antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 6:51 am on October 21, 2018

Try again. Fail again. Fail better: the cybernetics in design and the design in cybernetics Ranulph Glanville

Try again. Fail again. Fail better: the cybernetics in design and the
design in cybernetics

Ranulph Glanville
The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, London, UK, and
CybernEthics Research, Southsea, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the two subjects, cybernetics and design, in order to establish and demonstrate a relationship between them. It is held that the two subjects can be considered complementary arms of each other.

Design/methodology/approach – The two subjects are each characterised so that the author’s interpretation is explicit and those who know one subject but not the other are briefed. Cybernetics is examined in terms of both classical (first-order) cybernetics, and the more consistent second-order cybernetics, which is the cybernetics used in this argument The paper develops by a comparative analysis of the two subjects, and exploring analogies between the two at several levels.

Findings – A design approach is characterised and validated, and contrasted with a scientific approach. The analogies that are proposed are shown to hold. Cybernetics is presented as theory for design, design as cybernetics in practice. Consequent findings, for instance that both cybernetics and
design imply the same ethical qualities, are presented.

Research limitations/implications – The research implications of the paper are that, where research involves design, the criteria against which it can be judged are far more Popperian than might be imagined. Such research will satisfy the condition of adequacy, rather than correctness. A secondary
outcome concerning research is that, whereas science is concerned with what is (characterised through the development of knowledge of (what is)), design (and by implication other subjects primarily concerned with action) is concerned with knowledge for acting.

Practical implications – The theoretical validity of second-order cybernetics is used to justify and give proper place to design as an activity. Thus, the approach designers use is validated as complementary to, and placed on an equal par with, other approaches. This brings design, as an approach, into the realm of the acceptable. The criteria for the assessment of design work are shown to be different from those appropriate in other, more traditionally acceptable approaches.

Continued in source (pdf): http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/systems_papers/C%20and%20D%20paper%200670360902.pdf

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 6:43 am on October 21, 2018

A (Cybernetic) Musing: Wicked Problems

Cybernetics and Human Knowing. Vol. 19, nos. 1-2, pp. 163-173
A (Cybernetic) Musing: Wicked Problems

Ranulph Glanville

Intentions

In this column, I explore what are known as Wicked Problems. I have recently come to understand that Wicked Problems can be placed in a central position that brings together a number of different ideas which are significant in second order cybernetics.
I will start by describing the context in which the Wicked Problem concept was developed. Then I move to explore connections between Wicked Problems and other cybernetic ideas, specifically undecidable questions, trivial and non-trivial machines, and the Black Box. I conclude by discussing the somewhat surprising benefits that we can gain from the concept, and position this with other second-order cybernetic concepts.

Source (pdf): https://www.uboeschenstein.ch/texte/Glanville-C&HK2012.pdf

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 6:42 am on October 21, 2018

A Systems Literacy Manifesto – Hugh Dubberly

A Systems Literacy Manifesto

Hugh Dubberly

Oct 17, 2015
Post Comment
Download PDF

In 1968, West Churchman wrote, “…there is a good deal of turmoil about the manner in which our society is run. …the citizen has begun to suspect that the people who make major decisions that affect our lives don’t know what they are doing.”[1] Churchman was writing at a time of growing concern about war, civil rights, and the environment. Almost fifty years later, these concerns remain, and we have more reason than ever “to suspect that the people who make major decisions that affect our lives don’t know what they are doing.” Examples abound.

In the 2012 United States presidential election, out of eight Republican party contenders, only Jon Huntsman unequivocally acknowledged evolution and global warming.[2] While a couple of the candidates may actually be anti-science, what is more troubling is that almost all the candidates felt obliged to distance themselves from science, because a significant portion of the U.S. electorate does not accept science. This fact suggests a tremendous failing of education, at least in the U.S.

