welcome
cartLogin

Three or five?

February 18, 2016

For some time I have been arguing that the study of complex systems in humans has substantial differences from those in nature. I typically contrast computational complexity with anthro-complexity (or cognitive-complexity). The former tends to be characterised by modelling – the famous Boyd’s algorithm being used to illustrate the approach. I’ve seen great models that provide insight but humans really don’t have agency or make decisions in repeatable ways, or at least with the same consistency as termites.

So in developing both the theory and practice of a human centric approach to using complexity science I started to shift to a stance in which complexity was one of the sources, but not the sole source, or constraint on the theory. Anthropology, the Cognitive Sciences, Epigenetics and others all come into play. On the practice side we need something that is (i) consistent with the theory and (ii) able to get the point over to an audience without the theoretical background.

That need produces by three ‘I’s of anther-complexity as follows:

INTENT or intentional behaviour is not fully unique to humans, but it is important. We don’t just respond to stimuli (although we do), we can make choices, use abstract goals and so on. Critically we can express that intent in symbolic form to bind other people into a direction of travel.

INTELLIGENCE which again is not unique but in humans has developed to the point where we substantially alter the world around us to suit our purpose. It isn’t called the Anthropocene for nothing, critically we can abstract our experiences to reflect on them individually and collectively and ideas can be contagious.

IDENTITY is fluid in humans, we move between roles depending on context and have developed rituals by which we can temporarily align our identity with a role for collective purpose (crews). We have also developed (again using that symbolic capability) collective identities which can align actions (a form of assemblage)

Now in conversation with Glenda Eoynang on this last Monday she suggested adding Imagination to that list and I can see value in that. I also suggested that Ideology might be appropriate. The latter is a part of identity, the former maybe intelligence, but teasing both out might be a good idea. Thinking about that, ideas welcome

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Related Posts

About the Cynefin Company

The Cynefin Company (formerly known as Cognitive Edge) was founded in 2005 by Dave Snowden. We believe in praxis and focus on building methods, tools and capability that apply the wisdom from Complex Adaptive Systems theory and other scientific disciplines in social systems. We are the world leader in developing management approaches (in society, government and industry) that empower organisations to absorb uncertainty, detect weak signals to enable sense-making in complex systems, act on the rich data, create resilience and, ultimately, thrive in a complex world.
ABOUT US

Cognitive Edge Ltd. & Cognitive Edge Pte. trading as The Cynefin Company and The Cynefin Centre.

© COPYRIGHT 2022. 

Social Links: The Cynefin Company
Social Links: The Cynefin Centre
< Prev

Abide II

- No Comments

I opened yesterday’s post with the metaphor of a river in flow but with stable, ...

More posts

Next >

Power in abstraction

- No Comments

I’ve been using this slide for some years ever since it emerged from a conversation ...

More posts

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram