FAQ - Frequent Points of Skepticism
The concepts at Thwink.org are so unconventional that people
are justifiably skeptical. Skepticism can be healthy. But sometimes
it is a form of risk avoidance, because a person just doesn't
want to try something new.
Skepticism can also be caused by the change resistance that
frequently appears when an old paradigm is being replaced by
a new one. But generally as soon as you understand the new
paradigm, and the many things it is made up of, the initial
skepticism is replaced by an earnest eagerness to adopt the
components of the new paradigm. This is because the old paradigm
had fallen into crisis and had become unable to provide what
was needed.
Below are some actual points of skepticism that have been
raised. They are presented in the format of a short paraphrase
of the point, the quoted actual point of skepticism, and then
a response.
1. System dynamics is a good tool in theory,
but in practice it falls short, because it comes up against
what people want to do anyway.
2. The theoretical solutions that analysis
leads to won't work, because they are only true in theory.
3. The sustainability problem can't be solved,
because people are rejecting the proof that it must be solved.
1. System dynamics is a good tool in theory,
but in practice it falls short, because it comes up against
what people want to do anyway.
Original point - "Although [system dynamics
is a good tool to get to the core of the underlying causes]
may be true in theory, in practice we face a complex system.
Reality proves that, for example, politicians find themselves
in a delicate situation that does not give them a chance to
embrace the full complexity of the system. Not only is the
system itself flawed, election cycles that do not naturally
match cycles appropriate to fix systems problems; laymen/administrators
are the ones taking decisions based on a lack of information;
etc.), what drives people's motivation is usually not based
on the common good but on their personal goals whatever they
may look like."
Response - I agree with you 100%. But
what I'm saying is system dynamics is a tool that can lead
to novel, untried insights, that can in turn lead to novel,
untried solutions. An outstanding example was Jay Forrester's
Urban Dynamics model. Yes the system is terribly flawed. But
Forrester proved it it possible to find ways to fix those flaws. And
he did it. I think it is possible to do it again on the sustainability
problem.
There is a good overview of how Forrester did this in chapter
one of Part One of
the manuscript to Analytical Activism. This is based
on a long quote about a talk Forrester made on how he used
system dynamics to discover some novel, untried solutions to
the urban decay problem.
Regarding: "what drives people's motivation is usually not
based on the common good but on their personal goals whatever
they may look like."
I agree. The paper on The
Dueling Loops of the Political Powerplace models this
part of the problem. The model explains why certain
agent motivations are causing the system to behave the way
it does. That is powerful information to have. The
paper then goes on to use this knowledge to find the high
leverage points that can lead to problem solution.
2. The theoretical solutions
that analysis leads to won't work, because they are only true
in theory.
Original Point - "To be honest, it is
great to know about system dynamics and the conclusions that
can be drawn. However, in one's day-to-day job it is
hard to apply the abstractions made in systems models because
one is acting in a system that has many restrictions not always
permitting 'the right' decision (based on systems modeling)
to be taken. Sad but true, system dynamics proves that human
systems are doomed to fail under the premises that currently
exist in world politics and economic systems."
Response - I agree completely. But
those premises can be changed. The Dueling
Loops paper does not just analyze the problem system. It
also develops tangible, practical solution elements that can
be used to "push" on the high
leverage points that the simulation model revealed. Whether
these solution elements will work or not can be tested and
improved by experimentation.
This can be done simply, cheaply, and quickly with experiments
using small groups of people to see if the core assumptions
are true. Next it should not be at all hard to find some
small towns and cities that would like to try some of the solution
elements, so those entities can better perform their mission. I
know there are many progressive small towns and cities in the
US that would do that. There must be some in Europe too. Then,
if it works on the small towns and cities, you use that as
proof it is worth trying on larger entities, etc. As
this experimentation is done, the solution elements are improved
until they are good enough to solve the problem.
Hope I've been able to explain myself clearly.
3. The sustainability
problem can't be solved, because people are rejecting the proof
that it must be solved.
Original Point - "The biggest problem
I see in the issues I've been involved in recently (especially
the climate change debate) is that in order to develop rational
policy, you have to get people to agree on some basic set of
facts and scientific principles. Yet there is a large segment
of the political body in this country, as well as globally,
that is increasingly rejecting the scientific method, and
uses the normal uncertainty in any scientific analysis to argue
either for inaction at best or contrary policies at worse. I
don't see how an analytical approach can work in the absence
of that agreement. I will be interested to see how [Thwink.org]
proposes to address that."
Response - This is all part of the problem
to be solved. When people reject the scientific method, or
say there is too much uncertainty, etc, what is really happening
is they are resorting to a rationalization to support why they
are against solving the problem. A good analysis would lead
to the real reasons that various agent types are against solving
the problem, and would find the low, medium, and high leverage
points associated with changing that resistance.
For example, corporate proxies in the form of lobbyists, politicians,
and authors have hundreds of standard objections to solving
various environmental problems. The objections are all fallacious.
But taken together, they have been tremendously effective in
swaying top decision makers.
Trying to overcome each of these fallacious objections directly
is a losing battle. The analysis of The Dueling Loops of
the Political Powerplace is an example of how it is possible
to go deep and find a hitherto undiscovered solution that allows
overcoming those objections indirectly. The analysis shows
that what is really happening here is The Race to the Bottom
among Politicians loop is currently dominant. This is
a social structure that is normally invisible. But analysis
can make it very visible. It can also reveal how to change
the structure so that the system behaves sustainably. This
subject is covered in depth in the various material at Thwink.org.
A good place to start is the Dueling
Loops paper.
