Mouserat

Lack of metacognition in school curriculum leading to mid-life crises?

Significant amounts of the systems thinking literature we have focused on this semester urges readers to remember that systems thinkers are not born, but emerge. In complex systems we not only need systems thinkers at the top, but also in every level of organizations. In the craziness of today's world then, why then have we not democratized systems thinking and metacognition so that it becomes incorporated into the early stages of the education system? Why are students still pushed to memorize topics as opposed to examining them, when the world we live in today is changing and self-organizing at a rate faster than you can write your note cards?

Metacognition, or increased awareness in general of one's own thought processes, was a topic addressed in this week's reading that I found especially interesting.  Imagine if metacognition was taught in public schools and not only private 'hippie' schools starting at a young age. If this way of thinking in addition to systems thinking was incorporated into early school curriculum, I do not think that our jobs as environmentalists would be as pertinent to the health of the earth as they are now. In my opinion our mental models would be clearer and represent a more accurate depiction of the world, one in which oil companies and environmental organizations would benefit from realizing that they are a part of the same exact system. 

On a lighter note, I also think that lack of metacognition and systems thinking in school curriculum has also contributed to the oh so popular quarter and mid life crises. From a young age our minds have been educated, but our hearts have potentially been forgotten in this process. We have lots of information in our brains, but much of it is flawed mental models and someone else's perspective that we have adopted as our own. We continue on this path until we are old enough to begin slightly realizing that we have no solid internal foundation for which some of our major beliefs were built upon. We understand that our system 1 thinking has had the wheel for far too long, and it is necessary to begin utilizing our system 2 thinking, which starts a long and uncomfortable process for many known as the quarter and mid life crises. Could this be avoided by democratizing systems thinking, and are we missing out on a world that is more meaningfully created and run?

In what way have you become a better systems thinker this semester?

Moore's Law and Quantum Computers

Moore’s Law is a wonderful example of exponential growth in regards to the number of microprocessor transistors we can fit on a single circuit board. It is also an example of the necessity for us to change our logic moving into the future, which I will get to later. Back in 1965, Gordon Moore first hypothesized that the number of components per integrated circuit was doubling every 18 months (Wiki). Surprisingly, this trend has continued to the present where we can now fit over 2,600,000,000 microprocessor transistors on one integrated circuit. Our current methods of computing are still based upon the same logic that they always have been. The computer takes a stream of either 0’s or 1’s and interprets each of them one at a time; hence, it’s extremely beneficial to have more and more transistors. We will eventually reach a point where this will plateau, though, and we will be forced to accept our limitations of this style of computing or evolve a new brand of logic.

            Quantum computing poses to be this leap in logic. Rather than using transistors to run the 0’s and 1’s, a single electron can be used to accomplish this task. An electron has many weird properties on the quantum level; however, and can be thought of as a magnet whose north end can be south simultaneously and vice versa for the “south” portion of the magnet. While transistors have binary possibilities, electrons tap into seemingly parallel quantum universes where they can be an infinite number different of possibilities.

            As I was reading, Systems Thinking Made Simple by Derek and Laura Cabrera I was thinking of this difference in traditional and quantum computing as they discussed our needed evolution from “bi-valent versus multi-valent logics” (Cabrera, 128). They say, “We can think of bivalent logic as having two strong positions: right or wrong, on or off, guilty or not guilty, true or false, 1 or 0” (Cabrera, 128). Contrasting that to “multivalent logic that has more than two outcomes” (Cabrera, 128).

            In science, we try to define something by what it is as specifically as possible. This reductionist method fails when we try to work with systems, though, and we end up defining something by what it is not. Bad is defined as by what is not good, efficient is defined as what is not wasteful, health is defined as what is not sick. Although defining something by what it is it takes more time, it is necessary to be competent systems thinkers.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Finding inspiration

Today was an odd day. Despite the fact that I am constantly reminded that I seemingly aloof and not part of the group… I maintain that I am a scientist, and as such am entitled to ask weird questions, and to regularly not be within the norm. I felt happier after reminding myself that I am a scientist.

