Systems Literacy and Science Education

33 views
Skip to first unread message

peterdt...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 28, 2020, 2:11:50 PM1/28/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Many of you are familiar with the work to create a systems literacy initiative bridging INCOSE and ISSS and IFSR and others. The work is an evolution of work of other literacy activities such as ocean literacy, http://www.oceanliteracy.net earth science literacy, climate literacy etc see http://www.systemsliteracy.com for more info.

 

We need to involve K-12 educators and teachers in the process of creating a systems literacy guide, initiative, framework etc  and have yet to do that comprehensively. Their involvement has been essential to the success of the ocean literacy activity which started in the USA in 2004 and is now going global based on the US work.. https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/

 

I am hoping to go to the National Science Teachers Association annual conference in Boston April 2-5 and if possible have a meeting with anyone on this list that is interested in systems literacy and would be willing to come to Boston and even to learn more about science education in schools  in the USA by attending some or all of the conference.  https://s6.goeshow.com/nsta/national/2020/overview.cfm

 

Please contact me directly peterdt...@gmail.com

 

Thanks

Peter

 

 

Peter D Tuddenham

President

College of Exploration

Virginia, USA

http://www.coexploration.org

http://www.oceanliteracy.net

http://www.systemsliteracy.net

 

+1 703 433 5760 (work)

+1 703 625 1136 (cell)

Skype petertudd

Video Meeting https://bluejeans.com/128371287

 

 

Managing Director,

CoExploration Limited,

Dorset, England, UK

http://www.coexploration.co.uk
http://www.oceanliteracy.eu

http://www.emsea.eu

+44 (0) 770 969 7862 (mobile)

 

Past-President  (2018-2019)

International Society for the Systems Sciences

http://www.isss.org

.

Jack Ring

unread,
Jan 29, 2020, 11:20:44 AM1/29/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Peter,
Check out http://crlabs.us for Derek and Laura 
A successful program.
Jack Ring

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/00ae01d5d60e%24cab28140%24601783c0%24%40gmail.com.

Jack Ring

unread,
Jan 29, 2020, 11:20:44 AM1/29/20
to Janet Singer, Peter D Tuddenham, syss...@googlegroups.com
Your Ocean literacy helped people understand ‘ocean’ and not-ocean.
Will your system literacy do likewise?
Jack

Peter D Tuddenham

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 11:08:23 AM2/24/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
I have been on the same stage as both Derek and Laura here in Bogota Colombia this past week.

Message has been deleted

Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 6:23:14 PM2/24/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Oops. I just realized that I answered to the whole group instead of just to Peter. 
Yikes. 

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 8:04:36 PM2/24/20
to Sys Sci
Lynn:

Could you provide a little more context for those who may not know the current context well enough tho understand your message?

Thanks for your help,

Take care and have fun,

Joe

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 3:22 PM Lynn Rasmussen <lyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ugh.
 
Their work is so silly and rudimentary that I’m embarrassed for them. . 
Their 4 rules don’t even mention change in any kind of way. And they market this as coming from their “lab” at Cornell. 
I regret buying the book!  

DISTINCTIONS RULE: Any idea or thing can be distinguished from the other ideas or things it is with SYSTEMS RULE: Any idea or thing can be split into parts or lumped into a whole RELATIONSHIP RULE: Any idea or thing can relate to other things or ideas PERSPECTIVES RULE: Any thing or idea can be the point or the view of a perspective



On Feb 24, 2020, at 6:08 AM, Peter D Tuddenham <peterdt...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/4AB5B599-9626-496F-B07E-0995CB01BFB0%40gmail.com.


--
Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw
Git Hub link:
Research Gate link:
YouTube Channel
Web Site:


janetm...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 9:39:45 PM2/24/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com, James Martin
As Lynn wrote, that was not intended to be a forum posting.

James – can you delete it if Lynn isn’t able to? 

On Feb 24, 2020, at 5:04 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:



joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 9:59:48 PM2/24/20
to Sys Sci, James Martin
Janet:

My email client did not show the follow up message in the message chain.

I did see the total email chain after your post, I was just confused.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe




To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/1520A306-8A6D-4111-9CE0-37932BA17ED9%40gmail.com.

Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 11:01:15 PM2/24/20
to 'Hillary Sillitto' via Systems Science Working Group Discussion List
Hi Joe, 

Re: my context for systems literacy and science education

It's easy to read Bertanffy or Warfield and then consider yourself systems literate, and I guess that is a form of systems literacy. 

But the current state of systems science according to George Mobus, complexity people (SFI and NECSI), and others incorporates systems dynamics/cybernetics, information theory, chaos theory, network theory, and evolution. 

I’m in the Troncale camp. Systems science should consist of and be based on systems processes. Systems literacy should include at least a basic understanding of networks, hierarchies, feedback, cycles, evolution, and we can debate a few more. 

A basic education in systems at the high school level in 20 years (hopefully sooner) will probably include an understanding of and ability to model  networks, power law distribution, small worlds and how networks form hierarchies and scale;  cellular automata + simple programs —> surprising patterns; fractals; positive/reinforcing and negative/balancing feedback and cycles; oscillations and synchrony; cooperation/synergy and interactions; how systems move through bifurcation, chaos, tipping points/emergence in state spaces/transitions and development; evolution of physical, chemical, biological, human systems since the Big Bang. 

Information theory is evolving so I don’t know what it will look like, but throw that in too.

(The list is off the top of my head. I may have missed something)

My field guide introduces the barebones basics of about 15 processes, each with 5 or 6 examples from a variety of disciplines. It’s slow work but I should have it done this year. 

Basic knowledge of systems processes helps to describe politics, government, economics, climate, human relationships, biological processes, and more in a variety of helpful ways. It is also helpful for better design and assessment of systems. 

The Cabreras’ Systems Thinking Made Simple.promotes four “rules":  DISTINCTIONS RULE: Any idea or thing can be distinguished from the other ideas or things it is with SYSTEMS RULE: Any idea or thing can be split into parts or lumped into a whole RELATIONSHIP RULE: Any idea or thing can relate to other things or ideas PERSPECTIVES RULE: Any thing or idea can be the point or the view of a perspective

One glaring omission is not one reference to how systems change, so I don’t believe that their small list has the capacity to do what they claim in their subtitle: New Hope for Solving Wicked Problems. 

FYI, the current “crosscutting concepts” for the Next Generation Science Standards  for teaching high school science are:  patterns; cause and effect; scale, proportion, and quantity; systems and system models; energy and matter; structure and function; stability and change; interdependence of science, engineering, and technology; influence of engineering, technology, and science on society and the natural world. 

We should at least address those!

Hope that this is helpful and thanks for asking!

Aloha,
Lynn


Lynn Rasmussen
Makawao, Maui, Hawaii





joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 11:39:00 PM2/24/20
to Sys Sci
Lynn:

Thanks for the expanded context.

Systems literacy is an interesting topic and area for exploration.

There appear to be some unchanging, fundamental components at the foundation of systems science and literacy.

The components are:

1- Human beings
2- Language (formal and informal)
3- Collected works (library)

If we look at a very small portion of the system collected works (library) we may be able to identify some common themes and features.

Warfields Battelle Monograph, June 1972, A Unified Systems Engineering Concept, contains two glossaries, one a word glossary and the other a mathematics glossary.

The word glossary is used to support natural language and the mathematics glossary is used to support formal language.

It is interesting to note that in 1972 Warfield was discussing Category Theory, Homological Algebra, Topological Groups, and Nonlinear Programming.

Many, if not all of the topics you address above are covered in the collection of Battelle Monographs.

However, few people ever read this materiel and understand its value and impact.

George J. Klir included some of this material as preliminaries in his book, "An Approach ti General Systems Theory."

I believe that a basic rule of systems literacy is one must be able to express the same concepts in both formal and informal language.

Further, it appears to me that the rich, deep and valuable legacy of systems science research is crumpling into an unrecognizable aggregation of tribal secret signs and symbols.

The future will be very interesting.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe 













To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/30AAB047-5677-4F1A-842F-D4906E9E8586%40gmail.com.

James Martin

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 7:16:46 AM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Lynn,

Interesting thoughts on the possible scope of systems literacy. 

I can see how some would think that Cabrera’s DSRP is not enough to cover the basics of systems thinking, and that it might not actually “solve wicked problems” as their book title claims. Cabrera said he has run some experiments in his lab that back up his claims. Are you aware of any counter-experiments that might invalidate their claims?

You mention how Mobus, Troncale and others have a more extensive view about systems science. But Cabrera is talking about systems thinking, not systems science. So, isn’t that like comparing apples and oranges? What is the relationship between ST and SS? Do they necessarily have to cover the same phenomena and concepts?

James

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 24, 2020, at 11:01 PM, Lynn Rasmussen <lyn...@gmail.com> wrote:



kall...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 9:29:41 AM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

I’m not sure there is sufficient awareness of the differences (either objective, functional or structural) between systems thinking, systems engineering and systems science. In some of the literature, this has been referred to as a “mindset”, but I have contended it goes beyond mindset into domains not requiring “a mind”.

 

The problem is similar to asking “how much don’t you know”?

 

====================================

Kenneth A. Lloyd, Jr.

CEO – Director of Systems Science

Watt Systems Technologies Inc.

Albuquerque, NM 87114 USA

 

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. These contents may be legally protected from disclosure. Due to technological issues with the means of transmission, the integrity of the contents of this email cannot be guaranteed.

Jack Ring

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 9:52:03 AM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Smith, Gary

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 12:23:27 PM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

In system science I believe we need to take into account two dimensions of system knowledge. This is analogous to our established sciences where theory and practice are integrated as a whole.

 

DSRP is on the left hand side (diagram below) and is complemented by works such as that from the Waters Foundation and many others.

All of these frameworks have pros and cons. We could even include the majority of the content of our INCOSE handbook and processes on this side.

 

On the right hand side we have the work of many people who have been considering what some have called General Systems Theory.

Here we have the work of a list far too long to do it justice – but this includes the work of Len and George.

 

All this knowledge has value, but in order for us to realise the full benefits, it has to be integrated and communicated as a coherent whole, the gaps made evident and researched.

 

Without an understanding of the knowledge on the right we will lack a solid foundation for our practice. Without practice and the knowledge on the left, our understandings would remain merely academic and lacking validation.

 

The slide below is from the presentation “A Strategic Plan for System Science” given at the INCOSE IW and you can find the full content on the SSWG webpages

 

BR Gary (VP System Practice ISSS)

 

 

 

 

 

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO EXPORT CONTROL.

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of James Martin
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 12:17 PM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Systems Literacy and Science Education

 

Lynn,

This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information.  If you have received them in error you must not use, copy or disclose their content to any person.  Please notify the sender immediately and then delete this email from your system.  This e-mail has been scanned for viruses, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to conduct their own security measures. Airbus Operations Limited is not liable for any loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail.

Airbus Operations Limited, a company registered in England and Wales, registration number, 3468788.  Registered office:  Pegasus House, Aerospace Avenue, Filton, Bristol, BS34 7PA, UK.

Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 12:59:15 PM2/25/20
to 'Hillary Sillitto' via Systems Science Working Group Discussion List
Thanks for answering, James. I just think that any attempt at describing systems thinking must include some kind of reference to change, whether in the form of feedback or linkages, development or evolution, or something. Not just “change your perspective” of systems. 

