There has been a lot of discussion here on how to hold it all together. Can forums like the Tribune survive the divergent views, the different genders, locations, cultures and nationalities, or the deluge of political issues demanding our attention? Can it survive and grow as an almost totally self-regulating structure? It seems so, by the evidence.
The notion that human social interaction systems could prosper without leaders goes against all our experience of hierarchical systems in the Western world. From school to a job, from the church of our choice to the political system we live in, everything is about a pecking order of power in which we are encouraged to move up the ladder to gain more power. In doing so we often have to give up individual feelings to `play the game’. Many of us feel entrapped in this game as we grow older. Forums such as this one however, empower people to speak out and in doing so find themselves to be part of an alternative system with different rules from the ones they have been taught to obey. In fact, people find that instead of having to obey rules, they are the rules.
More below
I won’t go into all the alternative social systems within which all creatures – including humans – operate. I’m only concerned here with the fairly new idea of systems without leaders. But some of you may want to discuss the other systems by comparison.
This diary is based on some work I have done with Chaos Pilots business school in Denmark, and the Information Management department of Amsterdam University. It is an introduction to the concept, and largely anecdotal. Some of you may know much more about the theory of this than I, so bear with me. I want to introduce this concept to a general audience in the hope that it will bring new insight into why we are here and how we relate to each other.
Take me to your leader!
Watch a large flock of birds in flight in the city. It is a liquid mass of self-propelling feathers. The flock swoops, dives and turns on a mark, before settling en masse on another roof. Who gives the orders? Which former dinosaur says `Turn right at the oak tree, lads!’ Nobody. A flock of birds has no leader. A shoal of fish has no leader. A colony of ants has no leader (though as the planet’s most successful species, they do have core values).
Who directs your brain’s hundred billion neurons to connect up? Who, indeed, directs the Internet? No one. These are all Self-Organising Systems – SOS.
And SOS is the new way to look at communities.
Love thy neighbour
How does a tree grow? Each cell in the tree `knows’ what to do according to what its neighbours do. How does a cell `know’? Cells exchange chemical messages – biochemical SMS. That’s all a cell knows. The entire universe of a cell is its neighbours. A cell certainly does not know that it is making a beautiful thing – a tree, neither can any cell say `OK lads, left hand down on twig #17960B’.
Interestingly, most religions have as their central tenet ` Do unto thy neighbour, as thou would have done unto thee’. Or other 17th century words to that effect.
Simple rules
Very simple rules guide flocks, shoals and colonies. The latest A-Life simulations produce highly complex behaviour from a handful of code lines. It’s a new way of looking at systems, even communities such as this one, because it has been previously thought that only specialisation can bring about such system complexity.
The Generation Game
Like the game of Go, chess, or even football, just a few legal moves can bring endless permutations. It seems to be a central function of the evolutionary process – throw up some new complexity with each generation, and let the best adapted survive to changing environmental contexts.
Feedback
In living systems, the evolution-honed alternative to leadership is instant reaction/instant feedback. Every bird in the flock adjusts its flight path instantly in feedback with its neighbours. At the speed that birds fly, only instantaneous reaction will work. That’s strictly for the birds – other feedback can be slower. The canopy of a tree is in a feedback system with the roots. The canopy will not grow beyond the roots because that would prevent rain run-off reaching the roots and thus nourishing the canopy. All food chains depend on feedback, and all value chains. They are self-organising.
The Mobile Brigade
Terrorists have traditionally divided into cells for security, severely limiting the number of `need-to-knows’. Each cell only knows the other cells (or members of other cells) that it contacts, it may have no knowledge of cells beyond that limited communication channel. If the system breaks down, only a few cells are compromised.
Message in a bottle
The designer of the Titanic used watertight bulkheads to prevent the flow of water through the ship, in the event of collision. What he didn’t predict was the weight of water flowing over the top of the bulkheads. Politicians like to think that having all the bulkhead hatches of society closed is going to keep them from getting wet. IT is coming in over the bulkheads.
“Sending out an SMS”
What do the removal of President Estrada of the Philippines, the country shutdown caused by fuel protests in the UK in autumn 2000, Seattle, Gothenburg and Genoa all have in common? The protesters were in self-organising systems using mobiles to provide the instant interaction.
Protesters connected by mobiles, using grouped SMS, can reach a very wide group without any of them having been introduced to each other. They say that if two men witness a murder at midnight and each tell two other about it within 10 minutes, and these 4 people each tell two others and so on, then the world will know about it by breakfast. Try that with mobiles.
Mobiles facilitate the instant and spontaneous formation of SOS groups and also allow them to function, evolve or die painlessly.
Robust, adaptable, flexible, fast
Underwater, a frustrated marlin eyes a huge metallic swirling, darting mass of sardines. It’s lunchtime. The marlin is seething because picking off a plate of sushi from the conveyor belt of a bunch of mobile low-lifes is proving amazingly tricky. 5000 pairs of eyes are better than one. And 5000 escape strategies (choose any two) are faster to react than one hungry marlin. The marlin will get a sardine eventually, and the silver neighbours of the poor sardine who cops it may slightly adapt their escape strategy in the future. But they will change their positions in the shoal and thus dilute any behavioural variation.
Designed for attrition
An SOS is designed for loss. Squash a few ants underfoot, pick off a bird or let the marlin have lunch – it doesn’t make much difference. The system keeps right on working. That’s a powerful social system asset.
There have been a few bridges collapse because one bolt sheered. In a minimalist engineering structure designed only with a small margin of safety, a minor failure can be catastrophic. It can bring the whole system down. In contrast, an SOS has massive redundancy – one bolt out of thousands cannot compromise structural integrity.
Object-oriented software
Make your software modular and, like Linux, it’s more robust. A failure in one module won’t bring the whole system down. Monoculture bad, biodiversity good.
