A MAP OF THE SYSTEMS THINKING FOREST: 48 Systems Thinking Genres + 256 System Effects as the Trees of that Forest

Richard Tabor GreeneDesign Master, De Tao Masters Academy, Beijing-Shanghai, China

Professor of Design Creativity & Innovation, Grad School of System Design & Management, Keio University, Yokohama, Japan

Founder, Creativity & Novelty Sciences SOLUTIONS STUDIO, SIVA in Shanghai, Chinarichardtgreene@alum.mit.edu

ABSTRACTMain Point This paper examines the hypothesis that one's ability to spot and handle various types of non-linear system effects within minds and among minds (society) constitutes a very general capability factor in analogy to G-factor in intelligence research, to which one adds domain specific less comprehensive capabilities. Much of what we require as “experience” and “maturity” in choosing leaders appears to encompass precisely the 48 genres and 256 system effects in them mapped herein. Question 1 (from practice) What system effects do top performers, leaders, designers recognize that lesser mortals do not? Question 2 (from theory) What types of system effects in total are there, as they appear in human affairs, and what bodies of knowledge in the world embody them? Question 3 (from interventions) What that is faster than “experience” and “maturity” would train people to spot and handle system effects so all, not just top people, mastered them? Question 4 (from generalizing intervening) What would such general spread of capability in non-linear systems effects handling do to improve wanted outcomes: production, innovation, adaptation, design, sales, revenue? Method Half the 150 expert people interviewed in earlier research to produce the fractal map of 256 system effect here, were re-interviewed about what fields “taught” spotting and handling all or subsets of them. Result 48 genres of systems effects, that organize the 256 and somewhat go beyond them.

Keywords:

system effects, non-linear system dynamics, genres of systems thinking, 256 system effects, spotting systems effects, handling systems effects

THE ORIGINAL PROBLEMOne A brief survey of the published curricula and faculty research interests lists on the web for the world's top ten departments of systems engineering showed good coverage of 5 of the 48 genres of systems thinking found in the research this paper presents (Jain and Verma, 2007). Two Several summaries of the INCOSE system engineering standards, as published, taught, and as importantly, in US and EU military acquisition manuals, showed good inclusion of 3 of the 48 genres of systems thinking found here (Kasser, 2006). Three Not only that but the biggest published disasters of systems

engineering, if we are to believe reports by government authorities and courts, come from particular genres omitted that are presented here (Johnson, 2008). Moreover, if systems engineering departments omit 45 or 46 of 48 genres of systems thinking, they are unnecessarily reducing their market, sponsorship, and historic scale of impact. If this paper's models are right, they may help systems engineering expand its precision and scope simultaneously.

THE ORIGINAL INSIGHTPrior research (Greene, 2013) said that just as intelligence had a single underlying capability, called G-factor (wikipedia, 2012), that was domain general to which one added domain-specific skills to get high performance, and intrinsic motives and other factors to get creativity, so too competence and leadership appear to have an equivalent general factor, called here SE-factor (systems effects factor) the ability to spot and handle all the non-linearities of within mind and between mind systems. Some prior research found that 200 managers, when ordered by how many of 256 systems effects, presented below in this paper, they spotted and handled, were by that, largely also ordered by “career success” (measured 5 ways: rank attained, pay rate, number of direct reports, centrality of role for line functions, and repute to be “in line” to top positions). The result diagram from that study is presented below:

Because ordering people by system-effects-handled also ordered them (more than 60% exactly) by career success

126

14 12

8 10 5 4

3 3 2

12

1 0

-6+ -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 O +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6+ Departure from position in order of system effects covered scoresSkewed distribution = more departures that are big of success more than system effects score would indicate/predict NOTE: by thirds of 200 person sample, 15, 21, 38 departures in each third of “success scores” = higher success people more often departed from system effects rank order in their positioning in the success scores ordering.

Frequency Distribution: Number of Success Scores

Above or Below Rank Ordering of System Effects

Covered Scores (for 200 execs of one global firm)

RESULT: a person's rank in ordering of system effects covered score corresponds a majority of times to that person's rank in ordering of success scores = system effects may predict success.

(measured 5 ways), and because the top-most third of the 200 subjects departed the most from this ordering by being higher in success than their rank in handling system effects would indicate, a general SE factor with an additional other factor that kicks in at higher career ranks looks likely as an explanation. Secondary factors for career success might include already reported ones like: 1) psychopathology—genetic predisposition to not care about reactions or harms to others allowing great single-minded focus on goal achievement 2) focus on gaming down careers of one's enemies 3) focus on helping my boss impress his boss, hence, becoming his dependable side-kick, key to his success 4) being picked by the right basketball team (equals vice president's team) as a key player allowing that team to win (equals the vice president of that team defeating other vice presidents in competition to become CEO).

A BEGINNING—17 WIDELY-REPORTED POSSIBLE GENRES OF SYSTEMS THINKINGPrior research (Greene, 2013) reported four genres of systems thinking already well researched, published, practiced in diverse departments and professions.

The Reflective Loop Model [7] A very old model of leadership—single loop learning (did my method work), double loop learning (if this method seems to be not working which other should I quickly now employ), triple loop learning (how do I generate alternative ways beyond all I have known and tried before to handle this present situation)--fits this data well. The Aphorism Model [8] In fact, the aphorisms of any language capture non-linear dynamics within brains (we can do what we want better than we can want what we want), and among brains (a stitch in time saves nine, let sleeping dogs lie). Humanity via aphorisms has talked about non-linear system effects for eons. The Meta- Model [9] Doing, meta-doing (meta-cognition, meta-learning, meta-creating), and meta-meta-doing etc.--as laid out by Kierkegaard a century ago and Jervis more recently also fit this model. The Frame Reflection Model [10] Schon famously suggested frame reflection, spotting what inchoate unconscious automatic theories inside you “framed” what you noticed and what meaning your gave to noticings, the replacing them with competing diverse others—as key to expert top level practice. ALL THE ABOVE MIGHT WELL BE CALLED “META-” OR “REFLECTION” GENRES OF SYSTEMS THINKING.

To the above we might add the following:

The Systems Dynamics School of Modeling Software automated solving systems of second order differential equations and the rest was mess—people threw 20 variables into ill-formed models, tweaked them to mimick “validation” data and found, inevitably, that they predicted only that data (SEM in stats generally had exactly the same fate for exactly the same reason, models made to fit any dataset lost all generality; models with good generality, fit no dataset well). The Military-Government Inspired V Process (INCOSE) A sequence of 1940s, and post-war disasters, without the dire life-and-death urgency of war-time, embarrassed, and produced design of massive projects the way individual components of such projects got designed. The main idea—the V process—was accounting for initial assumptions and decisions months and years later in final states of affairs produced. The problem was technology accelerated so fast during each project that validations inevitably looked dated and dowdy, showed up by recently invented stuff not there 3 or more years early at project start. Total Quality Management More than 2/3s of the tools in that V-process were directly borrowed from Japanese TQM. What got lost was the anti-culture nature of TQM, invented in Japan as an opponent of usual Japanese management by hierarchy, opinion, and experience. So tools were borrowed that countered bad tendencies in

Japan's culture that did not exist in other cultures and projects. Oh well. Web Globalization Dis-aggregation Dis-intermediation What many missed was how TQM became the theory of business essence that guided web application—to horizontal processes, not vertical silos, for managing by fact not rank opinion, with data flows driving horizontal processes not local social clubs of managers. As a new infrastructure, the web, spawned coordination theories about markets replacing hierarchies, and auctions of bids replacing fixed internal transfer prices. ALL THE ABOVE MIGHT WELL BE CALLED “META-” OR “REFLECTION” GENRES OF SYSTEMS THINKING, TOO.

In this brief fragmented history, systems thinking (and derivative works like systems engineering) appear as a kind of consciousness of X, where X is usual kinds of project, design, engineering: learning to learn how to learn LOOPS, gradual increments in inputs to minds changing entire mentalities DE-FRAMINGS, doing the doings we do and thinking the thoughts we think, design the ways we design, creating the ways we create META-NESSES, reflecting on practice, spotting limits, examining how own assumptions/cultures generated limits that can be undone by simple RE-FRAMINGS, non-linear models of usual variables interacting examined for emergent, delayed, other scale effects of present actions SYSTEM DYNAMICS MODELS, extracting tools and methods from individual projects then applying them to manage and direct huge projects of projects SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, taking a body of knowledge—quality, or later anything else—from a profession and making instead entire managements, workforces, and customer-supplier chains responsible for continuous improvements in it TQM, computers applied horizontally to customers driven, capability-invention driven global processes WEBIZATION.

But why stop there, for other meta-ness, reflection, second order types are obvious:

Derivative Hedged Finance The invention of “tools of mass financial destruction” so people who think they are smart can bet for or against any future specifiable circumstance, paying fees to over-grown financiers. In theory this was risk-management (a meta-function) in reality it was a new way to churn transactions by moronic customers to enrich financiers. Risk thusly “managed” became in 2008 risk explosion. Escapes from Economics via Behavior and Evolution The 1800s general equilibrium got replaced by 2000s multiple transient equilibria as investor priority and “efficient markets hypotheses” gave way to non-rational non-utility thought of actual humans and male hormone emotions in markets that males miss by being, well, male. Behavioral (not rational utility) models and evolving/developmental models (not equilibria) appeared. Escapes from Male American Mercenary Models as Europeans noted the hormonal emotions on Wall Street and in top US MBA faculty cultures, and outperformed US medical systems by immense margins with fractions of US invested resources, and achieved longer than US lifespans and health in old age via lifestyles not directed by money and US style media and “success”. competing diverse others—as key to expert top level practice. Evolution from Totalization of Bodies of Knowledge (TQM) to Globalizations of Them Though the quality movement died in the US in the form of Six Sigma, as traditional US organization consultants fought back Japanese guru hordes, quality continued evolving in Asia and Europe by globalizing quality knowledge—from quality of production, to 9 other types of quality (of the earth, of participation, and more). Evolution from System Dynamics to Santa Fe Institute Style Populations of Intelligent Agents Models Models became radically bottom up as agent behavior models drove emergent whole

economy effects and inventions (that no individual had to think up or invent in the models), proving populations of things interacting can invent without any person consciously conceiving or “inventing” in the usual sense.

This adds to the above list of meta-ness types and reflection effects: investing in your goal in invest in hedges of risks of failing and of succeeding INVESTING IN RISK MITIGATION (and thereby merely in enriching Wall Street), evolving real behavior (from experiment) models replace rational 18th century idealization models NON-ECONOMIC ECONOMICS; disengaging and detaching and diversting from American modes, systems, values, means, and aims GLOBALIZATION as DE-AMERICANIZATION; from totalizations of bodies of knowledge, like quality, the web, to globalization of them TEN KINDS OF QUALITY NOT PRODUCTION ONLY; replace models of the dynamics of many variables interacting with models of many agents interacting for bottom up emergence results SANTA FE AGENT POPULATION MODELS.

Finally, if we look at system engineering practice and practitioners, and Amazon becoming Walmart's chief competitor, we find more systems effects types and genres of systems thinking candidates. The Multi-Culture Nature of Work globalization of systems of the web enabled sort bringing more and more differences together into processes of huge reach and scope. Parasitic Competing Cooperators No current way of organizing keeps up with the acceleration in new technologies and aims forcing all to ride on the inventions of others while being ridden on by others. From Single Right-y Models to Repertoires of Plural Diverse Models Mephistopheles, so elegant in US$7000 Italian suits, an 800 math GRE Kennedy School graduate, is what evil looks like in our time, Leontiev, Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare, Hannah Arendt said. Trust that any one model, however right-y, can be safely trusted is eroding and people are turning to repertoires of plural diverse models of things like educatedness, creativity, and effectiveness. Chthonian End-of-World Risk Stops Investment and Returns for Saving Zero interest rates in top industrial nations force the elderly to subsidize bank wealth and government debt relief, aging populations and plummeting birthrates bankrupt health and welfare systems, bank bailouts impoverish national populations losing mid-skill college grad jobs to software technologies and outsourcing, actual global floods and warming exceed all forecast models potentially making food, water, and all forms of insurance wither. The “reliable near future” that investment requires dies up along with investment itself.

