Categories
07. Operant Conditioning and Cultural Evolution

Operant Conditioning and Cultural Evolution

Operant conditioning was first described by the American psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904 – 1990) (Skinner, 1938). It is a method of learning that uses satisfiers and contra-satisfiers to alter behaviour. Skinner found that, if a behaviour was associated with a satisfier, or as it is more commonly referred to as a reward, then it was likely to be repeated. This is referred to as reinforcement of the behaviour. Ultimately, if a behaviour is sufficiently reinforced, it can become automatic or unconscious. On the other hand, if a behaviour was associated with a contra-satisfier or punishment, then it was less likely to be repeated. If it was sufficiently punished, then it could become entirely forgotten or extinguished.

Normally, before we act, a decision is made unconsciously and passed to the conscious mind which then vets it. If the act is deemed to be satisfactory, the conscious mind approves it. However, if it is deemed unsatisfactory, then it is blocked and the unconscious mind must think again. In this way our more rational conscious mind can condition our more creative unconscious. It is like riding a bicycle. Initially, it can take considerable conscious effort, but over time we learn to control the bicycle unconsciously with little or no conscious intervention. The same principle applies to operant conditioning. However, in the case of conditioning the conscious mind is replaced by satisfiers or contra-satisfiers from an external agent.

An example of extinguishment is cultural denial. If a topic is one that causes people anxiety, then we are discouraged from raising it by other members of our community. That is, they punish us socially for doing so, and ultimately the topic becomes extinguished from our minds. That is, we fall into denial.

Although operant conditioning was first formally recognised by Skinner, it has been used in practice for a very long time. In fact, because the practice of conditioning others can be seen in alpha members of animal herds and packs, it probably predates the evolution of homo sapiens. To cite human examples, some religions have conditioned behaviours and beliefs in their members through regular ritual practices, and continue to do so. Kings and emperors have conditioned compliance through reward or threats of physical punishment. In the present day, we are conditioned as consumers through advertisements that promise psychological or practical rewards for our purchases.

Once a threshold percentage of the population has been conditioned to behave in a particular way,  that behaviour becomes a part of its culture, i.e., a value, a norm, or a belief. The conditioning then becomes self-sustaining through a process of socialization. That is, we reward one another socially for compliance, and punish one another for non-compliance. Aspects of the culture in our social environment can act as a satisfier, as a contra-satisfier, or can be neutral for an individual or organisation depending on their needs and circumstances. The more a culture acts as a satisfier the more likely it is to be adopted and the less likely it is to be rejected. Together, conditioning, socialization and acceptance can steer the evolution of a culture. This is almost certainly the case with the shift from traditional values, often religiously inspired, to self-expression values, often consumption inspired, noted by the World Values Survey (World Values Survey Association, 2020). Bluntly put, the satisfaction of our more basic needs today is a stronger driver of behaviour than the satisfaction of our higher needs tomorrow. So, consumer conditioning has replaced religious conditioning.

Unfortunately, we are all susceptible to conditioning. This is because of the way that our minds have evolved. Both religious and consumer conditioning are ways of controlling the majority in the interest of an elite minority. Thus, many aspects of religion and consumerism are harmful to society. Additionally, many aspects of consumerism are harmful to the natural environment. Fortunately, providing we develop the more rational and conscious aspect of our minds, there is much that we can do to avoid or overcome such conditioning. However, before describing my suggested approach, I would like to clarify the nature of consciousness.

A detailed explanation of consciousness can be found at https://rational-understanding.com/2021/10/22/consciousness/. In summary, however, it is an awareness of one’s own mental processes. Unfortunately, the popular definition incorrectly includes an awareness of one’s surroundings. Very primitive animals, that we would hesitate to describe as being conscious, are aware of their surroundings and, because people have evolved from simpler organisms, this awareness is a function of our unconscious mind. The unconscious mind then passes relevant information, particularly any threats or opportunities, to the conscious one. For example, a noise while we are sleeping will awaken us, or the flick of a curtain on the opposite side of the street will automatically draw our attention. Because of this misunderstanding, use of the internet search term “increasing consciousness” will yield advice on how to improve one’s perception of the external world, or how to achieve a mystical “higher level of consciousness”. However, from personal experience, I would recommend painting or photography to increase one’s perception of the external world. After some practice, colours will become more vibrant, and the arrangement of objects more interesting. Returning to the correct definition of consciousness, some of us are more conscious of our own minds than others. Nevertheless, this too can be improved with practice and the appropriate internet search term is “increasing self-awareness”.

The approach that I would recommend for avoiding or removing any conditioning is therefore as follows.

  • Consciously recognise conditioning attempts whilst they are happening. This is not difficult. There will be much repetition accompanied by implied or overt promises of satisfiers, or threats of contra-satisfiers.
  • Consciously recognise any social pressures from, for example, friends, colleagues, and advertising, to accept a value, norm, or belief.
  • Consciously recognise when we are engaging in conditioned behaviour. Again, there will be repetition and the behaviour will be carried out unconsciously. There may also be a sense of compulsion or addiction.
  • Consciously question whether the behaviour makes sense and is good for us, our society, and the natural environment.

Armed with this knowledge, it is then possible to avoid conditioning. It is also possible, but difficult, to de-condition ourselves. The latter is sometimes referred to as self-control.

  • Firstly, avoid any further conditioning attempts and any social pressures. For example, don’t watch adverts and don’t mix with people who pressurise others in this way.
  • Consciously block conditioned behaviours whenever they are prompted by the unconscious mind.  To this end it may be necessary to stimulate conscious thought by, for example, using sticky labels on anything used in the behaviour or by asking a friend or partner to alert you to such behaviour. Keep your responses to ones of gratitude though, or they will quickly become conditioned against helping you.
  • Rehearse the negatives of a conditioned behaviour whenever you become aware of it. A written list will help. This is a mild form of aversion therapy, but I would not recommend any stronger form.
  • Nor would I recommend rewarding yourself whenever you block a behaviour except to feel pleased. Anything more may condition some other behaviour.

References

B.F. Skinner (1938). “The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis.” Cambridge, Massachusetts: B.F. Skinner Foundation. ISBN 1-58390-007-1, ISBN 0-87411-487-X

World Values Survey Association (2020). “Findings and Insights”. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp

Categories
23. Management Denial Syndrome

Management Denial Syndrome

In a previous article at https://rational-understanding.com/2023/09/05/cultural-denial-or-conspiracy-of-silence/, I described the concepts of personal and cultural denial. In summary, denial is a psychological defense mechanism identified by Freud and his daughter. When we encounter a situation that causes us anxiety and about which we can do nothing, then we alleviate our anxiety by denying the existence of its cause.  Cultural denial is a much stronger form. When a group experience anxiety due to a common cause, then they reinforce one another’s denial through the process of socialization, i.e., punishment for mentioning the cause and reward for remaining silent about it.

However, there is another form of denial that is stronger yet. It is a very common organizational pathology that infects management hierarchies. To explain its cause, I must take a step back. The relationship between a junior manager and a senior one is an informal contract, whereby the junior manager supports the senior one in return for delegated power and the benefits of status. There is often much competition for management positions and the senior manager usually controls who will fill them. So, if there is a problem in the organisation, then a junior manager will be reticent to speak truth to power and report it to a senior one for fear of appearing in breach of the informal contract. This creates anxiety that can result in personal denial. That is, whilst we may be aware of the problem, we do not think about it or discuss it and do not realize that others are in the same position. There are, of course, those who do think about the problem but whose primary concern is to navigate it in their personal interest. In the hierarchy, almost all senior managers are junior to a yet more senior one. So, if the problem is reported to them, this affects their own denial, and they can discourage further reports with veiled threats. In this way, denial can infect a whole management hierarchy. The managers may know of the problem but are unwilling to talk about it, and so, it goes unaddressed. Furthermore, the hierarchy is unable to recognise that it suffers from this problem because denial is itself the subject of denial. Ultimately, recognition often only occurs when there is a catastrophe.

The classic example is the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster. A brief description of events leading up to this disaster is given below. However, there are many other more mundane examples, two of which I will also discuss.

