April 1999
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999
From: Niall Palfreyman <Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Emergence
Ed Gallaher wrote:
> Does the internal combustion engine exhibit "emergent properties" that
> are not entirely evident from the engine block, cylinder walls,
> pistons, rings, and spark plugs?
> It appears to me that, assembled in a particular way, and combined
> with fuel and the right weather conditions, that the whole is indeed
> -much more- that the sum of the parts. Further, it is highly unlikely
> that "reductionist" studies would ever lead one to predict the
> behavior of this "system."
You know, what strikes me about all these arguments for holism is that
the ones which really convince me are the ones which use psychological
terms like "meaning", "evident" and "predict". Which is why I'm
wondering whether the whole controversy is a purely psychological one.
To my mind reduction is not a relation between 'things' like engines and
spark plugs, but rather a relation between theories. I can well
sympathise with the (intertheoretic) reductionist who says that the
-theory- of combustion engines is indeed reducible to the -theory- of
spark plugs. But as soon as we move discussion out of the realm of
things and into the realm of theories, we have considerable leeway for
interpretation. The categories become linguistic ones, rather than
'real' ones, and can be chosen more according to personal preference.
My suggestion is that, given some essentially nondecomposable whole, the
reductionist first chooses to break it down into two pieces. Then, when
asked to explain the behaviour of the whole in terms of the parts, he
creates rules of interaction between the parts to satisfy that
behaviour. He expresses a personal preference for this style of
decomposition which assigns these rules to the individual parts. Of
course, this decomposition does not always admit of a straightforward
summing of parts to arrive at the behaviour of the whole; an example is
the existence of interactional relationships between genes. But this is
no problem for the reductionist. He simply says that the interactional
rules between the genes are such that when they are combined they give
the same effect as we observe in nature.
The holist, on the other hand, shows a preference for decompositions
which separate the interaction from the two parts: the whole consists of
two parts plus an emergent interaction 'thing'. This is assuming that
she decomposes at all, but as far as I can see she must do that at some
level, otherwise she is always only dealing with global state
descriptions. No, she decomposes the world alright, it's just that she
doesn't regard this decomposition as a reduction. She will maintain that
there always exists IN PRINCIPLE some (emergent) 'thing' which
distinguishes the behaviour of the parts from the behaviour of the
whole.
So is there any need for the two to argue? I'm suggesting that there is
only a need if both maintain that the other's position is wrong, and
that necessarily involves both asserting the existence of a "world out
there" against which their (to my mind) purely cognitive differences can
be tested.
Gosh, I'm whacked after all that thinking. Happy Easter everyone.
Niall.
--
We have only the world that we can bring forth
with others, and only love helps us bring it forth.
Dr. Niall Palfreyman mailto:Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com
assyst GmbH, Henschelring 15a
85551 Kirchheim bei Muenchen Tel: ++49-89-90505-230
Germany. Fax: ++49-89-90505-102/3
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999
From: Niall Palfreyman <Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Emergence
Marion Brady wrote:
> Is there general agreement among list participants on what constitutes
> the "highest level" (most comprehensive) system -- that system of
> which all other systems are subsystems?
I think my view is that any closed system can be viewed as "highest
level". If the system is open, then it can only be fully understood in
the context of the systems with which it exchanges flows. So in 'real
world' terms I guess I'd say there IS no most comprehensive system,
since I know of no completely closed systems in nature.
Best wishes,
Niall.
--
We have only the world that we can bring forth
with others, and only love helps us bring it forth.
Dr. Niall Palfreyman mailto:Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com
assyst GmbH, Henschelring 15a
85551 Kirchheim bei Muenchen Tel: ++49-89-90505-230
Germany. Fax: ++49-89-90505-102/3
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999
From: Niall Palfreyman <Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Emergence
David Gibson wrote:
> > Both reductionism and holism assume that we are discussing an
> > absolute world in which there is only one sensible decomposition
> > into parts.
> If this is true, then where do we place the "multiple realities"
> position of naturalism, ethnography, qualitative social research, etc?
> I thought they were "holistic" in some sense, but they would never
> agree that there is only one sensible decomposition of the world.
I take your point and stand corrected. Maybe what I mean is that each
assumes that we are discussing an absolute world in which there are some
decompositions which are 'wrong' in the sense that they do not fit the
observed features of that world. (And, needless to say, the other side's
decomposition belongs to the 'wrong' sort!)