This adds to our list of meta-ness and reflection effects: global scale of operation devastates single nation-tradition leaders, systems, traditions NO TOOLS FOR HANDLING CULTURES; niches found on other niche in tech venture ecosystems become the competitive landscape NOT POSITION BUT RIDE; trusting any one model however elite or right seems to lead to disaster (MacNamara to Vietnam defeat, Fama efficient-markets to lost US $13 trillion in 2009), so people are turning to repertoires of plural diverse models balanced to compensate for each other's biases and flaws MODEL REPERTOIRES REPLACE SINGLE RIGHT-Y MODELS; generations of people uneducated but schooled, narrowly brilliant but generally stupid are what our institutions are generating and they are completely failing at handling our biggest challenges COMPLETE ABSENCE OF LEADERSHIP. Who we judge “experienced” and “mature” now is locally competent but globally suicidal for civilization and institutions.

Experienced and mature people, take years to become so, and end up dually educated in systems effects/genres: from above they are informed and directed to notice and handle some types of them, and as middle rank leaders themselves they inform and direct their own subordinates to do the same with other systems genres and effects. The question is—what are all the genres of systems effects such as the above? Above 17 genres are listed—are there more? How do we find and define them?

THE GLOBAL NEED Ultimately Herbert Simon laid it out, decades earlier (Simon, 1969)—that knowledge was growing exponentially so people, professions, disciplines of knowledge, human solutions were ever tinier fractions of the problems we face. Civilizations of the past died exactly this way, some say. We are throwing bits and pieces against immense systems sustained by hidden somewhat evil greeds and needs that cause people to prefer ineffective solutions to effective ones. People are willing to call “a solution” only actions that sustain their deepest and most abiding problems, for one example. Cross-field fields keep emerging to handle this—general systems theory, systems dynamics, sociobiology, human ecology, cognitive neuroscience, and newly emerging others. Most have no practical impact or power. A few, such as the total quality movement from Japan, showed immense power, though not handling the whole job.

THIS RESEARCH'S APPROACH, SOURCES, DATA, ANALYSISEarlier, a huge multi-decade four-level hierarchy of fundamental research (re-doing Plato) led to nomination of 150 who rose to the top of their 63 professions from 41 nations by virtue of spotting and handling system effects better than others (Greene, 2013a). They were interviewed about just what system effects mattered in their rise to the top of their professions. A fractal hierarchical model of 256 system effects in groups of 4, 16, 64, resulted, presented below in this paper. 15 years later, half those original 150 were still findable and contacted for the research reported in this paper and asked: 1) where in the world now are bodies of knowledge, institutions or events that present and handle well many or large subsets of the 256 system effects they earlier identified? 2) what abstract quite general realities generated subsets of the 256 identified system effects types 3) how many and which systems effects did they personally master and require of people promoted to replace them in positions of rank and responsibility? 4) what experiences in work and life tended to foster spotting and handling of key subsets of the 256 systems effect types in the model? 73 people generated 8000+ responses that were categorized by similarity, prior function, source, area of the 256 system effect type model covered, probably abstract generator-cause. 48 overlapping categories appeared, some corresponding exactly to the 17 dimensions presented above, and most not, indeed, quite different than expected. The diagram immediately below of 48 genres and the table below that of 256 systems effects are

the results of this research.

BRIEF PROSE DESCRIPTION OF ALL 48 GENRESEight paradigms, (super-genres) emerged from overlapping the categorizations of similar items from respondents: new sciences, new systems, new fields of knowledge, new media, new sociality theories and practices, new dimensions and constituents of selves, new levels of human organizing, new knowledge dynamics. Remember these emerged from data from 75 respondents, not from theories or literatures.

Six system genres are new sciences emerging that cut across all traditional sciences, another dimension to knowledge it appears, a non-linearity to knowing itself. The new sciences include: excellence sciences—the various ways of rising to the top of nearly all fields (educatedness, effectiveness, creativity, handling complexity, etc.), novelty and creativity sciences—many of the excellence sciences are these ways the new gets into human affairs (invention, discovery, etc.), reality and imagination sciences—we avoid truth in social sciences but admit it in other fields having deniability (comedy, history, literature, fantasy, gaming etc.), error sciences—study of why and how we betray our goals and means (adapting to low standards around us, succeeding at

immediate scales by undermining success chances on other scales, erosion of trying by hassles of bigness, etc.), presence sciences—the ways we stay present to others (before audience arts performing, before boss work performing, before subordinates leadership performing, etc.), and influence sciences—ways we change others (attraction sciences, life contexting preacher effects, interface science, long tail social supports, etc.).

Six systems genres are new types of non-linear interaction to look for and learn to influence. New such system interaction types to spot include: system effects map (given below in this paper, attention effects, bigness effects, self contradiction, and tools for unobvious consequences), complexity theory (social automata, tuning interactions, emergent designs, butterfly effect system avalanches, etc.), quality—a theory from Japan of business essence via totalizing a body of knowledge 22 ways and, more, a set of practices so powerful that they dominate businesses worldwide today and guided web application to business (policy-quality-X deployment, pull systems, horizontal processes thru chains, etc.), evolution—natural selection dynamics operating in nature and elsewhere

(tech-product ecosystems, self-tuning mutation rates, evolution of levels of self organization, etc.), biosense—replacing mechanosense, a new biology-derived commonsense (image of strength changed from steel to bone, growing products, viral distribution systems, etc.), chance-error-risk theory—replacing definite predictive models with stochastic probablistic models (from tipping point to 10,000 bee stings causality, from designs to tuning emergences, from correlations to data patterns, behavioral incentives, etc.).

New unities are power from collecting what was formerly scattered and disorganized: design science--unite artistic, system, policy-law, engineering, social design genres (dimensions of difference, design grammars, transmogrifications, genre fusions etc.), building interfaces—person to person genres of leadership have gradually been shown less powerful than interfaces that tune types of interaction among population members (person to person, group to group, person to media, media to media, event to process, relationship to person to process to event, etc.), fractality —people and system oriented to operate simultaneously across multiple size scales of multiple media types and geographic extents (fractal causal models, between level emergence models, population tuning models, self similar systems, systems of systems, etc.), events—bureaus got replaced by processes, now processes are being punctuated with events (web processes with face-to-face events) and replaced by new kinds of events—mass workshop events (multi-art community cabarets, problem finding events, solution design events, solution implementation events, customer contact events, research events, etc.), city-fications—accelerating globalization, climate, technology change mean stable positions evolve into wildernesses so we all constantly have to turn wildernesses into homes (insight processes, diversify-blend balance, pulsed systems, socialness rhythms, fractal performance spaces, etc.), tech-clusters replicates of Silicon Valley—techno-parks worldwide aspire to replicate Silicon Valley's global inventive dominance (flows and homes, anti-cultures, de-mass-ifications, techno ecosystems, mutation tuning campaigns, etc.).

New media are emerging that are more democratic, turning all into producers, fixing the fat and sitting of mass broadcast media, undoing the violence and dumbing-down of mass market chasing; they include the following: new data types—Bayesian models are replacing correlational data while Big Data from web-enabled smartphone populations are making business functions more evidence-based and less creative (location index data, purchase indexed data, friendship indexed data, search-indexed data, experience report forms, stratified respondings, etc.), new media space types—the liberation of production from cocaine addict elites vie web-enabled smartphones greatly expands who composes and who buys composings fostering intermediate-term inventiveness increases (apps spaces, app search space, e-linked physical spaces, cloud based shared models, etc.), democratized art-design-invention—new technologies democratize who composes-performs-exhibits dis-intermediating agents plus

long tail communities globally assembled around immensely narrow specific interests (home studios, viral spread, trend riders, spoof spaces, etc.), emotive media—mere information gives way to fun, art, comedy, sarcasm, critique, interest-group-assemblies (escapes from maleness, the productivity of femininities, higher education spawning evil, spoofs, extreme interests, etc.) , mind extensions—tools outside our brains that make us smart (personal library, personal file systems, cognitive friend networks, cognitive furniture, cognitive architecture, cognitive apparel, etc.), story recursivities—characters as stories embedded in other stories (monsters out there reveal unrealized powers inside us, going out to go in, loving dreams to learn to love mundane realities, stories inside of stories, stories generated around stories, etc.).

New ways and contents of being social are emerging, things that used to be asocial now are social, the scale and scope of who acts, who does things, is expanding and more flexible, as follows: social neuroscience—we are mapping particular brain modules that generate particular social functions (mirror neurons, monkey-see monkey-do, simulating how we will feel, simulating how others will feel, etc.), social physics—computer simulations of societies and social simulations of non-animate populations converge on common phenomena (social automata, density effects on fitness evolution, object oriented socializing, algorithmic socialities, social knowledge vehicles, knowing social vehicles, etc.), social revolution—liberty, founding freedom, emergence of utter novelty, emergence of public happiness, historic dreams, conserving novelty (social supersaturation, satisfaction baseline leaps, social density effects, border and interface emergence, etc.), mind dilemmas—built in brain module dominance hierarchy and occasional conflicts among modules (fear signal priority, mind as worry generator, self inflating brain biases, happiness baseline return mechanisms, etc.), social influence—humans automatically adapt themselves to environments they are in or perceive themselves to be in (leading by interface set up, social media environments, crowd source products and services, privacy-repute-cleaning systems, etc.), social processes—64 functions shared by social entities in all societies (social process imbalances, whistle point finding, social process rebalancing, social process drill up and down, deployment across processes, etc.).

New selves are apparent as we discover that selves, cultures, and higher performances are all exactly the same thing—shared heavily practiced routines that drop from our conscious awareness. They include: designing selves—groups who practice heavily together develop pride and personalities and full selves demanding apology and forgiveness (the self of particular cultures, the culture than any self is, all selves are particular high performances, all high performances are selves etc.), gender escapes—the femininity of productivity, rolling back eons of excess maleness of systems and thought (replace rank with care delivery, replace win-at-all-costs with win-while-helping-overall-mission, replace looking X with actually being X, talk for relationship replaces talk for status domination, etc.), culture power—8 dimensions have

paralyzed culture tech for decades, now 64 and 192 dimensions allow culture interactions of enough granularity to predict pricing, sales, next versions of devices and systems (cultures of devices, culture of business practices, culture of persons, culture dimensions, operations on cultures, etc.), career design—careers are stories inside us we explain “where” we are to our selves and others in status, need, worth terms (tech riding, profession riding, niche forging, social mutation, natural selection job dynamics, etc.), theory repertoires—the power of seeing what others fail to notice and imagining alternative ways others cannot imagine via having theories others lack (all are theorists, making unconscious theories explicit, planning personal theory repertoires, balanced theory repertoires, theory-models for guiding noticing and action, etc.), happiness dynamics—the brain basis (striving, arrival happiness systems in conflict as striving is one of the arrival happiness types) of happiness has been expressed as modules (pleasure, engagement, recognition, mission, and others).

New levels of mind, person, social relation have gained salience and attention, including the following: personal PR—ways individual persons make themselves felt and present on larger social scales (symbols of destinal contribution to the organization, links to top layers and far-flung regions, creating a following who promotes with you, etc.), team effectiveness –30+ factors that makes teams effective undermined by scale and stakeholder indeterminate priority (replacements for 5 mundane cognitive interfaces—meeting, discussing, brainstorming, processing, reading/writing, compiling processes into event form, evolving team layers from bureau layers, etc.), organizational learning dynamics—technical substrates via new means and social substrates via globalizations are changing with acceleration (erosion of leap innovation by continual substrate updates, practicing whole organization doing X, 64 ways organizations learn, balances among those 64, etc.), leadership function delivery dynamics—an emerging consensus on what the 64 basic leadership functions are enabling investigation of multiple alternative ways to deliver them, just-in-time, when and where and in types and amounts needed (event delivery, rescue squad delivery, fixed inventory “special social class” traditional delivery, simultaneous leadership overshoot and undershoot, etc.), delighting and satisfying customers—Apple invents what customers cannot imagine, others perfectly fit what customers say they want (the delight-satisfy trade-off space, 22 dimensions of satisfaction with X, 9 dimensions of delight with X, transiency of satisfactions and delights, etc.), new forms of intelligence—inability of fixed leadership inventory by special social class regimes to act with intelligence in any circumstances (duos throughout history as inventors and leaders, trios today of 2 women with one man, crowd decidings via crowd editing of proposed alternatives, etc.).