The shuttle Columbia was launched in 2003 with seven astronauts aboard. During takeoff, a piece of insulating foam from the external fuel tank was seen to break off and strike the shuttle’s wing. Foam had broken off before and in one instance it dented the casing of one of the solid rocket boosters. However, this was the first time that foam had struck the shuttle. Concerns were raised by a relatively junior member of the NASA team and requests were passed up the line for remote inspection of the shuttle’s wing while it was in space. However, the prevailing view in NASA was that the foam was not sufficiently dense to have caused any significant damage. Three potential remote observations by aircraft, ground telescope and satellite were considered but rejected by the management team. A proposal for an external inspection by the astronauts was also rejected. All would have taken time out of the crew’s very tight schedule of scientific experiments, thereby harming NASA’s reputation. The junior member who raised the concern, when he pressed the matter, was told by his manager not to be “Chicken Little”, i.e., not to raise false concerns. A working group was established to consider the matter but complained that they did not have visual evidence on which to base their work. They were told to do their best without it and concluded that there was no safety concern. The astronauts were informed of the strike but again were told that there were no safety concerns.

As we know, when the shuttle returned to earth it broke up during re-entry with the loss of all seven astronauts. Even then, the denial persisted. Managers claimed that there must have been some other cause. Only when the external accident investigation team fired a similar piece of foam at a mock-up wing, and it punched a large hole was the denial overcome. Many in the management team then recognised their error and there were expressions of “mea culpa”. Others, however, went to ground. It is uncertain whether the lives of the crew could have been saved had the damage been investigated. However, it is clear that management denial prevented any attempt to do so.

More detail is given in the excellent documentary on BBC Iplayer entitled “The Space Shuttle that Fell to Earth” at https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m001tts2/the-space-shuttle-that-fell-to-earth.

Recently, I have had dealings with two UK public service organisations, both of which have a communication problem with their customers that impacts seriously on their ability to provide a satisfactory service. In one case there is a lack of feedback on reports from the public about safety concerns. This, of course, discourages them from making such reports in the future, and so, safety issues are probably going unaddressed. In the other example there is a lack of feedback on the progress of maintenance tasks not only to customers but also internally. As a result, costly mistakes are made, tasks go unaddressed, and the administrative costs involved in correcting this is high. Both organisations suffer the same denial syndrome. Although they both have complaints departments, they appear to see their role as one of defending management from criticism. They use various techniques among which are gaslighting, irrational arguments, and word games, i.e., implying one thing whilst actually saying another. It can be very time-consuming and frustrating to obtain the truth, and in so doing one can become labeled as the problem. So strong is the denial that the last-resort is often self-harm by, for example, simply not replying to the customer or asking them to contact an external regulator. Both organisations also employ “improvement managers”. However, whilst they may be aware of the problem and agree with the customer, they are also part of the management hierarchy, have a living to earn, and face the same difficulties in speaking truth to power.

Please, do not take these examples as implying that management hierarchies in the private sector are immune to the problem. Many do in fact suffer from it, although the topic of denial may be different, for example, a bullying, misogynistic, anti-social, or anti-environmental culture.

So, what is the solution to this syndrome? As we have seen from Columbia, a catastrophe will bring recognition. However, we should of course aim to avoid catastrophes. Bypassing the hierarchy, i.e., whistleblowing, is one solution, although it is notable that many organisations are now putting whistleblowing policies in place to control this. Leaving the organisation is another, although this will merely worsen the situation. A form of natural selection will take place in which those who are more susceptible to the syndrome remain, whilst those less susceptible leave. The only real solution is awareness of the problem, which I hope this article will encourage; better management training, including recognition of the syndrome; greater honesty with ourselves, even if this means suffering some anxiety; and greater honesty with others, especially those with power over us. There is a degree of personal risk in the latter and the way that a problem is flagged up will depend on the circumstances. However, it would clearly help to understand the benefits and disbenefits of acknowledgement vs. denial, and to emphasise the benefits of the former and the disbenefits of the latter.

Categories
07. A Conceptual Farmework for General System Theor

A Conceptual Framework for General System Theory

Introduction

This article proposes a single deep conceptual framework that unifies many of the concepts of systems theory, such as systems, holons, holism, relationships, emergence, causality, isomorphisms, etc. This framework may form the basis of a general system theory. Some of its definitions may seem obvious, but I have included them for the avoidance of doubt and to paint a complete picture.

Conceptual Frameworks

There are two ways to define a word. The first is by reference to observed reality. For example, we can all agree on the definition of the word “snake” because we can observe a snake in the external physical world. However, there is less agreement over more abstract words such as “justice” and “conflict”. This is because we are unable to observe all instances of those concepts. To overcome the latter problem, we attempt to define the word, but in doing so, we must use other words.

A conceptual framework is essentially a set of definitions of more abstract words that is internally consistent and founded on axiomatic words, i.e., words that are not defined and are taken as being self-evident. A conceptual framework comprises our understanding of the words and the universe that they represent. We all hold conceptual frameworks. However, they vary greatly in their depth and nature. The deeper a framework, the more fundamental and general the words it defines. For example, the word “relationship” is deep and has broad application, whilst “unhappiness” is far less so, applying only to human beings and some animals in a particular state.

The development of any theory first requires a conceptual framework. To use an analogy from physics, the absence of a framework is equivalent to attempting to build a structure with gas. On the other hand, if we do have a framework, then we are building with a solid. Furthermore, if more than one person is developing a theory, they will need to agree a single framework if they are to communicate successfully. It is OK to consider different perspectives, but ultimately, they must be drawn together into a single consistent whole. In the case of general system theory, we are attempting to develop a very general theory indeed. So, we need to ensure that the framework is as deep as we can make it.

The absence of a common framework can be seen on the internet. Authors do have their own conceptual frameworks of course, but rarely are they explained, and their number can be overwhelming. Furthermore, there is clearly competition between them for more general acceptance. So, the motives of their proponents must also be questioned. Finally, their depth is rarely great, and so, the theories that they underpin can be quite specific rather than general. To unify these frameworks, much effort would be required in drawing them together and analysing them for a deeper one that applies to most.

Cognitive Physicalist Philosophy

My proposed deep framework is founded on Cognitive Physicalist philosophy. The physicalist aspect of this philosophy holds that everything, including objects, abstract concepts, and information, is physical in nature and occupies a region or regions of space-time. The cognitive aspect recognises that human beings have limited perception and cognition. Because the universe of space-time is probably infinite, to understand and explain it we must simplify it. So, physicalism enables us to establish a single conceptual framework, but cognition limits our understanding and perception.

Spiritualism

Many people believe that there is also a spiritual aspect to nature, and so, reject physicalism. However, the source of our spiritual beliefs is probably an unconscious sense that we use emotion in our decision-making processes. It is certainly true that we rely heavily on the unconscious mind and on emotion when making our decisions. This is something that we have inherited from simpler organisms and that evolution has built upon. In the absence of a rational scientific explanation for the process, it can take on a mystical flavour, and can seem to be an alternative to our other skill, conscious rationality. In practice, from an evolutionary perspective, emotion-based decision-making is entirely reasonable, and the emotional and rational aspects of our minds work hand-in-hand to our benefit.

The Importance of true axioms

Over 25 years ago, I became very frustrated with conventional symbolic logic. It comprises numerous disparate branches and a plethora of different symbolisms that create much confusion. So, I embarked on a project to join up the various branches using a single common symbolism. Not only was I successful in unifying these branches, but also in including both natural language and mathematics. However, what was originally intended to be a five-year project turned out to be a twenty-three year one.

There were two main outputs from this project of significance for systems theory. Firstly, part of the project involved the axiomatization of logic, i.e. the identification of a number of self-evident but unprovable truths on which all of the remaining theory can be based. It was necessary that these axioms provide an explanation for all generally accepted laws of logic. As I unified the different branches, I found that many of the axioms for a traditional branch of logic, and indeed mathematics, were in fact theorems that could be derived from deeper and more general axioms. Nevertheless, a small number always remained that were particular to a branch and distinguished it from the others.

Secondly, physicalism was the only approach that would provide a single framework. Symbolic logic is almost self-defining. All its theorems arise from the operations of its axioms on themselves. The one and only axiom that might be regarded as not being of logic is the physicalist one.