I met two people today. Both of which couldn’t be more different than one another, yet both provided my brain with fun thoughts to mull over. The first was a photographer by the name of J Henry Fair… Henry was, in the most offensive way, an artist. He could have walked into our room straight out of a Manhattan art studio and I wouldn’t have blinked an eye. And as he stood in front of the TV monitor giving us his spiel about how even Obama was bad in the face of the grater ecological world, I realized that the story his photographs were telling were precisely why I am in this masters program.

Toward the end of my tenure as an undergrad, I gave a presentation about how to illicit an emotional response in non-science folk about ecological issues. I chose to show a photo of an red fox eating its cousin, the artic fox. Now, normally these two species don’t interact. This is primarily due to the arctic fox’s fur coat being suited for snow. Yet when the snow begins to melt earlier and earlier in the season, the white coat no longer acts as camouflage, and the red fox can encroach upon its cousin’s niche. Since the arctic fox is quite a bit smaller than the red fox, and is directly competing for resources, the arctic fox becomes prey. Thus, a cute white fox being carried off by a mean red fox becomes a vehicle for discussing climate change with a broad non-scientific audience.

This sentiment was mirrored in Henry’s presentation. He uses photography verging on abstract impressionistic, to entice the viewer to ask, “what is it?” This is particularly effective in his photography of the Gulf Oil Spill ­– he creates an image which could be anything. A red cut in an otherwise blue field might as well be a flower patch, or a flock of flamingos. Yet the decidedly gorgeous scene is something truly horrific… and all of the sudden I am thinking to myself: “Henry, you have my full undivided attention…”

*

The second conversation I had today was of a completely different nature, instead of the infinite interpretation and the eventual realization of Henry’s photography, I spoke for a long time with my hair-cutter-person about the virtues of recycling. A seemingly simple conversation on the outside… However, she threw this one at me: “doesn’t it take more energy to recycle some materials that it would to make new ones?”

I thought for a bit. And said something clever… but I realized that I wish I had pulled out my phone and showed her pictures of the pacific garbage patch, or sea birds with plastic pellets in their gullet. Pictures are worth a thousand words, and I argue that they mean far more than any words that I could say.

Is meta-mapping really the best way to visualize systems?

In section two of Systems Made Simple, the Cabreras introduce their tool for system visualization: meta-mapping. As a data visualization enthusiast, I agreed with many of the points they made about not over-using colors, different shapes, and relational lines. In addition, I thought they offered an intuitive tool for visualizing systems using their DSRP framework. I thought their technique for mapping perspectives was a better visual representation of this type of information than I’ve seen in the past. In addition, I liked their method for representing part-whole relationships. However, throughout the reading, I was consistently frustrated with the premise that their tool was the only tool that could conceivably be used to visualize systems and that all other tools were useless.

I have used various pieces of powerful software (e.g. ArcGIS, Excel, R) over the years for various tasks. I’ve also been in situations where people get really excited about using these for a certain application that they were never intended to fill (one memorable example being a database of energy efficiency measures that was stored in Excel, but probably should have been in a more sophisticated database software). I’ve learned over time that while powerful, these pieces of software are ultimately just tools. While they are unquestionably useful, even necessary in certain applications, in others it’s best to pursue a different strategy.

Bringing this back to meta-mapping, I find it really hard to believe that this particular tool is the best one to use in every situation. For example, what if you are presenting a visualization of a system to someone who hasn’t read Systems Made Simple? Are they supposed to learn this new vocabulary of symbols and shapes just to read your map? Or would it be better to opt for a more universal diagram style, that people may understand more intuitively? I also found the observations about colors, shapes, and lines in diagrams, which were also discussed in this section to be true sometimes, but not all the time, as they seem to imply. They even present diagrams using different colors and shapes as examples of good practice. I wish the Cabreras would have pitched their meta-mapping approach with a more nuanced view about its utility, as well as some evidence supporting its efficacy (other than one anecdote about one classroom of five year olds).

Question: Can you think of an example of a time an analytical tool, a “buzzword” concept, or a framework was applied in a context that didn’t quite fit? How can we train ourselves to think about what tools are most useful for different scenarios?

Perspective and Exclusion

    A concept that struck me from this reading is one that Harsha touched on in her blog post: the idea of perspective when defining relationships and actors within a system.  When something is defined as being A, the opposite is categorized and defined as not-A.  This idea of exclusion-based definitions is something that our blog group touched on last week, and I think was even exemplified by Sam's blog post last week (what isn't a system?).  