New knowing ways, means, aims, knowledge types are emerging rapidly and information technologies and devices generate new types of data and expand and focus who gets data, who generates data, who uses data, including the

following: compiling knowledge across formats—20+ ways to format the same idea are commonly used so people argue and fight though their ideas are the same because they mistake differences of format for differences of idea (idea format types, compiling ideas across formats, translating ideas across boundaries of professions, compiling ideas into practices, extracting ideas from practices, etc.), structuring knowledge for use—the traditional cognitive habits of global top ten colleges have been producing elites incapable of comprehensive, fast, accurate enough thinking to handle accelerating non-linearities in our systems and situations (structural cognition, expanding cognitive list limits, fractal page form, fractal concept models, stratified respondings, etc.), breeding ideas—transplanting ideas across domains, exapting a practice from its context of origin to entirely others contexts, bricolage use of something for entirely other functions, are some of the glass bead combinatorial game, that generates some new ideas but not all (exaptation, bricolage, transplants across domains, complex idea cross-over operations, idea mutations and whole population competitions, etc.), knowledge evolution dynamics—getting out of wrong folk images of how biologic natural selection operates then applying such more correct models of natural selection dynamics to non biologic domains (ecosystems of technologies, of venture tech businesses, of products generating new product niches, on accelerating substrate evolution, etc.), knowledge flows thru minds and societies—there are outstanding big obvious patterns in how new ideas emerge from old ideas, repeated in domain after domain (victor ideas embedding vanguished as sub-fields, generational resurrections of out-of-favor ideas, idea application interfaces for neighboring ideas and domains, etc.), knowledge application—escaping old manias for single right-y ideas via repertoires of plural diverse models balanced to compensate for each other's weaknesses (power from comprehensive coverage, from drill down multiple levels of detail, from tunable levels of idea granularity, etc.).

THE SYSTEMIC NATURE OF THE 48 GENRES ABOVEThe new sciences above cut across all traditional fields—humanities & arts, social sciences, natural sciences, professions—constituting a new dimension of knowledge. This is non-linearity coming from meta-doing, more reflective doing, of them. The new unities above are intersections, interfaces, meeting grounds, shared intellectual and other spaces, operations on spaces. They change what parts of the world and what people are in contact with each other and how they are in contact. They enable the extra meta-ness introduced by the new sciences just mentioned as well as the meta-ness from more dynamic, reflective, recursive, reflexive ways of systems thinking in the new systems thinking styles. The new systems thinking styles above are non-linear new kinds of sense, commonsense, and thinking. They emerge from the emergence of biologic engineering, tissue engineering, artificial life forms, and from changes in tools for modeling systems that make handling evolving, non-linear dynamics something anyone on a

personal computer can do. Old linear simplifications are no longer needed. The new media above are new ways to represent self and world, and they therefore enable also the extra meta-ness and reflectiveness of life and systems, design and invention emerging in our era. The new ways of being social—sociality types—above come from new unities and new media putting things together than formerly were apart, and from ways to handle, see, represent myriad diverse multi-scale things interacting and in contact. The new selves above, are heavily practiced shared routines one develops, as who one is and how one reacts and acts, upon the evolving substrates of new system thinking types, new unities, new media, new socialities above. The new social levels above are our new tools enabling us to operate simultaneously on multiple size scales, across multiple time-space extents, across multiple media. The new knowing types above are our minds, bending and improving themselves so as to grasp all the above. Underneath all these are new tools making it easier to see, model, handle, and invent non-linear complex systems, enticing us to rapidly invent, design, deploy, and debug such new non-linear system types, which in turn, demand more intensive use of our newly invented tools for seeing, modeling, handling and inventing non-linear systems.

We can take two of the 48 genres in detail to demonstrate the distinct powerful non-linear systems effects each genre represents. Total quality was, among many other things: 1) use of entire workforces as computer 2) deployment of functions from professions, leaders, and elites to entire workforces 3) replacement of determinist tools and procedures with stochastic and statistical ones 4) immense change done in a finite-element calculus way by breaking it into a large number of continuously improved small improvements and increments of performance 5) deliberate counters to the primary features of Japanese traditional management culture, that is, the set up of an anti-culture within Japanese management culture to overcome its flaws 6) totalization of the handling of a body of knowledge—quality of knowledge—in 22 ways, finally outperforming professional un-total-ized treatment of that same body of knowledge 7) guiding application of the web by modeling business as essentially horizontal, stretched between suppliers and customers, and not

vertical, a hierarchy of monkey-like men in continual status games. Quality knowledge totalized in the above ways applied the workforce as a giant population of intelligent agents, a kind of social automaton computer, to doing what formerly was done by elite, complex, expert knowledge monopolized by few professionals. Quality thusly totalized anticipated exactly the democratization of production, invention, and performance the web aimed at and achieved. It was the social pioneer of similar aims. It expanded vastly who the doer was and the time, space, function scale that doer operated on.

Similarly, field, profession, theory, and practice, quite generally have been invaded by evolution dynamics. This entails their invasion afterwards by comedy, literature, and history, the so-called reality sciences, for it is the evolutionary dynamics of any field and profession that give rise to stories, and dramas, comedies and tragedies, and the whole machinery of reactions to other human reactions, underground-man type rebellions against the natural reactions encouraged in one from systems one is embedded in, and the like. Since people and professions tell mostly lies and exaggerations, invading reality sciences throw cold water truth on them and save us from our self exaggerating self absorbed selves. To bring the power and practical impact of this home, take the law profession. It is so nicely male and stable and perfectible, till evolution dynamics enter into it in the form of a justice gap between the speed at which laws are made and the realities of how everyone works and lives changed every 3 years by new technologies. By the time new issues are recognized by the law profession, and committees formed, new technologies already are replacing what those committees consider. Now that justice gap causes clients to invent faster technically smarter non-lawyer lawyer functions and people to fill the justice gap. Law a tragedy, comedy, and history moves from an entertainment to present vital current threat and reality. Law and lawyering become non-linear, evolving, self-negating, self-contradicting desperate re-inventions, to survive not to thrive.

48 passages just like the above can be written from the 48 genres model and from each of the 64 sets of 4 system effects in the 256 system effects model below.

S Y S T E M E F F E C T S , O N E : A t t e n t i o n D i s t r a c t i o n E f f e c t sTime Blind

effectomission

unplanned second order effects people plan and intend wanted outcomes not envisioning responses of myriad involved system elements/forces/persons

ownerless problems problems without obvious owner, beyond simple profession boundaries often too unfocused for any one group to handle

emergents from interactions totally unplanned outcomes often emerge from the myriad parts of systems interacting as a result of 1 or several moves/initiatives

partial solution lowers standards partial successes often change people’s ambitions or criteria of success lower, so accept transient solution that go away

countereffect

side-effects counteract main one many side-effects directly counter the main intended effect, undoing it, or distracting from it via huge costs worse than want

act combines counter intent the actions done to reach a goal though individually toward goal combine to counter the goal

staff combinescounter intent

the people working to reach goal though individually helping reach it combine to prevent it happening

launch manner counters intent the manner a solution is launched with counters overall intent

result self-reinforcing growth self limits an act can have result that cause more such results continually till negative feedback self limit process grows big and reverses

surprise moderate solution bad so miss good larger one

when initial small solution tries fail badly, people give up and miss fact that much larger such tries would work well

side-effects of result worse than benefits of result

the side-effects may be much worse than the benefits of getting the intended main effects

result done is not satisfying/wanted some intended results when actually attained and experienced do not satisfy

timesurprise

similar input very different outputs similar inputs, even extremely similar ones, can produce extremely different output types in any non-linear system

usual input whole system changes an input just like usual ones done many times already can yet produce entirely different never seen before results

fast good results then huge bad ones early or easy initial results can be good lulling people till huge bad ones suddenly emerge from unseen negative feedback force

solution with delayed huge cost good solutions can work well in many respects till people notice huge negative costs that are delayed often considerably

Space Blind

causeallocatio

n

cause at problem locale only is attacked people can completely handle causes acting near where problem appears and thereby miss many other bigger causes acting in far flung other parts of the system

cause of other causes not attacked many causes can be handled well but since what causes them is left untouched problem reappears continually, especially when one cause after another is handled

system caused variation “solved” w/o system changes

when design or configuration of the system causes some problem, solutions that miss it will allow the problem to reappear

big environment caused failure blamed on weak/1 component

environment or whole system design caused failure gets blamed on one component or weak one, letting problem reappear

environment

allocation

other part as envt undoes 1 part fn functions of one system part can be undone or blocked or made harmful by functions of other parts acting as environment of it

lack of leeway in other parts stifles 1 part’s function

each part doing its own function very well can cause overall failure because they do not have leeway helping each other do their individual functions well

environment changes during solving the solving process can take enough time that the environment around it changes so as to undo its effects

solution so particular to 1 environment cannot be used

a solution can be so particular to 1 environment that it cannot be used or its effects are transient as the environment evolves

supportallocatio

n

credit & rewards not to those who solved systems can reward people who did not actually solve so in the future they do not solve things

outside help used till own capability atrophies

outside help can assist you so long and well that your ability to live without it atrophies causing disaster when it is no longer available

great solution for situation too weak to last great solutions can be too weak to last and keep problems at bay

great solution gets enemies cuz of who supports it

great solution can assemble and motivate scattered ones who dislike it or who does it or fame from the doing of it

orderallocatio

n

enough chaos: local act effect goes unnoticedenough chaos can prevail that good effects go unnoticed and unappreciated

enough order: local act cannot affect system tight interconnections in a system can make for such stasis that nothing can change enough to constitute solution of problems

sequence of solving exacerbate user dissatisfactn

the particular sequence of acts in a solution process can create user dissatisfaction that overwhelms their overall result

solution delivery configuration harms how a solution is delivered can undo any of its benefits

Reaction

Blind

others’ response

overfishing people getting less than needed can try harder, getting even less, so trying harder till no common resource is left

rich get richer those with slight initial resource advantages can be so favored with results that their advantages grow hugely

price war several parties can undermine their competitors’ prices, till everyone together goes broke

envy isolate successes can produce such envy caused isolation that benefits are unusable

customerresponse

when get what want, dislike it people can find negatives of losing goal to achieve outweigh attaining concrete goals

when live with result, hate it people can find that experienced result dissatisfies them

solving process raises expectations so hate result

solving process can raise expectations to than any likely result dissatisfies

representative of customer’s spec are wrong how we represent what the customer requires can distort or miss actual customer requirements or miss customer changes

responseto

production

producers become/supplant customers the requirements of producers can supplant needs of customers in projects so customer hate the result

during production parts/requirements change

while producing something enough time elapses that components or overall requirements change

parts hijacked during production parts during a project get noticed by others and taken for other purposes

way something produced kills interest the way something is done can undermine the purpose behind it

responseto

professionals

factors from unincluded profession, kill professions omitted from an effort usually have been omitted because they have vital but unpopular knowledge needed by it

profession not customers make requirements

producers of a project or designers of it may supplant requirements of customer of it with their own requirements

inter-profession disagreement on basics the plural diverse professions required by a project may be unable to agree on even the most basic aspects of it

solution more complex than problem solutions may dwarf in complexity the problems they are to solve