These concepts can be used when considering a general system theory. Providing they have an empirical basis in reality, two ideas can be likened to two minor branches of a tree. If we are aware only of the branches but not the tree, then the two ideas may appear to contradict one another. However, if we can identify common truths from which both ideas can be explained, then we have identified the larger branch from which the minor ones sprout. That is, we are beginning to perceive the tree. In this analogy the common truths are, temporarily at least, the equivalent of axioms. This process can continue until we reach the trunk of the tree. The more ideas we are able to join up in this way the more likely their common explanation or axiom is to be true.

The truth of an axiom is not guaranteed of course. Many times, I have had to revise axioms that have proven inconsistent with other branches of logic. So, a certain amount of objectivity and persistence is needed. Furthermore, there is no certainty that the tree does ultimately have a trunk, i.e., that there are universal axioms. Bearing this in mind, together with the fact that some axioms are particular to a branch, i.e., are emergent, it seems unlikely that there is a single simple explanation for everything. Nevertheless, we can attempt to find one for those few things that lie within human experience, and this is what my proposed framework attempts to do.

The remainder of this article now describes the framework.

Information

According to physicalism, information is physical in nature. It also appears to be something that only living things and some of our artifacts are capable of recognizing and manipulating. The term information at source refers to the structure of a physical entity. When we see other things with a similar structure we recognise them, i.e., create a mental image of them, for future reference. We also give them a name so that we can pass our knowledge of those things to others. Thus, the original information is translated and communicated. Nevertheless, all of those translations and communications are physical in nature. A mental image is an arrangement of neurons and the way that they fire;  speech comprises patterns of vibration in air; and so on.

However, our perception and information processing abilities are limited. So, in translating and communicating  we simplify; we assume;  we make mistakes; we reject or modify new information that is not consistent with our existing knowledge; and so on. Thus, information can be false.

Holons

Arthur Koestler originally described a holon as being any entity that can be recognised as a whole in itself and which constitutes part of a larger whole. However, for the purpose of this framework, a holon is also an entity that comprises a collection of other holons with relationships between them. Every holon is a system with inputs, processes, and outputs. It is also physical in nature. These definitions are true not only of physical objects, but also, of events and more “abstract” concepts such as justice, conflict, etc.  For example, justice is the set of all just acts.

Holism

The term holism refers to a system having properties that its component parts do not, that is, emergent properties. For the purpose of this framework, a holon is further defined as being something at which a new property first emerges as the complexity of entities increases. Thus, all holons have emergent properties and are holistic.

Relationships

A relationship between two things comprises those things for so long as they are related to one another in a particular way. It also includes whatever is transferred either way in that relationship, whether it be space, matter, raw energy, or information.

Every relationship also has outputs. At least one of these is its appearance, i.e., its information at source. There is a question over whether this appearance is an emergent property, i.e., a property that the relationship has, but that its component parts do not. If so, then all relationships are holons because they have emergent properties. If not, then a relationship is not a holon. For this article I will assume the latter, i.e., that the appearance of an entity is not an emergent property. However, it should be borne in mind that this is an assumption and not necessarily true.

Complexity

The complexity of a relationship or holon can be measured by the number of fundamental particles that it comprises. For the present, at least, we can regard fundamental particles as those identified in the Standard Model of physics.

The more fundamental particles an entity comprises, the more variability there is between entities in the same set. This is because we form sets based on the similarities that we observe between entities. It is a human cognitive act, and we are limited in the amount of complexity that we can manage.  To address this variability we create prototypes, i.e., mental images of a typical member of the set that has only the characteristics we have used to define the set, and none of the variability.

Holon Formation & Chaos

There must be a certain number of relationships between holons before a higher level holon is formed, i.e., before an emergent property other than appearance is encountered. This emergent property can be an output from the holon which in turn can be the basis for relationships between higher level holons.

Between the formation of holons at one level and those at another, the number of relationships increases and may exceed the threshold of our comprehension, thus appearing chaotic.

Abstract Entities

Every relationship or holon is part of a set of similar ones, and this set is itself a relationship or holon. However, because it comprises components that occupy several separate regions of space-time, the set may not be observable in its entirety. This is reflected in natural language. For example, “conflict” comprises several instances of conflict, each of which is “a conflict”. We can perceive several instances of conflict but not “conflict” in its entirety, and so, we may label it an abstract concept. Nevertheless, it is real and physical.

Despite being collected together into a set on the basis of common features, the individual holons or relationships may also have features that are unique to themselves. This presents a communication problem. Each observer, a diplomat and a family counselor, say, will observe a different subset of conflicts, and so, will form a different understanding of the concept. So, when one is discussing the topic with the other misunderstandings are almost inevitable. Worse yet, different observers can give different names to the same thing in different contexts. This can make communication between the two difficult, if not impossible. It can also obscure the fact that they are discussing the same concept.

Causality

Holons or systems have outputs that act as inputs for other holons or systems. This is the same as causality and is reflected in our use of natural language. For example, “conflict” may cause “poverty”, and “a conflict” may cause “an instance of poverty”. It is what is exchanged between the two holons or systems that provides the causal link. Their processes and outputs are causes; their inputs and processes are effects. This transfer is evidenced by the fact that causality cannot propagate at greater than the speed of light. As Hume observed, a cause must be spatially contiguous to its effect and must precede it.

The normal laws of causality apply to these relationships. That is, a cause may be necessary or sufficient for an effect. Also, several necessary causes may only together be sufficient.

One thing that is often overlooked in causality is the existence of inhibitors. That is, those things that prevent an effect. Again, inhibitors can be necessary or sufficient to prevent an effect. Also,  several necessary inhibitors can only together be sufficient to prevent it. This is of importance when it comes to the discussion of living entities, holons, or systems.

Function & Purpose

The function of a holon or system can be regarded as its outputs. However, because these outputs are inputs for other holons or systems, i.e., effects, these effects can also be regarded as the holon or system’s function. The purpose of a non-living entity is the same as its function. However, a living entity with agency can regard its purpose as being what it would like its function to be.

Needs, Satisfiers and Contra-satisfiers

We use different language when referring to living entities, systems or holons. The needs of a living entity are the equivalent of its function. If those needs are not satisfied the entity fails to function. For example, if we lack oxygen we die. The same is true of some of our artifacts. If a factory lacks electricity it ceases to operate. The inputs to living entities and some of our artifacts are satisfiers or contra-satisfiers. A satisfier is something that increases or sustains the level of satisfaction of a living holon or system’s needs or that of an artifact. It is also a necessary cause of the system’s function. A contra-satisfier is something that reduces the level of satisfaction of a system’s needs. In other words, it is an inhibitor.

Isomorphisms

Isomorphic entities are instances of the same set of holons or relationships. That is, entities that have the same arrangement of components and the same causal relationships between them. They can be difficult to recognise because different people observe different subsets of the set, and so, form different understandings of it, and use different words to describe it. To refer to an earlier analogy, isomorphic entities are different minor branches of the same tree. They can only be identified by discovering the same branch from which they sprout.

It is not necessary to use mathematics to identify isomorphisms. Rather a comparison of their function, outputs, and the causal relationships between their components can achieve the same result. It can be challenging, however, to identify what is passed from one holon to another in a causal relationship.

To cite the example of conflict causing poverty, this is in fact an indirect causal relationship brought about by the agents of conflict competing with the impoverished for limited resources. The resulting shortages then act as a contra-satisfier for the latter.

To some extent the difficulties in identifying isomorphisms can be overcome by poly-perspectivism, i.e., understanding the language and opinions of others and seeking a common explanation for those apparently divergent views.

Categories
36. A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems Psychology Ecology and Evolution Part 1

A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology, Ecology, & Evolution (Part 1).

