“It was called the ‘wiring diagram’. John Hoskyns – who had one of he first systems houses – prepared it as an analysis of why it was so hard to do business in the UK at the time, and what to do about it. It was adopted by the Tories and became the Thatcher revolution.”

Like a dystopian class warfare version of Taiichi Ohno’s Autonomation

The division of labor between humans and computer systems has changed along both technical and human dimensions. Technically, there has been a shift from technologies of automation, the aim of which was to disallow human intervention at nearly all points in the system, to technologies of “heteromation” that push critical tasks to end users as indispensable mediators. As this has happened, the large population of human beings who have been driven out by the first type of technology are drawn back into the computational fold by the second type. Turning artificial intelligence on its head, one technology fills the gap created by the other, but with a vengeance that unsettles established mechanisms of reward, fulfillment, and compensation. In this fashion, replacement of human beings and their irrelevance to technological systems has given way to new “modes of engagement” with remarkable social, economic, and ethical implications. In this paper we provide a historical backdrop for heteromation and explore and explicate some of these displacements through analysis of a number of cases, including Mechanical Turk, the video games FoldIt and League of Legends, and social media.

‘we shape our tools – and, afterwards, our tools shape us’

certainly not the most reliable guide to evolution, but very interesting

source:

The Part Played by Labor in the Transition From Ape to Man

Works of Frederick Engels 1876

The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man

Written: in May-June 1876;
First published: in Die Neue Zeit 1895-06;
Translated: from the German by Clemens Dutt;
First published in English: by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1934;
Transcribed: by director@marx.org, Jan 1996.

This article was intended to introduce a larger work which Engels planned to call Die drei Grundformen der Knechtschaft – Outline of the General Plan. Engels never finished it, nor even this intro, which breaks off at the end. It would be included in Dialectics of Nature.

source:

The Part Played by Labor in the Transition From Ape to Man

so – the link between Jordan Peterson and Stafford Beer, including the Enneagram?

source:

[PDF] Cybernetic Big Five Theory. | Semantic Scholar

Cybernetic Big Five Theory

Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33-58 – June 2015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004

Authors

1. Colin G. DeYoung – University of Minnesota

Abstract

Cybernetics, the study of goal-directed, adaptive systems, is the best framework for an integrative theory of personality. Cybernetic Big Five Theory attempts to provide a comprehensive, synthetic, and mechanistic explanatory model. Constructs that describe psychological individual differences are divided into personality traits, reflecting variation in the parameters of evolved cybernetic mechanisms, and characteristic adaptations, representing goals, interpretations, and strategies defined in relation to an individual’s particular life circumstances. The theory identifies mechanisms in which variation is responsible for traits in the top three levels of a hierarchical trait taxonomy based on the Big Five and describes the causal dynamics between traits and characteristic adaptations. Lastly, the theory links function and dysfunction in traits and characteristic adaptations to psychopathology and well-being.Less

Acknowledgements

I thank Jordan Peterson for introducing me to many of the ideas synthesized by CB5T and for developing a theory capable of explaining human activities from the most trivial to the most abstract (Peterson, 1999). Thanks to Valerie Tiberius for conversations about virtues and values; to Bob Krueger for thoughts on clinical relevance; to Jacob Hirsh for testing the limits of my distinction between traits and characteristic adaptations; and to Steve DeYoung and Alex Rautu for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Cybernetic Big Five Theory.

[PDF] Cybernetic Big Five Theory. | Semantic Scholar

Commentary: Illuminating Michael Lissack’s “Understanding Is a Design Problem: Cognizing from a Designerly Thinking Perspective” Using the Process Enneagram – Knowles (2019)

Richard N.Knowles

source:

Illuminating Michael Lissack’s “Understanding Is a Design Problem: Cognizing from a Designerly Thinking Perspective” Using the Process Enneagram – ScienceDirect

She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

Volume 5, Issue 4, Winter 2019, Pages 386-390

Commentary: Illuminating Michael Lissack’s “Understanding Is a Design Problem: Cognizing from a Designerly Thinking Perspective” Using the Process Enneagram