If you only grow potatoes, the blight can wipe you out and the survivors must head for America to become the Irish-Americans.
Connecting people
SOS is also being adopted in business. Trying to locate someone at Nokia by their job title is not easy. The switchboard won’t tell you. Below upper executive level, Nokia is an SOS. At the top, the strategies are decided, the global financing organised, and the big deals in China are made. But below that teams and groups and cells form, function and dissolve organically. When problems need solving, a Nokia flock forms to face the threat, get food or fly south.
And to do that you need a lot of redundancy in the system. Like the brain.
The heresy
The brain has been compared to a computer. But in many ways the brain is very dissimilar, because in the end, a computer processor is linear – the registers all have queues. In the brain, in the mind, it all happens at the same time using very simple rules. If I’m a neuron, I’ll fire myself only if I get fired at a certain number of times in a certain time period. All I know is that. And that often I am meta-programmed by various hormone-like chemicals floating around, which affect the way I fire, but not who I fire at.
One theory has it that consciousness is the result of neural networks `terminating’ in many places at the same time. The mind, faced with a million answers, becomes aware – but that is a whole new bag of beans.
Signal to noise
The mind is an SOS. As a baby, born with 100 billion neurons, you start out submersed in sensory noise. Only later will you detect the signal and then spend your life working out what the signal means. Some connections are pre-programmed, but mostly your experience and interaction with the outside world and the rest of yourself, will make the connections for you. Experience is self-organising. And it’s reorganising all the time.
You are all the neural networks you have. As the networks reorganize, so do you.
“In a totally frictionless society, permanent communities are not needed” (adapted from Coarse’s Law)
Like the oil super-tanker, large societies are tricky to manoeuvre and hard to redirect. Leadership-free communities are much more adept at changing direction. Instantly, like the flock. Such communities are organic.
Think of the Net as an ecosystem
“The net is a great rain forest of life-forms called ideas which like organisms – those patterns of self-reproducing evolving adaptive information that express themselves in skeins of carbon – require other organisms to exist”.
John Perry Barlow
John Perry Barlow has proposed several criteria for the future development of the Internet. Among these are relationship, interactivity, and service. “I want you, I need you and I won’t let you down”. These are standard codes of conduct in an SOS.
`Meet the new boss: no boss’
“Relationship, along with service, is at the heart of what supports all sorts of other modern, though more anonymous, knowledge workers. Doctors are economically protected by a relationship with their patients, architects with their clients, executives with their stockholders. In general, if you substitute “relationship” for “property,” you begin to understand why a digitised information economy can work fine in the absence of enforceable property law. Cyberspace is unreal estate. Relationships are its geology”.
John Perry Barlow
You can’t beat the system
The group loyalty and individual sacrifice that are an inherent part of SOS can only exist in an environment of complete trust. Altruism doesn’t survive inequitable contexts. Leadership is essentially exploitation, and hierarchical systems, in practice, are extremely prone to corruption because they are based on reward and fear. Capitalism is crowded with people trying to `beat the system’.
Co-operation, not competition
We are moving toward a rethink of capitalism. We are more sixty years from the conflict that divided Europe. It was a conflict that cemented the idea of hierarchical control of systems into our society – the military pyramid of decision-making and orders, where information flows down from the brass to the cannon fodder. The older generation of European managers grew up in a post-war society based on hierarchy. Most companies still function as hierarchical systems. So do governments. Even advertising is still based on the seminal work of the greatest brand manager of all time – Joseph Goebbels.
`Culture unites while business divides’
In nature, this depends on which microscope you are using. Look at a colony of ants and it’s true. Look at the colony feeding, and it’s not true. Look at the whole ecological system and it’s true again.
In the New Society, we need to look again at the whole ecology of society – the gestalt.
Gestalt?
Thanks to the Greeks, the classic occidental way to learn is the reductionist approach of giving everything a name or a number and categorising it. It’s all very logical, like a computer, and totally hierarchical. It’s the military approach to learning.
Take a flow chart. All of those lovely boxes connected to each other, making the whole system easy to understand. But defining a box means that you edit, you exclude. You leave out all that interesting stuff between the boxes. The stuff in the spaces may not all be useful, but it is all part of the ecology of the system.
The data sculptor can work in two ways. Starting from nothing and building up the sculpture bit by bit. Or the gestalt way is to start with a huge block and chip away what you don’t need.
The gestalt is the whole system.
A gestalt flowchart would like rather like the surface of a pond during light rain. The drops of water are events – impacts on the surface. The events create ripples, which spread concentrically and meet other waves. Where waves intersect there’s an interference pattern, which creates new waves at new frequencies. It sounds a lot like an SOS. And indeed it is, with each drop interacting with its neighbours. It is also a better way to visualise the societies of the future.
Raspberry Ripples
If you want to see SOS in action today, check out artists, musicians or writers. Most of them have to live in a hybrid system – using the hierarchy to survive financially and the SOS to create. Artists don’t interact with each other by meetings, agendas, flowcharts or even analysis. They create ripples, which interfere with neighbouring ripples. Where the ripples intersect, new frequencies are created.
Boo Tribune is indeed a pond. The frogs are watching the rain. The frogs are watching the ripples from the raindrops. Jump in and create some even bigger ripples!
Thanks to the Greeks?? Thanks to that one no good $!@! Greek Aristotle and his billions of followers hahaha
Pax
Hi Sven, This is a subject that is very interesting to me. Here is my question. Given that we live in Capitalist world, how do you deal with the issues of expenditure and still remain leaderless.
For instance, suppose you and I decide that we want to create an organization that buys computers for kids that can’t afford them. We want the organization to outlive us and so we decide a leaderless model has the best chance of surviving. We also decide that we need a physical location…an office. And here is where things get messy because some entity must sign the lease. Even if we create a corporation to “hold” the group, the creation of the corporation requires that someone put their name down as leader (President, CEO, what ever).