> Also, I wonder where you would place the concept of "scale" as
> discussed by Mandelbrot, etc. Is "scale" a feature of "the manner of
> decomposition" point or of the "structure/pattern" point? Or is it a
> third issue of emergence?
Hmm. I like it. Yes, I do think that scale plays a role here. The
structure/pattern dichotomy characterises the cognition which gives rise
to my linguistic categories (decompositions), and when I then
concentrate my attention on the individual category, I again use the
structure/pattern distinction to think about it. So I am indeed
repeating a process at different scales.
I'm enjoying all this thinking! Bye.
Niall.
--
We have only the world that we can bring forth
with others, and only love helps us bring it forth.
Dr. Niall Palfreyman mailto:Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com
assyst GmbH, Henschelring 15a
85551 Kirchheim bei Muenchen Tel: ++49-89-90505-230
Germany. Fax: ++49-89-90505-102/3
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 15:04:46 -0300
From: "eng. Wilhelm F. E. Langhardt" <langhardt@netsbc.com.br>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Easter
Languages
Hello Nan, hello all you,
a zipped .help file about SD ST in portuguese can be yours, if you send
me an e-mail asking for it. The intention is a proposal of a glossary,
and the basis for a future home-page.
To all you I wish happy Easter or Passover or whatever it is; let's
enjoy our common work.
Cordially
Fritz
fritz@cebinet.com.br
São Bernardo SP Brazil
55 11 4351 4466
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 16:30:50 -0500
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Emergence
> .....The holist, on the other hand, shows a preference for decompositions
> which separate the interaction from the two parts: the whole consists of
> two parts plus an emergent interaction 'thing'.....
I apologize if someone has previously noted this ancient Chinese riddle:
If you have a horse and a cart, how many things do you have?"
Three. A horse. A cart. A horse-and-cart.
Marion
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 16:32:39 -0500
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: System Dynamics for Educators
> Marion Brady wrote:
> > Is there general agreement among list participants on what
>constitutes the
> >"highest level" (most comprehensive) system -- that system of which all
> >other systems are subsystems?
> I hope not. That's a scary question on multiple levels, only one level
> relating to list participants agreeing generally. Where's the fun in that?
> Still, it is a very good question, Marion. I look forward to reading the
> responses.
<Janis
So do I. Even in the very few posts I've read since subscribing 3 or
4 days
ago, I've seen a couple of bits of evidence that, for some at least, there
is a a
very definable "whole" to which holism attaches. (And I'm in agreement
with what I
see.)
Marion
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 09:46:28 -0500
From: William Costello <will@cvumail.cvu.cssd.k12.vt.us>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Subject: Final Call:SyMBowl East
Good-day,
We have had a few bright, warm "summer" days and spring begins its
emergence...and SyM Bowl East is right around the corner!
Our hosts at WPI need some semblance of an estimate for participation
to set-up facilities, etc.. Please contact me ASAP
a. if you are considering bringing a team for the competition
b. you are considering attending with a group of students
thanks,
will
From: "John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Emergence
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:33:01 -0500
To Niall and the rest of us who are struggling to understand what is a
long-standing and unresolved philosophical debate: May I just insert a word
of caution?
Every successful science of which I am aware selects the phenomena which it
intends to describe and explain (and, by definition, excludes everything
else.) It is NOT a legitimate argument for "emergence" to select something
the science excludes and complain that this something is not explained.
Let me share my favorite example:
When Sir Isaac Newton set down his equations of motion he included a concept
he called "force." Until Einstein's relativistic reformulation took our
understanding further, we believed these equations and this concept worked
extremely well -- and they still do for most phenomena.
However, it is absurd to complain that Newton's equations do not explain
"the force of an argument" or "the force of destiny" or what it means to
"force someone to do something against their will" or any of a myriad other
ways we use the word "force." Newton never claimed to be saying anything
about "force" in these meanings and any supposed connection between
Newtonian "force" and other uses of "force" is either spurious, fortuitous,
or analogical.