Scale Blind

attitudes fatalist and hermit the world cannot be trusted, withdraw and minimize harm--this attitude makes the world horrid so withdrawal is needed

egalitarian the world is dangerous and untrustable, we have only each other, so stick together above all--this drives merit away

individualist small errors and big errors have mild consequences, the world is trustable so anything goes--this eventually produce disasters

hierarchist parts of the world are very dangerous, parts okay, must know boundaries--this eventually produces dated distinctions

scales components too big the scale of problem/causal elements differs from the scale of solution elements

components too small the scale of problem/causal elements differs from the scale of solution elements

overkill solutions or cut vital stuff as waste the scale of problem/causal elements differs from the scale of solution elements

overly incremental solutions solution too incremental may allow drastic changes of situation during long implementation periods

flexibility solution perfect for present situation only solutions may be so specialized around current situation that slight changes of environment vitiate them

parts config lost in responding so problems reappear

inter-relations needed among solution components may be lost during the chaos of implementation so problems reappear

new parts added rather than reconfigure old ones

situations tend to get solved by adding things rather than replacing present things so complexity builds and dissipates efforts

culture of designers narrower than culture of customers

the culture of designers/solvers may be so much narrower than that of customers of a system that requirements of customers get missed or distorted terribly making outcomes unfit

diversity social ranks block feedback flows social status and merit rankings can be boundaries across which feedbacks do not flow so leaders miss results of their own acts

firms or department functions block feedback flows

functional departments of sets of firms may block the flow of feedback so leaders miss results of their own acts

single solver pushed to heroics because alone

solvers acting alone may be driven to extreme heroic level efforts that, lacking subtlety and patience, ruin solutions

committee forced unneeded diversity committees doing solutions may force forms of diversity on a project that disintegrate it and make it unwieldy

S Y S T E M E F F E C T S , T W O : I n e f f e c t i v e O r g a n i z a t i o n S y s te m H a n d l i n gUndependability

attempthome runs

long cycle times allow time for many errors long cycle times for doing things allow time for many errors to accumulate

giant greenfield initiatives that don’t build on past

totally new goals and means in a project fail to link to already built up and tested capabilities, making achievements unstable

career system rewards distinguishing self from others not building on their work

career systems can end up rewarding flashy launches of new initiatives not patient solid doing of hard long things, so rewards can reduce building on work of others or cooperating

aggressive specs that ignore real capabilitiesleaders can force extreme specs utterly unconnected with actual people and process capabilities

unknown requirem

ents

long cycle times allow many outside market changes

long cycle times in a project give time for outside environment, customer, and market changes to undermine what is done

many changes of requirements requirements that specify what a project does can continually change during doing of the project making designs chaotic

marketers “know” customers but don’t and don’t see engineers as their customers

marketers can substitute own bias for what customers really want and can impose not effectively communicate requirements to engineers

one-product projects when all know competition will instantly respond

major one outcome efforts can demoralize entire workforces who know competitors will instantly respond to any one innovation actually done

unknowncapabiliti

es

long cycle times allow many changes of personnel

long cycle times for a project allow time for key staff to change, retire, or lose interest reducing skill and quality

one old generation manages so younger imaginations shut out except crises

stable fixed old leadership generations controlling all shut out, always without exception, younger imaginations or force re-interpretation mistakes onto projects till failure results

unfunded capability development so must invent product and technology together

product development gets funded but not development of reliable new technology such products use so projects jointly develop both, making performance achieved unreliable

early phases understaffed/funded; unrealistic schedules from remote leaders

old projects always late so early phases of new projects are understaffed, causing errors to be spotted/fixed expensively later in projects; remote leaders force unrealistic schedules

traditionof

quitting

products/projects often cancelled tradition of leaders suddenly cancelling projects cause entire workforces to underinvest in projects till nearly completed

no manager action till problems are huge hierarchies can cause local problems to get unresolved locally, instead escalating to VP level, delaying solutions

resources adequate only at product end managers can fear early resource flows, hold back resources, so errors build up expensively treated at project end

subsystem team arguments escalate cuz refuse trade-offs

subsystem teams may refuse trade-offs among each other, hence, escalate arguments to VP level, delaying solutions

Separation

missingcoordinat

ion

team members not co-located; global suppliers jerked around without context

teams split geographically can result in “in” groups jerking other around suddenly without context, warning, or consideration of local conditions and capabilities

unprincipled management causes waits for many sign offs

hierarchies can impose levels of permissions which only serve to delay key actions through projects dangerously

travel, waiting, reporting are most of development work time

the logistics of communicating and documenting a project can become half or more of all work, supplanting real design

reviews distort actual capabilities leader reviews can be unprofessional due to remote leaders or delusional due to leader political distortions of reality

fakedsolutions

no incentives for needed behaviors: building reliable technology

all the incentives in a project can favor errorlessly and quickly doing things impossible to due errorlessly and quickly without development of technique/technology base that is unfunded

leaders remote and ignorant, do not like nuts and bolts solving

Western leaders want social class superiority to workers hence do not get hands dirty, lose sense of real capability, become totally dependent on politics distorted reports

waiting till problems huge then killing entire project preferred as it spreads blame

leaders prefer to let problems grow so huge that they kill entire projects as that spreads blame beyond one leader; smaller problems can be blamed on one leader so dangerous

no personal, social, knowledge basis for inter-manager agreement, so solution is political

managers so competitive that no rational negotiated solitons are possible among them, instead only political agreements are possible making technically irrational solutions

fakedrelations

hips

managers lack the social skills to guide without punitiveness

managers may lack the social skills to work with or encourage own employees, instead, such managers are hated whenever they are around others, acting punitively among them

managers force symptom only solving by tacit intimidation

managers unwilling to imagine or solve deep issues or political ones, may force solving of only superficial aspects by intimidating people

promotions not based on actual problems faced and solved

leaders may be recognized and promoted based on things other than actual problems faced and solved so incompetent contexts in higher leaders judge/distort lower competent ones

no consensus building process on product strategies

overall product strategies of a group may be contested and not agreed on so individual projects do not add up or synergize

learning- no building on success/failure of previous teams

leaders to show own worth may deny worth and value built up by predecessor managers, ignoring previous team learnings

lessness missing project postmortems leaders may ignore reviews of completed projects to find learnings as they do not intend to apply past learning in future

tradition of hiding slack time and no one covering for others on team; no pain sharing system

project aspects that cause one role to work harder than others not recognized and equalized so people hide slack and other private benefits that compensate them for unfair work loads

creativity valued over effectiveness creative solutions that bring visibility may be preferred to humdrum but cheap reliable ones that work better

Person as

Bureaucrat

consultation

solving

consulting = participating leaders can consult genba for genba’s reactions then ignore them and consider that a participatory system

roles assigned by precedent not need leaders can structure all present projects just as past ones were ignoring unique needs and opportunities of the present

social will not mind used to solve getting everyone to fail together is worth as much as getting everyone to succeed--togetherness considered solution

rotating everyone before an issue rotating all leaders before an issue is considered adequate even if not consensus or insight occurs and leaders sleep

socialsolving

ignore = solve ignoring a problem for generations is as good as solving it, the Charlie Brown strategy, ignore it till it goes away

admit issue = create issue admitting you have a problem is the same as creating the problem--this attitude

agreement all interpret different is agreement

consensing on a vaguely worded agreement that everyone interprets completely differently considered agreement

agreement fact outweighs content social fact of agreement being announced more important than whether anyone really agrees with anyone else

hiding inuniformit

y

intolerance of slight differences slight differences of one group to another, one project to another, hated and resisted, forcing all into same mold

information hiding hiding information and problems is as good as actual solving--this attitude

if new, not an issue, only old issues are issuesnew issues are not really issues, only issues that have been seen before are treated as issues

copying rivals outweighs inventing solutions copying competitor moves is considered more important than inventing own solutions

issueirrelevan

ce

issues are just distraction from real work issues are considered distractions of real work of doing past routines without thinking

good managing = issuelessness good leading is considered leading that avoids any issues and deals with no issues

changes in environment interpreted as already found inside group

environment changes are all assimilated to inside of group already known phenomenon--so nothing is ever really new, that is, nothing requires new thought or effort

considering whether to do so thorough it = doing

consideration processes are so thorough and long and detailed that they are more complicated than actually doing what is considered

Mindlessnes

s

issuebuying

issue generators neutralized coopted early any social unit that might generate issues is coopted by payouts early, that is, paid to not generate issues

attitude discrepancies responded to as issuesdifferences of attitude are considered issues so opponent positions are constantly folded into own position, remove ing debate

long standing irrational situation is natural = not issue

long standing unfair or irrational situations are, because long around, considered non-issue, and never improved

pay money to all parties = solving instead of hard choosing and thought, just pay all parties money to make issues go away

appearance

is reality

ritual process repetition is work, not issue handling

following social rituals of consideration considered how to handle issues even if solutions not invented or tried

cost of issues is lost focus on unity of group issues considered harmful because they distract people from the mystic unity of the group and society

social surface: establishing a thing called a solution = solving

getting everyone to call something, anything, a solution is considered a way to solve issues, regardless of whether it really works or changes arrangements in society

super direct solutions, bypassing causes getting people to like bad situations is considered good solution, better than removing bad situations

fakedinteractio

ns

easy meeting tradition: discuss = repeat elder opinions

meetings that just ritually endorse opinions of whoever is oldest in the meeting, after consulting/ignoring everyone

group wrongs better than interrupting unity with issue

wrongs perpetuated by a community are better than disrupting community by eliminating such wrong at cost of lost unity

trance-like “no mind” state is ideal consciousness

clear minds, without issues, is a goal of governing

mastery & automation of routines = ideal action

action is ideally the mastery and automatic repetition of old established routines, not the hectic scurrying to solve issues

peacefulliteralnes

s

perfecting everyday life = greatness inventing and living a perfected polished smooth everyday life personally is what society issue handling is for

issue preventing = garbage collecting preventing issues is the same as garbage collecting in importance

slight disturbance of “no mind” daily life state intensely investigated

anytime and anywhere people get interested in issues is a real problem for society and must be stopped

utter meticulousness of handling trivialities tremendous detail and administrative power applied to trivial disturbances of clear mind No Mind consciousness

S Y S T E M E F F E C T S , T H R E E : P o l i c y S e l f C o n t r a d i c t i o nSyste

m Basics

systemness

power from position instead of groups and individual actors by action making power, most comes from their position in systems

behavior from location instead of groups and individual actors by action making their behavior, most comes from their position in systems

parts-wholedifferences

wholes have traits not found in any of their parts

self conscious evolving system systems whose parts think (consciously react) and evolve nearly never do just what is planned or intended

creativity of

systemness

complexity from simplicity from simple local actors interacting by simple local rules, global complexity can emerge

dangerous safety measures safety measures increase unsafe driving habits causing more injury not more safety

cannot do only 1 thing humans acting in social systems can never do only 1 thing or only what is intended

systems changeelement traits

the system has traits different from traits of its parts, which system traits change context of parts traits = meaning changes

relativity from

connectedness

tight linkage =fault widening

more tightly linked systems are efficient but subject to widespread failure when small faults appear

basic units resist change many interdependencies mean basic units resist all changes because relations to other units would also have to change

non-consensus based existence some system elements exist only because other elements must consense to eliminate them, consensus is hard

relations determined relations relations between some actors determined by relations between other actors, not between each other

systemness effects

cats cause flowers indirectness extreme indirectness of effects--cats eat mice which therefore cannot eat seeds, causing 1 flower type to dominate/appear

delayed effectstime fractality

hard to declare any policy/intervention a success because time period of side-effects is fractal, multiple size scale

second best become disaster second best conditions do not produce second best outcome in non-linear systems, but often disasters

theoretical best = actual worst best in theory can be terrible in practice

Unobvious Causation

perceptions as acts

context locality make meaning context (system parts near) of actor different than act viewers so intended meaning not seen meaning

action consistency message our response to this instance seen as info about our response to future similar instances by others in system

reacting to reactions others’ reaction to our actions change our preferences, acts, and self image, and reactions to their actions

waves of fashion parallel micro-environments and deployed changes taken up by parallel micro-environments

non-additivity of effects

similar inputs different outputs similar inputs can have vastly different outputs

diminish returns critical mass output decline after certain level of inputs; output appears after certain level of inputs

effect from other effects an effect’s existence depends on presence of certain other effects/variables

input increase reverses effect ex: incentive to act morally reduces moral action; increase in input increases output for a while then suddenly decreases it

path dependen

ce

variable order change outcome order in which variables act changes outcome produced; ex: baby before not after marriage

action timing when in process plea or proposal happens determines what outcome they produce or tend towards

transient factor effects endure effects of a factor that ceases to exist can yet endure far beyond lifespan of factor that created them; ex: found firm

hysteresis: path dependence outcome may vary on how variables attained key values; ex: water flow from open vs. closed faucet

the blame illusion

failing variable may yet be OK a variable change may fail to produce an outcome not because it is wrong variable but cuz other variables needed also

gradual vs. leap to big input gradual steps to some input value may not produce same output as single leap to same input value

blame fails effect of one variable depends on others so blaming one variable nearly always wrong

bad people illusion people bad in one team can be great in another; worth is relative to environment challenge of other personalities interacting