    So with that in mind, I thought it would be fun to do a little thought exercise.  Using this exclusion, perspective based way of defining things, I am going to attempt to define resilience and systems thinking.  If something is resilient, then that means that it is not: rigid, unchanging, or static.  In a sense, for something to be resilient it must be always changing, or adaptive.  When it comes to complex  social systems, resilience is key in smooth operations.  

    When it comes to systems thinking, this thought exercise becomes a little bit harder.  How would you define a systems thinker? How would you define what a systems thinker is not?  As Sam discussed last week, literally everything can be defined as a system depending on how it is bounded.  However, a systems thinker is a bit easier to define.  A systems thinker is one that views the interconnected-ness of society (and other stuff) in a iterative, big picture manner.  Understanding the interactions between all elements of a system is what every systems thinker strives to do.  So, that leads me to the following question: using this perspective, exclusion based manner of definition, how would you define what a systems thinker is and is not?

Scaling Systems, Scales of Justice

The Cabreras do entertain discussion of ethics and democracy, what I think of as Justice.  As they say, "... systems thinking as a concept is a lot like democracy. You can’t do democracy in an aristocratic way. Democracy has to be of, for, and by the people." (Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L. Systems Thinking Made Simple: New Hope for Solving Wicked Problems (Page 169).  

In Chapter 9, their Systems Thinking book becomes somewhat intelligible again, for a page or so, until we're told that the essential DSRP rules are actually not the only rules, that we must learn four additional simple rules: vision, mission, culture, and learning, or VMCL. (op. cit., p. 166). 

At this point, I am seriously ready for Systems Thinking for Dummies.  But as I try to understand where they are going in looking at Circles of Influence and Circles of Control (a profound exercise for anyone who wants to change the world, transform systems, mitigate climate change), as I look at their apparent dedication to grass-roots, bottom-up democracy, I am drawn to thinking about Theory U.

This theory of transformational leadership for transformational organizations was developed by Otto Scharmer, another systems thinker from MIT like Donella Meadows.

 

Proposing the necessity for an open-hearted, intentional, and profoundly present approach to the human activity of problem solving, Scharmer invokes the exquisite perception suggested by the Cabreras as Distinction, in their example of the wise kindergartners, systems thinkers, who see the many many parts of a bus.  

We might have to hold our minds and hearts together with rubber bands or steel cables to be able to contain ourselves, but to carefully and completely observe the system of resistance to taking immediate action on climate change, according to Scharmer, would be profoundly important.

Just observing.

Then feeling, opening, releasing, deepening into a new understanding.

In this way, the power of our own nature, our own psychology, gives us roots to emerge over and over to be the grass roots that create a new field of reality.

So be it.

Let's Get Logical

     This week’s reading covered the basics on becoming a systems thinker—from creating your own systems maps (with information on tips for choosing colors and shapes for mapping) to understanding the structure operating behind these maps. Although I found this week’s reading to be a little on the dry side, I found one topic particularly interesting. Chapter 7 discussed logic behind relationships within systems. When two things relate to one another and one is defined as A, then the other thing by default is “not-A.” However, something that had not occurred to me (although seemingly very obvious) is that not-A has its own identity independent of A. The idea of not-A is based on perspective because not-A is defined in terms of A. Perspective therefore is absolutely necessary when determining what is being discussed.

     Something that the Cabreras brought up in this chapter was the application of perspective and logic to the real world. We often use perspective to cast ourselves in a positive light, while downplaying our opponents. The example of pro-life and pro-choice was used to show perspective logic. Those who support pro-life are seen as anti-feminist or anti-choice while those supporting pro-choice are seen as pro-abortion or anti-life. The “rebranding” of these stances does not embody what that whole population supports, but rather is just a direct application of A and not-A. Applying this type of perspective logic in the real world can lead to controversy, debate and division especially when nuances are not being considered.

Question: Using A and not-A logic, what are environmentalists “rebranded” as and how do we “rebrand” our opponents?