But even many highly educated leaders do not understand simple systems principles. Alan Greenspan, vaunted Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board of Governors, has a PhD in economics; yet he does not believe markets need to be regulated in order to ensure their stability. After the financial disaster of 2008, Greenspan testified to Congress, “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”[3] Despite familiarity with the long history of bubbles, collapses, and self-dealing in markets, Greenspan expected people whose bonuses are tied to quarterly profits would act in the long-term interest of their neighbors. Like many Libertarians, Greenspan relies on the dogma of Ayn Rand, rather than asking if systems models (models of stability, disturbance, and regulation), like those described by James Clerk Maxwell in his famous 1868 paper, “On Governors,”[4] might be needed in economic and political systems.

Misunderstanding of regulation moved from the fringe right to national policy, when Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States, convincing voters that “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.”[5] Reagan forgot that (under the U.S. system) “we, the people,” are the government. Reagan forgot the purpose of the U.S. government: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” that is, to create stability.[6] And Reagan forgot that any state—any system—without government is by definition unstable, inherently chaotic, and quite literally out-of-control. We need to remember that “government” simply means “steering” and that its root, the Greek work kybernetes, is also the root of cybernetics, the study of feedback systems and regulation.

Churchman points out that decision makers “don’t know what they are doing,” because they lack “adequate basis to judge effects.” It is not stupidity. It is a sort of illiteracy. It is a symptom that something is missing in public discourse and in our schools.

We need systems literacy—in decision makers and in the general public.

Continues in source: A Systems Literacy Manifesto

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 6:40 am on October 21, 2018

How cybernetics connects computing, counterculture, and design – Dubberly and Pangaro

How cybernetics connects computing, counterculture, and design

Hugh Dubberly and Paul Pangaro

Oct 23, 2015
6 Comments
Download PDF

Written by Hugh Dubberly and Paul Pangaro. Originally published by the Walker Art Center in the catalog for the exhibit Hippie Modernism: The Struggle for Utopia.

“Man is always aiming to achieve some goal and he is always looking for new goals.”
— Gordon Pask[1]

Beginning in the decade before World War II and accelerating through the war and after, scientists designed increasingly sophisticated mechanical and electrical systems that acted as if they had a purpose. This work intersected other work on cognition in animals as well as early work on computing. What emerged was a new way of looking at systems—not just mechanical and electrical systems, but also biological and social systems: a unifying theory of systems and their relation to their environment. This turn toward “whole systems” and “systems thinking” became known as cybernetics. Cybernetics frames the world in terms of systems and their goals.

This approach led to unexpected outcomes.

Continues in source: How cybernetics connects computing, counterculture, and design

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 6:30 am on October 21, 2018

What is an intelligent machine? W. Ross Ashby

full pdf:

Click to access 50580275.pdf

What is an intelligent machine?

Full Text:

Pdf

Get this Article

Author:

W. Ross Ashby

University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

Published in:

· Proceeding

IRE-AIEE-ACM ’61 (Western) Papers presented at the May 9-11, 1961, western joint IRE-AIEE-ACM computer conference

Pages 275-280

Los Angeles, California — May 09 – 11, 1961
ACM New York, NY, USA ©1961
table of contents doi>10.1145/1460690.1460721

	1961 Article
Bibliometrics
· Citation Count: 0 · Downloads (cumulative): 194 · Downloads (12 Months): 47 · Downloads (6 Weeks): 4

Tools and Resources

Buy this Article
Recommend the ACM DL
to your organization
TOC Service:
- Email
- RSS
Save to Binder
Export Formats:
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- ACM Ref

https://s7.addthis.com/static/sh.e4e8af4de595fdb10ec1459d.html#rand=0.7447526931878223&iit=1540121284169&tmr=load%3D1540121283865%26core%3D1540121283970%26main%3D1540121284146%26ifr%3D1540121284195&cb=0&cdn=0&md=0&kw=&ab=-&dh=dl.acm.org&dr=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F&du=https%3A%2F%2Fdl.acm.org%2Fcitation.cfm%3Fid%3D1460721&href=https%3A%2F%2Fdl.acm.org%2Fcitation.cfm&dt=What%20is%20an%20intelligent%20machine%3F&dbg=0&cap=tc%3D0%26ab%3D0&inst=1&jsl=8196&prod=undefined&lng=en&ogt=&pc=men&pub=acm&ssl=1&sid=5bcc62c33d4d3b85&srf=0.01&ver=300&xck=0&xtr=0&og=&csi=undefined&rev=v8.3.31-wp&ct=1&xld=1&xd=1