I have been puzzling over this for a while and I’m not sure a leaderless organization can exist within a system that requires ownership and/or taxation.
Also, many of the models above are enforced by the lure of mating and the “punishment” of unrequited desire. If you don’t fly in the group you don’t make it to the party. In all person made leaderless models the stick and the carrot are considerably less powerful.
I certainly don’t propose that SOS can replace hierarchical systems, but there are many parts of our lives that function already in an SOS way. How about your circle of friends? Is there a leader? Or do you function by consensus?
SOS is something that can be overlaid on hierarchical systems.
BTW In Finland, cooperatives are recognized in law. They can have flexible membership, without a leader. The law expects that you have a set of articles that define membership and purpose, but these are quite simple. Cooperatives have to keep accounts and pay tax, but there is a maximum amount of turnover below which no tax is payable.
Thank you Sven, I don’t really know the laws surrounding cooperatives, is what your SOS’s sound like. That might be the way to go…and great topic by the way.
You might also ask how this place functions! Who pays the server bills, the lawyers? Where does the ad income go? Who is legally responsible?
For whatever reasons, Booman set this up as free for everyone else – but he’s not a CEO, President or whatever. Is he altruistic? I don’t know.
Is he responsible if something goes wrong? Ditto.
People have always done ‘good’ without thought of reward. People volunteer for all kinds of social efforts. But it gets harder and harder.
One thing is certain, this blog loves to talk about itself! π
Do you have a paragraph on the time spent on self-analysis of any social system?
I worked in non-profit organizations most of my life, usually unionized, and much of the institutions time was spent on its own maintenance to the detriment of those being served. I think it is human nature.
link.
I don’t completely understand the tax structure discussed there–but I think it might be very effective within an SOS society.
Wow – that was a major read! I think I’m missing some brain cells.
But it was extremely interesting – thanks for pointing it out.
Was a lot of work!
Thanks for looking at my …cough…little diary. I had my hair on fire about the idea and didn’t know how I could break it up into smaller chunks. I did do a shorter followup diary that spoke more directly to the political implications.
I would love to discuss/explain the idea in a more conversational multilogue format here at BT if there’s a interest. I still think that getting a tax policy right sets up everything else that progressives want to accomplish with our government because it can answer the “but howya gonna pay for it?” objection in a way that doesn’t warp our message.
I find myself with some questions now, and of course, since they’re archived, one can no longer post questions on the originals. I find it difficult to believe that such a tiny percent would actually yield enough to pay the government’s bills.
Or would it end up being more, since I’d also owe to deposit and remove my own money from a bank?
This is an outstanding presentation of applied Complexity Theory.
Please recommend
(I’ll be back to respond as soon as I can throw enough coal into the boiler to create enough steam get my brain working. Chuga Chuga Chuga )
Thanks!
I’ll need some help on this over the weekend if there many comments, so please feel free to be a guide also.
I have always thought of this medium as the first truly “flat” means of communication. Those “intersecting ripples” on a global scale. It is the first example of direct “mind-to-mind” interaction between humans with no intervening sensory stimulation. (I think it is also the baby-step beginnings of converting all human knowledge from paper to electronic form.)
We are the network, those billions times billions of neurons engaged in the exchange of knowledge and experience. Truly without leadership, we are only at the beginning stages of development. A newborn in geologic time. And the exchange is growing exponentially (so far) without control.
Pond? Nah, this is an ocean.
What you are describing is something called the Noosphere. The Internet made it possible – a global network of knowledge connections.
One would like to hope that, just as the brain gets wired up and becomes a ‘person’, so the planet can become a person.
But of course knowledge is not the same as understanding. At what point does it become understanding?
Yes, but I believe the noosphere exists independent of technology. I don’t believe knowledge and understanding are separable so much as symbiotic – yin/yang. If that makes sense.
The technology made global sharing possible. The sphere implies an all enveloping level above the ecosphere – ie a complete system.
A 7 year old 200 years ago had less ‘knowledge’ than a 7 year old today. But the level of understanding is the same.
200 years ago the kid looked at rustling leaves, flowing clouds and rippling water. Today the kid looks at rustling games, flowing media and rippling fashion. The level of detail yields the same amount of understanding because the brain hasn’t changed ONE IOTA in 200 years!
But yes, I accept your yin/yang analogy
Hmmn, Sven…I happened to hear this on ABC Radio National (Australia) on Wed morning:
Unfortunately, the ABC website doesn’t provide more info on Steven Johnson, or a transcript of what he said, which was quite interesting, too. Basically, IQ tests are redesigned and tested every few years and normalised so that they give a result of 100 for the population average. As part of the testing, it has been found that the average child of today scores far better than the average child of the past when presented with the old version of the test.
I know there are lots of questions about the validity and cultural assumptions etc of IQ tests, but nonetheless this is pretty interesting. Perhaps my 7yo isn’t doing too badly watching all that TV. If only it wasn’t the Disney Channel!
To play devil’s advocate: some of those systems you mention, like ant colonies, work so well because the individual units are genetically programmed to act a certain way, and to sacrifice themselves for the good of the whole. Or to put it in a more crude way: they are really, really stupid. What about human freedom and individualism, how can these features be integrated into SOS’s? Might not plain human contrariness bring them down?
But I must admit that this option that you describe sounds very appealing.
Ants, individually, are really, really stupid. Ants as a group are really, really successful. Which is the whole point. The grouping of ants achieves a unity-in-diversity of action/response such that the group IQ (bad word but can’t think of a better one) is vastly superior to the IQ of the individual organisms.
Why doesn’t that theory work over at the White House? π
the best laugh I have had all day.
I know you meant that humorously but the reason is:
Ants don’t mess-up the communication of information.