Show, Don't Tell

Last week my environmental collaboration class discussed how the daily bombardment of information from multiple social platforms creates slactivists. These slactivists have so many different causes streaming into their consciousness daily that they halfheartedly support issues by liking or sharing them on Facebook for example. How in this age can we create campaigns, community planning platforms, or explain systems in a way that drive people to participate and stay actively involved?

We do this, as the reading suggests, by showing and not telling them. In the same environmental collaboration class our group has been tasked with submitting to the city of Nederland new planning methods that more effectively engage the community than the policies currently in place. At this moment citizen involvement in Nederland is poorly accomplished through town meetings, which from what we have gathered, consist of a dry reading of proposed policy changes and projects. Town officials simply tell the few citizens who attend what is going on in the town, and have recognized that this is an ineffective way to communicate information.

My group specifically has found a new method for encouraging more participation in community planning through a process called "Have Your Say Days." These are community events held throughout the week that visualize different aspects of the community planning process through maps, vision boards, paintings, pictures, music, etc. We hope that by displaying important information in a way that is more attractive to the human brain than simply talking at people during boring town meetings, more community engagement will result.

Question: When you are creating information that will be presented to a group do you ever consider what it will look like from the audiences perspective, and whether or not your work would seem interesting, interactive, and engaging to yourself?

What isn't a system?

I’m not entirely sure that this is the right question to be asking in a class devoted to thinking in systems. That said, I’m curious to see how far this thought experiment has to go before I think of something… or resign my position, and admit defeat.

Let’s start at the obvious place: my capstone (because, obviously). Yes, my capstone, because it is the center of my universe, and has been the sole dispensary for my time these past few weeks… I say that only half joking. Kate and I have had to work through three research topics, the later having very little to do with the former, and has more to do with CU than Barcelona… but I digress.

Kate and I are at the precipice of studying something adequately out of both our depths: micro-grids. Indeed, a touch more than a stones through from Barcelona, yet the research question that we are formulating has as much to do with our original premise of trying to figure out how local governments collaborate and implement policy. Micro-grids, and grids more broadly, are by definition, systems that connect various points of the energy generation, distribution, and consumption networks. So, allow me to narrow my scope.

Perhaps, perhaps, the most narrow my scope can go on this project would be the solar PV that lay dormant on the northern corner of the SEEC complex. A PV on its own, just the one panel, is not a system. That said, it contains a particularly assorted mess of wires that allow the PV to transmit the electricity it has obtained from photons traveling along a series of semi conductors toward the negatively charged base of the panel. Those wires have a system of their own: the copper and rare-earth metals that together form a wire were collected from various points across the earth, from the Congo to Australia to Nevada. A system of extraction and processing, transportation and commerce.

Then perhaps the atoms that make up the copper, surely those aren’t systems? The atom, comprised of three parts, is in fact a system. And those protons, neutrons, and electrons are made op of smaller particles still. However, at this level, these parts aren’t concerned with systems that govern their existence. They simply exist.

It is hard to be sure, one way or another, whether these small particles (quarks and bosons and the like) have smaller parts still. So, to fully disassemble a system to the most fundamental parts is to break even the smallest component down to the point where it merely exists as means to an end.

Question: have I gone too far?

It's All in the Message

*I apologize for the late post! I submitted my blog entry last night and when I went to go check on it today, I saw that it wasn't posted—so I had to re-write it. *

A topic that has been reoccurring in different readings this week is messaging. In Collaboration, we read and discussed how social movements package their message to showcase their values. We also discussed how social movements, such as the environmental movement, may not be entirely successful because of its messaging. Currently, it seems as if the environmental movement has been focusing on a “doomsday” message, which can be a good one if it is meant to incite fear but does not entirely relate climate change to the values of a wider population. Similarly, using strictly scientific information in environmental messaging can isolate those who are not familiar with the jargon. To alleviate this issue, the environmental movement needs a bit of rebranding (in my opinion) in order to relate to all of those involved in the system.

In this week’s readings for Systems, we touched on different mechanisms within systems. In order for a system, such as the environmental movement, to be successful it must be understood that different parts constitute the whole. The environmental movement must simplify and streamline their goals, message and vision in order to appeal and reflect its audience. This will not only allow the environmental movement to gain more influence, but will also build resilience for the future.

Question: What are some key terms/phrases that you would use to “rebrand” the environmental movement?