Posted by
Phil Henshaw-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Blinded-By-Science-When-models-FAIL-taking-all-the-humans-tp1345917p1349266.html
Glen says, " > It seems (to me) that we should have learned this lesson
thoroughly
> when> we demonstrated that many contexts call for distributed as opposed
to
> centralized solutions.
Yes, very much so, but I also agree with Peggy's sense that there's
something about ownership that is different from being indifferent about
following someone else's rules. If both principles are to apply... then a
distributed system of individual owners, of their own part of a larger whole
system is needed. To me that means everyone being curious about what can go
wrong. I see that kind of risk avoidance as one of the clear
distinguishing characteristics of distributed systems functioning as
advanced learning processes, as all organisms seem to in their own domains.
Some learning processes can't learn, like thermostats. Some can only
explore for self-expansion, like fire. Others can be risk averse and
seeking out only resources that are free of conflict. The question isn't
'how' so much, as identifying what we can clearly observe occurring, and
we're trying to explain.
I think that's one of the things a conscious and logical mind can perceive,
that there is a wide assortment of successful learning systems that notice
when the progression of problems being solved is leading to unsolvable
problems, the universal warning sign.
You can call it "sensing increasingly complex risks with fat tailed
distributions" as Taleb would, or "approaching diminishing returns" as I or
Tainter would, or crossing lines of potential conflict, the name in common
language any animal watches closely in going about their daily business. I
just don't seem to know how to prove that staying with an ever riskier
course is the cause of the calamity it naturally becomes. Proving that you
can have foresight seems to require foresight, relying on reading beyond
one's data every time...
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 1:27 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Blinded By Science - When models FAIL taking all
> the humans
>
> Thus spake peggy miller circa 10/17/2008 09:32 AM:
> > Translation -- statistics and common sense verified that the larger
> the
> > operation becomes, with noticeably poorer decisions happening at the
> size of
> > business over $1 billion in profits, matched by replacement of
> > ownership/manager with non-owner managers, judgment fails. Caring
> appears to
> > be a part of ownership. Somethings counter this problem, like profit
> sharing
> > -- giving workers part of profits -- but ownership of business and
> smaller
> > size seems to be almost irreplaceable. Small banks and credit unions,
> owned
> > locally, rarely fail. The owner's name, reputation and thus decisions
> are on
> > the line.
>
> Why is it that we are (and continue to be) so myopic to the flaws to
> such large-scale abstraction (aggregation and accumulation)?
>
> It seems (to me) that we should have learned this lesson thoroughly
> when
> we demonstrated that many contexts call for distributed as opposed to
> centralized solutions. We had to learn that lesson over and over in
> various disciplines. Why hasn't that knowledge translated to corporate
> governance? (Or government even?)
>
> Centralization, abstraction, aggregation, and accumulation seem to be
> the dominant tendency.
>
> My undefended conjecture is that such abstraction is the only way an
> individual can _both_ multiply their money _and_ keep the consequences
> at arm's length. I.e. it's the only way one can both make butt-loads
> of
> money and retain a clear conscience. (Gee, do I sound like a
> socialist?
> or what? ;-)
>
> But it's also quite possible that the only way to maintain a "survival
> by growth" method is to engage in such accumulation. For corporations,
> it's obvious. For the federal government, it's less so because it's
> reasonable to assume that the management of 3.5 million square miles
> and
> 350 million people requires a centralized solution.
>
> > How many names of the managers of these large failed institutions do
> we
> > know? a couple? and they get paid handsomely either way ..
>
> This reminds me of:
>
> Thus spake peter circa 10/01/2008 09:50 AM:
> > Sure I will dig out some names ...
> > [...]
> >
> > glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> >> But can you help me reduce my ignorance? Which "complexity science
> >> geniuses" created these credit models? And which ones do you think
> >> might go to jail?
>
> Peter? Did you ever get a chance to dig up some names of these
> "complexity science geniuses"?
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org