It’s not in my purview to research systems thinking at this time. I’m up to my ears in research and writing. 

Someday, when systems science is a high school course, then maybe what is considered "systems thinking" will expand. 

Lynn

Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 1:03:05 PM2/25/20
to 'Hillary Sillitto' via Systems Science Working Group Discussion List
Thanks, Joe, for your comments. 

Yes, a full systems science requires the “mathematics glossary.” I would love to include category theory modeling for each systems process/pattern in my field guide. 

If anyone knows anyone who can do that, simply model networks, feedback, cycles etc using category theory, I’d really appreciate a referral!  You’d think by now that it’s been done, but I haven’t found that person or info. 

Lynn

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 1:44:26 PM2/25/20
to Sys Sci
Lynn:

As I said previously, this is an interesting area that is not well defined as pointed out by others.

One key distinction in the analysis of any system is the identification of system structure and system behavior.

While Warfield's work focused on the identification of system structure, Jay Forrester's work focused on system behavior.

Both of these system views inform and complement each other.

The formal (mathematical) representation of these system views provide the basis for more detailed analysis.

What are the systems process/patterns in your field guide? You seem to be focusing on system behavior.

The logical modeling of a system structure provides the basis for more comprehensive, fully developed conceptual system structures.

One common problem associated with any systemic problem is the inability to provide a fully developed conceptualization of the given problem.

Structural modeling helps with developing a more robust conceptualization of the problem and solution space.

Almost any structured, problem solving approach is better than random response to a systemic problem.

One benefit of a very simple structured problem solving approaches is that they can be employed relatively quickly.

However, what happens after the initial deployment? 

Mar and Morais used a simple systems analysis/thinking framework called FRAT.

This framework was based on a structured analysis and reduction of Warfield's ISM approach.

If the FRAT approach was successful, then it could be expanded and include more aspects of the ISM approach.

The application of system science/thinking techniques is not a trivial task for an individual.

The application of system science/thinking techniques in an organization is much more problematic due to language and organizational barriers.

Therefore, it appears that the deployment of very simple system thinking approaches may be the only cost effective choice available to many organizations.

Given the ubiquitous availability of digital communication capability, we have been working on a plan to use digital communication to reduce the cost of these type of organizational engagements.

I believe that both system structure and system behavior must be considered in any fully developed systems science/thinking approach.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/2619432E-3525-4AA6-8C34-FEED3F4A6F60%40gmail.com.

George Mobus

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 2:36:40 PM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

A good paper on systems thinking. The unique approach was to use a systems approach to defining systems thinking.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915002860

 

George

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Lynn Rasmussen
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 10:03 AM
To: 'Hillary Sillitto' via Systems Science Working Group Discussion List <syss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Systems Literacy and Science Education

 

Thanks, Joe, for your comments. 

Scott Jackson

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 2:50:27 PM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
There seems to be as many definitions of the systems approach and systems thinking as there are members of ISSS and INCOSE combined. 

I refer everyone to the SEBoK for completely different definitions.  

Scott

 

Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561



From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of George Mobus <gmo...@uw.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 11:33 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [SysSciWG] Systems Literacy and Science Education
 

Lenard Troncale

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 6:42:01 PM2/25/20
to Sys Sci
Dear Group,

I wrote a contrast before about the relationships between systems thinking and systems science explicitly. I argued that far too many systems thinkers have claimed they are systems scientists in the past when they are not. And that systems thinking is far from systems science. And that we need a REALISTIC systems science, not one that is advocated by systems thinkers to enhance their reputations with real conventional science. I have also argued that systems science is not like conventional science, though based on it, because it hypothesizes relations far beyond any one conventional science, and therefore breaks one of the most important rules of conventional reductionist science.

This work was published by the CSER groups (see attached), related to INCOSE, often overlapping participants and organizers. This paper certainly does not answer all the questions, nor does it please either sole ST advocates or SS advocates, because it strongly challenges BOTH, but I have been thanked by some systems engineers for even raising the question. I am sorry that it has not been picked up or developed further.

I should note, considering very recent comments in this group, that mathematical systems approaches and tools are still another aspect of systems science. Math does not do experiments; but at the same time math has been correctly shown to anticipate many experimental results correctly. SO is math science or not? We use the acronym STEM to indicate Science, Technology, Education and Mathematics showing that each has real differences. I include it in science because of its rigor, not its reliance on the so-called scientific method.

I also have a 2-hour lecture on this topic presented to my SE graduate students for SE 5100. Perhaps I should put it on You Tube as a talk available to all. It is already prepared and like the other 30 lectures (some 42 hours) ready to go.

Len Troncale

REFERENCE: Troncale, L. (2017) “On the Nature of Systems Thinking and Systems Science: Similarities, Differences, Potential Synergies“ CSER Proceedings, 11 pages. I do not include anything but my submitted rough draft, not the official typeset .pdf copy here so you do to have to pay the $40 Procedia/Elsevier wants for every personal copy. The publishers still have us by the balls IMHO and severely inhibit sharing our work and results for their own selfish profit.



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/2619432E-3525-4AA6-8C34-FEED3F4A6F60%40gmail.com.
CAUTION: This email was not sent from a Cal Poly Pomona service. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments. Please forward suspicious email to suspec...@cpp.edu.


CSER2017 Troncale STvsSS Final Final.docx

Lenard Troncale

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 6:42:30 PM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Joe et al.,

Lynn’s Field Guide (suggested by past ISSS President, Peter Tuddenham) is based on Systems Processes Theory. SPT emphasizes BOTH the structure and dynamics of systems. It includes both rigorously. Or based on the conventional sciences and so rigorously IMHO. It has both isomorphies (demonstrated patterns) of form and behavior. And interrelates them through the added contribution of Linkage Propositions.

Len


joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 7:36:26 PM2/25/20
to Sys Sci
Len:

Thanks for the additional information.

Is there a way for me to access the current content of Systems Processes Theory?

How is the content of Systems Processes Theory recorded and communicated?

It is still not clear to me where I can obtain Systems Processes Theory information and descriptions.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/A5A2FF1A-BB72-4AB0-83A2-048D55BA9368%40cpp.edu.

H

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 7:12:52 AM2/26/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
This is another attempt to explore the distinctions between SE, ST and SS. Presented at IS 2012 in Rome. Might be of interest to some.

Enjoy or ignore as you see fit!

Best wishes

Hillary

36_rome_onse_ss_st.pdf

Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 11:33:06 AM2/26/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Here’s my current thinking about systems thinking: 

The more one recognizes, understands, and uses the patterns of interactivity/systems processes in reasoning, the more sophisticated one’s systems thinking is. 

Experiencing these processes has become part of the culture, thanks to our technology. More and more people are thinking in ways that in industrial times would be quite advanced. 
I’m articulating that experience in terms of Len's taxonomy of systems processes for systems science. 

Human cognition and development is my thing. When I’m finished with the field guide, I’ll write a systems view of the self (which I’ve sketched in conference papers and posters)  based on the questions for developing a systems view in my field guide. Then I’ll write about levels of human cognition in terms of systems thinking. It has already been done in 1998 in Robert Kegan’s In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. But with an articulation of exactly what systems thinking consists of, a better systems view of his systems view of systems views (yes, I really wrote that) can be written.  

Lynn




--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.  

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/7FE69148-B9E3-4D0F-B7A9-12C8B147E9BF%40blueyonder.co.uk.
<36_rome_onse_ss_st.pdf>

Sent from my iPhone


--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.  

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Lenard Troncale

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 12:08:11 PM2/26/20
to Sys Sci
Joe,

Good questions; often asked. Thank you. I have made a website specifically for systems processes theory. However, it has been messed up by cyberattacks by hackers and is suffering from the Word Press community updating their software in ways that do not allow my old html in WP.  so I have not finished it until I can mount sufficient security and updates.
systemsprocessestheory.com     and if that does not work
I just checked them and the framework works but i have a massive amount of material to upload.
i have seven websites all with the same problems. But I keep trying.

I also wrote a key article in 1978 that has all the elements of SPT although not fully developed because it was so early. And I wrote a book on approximately the same info, in a less developed form. Nature’s Enduring Patterns. We had a meeting in Maui totally about what I call my Compendium, a digital and re-organized version of fifty years of writing and power points of nearly a thousand pages. which the participants said was way too long and encouraged me to divide it into two books (which i did and is described in ten-page outlines for the proposals mentioned in the paragraph after next.

I just finished 40 hours of professionally studio recorded info as SE 5100 (a completely online graduate course for systems engineers). It is also on Blackboard. It essentially is a 3-unit course in systems processes theory, plus. But I have to update the components more to reflect current work and advances.

I am writing two books right now that i will propose to the Springer Series that used to be edited by George J. Klir before he passed. It is now edited by George Mobus who asked me to submit the Springer proposals. One is titled:
Systems Processes Theory: The Other Theory of Everything which will contain all about SPT and its dozen spin-offs.
and another
Introduction to Systems Awareness and Literacy on the history of systems thinking and systems science and general theories of systems and samplings of all of them.

Otherwise, I’ve done nothing. Mobus tells me, and your questions show me that SPT is very frustrating to learn about and reference. Sorry. I am trying to remedy this before I die, which at 77 may be any day. None of us know.

Len


On Feb 25, 2020, at 4:36 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote

Lenard Troncale

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 12:08:21 PM2/26/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
I am getting questions. You have to SCROLL ALL THE WAY DOWN to the end of the messages to get a copy of the draft of the paper. And it is only present in the original sent email.
Len




CAUTION: This email was not sent from a Cal Poly Pomona service. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments. Please forward suspicious email to suspec...@cpp.edu.

<CSER2017 Troncale STvsSS Final Final.docx>

Helene Finidori

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 12:33:33 PM2/26/20
to Sys Sci
Hi Lynn & all,

I think this is where Cabrera's DSRP is positioned, in learning to "recognize, understand, and use the patterns of interactivity/systems processes" (as per Lynn): Distinguishing them in the noise (Distinctions), seeing how they combine into wholes (Systems), exploring what they entail (Relationships), evaluating how they can be seen or expressed differently in different domains (Perspective). Seen from the cognitive / perception perspective of an observer (systems thinking), and not of the objects that are observed (systems science)... I attached an image that Derek posted recently on Facebook as a summary of the framework. Indeed, as suggested by Gary and James something totally different from systems processes, and complementary.

I don't quite agree with the term of 'rules' and the term of 'patterns', in the context of 'applied' systems thinking, because I see this more as a sense-making framework -as defined by Dave Snowden-, based on cognitive behavior.  I am not very familiar with the way this is applied, but it makes sense to me as a learning, i.e. literacy method. I agree the time dimension is not clearly expressed, but it seems covered under Relationship described as "actions interacting with reactions... that result". 

Helene

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/39AB9726-4E76-46D2-A51D-14A3487B4046%40gmail.com.
IMG_0905.jpg

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 12:48:28 PM2/26/20
to Sys Sci
Len:

Thanks for the additional information and links to the web sites.

I will continue to explore this area as I have time.

Take care, be god to yourself and have fun,

Joe

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/3D1AF3DF-B350-4B56-A453-0A56327B5AB6%40cpp.edu.

