Introduction to Complexity

This is a re-offering of our popular "Introduction to Complexity" course, with some new material, homework, and exams.

In this course you'll learn about the tools used by scientists to understand complex systems. The topics you'll learn about include dynamics, chaos, fractals, information theory, self-organization, agent-based modeling, and networks. You’ll also get a sense of how these topics fit together to help explain how complexity arises and evolves in nature, society, and technology. There are no prerequisites. You don't need a science or math background to take this introductory course; it simply requires an interest in the field and the willingness to participate in a hands-on approach to the subject.

http://www.complexityexplorer.org/online-courses/3

A Poet's View of Complexity

A poet's view of complexity:
"Nature gives us shapeless shapes
Clouds and waves and flame
But human expectation
Is that love remains the same
And when it doesn't
We point our fingers
And blame blame blame"
Paul Simon, You're the One

And it's not just love where we look for blame. Almost all human systems are complex systems, and looking for a cause in them is fruitless.

Thinking Critically

Frank Smith in his book To Think refers to the work of Ennis[1] in determining attributes of critical thinking: Grasping the meaning of a statement and judging whether 

•  there is ambiguity in a line of reasoning 
•   certain statements contradict each other 
•  a conclusion necessarily follows 
•  a statement is specific enough 
•  a statement is actually the application of a certain principle 
•  an observation statement is reliable 
•  an inductive[2] conclusion is warranted
• the problem has been identified  
•  something is an assumption 
•  a definition is adequate 
•  a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable

Ennis defines critical thinking as “determining the authenticity, accuracy, and worth of information or knowledge claims.”[3]

Smith basically thinks that critical thinking is not a skill, but a disposition and requires knowledge of the subject and the authority to think critically, even if that is granted by the person doing the thinking.

“Critical and creative thinking may be viewed academically as unique mental activities, in which individuals can be deficient, but the elements of thinking critically and creatively are in everyone's behavioral and cognitive repertoire. People may often not appear to be thinking critically or creatively because they are often not in situations that permit or call for criticism or creativity, or because they are not disposed to behave critically or creatively in such situations. This does not mean that some individuals are totally incapable of thinking critically or creatively, or that they lack training. It is just that they are not thinking in those ways, for one reason or another.”

He explains further:

“If critical thinking is not a unique set of skills, if it is essentially something that everyone is capable of, that everyone does in some measure all the time, why does critical thinking-or its apparent absence attract such attention? I have a few more remarks to make about specific knowledge[4], which is at the heart of the ability to be a critical thinker. But there are two other factors to take into account in explaining why some people might not appear to be as critical in their thought as they might be. One of them I have briefly alluded to already, the matter of disposition[5]. The other is more contentious-the extent to which anyone is allowed to be a critical thinker. In other words-how serious all this talk about critical thinking is in the first place.”

The author expands his comments on knowledge:

“Critical thinking does not demand a complex array of learned skills, but competence in whatever you are thinking about. If you understand cooking, you can be critical of the way a meal is prepared. If you are an experienced football fan, you can criticize a football game. If you are a particular kind of engineer, you can criticize the way a bridge or a ship has been built. If you are unable to do any of these things, it will not be because you lack essential critical thinking skills, but because you lack the essential experience. You do not know enough.”

He concludes that critical thinking is a disposition – “a tendency to behave in particular ways on particular occasions.” “Critical thinking is an attitude, a frame of mind.” “…reflective skepticism – the judicious suspension of assent, a readiness to consider alternative explanations, not taking anything for granted when it might be reasonable to doubt.”

“Critical thinking reflects the way we perceive the world; its concern is not with the solution of "problems" but with the recognition of prejudices and biases-including our own. The beginning must be the old Greek adage ‘Know yourself.’"

“Critical thinkers are often not popular. The right to engage in critical thought is not distributed equally, especially in hierarchical, authoritarian, and bureaucratic societies. You could lose your job or your promotion, or your colleagues might find you less agreeable to work with.”

“Critical thinkers are critical; they are argumentative and unsettling; they rock the boat. They can have difficulty treading the line between constructive inquiry and nitpicking trouble-making. They may not always be comfortable to know.”

He closes the chapter with this admonition:

“Critical thinkers must not only reason, they must give reasons; they must not only evaluate arguments, they must argue. They must recognize, and engage in, techniques of persuasion. Effective critical thought is largely a rhetorical[6] exercise. Uncritical passivity in thought and expression go hand in hand.