The Bush administration has the policy of shooting the messenger. The result is the decision makers are fed data that supports pre-determined actions rather than challenges them. Throw in this administrations unique (nice neutral word) cognitive discernment of reality and you get … well … the Bush administration.
Simple: Stupid infects everything as it flows from the top-down instead of being refined into smart as it flows from the bottom-up. Kinda like old DNC vs new DNC.
Is an ant colony actually intelligent? It has a power far beyond the individual ant, but is that truly a problem-solving ability? For example is the colony actually innovative?
In forums like this we tend to overrate the value of both intelligence and education in the general world, because those tend to be strengths of many of us and we therefore live and work in circumstances that depend on them to an unusual degree.
I may misunderstand the diarist but I think the corporate model is far and away the most successful organization system we ever found. Everything in the world is going corporate now. Even conservative Christianity is a corporate system. They may be Popeless and they do have a set of practices that allow the subunits to cooperate, but the subunits are all run by authoritarian leaders much as individual businesses are all run by leaders.
It seems to me that the corporate model uses combinations of leaderless systems and authoritarian systems where each is strongest.
To my eye this type of organization is so strong and adaptable intrinsically that it has significantly less dependence on intelligence and education than other kinds of organizations. There’s no doubt that corporate organizations produce some fairly stupid leaders and behavior, and there’s also no doubt that they’re taking over the world.
“I may misunderstand the diarist but I think the corporate model is far and away the most successful organization system we ever found.”
It may be necessary to qualify this statement by noting that the corporate model is a very succesful organizational structure in a capitalist economy. They’re succesful if the standard of value is a capitalist one — accumulation (of wealth, power, etc.) and reproduction (of the system). If your goals, however, are social change or democracy, then I’m not convinced that a corporate model is “far and away the most successful.”
While I’m not so sure that there is a monolithic “corporate model” that can be held up as optimal in all cases, the basic idea is sound: that the optimum is some kind of equilibrium between hierarchical leadership and leaderless SOS. But each community/corporation/political party is exposed to a different “environment” (or “fitness landscape” as ATinNM describes downthread) and so needs to be able to shift its balance adaptively to changes in its environment. Thus the ideal structural rules of a community should encourage the finding of an equilibrium between leadership and leaderlessness, but so much as to make it unresponsive to change and too inertial.
I am not sure how you get from their inbuilt mission for the survival of their species, to their being stupid.
Are the soldiers in Iraq stupid?
Are underpaid teachers stupid?
I think it is possible to have the complexity of both self-sacrfice AND freedom. It is morals and ethics which define our interaction with others. Morals and ethics do not preclude freedom and creativity.
The basic tenets of most religions are like the rules for SOS interbehaviour. Where are religions go wrong IMHO is in selling the scam of an afterlife, instead of focusing on the SOS part.
My formatting is weird so I’m not sure if the above comment was to me to or not but:
I was thinking of the low-order, neuro-physiological limited, stimulus/response characteristics of individual ants.
AT – my comment above was to Time Waits
are going to come after me. I think sacrifice for a higher end in humans is a very admirable trait. But humans don’t do it for the same reason ants do it. Humans do it because they judge it to be the morally correct thing to do. Ants are programmed to do it. My point is exactly that human beings aren’t stupid (or at least the 49% who didn’t vote for Bush aren’t). Actually morality might throw a monkey wrench into an SOS just as much as freedom or individualism might. Think about whistleblowers in cases of corporate malfeasance, or single individuals who hold out and cause a hung jury. . .
are going to come after me. I think sacrifice for a higher end in androids is a very admirable trait. But androids don’t do it for the same reason humans do it. Androids do it because they judge it to be the morally correct thing to do. Humans are programmed to do it.
Excuse the snark. I don’t mean to be confrontational, my only point is that we really don’t know the mechanisms of this fully.
My bit of snark tries to illustrate what I beleive: That behaviour is always relative to the spieces in question. (In the same way that the perception of dimension is relative to the size of a spieces; To us the size of bacteria is next to nothing but I also beleive there really is lifeforms that is so small as to be bacteria’s bacteria)
The determination that ants must somehow be ‘programmed’ is one that humans do. But do we know the art of that ‘programming’? Maybe ants have an educational system we know nothing about…
I guess I’m a bit philosophical about this, but it surely is intriguing to think about it π
We do indeed think that our human ‘vision’ of the world is the only one. And I mean we as individuals.
Try to imagine what the world would look like as an eagle with 100,000 better visual acuity – so you could see the twitch of a mouse’s tail from 150 metres up.
Try to imagine the world thru the UV sensitive eyes/brain of a bee. Flowers look very different to them.
Try being a dog where smell is pictures. The only time you experience this is as a baby. But you never remember it.
You are born with a 100 billion neurons. As a sensate baby being, everything is at first noise with almost no signal. Smell, touch, taste, sound, vision – they are all one. Just uncontrollable input – massive noise overload.
But slowly patterns emerge. And by the time we are 7 or so, we have constructed our own private reality. We have been coded, or rather the inherent ‘stem’ patterns that we began with have specialized into memes that define who we are. We ARE the coding. SOS
The soldiers in Iraq started with a vested interest in some form. Whether it be monetarily in the form of college tuition or a level of emotional commitment – such as generations of military personnel within their family.
But aren’t soldiers somewhat the antithesis of ants? With multi-layered hierarchies up through the ranks?
Two things:
1) Canada geese have leaders. I found this interesting article about geese and leadership/group dynamics.
2) Is it not human nature to crave leadership?
I don’t think it’s necessarily “human nature”, but I do think it is the nature of a majority of humans to seek leaders. If you look at the Myers-Briggs personality typing, something like 60% of people everywhere fall into the “Guardian” category. Those are the people that need leaders, so that they know where they fit into the scheme of things.