The lack of a unified theory of human society is hampering our ability to tackle the self-induced existential threats that we currently face. This paper presents a practical social systems theory that addresses that absence. Furthermore, because the theory has been derived largely from the principles of systems science, ecology, and evolution, it has a broader application to natural ecosystems, artificial ones, and the interactions between them and the human species. The theory draws on an empirical observation of society; on the principles of systems science to describe the general structure of society; on the principles of ecology to describe the ways in which components of society can interact; and on the principles of psychology and evolution to demonstrate how those interactions can alter with time. The principles employed are fundamental to the field from which they were derived, are broadly accepted by practitioners in those fields, and were obtained by research of the literature. What is new, in this paper, is the combined application of principles from these different fields to human society. The result is a model that accurately reflects real situations involving social units of all sizes from individuals, through organisations, to nations. Methods are suggested for symbolising, diagramming, and analysing these interactions and how they change over time. This provides a basis for better understanding the causes of the threats that humanity and the natural world faces, and for designing interventions to counter them.

The paper is open access and can be downloaded free of charge in pdf format at https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#theory-of-society

It is targeted at a broad audience which may include specialists from various disciplines. Interpretation of the language used and the concepts that underpin this theory may differ from individual to individual and from discipline to discipline. No prior knowledge is assumed, therefore. Furthermore, the paper is written in plain English and, where any technical terms have been used, they are clearly defined.

Over the next few months, I will begin applying the theory to some relatively simple practical social issues and will publish the results here. If you would like to join me in this venture, please contact me at email@johnachalloner.com.  If there is sufficient interest, then I am also willing to provide free online training.

Categories
35. Social Systems Theory from a Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective

Social Systems Theory from a Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective

Introduction

The principles of evolution apply more extensively than many of us may be aware. They operate at chemical level and at the level of society, possibly even at ecosystem level as will be explained in the following sections.

Catalysis and autocatalysis

The term catalysis was proposed in 1835 by the Swedish chemist, Jöns Jakob Berzelius (1779-1848). A catalyst or, as it is known in biochemistry, an enzyme is a chemical that increases the rate of a reaction between two or more raw materials without undergoing any change itself. Colliding particles from raw materials must have a minimum amount of energy to form reaction products. A catalyst provides an alternative way for the reaction to take place which uses less energy, and so, increases the probability of a reaction. Catalysts often react initially with the raw materials to form intermediate chemicals. These then react with one another to yield the reaction products, as well as regenerating the catalyst. The first known scientific use of a catalyst was in 1552 when Valerius Cordus used sulphuric acid to convert alcohol to ether (Cordus, 1575). An interesting history of catalysis can be found at (Wisniak, 2010).

A chemical reaction is autocatalytic if one of the reaction products is also a catalyst for the same reaction. In other words, given sufficient energy and raw materials, the catalyst reproduces itself. For example, the decomposition of arsine, AsH3, is catalysed by arsenic which is also a product of the reaction.

A set of chemical reactions are “collectively autocatalytic” if they produce sufficient catalysts for the same set of reactions to be self-sustaining. In other words, given sufficient energy and raw materials, the set of chemicals reproduces itself. The origin of the concept of autocatalytic sets is thought to have been the Austrian physicist, Erwin Shrödinger (1887- 1961), in his 1944 book, “What is Life” (Shrödinger, 1944). The concept was developed from this source by several researchers.

Evolution at the chemical level

In 1971, the American medical doctor, Stuart Kauffman (1939 – ) contributed the idea that autocatalytic sets formed the basis of the origin of life (Kauffman, 1971). A history of Kauffman’s work can be found at (Hordijk, 2019). Reproduction is one of the two criteria necessary for evolution to occur. The other is random mutation and natural selection. In this context, random mutation can be regarded as changes in the collectively autocatalytic set of chemicals. Some of these changes will result in autocatalysis failing. Others will allow it to continue but result in different products. Such changes would be inevitable and frequent in a disorderly chemical environment.

Autopoiesis

The term autopoiesis was first coined by the Chilean biologists, Humberto Maturana (1928 – 2021) and Francisco Varela (1946 – 2001), to describe the self-maintaining properties of living cells (Maturana & Varela, 1972). The main factor affecting the continued existence and procreation of a set of autocatalytic chemicals is the intervention of others that do not act as raw materials. Rather, they disperse the collectively autocatalytic set, thereby preventing it from functioning. Furthermore, excess energy or reactions with other chemicals can disrupt the set. Natural selection dictates that a set that maintains its integrity is more likely to survive and propagate than one that does not. For example, a set that produces a shell that protects it from the environment, whilst allowing the passage of raw materials, is more likely to survive and propagate than one that does not. Please hold onto the idea that it is the maintenance of integrity that is of importance here, and that a shell is merely one way of doing that. I will come back to this point later. To continue, it is likely that living cells were first established in this way and that evolution continued until it produced the highly complex ones that we know today.

Holons and holism

The term holon was coined by the Hungarian author and journalist, Arthur Koestler (1905-1983), in his 1967 book, “The Ghost in the Machine”. (Koestler, A., 1967). It describes any entity that is a whole in itself  and also a part of a larger whole. In other words, holons form a nested hierarchy. The term holism was coined by the South African statesman, Jan Smuts (1870 – 1950), in his 1926 book, “Holism and Evolution” (Smuts J., 1926). A holistic entity has features that its parts do not. In other words, it has emergent properties.

A holon is a system with inputs, processes, and outputs. Its outputs can be described as its function. Furthermore, these outputs can serve as inputs to other holons. In the causal perspective of reality, a cause transfers space, energy, matter, or information to its effect. So, the processes and outputs of one holon can be regarded as a cause, and the inputs and processes of another holon as an effect.

In human society, the outputs of a holon can be regarded as satisfiers or contra-satisfiers, i.e., external things that respectively increase or decrease the level of satisfaction of our needs. Satisfiers and contra-satisfiers can be regarded as opportunities and threats. Finally, opportunities and threats affect our ability to survive and procreate. So, people have evolved to recognise holons and to acquire or avoid their outputs.

It is thought that all holons comprise several component ones that have emerged at lower levels of complexity. It is possible, however, that there is a minimum holon at subatomic level. A certain number of components, arranged in a particular way and with particular relationships between them, are required to create a holon that has an output that is distinct from those of its components, i.e., an emergent output. It is these emergent outputs, one of which is physical appearance, that lead us to distinguish between holons, name them, and use them in causal relationships. Thus, all holons have emergent outputs, emergent functions, and are therefore holistic. That is, they not only form a nested hierarchy, but they also have their own novel or emergent outputs distinct from those of their components.

It is also thought that all holons are components of larger ones that emerge at a higher level of complexity. This seems likely but is not proven. Nevertheless, although the universe may be infinite, what people are able to perceive of it is not. So, in any circumstance that we observe, not all combinations of component holons appear to form a larger one.

In any finite circumstance, component holons can be arranged and interact with one another, even if they are insufficient in number to form a process with emergent outputs that we can perceive. I will call these orphan holons. There are very many ways in which orphan holons can interact with one another, and the number of ways increases with the number of orphans. However, human cognitive abilities are limited. We can perceive, analyse, and to a limited extent predict the interaction of a few orphans, but, as their number increases, we cannot, and the situation appears to be chaotic. At best, we can only identify recurring causal patterns, and so, have developed techniques to assist us in this.

The concepts of purpose and of an artifact

Before moving on, I would like to briefly mention the concept of “purpose”. Purpose has two meanings depending on the context. When external agents refer to the purpose of a system, then they are referring to its function, i.e., to the outputs that it produces. When a system refers to its own purpose, then it is referring to what it would like its outputs to be. These outputs can be regarded as causes, and so, the system is also referring to the effects that it wishes to cause. Clearly, in the latter context, purpose applies only to systems with agency.

I would also like to mention artifacts. Holons can be classified as artifacts, living holons, or non-living holons. They are classified by the way that they are assembled. Artifacts are non-living aids to the function of a living holon. They are assembled from a design by that holon or another. For example, we create bone to support ourselves against gravity. Physical shells or containers can also be artifacts composed of non-living material such as calcium carbonate or dead skin cells. We can, of course, create more complex artifacts such as machines or computers to assist us in production or communication. All these artifacts, when needed by a living holon to perform its function, can be regarded as a component of the living holon.

Living holons are also produced from a design but are self-assembling. Finally, non-living holons do not appear to be assembled from a design, but rather, by random events according to the laws of physics.