Environmental

Acting

futility of plan & design

plural OKs = disaster several slight, individually negligible, faults together can cause disastrous outcome

futile to improve 1 part even giant improvements in one factor can have no effect or bad effect on wanted outcome

false polarities nature versus nurture type arguments are false because they each are environment for each other; they are a system

evolved over designed traits evolved traits tend to be far superior to designed traits because invented relative to actual environments encountered

results as environm

entsof later actions

small steps create crisis inadequate first measures can exacerbate a situation while drawing attention making it look worse,so crisis expands involvement

bad people illusion people bad in one team can be great in another; worth is relative to environment challenge of other personalities interacting

“right” tactic illusion European softness proved “better” than US hardness, BUT because US hardness was context, established by deeds

enemy focus error view 1 enemy policy, miss actual & possible others and relations among actual and possible others as the “1’s” meaning

strategy ecosyste

m

effectiveness erosion professionals surprised when what works for years gradually fails BUT audience changed;ex:rank colleges but fit= worth

reaction to others’ expectations actors react to what other actors expect; ex: A thinks X hard so Y tries it and wins cuz of A’s expectations

blinded by seeing my clarity on my motives causes me to miss that B mistakes what my motives are, so I misinterpret wat B’s motives are

blind to origins of own strategy I use strategy X with present opponent W because my previous opponent used strategy Y, but W is not Y

act to create

environment

phony proposing many proposals, threats, actions are done because we know or expect other will ignore or stop them, so not genuinely meant

actuals vs images tactics tactics that weaken me actually can make me stronger cuz of effects of image I create; arm spending excess = strong image

reacting to environment I create result of my actions become environment determining further actions I take and results I aim for/achieve; over-react movts.

interaction as environment interaction can change aims, beliefs, capabilities of actors; conflict can harden, extremize, mobilize enemies

System

Caused

trapped by

environment

want what denied interactions become experiences that change our aims, so we want what is denied us more than before denial came

greener grass on other side illusn we imagine our self with different situation, partner but it is not same self relating thusly to different things, =not better

Helplessnes

s

own actions create

repetition is not repetition repeated inputs can produce very different outputs cuz 1st results form new environment of action;Hitler Czeck/Poland

blame environment I created ex: he hates me so I do it, but I provoked him to hate me, then use result to justify my initial provoking

controlillusion

self fulfilling prophesy I fear X, defensive build up that provokes X to fear me, justifying my initial fear

fatal solutions plans and designs not = results; ex: oil spill clean up increases overall pollution

control is less powerful total control to do incenting acts less powerful that likelihood of error, that uncertainty forces cooperation

counter effects Titanic-safety = careless = danger, ban X = X popular = more X,

intent not

result;incentive not result

user not giver context aid or acts given used entirely differently than planned if use context differs from what givers assumed:

incentive gaming following incentive leads to bad behaviors: increasing measures supplants service impact;

target population evolves target population of incentives change when incentives seen; ex: aid draws self supporters into dependency as easier way 3

designed outcomes = inputs mandated, directly imposed, outcomes are inputs guaranteeing unforeseen bad outcomes later:WWI’s peace causesWW2

systems as limits

to knowledg

e

with X without X illusion functional substitutes for X abound so without X cases may have X by other means not seen

do A vs. B in case illusion cannot find identical real cases so difference in results of A vs B from context or evolution differences not seen

power relativity real & imagined alternatives by us and opponents/peers determine power/fear so generally cannot determine

motive of act indeterminate X challenges Y because knows Y is strong or because does not know Y is strong--cannot tell generally

S Y S T E M E F F E C T S , F O U R : T o o l s f o r H a n d l i n g S y s t e m E ff e c t s W e l lFeedb

ack Cause

d Ignorance

system narcissis

m’sillusions

success illusion getting wanted result shifts attention elsewhere, others see so result eroded:speed fees cut speedg&police=more speedg

last method worked illusion last in series of negotiations worked so method there is good but only worked cuz context set by earlier methods

see what works several try illusion cannot make several tries cuz each try changes context

act in own interest fails many actions directly in own interest hurt own interest cuz others reactions; repress revolt increases revolters

misleading truth

appearance in

systems

unplanned results okay people use treatments for own purposes (in own context) so unplanned results inevitable

solutions look like failures solutions applied at priority problem/crisis areas/times so often fail but still great value cuz context=extreme challenge

variable fails/works illusion variable X fails or works in some cases means nothing cuz those cases when X used are special or extreme somehow

anticipate info effects of acts when actors know being watched for info on future reactions, changes how act now

indicators mislead

in systems

indicator meaning indeterminate if less of those accepted come maybe cuz we are bad or cuz bad ones don’t bother applying

single indicators cause gaming any intelligent person can distort unmeasured variables to get indicator “high” at huge or counter costs

solving symptoms indicators can indicate success steps in small increments encouraging inadequate scale efforts till real causes overwhelm

non-causal indicators indicators not focussed on real causes or less distributed or numerous distract from needed causal work

feedback relativitie

s

feedback results positive = growth, negative = stable systems, escalation = symmetric growth, appeasement = compensatory change

feedback topologies within individuals--feeling an emotion makes it bigger;between levels--alignment/constraint cascades

feedback locale/scale dependent arms races show positive feedback at ind.l actor level produces negative feedback at relationship, dyad, level

same input plus once minus later predator/prey cycles example; winners create envy (neg) but further wins create partnering/adoption (pos)

Types of

Feedback

negative feedback

success creates failure expansion creates fear become easier expansion becomes too much expansion till collapse

unstable pride & depression pride makes more trying till overextension collapse; loss makes less investment so more depression till collapse

self limiting acts imposed concession produces powerful negative fdbk; successful methods get copied losing their advantage

info caused negative feedback lock on door tells thieves where to steal from: success atrophies collaboration skills so no help in hard times= failure: using signal causes signal to end (acting on rumor ends it)

neutral or lateralfeedback

changes create changes one change creates new issues becoming further changes; feedbacks between fdbk cycles evolve laterally

ideologic poles shift ground dialectic of bigoted responses automated so moves between poles are lateral shiftings of ground

expectations inflated to zero process of implementing design can inflate expectation till they undermine outcome satisfaction forcing new initiative

what works undoes itself what works gets copied till org has too little diversity to handle environment change, so success self moderating

positive feedback

escalation by identity change I did bad thing, so I am bad, so I might as well do more bad things: media say bank weak so it becomes weak

escalation by public privates if I see others actualizing what I only wish, my wish become action, causing still others to act = movement

preparations become actuals I fear X so prepare for it and gather tools and resource for it that appear waste, so they lobby me for actualizing X

accelerating mutualism integration creates niches for further types of integration

knowledge &

network

increasing returns to scale for knowledge products, increasing sales does not increase costs, so prices drop greatly increasing sales

vaporware, success expectation if success is expected then product succeeds so competition to look most likely to succeed

economy feedback

s

escalation by learning costs if better alternative requires much unlearning then it is not chosen

lock in, rich get richer in network first not best wins (QWERTY); becoming standard raises value greatly so greater growth becoming standard

Undoing

Non-Linearities

evolution to

oppositesvia

positive feedback

s

reform causes revolution rulers fear small reforms will get out of hand so no reforms so revolution ensues

reporters create news reporters ask leaders about stories they want to cover, causing remark-news

conquest evolves into game first victories make second easier so later conquests are more and more nominal till conquest overall is fluff

more cycles violation/news/visibility/sales/wealth; greed/striving/compete/ideas/wealth; care/depend/control/helpless/care;

reduce non-

linearity

prune connections reduce non-linearity of reaction

cross-level observation monitor results of actions on larger and smaller system size scales

undo customer stand-ins in system find requirements of functions, professions, leaders etc. substituting themselves for what customer require and undo

self justifying effect study people study second order effects only if and where consonant with biases and wanted results

use emergent

s

steer emergents use emergent side-effects steered to attain your goal

tune system interactions till wanted emergents appear; connectedness, diversity, patchings parameters

do population of strategies at once do multiple contradictory strategies at once, observing side-effects & results, then join emergent winners

stop by extrema tip into chaos to stop, tip into stasis to stop, tip into cycling to stop,

manage side-

effects

domino paradox small losses erode image so act boldly after small losses

move opposite to your goals use reactions to that by others/competitors to attain your goal

attract by rejecting attracting by playing hard to get

stopping continual not 1 time blocked action produces work-arounds so continual new blockings are needed if you wish to stop some action

Get Causa

lly Systematic

manage linkages

2 acts: for goal for side-effects act dually, one to attain goal, one to handle side-effects of attaining goal

act in twos acts that appeal to A and that appeal to A’s enemy

do virtual acts for side-effects do actions whose only purpose is eliciting side-effects which are your wanted main-effects, slough main-effects

influence by environment influence others by creating environments they adapt to

form solving

populations

component compliant roles design each system component to do its role while adjusting to help adjacent “environment” parts to do their roles

cleavage bridging mobilize all usually ranked, separated, professioned things across borders to envision and implement solutions

process transparency manage processes till transparent to wants of customers they serve

pluralize units of competition mobilize network of diverse types of firm/org in scale with system causation of phenomena/opportunities faced

handle systems

causation

distribute probs, causes, solutions distribute throughout entire system problematic aspects, causes of local problems, solutions to undo causes

act against cause of causes determine root causes generating other causes as symptoms then address the roots, distributed throughout system

distinguish system/special causes address variations in outcome from traits inherent in system’s design from transient happenstance circumstances

evolving wants & satisfaction find wants unwanted when appear, solution not satisfactory when experienced, design for contexts and outcomes

undo self contradic

tingsolutions

undo producers become customers producers of a project tend to supplant their needs for end users of the project’s product

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS APPLICATIONS ISSUESSpace limits remarks here to a few, rather obvious ones:

• Other papers have reported how the 256 systems effects are some sort of rather good overall competence factor, that top level product development managers look for in whom they promote to replace themselves in their vital positions atop global product development.

• General assessment of leaders and would-be leaders along the 256 systems effects is already underway and data from that will later be published

• The top systems grad schools and departments, at Keio, MIT, ETH, TUDelft and other colleges, cover barely 3 of the 48 genres of systems thinking

presented here, from our respondents.

• Non-linearity of system is studied strangely as a dis-embodied feature of “the system” without tracing it back to its 48 roots, captured here as genres, in aspects of human mentality, sociality, and emotionality.

• Standards such as the system engineering V process, and evaluations of artistic designs, software systems design—might all benefits from inclusion of the 256 system effects and 48 systems thinking genres of this paper.

All the above are worthy of further research. Practitioners have shown great enthusiasm for training in the above 256 and 48—engineering program managers and CEOs of

speciality engineering consultancies strongly identify with the breadth, depth, detail, comprehensive coverage of the models presented here---they constitute one CEO said “a third level

of system recursion: systems treatment of situations, systems of systems treatment of situations, and here, systems of systems of systems treatment”.

REFERENCES

1. Jain, R. and D. Verma. 2007. Proposed framework for a reference curriculum for a graduate program in systems engineering. INCOSE Academic Council report.