There is no doubt that the world could do with much more critical thinking. If critical thinking leads to better judgments, fewer problems, and happier consequences, then it is not just children and youth that are in need. It is unlikely that they will become better thinkers by uncritically emulating adults. The development of critical thinking requires a major shift across the generations, and the basis of that shift-if it is not to be catastrophic-must be through language.”

To Think, Frank Smith, Teachers College Press, 1990, 181 pp

Read my summary of To Think at:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/163221519/To-Think

---

[1] Ennis, Robert H. (1962). A Concept of Critical Thinking, Harvard Educational Review, 32 (1), 82 -83

[2] Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given. Wikipedia

[3] The author never mentions the ability to perceive when someone is lying. I think that this needs to be covered specifically and will do so in a separate article.

[4] Knowledge is a familiarity with someone or something, which can include information, facts, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it can be more or less formal or systematic. In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology; the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as "justified true belief." However, no single agreed upon definition of knowledge exists, though there are numerous theories to explain it. Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication, association and reasoning; while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in human beings. Wikipedia

[5] A disposition is a habit, a preparation, a state of readiness, or a tendency to act in a specified way. Wikipedia

[6] Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers that attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition. Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic (or dialectic), rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. From Ancient Greece to the late 19th century, it was a central part of Western education, filling the need to train public speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments.

Two American Families: Complexity At Work?

It’s a central premise of the American dream: If you’re willing to work hard, you’ll be able to make a living and build a better life for your children. But what if working hard isn’t enough to ensure success — or even the basic necessities of daily life?

FRONTLINE’s Two American Families follows two ordinary families who have spent the past 20 years in an extraordinary battle to keep from sliding into poverty.

The film, a collaboration with veteran PBS journalist Bill Moyers, who has followed the Stanleys and the Neumanns over the years, raises unsettling questions about the changing nature of the American economy and the fate of a declining middle class.

“He will not be able to see the retirement, you know, that he probably would hope for when he was working at A.O. Smith,” say Keith Stanley, the son of Claude Stanley who was laid off from a steady, good paying job in the early ’90s. “That’s just not a reality. My heart goes out to that generation that was promised something from America, by America, that they would have a better life and that’s not the case anymore.”

Here's my comments on the structural change and the implications if the system that changed is a complex system in a critical state. Click to listen.

Snowden, Polling and Critical Thinking

As you know from things I wrote before, I’m becoming increasing wary of public opinion polls and the people who write about them. Mark Mellman’s blog post, “Have We Been Snowdened?” raised my curiosity on the subject. Below is a summary of the data he writes about in his column. And, as a full disclosure comment, I’m aware, and you should be also, by summarizing the data as I did I’m altering exactly what each survey reported.

Survey	Question	Positive	Negative	Uncertain
Time	The person who leaked information about this secret program did a good thing in informing the American public or a bad thing	54%	30%	6%
ABC/Washington Post	The NSA surveillance program was classified as secret, and was made public by a former government contractor named Edward Snowden	48%	43%	9%
Reuters/Ipsos	Snowden leaked information to the press about NSA’s monitoring of phone and Internet usage	31%	23%	46%
YouGov	Releasing the top secret information about government surveillance programs was the right thing or wrong thing to do	+3%

First, I couldn’t verify all of the data he reported, specifically the YouGov poll. And, when I went to look for this poll’s data (because Mellman changed the format of how he chose to report the results) I found even more polls on the subject. In browsing some of the poll data, I found that it makes a big difference whether you ask a question about Snowden, his actions, or what NSA is doing. I also have no guarantee that the sampling is valid in any of the polls, or whether the statistics employed is valid because of complex system effects. Moreover, the results depend upon when the poll was taken.

I’m not so interested in the results of these polls that I’ll invest the research and critical thinking time to find out what the public may think about this issue. However, look at the word usage in the polls – “leaked” and “secret” in the Time poll; “surveillance”, “NSA” and “government contractor” in the ABC poll; “leaked”, “press”, and “NSA” in the Reuters poll, the only one to mention “Phone” and “Internet”; “top secret”, “government” and ”surveillance” in the YouGov poll. These are all words likely to shift a person’s response to the statement.

My sole reason for writing this is just to alert you to critically examine any polling important to you. There are many ways to alter the response, or to “skin a cat” as the old saying goes[1].