Lesser living holons co-operate to form greater ones

Living cells cooperate within the human body because this better enables them to survive and propagate their genome. They have evolved to behave in this way. They do not all propagate their immediate genome, of course. Only those cells involved in reproduction do so. Nevertheless, the genome that is propagated is a copy of that of the cells not involved in reproduction. It is notable that evolution is a continuing process within our bodies. For example, random mutation produces cancer cells that no longer cooperate with their peers. Furthermore, cancer cells can themselves evolve under attack from the body’s immune system to yield more resistant ones. In this context, our cells are component holons and our entire body the larger holon of which they are a part.

Our various organs are formed of relationships between cells but are not able to survive and reproduce in isolation. They are an example of specialization within a holon. The overall function of a holon can be broken down into several specialised functions. For example, circulatory systems to deliver raw chemicals to other components. Nervous systems to exercise control over other components and so on. As holons become more complex functional differentiation occurs, i.e., there are ever more sub-functions.

In a similar way organisms cooperate to form what might, generically, be called “organisations”. In the human context, examples are clubs, businesses, and nations. In the animal world, examples are packs, and herds. Again, this cooperation occurs because it better enables the organisms to survive and procreate. It is worth noting that in some of these animal cooperatives only a few individuals reproduce. For example, in ant and other insect colonies only the queen does so. Again, however, it is copies of the sterile workers’ genome that is reproduced.

So, life forms a nested hierarchy of living holons. Typically, these are cells, organisms, collectives, species, and ecosystems. These holons are autopoietic. Cells protect themselves with a membrane and individual organisms with a shell or skin. Organisations, communities, packs, and herds use less tangible measures such as patterns of behaviour, to protect themselves, however.

Multi-level selection theory

We normally understand evolution as applying to organisms because this is where it was first identified by the English biologist, Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882), in his famous book of 1859, “On the origin of species…” (Darwin, C., 1859). However, in practice, anything that is self-reproducing is subject to evolution.

The design of an entity is the information that, when it interacts with the environment, creates the physical manifestation of the entity. In the case of a cell or organism, this design is the genome. In the case of society, it is culture or the values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs that we hold in common in our minds. It is this design that is subject to random mutation. On the other hand, it is the physical manifestation of the entity that is subject to natural selection. That is the cell, the organism, the collective or the colony. Each living entity is a holon and autopoietic. It uses a protective shell or protective behaviour not only around itself, but also around the component holons that form it. Thus, those component holons are reliant on a nested hierarchy of protections for their survival and propagation. This is the basis of multi-level selection theory and implies that each holon has an interest in the survival and propagation of the greater holons of which it is a part. So, human beings for example, will have an interest in the survival and propagation not only of themselves but also of their family, any organisation of which they are a part, their nation, their species, and their ecosystem, albeit an interest that diminishes with distance.

Human social systems

The German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927 – 1998) was prominent in the development of social systems theory. However, his views on autopoiesis in human society are highly controversial. This is because social systems are like abstract entities whilst cells and organisms are concrete ones. The former differ from the latter in that their components are distributed in space and time, and so, cannot be protected by a single shell that encloses a region of space-time. For example, an individual is part of an organisation for as long as he is attending to that organisation’s function, even if working from home.

Nevertheless, organisations are not dissimilar to organisms in that they comprise several distinct components. The only difference is that, in an organism, many cells are in physical contact with one another. Others, more remote from one another, communicate via the nervous system, via chemical signals in the bloodstream, or via another other such channel. The components of an organisation are less in physical contact with one another, although we do gather together in offices and other workplaces. Rather, communication between remote components predominates. Autopoiesis is still necessary to maintain the integrity of an organisation but a physical shell is not possible. Rather, we use a range of protective behaviours that Luhmann referred to as operational closure.

Luhmann’s theory has been described as a theory of communication, and it has been said that an organisation comprises solely information. However, this is not correct. Information is physical in nature and held in the minds of people, books and other documents, computer memory chips, and so on. Thus, information cannot form part of an organisation unless the medium that holds it does too. So, an organisation comprises: the organisms that form it for so long as they are engaged in its function; the information they hold; communications between them; and any non-living artifacts necessary for the organisation to function.

Protection from the environment is still necessary. However, it is the member organisms, their ancillaries and their communications that are protected. In part this may be by a physical shell such as an office building. However, in the main, it is by less tangible but nonetheless physical protective processes, such as the encryption or provision of safe channels for information.

Conclusions

  1. Holons are holistic and are defined by their function or outputs.
  2. A minimum level of complexity is necessary for a greater holon to emerge from an arrangement of lesser ones.
  3. Holons can be classified as non-living, living, or artifacts. In each class members are assembled differently.
  4. Co-operation to acquire common satisfiers and avoid common contra-satisfiers creates a nested hierarchy of living holons.
  5. Holons comprise a number of component holons that are arranged and interact in a way that produces outputs that their components cannot, i.e., emergent outputs.
  6. People can only perceive a finite part of the universe, and so, not all holons appear to be part of a larger one. In any observed situation, there may therefore be orphan holons with causal relationships between them. As the number of orphans increases the interaction between them becomes increasingly complex and difficult for us to understand.
  7. Evolution is a fundamental principle of all self-replicating systems from autocatalysis upwards. It comprises random mutation in the design information for a living holon together with multilevel selection in the nested hierarchy on which the holon depends.
  8. Autopoiesis can be explained by the principles of evolution. However, rather than always being a shell that encloses a region of space-time, it comprises whatever maintains the integrity of the living holon and protects it from contra-satisfiers in the environment.
  9. Social systems such as organisations are living holons. They are self-replicating in the sense that their cultures can be observed and copied. They are also subject to evolution, in that successful cultures propagate whilst unsuccessful ones expire. They exhibit emergent properties in the form of their outputs which can only be produced once there is a sufficient level of complexity among their components. Finally, they are autopoietic in the sense that they have measures to protect their integrity from the environment whilst allowing their necessary inputs to pass.

References

Berzelius, J.J., 1835. “Sur un Force Jusqu’ici Peu Remarquée qui est Probablement Active Dans la Formation des Composés Organiques”. Section on Vegetable Chemistry, Jahres-Bericht, 14 (1835).

Cordus, V., 1575. “Le Guidon des Apotiquaires: C’est à dire, la Vraye Forme et Maniere de Composer les Médicamens”. L. Cloquemin, E. Michel, Lyons, 1575.

Darwin, C., 1859. “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. London, John Murray, 1859.

Hordijk, W. 2019. “A History of Autocatalytic Sets”. Biol Theory 14, 224–246 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-019-00330-w

Kauffman, S.A., 1971. “Cellular homeostasis, epigenesis and replication in randomly aggregated macromolecular systems.” J Cybern 1(1):71–96.

Koestler, A., 1967. “The Ghost in the Machine”. London, Hutchinson (Penguin Group). ISBN 0-14-019192-5.

Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.J., 1972. “Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living.” Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science (1 ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel. p. 141. OCLC 989554341.

Smuts, J.C., 1926. “Holism and Evolution”. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Wisniak, J., 2010. “The History of Catalysis. From the Beginning to Nobel Prizes”. Educación Química, Volume 21, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 60-69. ISSN 0187-893X, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(18)30074-0. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0187893X18300740)

Categories
04. Language (Part 2)

Language Part 2

Have you ever wondered why it can be so difficult to communicate, particularly when discussing more esoteric concepts such as those of philosophy, psychology, or religion? The answer, of course, lies in the nature of information and the way we manage it.

According to the physicalist aspect of cognitive physicalist philosophy, information is physical in nature. We have an evolved ability to recognise and name things by virtue of their recurrence. I will use the example of a snake in the explanation that follows.

The structure and behaviour of physical things is “information at source”. So, the physical manifestation of the snake is also information at source.

We translate information at source into an idea. Thus, the idea of a snake may be a mental image residing in memory. To enable us to communicate, we also translate that idea into a word. In this case, the word is “snake”.

Thus, the physical manifestation of the snake, the idea of the snake, and the word “snake” are all strongly associated with one another. Furthermore, because we are all able to observe the physical manifestation of a snake in its entirety, this provides us all with a common anchor to reality. So, we also share a common idea of a snake and a common understanding of the meaning of the word “snake”. When we speak the word “snake” this invokes the same idea in the listener as the idea that generated the word for the speaker.