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 10:09:44 PM2/26/20
to Sys Sci
Helene:

Interesting ideas and viewpoints.

Human being use shared context to achieve semantic understanding and integration.

Informal prose language combined with a shared context is capable of encoding a specific instance of a system structure.

If the specific system structure is then generalized and encoded in a formal language (mathematics) then it may be possible to create a formal description of a general system structure that is not dependent on a specific shared context to generate semantic integration.

The formal description is devoid of any specific shared context.

The formal description has semantics that are different but similar to any specific instance where the formal description is applied.

It is interesting to note that these simple general rules of system identification may be applied in a recursive manner.

These simple general rules are not independent and overlap in many ways when applied to any given specific instance.

The methods and processes for creating a coherent  instance of a system are not stated.

While these simple, informal approaches may be valuable to provide a illusion of progress, it appears that they may well generate much more friction and entropy due to the lack of independence and application structure.

Bottom Line:  This kind of approach may get a group quickly started and up to speed before the group hits a wall of jumbled and incompatible semantics.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe








To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CADTfsHVg%2B4grnBq3naAbmrge7dUavpTD5-SgOKP2NvKgMhV6ZA%40mail.gmail.com.

kall...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 27, 2020, 11:50:55 AM2/27/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Joe,

 

The contexts (more correctly, context models) can be mathematically encoded and “composed” with other contexts that interact with the (linguistically encoded) model. Furthermore, the linguistic model can be related to compositions of abstract concepts. “Coherent consistency” is better achieved at the abstract conceptual level and translated (transformed) by language models (in cultural or domain specific) contexts to form the translation.

 

Ken Lloyd

Helene Finidori

unread,
Feb 27, 2020, 12:54:31 PM2/27/20
to Sys Sci
Hi Joe,

Thanks for this description. You do not mention DSRP here though, which was the object of my comment. Are you saying that DSRP is similar to or can be used in similar ways as structural modeling, as rules of systems identification? So then how do you see systems processes involved here?

Helene


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CAPnyebzqe1AFDpNXP9F2DY2yruZer7uyB5urabuS%3Dw8f-iWzGg%40mail.gmail.com.

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 27, 2020, 8:44:24 PM2/27/20
to Sys Sci
Ken:

I agree, the capability (in general)  to encode context models exists.

Further, I agree that we have the capability (in general) to relate and analyze a wide range of context models at various levels of abstraction.

However, this capability is not part of most system science and engineering processes.

Structural modeling is based on the ability to inter-relate formal and informal context models.

The original practice of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) also had this type of mathematical modeling capability.

Over a period of time, various versions of ISM have dropped the ability to create formal mathematical models and only use prose and structured graphics.

DSRP seems to be a system modeling capability that is based on informal language and does not have the capability to create formal, mathematical contextual models.

Further, the DSRP approach appears to stand alone without reference to more capable approaches. 

I should state here that this is the first time I have encountered DSRP in any detail.

The FRAT approach from Mar and Morais, was designed as a simplified version of structural modeling.

The FRAT approach is very general  and simple but biased toward system design issues which aligns it with the Science of Generic Design.

The FRAT approach does not contain the formal language approach but that capability may be added by stepping up to a more robust structural modeling approach.

Yes, we have the capability to do what you say, I just do not see that capability as part of simple system analysis approaches like DSRP and FRAT.

Remember that structural modeling started 50 years ago, when computing power was very limited.
Mary and I created the Augmented Model-Exchange Isomorphism (AMEI) to address the encoding of linguistic context into a formal, mathematical package.  There is still much more work to be done, but I believe that  the AMEI and Abstract Relation Type (ART) are both positive addition to the needed toolbox.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe
 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/002201d5ed8e%24134f4a00%2439edde00%24%40gmail.com.

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 27, 2020, 8:55:07 PM2/27/20
to Sys Sci
Helene:

You are correct, I did not provide enough context to make my meaning clear.

What I am saying is there are many simple system analysis approaches, like DSRP and FRAT.

These simple approaches do not have an inherent formal language component.

DSRP seems to be so flexible that it could be used for almost anything, when an informal language is used.

DSRP does not appear to have a formal language component.

If structural modeling (or other formal language approach) is used to identify, describe and communicate categories of system structural patterns, then any system pattern identified using an informal approach, like FRAT and DSRP, may be aligned with one or more of these formally defined and described structures.  This alignment with formally defined structures increases the semantic density of the communication process.

If formally defined structures do not exist, then a significant amount of the specific context must be preserved to convey the proper meaning.

I hope this helps to clarify my previous message.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CADTfsHXo33moKF0R3YKQAa3tP_V8iaSLk4cSTiCpOyDGvE%3DL0g%40mail.gmail.com.

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Feb 28, 2020, 8:58:11 AM2/28/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear All,
Thank you for letting us be part of the discussion.  I just wanted to share attached copy of English versions of definitions of some concepts that are used in our formal business language. I thought these definitions can serve as an alternative for comparison with other variations of concepts of systems thinking, systems science and systems engineering.  The Mongolian version of definitions have been developed by us using systemized cognitive technology /SCT/. SCT was developed by one of our teams of system engineers in 2015-2018 and over 300 pillar concepts ,which are most frequently used  in our business communication, are defined with SCT. We also tried to align logically meanings of those definitions. We are not sure about the quality of alignment but we have done our best. Please be advised that our English proficiency level is not good enough to discuss every details concerning translation and interpretation of those definitions. Nevertheless, we would be happy to have any comments or questions you might have and answer.  
Best regards,
Jargal 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/006b01d5ebe8%240266cfd0%2407346f70%24%40gmail.com.
System semantics.pdf

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Feb 28, 2020, 5:26:44 PM2/28/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
My apology.  I just realized that my earlier email was sent to you from my investment service company email address. For further communication please use the following email address : jargal...@tussolution.mn which is registered with my INCOSE membership.
Thank you.
Best regards 
Jargal 

Aleksandar Malečić

unread,
Feb 29, 2020, 7:14:03 AM2/29/20
to Sys Sci
Does this discussion so far look attractive and interesting to outsiders who arguably have other priorities in their lives? Could it invite them to learn more about it in order to modify their daily routine in order to make it more systems-friendly?

Aleksandar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CACVvz-qpqso9Hs_g5hyvW6YLy_YpWbEu2XNMoes8ukWwDDRN%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 29, 2020, 9:11:55 PM2/29/20
to Sys Sci
Aleksandar:

Great question.

There are many established system approaches.

Many of these approaches have similar components.

A great challenge is to use any specific systems approach among a large group of individuals.

Single individuals may not be attracted to a specific systems approach because they may have their own 'internal view' which works well for them.

Take care and have fun,

Joe



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CACJD9WH4B05SJ_%2B4PzY6Ei%3D93_Af33aWm1ynWH_UP6-PEf5FoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Feb 29, 2020, 9:39:51 PM2/29/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe,
I'm Jargal from Mongolia. I run social system engineering services company in Mongolia. I just wanted to share some of our findings we learned. We have developed a social system mental model and currently we are testing it for various social systems. Besides, we are conducting a research to find out if the same model concept can be applied for other artificial systems like car, equipment. It enabled us to generate some useful data. These data suggest that the model can be used as universal basis for modeling various systems. The key assumption here is a system is a way of mentally representing aligned interactions but not elements. Building mental representation is thinking which is done by performing logical algorithm. As thinking is extremely complex process , we decided to develop a visualized simple image instead of verbally define in order to create a consensus among ourselves. It helped. We would be happy to share the model-image with the group. 
Best wishes,
Jargal 


joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 29, 2020, 10:20:07 PM2/29/20
to Sys Sci
Dear Jargal:

Very interesting ideas and research.

I am very interested in viewing, reviewing any of your work that is in english prose.

You wote:

"..we decided to develop a visualized simple image instead of verbally define in order to create a consensus among ourselves. It helped. We would be happy to share the model-image with the group. "

I would like to see this model.

We use, prose, structured graphics and mathematics in an isomorphic manner.

I would be interested to find out if your structured graphics (image) can be cast as a mathematical model.

If it can then that will be a great step forward.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe








To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CACVvz-pjZeTV7rdyWwVZR7bd0y2cQNmT2AP-bcyvfFhcPYasSw%40mail.gmail.com.

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 1, 2020, 5:08:39 AM3/1/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe,
Please find attached a copy of  smart city concept definition that we developed and proposed for INCOSE Smart city WG review.  The model I mentioned in my previous email is on slide #4. Please bear in your mind that the model is conceptual and therefore it is also very generic. The model can be tailored to the specifics of a common goal without changing the nature of the system. We have applied the model for our  businesses and also for a number of researches dealing with various social challenges and It is very convenient for application for various types of social system. The model was designed in a manner that enables to quantify it. Besides, the model can  serve as a foundation for integrated system that includes organizational system, IT system and any other artificial systems. Please have a look and let me know your thoughts.
Best regards,
Jargal


1. Smart City _Sent_.pdf

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 1, 2020, 8:16:20 AM3/1/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jargal, in the paper I sent you called "What  is a System?" you will see that a  common type of system is a mental model also called an abstraction. I believe  there are more abstractions than are generally recognized.  

Are you with a university?

 

Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561



From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Жаргалсайхан Д <jargal...@gundinvest.mn>
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2020 2:08 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com>

Aleksandar Malečić

unread,
Mar 1, 2020, 8:25:25 AM3/1/20
to Sys Sci
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_the_Systems_Sciences   "to encourage research and facilitate communication between and among scientists and professionals from various disciplines" - Does the PDCA (plan, do, check, act) cycle (indirectly mentioned in the previous message and the paper on smart cities) facilitate communication? In my opinion, the PDCA cycle is BS (as opposed to Henri Fayol's planning, organizing, leading, and control) and does serious damage to any further effort in the field of systems thinking/science/engineering.                 Aleksandar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CACVvz-q3mAQaUnqawg4BvS8LNFuF7p0xTS_AeMh5fiEZCAWsnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

joseph simpson

unread,
Mar 1, 2020, 11:42:06 AM3/1/20
to Sys Sci
Jargal:

Interesting approach.

For any system concept I first look for the system primary mission function.

What does the system have to do?

The provided graphics do not appear to address the system primary mission function.

The primary mission function may be implied as, address fundamental human needs, but I am not sure about that view.

The system in the graphic (slide 4) appears to be a cyclic network graph.

The process described by the network graph appears to be a very general problem solving approach.

There are a wide range of these types of general problem solving approaches.

When the general, logical problem solving process is  mapped to a specific instance of an architecture that solves the problem, then the graph form usually changes.

Architecture graphs usually have some type of hierarchical  graph structure.

The primary issues arise when the general problem solving approach is mapped to one or more candidate problem solution architectures.

In my mind, I would call slide 4 a "Process representation of Smart city concept."
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CACVvz-q3mAQaUnqawg4BvS8LNFuF7p0xTS_AeMh5fiEZCAWsnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

joseph simpson

unread,
Mar 1, 2020, 11:50:25 AM3/1/20
to Sys Sci
Aleksandar:

Interesting point of view.

As with almost all concepts, the plan, do, check, act (PDCA) approach is strongly  impacted by context.

There may be some contexts where the PDCA approach is not viable or acceptable.