---

[1] “Mark Twain used your version in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court in 1889: “she was wise, subtle, and knew more than one way to skin a cat”, that is, more than one way to get what she wanted.” http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-mor1.htm

How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled

by Paul Krugman
The New York Review of Books, June 6, 2013

"In normal times, an arithmetic mistake in an economics paper would be a complete nonevent as far as the wider world was concerned. But in April 2013, the discovery of such a mistake—actually, a coding error in a spreadsheet, coupled with several other flaws in the analysis—not only became the talk of the economics profession, but made headlines. Looking back, we might even conclude that it changed the course of policy.

Why? Because the paper in question, “Growth in a Time of Debt,” by the Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, had acquired touchstone status in the debate over economic policy. Ever since the paper was first circulated, austerians—advocates of fiscal austerity, of immediate sharp cuts in government spending—had cited its alleged findings to defend their position and attack their critics. Again and again, suggestions that, as John Maynard Keynes once argued, “the boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity”—that cuts should wait until economies were stronger—were met with declarations that Reinhart and Rogoff had shown that waiting would be disastrous, that economies fall off a cliff once government debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP.

Indeed, Reinhart-Rogoff may have had more immediate influence on public debate than any previous paper in the history of economics. The 90 percent claim was cited as the decisive argument for austerity by figures ranging from Paul Ryan, the former vice-presidential candidate who chairs the House budget committee, to Olli Rehn, the top economic official at the European Commission, to the editorial board of The Washington Post. So the revelation that the supposed 90 percent threshold was an artifact of programming mistakes, data omissions, and peculiar statistical techniques suddenly made a remarkable number of prominent people look foolish."

Read the article, click here

This is a very good case history of critical thinking in the field of economics. False statements that were not subjected to critical thinking resulted in bad economic policies with large negative impacts on people.

But even after this and other critical thinking essays have been published, the policies resist change.

 I consider Krugman to be one of the most level headed, critical thinkers in economics who has a broad public audience. But, even he seems to despair. The closing paragraph of this artilce was like a dagger. If he can't affect policy, who can? And, what's my roles?

"The Reinhart-Rogoff debacle has raised some hopes among the critics that logic and evidence are finally beginning to matter. But the truth is that it’s too soon to tell whether the grip of austerity economics on policy will relax significantly in the face of these revelations. For now, the broader message of the past few years remains just how little good comes from understanding."

Critical Thinking

Last year at the beginning of the election season, one of the State’s political parties launched a platform with a plank in it that opposed the teaching of critical thinking skills in public education.  After a large public outcry, this platform was edited to remove the offending thought. This issue came up in one of the planning meetings of the Central Texas Chapter of the World Future Society and the group present resolved to make critical thinking part of our program of activities. This is in line with our longstanding vision, “Raising awareness of the future and its impact on Central Texas”. Awareness is the first step of critical thinking, followed by, among other things, discernment. The group present in the planning meeting thought that critical thinking was an essential part of future’s studies, both normative and projective.

Intuitively it appears that we are in an era when critical thinking is necessary, not just for success, but survival. There are many trends, global and local, temporal and eternal, that affect us, some that we can change and some that we must just prepare for. Our future is one of very large, complex systems, which at this point we neither understand nor control. Some of these systems are intrinsically uncontrollable. And, we are entering the world of big data driven by our technological capability to accomplish, and spurred by the profit motive.  Moreover, as copious amounts of money are available, “opinions” based on data can be bought. We are already swimming in a vast sea of data and opinions.

Given the vast amount of data, I am reminded of a statement sometimes attributed to Mark Twain, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” Well, maybe not intentional lies, but biases based upon values, not open minded logic. We will need a lot of critical thinking to, as Omar Khayyam phrased it, “The two and seventy jarring sects confute.”

But what is critical thinking? How is it used in real life? Is it a skill? Can it be taught? Is it something that should be a guiding principle of this organization? What is our role in fostering critical thinking?