Contact Us | Switch to single page view (no tabs)

Abstract

Authors

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Publication

Reviews

Comments

Table of Contents

From the “intelligent” processes we must first split off those that are peculiar to the living brain, but only because they are not commonly met with elsewhere. These processes are of interest but are neither intelligent nor stupid, neither good nor bad.

The “intelligent” processes <u>par excellence</u> are the goal-seeking–those that show high power of appropriate selection. Man and computer show their powers alike, by appropriate selection. But both are bounded by the fact that appropriate selection (to a degree better than chance) can be achieved only as a consequence of information received and processed.

Machines can be made as intelligent as we please, but both they and Man are bounded by the fact that their intelligence cannot exceed their powers of receiving and processing information.

Source: What is an intelligent machine?

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 6:28 am on October 21, 2018

Patterns – the Newsletter of the American Society for Cybernetics – Fall 2007 (pdf) Includes ‘Battle of the Bulge – the obesity epidemic as a pathogenic system’ by Kathleen S Long

Click to access PATTERNS%202007%20Fall.pdf

Patterns – the Newsletter of the American Society for Cybernetics – Fall 2007 (pdf)

Includes:

Battle of the Bulge – the obesity epidemic as a pathogenic system by Kathleen S Long

Towards a Future We Desire?

The Cybernetics of Sanity

Paskian Art Research

Margaret Mead

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 6:22 am on October 21, 2018

The Intelligent Organization, PART I Stafford BEER // posted by Javier Livas – YouTube

Javier Livas Cantu

Published on 16 Jan 2011

This is the conference by Stafford Beer at Monterrey Tec where he explains the difference between the Reductionist Paradigm and the Cybernetic Paradigm. The presents the VSM and the importance of Asbhy’s Law of Requisite variety. 4 extra minutes have been added to end PART I

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 6:17 am on October 21, 2018

Norbert Weiner – The Human Use of Human Beings (full text pdf)

Click to access Wiener_Norbert_The_Human_Use_of_Human_Beings.pdf

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 6:07 am on October 21, 2018
Tags: 383 ( 3 )

Letting nature take its course: Wolves in Yellowstone National Park

[Probably not the final word on this, but this is a synthesis of 40 years of research on large mammals in Yellowstone National Park – and the impact of the reintroduction of the wolves. Can’t find original paper free online]

Press release with quotes etc: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181016150722.htm

Letting nature take its course: Wolves in Yellowstone National Park

Date:: October 16, 2018
Source:: University of Alberta
Summary:: Since the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, the park’s ecosystem has become a deeply complex and heterogeneous system, aided by a strategy of minimal human intervention. The new study is a synthesis of 40 years of research on large mammals in Yellowstone National Park.
Share:

FULL STORY

Since the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, the park’s ecosystem has become a deeply complex and heterogeneous system, aided by a strategy of minimal human intervention. The new study is a synthesis of 40 years of research on large mammals in Yellowstone National Park, conducted by University of Alberta ecologist Mark Boyce.

“Yellowstone has benefited from the reintroduction of wolves in ways that we did not anticipate, especially the complexity of biological interactions in the park,” explained Boyce, professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and Alberta Conservation Association Chair in Fisheries and Wildlife. “How the vegetation in one valley responded to wolf recovery can be very different than in the next valley.”

Some of these complex interactions include the increasing influence of bears on the survival of elk calves, the relationships between wolves and hunters, as well as the recovery of willow, cottonwood, and aspen trees in different areas of the park. In addition, bison have replaced elk as the dominant herbivore on Yellowstone’s Northern Range, and bison numbers continue to increase.

“We would have never seen these responses if the park hadn’t followed an ecological-process management paradigm — allowing natural ecological processes to take place with minimal human intervention,” said Boyce.