Myers-Briggs: I’m an INFP, so I’m quite lost most of the time. π
INFJ over here. Not to sidetrack this completely off topic but I encountered an amusing situation a few months ago related to INFPs. As timing would have it, that morning my three guests and I discussed Myers Briggs before I started preparing lunch. All of my guests were INFPs.
And while I made lunch, it was 97 degrees in my kitchen and I was getting crabbier by the second. I had a multitude of things to coordinate for the meal, and the timing was crucial. I warned my guests of this and asked them to please dig in as I served each item, because I needed to continue cooking. Okay – I started by serving the salad (always a good foundation for a meal). As I continued to cook, no one had taken the initiative to start eating the salad(although these were close friends who feel welcome to initiate anything in my home, and I had instructed them to please dig in). Crickets. I again asked them to please dig in. Crickets redux. I went to the table and tried to start the process by handing the bowl to one of the guests (while mindful of the three other dishes still cooking). When that got me nowhere, I finally had to sit down, put salad on my plate, and proceed to put salad on the plates of all others. Same thing happened with each menu item. They weren’t preoccupied with conversation, or being overly polite – waiting for me to join them. Nor are these people who expect to be served. They all just sat there needing constant direction. Over and over and over again :^).
From now on, I will only invite “J”s over for lunch. (At least during the summer months when the kitchen gets in the 90 degree range) And I’m kidding, of course – I love my INFP friends more than I love any other personality grouping.
Anom <——the exception that proves the rule π
How did you evolve this talent for leading threads astray?
It just happens, okay? I’ve never expressed pride in these actions.
Fear not! We’re not all so hopeless. π
I fear not at all, dear Catnip! (And I really don’t know what it is in my DNA that takes hold of my fingers and makes me type such wayward comments.)
Nice reference – thanks
I think the craving for leadership is about how we are brought up – ie it could be nurture, not nature.
I think we’re probably hard-wired to follow a leader considering our first experience with leaders is our interaction with our parent(s)/surrogates. It seems it’s a simple matter of survival since we couldn’t exist without being taken care of primarily.
Catnip – I hate to be a pest but I can’t respond until I know, so:
How do you define “leadership” ?
And what does INFP mean?
Leadership/leader: a point of authority used to clarify goals, missions, strategies, actions etc….which reminds me of one of my favourite quotes:
– Alan W Watts
That applies to any institution/organization, afaic.
Myers & Briggs developed a personality type test based on Jungian psychology that identifies people based on temperaments:
Introvert v Extrovert
Intuitive v Sensing
Feeling v Thinking
Perceiving v Judging
So, INFP= Introvert, Intuitive, Feeling, Perceiving
IOW, I’m an an idealist. Just a note that I’ve taken the full Myers Briggs test twice in my life administered by psychologists (which is the most effective way to learn your type). It’s also important to note that these characteristics are scored on a scale, so why someone like me may operate slightly more on perceptions and feelings, I’m also quite logical and like facts.
The work of Keirsey has taken this a step beyond and sideways to categorize personalities as Artisan, Guardian, Idealist and Rational.
INFP here, too π
I’d taken the Meyers-Briggs a few times, and and found it interesting that I’d slipped over to “I” in my 40s. In a way, it was a relief. Our society so values “E”s, I think it was social conditioning from youth — finally diminishing.
I laughed out loud (literally) reading the exchange between anomalous and catnip (et al.?) upthread. The laughing felt great! Thanks, ya’ll!
I read some time ago that the U.S. has never elected a president who falls under the Idealist category (as defined in the Keirsey models). Then I ran across an article indicating that Kerry fell into Keirsey’s Idealist category. (So . . . it would appear the Dems were destined to lose the election from the get go. . .)
Terrific diary and I’d like to make some insightful comments but for now I’ll just say that being so anti-authoritarian in general this diary and all the interesting and thought provoking comments are great.
You lay out in new words the concepts I’ve been chasing all my life. Every system I am any part of or ever was, is heirarchical and based on competetion vs collaboration and I’ve never functioned well in any of them.
I did get one marvelous opportunity to head up a brand new grant funded project with total autonomy as to how I did it, that let me try out my own concept of a much of “leaderless” system” as I could dream up. I chose a small group of folks with divergent opinions on the proposed project, to head it up with me, not “under” me. The one requirement was that each pledge full effort at open and honest comunication between us and a committment to working by consensus. All decisions would be made by consensus. If we couldn’t reach consensus on how to proceed, we’d choose a temporpary fix while we went back to the drawing board till we could reach consensus. During this, we made sure the rest of the folks involved were kept informed, and we remained open to any and all feedback and ideas from the larger group. We aso delegated like mad, and when we did, we kept our hands off and let them run with it.
It worked. Not perfectly, not flawlessly, but it worked. Everyone involved in that project owned a piece of it. No one felt dismissed or devalued, everyone gave their all, and the job got done and done well. I really needed to know there actually could some other way, and this showed me there was.
(If it had bombed, however, the buck would have stopped at my desk,of course, because I had the title, the responsibility, and the bigger paycheck.)
You might be interested in looking up Operational Research – a problem solving methodology that also grew out of WWII. There’s a rather dry book called ‘Decision and Control’ by Stafford Beer which covers the subject well.
OR (Op research) is a kind of lateral thinking approach to group problem solving, which puts together people from many different disciplines in order to have as many ‘angles’ into the problem as possible.
Similar experience here – although not in that sector, and while I was the leader, it was somewhat in name only.
You hit the nail on the head by mentioning (as does the diary) the foundation of trust. When I had the opportunity to set up a corporate division, I was given the unique opportunity (in that environment) to have complete autonomy in the decision-making process, and development of my group. I was driven by developing a highly engaged team of talented people. And with each new hire (selected during group interview processes) we all shared the ground rules of success. And the main component was truth/trust.