From: "John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: More on Emergence
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:33:04 -0500
Niall writes about the state/behavior distinction:
>>What about a system in oscillation? I would count the oscillatory
frequency
as an aspect of state, yet it doesn't inhere in any of the levels, nor
even in their collective values. Rather, the frequency is an aspect of
the BEHAVIOUR of the system - hence my original question about the
state/behaviour distinction.<<
Am I misunderstanding, or did you just contradict yourself? Yes, I
definitely agree that the oscillatory frequency of a system is an aspect of
the "behavior" of the system -- not the "state." To get a "state" one must
stop the system -- and when a system is stopped, there is no oscillation!!
Therefore, there is no oscillatory frequency. So, in my way of thinking,
oscillatory frequency is not part of a "state" description.
I think what Niall means (and, boy, am I going out on a narrow limb here!)
is that there are important and interesting "characteristics" of systems
that are not captured by a state description -- characteristics such as
oscillatory frequency. And that, for me, is obviously true. Which is one
reason why, for example, Herbert Simon pushed us toward using "process
descriptions" of non-static systems rather than state descriptions. And I
believe it is one reason why Jay Forrester pushes us to use dynamic
simulations of systems (which are one kind of process description) in order
to fully understand systems.
666
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:56:21 -0400
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: Lees Stuntz <stuntzln@tiac.net>
Subject: Publishing
I just received this note from Travis Tatum. This Journal might be a very
good place for us to publish some articles about the use of SD in the
classroom. Anyone interested???
Lees
Hi Lees,
I wanted to pass this information on to you in the hopes that folks
working with Systems Theory could submit stuff to this journal. I
continue to have an interest in systems dynamic and education. I
have recently gotten the chair of the education dept at Westfield
interested in looking at this approach for our teacher training
program. I am hopeful that she will move on it and involve the
faculty in developing this approach as part of our education program.
I would like to see more of the systems dynamic work published in
education journals and made available at education conferences. This
will happen as the process is integrated into higher education.
Anyway I hope the informatio here is useful.
Take care,
Travis Tatum
> Worcester State College's Department of Languages and Literature is pleased
> to announce its first call for submissions for the Journal of Classroom
> Technology. The Journal of Classroom Technology is an interdisciplinary
> online publication open to all academic and professional educators.
>
> For more information on submission guidelines, visit
> http://www.worc.mass.edu/jct. Please share this announcement with your
> colleagues.
>
> Don Vescio
> Department of Languages and Literature
> Worcester State College
>
> ____________________________________________________________
Lees N. Stuntz
Creative Learning Exchange Phone- 978-287-0070
1 Keefe Road Fax- 978-287-0080
Acton, MA 01720 e-mail- stuntzln@tiac.net
http://sysdyn.mit.edu/cle/
666
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:08:55 -0400
To: janet <jrc@moose.uvm.edu>, ecassell@moose.uvm.edu, jrc@zoo.uvm.edu,
gschorin@zoo.uvm.edu, geo-ed@arbuckle.geo.utulsa.edu,
pbierman@zoo.uvm.edu, alini@zoo.uvm.edu, trushmer@zoo.uvm.edu,
rhowse@zoo.uvm.edu, jgalster@zoo.uvm.edu, cholyoke@zoo.uvm.edu,
k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu, LTOOF@VDH.STATE.VT.US
From: Rolfe Stanley <rstanley@together.net>
Subject: Fwd: Special Announcement - TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR LISTSERVE
DISCUSSION FORUM NOW ON-LINE
I belong to the following listservice. They have started open forums on
the net. One of these is devoted to Systems Dynamics. If you are interested
in joining the list follow the instructions and enter the forum. This
discussion is aimed at college-level application of systems
thinking/dynamics.
>X-Sender: reis@cdr.stanford.edu
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:18:04 -0800
>To: tomorrows-professor@lists.Stanford.EDU
>From: Rick Reis <reis@stanford.edu>
>Subject: Special Announcement - TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR LISTSERVE DISCUSSION
> FORUM NOW ON-LINE
>Sender: owner-tomorrows-professor@lists.Stanford.EDU
>Precedence: bulk
>
>
> Tomorrow's Professor Listserve
> http://cis.stanford.edu/structure/tomprof/listserver.html
> is a product of the Stanford University Learning Laboratory
> http://sll.stanford.edu/
>
>Folks:
>
>I am pleased to announce the establishment of THE TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR
>LISTSERVE DISCUSSION FORUM, a service of the Stanford University Learning
>Laboratory. The Forum is a supplement to the biweekly Listserve postings
>you now receive via e-mail.