While there may be some contexts where the PDCA approach is the preferred approach.

I believe that the selection of any general problem solving approach is strongly impacted by the individual selecting the problem solving approach.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CACJD9WH41wa3z%3DwCkp4eWrPOEV_JC8%3DToNydFZbExiBb_S7B7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 2, 2020, 2:49:30 AM3/2/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe,
Thank you very much indeed for your prompt response and your time. Your comments are very helpful  and I'm delighted to have this open exchange of views. May I make a few points on your comments.
Primary ultimate mission function of any artificial system is enabling fulfillment of human needs in a part or complex. Let's take a manufacturing company or activity. You may insist that  the company's primary mission is manufacturing something. But if we look deeper inside, all stakeholders will be benefiting something that would help them in satisfying their fundamental needs as a result of their engagement in the activity.   I know this concept may sound unrealistic and conflicts with many old paradigms dominating our thinking. Please find attached copy of paper on applying our model. This can help you better understand my thoughts as my English is not good enough to explain everything in my mind. Regarding problem solving process, I agree the model offers very general approach. On the other hand, this general approach can be tailored to any specific needs dictated by a given goal and this process is initiated with well tailored diagnosis.  Thank you again for your kind attention and time. Once again my apologies for my poor English. It would be very much appreciated if you can share your valuable comments and opinions. 
Best,
Jargal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CAPnyebxF3S-6%2BMcZAMLm07t98%3DBNnBeXq1sx7mbM4ROR3ou5TQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Results of Applying Strategy System Model (SSM) for Building and using “Human Centered Enterprise Model (HCEM)” - Jargalsaikhan(1) (1) (1) (1).pdf

Smith, Gary

unread,
Mar 2, 2020, 3:39:37 AM3/2/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

The PDCA cycle is a very useful model when you are dealing with the simple or even the complicated when the scope and the architecture you are working within is clear.

 

Bud Lawson (bless him), placed Observe Orient Decide and Act (act being the act of planning) to sit above PDCA so that we could use OODA to deal appropriately with the perceived chaotic and complex. (and to keep in mind the context for the architecture/models and not fall into the trap of using a model that is not suitable to the situation)

 

Peace to you all.

 

BR Gary

 

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO EXPORT CONTROL.

This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information.  If you have received them in error you must not use, copy or disclose their content to any person.  Please notify the sender immediately and then delete this email from your system.  This e-mail has been scanned for viruses, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to conduct their own security measures. Airbus Operations Limited is not liable for any loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail.

Airbus Operations Limited, a company registered in England and Wales, registration number, 3468788.  Registered office:  Pegasus House, Aerospace Avenue, Filton, Bristol, BS34 7PA, UK.

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 2, 2020, 2:53:37 PM3/2/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jargal, I have just read your paper and find it exceedingly readable and understandable. Question: Has this paper been published in a journal or a conference? If so, you may want to upload it to ResearchGate or Academia.co,  This step will greatly enhance its viability around the world.

Next, on p.2 you have a list of axioms.  I think these axioms will also qualify as heuristics for the heuristics project I am working on within INCOSE.  Speaking of INCOSE, are you a member?  Another organization you may want to join is the International Society for the Science of Systems (ISSS). I think the ISSS would be a better place to discuss social systems.  In addition, the ISSS has global conference calls so you don't have to travel. 

An area I have been studying is cognitive biases. In short, cognitive biases are the root cause of many flawed decisions. One of the important cognitive biases is called rankism which is the assumption by many people that people of higher rank (in an organization) will have superior knowledge and will make better decisions. I have many case studies that show that this assumption is wrong. Anyhow this bias may fit into your discussion of organizations.  

Regarding Mongolia, I know that it is a landlocked country between China and Russia. This raises the most interesting question: To what degree has Mongolia been able to maintain political independence from China and Russia?

Regarding my country the USA, right now it is in the midst of political chaos.  I can only hope that this situation will improve,

Scott   

Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561


From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Жаргалсайхан Д <jargal...@gundinvest.mn>
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2020 11:49 PM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com>

joseph simpson

unread,
Mar 2, 2020, 4:00:10 PM3/2/20
to Sys Sci
Jargal:

You wrote:
"Primary ultimate mission function of any artificial system is enabling fulfillment of human needs in a part or complex. Let's take a manufacturing company or activity. You may insist that  the company's primary mission is manufacturing something."

This, again, is a very general set of statements.

It may be good to first state what type of system activity you are engaging.

Are you designing a system?

Are you discovering a system?

If you are designing a system, the system mission function must be stated in a clear, concise manner that has associated metrics to determine if the resultant design is viable.

If you are discovering a system then you must have a reasonable set of system features to describe, document and communicate the newly discovered system.

These are very important, very basic elements of systems analysis. 

You also wrote:

"But if we look deeper inside, all stakeholders will be benefiting something that would help them in satisfying their fundamental needs as a result of their engagement in the activity.   I know this concept may sound unrealistic and conflicts with many old paradigms dominating our thinking." 

In this set of statements you appear to be discovering the stakeholder system benefits.  It is not clear if you intend to design a system or discover a system.

You continued by stating:

"Regarding problem solving process, I agree the model offers very general approach. On the other hand, this general approach can be tailored to any specific needs dictated by a given goal and this process is initiated with well tailored diagnosis."

Again the use of the word diagnosis implies system discovery, not system design.

One of the main issues of the ubiquitous very general problem solving approaches that are available is the cyclic, self-referential nature of their structure.  This cyclic, feedback breaks down the first time a specific decision is made in real time.  Once decisions and actions are made in real time, you then have a totally ordered time sequence, not a cyclic, feedback structure.

Real systems are conceived, designed, built and operated in a totally ordered time sequence of events.  These events should not have cyclic feedback.

The major problem with all of these simple, cyclic, feedback system analysis approaches is the lack of a structured transition to real world sequential, totally ordered system structures.  

A case in point is the main divide between system dynamics (Jay Forrester)  and structural modeling (John Warfield).

These two approaches have been poorly integrated but there is some recognition of the cyclic, feedback structure in structural modeling. We have expanded on this area in the last few years.

I am not aware of applications of system dynamics that use totally ordered system structures.

Bottom line, it appears that these very simple cyclic feedback system approaches break down when real, sequential events take place in real time.

The paper is interesting, but the application of the model in not clear.

There are many aspects of the model that are similar to the classic literature in systems science.

However, there are other aspects that I find confusing and disorienting. 

For example, first look at Figure 1 - Max Neef's taxonomy of fundamental human needs.

Why was this network form chosen?

What does the large circle in the center of the graph mean?

Is this an onto element mapping or a into element mapping?

The graphic is just confusing to me.

The paper states:

" Data generated by applying the model to a real-life case suggests that the model can serve as a universal model for various activities by a group of people with commonly shared goal. "

How was this research accomplished?

It has been my experience that large organizations do not have a commonly shared goal.

In any case, the paper raises many more questions for me.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CACVvz-rHN2MOkPNkdhzTJYDGe-TVyNemfSXANoxgnyfkjQzcrA%40mail.gmail.com.

Lenard Troncale

unread,
Mar 2, 2020, 4:29:47 PM3/2/20
to Sys Sci, Peter Tuddenham, Peter Tuddenham
Dear Systems People,

I think mindless, way way overly highly simplified approaches like both PDCA and OODA are the bane of systems approaches. They just do not give the necessary mechanics for improving the situation and are completely anthropomorphic, a mistake we have been tragically making for all of our 10,000 years of meager attempts. For example, Plan Do Check Act are for completely human situations and so are Observe Orient Decide and Act. Natural systems which are our greatest teachers about how systems work well are clearly out of the case of human planning doing or acting, and if we do not include in our plans, entirely, natural systems all of our planning and acting is fruitless and doomed to failure. We have been proving this and are especially now proving this in major terms in our current societies (cf. climate change, waterway cities, pandemics, renewable energy, sustainability, etc. etc.). The PDCA and OODA approaches LEAVE OUT IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF THE TOTAL SYSTEM and so are not even, should not even be glorified as systems approaches. Despite my love and respect for individuals like Gary and Bud Lawson, I think that systems thinking must move to systems science and include natural systems or we are doomed. When the americans colonized the new world, they could and should have really listened to the wise men of the native indians and they might have learned something. But they did not and we are currently not doing so either.

Now I realize and concede that both PDCA and OODA are very easy to assimilate and work into our human concerns, and businesses, and projects and problem solving because they are just like them, BUT they leave us without the key ingredient of adapting to the limitations and possibilities of the natural systems which have exhausted themselves in providing the entropic flows that allow our highly dissipative societies to ever have originated. Unless we learn from natural systems, which have been around successfully for billions of years, we will not secure for human systems what they have had to solve to function to survive. I think it is more characteristic of our massive egoticism and human smugness than providing a new paradigm to generate better systemness.

Len Troncale

Ugh.
 
Many of you are familiar with the work to create a systems literacy initiative bridging INCOSE and ISSS and IFSR and others. The work is an evolution of work of other literacy activities such as ocean literacy, http://www.oceanliteracy.net earth science literacy, climate literacy etc see http://www.systemsliteracy.comfor more info.

Helene Finidori

unread,
Mar 2, 2020, 6:00:45 PM3/2/20
to Sys Sci, Perses, Lenard Troncale, George Mobus, Hillary Sillitto
Dear Len, and I am also copying George, Tyler and Hillary as I just listened to the recording of the talk you had recently, that Gary posted on the Systems Science facebook group, and thought that what I am describing below does address some of the questions you had...

As much as I agree Len with your anthropomorphic comments as far as PDCA is concerned, which involves conscious intentional rational behavior, so only applicable by humans, I think the OODA loop should be considered differently: as a complex instance (isomorphy?) of the semiotic process through which living organisms actually operate or 'cognize' in their environment, by interpreting or processing the signals their structure is able to process -chemical, electrical, magnetic, odor, sound, kinetic, etc.... The bacteria measures (O) the sugar concentration in the milieu it evolves in and orients itself (ODA) towards the food source. The bee observes (O) the dance of their peers, evaluates (O) the one that is the most convincing, and follows it (DA) towards a new hive location, the hunting dog... etc etc... Integrating new sign interpretation possibilities create adaptations and new structures and capabilities at the micro-evolution level, that eventually create leap at the macro evolution level. Boyd has come up with this OODA model to explain what goes on in a fighter pilot's cognitive process when handling a multitude of complex tasks in a fraction of a second without crashing, and this has been applied as a 'recipe' for adaptive behavior at slower paces involving conscious reflection. But the process is completely 'natural', with some 'culture' coming in there in more reflective applications.

I think we should look more closely -as I have been doing these past months- at [bio]semiosis from an evolutionary perspective. Sign processes have been deemed critical in the emergence of complexity in living organisms, and in the evolution of species, with a continuum between nature and culture. Would some similar mechanism be at work at the molecular level?