A panel has been gathered to discuss critical thinking on June 18, 2013 at the monthly meeting of the CenTexWFS beginning at 6pm at Marie Callender’s 9503 Research Blvd #400  Austin, TX 78759
(512) 349-7151. It will be moderated by Paul Schumann and is composed of::

·         Phyliss Blees: educator, peace through commerce, conscious capitalism, creativity, lawyer
·         Carol Flake Chapman: journalist, editor, author, founding editor of Vanity Fair Magazine
·         Joyce Goia: futurist, trend analyst, editor of Herman Trend Alerts
·         Terrill Fisher: improv artist, comedian, training consultant
·         Jon Lebkowsky: programming, social media, editor of Extreme Democracy
·         Diane Miller: civic collaboration, project planning, dialog and deliberation

If you wish to attend, please visit the group’s web site for more information. There is an attendance fee of $25 that includes dinner that is payable at the event

.

Paul Schumann is a futurist and innovation consultant who is currently researching complexity science and its use in future’s studies. He is the author of four books – Innovate!, An Innovant’s Journey, Leadership in the Interactive Age and Superconductivity – and numerous articles, the latest of which is “1, 2, A Few and Many”. Follow his blog, Insights and Foresight, for more information.

Philomena Blees, J.D. is President of Peace Through Commerce, Inc. (“PTC”) and a Trustee of Conscious Capitalism, Inc.  She was founding Vice President, General Counsel, Treasurer and "Chief Problem Solver" of PTC and Conscious Capitalism’s parent corporation, Freedom Lights Our Word (FLOW), Inc.

Ms. Blees co-founded a school for gifted children in Austin, Texas, as well as two educational nonprofit organizations. She served in the office of General Counsel at the Texas State Treasury.  Prior to this, Ms. Blees was an active securities trader, and a partner in private practice in Honolulu, Hawaii concentrating in tax, real property, and business law.

Ms. Blees is active in the American Creativity Association (“ACA”) and co-founded ACA-Austin Global.

Ms. Blees received her law degree at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law and was 1st in her class. She is a member of the State Bar Associations of Texas and Hawaii, and is licensed to practice before the U.S. Tax Court, Federal District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Ms. Blees loves running, hiking, dancing, music, movement, creativity, and reading and is active with her two beloved children and new daughter-in law.

Author of The Herman Trend Alert for the last seven years, Joyce Gioia [joy-yah] has been a professional futurist for decades. In fact, she joined the World Future Society back in the late 60s, when she graduated from college and is now a member of the national Board of Trustees. Once she became a consultant, she discovered that helping clients know what was coming could be her competitive advantage. Joyce is the author of five business books (three bestsellers) on the future of the workforce and workplace. A frequent speaker at association and corporate meetings, she informs and entertains her audiences with a combination of wit and wisdom. Besides holding three masters degrees, she is a Certified Management Consultant and Certified Speaking Professional. Joyce was recently honored by USA TODAY as their FIRST ROAD WARRIOR OF THE YEAR. She says that not only did critical thinking help her to win this award, she also uses it every day to make informed decisions for herself and others.

Jon Lebkowsky is an author, activist, sometimes journalist, and blogger who writes about the future of the Internet, digital culture, media, and society. He’s been actively associated with various forward-looking projects and organizations, including FringeWare (CEO), Whole Earth, WorldChanging, Viridian Design Movement, Mondo 2000, bOING bOING, Factsheet Five, the WELL, the Austin Chronicle, EFF-Austin (President), Society of Participatory Medicine (cofounder and former board member), Extreme Democracy (co-editor), Wireless Future (project manager), Digital Convergence Initiative (former board member), Plutopia Productions (cofounder), Polycot Consulting (cofounder and CEO), Social Web Strategies (cofounder), Project VRM, and Reality Augmented Blog. He’s currently a web strategist and developer via Polycot Associates. There’s more info at Wikipedia.

Diane Miller specializes in the design, facilitation and implementation of community engagement projects that help diverse groups of people work together to find common ground for action. For the last ten years, she has worked with Central Texas governments, businesses and community groups to address complex civic challenges. Before launching her firm, Civic Collaboration, in 2011, she was assistant director for a regional planning non-profit where she designed and executed numerous collaborative, multi-stakeholder initiatives on complicated and often divisive issues. She has designed and led community forums on an array of topics, from gentrification and regional planning, to education and health care.

Before working in community engagement, Diane worked in the field of organizational development, designing workshops and trainings focused on leadership, teamwork, and change management. She has a B.A. in liberal arts and has studied extensively in the areas of group dynamics, organizational and human development, and civic participatory processes. Diane currently serves on the board of The National Coalition on Dialogue and Deliberation. She has completed certification programs in public engagement from both the International Association for Public Participation and Fielding University.