3 ms·

I get it to a degree, but it's a very dangerous line of thinking to write off systems level thinking as conspiracies. Stafford Beer points out, as an analogy in

by bmitc 6y ago

I get it to a degree, but it's a very dangerous line of thinking to write off systems level thinking as conspiracies. Stafford Beer points out, as an analogy in Designing Freedom, that the idea of an all encompassing force that affects everyone on Earth is hard to fathom, and yet gravity is an accepted idea today, where it wasn't at the start. Making connections between wide ranging events, people, and ideas doesn't make a conspiracy. Adam Curtis' documentaries warn us against systemic effects, and they are warnings that what we're presented with isn't always the truth. It's basically what Chomsky has warned about for most of his career.

maxerickson 6y ago
that the idea of an all encompassing force that affects everyone on Earth is hard to fathom I think if these other theories had explanations as well crystallized as the action of gravity, the other poster would not object to presenting them. It's not an interesting analogy, it's a trick to legitimize hand waving about other things. (we may not fully understand the mechanisms by which gravity acts, but we understand the effect it has quite well, to the point where we can GPS for instance, because we can precisely account for the very small differences in the way time passes in orbit)
- bmitc 6y ago
  It’s not a trick. It’s that we don’t know how to study these things yet, but that shouldn’t be an excuse for throwing our hands up in the air and not trying to investigate them. Gravity wasn’t always well crystallized. It took us time to develop and understand it. I highly recommend Stafford Beer’s writings and the Designing Freedom book and/or lectures. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-1973-cbc-massey-lectures-designing-freedom-1.2946819 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-1973-cbc-massey-lectures-...
  - shaunxcode 6y ago
    I concur and am also a stafford beer fan. I also dig Adam Curtis body of work - however his demonization of cybernetics is frustrating.
aaron695 6y ago
You are right, except Adam Curtis doesn't get systems. For instance he calls public servants 'devious' when they 'game' the system. This is not what happens at a personal level, the system is 'devious' if anything. It also doesn't address if overall people in the system are better off - https://youtu.be/l1So7lNUD0E?t=2387 https://youtu.be/l1So7lNUD0E?t=2387 (Rewind 60 seconds for when they are measuring bird calls across Great Britain for quality of life, that's actually pretty cool) "The Trap" was early internet, pre the popularisation of shoving ideas at people for the dopamine rush without an actual understanding. I am interested to see if he adapts to the newer world where ideas are more common place, understanding is still lacking.
solipsism 6y ago
"finding patterns where there are none" is"systems level thinking" now? the idea of an all encompassing force that affects everyone on Earth is hard to fathom, and yet gravity is an accepted idea today, where it wasn't at the start And yet it turns out that gravity is not a force at all. Gravity is just the shape of space.
- patcon 6y ago
  I believe the parent comment is trying to defend a "complexity science" approach to the world. Adherents would argue that all these "fuzzy patterns" (conspiracy-thinking, some might say) stem from shared generalized properties of networks operating in different substrates and scales and energy transitions. Societies, companies, cities, ants, cells, forests, biofilms, minds, languages, storytelling, social conflict, river networks, etc etc infinity. https://www.santafe.edu/culture/podcast https://www.santafe.edu/culture/podcast If you feel like it, pls do listen to this popular podcast by the Santa Fe Institute, and you'll hear them connecting things rather frenetically. Some adherents ground all this in rigorous science, but others participate very effectively as amateurs, guided by pure intuition/creativity that's often complementary and comparably fruitful. Complexity science offers an approach that elevates metaphor to a curious form of information/knowledge. Some amateurs in the community just participate in this "rhyming game" of networks, and leave the hard science to others in the community. That works fine. Cormac McCarthy (of "The Road" and "No Country For Old Men" fame) has been hanging out with these folks for decades, and participating in their discussions even though he lacks the scientific underpinnings. These's a symbiosis of sorts between the hard and soft "scientists" doing this work. Adam Curtis sounds like he's one of the "soft" researchers. If you can't straddle this fuzzy boundary, it doesn't mean it's not real wisdom they're chewing on -- it's just not the sort everyone can easily stomach/navigate/sift imho, just as some don't have the neurotype to excel in deep programmatic thinking) Anyhow, thanks for the opportunity to think this through out loud :)
  - bmitc 6y ago
    Yes, thank you. This was nicely written. Another place that takes a similar but more applicative view, but is less well known, is College of the Atlantic. https://www.coa.edu/ https://www.coa.edu/