Richard N.Knowles

source:

Illuminating Michael Lissack’s “Understanding Is a Design Problem: Cognizing from a Designerly Thinking Perspective” Using the Process Enneagram – ScienceDirect

source:

Using Enterprise Models to Explain and Discuss Autopoiesis and Homeostasis in Socio-technical Systems | Bider | Complex Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly

Using Enterprise Models to Explain and Discuss Autopoiesis and Homeostasis in Socio-technical Systems

Ilia Bider, Gil Regev, Erik Perjons

Abstract

The article links two seemingly different fundamental theoretical concepts of autopoiesis and homeostasis and tries to apply them to the realm of socio-technical systems with the use of the Fractal Enterprise Model (FEM). Autopoiesis is the property of a system that constantly reproduces itself. Homeostasis describes a way a complex system constantly maintains its identity while adapting to changes in its internal and external environment. To be able to use FEM for this task, the original version of FEM has been extended by adding special elements for representing the system’s context – part of the environment to which the system is structurally coupled. The approach taken in this article differs from other works in the same field in having the focus on the “body” (concrete elements being reproduced) of the socio-technical system, as well as on identifying concrete processes that reproduce the system, and demonstrating concrete ways of how a specific system adapts or can adapt to the perturbations in the environment (i.e. internal and external disturbances that affect the system).

DOI: 10.7250/csimq.2020-22.02

source:

Using Enterprise Models to Explain and Discuss Autopoiesis and Homeostasis in Socio-technical Systems | Bider | Complex Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly

source:

[PDF] The science of the unknowable: Stafford Beer’s cybernetic informatics | Semantic Scholar

• DOI:10.1108/03684920410523535

The science of the unknowable: Stafford Beer’s cybernetic informatics

Andrew Pickering

Published 2004

Kybernetes

This paper explores the history of Stafford Beer’s work in management cybernetics, from his early conception and simulation of an adaptive automatic factory and associated experimentation in biological computing, through the development of the Viable System Model and the Team Syntegrity technique for discussion and planning. It also pursues Beer into the fields of micro‐ and macropolitics and spirituality. The aim is to show that all of Beer’s projects can be understood as specific instantiations and workings out of a cybernetic ontology of unknowability and becoming: a stance that recognises that the world can always surprise us and that we can never dominate it through knowledge. The thrust of Beer’s work was, thus, to construct systems that could adapt performatively to environments they could not fully control.

source:

[PDF] The science of the unknowable: Stafford Beer’s cybernetic informatics | Semantic Scholar

source:

Articles

Articles

• Richardson K, Tait A (2015). On the dynamic structure of complex networks. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, Forum, 31 December 2015.
• Richardson K, Tait A (2013). When spreadsheets go bad. OR Insight 26, 270-277.
• Sipple J W, Vink J, Francis J, Williams J, Morgan J, Brady S, Tait A (2012). Making data open & useful: providing enhanced access to public data through web and app tools to facilitate better local decisionmaking. Presented at 6th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, 5-7 March 2012.
• Richardson K, Goldstein, J A, Allen, P M, Tait A (2008). Complexity and Neo-Expertise. E:CO Annual 2008, pp. ix-xiv.
• Richardson K, Tait A (2008). Confronting Complexity. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, Volume 10 Number 2, 2008.
• Brady S, Tait A (2006). Arizona and New York Schools Push the Envelope. Perspectives on Performance, Volume 5; Issue 2 – October 2006.
• Tait A (2006). Speed Confrontation Management. Victor Svetlov has produced a Russian translation of this paper. (EPUB) (Mobipocket/Kindle)
• Tait A (2006). Mario’s career crisis.
• Tait A (2006). Modeling confrontations using Options Boards.
• Koehn D, Tait A, Crannell M (2005). Absolving the Sin of Collaboration. “inside collaboration”, Volume IV Issue V 06/05.
• Crannell M, Howard N, Norwood G, Tait A (2005). A C2 system for ‘winning hearts and minds’: tools for Confrontation and Collaboration Analysis. Proceedings of the Tenth International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, McLean, VA, 13-16 June 2005.
• Crannell M, Howard N, Norwood G, Tait A (2004). How to assess an exit strategy: Measures of Merit for compliance. Proceedings of the 2004 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Coronado Bay Resort, San Diego, CA, 15-17 June 2004.
• Brady S, Tait A (2004). No Organization Left Behind — “Mass Market” Data Envelopment Analysis. Invited paper at CORS/INFORMS Joint International Meeting 2004, Banff, Canada, 16-19 May 2004.
• Baan A, Howard N, Tait A (2003). “COM as Shooter” — Operational Planning using C2 for Confronting and Collaborating. Proceedings of the 8th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, National Defense University, Washington, DC, 17-19 June 2003.
• Smith R, Howard N, Tait A (2002). Commanding Anti-Terrorist Coalitions: A Mid-East Illustration. Proceedings of the 7th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, 11-13 June 2002.
• Tait A, Flower A (2001). Information security…let’s talk business. White paper for finance industry.
• Smith R, Howard N, Tait A (2001). Confrontations in War and Peace. Proceedings of the 6th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 19-21 June 2001.
• Richardson K, Tait A, Lissack M (1999). The potential role of group decision support tools in the coherent management of complex projects. IRNOP IV, September 1999.
• Stubbs L, Tait A, Howard, N (1999). How to Model a Confrontation — Computer Support for Drama Theory. Proceedings of the 1999 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Naval War College, Newport, RI, June 29 – July 1 1999.
• Howard N, Tait A (1998). Power: an approach based on drama theory. Presentation to Symposium on Analytical Approaches to Studying Power and Influence in Contemporary Political/Military Affairs, DERA, Farnborough, October 1998.
• Tait A (1997). ‘Facilitation Environments’ for Negotiation and Mediation. Cooperation – or Conflict, 11 (4), July 1997.
• Tait A (1997). Drama without Tears. Operational Research Society Tutorial Papers, YOR10.
• Williams T M, Eden C, Ackermann F, Tait A (1995). Vicious Circles of Parallelism. International Journal of Project Management, 13 (3), 151-155.
• Williams T M, Eden C, Ackermann F, Tait A (1995). The Effects of Design Changes and Delays on Project Costs. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46, 809-818.
• Bennett P G, Tait A, MacDonagh, K (1994). INTERACT: Developing Software for Interactive Decisions. Group Decision and Negotiation, 3, 351-372.

Posters

• Cognitive mapping poster
• Confrontation analysis poster

source:

Articles

source:

Improvisation Blog: Luhmann and Biology

Luhmann and Biology

Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory is one of the most impressive achievements in the social sciences in the second half of the 20th century. Widely appreciated and mainstream in Germany and across mainland Europe, it remains far less well-known in the Anglo-Saxon world, beyond the realms of systems theorists who knew about Luhmann’s hinterland, cybernetics, Maturana, etc. 

Loet Leydesdorff is about to publish a new book detailing the intellectual relationships that Luhmann had with Habermas and the intellectual elite in the 60s and 70s. This history is important because its not just our institutions that are in a mess at the moment, but our disciplines – not least, sociology. 

For those who want to critique Luhmann, his dependence first on the biological cybernetics of Maturana and Varela is a cause to claim “biological reductionism”, or his later fascination with Spencer-Brown as a kind of sophistry which doesn’t convince Leydesdorff.  It’s remarkable that despite these criticisms, and indeed the criticism by Maturana that Luhmannn had misappropriated his theory, that Luhmann is the only figure from mainstream cybernetics to have had a major transformative impact on a discipline, with important work drawing on it – from Kittler’s media theory (again, pretty much unknown to Anglo-Saxon media departments) to Yuk Hui’s recent and brilliant “Recursivity and Contingency” which is spreading around the world. People reading Hui will learn about Ashby, Maturana, Von Foerster, Simondon, etc from this.

continues in source:

