Meadows to the rescue!

Systems thinking has been the topic of daily conversations and extra-curricular blog entries since I returned from the first intensive. Although I had mixed feelings on Capra and Wheatley's approach to systems thinking, the intensive was able to communicate the application of systems thinking to me in a way that I could absorb. It was practical, but with gigantic implications. Like the almost pragmatic use of systems thinking in the first intensive, I really enjoyed the approachable writing style of Donella Meadows. She doesn't wallow in the history of systems thinking, which was a major turn-off for me in Capra and Wheatley's writing. I didn't even know what systems thinking was, had barely even heard of it, why were you telling me all this historical context before I knew what the hell you were talking about? Meadows doesn't waste time with this.

Meadows nearly established her book as a self-help book in her introductory note. "As a citizen of an increasingly global society, perhaps you are just plain frustrated with how hard it is to make a positive and lasting difference. If so, I think that this book can help," Meadows writes. As a notorious over-analyzer who gets overwhelmed in self-defeat when I can't visualize a solution, and as one extremely concerned with what world my children will be inheriting, a straight-forward plain-speaking book like Meadows about redesigning the way we manage complex systems is exciting. Meadows dives right into real-world examples that are extremely effective at demonstrating feedback loops. I find it intriguing that economic recessions and drug addiction are two of her examples. Who knew the two had so much in common? Meadows discusses the systems-thinking undertones of old sayings and common wisdom. This approach was useful in translating what I already know about systems thinking without knowing it was about systems thinking into an open conversation about the topic.

Meadows rightly uses stock and flow diagrams to guide the reader into systems analysis from the beginning. She wisely acknowledges that pictures and graphics are a useful tool for looking at systems. In chapter 1 and 2 she uses common examples of everyday systems to explain feedback loops and their various forms, stabilizing, balancing, and reinforcing. I know it is my scientific training that enjoys her approach in these chapters, but really I think Meadows is just a good teacher. Her examples are digestible, she asks the reader questions for them to answer themselves, and she is repetitive for the sake of honing in on the point.

I still struggle a bit with stock and flow diagrams, even after the Elluminate session on the topic. However, I am enjoying the discussion and learning process, and I know my ultimate understanding of them will be extremely useful. I think it is the diagram itself that I don't understand, less than the material conveyed in them. I almost became a "stock assessment biologist" at one point in my career. Thinking about the inflows and outflows of a system, timelags, and external factors affecting the system, is something I am very comfortable with. But I've never drawn a diagram to represent it (in fact, in stead, I was writing complex models examples to represent the system...perhaps it would have been wiser to start with a diagram??)

My husband has been looking at the stock and flow diagrams in Meadow's book with me, and we're discussing them. I think he has a natural understanding of these sorts of diagrams, because he is more detail oriented than I am. He understood the thermostat example in chapter 2 right away. I had to chew on it a bit before feeling alright with the example.

Thus far, Meadow's book feels more like a text book to me, but in a useful way. I look forward to reading more of Meadow's book, and I hope we get to experiment with stock and flow diagrams in class.

My initial reaction

Before I dove into the first reading assignment for the term, my classmates were all making comments along the lines of, "I bet you are loving this reading, Michelle!" It seemed an honest enough statement at the time, but in hindsight perhaps they were being sarcastic? After reading the first four chapter's of The Web of Life, my text is filled with red pen marks either exclaiming "Brilliant!" or "This is nonsense." I'm utterly torn on how I feel about systems thinking thus far into this course. My reactions to Capra's book and Wheatley's book were fairly different, so perhaps it is not the material that makes me uneasy or confused, but the way it is presented? Only time will tell.

You should know this about me: I really struggle with metaphysics. My gut is to write it off as utter crap. However, I do identify as a spiritual person, but not in a religious sense. I will aim to maintain an open mind.

The Web of Life by Fritof Capra

Chapter 1: This chapter was mostly filled with my scribbled statements of agreement. I studied ecology for eleven years. Often I was isolated in the field for my "nostalgic" feelings towards nature. This chapter acknowledges a connection with nature as a fundamental aspect of the philosophy of Deep Ecology. "Ultimately, deep ecological awareness is spiritual or religious awareness." Inspired by early transcendentalists such as Thoreau, I have always viewed ecology as such (I even list ecology under my Political and Religious views on facebook). Previously, I had read about deep ecology on wikipedia out of curiosity, but it comes as no surprise it never appeared in my formal curriculum. I was very pleased with this chapter, as it outlined and detailed my "gut instinct" all these years. I was very touched by the chart describing integrative values and thinking styles. I think there are times for self-assertion, but in general, these other holistic values will serve better.

Chapter 2: This chapter marks the beginning of my confusion. I have never really considered substance and form as separate, and it seems odd to me that entire sciences have been built off their separation. I feel this chapter did a poor job of describing Cartesian Mechanism, but the consequences I better grasp. Capra quotes someone discussing the lost connection between taste and soul--as an advocate of Slow Food, I can see this longing to return to this connection in society.

I can understand the vitalism point of view, that some sort of unifying "life force" is needed to unify biological forms, only in the light of the limited scientific knowledge available when the idea was formed. I find it hard to believe that some of the things mentioned in the reading this far were spawned by organismic biologists.

I do not understand quantum physics. My brain shuts down when I read these sections. My husband understands quantum physics better than I do, and he is helping me accept some of the ideas postulated in this text and the other readings. I am sure we will have some interesting household discussions this term. Subatomic particles are not things? Then why are we calling them particles!??

I enjoyed the discussions on ecology, something I know and understand well. I did not enjoy the rest. It is probably seeded in my lack of understanding. I look forward to deeper appreciation.

Chapter 3. The picture in Chapter 3 was the biggest take home for me: When you look at the node of a network, you've identified a new network if you "zoom in." Again, I got pretty lost in most of this Chapter. They claim to set out the criteria of systems thinking, but it seems like pretty vague criteria to me: a network of concepts. Oooookkkkk....no offense, but that hardly seems revolutionary. Of course interdisciplinarianism is important. Am I just naive due to my age (28?). The subsections on process thinking and tektology seem to describe neither. This chapter frustrated me, and I feel ultimately that systems theory is indeed a "vague, hazy, metaphysical concept" when it is presented in this manner.

Chapter 4. Ahhh, feedback loops. Finally! Something that makes SENSE! Ecology is full of feedback loops, and it makes sense that they are underestimated. If Systems Theory aims to enhance their importance, then I can get behind that. I found it interesting that feedback loops were not recognized until relatively recently in history....this may be true, but I have a sinking feeling ancient peoples utilized feedback loops.

The prediction on page 69 that machines are the equivalent of slave labor and a recession will result due to computers spooked me. Automation equals unemployment, does it not? The philosophical struggle with the idea that the mind is a computer is fascinating. I underlined this sentence on page 70 because it makes a lot of sense to me: "Information is presented as the basis of thinking, whereas in reality the human mind thinks with ideas, not information." Throughout my life I have had what I call "ecological epiphanies." This was based on connections, ideas...not information.

Wheatley: Nuggets of interesting ideas, amongst poorly written, confusing, blabber. That's my reaction. I don't like Wheatley's writing style. She writes like she is talking, but in a rather ineffective manner. I dropped my book in frustration and disbelief a few times. I'm going to focus on the nuggets of interesting ideas so that I can maintain positivity.

*Wheatley looks to nature for inspiration. I do this too, and so it resonated with me. I think she is a bit selective on what she looks to though...has she looked at an ant colony lately? With its rigid roles and structures incapable of adaptation within the organization? It's a pretty successful organization. However, we seek to celebrate the organization and the individual (as Wheatley herself describes) Individuals ant, do not exist, so to speak. Only the queen.

*Wheatley writes about roving leadership, discussing leadership as an emergent property. This idea is intriguing. I know it is an idea that has relevance to political science in particular.

*Wheatley talks about opening ourself to a world of inherent orderliness, dynamic connectedness. I liked this part of the reading a lot. I like the idea that people and nature are connected, and that should be a comforting thing.

*I just dropped out of science to change into a related but different field. She discusses finding order in disorder. I feel peace and purpose in my career change. I think that might be a little bit along the lines of what she was talking about.

OVERALL: I get very lost whenever the discussion is about systems thinking directly, or about the history of systems thinking. Wheatley's book really frustrated me, and I may be missing out on vital and important information--blinded by my frustration. I seem to be getting more from examples, metaphors, and ecology-related material. I am VERY curious as to how this will be tied in with the course.