by bmitc 6y ago

maxerickson 6y ago

that the idea of an all encompassing force that affects everyone on Earth is hard to fathom I think if these other theories had explanations as well crystallized as the action of gravity, the other poster would not object to presenting them. It's not an interesting analogy, it's a trick to legitimize hand waving about other things. (we may not fully understand the mechanisms by which gravity acts, but we understand the effect it has quite well, to the point where we can GPS for instance, because we can precisely account for the very small differences in the way time passes in orbit)

bmitc 6y ago
It’s not a trick. It’s that we don’t know how to study these things yet, but that shouldn’t be an excuse for throwing our hands up in the air and not trying to investigate them. Gravity wasn’t always well crystallized. It took us time to develop and understand it. I highly recommend Stafford Beer’s writings and the Designing Freedom book and/or lectures. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-1973-cbc-massey-lectures-designing-freedom-1.2946819 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-1973-cbc-massey-lectures-...
- shaunxcode 6y ago
  I concur and am also a stafford beer fan. I also dig Adam Curtis body of work - however his demonization of cybernetics is frustrating.

aaron695 6y ago

You are right, except Adam Curtis doesn't get systems. For instance he calls public servants 'devious' when they 'game' the system. This is not what happens at a personal level, the system is 'devious' if anything. It also doesn't address if overall people in the system are better off - https://youtu.be/l1So7lNUD0E?t=2387 https://youtu.be/l1So7lNUD0E?t=2387 (Rewind 60 seconds for when they are measuring bird calls across Great Britain for quality of life, that's actually pretty cool) "The Trap" was early internet, pre the popularisation of shoving ideas at people for the dopamine rush without an actual understanding. I am interested to see if he adapts to the newer world where ideas are more common place, understanding is still lacking.

solipsism 6y ago

"finding patterns where there are none" is"systems level thinking" now? the idea of an all encompassing force that affects everyone on Earth is hard to fathom, and yet gravity is an accepted idea today, where it wasn't at the start And yet it turns out that gravity is not a force at all. Gravity is just the shape of space.

patcon 6y ago
I believe the parent comment is trying to defend a "complexity science" approach to the world. Adherents would argue that all these "fuzzy patterns" (conspiracy-thinking, some might say) stem from shared generalized properties of networks operating in different substrates and scales and energy transitions. Societies, companies, cities, ants, cells, forests, biofilms, minds, languages, storytelling, social conflict, river networks, etc etc infinity. https://www.santafe.edu/culture/podcast https://www.santafe.edu/culture/podcast If you feel like it, pls do listen to this popular podcast by the Santa Fe Institute, and you'll hear them connecting things rather frenetically. Some adherents ground all this in rigorous science, but others participate very effectively as amateurs, guided by pure intuition/creativity that's often complementary and comparably fruitful. Complexity science offers an approach that elevates metaphor to a curious form of information/knowledge. Some amateurs in the community just participate in this "rhyming game" of networks, and leave the hard science to others in the community. That works fine. Cormac McCarthy (of "The Road" and "No Country For Old Men" fame) has been hanging out with these folks for decades, and participating in their discussions even though he lacks the scientific underpinnings. These's a symbiosis of sorts between the hard and soft "scientists" doing this work. Adam Curtis sounds like he's one of the "soft" researchers. If you can't straddle this fuzzy boundary, it doesn't mean it's not real wisdom they're chewing on -- it's just not the sort everyone can easily stomach/navigate/sift imho, just as some don't have the neurotype to excel in deep programmatic thinking) Anyhow, thanks for the opportunity to think this through out loud :)
- bmitc 6y ago
  Yes, thank you. This was nicely written. Another place that takes a similar but more applicative view, but is less well known, is College of the Atlantic. https://www.coa.edu/ https://www.coa.edu/