Improvisation Blog: Luhmann and Biology

Cybernetics & Human Knowing A Journal of Second Order Cybernetics, Autopoiesis & Cybersemiotics Guest Column: The Relevance of Cybernetics in the 21st Century Column Author:  Larry Richards

Guest Column: The Relevance of Cybernetics in the 21st Century | Cybernetics & Human Knowing

Learning for Timely Action: An Introduction to the Cybernetics of Collaborative Developmental Action Inquiry (CDAI) ASC Pages Author:  William R. Torbert Aftab Erfan

Learning for Timely Action: An Introduction to the Cybernetics of Collaborative Developmental Action Inquiry (CDAI) | Cybernetics & Human Knowing

Source:

Webinar Registration – Zoom

Phumlani Nkontwanais an Associate Lecturer on the MBA & PGDip modules at the USB, Stellenbosch University. He is currently pursuing his PhD in the School of Public Leadership at Stellenbosch University. He also teaches Systems Change and Social Impact Executive Course at the GSB, Cape Town University. He is chief executive officer of Fuata Africa – a small boutique entrepreneurship development consulting outfit mainly practising in six African markets (http://www.fuataafrica.com).

Dr John van Breda is a Senior Researcher and programme coordinator for transdisciplinary research at the Centre of Complex Systems in Transition (CST). John holds post-graduate degrees in philosophy, theology and sociology as well as PhD with a specific focus on developing context-relevant transdisciplinary research approaches for conducting solution-oriented research in a developing world context. His expertise is in transdisciplinary methodologies and methods for tackling complex social-ecological systems challenges. The title of his PhD is as follows: “Methodological Agility for Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene” which can be accessed here: http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/106959.

Register here:

Webinar Registration – Zoom

source:

Yes! Our World Is Complex, and More Than The Sum Of Its Parts | by Kenneth Silvestri | ILLUMINATION | Jul, 2020 | Medium

Yes! Our World Is Complex, And More Than The Sum Of Its Parts: Lessons From Gaia

“Between us is the genesis of ability to perceive and respond to the complexity of this time.” -Nora Bateson

I doubt if anyone can deny that we live in a complex world. And who can disagree with the dictionary definition of complexity: the “quality or state of being composed of interconnected parts”?

continues in source:

Yes! Our World Is Complex, and More Than The Sum Of Its Parts | by Kenneth Silvestri | ILLUMINATION | Jul, 2020 | Medium

book at:

Systems Thinking Study club – “A little illustrated book of Organization” Tickets, Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 12:00 PM | Eventbrite

Summer book club kickoff event

It is still not late to join the bookclub if you weren’t able to make yesterday’s event.

Here is a recap of what was discussed.

1. Weekly meeting on Fridays noon-hours for the next 5 weeks. Will be extended based on progress of the reading and review. To participate register on Eventbrite and the calender invite will be sent to you:

2. The bookclub schedule:

Session #1 – 14 August 2020: 12-1 PM/ET

Preread required for session #1: Book pages 1-25

Session #2 – 21 August 2020: 12-1 PM/ET

Preread required for session #2: Book pages 26-49

Session #3 – 28 August 2020: 12-1 PM/ET

Preread required for session #3: Book pages 50-75

Session #4 – 4 September 2020: 12-1 PM/ET

Preread required for session #4: Book pages 76-99

Session #5 – 11 September 2020: 12-1 PM/ET

Preread required for session #5: Book pages 100-118 and wrap-up

3. If you haven’t bought the book yet, here is the link to buy the same:
https://www.flipsnack.com/stevemorlidge/the-little-book-of-organisation-special-edition/full-view.html

4. For the 1st meeting on 14th August, the plan is to read pages 1-24.  Please plan to read something every day in order to move forward. While you read, please make notes of things that you relate to, things that you would like to clarify/discuss, other frameworks/methods that you can compare this book to.

Please let me know if you have any questions. See you on August the 14th.

Cheers,

Srikanth

Six-week summer book club and review of “A little illustrated book of Organization”

Systems Thinking Study club – “A little illustrated book of Organization” Tickets, Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 12:00 PM | Eventbrite