Although everything is physical, not everything can be observed in its entirety. A more abstract concept such as justice, for example, comprises very many just acts and each person can only observe a few of them. Different people will of course observe different examples, and thus, form different ideas of justice. There is no common anchor to physical reality, and so, the word will invoke different ideas in different people.

We are also able to form ideas that may not have a physical equivalent. For example, Atlantis is a mythical city and, although we can create this idea, it has no equivalent in the physical world. We do, of course, speculate on far more complex ideas than Atlantis and give them names. In such circumstances, we may not even have examples to observe, and so, the likelihood of the speaker and the listener sharing a common idea for the word is even less.

To overcome this problem, we often attempt to define the idea associated with the word. However, because our ideas differ, we frequently encounter differences of opinion over the definition. For more esoteric concepts, even the words we use to define the idea may have their own differences associated with them. So, agreeing a common idea for a word that describes something abstract or something that does not really exist can be fraught with difficulty.

To complicate matters yet further, the ideas associated with words can alter with time. A form of evolution takes place in which different definitions gain greater acceptance or expire. So, the meaning of a word to a member of one generation can frequently differ to that of another. The physical equivalent of a word can also alter with time, culture, and geography. For example, the Western ideas and practices associated with the word “justice” today are different from those of the Middle Ages and parts of the Middle East.

We should accept that communication can be very difficult and needs considerable effort when we are discussing more esoteric ideas. We often, for example, encounter people using the same word for different ideas, or different words for the same idea.

The best we can do to overcome these difficulties is use plain language wherever possible, both to express our ideas and, where necessary, to define a word. It is sensible to use dictionary definitions because these will be the most commonly used. However, British and American English dictionary definitions often differ. So, it is also sensible, when writing, to define any word that is not in common use and, if the word has not been used for a while, to repeat the definition, as a reminder for the reader.

Categories
34. Emotion and Decision-making

Emotion and Decision-making

This article is a summary of a series of articles published in 2022, the first of which can be found at https://rational-understanding.com/2022/01/12/emotions/

The variables involved in the decisions of an individual person comprise:

  • The satisfiers and contra-satisfiers that an act is likely to cause.
  • The change in status of those satisfiers and contra-satisfiers between absent, latent, precarious, and entrenched.
  • The probability of those satisfiers and contra-satisfiers occurring as a result of the act.
  • The needs affected by those satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. Most affect several needs.
  • The current state of those needs, i.e., wholly satisfied, partly satisfied, and so on.
  • The change in the level of satisfaction of those needs.
  • The holon affected by the satisfier or contra-satisfier.

These variables are too many for rational and objective analysis, even if we had the time. So instead, we use emotion as follows.

  • Positive and negative emotions attach to needs. Typical positive emotions are happiness, joy, and exhilaration. Typical negative ones are fear, disgust, and anxiety.
  • If needs are fully satisfied, then our emotions are neutral. If they are not, then our emotions are negative.
  • A satisfier will alter the status of a need by increasing its level of satisfaction. The greater the increase, the greater the reduction in negative emotion.
  • For a short time, we will also experience a positive emotion. Positive emotions are, however, transient. This is because we must continuously act to survive, and positive emotions reduce our motivation to do so. So, they merely act as a short-term reward for successful acts.
  • A contra-satisfier reduces the level of satisfaction of our needs, and so, increases our negative emotional state.

A decision to act is made by totalling the effects of all satisfiers and contra-satisfiers associated with it, to assess the overall change in our emotional state. The process involved is akin to that of an analogue computer.

  • The lower a need in the ERG (existence, relatedness, growth) hierarchy, the greater the weight, or relative importance, we give to it. Greatest weight is normally given to existence needs.
  • The less satisfied a need, the greater the weight we give to it.
  • The closer the beneficiary of a satisfier or the victim of a contra-satisfier is to us, the greater the weight we give to their needs. Greatest weight is given to our own needs.
  • The resulting change in emotional state is associated with the relevant satisfier or contra-satisfier, and we remember these associations for use as future shortcuts.
  • The greater the probability that the act will deliver a satisfier or contra-satisfier, the greater the weight we give to the latter. Greatest weight is given to satisfiers or contra-satisfiers that are certain to occur.
  • We then aggregate the weighted changes in negative emotion attached to the relevant satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. If the result is an overall reduction in negative emotions, then we will act. If it is an increase, then we will not.
  • If the overall change is greater than a certain threshold, then this can trigger a biochemical reaction, such as the fight or flight syndrome.

This process, including any cognitive elements, is biological in nature and has almost certainly evolved in animals over time. Simpler versions of the process are likely to exist in non-human animals and are also likely to have existed in our ancestor species.

The emotional associations, weights and thresholds are established by a combination of genetics, socialisation, and experience. So, the process can be carried out relatively quickly and subconsciously. For example, it takes relatively little time to know whether we are happy or unhappy with a proposed course of action.

There is, however, considerable variation between individuals. For example, empaths will give a higher weight than average to the effect of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers on others; psychopaths will give the same effects a lower weight than average; and narcissists will give a higher weight than average to the need for positive regard.

Culture also has an effect. For example, values and norms create what we refer to as conscience. Acting contrary to conscience generates the negative emotion of guilt.

Socialisation affects the emotional value that we attach to satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. For example, continued exposure to advertising can create a belief that products and services will reduce negative emotions, and thus, lead us to indulge in “retail therapy”. Socialisation can also affect how we vote in elections.

Fortunately, if we have the time, and particularly if the decision that we need to make is a novel one, we can consciously verify our decisions before acting. The process involved is described at https://rational-understanding.com/2021/10/22/consciousness/ .

Decisions made by holons comprising more than one person can differ in several respects. A decision is more likely to be based on research and consciously reasoned argument. There may be formal established processes. Debate and consultation may be involved, bringing with them the perspectives and interaction styles of several individuals. Nevertheless, every holon is ultimately led by an individual person and they are subject to the emotional processes described above. As a minimum, this can influence the decision. A recent example is the disastrous economic decisions made, against all advice, in 2022, by the UK’s 50-day Prime Minister.

Categories
33. Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective (Part 2)

Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective, Part 2

A living holon is any organism, any group of organisms, or any group of groups that work together with a common purpose. Human holons are a subset of living holons. They include individual people and organisations of all types from clubs, through businesses and nations, to the global community.

All living holons are motivated to acquire benefits or satisfiers and to avoid disbenefits or contra-satisfiers. However, most decisions have both benefits and disbenefits. That is, if implemented, they yield both satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. Rarely are they entirely beneficial. So, in deciding whether to act, living holons carry out a form of risk benefit cost analysis. The disbenefits are weighted, mitigated, and deducted from the benefits to yield a net benefit or disbenefit. That is, an overall satisfier or contra-satisfier. If there is an overall satisfier, then the living holon will act. If there is an overall contra-satisfier, it will not.

The benefits of an action normally apply to the actor, but the disbenefits can apply to any party. The more socially distant the latter from the actor, the lower the weighting given by the actor to the disbenefit. Also, in the case of people, the less empathic and the darker the traits of the actor, the lower the weighting given to disbenefits for others.

If an action that yields both a benefit and a disbenefit becomes established, and if they affect the ability of the holon or holons that experience them to survive and procreate, then they will become evolutionary drivers for that holon or those holons. If both are experienced by the actor, then both become evolutionary drivers for the actor. If they apply to different holons, then they become individual evolutionary drivers for those holons. These drivers will cause the benefit to be acquired ever more efficiently and the disbenefit to be avoided ever more effectively. Thus, the holon or holons will become ever more specialised.

Risk benefit cost analysis is not necessarily a conscious process and can be one that is programmed into a species by evolution. An example is the cognitive bias in human decision making identified by Kahneman and Tversky (Kahneman D., 2011). Cognitive biases are shortcuts to decision making carried out under the pressure of circumstances. They are often not entirely logical and are certainly not consciously considered, but they do have the advantage of being correct much of the time. We use them when there is no time to consciously review our decisions before events decide the outcome for us. It is more beneficial to take an action quickly and unconsciously, even if there is only a limited likelihood of success, than to engage in conscious reasoning and, during that process, experience failure.