However, Boyce explained, using the Yellowstone model in human-dominated systems would have a very different effect, and the top-down influence of wolves and other large carnivores cannot be expected to rescue ecosystems outside national parks or other protected areas.

“Human-dominated systems are very different and wolf recovery will not produce the same results because agriculture, livestock and hunting overwhelm the effects caused by large carnivores. We already have viable populations of wolves, bears, and cougars across much of Alberta but their influence varies depending on the extent of human alterations to the system.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Alberta. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

Mark S Boyce. Wolves for Yellowstone: dynamics in time and space. Journal of Mammalogy, 2018; 99 (5): 1021 DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyy115

And article ref page: https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article-abstract/99/5/1021/5107035?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Abstract

The reintroduction of gray wolves (Canis lupus) to Yellowstone National Park is the most celebrated ecological experiment in history. As predicted by population models, the rapid recovery of a wolf population caused both temporal and spatial variability in wolf–ungulate interactions that likewise generated temporal and spatial variation in the expression of trophic cascades. This has amplified spatial variation in vegetation in Yellowstone, particularly with willow (Salix spp.) and cottonwood (Populus spp.) in riparian areas, with associated changes in food webs. Increasing influences of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), cougars (Puma concolor), and bison (Bison bison) are making what initially was predominantly an elk–wolf interaction into an increasingly complex system. Outside Yellowstone, however, humans have a dominant influence in western North America that overwhelms trophic cascades resulting in what appear to be bottom-up influences on community structure and function. Complex and unexpected ecosystem responses to wolf recovery in Yellowstone reinforce the value of national parks and other protected areas as ecological baseline reserves.

bison, Canis lupus, Cervus elaphus, ecological modeling, elk, hunting, predator–prey dynamics, trophic cascades, wolf, Yellowstone National Park

Issue Section:

Merriam Award Paper

#383

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 6:02 am on October 21, 2018

The Disruptive Innovation Festival 2018 | Transition Consciousness

[I’ve never completely grokked the DIF from the Circular Economy Foundation but it is very interesting!]

THE DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION FESTIVAL 2018

October 15, 2018 · by Simon · in Events. ·

Maria and I introduce our book Customer Experiences with Soul: A New Era in Design by explaing how for us, the most disruptive word we can use in innovation is soul. For this reason we were really delighted to receive an invitation to speak about our work at this year’s Disruptive Innovation Festival,the world’s largest online festival of ideas.

The online event is curated by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a non-profit organisation whose mission is to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. It will be streamed live from the 6th to the 23rd of November, with a hugely interesting schedule of films, podcasts and live sessions.

The DIF enables participators from a global network to share, discover and learn from some of the world’s brightest start-ups, innovators and entrepreneurs.

The foundational philosophy of the event is that we should start to shift the focus from treating the symptoms to tackling the root causes by going back to the beginning and designing differently.

The three principles for a circular economy are:

Design out waste & pollution;
Keep materials and products in highest value use;
Regenerate natural systems.⠀

The three focal themes of this year’s festival are cities in transition, materials and design, and people and the economy. The festival will also be looking at the future of food, reimagining learning, reinventing business and thinking in systems. So some of the questions the festival will be seeking to answer include the following:

How might we design an economy that still functions for business, lifts people up to a standard of social living and has environmental benefits?⠀
As the economy continues to evolve, how can we ensure that people get access to the goods and services, materials and components they need to help them live and prosper?
What type of economy do we want to live in?⠀
With the 21st century economy already shifting away from a ‘bottom line’ approach to measuring success, and with computational power, digitisation and the mobile internet opening up endless new opportunities, how are businesses evolving to keep up with and take advantage of this shift?⠀
With their high concentration of resources, capital, data, and talent over a small geographic territory, could cities be uniquely positioned to drive positive change and a new transition?
What will it take to make tomorrow’s cities everything that we promise they’ll be today?⠀
How can we design more personalised methods of teaching and learning that tap into what it means to be human, rather than based on a production factory line?⠀
What are the implications of systems thinking in this new way for business, design and the wider economy?
How can we create systems of food production which avoid soil quality degradation, fossil fuel dependence and high losses?

