Fascinating work. As one in the operations industry, I'm always trying to get people to see the value of documenting standards, continuous improvement through structure rather than experimental reckless abandon.
I don't know where that puts me on your compass, but I'm going to use this article as a reference for several conversations.
Tim Urban proposed a different second axis - low rung to high rung.
Low rung circles around conspiracy theory, grunting, fire. It's the more primitive minds that latch on to these politics. Ready to wield the wooden club on non-believers they're motivated by being part of their tribe of superfans. High-rung thinking is the true liberal voice, not the slanderous "liberal" but those who are eager to enter into debate about their ideas and to be wrong. It's cerebreal not primal. It's thinkers in a room solving problems together like "how can we make a budget that works?"
We've not only moved further out on the spectrum of Left-Right, but down some rungs as well. Most of this directionality being driven (in the US anyway) by pandering to primitive parts via simple language and populist rhetoric—playing on fears mostly. For example, radio personalities have been hammering the nail for decades. Phrases like "[they're] going to take away everything you've worked so hard to gain." "They're" of course being the other political party. But in reality, we've got more dimensions than populist rhetoric in the media will admit. There are at least the two you've mentioned and the two Tim Urban observed.
This means we can add a third dimension to the map Mr. Mapmaker! A spectrum of low rung to high rung politics within those camps. On the Right, individual freedoms (high) to Authoritarianism (low) for example.
Of course most of the political rivalry lives in the armchair fans. Most of these can no more influence the policymakers than sports fans can influence a game by yelling "PASS IT!!!" to the colorful lights they're looking at on the screen. Only at scale can observers truly influence the game.
Thanks. It's an interesting suggestion. But I disagree. The quality of our observations and discussions about sociotechnical problems is something different. It would be like adding the quality of our eyesight to the six colors of the rainbow.
Ah, too right. I hadn't seen the second part of the post until now. After reading that part, low-to-high rung would more or less describe dynamics and methods - how we arrived at our specific points on the x-y.
If you look what Simon Wardley proposed - all tech moves toward commodity which needs to be handled differently than novelty (Genesis). Commodities need the Controlled practices where Novelty needs Experimental practices. That maps right along your y-axis! He also pointed out that one system can have components at various points on the evolutionary spectrum...ah! We can need control and experimentation at the same time in different areas of our system!
There are feedback loops in any system, those to reward helpful behavior and discourage unhelpful behavior. I observe that unstable systems result from having wildly different time lags between those two types of feedback.
Fascinating work. As one in the operations industry, I'm always trying to get people to see the value of documenting standards, continuous improvement through structure rather than experimental reckless abandon.
I don't know where that puts me on your compass, but I'm going to use this article as a reference for several conversations.
Tim Urban proposed a different second axis - low rung to high rung.
Low rung circles around conspiracy theory, grunting, fire. It's the more primitive minds that latch on to these politics. Ready to wield the wooden club on non-believers they're motivated by being part of their tribe of superfans. High-rung thinking is the true liberal voice, not the slanderous "liberal" but those who are eager to enter into debate about their ideas and to be wrong. It's cerebreal not primal. It's thinkers in a room solving problems together like "how can we make a budget that works?"
We've not only moved further out on the spectrum of Left-Right, but down some rungs as well. Most of this directionality being driven (in the US anyway) by pandering to primitive parts via simple language and populist rhetoric—playing on fears mostly. For example, radio personalities have been hammering the nail for decades. Phrases like "[they're] going to take away everything you've worked so hard to gain." "They're" of course being the other political party. But in reality, we've got more dimensions than populist rhetoric in the media will admit. There are at least the two you've mentioned and the two Tim Urban observed.
This means we can add a third dimension to the map Mr. Mapmaker! A spectrum of low rung to high rung politics within those camps. On the Right, individual freedoms (high) to Authoritarianism (low) for example.
Of course most of the political rivalry lives in the armchair fans. Most of these can no more influence the policymakers than sports fans can influence a game by yelling "PASS IT!!!" to the colorful lights they're looking at on the screen. Only at scale can observers truly influence the game.
Thanks. It's an interesting suggestion. But I disagree. The quality of our observations and discussions about sociotechnical problems is something different. It would be like adding the quality of our eyesight to the six colors of the rainbow.
Ah, too right. I hadn't seen the second part of the post until now. After reading that part, low-to-high rung would more or less describe dynamics and methods - how we arrived at our specific points on the x-y.
If you look what Simon Wardley proposed - all tech moves toward commodity which needs to be handled differently than novelty (Genesis). Commodities need the Controlled practices where Novelty needs Experimental practices. That maps right along your y-axis! He also pointed out that one system can have components at various points on the evolutionary spectrum...ah! We can need control and experimentation at the same time in different areas of our system!
There are feedback loops in any system, those to reward helpful behavior and discourage unhelpful behavior. I observe that unstable systems result from having wildly different time lags between those two types of feedback.
I find rapid, initially-low-amplitude feedback in both circuits most helpful in human systems.