Here are two key slides that illustrate some of this:

image.png

image.png


Helene


Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 2, 2020, 6:32:29 PM3/2/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe,
Thank you very much indeed  for your time and comments. I'm glad to learn that you found the model simple and cyclic. That is exactly what we wanted to achieve. Simplicity and cyclicality will make the model more attractive. Thank you also for those questions you raised. Let me have a bit more time to fully understand and try to find better language to answer. I thank you and others for this great conversation. I have learned a lot. I haven't had such enlighitening conversations long time. Also, I think that we more focus on thinking style rather than system concept. Perhaps some day we will continue the conversation in Mongolia in the future. My team would be happy to show what we do and demonstrate how we apply social system engineering tool. 
Take care and good luck,
Jargal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CAPnyebyaTL61Z0H%2BOQLM7BOaeKu3M3wkboMpH0xX4iGkqiLaSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

joseph simpson

unread,
Mar 2, 2020, 9:55:21 PM3/2/20
to Sys Sci
Jargal:

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CACVvz-qBrH-qiHj9tFh%2BFKs3tREPDca%3DYiDEXdJ_br7eS%2BDGPA%40mail.gmail.com.

Hillary Sillitto

unread,
Mar 3, 2020, 3:45:21 AM3/3/20
to Helene Finidori, Sys Sci, Perses, Lenard Troncale, George Mobus
Thanks, Helene. I agree the OODA loop is a very common, apparently almost universal, pattern for dealing with complex situations, not restricted to humans. Another example is killer whale pods observing, communicating and collaborating intensively when hunting seals. (Sorry, I’ve got a thing about killer whales at the moment!)

Best

Hillary

(Mr) Hillary Sillitto, Edinburgh, UK

On 2 Mar 2020, at 23:05, Helene Finidori <hfin...@gmail.com> wrote:


Dear Len, and I am also copying George, Tyler and Hillary as I just listened to the recording of the talk you had recently, that Gary posted on the Systems Science facebook group, and thought that what I am describing below does address some of the questions you had...

As much as I agree Len with your anthropomorphic comments as far as PDCA is concerned, which involves conscious intentional rational behavior, so only applicable by humans, I think the OODA loop should be considered differently: as a complex instance (isomorphy?) of the semiotic process through which living organisms actually operate or 'cognize' in their environment, by interpreting or processing the signals their structure is able to process -chemical, electrical, magnetic, odor, sound, kinetic, etc.... The bacteria measures (O) the sugar concentration in the milieu it evolves in and orients itself (ODA) towards the food source. The bee observes (O) the dance of their peers, evaluates (O) the one that is the most convincing, and follows it (DA) towards a new hive location, the hunting dog... etc etc... Integrating new sign interpretation possibilities create adaptations and new structures and capabilities at the micro-evolution level, that eventually create leap at the macro evolution level. Boyd has come up with this OODA model to explain what goes on in a fighter pilot's cognitive process when handling a multitude of complex tasks in a fraction of a second without crashing, and this has been applied as a 'recipe' for adaptive behavior at slower paces involving conscious reflection. But the process is completely 'natural', with some 'culture' coming in there in more reflective applications.

I think we should look more closely -as I have been doing these past months- at [bio]semiosis from an evolutionary perspective. Sign processes have been deemed critical in the emergence of complexity in living organisms, and in the evolution of species, with a continuum between nature and culture. Would some similar mechanism be at work at the molecular level?

Here are two key slides that illustrate some of this:

<image.png>


Lenard Troncale

unread,
Mar 3, 2020, 3:38:55 PM3/3/20
to Helene Finidori, Sys Sci, Perses, George Mobus, Hillary Sillitto, Lynn Rasmussen, Luke Friendshuh
Dear Helene, Hillary, and our many SysSci colleagues,

I think I will respond to all of your messages together in one repartee in response to your comments on my spontaneous criticism following group praise for PDCA and OODA use in systems thinking. Remember across all these comments that I am pushing for a more rigorous systems science knowledge base. I realize that such acronyms have a big place in both systems engineering and systems thinking problem solving and will continue to do so. However, unless they widen their view they are just a slight spill over from siloed thinking and not systems science. I just think a deeper analysis is necessary and better at problem solving that derives from a systems science that includes the real mechanics by which real long-lasting systems have survived long before humans even existed. So here are some responses after each of your comments.

In response to Helene and in part to Hillary:

On Mar 2, 2020, at 3:00 PM, Helene Finidori <hfin...@gmail.com> wrote:
 I think the OODA loop should be considered differently: as a complex instance (isomorphy?) of the semiotic process through which living organisms actually operate or 'cognize' in their environment, by interpreting or processing the signals their structure is able to process -chemical, electrical, magnetic, odor, sound, kinetic, etc.... The bacteria measures (O) the sugar concentration in the milieu it evolves in and orients itself (ODA) towards the food source. The bee observes (O) the dance of their peers, evaluates (O) the one that is the most convincing, and follows it (DA) towards a new hive location, the hunting dog... etc etc... Integrating new sign interpretation possibilities create adaptations and new structures and capabilities at the micro-evolution level, that eventually create leap at the macro evolution level.

  • You focus only on living systems here. There are a huge and vast number of other systems. Geological, Astronomical, Cosmological, Chemical and all their many sub-levels. In fact, I know you humans tend to focus on our living systems, which I consider in my GPOOL work to be only a small sample of possible living systems. Our own only comprise a tiny percentage of all the extant natural systems we should study and learn from. In fact, living systems are a very thin and vulnerable skin on earth, < than 1% of all matter. Even our cosmos matter is less than 5 % of all matter.
  • Real scientist who work on living systems themselves, from molecular to cellular to ecosystem, would immediately object to your projecting your own cognization on those levels; according to our current experimental findings, they do NOT cognize at all; rather their seemingly positive responses (that we rationalize afterwards) were the results of undirected, selection of spontaneous alternatives, resulting from huge die-off’s; these are not cognitive decisions like our brains do, but rather instincts (blind linkages) that have been most successful and so selected for in the long past; even on the molecular-physiological level of the cells; this all is part of the “internalization” process that I hypothesize works across all emergent levels since the big bang; the linkages in the external environment tend to become internalized for success as emergence progresses (incidentally I do not like that internalization word at all (I sometimes call it “roots” which I like even less); and will explain all this in greater detail in the books I will probably never get to write)
  • So given the above, NONE of your and Hillary’s examples (bacterium, bee, hunting dog, whales) really cognizes as much as follows past evolution. Please note that this is all part of the great debate between scientists and believers on Intelligent Design. Even children project life-like qualities on inanimate objects. When you stop and think about it, this is understandable, inside our minds is all we know.
  • Unlike you, I do not think semiotics is a good source of isomorphies, or even IS an isomorphy. This is a human centered bias to begin with as most of semiotics was originally based on human language but now has been generalized to any signs that represent meaning. But this still means meaning to humans, generally. Not meaning in the wider sense systems science is pursuing. This is where the “search for patterns” crowd diverges from the GST crowd significantly (although I might note that one of the co-founders of GST, James G. Miller was always entranced by semiotics, personal communication).
  • Helene, I cannot read your recent Facebook comment because it has all the right side cut off because of some margin.

"Thanks, Helene. I agree the OODA loop is a very common, apparently almost universal, pattern for dealing with complex situations, not restricted to humans. Another example is killer whale pods observing, communicating and collaborating intensively when hunting seals. (Sorry, I’ve got a thing about killer whales at the moment!)"

In response to Hillary:

  • But Hillary also made the error (according to most biologists of today) of projecting our cognizance, when it seems logical, in bio responses honed by evolution and not examples at all of cognition and decision, in the realm of humans.
  • May you save the whales! I wish you great success at saving ANY NATURAL SYSTEM.

In response to Gary:

"I have the same thoughts about OODA, I see relationships with this pattern and the structure of the VSM, itself based on Beer's analysis of adaptive multicellular organisms to form the model. Lets also not dismiss though the potential utility of the PDCA model for recognising patterns in repetative mechanical processing. I'm not sure how close the analogy is but I certainly see aspects of this in cellular replication for instance." (He then agreed with me on how we need to expand our picture, need landscape pictures that cover the whole territory, and need to integrate ST and SS to better inform praxis).

  • I am not an expert on VSM at all, but if Stafford claimed that biological organisms, in general, show cognition and decision, he was much in error according to current knowledge  (like many non-biologists are in the systems movement). When you stop and think about it, this is why many have such a bad opinion of systems approaches. They tend to contain a lot of “faith” that is unsupported by hard-earned knowledge.
  • I have researched as a wetlab scientist cell division for fifty years and I do not understand the analogy with cell replication (DNA rep?) (or cell rep?). Please expand.

Now I expect these observations will upset a lot of systems science google group participants. Some will claim that I am just thinking like a siloed biologist. But remember that I STILL THINK that reductionist approaches produce very useful information. In fact, my systems science is comparative ACROSS reductionist science, not at all anti-science. I am a science realist in Rousseau and Wilby terms.  I am only speaking from what I know and there is no doubt in my mind that both PDCA and OODA clarify approaches to human problems. So please do not respond to this response unless it is on a specific claim. Or we will continue in endless arguments that really are based on different worldviews rather than different facts.

Len

Helene Finidori

unread,
Mar 3, 2020, 5:19:05 PM3/3/20
to Lenard Troncale, Sys Sci, Perses, George Mobus, Hillary Sillitto, Lynn Rasmussen, Luke Friendshuh, tyler...@nyu.edu
Thanks Len for your response.

Indeed I have focused my biosemiotic work on living organisms, and I concluded on the question whether the non-living might also have mechanisms that involve sign processes... in a quest to find a continuum across different levels of emergence. I have shown how this could explain the continuum between biology and culture throughout evolution, and I was soliciting your reflection about whether and how sign processes would exist at the pro-biology level to broaden the continuum. This of course is not the sole process at play. I think this is not much different than saying that 'information' is involved in nature.

I wish you would consider the biosemiotics that I am referring to, that comes from biology and 'real scientists' (aka 'patterning'), as different from the semiotics of European structuralists based on language and discourse (aka 'languaging'). This is a distinction I make in my latest work. There is no 'thinking' or 'feeling' or 'deciding', intention or 'intelligent design', or anything of the kind in anything pre-human I describe and my examples. What I describe as signs are just plain triggers/drivers to living organism action/operation, where 'signs' are chemical, physical, etc etc... evolved through time into conscious operation capability and culturally constructed symbolic communication systems. These sign processes mediate energy exchanges, and I seek to provide a systemic explanation to this. You are basing your comments on assumptions of what I am talking about, and what biosemiotics is. I wish you would read my paper and/or presentation, where I address this very question on an argument basis, not on a 'you guys are projecting your own cognization' basis, if I may, Len.

It is possible that I use the word cognition differently than you do... My definition of cognition is Maturana's (a biologist): the capacity for an organism to 'operate' in an environment in a sensori-motor way, within the limits its structure allows (what you call the blind linkage), and to 'learn' (i.e take habits') in the process. Indeed bacteria, bees, dogs etc follow their instincts and past evolution and don't 'decide'... My point is exactly that. But instinct does function on the basis of recognition (re-cognition) of stimuli of some sort that trigger some action as a response. And this is made possible by the sensori-motor ability an organism has acquired through evolution. The 'practice' of this habit taking opens up possibilities that enable emergence of new species and leaps in evolution. But how do they "follow past evolutions"? How does this capacity to operate (whichever word you chose to call it, cognition or something else) evolve and become complex over time?  Is this what you describe in "the “internalization” process that I hypothesize works across all emergent levels since the big bang; the linkages in the external environment tend to become internalized for success as emergence progresses", that you will "explain all this in greater detail in the books I will probably never get to write"? I would very welcome reading about what you have to date, and see how what I am describing works with it, beyond issues of vocabulary.