For those people who may not be so familiar with the concept of the circular economy, there will also be a series of introductory talks designed to cover the most fundamental aspects of this approach to economics and design.

As part of both the People and the Economy and Reinventing Businessthemes, Maria and I will be discussing Customer Experiences with Soul on November 16th. We will look at what happens when you combine the best global design practices with Brazilian heart, Western philosophical insight and timeless Eastern spiritual wisdom.

We will be introducing our holistic framework for designers, corporate entrepreneurs, creative leaders and those starting a new business or initiative to explore the principles underlying the dynamics of soulful customer experiences. This was created in order to provide the guidance needed for developing, structuring and implementing customer experiences with soul, helping people to build and grow authentic businesses and organisations which honour what it is to be human in our world.

The festival was created to spark conversations with a global audience by inviting people to share disruptive ideas and stories relating to design, innovation, people and planet.

If you would like to join in, you can sign up for a MyDIF Account which allows you to comment and interact with other viewers during live sessions and on catch up afterwards. Additionally you can use the hashtag #thinkdif on social media to put your questions to the speakers and get involved in the debate.

And if you would like to watch our talk, you can find out more here: thinkdif.co/sessions/customer-experiences-with-soul-a-new-era-in-design

Source: The Disruptive Innovation Festival 2018 | Transition Consciousness

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 5:58 am on October 21, 2018

The Viable System Model & Related Pathologies by Jean-Daniel Cusin on Prezi

a nice overview

https://prezi.com/embed/0qhdygrsptym/?internal=1&wmode=opaque&bgcolor=ffffff&lock_to_path=0&autoplay=0&autohide_ctrls=0&features=&disabled_features=&token=None&landing_data=bHVZZmNaNDBIWnNjdEVENDRhZDFNZGNIUE43MHdLNWpsdFJLb2ZHanI5eXZSVEZnbWRySE9QMFNvU25TUjFuSDlnPT0&landing_sign=GnIG8Im2d48KVZYhEoFl0hRlqiP13YglAcfS7f-Lazs

Jean-Daniel Cusin on 28 March 2015

Transcript of The Viable System Model & Related Pathologies

The Viable System Model – Typical Pathologies
System ONE
Viable: Meaning, capable of independent existence.

What are the systemic invariances that explain viability?

The VSM distinguishes ﬁve sub-systems, each of which has a systemic role in interaction with the others to sustain the viability of the whole.

The purpose of these five sub-systems is to maintain the system in a state of homeostatic equilibrium, that is, under control, to ensure the system’s survival, both in the short and long term, by processes of learning, adaptation and evolution.

continues and with full prezi in source: The Viable System Model & Related Pathologies by Jean-Daniel Cusin on Prezi

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 5:53 am on October 21, 2018
Tags: complexity ( 8 ), cybernetics ( 35 ), public, systemsthinking ( 17 )

Complexity in health policy. Brief notes – Greg Fell

A great overview and introduction to #complexity (and therefore #systemsthinking… and #cybernetics) in #public health

part one linked below – https://gregfellpublichealth.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/complexity-in-public-health-part-1/

part two – https://gregfellpublichealth.wordpress.com/2018/08/26/complexity-in-public-health-part-2-actions-to-take-responses-to-complex-problem/
Complexity in health policy, part 2. Actions to take & responses to complex problems

part three – https://gregfellpublichealth.wordpress.com/2018/10/18/interventions-to-influence-system-change/
Interventions to influence SYSTEM change. Complexity part 3

Sheffield DPH

Complexity in public health

I went to an excellent meeting in the Spring at the Health Foundation led by Prof Rutter on complexity. It’s the new “thing” don’t you know. It made my brain hurt. A lot.

Much to reflect on. This blog covers the points I took from the meeting, and subsequent reflections

Part 1 – what’s the issue. some background, some definitions and the problem that is the starting premise

1. What do we mean by complexity

A complex system cannot be explained merely by breaking it down into its component parts because those parts are interdependent: elements interact with each other, share information and combine to produce systemic behaviour.

