price goes up then demand goes down. They worked out the price elasticity by dividing the drinking population into different groups worked consumption down and then worked out relationship toi different types of harm. Work out how harm goes down then attach monetary value to those harms. This is standard practice in social welfare research. Its done by asking how much people would pay to avoid those harms or to avoid the risk. They looked at benefits from 10p up
What is wrong?
It shows the benefits but ignores the costs. 'The public sector focus of NICE ecomoic evaluation excludes consideration of welfare losses (fun) arising from reduced consumption. Hence consumer welfare analysis has not be a part of this studfy' quoting the study here. If we had a party focus then we would subsidise alcohol but ignore the costs. So whole thing is a fraud/joke
Rugby injuries are OK, R V Brown 1993 gay men sadomasochism and were charged with GBH, defneded on the basis that they volunteered so Rugby and surgery would be GBH as well. THe Judge rejected the argument on the basis that rugby and surgery have a worthy purpose you don't
QUESTIONS
Is there no place for morality based policy?
Says yes, for example murder where most of the internal cost is born by you. Need to go way beyond an eye for a eye to get the external cost up
Asked about licensing hours
would not do that to protect people in the pub but possibly local residents
Good question, if you put the price up people want more of something
If something is a consumption good you want the price to decline, but a house you want it to go up. So have to distinguish between the good. There is also the luxury good effect.
Were the Sheffield people contrained by government policy?
He should have asked but didnt and did does not care
After the quacking of the last session this was a delight. Alexandra Paulin-Booth a PhD candidate at Oxford talking about the neglect of time in academic history. Just a lovely idea and really well illustrated. OK her presentation was driven by an obvious liking for anarchists but it was a refreshing presentation. I asked her if she had read the anthropological literature on time and ended up giving her some references. People get stuck in silos so easily when they do PhDs, but here we had someone prepared to explore them. I did disagree with her on the role of the Church in change. I made the point that a lot of Christian Socialism was not about messianic futures but restoring the need for justification by works, not by faith alone. She listed but I don't think it fit the thesis! However she listened. One worth watching out for in the future.
MY NOTES
PhD History looking at time in late 19thC time and how it impacted in ideology etc. Past present and future were much contested during this period. What does it mean to conceptualise time? How did they understand difference between past present future and relationships? DId humans have agency? Should change be catastropic etc. THe notions they had about time profoundly influenced their actions so provides a fresh way at looking at modernity, religion, culture etc.
So how have historians looked at time?
histories have neglected ideas of time which is odd as it provides setting and sustenance for history but its so fundamental that i may have escaped attention. Sociology has not been as reticent as historians. Analysis of time, experiences of acceleration and deceleration in time related to power, privilege etc. Historians have something to learn from this. Little literature in History
Rheinhart Koch (not sure of spelkling) modernity is characterised by change i 1750 there was a change in the perception of time. The previous model of predicting future based on past was breaking down. Experienc and expectation had a gulf opening up, people demanded more from the future. The Christian timeframe life and death started to receed. In the 18th C people started to talk about the Middle Ages and called their own 'modern'. Time became increasingly politicised. French Revolution 1989 advent of modernity, appearance of irreversible rupture. Revolutionary calender tried to strip all the old christian stuff, revolutionary clock as well.
The politicisation of time may be critical but few scholars look at who was fighting over it or why. Work on memory and shared perception of the past. Can be related to time. Inherited memory of time and the terror influenved people for generations and gernerations to come. Memory is relating to time but need to look at conceptualisation as well as content of time. how do people grapple over the past and how they use it.
Since fall of Berlin Wall histories have suggested that modernity is at an end, the future is not chronologically different stripped of hope and feat of the future so we are locked into a permanent present with political malaise as a result.
Belle Epoch in France 1870 to WWI is one where everything was in flux, new interest in interior workings of mind sub-conscious privileged reaction against positivism, religious frameworks had been in decline accelerated by Darwin and Spencer, Geology legitimising itself as a discipline. major implications. Bergsen became popular and had a strong influence, theorised 'duration' as true time not time portrayed by clocks and calenders. Those created artifical separations. Duration could only be accessed intuitively, no division between past, present and future. Proust used a jet of water to illustrate this. Individual perceptions now privileged.&nnbsp; Anarchists, marxists, socialists also in touch with this.
Argues that time was a contested domain around which power and influence could be won. All attempts to bring about change are a fight about the future, but these french radicals had a particular tendency to express their ideas in terms of time. 1871 defeat of the commune meant that street fighting now useful. From 1884 you could unionise so better ways to do it. Different ideas about revolution and competition. Very concept of the past was a matter of contention, some argued all revolution should be about the future.
Left wing propaganda referencing the future, ideas of immanent collapse and competing int4erpretation. Left wing activists said no future until significant change. Marxists placed society on a conveyor belt. Other groups such as anarchists fought this. Others argued that evolution ensured natural progression and needed to be slow and gradual not revolutionary. Some groups tried to combine socialism and christianity. Most radicals rejected religion with the eternal future argument
Its about time to start talking about time
Cognitive Edge Ltd. & Cognitive Edge Pte. trading as The Cynefin Company and The Cynefin Centre.
© COPYRIGHT 2025