2. Kasser, J. 2006. Reorganizing SE. Presentation to SEEC RG, INCOSE-Australia and SESA-SA chapter meeting.

3. Johnson, Stephen B., fall 2008, “Success, Failure, and NASA Culture”, Ask Manazine.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics )

5. Greene, RT, 2013, “ASSESSING NOTICE & HANDLING OF 256 SYSTEM EFFECTS: Who Gets Promoted? Who Is Lucky? Who Finds Side-Effects that are Better than Main Ones?”, Proceedings, ICED2013 forthcoming.

6. Simon, Herbert, 1969, Sciences of the Artificial, First Edition. MIT Press.

7. Greene, RT 2013a, http://www.academia.edu/694218/Multiple_Models_of_Creativity--- 54_Excellence_Sciences_ 18_Novelty_Sciences_120_Creativity_Models_54_Innovation_Models_64_Natural_Selection_Dynamics

2012 PLANNED PAPERS BY RICHARD TABOR GREENE

richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu

EDUCATION:EMPIRICALLY DEFINING “EDUCATEDNESS”--Escaping Mere Opinion and Philosophy

This paper reports 64 capabilities shared by “highly educated-acting people” from 41 nations and 63 professions. This is part of a larger scale research project on re-doing Plato by empirically defining excellence. That work produced 54 Excellence Sciences—each a distinct route to the top of nearly any field—one of which was being highly educated in how one thinks, feels, notices, and acts. 150 people, nominated by others as having reached the top of 63 fields (in 41 nations) this way were interviewed about what being highly educated made them capable of, that less educated ones could not do or do as well. Tens of thousands of answers were hierarchically clustered producing 64 overall capabilities, shared by most of the 150 sample (at least 20 had to share each of the 64 for it to be included). For comparison the same clustering was done of similar capability statements in 200 books of educational philosophy (most European). Also for comparison, capability of “good” and “great” persons statements from source documents of Japanese history were given the same clustering treatment, producing 64 images of “good person capabilities”. This paper cannot present 3 x 64 = 192 capabilities, due to length restrictions, so instead it compares broad patterns and differences among the three capability models. The European philosophers model emphasizes adulthood as the product of being highly educated in a specific sense of undoing commitments unconsciously made while growing up and being raised some particular place and time. The Japanese history model emphasized religious practices of extreme erasure of ego and self put in the service of extreme central rule regimes—becoming one by erasure of plurality and self. This made “being in a world of many nations” a matter for centuries of isolation and denial, followed by self appointed and divine superiority when the West forced trade, followed by war, defeat, and “subordinating self to facts not persons” postwar.

A COMMON GROUND BETWEEN ALL THE DIVERSE DESIGN & CREATIVITY SCIENCESAll over the world in design firms, in universities, in conferences diverse types of design, designers, and designs are being combined, without a common intellectual meeting ground allowing them to talk in some depth with each other. Often they talk past each other instead. Surprisingly, decades of university research of the design process has produced the delusion that there is a single design process. Practicing designers find this academic mania for one process shared by all design work—silly. Perhaps in their rush to be the next Einstein with some equations that explain all, professors are mistaking design for nuclear physics. This paper presents the Creativity-Novelty Sciences as a common ground between all forms of design: industrial, graphic, software, engineering, systems, and others. More than that, it presents not single right-y models of each such science but a move to plural diverse models of each in balanced repertoires of models. Any one theory or practice issue gets treated by selecting several models from such repertoires that compensate for failings and biases in each other.

THE FASTEST ROUTE TO ARTISTIC-DESIGN EXCELLENCEAll over the world new schools for design and the arts are rising without an intellectual core and a practice core uniting the diversity of all the arts they teach. Many of these schools are not looking at repeating four years of usual undergrad education but instead seek the fastest route to professional design, performance, composition, and general artistic competence possible in modern industry and career environments. Just what is the shortest fastest route to professional design, composition, performing, excellence? This paper presents a derivation from theory of the core of any curriculum of such schools, that minimizes time to professional excellence. It will need later confirmation from practice. The model this paper employs of just what excellence of design, composition, performing competence consists of also is derived from theory and statements by world best practitioners in interviews and biographies and some research studies.

COMPLETING DESIGNERS: WHAT THEIR EDUCATION AND EARLY EMPLOY OMITSThis paper starts by examining the culture of design, designs, and designers. A survey of designers, both early in their careers and well established ones later in their careers was done, and comparisons made to show what experience supplies to add to education-obtained contents and to replace or correct such contents. The result is a model of flaws in design culture and how education of designers sustains it, plus proposed changes in how we educated designers to correct those flaws.

EXCELLENCE SCIENCES:EDUCATEDNESS, EFFECTIVENESS, CREATIVITY—3 Routes to the Top—

What Determines Which of them a Person ChoosesThis paper examine 3 of 54 Excellence Sciences, and presents a theory of why people choose one or another of them to rise to the top of their chosen field. Moreover, a survey of actual high performers in diverse fields, reported here, shows a common sequence among these three routes to success and this paper explains its results.

SCHOOLING, EDUCATION, COLLEGES THAT IGNORE KNOWLEDGE DYNAMICS AND NEVER TEACH THEM

This paper examines what is known about knowledge creation, growth, use, application, combination, and dynamics and how much of them are covered by various types and levels of schooling. A large-scale omission of them is found and changes in schools, college, and educations to include them are suggested for later testing.

SYSTEMS SCIENCE:48 GENRES OF SYSTEMS THINKING—Getting Far Beyond System Dynamics Straight Jackets

This paper takes a knowledge anthropology approach to finding and defining systems thinking genres—asking people in diverse professions and nations, what sorts of non-linear outcomes and effects surprise and amaze and dismay them. This paper reports nearly three dozen fields of systems effects, noticed and

widely used, beyond the familiar system dynamics 10 or so effects reported by people like Senge. Systems engineering and management departments today are operating with tiny fractions of the systems thinking types there to be studied and improved, is one result this paper reports.

TOOLS FOR HANDLING CULTURES IN SYSTEMS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERINGThis paper reports specific culture-handling tools to be made standard parts of the systems toolkit that designers and engineers of systems use. Lack of such tools has made culture a major cause of systems disasters. For that reason alone, tools for handling cultures in large long systems projects are needed. This paper presents specific culture handling tools proposed as a minimal toolkit for preventing such disasters.

MANAGING BY EVENTS—Using Mass Workshop Events to Speed Up and Increase Project Culture Strength in Large Scale Long Term System Engineering Projects and

OrganizationsDepartments in bureaus lead to masses of cross-functional teams and processes, criss-crossing the departments. This has been called the emergence of a changing team layer from a library of bureau-developed particular views and skills. Total quality accelerated a move from doing work in bureaucratic departments to doing work in horizontal cross-discipline cross-organization cross-globe processes. Total quality in this way formed the primary philosophy that allowed rapid thorough application of the web to doing business—the web enabled global process sharing and extension. Now a third way to do work is emerging—events. This paper presents major goals and shortcomings of systems management and projects solved or improved by switching some but not all work contents to event execution from process or bureau execution. A theory of such events extrapolating from small team social automata to large scale social automata dynamics among teams of teams is presented.

FASHION ENGINEERING: Art and Science of Design Applied to Systems DesignEngineers are quants, calculate, dislike groupwork, avoid politics and people. These stereotypes are well confirmed by research. They are pretty much opposite to those who go into graphic, industrial, and more artistic genres of design. The latter choose their areas to avoid maths. However they are somewhat averse to groupwork, politics, too. How does engineering aims, processes, and results change when engineers are trained in more artistic fields of design, when the projects they work in emphasize artistic methods and goals? This paper predicts answers to those types of questions from a theory of the ideologies and cultures of engineering and design, and their interactions.

ENGINEERING FASHIONS: Data Driven Engineering of Beauty, Trend, Status, Appeal in FashionsFashion design, as represented by couture houses and their shows, comes from hunch, intuition, study of street fashion and buyer trends. It does not come from data on its results. Sales are the main results data from fashion design and each sales aggregates effects of dozens of apparel features, colors, shapes, patterns, interactions, and the like. Disaggregating result data for fashions, to, by experiment, show effects of particular types of pattern on sales, price, status effects compared to what others wear, and the like are an interesting frontier. Scientific cooks are doing the same for meals. This paper presents an experimental approach to fashion design and its initial effects.

COMPUTATION: SUPPORTING CREATIVITY WITH COMPUTATION: But What If

Creativity is 60+ Things not One This paper reports how computational support for creativity changes if creativity is modeled not as one universal process the same in all times, persons, places, fields, and works, but as a variety of diverse ways that the new gets into human affairs. It presents a strategy change in how computation “supports” creativity. 60 models of creativity empirically derived from interviews with 150 highly creative and questionnaires given to 8000+ other eminent people were used to represent the possible variety of creativity approaches there to be given computational support some day. Fully validated and reliable correlational models of single academic models of creativity from top ten universities, are extremely rare, but when applied sincerely by competent private sector organizations they have shown virtually no ability to increase creativity in measurable ways and degrees (one very prominent model, fully applied, allowed the corporation involved to copy a successful Japanese product 8 years after it was a hit in Japan—delayed copying is not a robust form of creativity in this author's view). This paper raises the question, of whether plural balanced diverse repertoires of models of creativity, when given similar robust application effort, might significantly outperform such single lauded academic models. Also this paper considers a tradition in computer science of expert level models of computational support linked firmly to rather in-expert models of what creativity is, and possible corrections for this easy route to inconsequential results publishings.

PULSED SYSTEMS: Software Apps Designed for the Brains Users Actually Have—Towards a Social-neuroscience of Software Design

Computer and software vendors promote devices and apps that further connect us all—as if all we need and wish for is improved by greater connectedness. However, well established and fundamental social neuroscience research results reveal strong negative trade-off relations between pairs of brain modules (for example, between the liking and the having interest in modules so we dislike what interests us and like what bores us). Thus far, computer and software system design has, probably under the influence of vendors trying always to sell “more” computation hence “more” connectedness, ignored these relationships. Major deployed systems met with initial attention and enthusiasm, as a result, end up rapidly losing attention and interest, virtually abandoned months after furthering an initial spurt of creativity by connecting previously isolated entities. Initial bursts of dis-isolation, however, are rapidly followed by familiarity and boredom, hence, system disuse (users saying things like “nothing there surprises me anymore and I am tired of pawing through zillions of the same sorts of postings”). One possible solution is Pulsed Systems---systems with a rhythm of engagement detachment, global-coverage local-coverage, single focal points plural diffuse foci. This is a theory paper, examining a number of such social-neuroscience invited traits of computational systems.

THE WEB IS AUTISTIC—Making Social Apps Actually Social via Measuring Impacts of Social Index Levels

Many have noted that founders of leading software tech firms are far out on the male pole of the male-female brain-type spectrum—having Asperger's syndrome or being borderline autistic. Though high performing, many achieve powerful focus by not sensing others having needs. Many have noted this works economically because many first adopters of new devices and apps are males, especially young males. Men as an entire gender have a genetic disposition for toys, gender research has shown. This paper presents attempts to develop measures for this and for more. 1) How autistic is the web, are particular applications, are particular developers? 2) How male is the web and its parts, are particular applications, are particular developers, are particular users of those apps? 3) How social is the web, are particular applications, are particular features of applications, are particular developers, are particular users of those apps? If good such measures are developed, eventually, we may be able to use them to predict the sales, prices, next versions, and next inventions of a product.

SOCIAL AUTOMATA: A Way for Persons and Their Ideas to Be MORE TogetherMeetings frustrate us—people and ideas rarely meet in them, ironically. Discussions usually leave people in them more entrenched in their own beliefs rather

than affected by the different beliefs of their discussion partner. Brainstorms allow us to see ideas of others but rarely do they result in us using others' ideas and most often we all converge on the first idea to gather enthusiastic reactions by any minority of the brainstorming team. The General Empiric Computation model organizes all software and computation inventions along a dialog between bio, social, and machine forms of computation. Such viewing of meetings, discussions, and brainstorm sessions suggests a new way for people and ideas to interact, inspired by cellular automata and called here Social Automata. Pilot study results on social automata replacements for usual meetings, discussions, and brainstorms are presented.