It is such process of emergence that I represented on the two slides I shared in my initial message. I am not saying or trying to achieve anything different than you. I am trying to find systems processes except that have given rise to increasingly complex forms of cognition (my expanded definition) from the simplest to the most complex.

Also, towards the end of your response, you write: "This is where the “search for patterns” crowd diverges from the GST crowd significantly (although I might note that one of the co-founders of GST, James G. Miller was always entranced by semiotics, personal communication)." I don't understand the categorization in relation to semiotics. I don't see "search for patterns" and GST as antagonistic... We are both 'search for patterns' people, yet we seem to diverge on our appreciation of semiotics.

Cheers :)
Helene

Aleksandar Malečić

unread,
Mar 4, 2020, 11:06:17 AM3/4/20
to Sys Sci, Lenard Troncale, Perses, George Mobus, Hillary Sillitto, Lynn Rasmussen, Luke Friendshuh, tyler...@nyu.edu
As someone who in a way indirectly started this New discussion - Would the authors behind the PDCA and OODA loop insist on the superiority of their ideas if they had ever heard about Henri Fayol and his "loop"?                                               I have just Googled and read/watched something about the OODA loop. Even before that, the PDCA loop looked to me like an aim, shoot, repeat (why not call it ASR) "loop", something that has very little, if at all, focus on spational and temporal dimensions. An example of army pilots (the origin of the idea of OODA loop): it eliminates anything human from an enemy (it i a "target"). It might be good for short-term survival, but is it superior to Fayol's loop (it resembles feedback loop, and PDCA and OODA don't) for decision-making within larger and predumably resilient systems? NO.                                                Aleksandar

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CADTfsHW4UadMFXyajz8NeEsOfVNYJ%3DdMBciB%2Bd_tUJn-pBpoUw%40mail.gmail.com.

Jack Ring

unread,
Mar 4, 2020, 1:51:35 PM3/4/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com, George Mobus, Helene Finidori, Hillary Sillitto, Lenard Troncale, Luke Friendshuh, Lynn Rasmussen, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, tyler...@nyu.edu
Fayol’s method was effective in well-behaved problematic situations (Warfield) but was not so effective when the non-human aspects were erratic.
GE’s adaptation in the 1950’s, POIM, (Plan, Organize, Integrate, Measure), proved more responsive to surprises of the various aspects of larger, more complex, asynchronomously co-evolving systems.  

Boyd introduced ways of systemizing the duel (contest) between a) the stakeholder system and b) problem-causing system(s) including all humans therein to the benefit of the properly designed and operated stakeholder system.

Make sense?

Jack Ring 


Aleksandar Malečić

unread,
Mar 5, 2020, 10:51:02 AM3/5/20
to Sys Sci, George Mobus, Helene Finidori, Hillary Sillitto, Lenard Troncale, Luke Friendshuh, Lynn Rasmussen, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, tyler...@nyu.edu
Before I heard about Len Troncale, I had some similar ideas about inherent properties that different systems have in common. I was actually thinking to delove more seriously into Troncale's systems processes theory, to write something and wait for a peer-review process, but I gave up because endless discussions such as this one would be inevitable. Old or not, I am still absolutely certain that Fayol's approach will (should) be proven as much, much closer to some General Systems Theory. Natural systems for instance don't measure. But some of them are more stable than others through constraints, strane attractors, and feedback. "Systems management" doesn't remove silos. It builds new silos with thick walls and introduces its own arbitrary jargon that didn't exist in "ancient" and "outdated" textbook management.                                        Aleksandar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CAFgHPLUz58K20Ve3jJT3nZ__0ZBq-G9PH2mRjrd-%2BOn_XLDKpg%40mail.gmail.com.

H

unread,
Mar 5, 2020, 11:35:21 AM3/5/20
to Aleksandar Malečić, Sys Sci, George Mobus, Helene Finidori, Lenard Troncale, Luke Friendshuh, Lynn Rasmussen, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, tyler...@nyu.edu
Alexander

Your phrase ‘natural systems don’t measure’ struck me. It’s quite a hostage to fortune, with echos of Lord Kelvin’s ‘there is nothing more for physics except more and more precise measurement’. He said that towards the end of the 19th century. As we now know, he could not have been more wrong!

Best wishes 

Hillary 

Sent from my iPhone

Lenard Troncale

unread,
Mar 5, 2020, 11:49:52 AM3/5/20
to H, Aleksandar Malečić, Sys Sci, George Mobus, Helene Finidori, Luke Friendshuh, Lynn Rasmussen, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, Tyler Volk
I must say to all that the phrase “natural systems don’t measure” also struck me, like my colleague Hillary. I have been measuring natural systems in various ways for all of my life. And obviously ALL of the conventional sciences have been measuring various natural sciences for nearly 400 years. That feature seems to be the most essential criterium for science itself since Galileo.

I bet Aleksandar did not mean what it sounds like. I hope he qualifies this phrase more. I also am sad that he has given up on LT’s SPT. Fayoi’s single “loop” is just one of the hundred or so isomorphies. No linkages between them. How could it ever be a GST? Even “constructor” theory, which I am grateful to Aleksandar for alerting us to, has severe limitations for GST. In my next book I hope to cover and critique all these by detailed comparisons. And comparison to the criteria for SS and a GST which I still think everyone neglects. As well as Rules for Abstraction and Rules for DeAbstraction which I feel are essential for us to ever agree.

But I do agree with Aleksandar’s lament that he hesitates to say anything because it erupts into such divisive comments. But how else will we ever come to a consensus which leads to further evolution?? 

Len Troncale

CAUTION: This email was not sent from a Cal Poly Pomona service. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments. Please forward suspicious email to suspec...@cpp.edu.


Helene Finidori

unread,
Mar 5, 2020, 12:40:04 PM3/5/20
to Lenard Troncale, H, Aleksandar Malečić, Sys Sci, George Mobus, Luke Friendshuh, Lynn Rasmussen, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, Tyler Volk
Interesting comments, on 'measure'

Who "measures" in Aleksandar's comment? If it is a transitive verb?

"natural systems" themselves, I interpret.  So it isn't about you Len, and conventional sciences, ("I have been measuring natural systems in various ways for all of my life. And obviously ALL of the conventional sciences have been measuring various natural sciences for nearly 400 years"), nor about "physics" as per Lord Kelvin quoted by Hillary ("there is nothing more for physics except more and more precise measurement"). These refer to humans or sciences (aka human systems), measuring natural systems.

I am not sure what Aleksandar meant there, by "natural systems don't measure". But if I take it literally, I would say that natural systems do 'measure', all the time. I would say it is at the basis of semiosis :). Definitely living systems do by different means, and most probably inanimate systems do too (chemistry etc etc...).

I would be interested to explore how 'nature' measures itself further!

Helene

Curt McNamara

unread,
Mar 5, 2020, 1:39:38 PM3/5/20
to Sys Sci, Lenard Troncale, H, Aleksandar Malečić, George Mobus, Luke Friendshuh, Lynn Rasmussen, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, Tyler Volk
Natural systems "measure" continuously. 

Individual organisms rely on multiple control loops. They measure the world using their senses, and make "decisions" based on those measurements. 

The social insects measure at the group level as they forage and build.

A migrating bird or insect uses multiple strategies and types of measurements to make decisions. 

   Curt 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CADTfsHWpG2vvK8qUYwC8x43jVP9FQbrKCfT8%2BCbxOb_wtnS4%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

Swaminathan Natarajan

unread,
Mar 5, 2020, 4:06:10 PM3/5/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com, Lenard Troncale, H, Aleksandar Malečić, George Mobus, Luke Friendshuh, Lynn Rasmussen, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, Tyler Volk
Wth reference to divisive comments and consensus, it is perhaps helpful to examine and surface the assumptions (i.e. context of applicability) underlying each model (and statement).

My understanding is that PDCA assumes that (a) the situation is simple i.e. that there is neither dynamic nor detail complexity (b) knowledge is adequate to achieve desired situational outcomes (c) actions have only minor variations in consequences (due to some unidentified or unaccounted influencers) (d) that the knowledge, capabilities and degrees of freedom to act are adequate to deal with the results of the Check step.  In situations that satisfy all those assumptions, it is an adequate strategy, which is what I think Gary Smith pointed out.

My understanding is that OODA assumes that (a) the agent is capable of observing and processing the results of observation sufficiently to Orient relative to desired outcomes i.e. the situation is not so chaotic that Orient fails, relative to agent cognitive capacity (b) the agent is able to identify a course of action (Decide) that is within its degrees of freedom and competence and which are aligned with desired outcomes to an acceptable extent (i.e. acceptable to the agent), and of course that (c) there are desired outcomes.  In sufficiently complex/chaotic situations, it can be challenging to determine whether a given course of action is aligned with desired outcomes (i.e. Decide can have failure modes).

From the discussion, Len seems to be objecting to them on two counts i.e. that they are agency-oriented models i.e. anthropocentric, and (along with Aleksandar) that they are inadequate to deal with real world complexities (which is often true).

Helene seems to be pointing out that the OODA method framing can be applied even to low-end organisms (e.g. touch-me-not plant), with very limited Observe and Orient capabilities, and whose intentions (desired outcomes) and "Decide" responses to situations are completely structurally embodied i.e. preprogrammed by evolutionary mechanisms. My understanding is that her research focuses on this space, as the precursor to explicit informationally embodied cognitive Observe, Orient, Decide capabilities in humans.  Therefore, while OODA indeed has limits to its context of applicability (based on the assumptions), it is not, strictly speaking, anthropocentric, though of course it is mostly applied in the human context.

Other models (problem solving methods, really), such as Fayol's, similarly have underlying assumptions and contexts of applicability, and it would be instructive and useful to surface them. SPT, being fundamental patterns common across systems, is universal and has no such specific limitations to its context of applicability, but its application to situations requires selection and synthesis of the right isomorphies, so it is not a "problem solving method" such as the ones above, but rather knowledge that requires synthesis via a method of application to situations.

Is this a valid synthesis of the discussions so far?

swami

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CAHkq9YOAcV4mARF2Y_4_%2Bxfhgb6hH-_s4mZz0tKvhoAwjcmkSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Mar 5, 2020, 4:27:31 PM3/5/20
to Swaminathan Natarajan, 'Hillary Sillitto' via Systems Science Working Group Discussion List, Lenard Troncale, H, Aleksandar Malečić, George Mobus, Luke W Friendshuh, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, Tyler Volk
NIce work, Swami. 

Jack Ring

unread,
Mar 5, 2020, 6:38:20 PM3/5/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com, Aleksandar Malečić, George Mobus, H, Lenard Troncale, Luke Friendshuh, Lynn Rasmussen, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, Tyler Volk
Note that a specific instance of the OODA process is established by applying OODA to O(1) then to O(2) then D then A —- an autoreflexive technique that enables a system that learns (or loses).
Do the other models enable such learning?
Jack

Helene Finidori

unread,
Mar 6, 2020, 7:33:31 AM3/6/20
to Sys Sci, Lenard Troncale, H, Aleksandar Malečić, George Mobus, Luke Friendshuh, Lynn Rasmussen, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, Tyler Volk
Thanks Swami, nice summary indeed.