Each new employee was informed that even the smallest breach of trust would destroy the foundation of the group, and thereby undermine our collective goals. And because the group was self-sufficient, my “leadership” role consisted of career development for my direct reports, trouble-shooting of only the most difficult matters, and thinking of additional ways to make each individual – and the group as a whole – happy.
Their accomplishments as a group were quite inspiring.
Time Waits for No Women has brought up a crucial point that needs, however superficially, to be addressed as it illustrates a True and Valid observation. (Don’t panic, I’m not going to get all Formal here!)
If we use the metaphor of an n-dimensional plane (OK, I guess I am going to get Formal) representing the totality of all human action and interaction. A mapping to this n-dimensional (= a whole bunch of points with a whole bunch of geometrical distances separating them and a whole bunch of relations) structure of any particular Set of Properties allows the definition of a Local Maxima on a ‘Fitness Landscape’ – a subset of the n-dimensional plane representing the Set of Properties.
Now – Is Anybody Still Here? – there are 4 distinct States Fitness Landscapes achieve:
I’m going to focus on State 3.
In State 3 (S3) the Local Maxima (LM) are created in two ways:
We can now make the (simplistic) equation:
S = { LM | FLP(A)}
Where S is the Set of all LM as defined by the Actors on the Fitness Landscape Properties.
And WTH does that mean?
Pretty much it means spontaneous creation of LM combining into 2nd Order Classes (LMs of LMs), 3rd Order Classes (LMs of LMs of LMs) and so on. And these can become extremely nuanced, rich, and Complex.
This is the reason individual ants are stupid but the ant nest isn’t. The Actors (ants) have achieved an High-Order LM with a high correlation on, and to, the Fitness Landscape considered generally and the FL of an ecological niche in particular. This LM was achieved without a bunch of ants getting together and voting to form an ant nest for the greater good of Ant-dom but, rather, it “Just Happened” – a Self-Organized System.
Human Being live in Stage 3. (Remember Stage 3?) Where things like BooTrib “Just Happen.” There are requirements for BooTrib (a frog named Darwin, being one) to exist but at any instant in time BooTrib is the Set, described above, of all previous LMs plus the on-going resolution of all S3.1 and S3.2 which is fedback into ‘processing’ so the BooTrib-ness of BooTrib is continually being ‘defined’ and ‘refined.’
No -30- on this. I’ve covered a lot of ground here, very quickly, and very superficially; so I’m going to stifle myself.
Did I loose everybody?
(zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*ribbit*zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)
You even lost me there π
and stuffed with neato-keeno logomachian obfuscation – therefore it must be True!
Ooops. I got a bit (a BIT?) carried away. I’ll try again. Later. In English.
AT: are you by any chance at Santa Fe Institute? I’ve read Stuart Kaufmann’s stuff a bit.
BTW, about your 4 states of fitness landscape..
I’m not officially connected with the Santa Fe Institute but I follow their research and read their publications closely. I’ve read some of Kaufman’s work but I can’t claim enough expertise to discuss it ‘off the top of my head.’ The publication avalanche is overwhelming my ability to keep up.
I tried. I really, really tried. And I tried again. Sorry dude, that was painful.
I’m off to my backyard to eat worms.
No need for any worm consumption on your part. Although they’d store very nicely in your shirt, what with the pocket protector and all ;^)
(My earlier post was merely stating the obvious – that you’re speaking way over my head.)
I guess I should get my pocket protector and stuff some more pens and colored pencils into it!
Anyway, thanks for the info. This is rich stuff and referencing your “number 5” post above, I also have some thoughts about the number five that go way deep into geek turf…
Specifically, when do they stop working so well?
Your examples have one thing in common: communication between members of the system. You obscure this a bit by in some instances emphasizing the “minimal communication” requirement: point is, no self organization without communication.
This implies a necessity for a minimal level of connectivity between units, and thus a likely optimal size (in terms of number of units which constitute a system), because communication takes time and there’s never enough. The optimal size for a particular system will be dependent on details of the units of which it is composed. But make no mistake, there will be a right size, with the system operating suboptimally (or not at all) if too small or, and this is my point, too big. Two examples: schools of fish/flocks of birds and cells of insurgents. If a school or flock gets bigger than certain size, then local adjustments, which take finite time, don’t propagate “fast enough” to distant parts of the flock and the whole thing gets turbulent, and eventually will either dissolve or split in two, restoring the propagation time. For the cells of insurgents, if there are lots and lots of cells, then middle management levels in the scheme proliferate, reducing security, and (as elsewhere) introducing inefficiencies of communications up and down the line. If there are too many cells central command will suddenly discover that it doesn’t know how many cells it has, where they are, or what they’re up to. It’s no longer central command, and the “system” has become just a bunch of individual uncoordinated units.
I’ve argued elsewhere that the possible meltdown (and certain flight from) daily kos was not so much about the subject that appeared to drive it as much as it was about the number of people attempting to interact within that system substantially exceeding the optimal size, to the point that communication between users was degraded compared to what it was at a much smaller size.
For comparison, BMT has (just now checked) awarded 1474 uids (juno, you’re the newest at this moment in time! hey!), while dKos has awarded 55373, with, in a weeks time, over 4000 users actively participating at the site (writing diaries, recommending diaries, making comments). I don’t have any similar numbers for active participation at BMT, but it’s going to be substantially less than the number of uids; if dKos is any guide, it will be around 10%, say 150.
This size difference will be a major factor in the quality of interactions and relations here vs there. Likely everyone posting here will read or otherwise “know of” almost all the other active participants, if they spend much time here. The same can’t be said anymore at Daily Kos. There is a core of highly known writers and commenters, but a far larger number are participating in a more peripheral role. Since this is an epiphenomenon of a system composed of humans with limited memories (quick: name the seven dwarves) and evolved to deal in social groups on the order of a tribe (can you name over 30 current associates: yes? go into politics!), rather than a reflection of their skills and abilities as contributors, this tends to make people frustrated as well as making the inevitable disagreements that arise more likely to turn nasty, egged on by cynical on lookers, rather than being mediated to safety by concerned mutual friends.