They exhibit ‘non-linear’ dynamics produced by feedback loops in which some forms of energy or action are dampened (negative feedback) while others are amplified (positive feedback).

It is impossible to precisely predict what changes might happen as a…

View original post 1,098 more words

#complexity, #cybernetics, #public, #systemsthinking

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 5:34 am on October 21, 2018

The supply and demand of social systems: towards a systems theory of the firm | Kybernetes

via Ivo Velitchkov on twitter (@kvistgaard) – no freely available version that I can find, yet.

The supply and demand of social systems: towards a systems theory of the firm

Author(s):: Vladislav Valentinov , (Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies,Halle, Germany)

Spencer Thompson , (Center of Development Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK)

…Show less authors
Abstract:: Purpose

The economic theory of the firm apparently concurs with Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems with regard to the primary function of the firm to be complexity reduction, i.e. the alleviation of the cognitive burden on agents whose cognitive capacities are limited. At the same time, however, the theory of the firm ignores the attendant issues of societal sustainability emphasised by Luhmann. The paper aims to fill this gap.

Design/methodology/approach

Taking a theoretical approach, the paper builds on the conceptual construct of “the complexity-sustainability trade-off”, which combines two contrasting aspects of the relationship between a system and its environment, namely, the precariousness highlighted by Luhmann and the embeddedness highlighted by open systems theory. These themes are respectively reflected in the principles of complexity reduction and environmental dependence which constitute the trade-off.

Findings

Drawing inspiration from the classic Marshallian presentation of supply and demand in modern economics, the paper argues that the principles of complexity reduction and critical dependence translate into the demand for and supply of social systems. In the proposed systems-theoretic interpretation of the theory of the firm, demand and supply refer to the imperatives of achieving coordination and securing cooperation within the firm, respectively. Thus, in the theory of the firm, the complexity-sustainability trade-off manifests itself as a trade-off between coordination and cooperation.

Originality/value

The implicit focus of the theory of the firm on complexity reduction disregards the nature, importance and fragility of cooperation in real-world firms. In so doing, it impedes the authors’ understanding of unconventional types of business organisation, such as cooperatives. These defects can be corrected by reorienting the theory of the firm according to the proposed systems-theoretic approach, which holds that firms should not be governed or studied in isolation from their environment, as they too often are – and, accordingly, that apparently anomalous forms of organisation should be taken seriously, as they too often are not.
Keywords:: Demand, Firm, System, Supply, Niklas Luhmann, Alfred Marshall
Type:: Conceptual Paper
Publisher:: Emerald Publishing Limited
Acknowledgments:: The authors are grateful to anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Citation:: Vladislav Valentinov, Spencer Thompson, (2018) “The supply and demand of social systems: towards a systems theory of the firm”, Kybernetes, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2018-0178

Downloads:The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 40 times since 2018

Source: The supply and demand of social systems: towards a systems theory of the firm | Kybernetes | Ahead of Print

antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor 11:44 am on October 18, 2018

An introduction to systems thinking

CSL4D

At the First Global Conference on Research and Implementation, held in Canberra, Australia, in September 2013, Gerald Midgley gave an introductory talk on systems thinking. Midgley is a British organizational theorist, professor of systems thinking, director of the Centre for Systems Studies at the University of Hull, and past president (2013-14) of the International Society for the Systems Sciences. Other presidents of the ISSS that I have already written about, sometimes fleetingly, include Ashby (1962-64), Stafford Beer (1971), Mead (1972), Checkland (1986), Ackoff (1987), Churchman (1989), Mitroff (1992, pointed out to me by David Ing, himself president in 2011-12), Linstone (1993), Nelson (2000), and Jackson (2001). So now it’s the turn of Midgley, whom I know indirectly through my work with Bob William as a co-author of Wicked Solutions. Midgley’s talk is superbly concise (just 23 minutes if we leave out the introduction and the questions), so I decided…

View original post 1,422 more words