As far my paragraph is concerned, your using the concept of 'application' brings to mind the distinction between on the one hand, the identification of an existing process, a 'cognitive system' process, found in nature, which models what unfolds recursively within the sensori-motor process, with more or less complexity, and where Observe_Orient_Decide_Act, is the anthropomorphic instance of a more abstract Sense _Interpret_Trigger_Act, with some steps that may be combined, and on the other hand, the subsequent application of this model as a design or problem solving pattern, or application framework, in a similar way as Christopher Alexander derived architectural patterns and pattern language from 'un-selfconscious' vernacular ways of  building he had observed.

It is possible that the conflation of the two: the pattern or process observed/identified in nature, and the model/pattern of it for reproduction/application sake is a source of misunderstanding. It's the whole ambiguity of the word pattern which can mean in turn the recurrent 'thing' you observe, the way you model it in your mind, and the reproducible model you make of it, and the three of them are linked by the Peircean triadic semiotic relation that connects 'reality', worldview/perspective, and models/artifacts.

Helene


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CAG06eF1nTC1O6x%3D_4jSDkJpCGFWCc6zXfeQneNbpSgBsUj4b6w%40mail.gmail.com.

Swaminathan Natarajan

unread,
Mar 6, 2020, 8:20:59 AM3/6/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, Helene, that brings a great deal of clarity to what is going on.  Indeed I tend to conflate the triad. Now I can see your point that there is an underlying pattern in nature, and an anthromorphic process derived from it that generalizes the pattern to the anthropomorphic space as an artifact.

swami

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CADTfsHXRZrU_VSTpV2sYnHY4-V%2BFQtEzJbJ2KOGaoGy0C8e%3DXw%40mail.gmail.com.

James Martin

unread,
Mar 6, 2020, 8:57:03 AM3/6/20
to SSWG, Lenard Troncale, H, Aleksandar Malečić, George Mobus, Luke Friendshuh, Lynn Rasmussen, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, Tyler Volk
Perhaps it would help if we distinguish between "observed" pattern and "applied" pattern. Alexander observed patterns in the buildings created by humans, and also noticed these same patterns in the "buildings" created by living things in the animal world, and then he showed how in his Synthesis of Forms approach how to apply these observed patterns in the new things we build. (Alexander was a building architect)

It would seem that the patterns (ie, isomorphies) that Len is finding in nature are such observed patterns. And SE can benefit from the natural patterns/isomorphies as they apply those patterns in their realm of human artifact creation. 

It might also be useful to distinguish between patterns of problems and patterns of solutions, and also the patterns that map solutions to patterns. Nature has found recurring solutions to the problems it encounters. Altshuller did the same thing with his TRIZ approach by examination of the patent record to discern the recurring problem situations and the proposed patented ideas for solving the problem. 
TRIZ (the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) is a systematic approach for understanding and solving problems which allows clear thinking and the generation of innovative ideas.
TRIZ has been applied mainly to product design, not system design. So, it is not unreasonable to think that this could be elevated to the system level. In a way, Len's SPT database is analogous to the patent database that Altshuller examined to discover such recurring patterns.

James

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CADTfsHXRZrU_VSTpV2sYnHY4-V%2BFQtEzJbJ2KOGaoGy0C8e%3DXw%40mail.gmail.com.


--
James

Helene Finidori

unread,
Mar 6, 2020, 11:17:33 AM3/6/20
to Sys Sci, Lenard Troncale, H, Aleksandar Malečić, George Mobus, Luke Friendshuh, Lynn Rasmussen, Perses, Peter Tuddenham, Tyler Volk
Indeed James.

And I agree that Alexandrian patterns with the 'freezing' of a problem and solution in one pattern are not really up to the task as problems and solutions as well as their 'fits' evolve over time. So using patterns of problems and patterns of solutions and patterns of design to fit the solution to the problem would be more effective. That's something I proposed to the Pattern Language community at Plop 2018. I didn't know about Triz when I wrote that paper, will take a closer look. It would be very interesting indeed to see how this could apply to SS, ST and SE.

Helene


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CAExZvQXVrDh98SB4D93qhP67rYgCtT%3DjSAE_RrKJQhBRWRNyZw%40mail.gmail.com.

Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Mar 6, 2020, 2:38:18 PM3/6/20
to 'Hillary Sillitto' via Systems Science Working Group Discussion List
Observe Orient Decide Act,  when repeated is a feedback loop. 
The terminology is anthropomorphic, but feedback, as a systems process, is ubiquitous.
Lynn

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 6, 2020, 5:27:33 PM3/6/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jargal,

I looked over the Smart City presentation.  I looks very good.

The first thing that struck me is that it is very abstract, which is not bad,

However, it emphasizes the importance of knowing how to convert abstractions into concrete entities.

I would start with the definition: An abstraction is a simplified replica of the concrete.

Scott

    

Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561


From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Жаргалсайхан Д <jargal...@gundinvest.mn>
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2020 2:08 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Systems Literacy and Science Education

Ugh.

 

Many of you are familiar with the work to create a systems literacy initiative bridging INCOSE and ISSS and IFSR and others. The work is an evolution of work of other literacy activities such as ocean literacy, http://www.oceanliteracy.net earth science literacy, climate literacy etc see http://www.systemsliteracy.com for more info.

 

--

The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.


 

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

Git Hub link:

Research Gate link:

YouTube Channel

Web Site:

 

 

 

--

The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.


--
Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw
Git Hub link:
Research Gate link:
YouTube Channel
Web Site:


--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.


--
Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw
Git Hub link:
Research Gate link:
YouTube Channel
Web Site:


--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 6, 2020, 5:41:04 PM3/6/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Abstraction is not merely a replica. Abstraction is a part of the process which is called thinking. A model is a product of thinking/abstraction. Abstract world is bridged with physical world through data. Abstraction us converted into physical things through data and same in opposite way. 

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 7, 2020, 1:18:22 AM3/7/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Yes, you are elaborating on the traditional definition, which is good.

If you are writing a paper on the subject, can I see a draft?

Scott




Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561


From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Жаргалсайхан Д <jargal...@gundinvest.mn>
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 2:41 PM

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 7, 2020, 3:17:25 AM3/7/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Scott,
We have developed a methodology designed to help our team members and employees in abstracting and concluding for our business. We named the methodology as a systematized cognitive technology/SCP/. This technology is very helpful in creating consensus among our team members and use of the methodology is strictly enforced within our organization. Last year we started  a serious campaign aimed at educating young generation here in Mongolia on how basic concepts can be used for their researches and daily activities. This is done through a think tank we established some time ago. All lectures and training contents are in Mongolian. 
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards,
Jargal 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/SA0PR18MB36783413C9A08504250D3CFDC3E00%40SA0PR18MB3678.namprd18.prod.outlook.com.

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 7, 2020, 11:58:07 PM3/7/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jargal,
That is very interesting.  I will be interested in seeing anything you publish.
Scott



Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561


From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Жаргалсайхан Д <jargal...@gundinvest.mn>
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 12:17 AM

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 8, 2020, 4:45:33 AM3/8/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Scott,
Thank you for your note. In fact, as we believe such technology can be effectively used to address many challenges we face today, we are promoting the use of the technology not only within Mongolia but also we are exploring opportunities of partnering with local communities outside of Mongolia. If you or anyone else are interested in exploring such opportunities please let us know. 
Best,
Jargal 



Aleksandar Malečić

unread,
Mar 8, 2020, 1:28:41 PM3/8/20
to Sys Sci
Observe Orient Decide Act,  when repeated is a feedback loop.   https://www.csimn.com/CSI_images/info/PIDforDummies_pid_controller1.png But which is which on that image (yes, there is the word "measured')? On the other hand, follow that arrow and look where Fayol's planning, organizing, leading, and control might be. By "measurement" I meant collecting data in a written form for humans to talk about it. In natural systems all kinds of information are just out there, information about objects are objects themselves. That's what differentiates systems from other objects and why proponents of PDCA and OODA will spend the rest of their lives convinced they are right. Someone else will be absolutely certain that this (Kabbalah)  https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3a/ff/0a/3aff0aca969e2faccc520471887a96cc.png  is the ultimate description of reality. Maybe "measurement" isn't the best word, but by that in the first place I meant human interpretation. So, do OODA, PDCA, the Kabbalah tree, or something else decrease or increase jargon?                                          Aleksandar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/4DDA8743-DC4B-48F1-AB6A-BD6C5C0D27EA%40gmail.com.

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 8, 2020, 3:24:24 PM3/8/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Jargal,

I too have been writing about thinking but from a perspective that is tangential to yours. You may be aware that two gentlemen Kahneman and Thaler were awarded the Nobel prize for showing that homo sapiens are incapable of making rational decisions. These irrational decisions are influenced by a factor called cognitive bias which is a distortion in decisions caused by emotion and prior belief. They also show that self-mitigation of these biases is virtually impossible because most people are unaware or their own biases and have no desire to correct them. These flawed decisions have resulted in major catastrophes and the loss of thousands of lives.

I have written some short articles about flawed decisions that were published in the INCOSE magazine Insight.  I can send you one of these if you wish, It was not my intent to write serious research articles. These were intended to be chain-rattling or attention getting articles. To my dismay this topic has received very little attention.   

Finally I have written a book on this topic which is now being reviewed by a publisher. I can send you a draft of the whole book if you wish, 

The big question is whether this topic fits into the scope of your topic of thinking as a system. I personally think it does, but that is for you to decide.

Best wishes,

Scott

 



Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561


From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Жаргалсайхан Д <jargal...@gundinvest.mn>
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 12:17 AM

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 8, 2020, 5:36:54 PM3/8/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Scott,
I really appreciate your efforts to help me. As I mentioned I'm aware of the danger of cognitive biases and we have developed and use tools to identify and mitigate impact of such biases. I'm also aware of that the model we are promoting is conflicting with many paradigms that are dominating our thinking. Anyway it was great experience for me to exchange views and thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Best wishes,
Jargal 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/SA0PR18MB367846990E5C5C099B5BC68AC3E10%40SA0PR18MB3678.namprd18.prod.outlook.com.

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 8, 2020, 5:49:58 PM3/8/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jargal,
If you could share with me the mitigation methods for cognitive biases, that would be greatly appreciated.
I have a large collection.
Here is a deal:  If you share your methods, I will share mine.
I will be that my list is longer than yours.

Scott



Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561



From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Жаргалсайхан Д <jargal...@tussolution.mn>
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 2:37 PM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Thinking and Flawed Decisions
 

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 8, 2020, 6:45:58 PM3/8/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Scott,
Thank you for your interest. Glad to hear that you have a large collection of methods. Hopefully, you not only collect but apply it for practical use. I don't have a large collection at the moment and I don't intend to have one because it sometimes may lead to  a false impression that you have all tools for solving problems and discourage you from learning. 
Regarding sharing mitigation methods, I would be willing to share some of mental solutions with you. At the moment I can share only small portion of the technology with outsiders due to our company's policy on patented properties. In fact , I started to put some efforts by encouraging you to articulate your own version of the concept of thinking. Unfortunately,  I failed to convince you to do so. Perhaps two of us can try one more time on that if you are interested. 
Best,
Jargal 


joseph simpson

unread,
Mar 8, 2020, 7:28:52 PM3/8/20
to Sys Sci
Scott and all:

Very interesting information and points of view.