For the administrators of BMT, congratulations on a great start and a good community: should you be so lucky as to achieve several thousand participants per week, please consider in advance when you should divide your site in two in order to preserve it.
The speed of communication exchange is a crucial factor ie the rate of feedback that allows the system to self adjust.
A couple of random observations:
The maximum number of people who can sit F2F in the same physical meeting and interact ‘as one’ seems to be about 7 on empirical evidence. Above 7 you seem to get factions. I’ve seen it often in companies once they go above 7 employees – the animal changes.
7 seems some sort of magical number – its also the average maximum of dots that can be numerically recognized instantly. So for example you see 3 dots on a page and you recognise instantly that there are 3. Above 7 you have to count them. That appears to be some kind of brain artefact.
The brain also has an optimal rate for the preservation of neuronal connections. Neurons that are never stimulated to fire appear to get disconnected. Neurons that fire too much are inhibited. But neurons that fire at an optimum rate seem to get stronger. ie they attract more dendritic connections and themselves create more axonic connections.
and result in limits and optima in real systems. Of course they do vary from person to person. I recently heard Oliver Sacks (author of The Man who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and many other books) describe a type of disorder I’d never heard of before: a slow visual system update. As you know, we can fool our visual systems into thinking we’re looking at the world if we feed it still frames at rate of greater than 10 per second, although faster is better. Sacks describes a patient with that resulted in the perception of frozen scenes, updating only once in say 10 seconds. I never would have predicted that, and I suspect it tells us a quite a lot about how our perceptions of the world are organized.
The “seven” stuff derives originally from a paper by GA Miller “The magic number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for information processing”, Psychological Review 63,81-97 1956, reviewed in “The Magic Number Seven After Fifteen Years” by DE Broadbent, chapter 1 in Studies in Long Term Memory, Kennedy and Wilkes, eds, Wiley 1975. I think that is more about short term memory than speed of recall, but I’m not expert in the area. Broadbent casts doubt on the fundamental nature of the number seven, arguing that the case for three as a fundamental category size is more compelling.
But my main point was that I think both timing and memory limits result in optimal part counts in any particular real self organizing system, such as community blog. Its quite conceivable that growth beyond a certain size is detrimental.
Booman Tribune is likely nowhere near the upper limit, but I continue to suspect that Daily Kos is already beyond it. Changes can be made to better handle the problem in the short term, but I expect that if growth continues, so will the problems of the kind already experienced.
BMT has the chance to watch and learn, and consider whether this idea has merit or not.
By the way Sven, I thnk I see your lips moving! Great name!
Yes. Yes. Yes. I drifted over to the frog pond not because of the Pie Wars but because of the decreased signal to noise ratio on dKOS and the fact that there were too many diaries to read in a TIMELY fashion to comment (i.e. communicate about) on. The number of multiple diaries about the same topic was at least a function of the sheer numbers of community members and time delays between reading, typing, and posting. Five new diaries would be posted during the time I spent commenting thoughtfully once.
I suspect Markos understands at some level that dailyKOS is too big and, for the health of all, welcomes the budding off of energetic subsets. This is speciation in action: after a bit, each new blog community will have its own noticeable characteristics and, probably, favorite issues. DKos and BT and the others will slowly self-organize (whether guided by leadership or not) towards distinguishing its niche from the others.
on the front page will create a major nitch for this site. He has blown me away with his analytical articles. Check out his diary for the stuff on torture that he and Susanhu tag-teamed last month–great stuff. I suspect that tomorrow will be a big day around here if he’s writing something big on the U.K. documents.
Thanks jotter…I had always assumed that the POV effect (persistence of vision) in the visual projection system of the brain related to the 6-8 cycles a second refresh rate of the brain. This in turn evidenced in the ‘strobe’ trigger rate for epileptic fits. Now I realise I have no science to back that up!
Had a similar ‘lack of evidence’ problem a month ago where I claimed that whereas the cerebrum is wired (as we all know) left-to-right with the Central Nervous System CNS, the cerebellum is wired left-to-left. And I was arguing a point with a neurologist! I knew I had read it somewhere. I bowed anyway to better knowledge. I just had an email from her saying she had found that I was right. Phew.
But going on from my original ‘ How a tree grows’ analogy – I thought (after reading your first post) that a better analogy might be the stem cell. (Booman being a stem cell) Stem cells can become any cell. As they divide and colonise they take on more specific tasks (producing molecular engines of all kinds) until in the end some of them become ‘bounding cells’. A bounding cell would be some kind of dermic specialist producing bark, skin etc. ie defining the outer physical limits of the cellular structure.
Whether this is true of structures like BMT I don’t know. But the idea of boundary cells gives me a lot of insight into whole systems.
It turns out that the maximum number of information sources (people) one person can adequately manage in a ‘complex’ environment is 5. This is the number the Incident Command System, emperically developed by emergency workers, uses in their management structure.
The permutation (1 x 2 x 3 …) of interactions of 5 information sources totals 120. When you get to 7 information sources the total number is 5,040. 120 is do-able; 5,040 isn’t.
I’ve got some ideas on why 5 is the magic number but it gets a tad technical (Run Away! Run Away!) so I’ll shut up now. π
There’s also an old conundrum from Operational Research (OR)…
If a manager has two under-managers on whom he depends for the information driving his decision making. And the two under-managers are each right 2/3rds of the time – the manager’s decisions will be based on cumulative info that is (2/3 x 2/3) 4/9ths correct. That is, he would be better off doing the opposite of what his under-manager’s proposed π
.. but if they are right 80% of the time, he should pay attention to what they say.