The effect of the benefits and disbenefits of an activity on a single species can clearly be seen in one of nature’s most delightful sights, the murmuration, or synchronised flight, of a flock of starlings. A murmuration over Brighton Pier can be seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eEobkfMC_4 .

The purpose of a murmuration is to attract starlings, who have dispersed during the day, into large groups for overnight roosting. If you watch carefully, you will see smaller groups joining larger ones and the latter steadily growing. Once a group is large enough, the birds will descend to roost together. This provides them with safety in numbers against predators. In other words, they cooperate to gain a mutual benefit or satisfier. There is no doubt that this instinctive behaviour has an evolutionary basis. Those that roost together are more likely to survive and propagate their genome than those that do not, and so, the genetic drivers for this behaviour propagate through the population over time.

There is, however, a downside. Flying together in close formation poses a risk of collision, injury, or death, and thus, a disbenefit or contra-satisfier. Mitigation of this disbenefit is carried out by spatial distancing. Using computer modelling the Italian Physicist, Professor Giorgio Parisi, found that the birds synchronise their flight by co-ordinating only with those adjacent to them (Parisi G., 2023). The skill involved is one of flying as closely to their neighbours as possible without colliding. This, in turn, is determined by their ability to respond to changes in proximity and direction before a collision occurs. There is no doubt that this skill also has an evolutionary basis. Those birds lacking the necessary genetic drivers will have collided and perished whilst those with them will have survived and procreated. Again, the necessary genetic drivers will have propagated through the population over time.

A colleague in LinkedIn, Fiona Clubb, describes the following event. “… about 25 years ago in Birmingham, England. I was competing in a Western Equestrian national show and was in a very small collecting ring with around 30 other competitors. There was very little room but the riders were all practicing their art, some going sideways, some at a flat out gallop, some just standing, and others spinning on the spot at high speed. It was complete chaos, yet nobody came close to colliding. They were all in control, and totally aware of space as it opened up for them to make their move. I have never seen anything like it. It was like a chaotic murmuration. The only protocol in place to coordinate the process was the riders’ mental skill and their ability to adapt…”. (Clubb F., 2024)

In this example, the riders were acquiring the mutual benefit of practicing their skills. However, as a part of this they also had to avoid the contra-satisfier of collisions. Again, this disbenefit was avoided by spatial distancing.

On the streets of a busy city, dense crowds of people walk in many different directions but, unless they are using smartphones, collisions are rare. In the same way as the starlings and the horses and their riders, people show a remarkable ability to avoid them. Indeed, in the branch of psychology known as proxemics, if one person enters another’s defensible space this is regarded as a threat. (Hall, E.T. 1966). The ability to avoid one another’s defensible space is almost certainly an evolved trait. It may also be an evolved trait in horses which are a herd species. So, it is likely that, in Birmingham, the horses were contributing as much to the avoidance of collisions as their riders.

Spatial separation can also be observed in the niches occupied by different species. For example, the insect species on a tree are separated according to the parts of the tree. Some occupy the foliage, some the branches, and others the trunk. All benefit from being a part of the larger ecosystem but maintain spatial separation to avoid direct conflict.

The same is true of human sub-cultures. The members of a sub-culture will gather together to avoid conflict with others but will remain in the same locale as the main culture and reap its benefits for so long as it tolerates them.

In human affairs, functional difference can, however, replace spatial distance. For example, fast food outlets will tend to congregate in the same location, and this acts as a mutual satisfier by attracting customers to that location. However, we do not see two fish and chip shops next door to one another. This is because the same function in the same location would create competition that is likely to become negative and lead to conflict. This, in turn, would ultimately lead to the failure of at least one competitor. The weaker competitor would be taken over or driven out by the more successful one. So, the outlets differ in function: fish and chips, Indian, Chinese, burger bars, coffee shops, and so on. There is some competition in terms of value for money, but no immediate competition in terms of the service provided. Each outlet shares the mutual benefit of cooperation and avoids the potential disbenefit of conflict by functional distancing.

Competition and takeovers are common in the business world when two organisations have a similar function. Thus, there is a tendency for functional distance to develop between businesses in the same market. This minimises conflict but can lead to the formation of monopolies. However, because monopolies can discourage innovation and abuse their powers, most governments legislate and regulate to prevent them. Departments or components within an organisation are, however, often monopolies. This is because there is no market choice, and the cost of duplication would outweigh the benefits of competition. It is, however, possible to introduce competition by splitting departments geographically or by outsourcing an activity to more than one contractor.

In summary, the decisions of living holons, human or otherwise, involve both satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, and so, an often innate form of risk benefit cost analysis is carried out when deciding whether to act. If an activity becomes established, then its benefits and disbenefits can act as evolutionary drivers for the holons that experience them. This process can be seen in both humans and other animals. It can also be seen in individuals and groups. Finally, it can be seen in both biological and cultural evolution. As well as learning to take decisions using these analyses, people also take them intuitively, and so, our genetic inheritance plays a part. Thus, human behaviour, although more complex than that of other species, is not as different or as divorced from nature as we sometimes like to believe. The principles of evolution still underpin our behaviour.

References

Clubb, F. (2024). Jobs for Horses, LinkedIn. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/fiona-clubb-47074095

Hall, Edward T. (1966). “The Hidden Dimension”. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-385-08476-5.

Kahneman, D. (2011). “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-27563-1.

Parisi, G. (2023). “In a Flight of Starlings”. UK: Penguin Random House. Allen Lane.

Categories
32. Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective (Part 1)

Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective

This article generalizes the principles of biological evolution so that their broader application can be seen more clearly, particularly in the context of human society and cultural evolution. I will begin with the definition of some general terms, then use these terms to describe general evolutionary principles.

Definitions

A living holon is any organism, any group of organisms, or any group of groups that work together with a common purpose. Human holons are a subset of living holons. They include individual people and organisations of all types from clubs, through businesses and nations, to the global community.

The principles of evolution apply to living things such as bacteria, trees, and people, and some of their artifacts such as factories and computers. They do not apply to other non-living things. This is because living things and their artifacts are derived from a design which can change. Other non-living things, such as planets, rocks, etc. may be derived from a design, but it does not change.

The design of something comprises the information necessary to create the physical manifestation of that thing. Thus, the genome of an organism can be regarded as its design and the phenotype as its physical manifestation.

Culture includes the values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs that govern the behaviour of a living holon. So, the culture of a living holon can be regarded as its design, and the set of behaviours or society of that living holon as its physical manifestation.

The genome of an organism and the culture of a living holon are passed on from generation to generation. Both are also subject to evolutionary change. Randon mutation can occur in the genome due to the influences of viruses, radiation, copying errors, and so on. Random mutations can also occur in culture due to new norms, values, knowledge, ideas, and beliefs.

Satisfiers are those external things that increase the level of satisfaction of the needs of a living holon. Contra-satisfiers, on the other hand, reduce that level of satisfaction. All living holons are motivated to acquire satisfiers and avoid contra-satisfiers. Random mutations in the genome or in the culture of a living holon make it either more or less able to acquire satisfiers or avoid contra-satisfiers.

The status of a satisfier or contra-satisfier can be any one of the following: absent; latent, i.e., promised or threatened; precarious, i.e., present but not necessarily so in the future; or entrenched, i.e., present and likely to remain so. This discussion concerns satisfiers and contra-satisfiers that are precarious or entrenched.

The principles of evolution apply to populations of living holons in the following ways.

Evolution under the effect of contra-satisfiers.

When a contra-satisfier that impacts on a living holon’s ability to survive and procreate is applied to a population of living holons, then those most able to avoid it are more likely to survive and procreate than those least able. This ability to avoid the contra-satisfier stems from the design of the holon, i.e., its genome or culture. Thus, genetic or cultural attributes that enable avoidance of the contra-satisfier are selected for, and the proportion of those better able to avoid it steadily increases. Advantageous genes or ideas will propagate through the population and disadvantageous ones will expire.

Evolution under the effect of shortages of satisfiers.

When a shortage of a satisfier that impacts on a living holon’s ability to survive and procreate is applied to a population, then those best able to acquire the satisfier are more likely to survive and procreate than those least able. Again, through natural selection, the proportion of those better able to acquire the satisfier steadily increases.

The evolution of cooperation.

Although this is not always the case, one way of becoming better able to acquire a satisfier is to form a co-operative group, and thus, a shortage of satisfiers can also lead to the evolution of cooperation. By acting together, it may be possible for more than one holon to acquire a mutual satisfier or avoid a mutual contra-satisfier from the environment. When the members of a holon act together in this way, they exchange satisfiers with the holon’s control component or leader. This often takes the form of information flowing upwards and instructions flowing downwards. It is also possible, but not necessarily so, for them to exchange satisfiers with one another. In this way, a cooperative group, and thus, a higher-level holon is formed which follows the same general laws as the original holons. Thus, the higher-level holon can act cooperatively with others to form yet higher-level ones. If holons benefit more, in terms of their survival and procreation, by acting together rather than independently, then the former are more likely to survive and procreate than the latter. So, the genetic or cultural attributes which lead to cooperation will steadily propagate through the population over time.

However, cooperation will of course fail if it does not lead to the desired result.

We tend to focus on our failures, and this obscures the fact that human beings are extraordinarily cooperative. Were this not the case then our societies which comprise millions of people, and sometimes even billions, would collapse.

This is the basis of multi-level selection theory, i.e., the survival and procreation of an organism depends on the survival of cooperative groups or holons to which it belongs. Furthermore, multi-level selection theory applies not only to individual organisms but also to higher level holons. The survival of any higher level holon also depends on the survival of yet higher level ones to which it belongs. Such holons are formed by their culture, and so, multi-level selection theory also applies to cultural evolution.

The existence of leaders with dark personality traits can also be explained by this process. The lower the level of a holon the more it contributes to the survival of the organisms that comprise it. Leaders with dark traits may be perceived as beneficial to the survival of that holon, and thus, the organisms that comprise it, even this is at the expense of potentially higher level holons. However, evolution cannot predict the future and the highest level holon, humanity, is now at risk from dark leaders. So, such leadership must not be allowed to continue if we are to survive.

Competitive co-evolution.

It is possible for two populations of living holons to compete to acquire the same satisfier or  avoid the same contra-satisfier. In this case, both populations evolve to become ever more capable. Ultimately, one may succeed and the other may expire. But until that time, neither fully succeeds because of the evolution of the other, and ongoing evolution causes the two to become ever more specialised.

As in the case of predation, where two populations A and B are involved, it is also possible for A to provide B with a contra-satisfier and for B to provide A with a satisfier. In other words, what may be a satisfier for one may be a contra-satisfier for the other. Evolution will result in population A becoming better able to acquire the satisfier and population B becoming better able to avoid the contra-satisfier.

Finally, as in the case of conflict, it is possible for the two populations of living holons to deliver contra-satisfiers to one another. Evolution will result in both being better able to deliver them, but also in being better able to avoid them. Ultimately, however, one party is likely to prevail and the other to expire.

Cooperative co-evolution.

Cooperation comprises the exchange of satisfiers between two parties. If the two parties have different functions, and the receipt of a satisfier from the other party affects their ability to survive and procreate, then cooperative co-evolution will occur. Genetic or cultural traits that better enable one party to acquire the satisfier from the other will propagate through the population. Genetic or cultural traits that enable one party to deliver the satisfier to the other more efficiently, i.e., using fewer resources, will also propagate through the population. Over time, this can result in both parties becoming highly specialised and dependent on one another.

Categories
31. The Fractal Nature of Society

The Fractal Nature of Society

The fractal structure of nature was discovered by the French-American mathematician, Benoit Mandelbrot, in 1980. Many of you will be familiar with fractals and so it is not my intention to describe them in detail. Rather, if you are unfamiliar with them, I refer you to the very clear explanation given at https://math.libretexts.org/Courses/College_of_the_Canyons/Math_100%3A_Liberal_Arts_Mathematics_(Saburo_Matsumoto)/07%3A_Mathematics_and_the_Arts/7.04%3A_Fractals

Eliot Kersgaard (2019) defines a fractal as a system with similar properties at all scales. Many readers will be familiar with numerical fractals such as the Mandelbrot set or geometrical fractals such as the Sierpinski triangle. This is where most fractal research has focused. In these cases, Kersgaard’s “scale” is numerical or geometrical. However, these fractals are normally displayed using the two dimensions of a piece of paper or a video screen. So, incorrectly, their scale appears to be spatial. However, “scale” can also apply in a physical sense to features of reality, such as objects, events, or relationships, in which case “scale” is genuinely either spatial or spatio-temporal.  The leaf of a fern is, for example, a genuine spatial fractal.

The Viable Systems Model (VSM) was proposed by the British psychologist, Stafford Beer, in his 1972 book “The Brain of the Firm”. This model is used as a framework for understanding human organisations, but it is also thought to apply more broadly to other living things. Again, without going into detail, the model proposes that every organisation has a control component that coordinates the activities of other components, e.g., the brain of a human being or the manager of a team or organisation. For those unfamiliar with the model, I refer you to the explanation at https://www.toolshero.com/management/viable-system-model/.

Beer recognised that his VSM model was recursive, i.e., every model comprised components, one of which was a control component, and every component was a VSM model. However, this was before the fractal structure of nature was discovered by Benoit Mandelbrot. In fact, the VSM model is a fractal generator that applies at all scales of organisation and is comparable therefore to the simple recursive formula used to generate the Mandelbrot Set. Furthermore, control applies to a function, and there are very many functions. This means that the VSM model is likely to apply quite extensively in natural and artificial ecosystems. Choose any “organisation” and function anywhere among living things and you are likely to find that VSM applies. There is never just one “controller” therefore. Rather every living thing both controls and is controlled.

Little work has been done on the fractal nature of human society. However, the following paper raises the concept as a possibility. https://www.academia.edu/47938193/Fractals_in_Social_Sciences_an_introductory_remark

The rule that creates a fractal is known as a generator. For example, a simple recursive mathematical equation acts as the generator of the Mandelbrot set. The generator for human society is, however, more complex. It is the relationships between human holons at various scales that create society. However, these relationships are not always cooperative ones. If that were the case, then all of humanity would comprise just one organisation with a single leader. This is clearly not the case and, as an alternative, I would therefore suggest the following generator.

  • A human holon is any person, group of people, or group of groups who cooperate with a common purpose. The cooperation of more than one human holon creates another at greater scale. Thus, human holons form a nested hierarchy.
  • Every human holon has a control or management component. This, in conjunction with the principle above, results in a control or management hierarchy. For a holon of greater scale to be formed, it is not necessary that every pair of components cooperate horizontally with one another. However, they must cooperate vertically with the control component.
  • A satisfier is an external thing that satisfies a human holon’s needs. For example, it may be food for an individual person, or electricity for a manufacturing organisation. There are many such satisfiers, and they determine the function of their source. The more specialised this function, the less extensive the range of sources, and the more likely it is that two human holons with a common need will share the source of a satisfier.
  • The source of a satisfier also depends on the geographical location and culture of the holon. Sources closer to and with a similar culture to the holon tend to be used first. Thus, the closer two holons are geographically and culturally, the more likely they are to share the source of a satisfier.
  • The relationship between two human holons is neutral if the source of a common satisfier differs for both. It is also neutral if the source of a common satisfier is shared, but the satisfier is sufficient for the needs of both.
  • If the source or sources of a common satisfier are not sufficient for both when they act independently, but are sufficient if they act cooperatively, then two human holons may cooperate. However, a degree of randomness is introduced by holons not considering cooperation in these circumstances.
  • If the source or sources of a common satisfier are not sufficient for both, then two human holons will compete to satisfy their needs. Competition, unless externally controlled, can escalate into conflict.
  • Leadership roles act as a satisfier and are limited in their availability. So, they will generate competition among any human holons who aspire to them. Thus, there can be horizontal competition between the components of a holon and between discrete holons.

This generator is hypothetical, of course, but I believe it to be a good foundation for a theory of society.

References

Beer, S. 1972. “Brain Of The Firm”. Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, London, Herder and Herder, USA.

Kersgaard, E., 2019. “Life’s Universal Patterns”. Medium. https://medium.com/illumination/lifes-universal-patterns-e534475aabf6

Mandelbrot, B. B., 1982. “The Fractal Geometry of Nature”. W. H. Freeman.