If you look at the background of the two individuals, Kahneman and Thaler, you will see that they are strongly related to the concept of Groupthink. 

Warfield expanded on Hall's work to include a detailed set of methods to measure and evaluate the degree to which any group was engaging in groupthink.

Most of Warfield's work in this area was completed in the 1970's, over 40 years ago.

Again the systems science and engineering literature contains fully developed methods and processes to engage, evaluate and respond to group think and other irrational decision behavior.

From the web:

"Groupthink/Tversky/Kahneman: When groupthink was introduced, the decision-making literature was largely focused on utility theory as it applied to individuals’ decisions. Janis’ emphasis on dysfunctional group dynamics Janis’ (1972(1), 1982(2)) dovetailed with new cognitive theories that explained how systematic biases in judgment could nudge people away from ‘rational’ choices (e.g., Tversky and Kahneman, 1974(3))"

All of these are important ideas and insights, they however are not new and have been around for 40 or 50 years.  The primary problem appears to be that most individuals that self identify as system scientists and/or systems engineers are completely unaware of the details in the collected literature. 

Warfield's literature contains hundreds of case studies as well as detailed processes and  procedures.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/SA0PR18MB367846990E5C5C099B5BC68AC3E10%40SA0PR18MB3678.namprd18.prod.outlook.com.

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 8, 2020, 8:12:06 PM3/8/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jargal,

I will give some thought to the concept of thinking.  This may take some time.

Presumably your mitigation method is the one advocated by Columbia Accident Investigation Report.

Scott  

Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561


From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Жаргалсайхан Д <jargal...@gundinvest.mn>
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 3:46 PM

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 8, 2020, 8:18:09 PM3/8/20
to Sys Sci
Yes groupthink is one of the biases they discuss.

One of my favorite biases is rankism defined by Fuller and cited by other researchers. 

I would rank it very high as the root cause of many disasters.

Scott
 
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561



From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 4:28 PM
To: Sys Sci <syss...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Thinking and Flawed Decisions

joseph simpson

unread,
Mar 8, 2020, 8:57:00 PM3/8/20
to Sys Sci
Scott:

Of course, groupthink is just one type, clanthink and spreadthink are also important.

See:

For spreadthink see:


Notice that these concepts are quantifiable and measurable.

Notice also that Kevin Dye discovered the  erroneous priorities effect  associated with these kinds of issues.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/SA0PR18MB3678C0377275F6E4CF33C921C3FE0%40SA0PR18MB3678.namprd18.prod.outlook.com.

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 8, 2020, 9:07:58 PM3/8/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Scott,
Glad to hear that you try to develop your version of the concept of thinking. I'm sure you will enjoy it. 
Let me find out what is Columbia Accident Investigation report and compare it with SCT.
Best,
Jargal 


Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 9, 2020, 12:09:12 AM3/9/20
to Sys Sci
Thanks, Joe.

Say hi to Mary



Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561


Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 5:56 PM

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 9, 2020, 4:30:37 AM3/9/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Joe, those are good terms.  
My favorite clanthink example is believers in trickle-down economics.

Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561


Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 5:56 PM

kall...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 9, 2020, 7:58:57 AM3/9/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Joe,

 

‘Erroneous priorities’ (a structure) and be abstracted into ‘erroneous priors’, which is always a possibility in science. Therefore, a conjecture consists of:

Model: Prior --> Posterior, where the Model and Prior are embedded in a common context. This is, however, incomplete.

 

Model(Opposite): Posterior --> Prior, and example of Inverse Theory yielding a probabilistic distribution of alternative models (a structure, same as erroneous priorities structure above).

 

What most people don’t realize is that there is important, useful information in errors [/Beta] about the problem space context (see Scales, Smith, Treitel http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.87.9248&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Pg 23]).

Jon Awbrey

unread,
Mar 9, 2020, 8:54:25 AM3/9/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com, Scott Jackson
Scott, All,

As it happens, I wrote a couplet along these lines just the other day ...

Habitations
===========

Our reach exceeds our rut and yet
We grasp but what we drag into it.

(With all due apologies to Robert Browning ...)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/03/06/habitations/

I have often observed how belief systems act very like immune systems,
generating antibodies to combat the antigens of any ideas outside their
comfort zones.

Elsewhere, I described this under the heading of Information Resistance:

"The hardest thing to understand about information is people’s resistance to it."

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/06/10/information-resistance-%e2%80%a2-%cf%89/

The locus pragmaticus for the study of belief systems and the impact, or not,
of information and inquiry on them is C.S. Peirce's "The Fixation of Belief".
Cf: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/01/06/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-21/

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

Jack Ring

unread,
Mar 9, 2020, 10:53:19 AM3/9/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jargal,
I appreciate your insight. 
Because of cognitive bias we use the rule that all conclusions must undergo a second opinion before commitment.
Jack Ring 

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 9, 2020, 12:19:00 PM3/9/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jack,
Appreciate your advice. It seems to me that our technology deals more with systemized way of thinking, but SysSciWG deals with systems thinking. The two concepts are very different concepts and it would be extremely difficult to build common opinion. We'll see.
Best,
Jargal 

Jack Ring

unread,
Mar 9, 2020, 12:58:02 PM3/9/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jargal,
To the degree that either way deals only with systems thinking (and Not Also systems Feeling, Making, Doing (with others) and Being) then neither may lead to systems that are Fit For Purpose.
Do you have a metric for Fit For Purpose (or Efficacy)?
Jack Ring

joseph simpson

unread,
Mar 9, 2020, 6:00:08 PM3/9/20
to Sys Sci
Ken:

You wrote:

"Erroneous priorities’ (a structure) and be abstracted into ‘erroneous priors’, which is always a possibility in science. Therefore, a conjecture consists of:  Model: Prior --> Posterior, where the Model and Prior are embedded in a common context"

The erroneous priorities effect is described below:

"The erroneous priorities effect (EPE) states that groups acting upon what they initially consider important are almost always misplacing their effort. When groups do this they have not yet determined which factors are most influential in their potential to achieve desired change."


I believe that EPE is associated with a collection of individuals that have not established a common context; they have not yet determined which factors are most influential in their potential to achieve desired change.


The individuals use their own individual value systems to establish priorities which, as the EPE states, usually are not aligned with the final group priorities.  The main idea is to have group of individuals engage in dialog and discussion to create a common context that also includes a common set of priorities before the individuals in the group vote to rate, rank and prioritize the items of interest.


Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,


Joe



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/005e01d5f60a%241b382d70%2451a88850%24%40gmail.com.

kall...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 10, 2020, 7:05:51 AM3/10/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Joe,

 

This touches upon an important point (IMO) found all through science – the search for knowledge through all the unknowns. Erroneous priorities stem from erroneous priors, which is quite understandable. Everyone’s priors are slightly different. Studies by Ken Stanley and Joel Lehman (currently with Uber Research) found “deception” related to search objectives (especially grand objectives) through underdetermined search spaces. This has profound effect on “determining which factors are most influential”. It also seems almost counter-intuitive.

 

This phenomenon is also the area where the greatest advances in artificial intelligence have recently been made – how to know where to look when you may be mistaken what you’re looking for. Lehman proposed novelty as the search criteria, which proved, experimentally, more effective and efficient than objective functions. That (novelty) has since been dramatically improved upon. C.F. “The AlphaZero Paradox” and “OpenAI 5”, which, themselves, have subsequently been improved upon. I offer a caveat: do not conflate artificial intelligence with human intelligence – they are very different things.

 

You may have noticed a pattern of referring to knowledge gained in the past – much from the 1960s – 1980s, some well before. These were the priors for many people. The are also the source for anchoring errors and confirmation biases that result in the erroneous priorities effects, related to that deception in objective search. What has been the effect of new information on those priors? Obviously, that relationship is hard to see – especially when the thinker is part of the system s/he is trying to understand.

 

I propose a modification to Hofstadter’s Law – call it Science’s Law: “Science is more difficult than you think, even when you consider Science’s Law.”

kall...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 10, 2020, 7:11:47 AM3/10/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Jack,

 

There is a paradox inherent in human determination of “a metric for Fit For Purpose”. There are methods for determining metrics for Fit For Purpose in myriad contexts that obviate human anchoring errors and confirmation biases.

 

Ken Lloyd

Al George

unread,
Mar 10, 2020, 1:40:22 PM3/10/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
One of my favorite quotes regarding flawed decisions:

Upton Sinclair’s Law:
When a man's paycheck depends on his not understanding something, you can depend upon his not understanding it.

My Corollary
When persons’/community’s short-term life style depends on their not understanding something, you can depend upon them not understanding it.

Al
___________________
Albert R. George
Director of Graduate Studies in Systems
Graduate School Professor
Weiss Presidential Fellow
ar...@cornell.edu
Systems and Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
Cornell University
410 Upson Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853-7501
USA

Note: Dictated using dictation software. Therefore, please excuse typos and homophone errors that I did not catch when I proofed this text.
--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/77319714-49f3-6f61-d849-f584e249bb69%40att.net.

Helene Finidori

unread,
Mar 15, 2020, 9:01:42 AM3/15/20
to Sys Sci

Lynn: "Observe Orient Decide Act,  when repeated is a feedback loop". If one considers Boyd's original diagram of OODA, it's more complex that a repetition of the sequence. There are feedback loops within. Attached is the original diagram which is a sketch. That's what I was referring to when saying it was at work as a cognitive. In particular the 'orient' 'phase' is about cognizing / re-cognizing and the set of feedback loops both involved in learning and action, both at the 'low cognition' level, the 'unselfconscious' measurements that living organisms make all the time to orient themselves in their environments, and at the conscious / reflective level of analysis and action.
Is this diagram what we are all talking about when we mention OODA loop?

Aleksandar, OK so you say that nature does not 'measure' it just 'is'.

You write 'By "measurement" I meant collecting data in a written form for humans to talk about it' and a little bit further along: 'Maybe "measurement" isn't the best word, but by that in the first place I meant human interpretation'. Though biosemioticians consider that sensori-motor activity is based on interpretation of signals of various nature that enables organisms to operate in their environments. Interpretation takes place in the "orient" phase of the OODA (I use 'phase' here, but the process is not 'discrete'... and there probably is some 'nesting' of various 'OODA's at different scales and paces), with a different degree of complexity depending on the complexity of the organism. So if we accept the idea of 'interpretation' at multiple cognition levels, can we accept that nature also 'measures' in order to survive/thrive and adapt?

I would be interested to see the more complex process involved in the PDCA. Janet you mentioned it wasn't as simplistic as a sequential loop. Would you have the original diagram?
Also Aleksandar, I think that jargon is, exists, it's part of "languaging" as I describe it my my latest work, and that comparing / confronting models and frames with a 'patterning' perspective could help decrease it.

Helene

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CACJD9WFeqNS4rN%3DYrSxqQS4r%3DyjYqcf8RkA%2BKNgeXxPOp-C9sQ%40mail.gmail.com.
IMG_2394.JPG
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages