seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Rwanda

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Arab Emirates

seen from Canada
seen from Yemen
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Argentina

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from France

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
♫ DOO DOO DOO DOO! ♩
Mechanical dogma (Parts 3)
We continue from last weeks problematic linear, mechanical thought patterns. Recall that a mechanical view cannot appreciate nor capture the fluidity that is central to socio-economic systems, which brings us back to the obsession to control and predict dynamic systems. As a practical example, the typical mechanistic response to the global financial system, is more regulations, tighter controls, greater oversight, which are all good, but highly inefficient since it only considers one static portion of an entire fluid system (dynamics of our global financial system). A more important example is where governments throughout the world try to generate jobs & stimulate their economies by using mechanical thinking, like hoping “private sector & especially large corporations can be incentivised” to create the necessary jobs. These are classic mechanistic solution to systemic problems - in other words, corporations have a primary focus of profit to their shareholders, which is inherently linked to greater consumption (we must continue to buy their products and services at a premium), thus directly opposed to alleviating poverty and joblessness. Excessive profit priorities are the selfish, greedy orientation that have created joblessness in the first place, like for example “out-sourcing & off-shoring work” due to cheap labor, tax breaks, etc., thus increasing profits without increasing overhead (creating more local jobs).
These counterintuitive results are what leaders and policy-makers are unable to understand since they operate though a mechanical paradigm, which cannot yield any understanding about mechanisms such as feedback dynamics, self-organisation & relationships between agents and agencies having different “fields-of-power”1. Until our leaders in both public and private sectors truly understand the dynamics and inter-connectedness of our global poverty, hunger, joblessness and equality, we will continue on a downward spiral of having a minority with concentrated wealth & a majority locked in extreme poverty1.
References:
1. Udemans, F., 2008, The golden thread: escaping socio-economic subjugation, an experiment in applied complexity science, Authorhouse UK; Arthur, W.B. et al, 2013, Economics and the Modern Theories of Cognitive Behavior, SFI working paper; Mantega, M., & Stanley, H., 2000, An introduction to Econo-physics: correlation and complexity in Finance, Cambridge University Press; Gell-Mann, M., 1994, The quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex, New York: WH Freeman; Stacey, R.D., 1995, The science of complexity: an alternative perspective for strategic change processes, Strategic Management Journal, 16: 477-495; Stacey, R.D., 1996, Complexity and creativity in organizations, San Francisco: Berret-Koehler publishers; Sherman, H. and Schultz, R., 1998, Open Boundaries, New York: Perseus Books;
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
Michael Crichton
"It often takes a long time to overcome these rules that you mustn’t think in a certain way."
“Why Not!”
WHENEVER a new particle is discovered now, science fans expect it to have a funny name. Up quarks, down quarks, strange quarks, charmed quarks, top quarks, bottom quarks -- in addition to these six "flavors," quarks come in three "colors": red, green, and blue. There is no end to the inventiveness that has become part of the subculture of particle physics. Bottom quarks and anti-bottom quarks (stuck together by -- what else? -- gluons) can be combined to form an exotic compound called bottomonium. It is easy to forget sometimes that all this jabberwocky refers to real things. No one deserves more credit, or blame, for all this verbal whimsy than Murray Gell-Mann.
Still the Atlantic