INVENTION OF NEW FORMS OF COMPUTATION: By Dialog Among Bio, Neuro, Social, Machine Computers

This paper explores a dialog between biological, neurologic (brain), social, and machine forms of computation, and how new forms of computation come from dialogs among these four. This social process invents new forms of computation that we notice in machines, societies, living entities, and brains and new forms of computation we design and install in them.

PERHAPS PROSE IS UNPOPULAR BECAUSE IT IS AN OLD BAD INTERFACE—A Proposed Replacement

The web is undermining reading and writing, people say, with worry. Nothing will replace the paper book, others say as e-readers proliferate. This paper applies standard criteria for what is a “good interface” to prose itself and by specifying exactly how prose fails as an interface, this paper comes up with the specification for a proper replacement for prose. An example is provided and pilot study results comparing this replacement with prose presentation of the same idea contents are reported.

COMPUTATIONAL SOCIALITY MODELS: Of Japanese Totalization of Quality KnowledgeThis paper represents Japanese management routines as the computational use of entire workforces—so-called computational sociality. It contributes to Japanese studies by offering an information process, that is, computational model, of how Japanese organizations operate. It contributes to computer theory by extending cellular automata, recursion, iteration, and other computation aspects with social examples. It contributes to quality theory by re-understanding all the history and techniques of total quality as computational usings of both people and a particular body of knowledge, quality.

PREDICTING DEVICE PRICES, VERSIONS, SALES By Measuring the Gender of the Web, Apps, and Users

If we can measure accurately the culture of devices, systems, interfaces, and the like, then get the same measures of the culture of users of them, interactions may allow us to predict the pricing, sales volumes, features in next versions. That is the dream and this paper presents several major steps in this direction, namely, a derivation from theory and from practice of a way to measure such cultures and plot their interactions in ways, that in a next step, can help us make predictions.

COMPUTATIONAL IDEOLOGIES: Blind Faith Designs that Self Extinguish in MarketsEducation ideologies argue over school systems, courses, curricula, and budgets, their mutual self-righteousnesses and opinion-basis insuring little or no agreement and progress results—leaving national education systems less and less competent and competitive. Computer professionals often feel themselves superior to all that but close examination finds computer ideologies, almost entirely unadmitted, uninvestigated, unreported, unimproved that correspond closely to educational ideologies in origin and outlook. How these distort apps, markets, systems, users, and reduce benefits from computation investments are outlined in this paper as a frontier for theory and practice development. At a minimum the model of computational ideologies this paper presents opens the door to new design approaches, new products/services, and new benefits from much computational development and effort.

CULTURE:WHAT IF ALL CULTURES WERE HIGH PERFORMANCES (and

Vice Versa),WHAT IF ALL SELVES WERE CULTURES (and Vice Versa),WHAT IF ALL HIGH PERFORMANCES WERE SELVES (and

Vice Versa)?This paper is an excursion in culture theory—presenting a model of cultures, selves, and high performances as exactly the same phenomena, namely, shared routines practiced till effortless and unconsciously done. The powers and perils of each of those three come from four primary aspects of this nature they share—vastness, irregularity, invisibility, and laborious change processes. This view opens the door to ways to entirely new ways to handle each of them: treating culture to culture relations with person to person technique, building high performances by building cultures, assessing selves by where they are seen as high performances, among others. Implications for how we experience and handle selves, cultures, and high performances are laid out as an agenda for future research and improvements in practice. Special attention is given to how issues inter-relate: going out into other cultures requiring going in for revision of images and practices of self, reaching high performance only via forcing self beyond current norms and limits into forced dependency on others, and the like.

THE ATHLETIC COACH WAY OF BUILDING CULTURES—Professionally Supervised Practice of Routines

Among many operations we wish to perform on cultures, two stand out—making weak cultures stronger (often stated as moving them towards high performance) and creating new cultures to replace old ones. Crises are one method, all too commonly used. They force people beyond comfort zones, by definition, and force inter-dependency among people formerly at odds with each other. They generate new routines crossing old norms and boundaries among people. However, cultures of high performance generated by crisis, seldom include enough self reflection, self change, and self revision dynamics to thrive later on. They depended on an outside force---a crisis—for motive power and dissolution of old loyalities and bounds. Using a theory published elsewhere of selves, cultures, and high performances as the same thing, namely, heavily practiced unconsciously executed shared routines, this paper suggests the development of selves, cultures, and high performances using means similar to those olympic athletes use.

CULTURING FAILURE: In Engineers and MBAsImmense global crises in 2008 to 2012 have more than suggested that MBAs as a category of person and the professors who educate the best of them in top colleges are immensely harmful in some of their effects, habits, and attitudes. Engineers have no such global dent in their repute but instead have regular highly visible disasters often involving the clash of and status differences between professional cultures (of MBAs and engineers in workplaces). Commonsense says that the repeated moderate scale disasters in engineering and larger scale disasters in management come from status differences inculcated into these professionals in their graduate school experiences. This paper examines this opinion, using actual data. People applying to graduate engineering and MBA programs were followed from a point two years before attendance to a point two years after attendance via regular questionnaires. Customers of these human products of grad schools were interviewed as well at four intervals after the students graduated. Results indicated that these two professions share a lack of what the social sciences and arts and humanities inculcate, and that they are educated in status behaviors between them that underpin when not actually causing disasters at work. The interesting cases of engineers getting MBAs and MBAs later getting engineering degrees are discussed separately.

INCONSISTENCIES IN THE CONCEPT AND EXPERIENCE OF CULTURESMost models of culture and training programs in handling it, fail to admit and address inconsistences in cultures. People do not always react the same way to highly similar stimuli, people use your and their own culture traits for sneaky unannounced purposes at times, not all Japanese act Japanese-ly for another example, cultures evolve so acting Japanese 50 years ago in X situation is nearly never found going on today, people evolve so later career contexts cause different reactions to repeated situations, cultural traits appear in some social processes and not others, strengths of culture traits/reactions evolve so salient reactions change as the mix of traits strengths changes. This paper builds a theoretical map of these inconsistencies, their sources, combinations, and ways to handle them.

MEASURING THE CULTURE OF DEVICES, APPS, INTERFACES, SYSTEMSWe commonly think only people have culture but many of us recognize that many devices, apps, interfaces, and systems appear highly male or highly female. Hints at this come to us when such mechanics are made or bought almost entirely by one gender. This paper presents an approach to measuring the culture of devices and so on, including the degree to which they are feminine or masculine (or neutral). A model of 38 brain differences in males and females is applied to this task. The result is a questionnaire that users of devices, interfaces, etc. can use as well as developers to measure the culture of devices, the culture of users, their interactions, and gender degrees. Applications to predict the price, sales, next version features of products are examined in a pilot study framework.

CULTURES OF DESIGN, DESIGNS, DESIGNERSDesign schools have a genius all other colleges and college departments will be learning from in coming years---hundreds of repeated public evaluations of projects built, with winners chosen and losers critiqued in front of all students in classes (typically competitively doing design projects in each of 5 courses every 2 weeks for public evaluation). This is a system for a student and professor “finding” a student's creativity, rather than making students creative. Students try so many projects with diverse materials and aims, over four years, that several times they get amazed, as do their professors, by superior work they found themselves making = finding their creativity. On the other hand many students enter design in part due to lack of enthusiasm for reading and mathematic schooling. Interviews with famous designers, however, show them, on average, having huge personal libraries—they do reading far beyond what design students are asked by colleges or by they themselves to do. This paper explores what the culture of designs are, of designers are, and of design as a whole is, and how they help and hinder design goals.

MEDIA & INTERFACES:SELF INDEXING MEDIA: Prose, Video, Websites

Our brains contain a lot of stuff, most of which we cannot remember or recall. The doorway into our minds is narrow and slow (the famous 7 plus or minus 2 items in any chunk memorized as a unit). Recall is even worse—there are all sorts of things we know that we know but cannot recall at will. Brain neuroscience has portrayed the outer, later developed, white matter cortext of the brain as an indexer---so what we perceive is objects with functions and meanings. Certain autistic persons lack this outer index and raw images without named meaningful function-doing objects are seen or heard by them, leading to perfect sight (drawing an exact image of all the shapes and colors of a scene) and perfect sound (repeating every nuance of a music piece after one hearing). This paper examines indexing—how writing that is well recalled achieves self indexing, how the web is growing into an index for civilization itself, and how media can be composed so as to be recalled due to specific self indexing features, presented in this article.

WHAT WOULD SOCIAL SOCIAL-MEDIA LOOK LIKE AND DO?This paper starts by examining what exactly is social about current social media—facebook, linkedin, and the like. Working from the supposition that the designers and founders of these applications knew little about sociality and learned little from financial success with these media, this paper goes to various research literatures to define a measure for sociality. It then applies that to measure the degree of sociality of these new so-called social media and uses their low scores to determine ways to make them more, social. Facebook, from this perspective, is emailing lists, and file sharing, plus indexing both by one's self-selected “friends”. All of these are very old technologies or techniques, decades old. There is nothing technically new going on in it. Not surprisingly the measure of social-ness this paper introduces scores facebook as barely social. Its impact on the social index levels of groups using it is minimal. This paper offers distinct areas of social-ness that truly “social” apps need to achieve: indexing groups by their shared interests, needs, and capabilities; increasing the use and depth of use of such sharings ; searching stranger strangeness for potential shared interests, needs, capabilties; capturing in algorithm form evolving improving models of the interests, needs, and capabilities of users of any device or system; and many others presented in this paper's concluding sections.

EXPERIMENTAL FASHION DESIGN & FASHION POWER ESTIMATIONLooking good is something that pays off in lots of ways recently researched. We all want to do it much of the time. First impressions have power and good ones depend of the situation—job interview, cocktail party, first date, and so on. Couture houses dominate the fashion industry, its magazines, cable TV shows, and its associated industry, setting trends and fighting for media salience with other luxury goods industries. The art of fashion uses the science of fashion in the form of new material inventions, but new look inventions, new drapings, and the like stay arts. This paper presents the discovery of counter-intuitive design principles for fashions that come from experimental data, and did not come from and probably could not come from usual intuitions of designers, that is, from the art of design. xx

PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN OF THE iWATCH---Can Apple Do it Again? Principles of Amazing Design

Why was the iPod not released in watch format? Why are watchband segments not display, input, output, interactive, devices from large user-defined repertoires of segments? What will wrists coordinate, manage, sense, and report in ten, twenty, fifty years? These are some of the commonsense design questions Apple's existence poses to a location—the human wrist. What exactly are the “amazing design” components, processes, techniques that made the iPad, iPhone, iPod multi-media successes and can they be somewhat rotely replicated to come up with iWatches? This paper boldly proposes reverse engineering of iThing design success principles (including Jobs' heroic launch dramatics) and as a thought experiment applies them to the design of an “iWatch”. Then this paper reports results of workshops incorporating this reverse design process, done by many diverse people, engineers, designers, genders, nationalities for hints as to the uses and dis-uses of diverse types of diversity.

CREATIVITY & NOVELTY SCIENCES:

A MODEL OF THE NOVELTY-CREATIVITY SCIENCES AND THEIR TOP LEVEL INTER-RELATIONS

Worldwide in nearly every college and corporation, various design types and communities compete not cooperate, for funds, students, patrons, media attention, and the like. Moreover, generations of designers are trained up narrowly to be expert in one genre or other of design, ignorant of and antagonistic to other genres unnecessarily. There is a general demand for a common intellectual ground and common practice ground among design types, genres, and communities, that this paper's model of a set of Creativity & Novelty Sciences meets, in a provisional way.

UNDERSTANDING DESIGN IN THE CONTEXT OF NOVELTY-CREATIVITY SCIENCESWhat happens when inventors are asked to design? What happens when performers are asked to compose? What happens when diverse creativity models get applied to a design task? What happens when creativity, design, innovation, invention, imagination, story-telling approaches are combined in a design or invention project? These are some of the questions asked and answered by taking a Creativity-Novelty Sciences approach to and context on design work. This paper explores this new context for design, designs, and designers.

FROM SINGLE RIGHT-Y MODELS OF CREATIVITY & DESIGN TO BALANCED DIVERSE REPERTOIRES OF MODELS

Einstein wrote a few equations that led to nuclear energy and bombs, predicting the cosmos and the microcosmos, and that bounced, inadequate, off of quantum phenomena. Academics since him (and some before) have lusted for single amazing tight formulas as the gold standard for scientific understanding of social and psychologic and cultural phenomena. But the result of that has been models with virtually no ability to impact practice—models that do not work. Though professional excuses for these wimpy reported results (example: creativity fostering environments of 40+ variables that help corporations copy Japanese hit products 8 years after they are hits—delayed copying achieved as the outcome of “creative environment” establishment) abound, perhaps our mania for single right-y models, copying physics, is at fault. This paper explores another approach—balanced diverse repertoires of models.

REALITY SCIENCES:WHY MOST FIELDS SHUN TRUTHS, WHY THE REALITY SCIENCES

EMBRACE THEMThe social sciences investigate all sorts of truths that determine who people and societies are and what they do and aspire to. Of course the hard sciences and engineering build lots of the artificial environments people and societies populate, but it is social sciences that work on the human contents. The arts and humanities---what do they do? Many say they are out-dated relics of prior religion dominated eras and idea dictatorships: where the powerful in societies dictates what was true, even when experience and experiment demonstrated the falsity and powerlessness of their insistings. However, comedy, literature, history, and to a lesser extent philosophy are the only fields that tell personal and social truths. Comedy can pretend that “I was just joking”, literature excuses its truths with “it was just fiction”, history of course slips the truth in via “none of these people and groups are still here”, philosophy can say what is true because “we sell coherence of view and idea not coherence to data”, and finally, the arts can say “it is mere image imagination beauty” as their excuse for being true. The practice of truth in workplaces, political negotiations, and self change projects of persons is permeated with these Reality Sciences; the theory of truth is also shared by them. This paper presents Reality Sciences as an pragmatic and theoretically powerful revival of arts and humanities. In doing so it examines diverse versions of what “being true” is and might be. Particular uses of these Reality Sciences to humanize and make less harmful MBAs, engineers, politics, and administrations are suggested.

WHAT TRUTHS CONCERN: SOCIAL INDEX DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMSThe distribution of needs, capabilities, and interests in a society are the stuff of politics, conflict, and systems of governance. The degree to which we know and act on the needs, interests, and capabilities of our own selves and others is called the Social Index Level of us and others. This is a primary measure of how social we are as individuals and how social our relationships are. A year of working together with someone, for example, has been found to produce lower social index levels between persons than one of them spending a few minutes in the rooms at home of a person. High performance teams have been found to have social index levels above 20% where normal teams have levels between 3 and 7%. Current civilization is conducted at surprisingly low levels of social index. Computer systems that more and more connect us, various devices sold, meetings and conferences—all seem to have low impacts on social index levels. The Reality Sciences have been asserted to be a primary vehicle by which truth (true needs, interests, and capabilities for example) get into humans and human systems. When we test this with data from real people—do we find that groups or individuals that use more comedy or funnier comedy, more story telling and more imaginative retellings, more history and more accurate history, and so forth, end up operating at higher levels of performance with high levels of social indexing of the people and groups there? This paper tests this hypothesis.

FAST BRAIN SETTING CONTEXTS FOR SLOW BRAIN—How Gossip, Jokes, Stories, Histories, Philosophies, Dances, Characatures Speed Through Workforces Contexting Personal PR

A terrific joke, whether true or not, can change permanently images that thousands have of a person they have never met. Especially jokes that capture deep pain or surprise caused by a person but unrealized by them or un-noticed by their calousness, can, because they ring true, fix images of a person in thousands in a matter of a few hours or days. Newletter articles reporting accomplishments, awards and promotions ceremonies, and the like are vastly slower and less interesting and cannot compete with comedy, gossip, stories and the like---the Reality Sciences. This paper reports a survey on gaps between slow conceptual formal personal reputation building and reporting and fast emotive informal doing of the same by the Reality Sciences.

DESIGN:TOWARDS A SOCIAL-NEUROSCIENCE OF DESIGN—Designs

for the brains that handle them.There are 36 well replicated results of social neuroscience about brain modules and their interactions that determine human reaction to aspects of products and persons. There are 180 well documented flaws in how our brains handle information from designs and persons. There are 38 differences in how male and female brains handle information, devices, and situations. What becomes of design when it is configured to handle these traits, flaws, and differences? This paper presents a coherent program of investigation and practice improvements constitution a Social Neuroscience of Design. Contributions expected from this approach and benefits for design theory and practice are investigated.

MEASURES OF DESIGN QUALITY—A Coverage MetricMeasuring creativity of creative works, though commonly done all the time by markets, fails to satisfy as prices paid do not correlate strongly with historic judgments of final worth, decades or centuries later. Prices often get historic scale value wrong. Measuring the novelty of creative works, a part of the above, is also problematic. This paper examines this problem and proposes a metric for the coverage of various dimensions of various aspects of imagination and value by designs. Designs that have greater coverage are harder to dislodge from initial status or worth judgments.

13 PAPERS of 2011-12 by R. T. GreeneMULTIPLE MODELS OF CREATIVITY, Invited article for Springer's forthcoming Encyclopedia of Creativity,

WHAT IF CREATIVITY WERE 60 THINGS NOT ONE? TOWARDS A GRAMMAR OF DESIGN, presented ICDC2010,GETTING TO SUSUSTAINABLE SYSTEM VIA SURVIVABLE AND IMPOSABLE ONES, presented ICED2011,

NEW KINDS OF SPACE & A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE IR FUNCTION & FUTURE, Submitted SupraSpace, Tel Aviv June 2012

DIMENSIONS OF AN ANTHROPOLOGY OF DESIGN—Design & De signers as Anti-Cultures, Design as Culture Work, presented PIN 2012 Melbourne

THE CULTURAL WORK OF INNOVATING—Getting Real about I nnovation in Business, Keynote for TMCE 2012 Karlsruhe Germany, Presented BEIJING UNIV. Young Cr eative Leaders Forum 8NOV2011,

THE ROLE OF CULTURE IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, A PRELI MINARY APPROACH & TOOLS FOR HANDLING IT, for INCOSE Symposium Rome 2012

SYSTEM BUSHY-NESS & THE FRACTAL COMPUTING STRATEGY, to be submitted shortly to IEEE, ACM, HCI events “SUPPORTING” CREATIVITY: SUPPOSE CREATIVITY IS A T HEY NOT AN IT, for ICCC2012 in Dublin, IrelandDESIGN AS CULTURE WORK, SOCIAL AUTOMATA ALTERNATIVES TO BRAINSTORMS, MASS WORKSHOP INVENT AND DESIGN EVENTS AS ALTERNATIVES TO BRAINST ORMS, Workshops accepted for DRS2012

Conference BankokSocial & Idea Plasmas from Social & Idea Fusions—Rep licating Silicon Valley in China using 45 Models of

Innovation for 18 th ICE Conference Munich 2012The Creativity & Novelty Sciences School and Resear ch Center for 18 th ICE Conference Munich 2012

Multiple Models of Creativityby Richard Tabor Greene: richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu and richwows@gmail.com

Professor, Design Creativity & Innovation, KEIO University, Grad School of System Design and Management, Hiyoshi, Yokohama, JapanFounder: KNOWLEDGE EPITOME Before, After, BEYOND M.B.A.s 300 Courses; WEBWOWS, Custom Invention 76 Research & 42 Design Labs

Master of NOVELTY SCIENCES, De Tao Master's Academy, Beijing, ShanghaiFounder, The NOVELTY SCIENCES SCHOOL; KEIO University Japan, DTMA China

Synonyms: model pluralism, meta-models, creating creativity, novelty sciences

The Idea of NOVELTY SCIENCESThis article introduces 1) the Novelty Sciences1 (creativity, invention, innovation, design, composing, business venturing, and others), 2) the idea of multiple models of each, 3) with example multiple models (Meta-Models) of creativity and innovation, 4) and more detailed models than are usual (here a 64 item model of the most creative process known—Natural Selection). The model of creativity models that this article presents is the most comprehensive and detailed such model yet published, at the time of this writing. A book on 60 of the 120 models of creativity presented below, is published and available elsewhere (Greene 2000).

In addition an entire intellectual tradition and approach, centered on developing large diverse repertories of models, and tools specially invented to support the development and use of such repertoires are presented in this article, with one such tool (a fractal page format)---a proposed replacement for prose itself (prose is a very bad very old interface in need of upgrading), demonstrated on one page below (the Natural Selection Model near this article's end).

Individual designers, creators, etc. are often so used to and wedded to single particular models that have worked in the past for them, and academics are so used to the chase for the One Right Model that all others will bow down to, that few people in practice or theory are aware of the multiple models there to be studied and applied. This article attempts to open up: 1) multiple Novelty Sciences and 2) multiple models, 3) highly detailed, of each--- as new contexts for and frontiers for practice and theory. It also presents some severe costs to our collective mania for single right-y models of things and some large benefits when we, instead, deploy plural diverse models of one phenomenon to improve theory or practice. Ways that existing journals, editors, professions, universities, labs push us into single model use, while not discussed in detail, are mentioned from time to time. Why they do so is a topic for another article. This article presents the benefits for theory and for practice of operating with plural diverse models of each Novelty Science, including multiple models of creativity (120 in some detail presented here) and of innovation (54 models with little detail here for reasons of space limitations).

The NOVELTY SCIENCES VERSIONS OF LEVELS OF LIBERAL/SOCIAL ARTS OF

Creativity/Discovery Educated Persons (Created Selves) History of all 16 in 1st 2 cols.

Design/Invention Creating Selves Literature of

Innovation Creating Careers Philosophy of

Founding Tech Ventures Creating Systems Politics of

Fashion Creating Others (Leading) Culture of

Evolution Creating Cultures Design of

Composing Stories, Games, etc. Creating Quality Economics of

Performing/Exploring Creating Knowledge Practice of

(from Greene 2011 and De Tao Master's Academy 2011)

Tools for Non-Narrow: Thinking, Professions, Acade me, & OutcomesHerbert Simon wrote that exponential increase in knowledge volume meant professions, disciplines, theories, and professional people were, relative to the totality of that knowledge, becoming smaller and smaller fractions, with severe effects, namely, that all our major problems fell in the cracks between our increasingly narrow persons, professionals, and disciplines (Simon 1996). Though system science was offered up as a solution (Bartanlanffry 1969), that failed. Total quality had powerful globally implemented practices, however, that address this issue well—horizontal

1 The NOVELTY SCIENCES is a registered trademark of Knowledge Epitome when used commercially

CONFERENCES 2013 Papers by RTGreene

1. A MAP OF THE SYSTEMS THINKING FOREST:48 Systems Thinking Genres + 256 System Effects as the Trees of that Forest

2. ASSESSING NOTICE & HANDLING OF 256 SYSTEM EFFECTS: Who Gets Promoted? Who Is Lucky? Who Finds Side-Effects that are Better than Main Ones?

3. REACHING ECSTATIC “FLOW” STATES (REPEATEDLY):

IN VIDEOGAMES & SOCIALWEB COMMENT STORMS viaTHE REALITY & IMAGINATION SCIENCES CONTINUUM

4. Predicting Product Pricing, Versions, Sales via

Maps of Interactions of Cultures of Devices & Users

5. Creativity & Innovation: Variety, Amount, Emphasis,

Impact Assessment

6. Assessing China's Techno-Parks for Their Silicon

Valley Dynamics

7. MONASTIC INNOVATIONS:Emergent Computational Sociality--

Changing the Most Mundane Interfaces—Brainstormsreplaced by Social Automata

8. Supporting What? Kinds of Cooperating, Functioning, Competitive Unit, Performance

Evolving Mixes of All These are WHAT IS THERE TO SUPPORT

9. Measuring Socialness: 16 Kinds & WaysWhat types/amounts of it make people productive? innovative?What devices, leaders, systems improve, decrease, or increase it (each type of it)?

How social is Facebook? IBM? the Iphone5, the Los Angeles Lakers? You? And in what way?