That’s why you want people who you think will get it right that often, or more, not people who can get it right just 2/3 of the time. The effect of iterating “just ok” is disaster.
In the case at hand, of which you speak, like-minds will branch off and flock together in smaller subsets. Ultimately, it may result in survival of the fittest.
Aside from the size of the system, which we agree is the core component, observation has shown us that leadership within the system is crucial. And there is a very different leadership style between this site and some others.
Odd as this may sound, I had no idea that Martin was a Kerry supporter until the other day. And while that’s most likely my own lack of knowledge, it also lends itself to the point that Martin does not push an agenda of loyalties and affiliations in his writing. Which, on its own, would tend to create divisions among the ranks from the outset.
rather than wait for a negative event. That’s what I’m calling for. Make it cause for celebration and continued connection between parent and child (albeit at a reduced level). Learn the circumstances that call for it.
I agree that leadership is important. I’m not familiar enough hereabouts to make much in the way of informed comment, though I can say I’ve been happy with all my interactions with people here. I expect BMT has a good future.
Thank you for posting yet another beautifully written, thought-provoking diary. You raised so many issues, I wouldn’t know where to begin.
I just finished taking my time, enjoying every word you wrote and meandering slowly down the thread at the pace of a lazy Saturday afternoon. I have to tell you – your diaries are always worth the wait – with the words flowing so smoothly across any given topic. Topics that would so easily be dry in the hands of someone else.
For now, I’ll mention one point based on past observations. While redundancy in a system as a whole leads to efficiency – redundancy in leadership leads to lack of accountability.
Or was that Philately?
I probably raised too many issues – my mind works in footnotes or did I just lose the thread π
Time for the Finn to finish and hit the hay, if there is any hay left to hit…
Good night!
I make a distinction between leadership and authority. Because we are born into a world immersed in hierarchies of all sorts, the two concepts get conflated. Authority is the position of power, the ability to compel actions and acquiescence. Leadership is a set of character qualities and developed skills that cause others to join one’s efforts or change their thinking or take their own actions based on those the leader models.
The surest sign of true leadership is this: a leader devotes the largest part of his or her efforts to helping others develop their own leadership qulaities.
Actually, there’s no need to put all your eggs in the “leaderless” basket. There’s actually quite a lot of activity involving leaders without a hierarchy of control. The bird flocks, for example, do have leaders. They just change in a fairly constant flow.
A more sophisticated example comes from the world of jazz. It’s commonplace for jazz musicians to work sometimes as leader, sometimes as sidemen. In any given song, it’s commonplace for different sidemen to take solos, during which they become the leaders. It’s also commonplace for a sideman to step forward to lead on a song during a gig, and the leader to play the role of sideman.
In short, it’s good to deprogram people from the assumption that they need leaders to do everything. But the deeper, more important point, IMHO, is that even the presence of leadership does not translate automatically into requiring a hierarchy of control.
Our real struggle is not even against hierarchy per se. A parent who uses their superior strength, wisdom, experience, and material well-being to nurture their child’s development as their own person is surely a hierarchical superior. But they are not acting in a coercive and controlling manner.
By realizing the multiple nature of alternatives, we develop a more sophisticated critique of coercive hierarchy. The more alternatives we recognize, the less “natural” it comes to seem.
That’s a very good epilogue to this diary. Thanks Paul.
I guess I’ll be hanging out at the EuroTrib as from tomorrow to see if I can make a contribution.
<thinks> ‘I can recycle all my old diaries there in an environmentally benign way’ Yessss! Oh, but no….
But like McArthur I shall return.
I think what you are saying is that humility and mutual respect are the keys.
From what I have seen, these things are often lacking in organizations. There is a tendency to lean towards a system where those who are the most arrogant and manipulative prevail at the expense of the rest.
I guess the trick would be how to implement a system that corrects this.
Sven, I just wanted you to know that I referenced this dairy in mine titled “Straining to hear the feminine voice.” I didn’t use a link because I don’t know how. This was my first diary and that was enough to get done today. But I love your material here and it fits right in with what I was thinking about.
I’m not exactly a whizz at links and stuff either – I’ve never managed to post a picture yet.
We were talking about the Botany of Desire last night at dinner, a strange convergence with this marvelous topic.
I wonder how all this intersects with the notion of growth. That is to say, we have cultural and economic momentum in the direction of more. More people. More stuff. More money. More everything. How does that relate to SOS? Can SOS exist in steady-state where growth is not part of the framework, but rather stasis?
Or is growth so fundamental is to be inextricably linked to all cultural and natural phenomena?
Probably a weird question, but I’ve been wondering lately about the sustainability of growth in an abstract sense.
Sauna tonight!
A
During the discussion generated here, I came up with a new concept – boundary cells.
Every cellular system begins with stem cells which divide and divide, becoming more specialised as they populate. (Booman is a stem cell!)
But every living organism has boundary cells – the ones that become skin or dermis or bark or pith. These delineate the outer limits of the organism. They are the walls.
The organism can still grow internally and also branch out (trees and plants)
I’m still thinking about this. There alos seems to be an optimal energy rate. Systems that have too little energy input to sustain them die. Systems that use too much energy (locusts) also die.
As someone else has pointed out, Kos was too big, BMT is probably still growing. But what is the magic number before the system divides?(reproduces = EuroTrib)
This is a great explanation of a different way of looking at things that I have been reading about lately.
I have also read that people are working with robots using the SOS idea, because then the robots don’t need as much processing power to function together.
Thank you so much – I am looking forward to the next one.
Yes, one of the inspirations for this diary was quite old work in AI (artificial intelligence) modelling flocks. It was discovered that quite simple rules (short coding) produced complex behaviour.
http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/
I forgot I had this link that might interest you….
This is great stuff, Sven. Really appreciate the new systems thinking you have laid out here. Very important…thank you!!