>
>The Forum is a place to carry on a dialog on the many issues raised in the
>Tomorrow's Professor Listserve. Current topic threads on the Forum are:
>
>* PROMOTING FACULTY COMMUNICATION
>* THE VALUE SYSTEM OF A UNIVERSITY
>* SYSTEM DYNAMICS - A NEW APPROACH TO TEACHING
>
>Feel free to offer your comments on items already posted or start a new
>thread.
>
>TO ENTER THE FORUM FOR THE FIRST TIME GO TO:
>
>http://sll-6.stanford.edu/Pub-Auth/FUserAddSelf.cgi?class=Public
>
>and follow the directions to obtain your password.
>
>TO ENTER THE FORUM WITH YOUR PASSOWRD go to:
>
>http://sll-6.stanford.edu/Public/cgi-bin/Forum.cgi?class=Public
>
>* Once in the Forum click on [Tomorrow's Professor] under SUBJECTS (left
> frame).
>* Offer your comments on items already posted or start a new thread.
>* Comments/problems? Drop me a note at [mailto:reis@cdr.stanford.edu]
>
>Regards,
>
>Rick Reis
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Note: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to Tomorrows-Professor Listserver by sending
>the following e-mail message to: <Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>
>
> subscribe tomorrows-professor
>
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor send the following e-mail message
>to: <Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>
>
> unsubscribe tomorrows-professor
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>==========================================================================
>This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list
>server. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the
>message body of "unsubscribe tomorrows-professor" to
>majordomo@lists.stanford.edu
>
Rolfe Stanley
Stanley Computer Center
Fletcher Extension
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:51:53 -0400
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: "Jay W. Forrester" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: What is the "whole" system?
In this list, there has been much discussion of holism, reductionism,
decomposition, and "highest level" of a system.
I feel that much of the discussion has missed a viewpoint that should guide
system dynamics modeling. System dynamics models should be "endogenous"
models in the sense that they contain the mechanisms that create the
behavior of interest. The behavior of a system dynamics model is not
driven by and determined by exogenous (external and assumed) time series
such as one sees dominating econometric models in economics.
Therefore, the "whole" system is determined entirely by the question at
hand. What is determining the essence of the behavior that is being
examined? Such a model is a special slice through all possible systems.
One starts with a dynamic objective. The objective leads to identifying
the "total" system of interest in the sense that the identified system is
necessary for the dynamic behavior that led to the modeling. Such a
"whole" system will always be only a tiny fragment of all possible system
structures.
Example: If one wants to understand the swinging of a clock pendulum and
what determines the period of oscillation, a simple model of two levels
will tell most of the story. If one wants to understand the market for
clocks, the model will be completely different.
Example: The model in my "Urban Dynamics" book deals with forces causing
the growth and stagnation of cities. However, it is silent on and of no
use in helping the traffic commissioner decide on where to put the next
traffic light. If traffic were the problem, the model would be an entirely
different slice through the city.
So, there is no answer in the abstract to what is the "whole" system. I
believe the philosphical discussion of holism in the absence of a
particular case is meaningless. In system dynamics, there can be an answer
only after the purpose of the model has been defined.
See the items in the index under "Endogenous point of view" in:
Richardson, George P. 1991. Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems
Theory. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. 374 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------
Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management, Emeritus
and Senior Lecturer, Sloan School
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room E60-389
Cambridge, MA 02139
tel: 617-253-1571
fax: 617-258-9405
Home office:
tel: 978-369-9372
fax: 978-369-9077
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 19:00:12 -0400
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: What is the "whole" system?
> ....So, there is no answer in the abstract to what is the "whole" system. I
> believe the philosphical discussion of holism in the absence of a particular
> case is meaningless. In system dynamics, there can be an answer only
>after the
> purpose of the model has been defined.
Suppose that the "purpose of the model" is "to make sense of one's
perception of reality -- the whole of it"?
Marion
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 10:28:21 +0200
From: Niall Palfreyman <Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: More on Emergence
John Gunkler wrote:
> Yes, I definitely agree that the oscillatory frequency of a system is
> an aspect of the "behavior" of the system -- not the "state." To get
> a "state" one must stop the system -- and when a system is stopped,
> there is no oscillation!!
> Therefore, there is no oscillatory frequency. So, in my way of
> thinking, oscillatory frequency is not part of a "state" description.
OK, so you and I clearly have very different ideas of what constitutes a
'state', John. I'm not sure that I'm yet in a position to formulate very
accurately what I mean by state, but I do know that, at least in
everyday language, I include under the term 'state' things like my
'state of health'. And this is definitely NOT a *static* state, but
rather a very *dynamic* state which (dare I say the word?) emerges from
the collection of processes which make up my body. So I guess I'm saying
that 'state' is something like a symmetry of a system.
> I think what Niall means (and, boy, am I going out on a narrow limb
> here!) is that there are important and interesting "characteristics"
> of systems that are not captured by a state description --
> characteristics such as oscillatory frequency.
Hmm. Thanks for the attempt to express my point of view, John. You've
set me mulling on whether that IS what I mean.... But no, I don't think
so. I think I believe that every state is a symmetry of some process. I
also believe that every process can be expressed as a continuum of
states. If my attention is fixed on the process, then I will tend to
ignore the individual states; conversely, if my attention is fixed on
the individual state, then I will tend to ignore the overall process.
Which brings me back to the whole/part distinction. We as cognitive
beings have the ability to switch between 'whole' and 'part'
descriptions, but we cannot attend simultaneously to both. Our cognitive
abilities therefore centre around our ability to find useful compromises
between the two.
And, indeed, the very usefulness of system dynamics lies to my mind in
its flexibility as a means for expressing the various granularities of
compromise between state and process.
Phew! Well, the old brain cells are certainly sweating after all that.
Best wishes,
Niall.
--
We have only the world that we can bring forth
with others, and only love helps us bring it forth.
Dr. Niall Palfreyman mailto:Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com
assyst GmbH, Henschelring 15a
85551 Kirchheim bei Muenchen Tel: ++49-89-90505-230
Germany. Fax: ++49-89-90505-102/3
666
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 15:39:24 -0400
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Janis Dutton <jldutton@iac.net>
Subject: Re: What is the "whole" system?
A special thank you for Dr. Forrester's refreshingly clarifying answer. He
wrote:
>
>> ....So, there is no answer in the abstract to what is the "whole" system. I
>> believe the philosphical discussion of holism in the absence of a particular
>> case is meaningless. In system dynamics, there can be an answer only
>>after the
>> purpose of the model has been defined.
Marion Brady then asked:
>
> Suppose that the "purpose of the model" is "to make sense of one's
>perception of reality -- the whole of it"?
>
This sounds to me like the classic conundrum of the chicken and the egg.
The purpose of systems dynamics, I have been told, is to surface mental
models about a system. My first reaction to many of the dynamic models I
have seen is a curiosity about the mental models that went into the design
of the computer model to begin with. Sadly, in some cases, my next
response is to wonder if systems thinking was even involved.
So the question is which comes first mental models or systems thinking?
Secondly, if a computer model can help one make sense of one's perception
of the WHOLE of reality, then religion, philosophy, literature,
mathematics (to name a few) become obsolete.
Finally, reality is only a perception anyway. And truth is only truth
until further notice.
Janis Dutton
666
From: "John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: More on Emergence
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:24:19 -0500
Niall writes, in part:
>>at least in everyday language, I include under the term 'state' things
like my 'state of health'. And this is definitely NOT a *static* state, but
rather a very *dynamic* state ....<<
That's fine with me, for everyday language. But if one accepts a definition
of "state" that includes dynamic elements, one has lost the (useful, I
believe) distinction between "state description" as the representation of
the static aspects of a system and "process description" as the
representation of the dynamic aspects.
Also, Niall, I would say that while your "state of health" changes, to refer
to it as a "state of health" means precisely that you are stopping the
changes to take a snapshot -- a static picture, at a single moment of time.
Sure, if you take several snapshots at different moments you'll get
different pictures or "states" and that's one thing that tells you that your
health is changing and dynamic. I'll bet, however, that most physician
reports on your "state of health" contains such things as blood glucose,
hematocrit, HDL, LDL, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, weight, etc. --
all of which are measurements taken at one moment in time, not dynamically.
Am I right?
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 05:25:12 -0400
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: What is the "whole" system?
> > Suppose that the "purpose of the model" is "to make sense of one's
> >perception of reality -- the whole of it"?
>
> This sounds to me like the classic conundrum of the chicken and the egg.
> The purpose of systems dynamics, I have been told, is to surface mental
> models about a system. My first reaction to many of the dynamic models I
> have seen is a curiosity about the mental models that went into the design
> of the computer model to begin with. Sadly, in some cases, my next
> response is to wonder if systems thinking was even involved.
>
> So the question is which comes first mental models or systems thinking?
Janis,
I dunno, but it doesn't seem to me to make any difference. In general, my
position is that just about all mental models of (perceptions of) reality are
systemic. Those systems may not be tightly integrated or elegant
(improving them
is education's task), but I think they're systemic nevertheless.
> Secondly, if a computer model can help one make sense of one's perception
> of the WHOLE of reality, then religion, philosophy, literature,
> mathematics (to name a few) become obsolete.
Hmmm. I don't see the academic disciplines as obsolete, but as conceptual
frameworks modeling certain random aspects of reality (and, unfortunately,
ignoring
other important aspects). I think of them as conceptual subsystems of our
culture's "master" conceptual system.
> Finally, reality is only a perception anyway. And truth is only truth until
> further notice.
I agree. So we're talking about perceptions of systems. Right? So,
can't
there be a perception of a "master system" of which the kinds of systems we
usually
talk about are elements?
Marion
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:12:07 -0700
Subject: Re-Introduction from Steve Means
From: "Steve Means" <kachmor@blarg.net>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
This is a quick personal update and explanation for rejoining your
discussions about systems thinking.
I retired from public high school teaching last June, satisfied and
emancipated, fulfilled by the worthy career and challenged facing fulltime
participation in the real world. Stella and systems approaches to problem
solving had been an ongoing part of my work with students and an intriguing
part of my dreams and aspirations.
In the process of living out these dreams education and systems thinking
have become more important. I am know challenged to APPLY what we so
enthusiastically recommend for our students. I have been introduced to a
developing US company representing outstanding German products (the names of
both US and German companies are available but not necessary in this first
message).
The situation I know contemplate begs for the expert guidances produced by a
systems analysis. Neither company employs (nor understands) feedback loops.
Both companies have quality managers and employees and are challenged by the
rapidly changing business landscape. I know Jay would have great guidance
for them and I have placed some of his thoughts at their disposal.
My reasons, then, for rejoining you as educators, include a revitalized need
for the stimulation of your discussions and the specific belief that I have
come upon a blend of the activities of the schools and the details of the
"real world." Perhaps some of you might be interested in getting more
specifically involved with a real world application of systems
thinking/dynamics, Stella and creating a learning organization.
Hello Again,
Steve Means
formerly of Sammamish High School, Bellevue, Washington, USA
worked some with Swarthmore's Math Form, too
Steve Means
kachmor@blarg.net
760-612-6182
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:58:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: fred nickols <fnickols@ets.org>
Subject: Re: Re: What is the "whole" system?
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
(The k-12sd list moderator will respond to Fred's request for duplicate
past messages.)
I'm sorry to be a pest but I apparently missed something I consider
important; namely, Jay Forrester's response to a question about the "whole"
system. If I can prevail upon someone to send me the question and Jay's
response, I'd much appreciate it. (For what it's worth, my own response to
the question of how one defines the "whole" system, is that you don't;
"There ain't no such an animal," as my grandmother used to say. To define
a system, any system, is to establish boundaries (ditto for processes). On
whatever basis you establish them, the act of establishing them is to
artificially isolate some portion of a larger whole. Once set, however, the
"whole system" (or process) of interest is the one for which you have
established boundaries. Anyway, I'd much appreciate it if some good soul
who happens to have saved the original inquiry and Jay's response could
forward both to me.
Fred Nickols
Executive Director
Strategic Planning & Management Services
Educational Testing Service
fnickols@ets.org
From: LucasRPS@aol.com
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 05:49:05 EDT
Subject: Can you help?
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Dear Group,
Does anyone have a working model on the role of the community, government,
and/or education in supporting handicapped children and handicapped adults
(and their families) in a defined region?
The purpose of the model would be to understand financial aspects, social
implications, needs for related services, community perspections, human
resource allocation, and/or long term impact on the community.
Hopefully, this would be a recent model that builds in current trends in
legislation, economic issues, and special education funding. Since our site
is for K-12 education, I'm hoping for a model that could be geared for used
at the middle school or high school level. The supporting curriculum
objectives would be a big help too.
I would appreciate any help so we are not recreating the wheel. The purpose
of the model is to better understand and design programs for autistic young
people and adults in a given coummunity or region. ( The need for parent
support and community education could be an important variable.) Please
think about your inventory of models and let me know. One may be adaptable.
Thanks for your help and good thoughts,
Tim Lucas
Superintendent of Schools
70 Lloyd Road
Ho-Ho-Kus, New Jersey 07423
(201) 652-4555
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:00:22 -0700
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Ed Gallaher <gallaher@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: What is the "whole" system?
>Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 19:00:12 -0400
>From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
>To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
>Subject: Re: What is the "whole" system?
>
>> ....So, there is no answer in the abstract to what is the "whole" system. I
>> believe the philosphical discussion of holism in the absence of a particular
>> case is meaningless. In system dynamics, there can be an answer only
>>after the
>> purpose of the model has been defined.
>
> Suppose that the "purpose of the model" is "to make sense of one's
>perception of reality -- the whole of it"?
>
>Marion
The blunt answer is "You are doomed to failure."
I can't even answer why I might have a desire for ice cream on Monday
night, but not on Tuesday night, although I suppose some model of satiation
might help me understand this.
Although the above-mentioned goal may be laudatory, I suspect that one's
probability of success is about the same as Einstein's in his attempt to
identify the "theory of everything" in phyics. The best physicists are
still looking . . .
There are a number of identified forces in physics, but there remain many
inconsistencies, contradictions, and paradoxes.
For example, suppose my personal goal is to develop a model to make sense
of my perception of light as a particle, along with my perception of light
as a wave. There are classic experiments which clearly identify light as
being one and not the other, in both directions. I'd like to build a system
dynamics model to reconcile these puzzles, but I'm not sure this is
realistic.
I would agree with JWF in that we need to address specific problems, and
develop models within the context of the problem.
Perhaps 50 years from now we will have a thorough set of models and text
books which cover the majority of our collective knowledge of physics,
biology, ecology, chemistry, sociology, medicine, etc. etc., These will be
used from 3rd grade -->, and the general population will have a collective
understanding of most of the basic concepts of SD, and the generic
application of these principles across disciplines. Then -maybe- it would
be possible to combine this knowledge into some HUGE conglomeration.
In the meantime, if anyone were to try to develop such a model, again I
believe they would be doomed to failure. And if by some chance they did
successfully build such a model, no one, and I mean NO ONE, would believe
it or understand it.
Except for personal philosophical satisfaction, a model will only be useful
if it can be communicated to others, and if others intrepret its validity
high enough so it is worthy of further use.
Ed Gallaher
From: "Doug Cardell" <cardell@azstarnet.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: What is the "whole" system?
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:17:06 -0700
A model is, by definition, a simplified or idealized representation of a
greater reality. If one built a 'model' that was the same as the 'whole' it
would not be a model but a copy of the 'whole'. It would also lose its
usefulness. The utility of a model lies in its ability to reduce a 'whole'
that is too large to understand or analyze, to a manageable size so that we
can understand and study chosen aspects of it. A wind tunnel model aircraft
may be very useful in studying the airflow around the aircraft but would be
useless for testing the navigation systems. That doesn't make it a poor
model, its fitness as a model can only be judged by the extent to which it
accomplishes its intended purpose, in this case, testing airflow. The only
model that could test the whole aircraft would be a prototype of the whole
aircraft. This in not a model but the whole itself.
Doug Cardell
"Confusion is a symptom of learning."
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:39:06 -0500
From: Janice Kowalczyk <kowalcjn@ride.ri.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Question
The designers of Model it are advertising a new software for exploring complex
systems called theory building...I have not been able to find out very much
about it...anyone?
Janice Kowalczyk
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:04:12 -0400
From: Madison <lynne@csnet.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: What is the "whole" system?
> From: fred nickols <fnickols@ets.org>
> (For what it's worth, my own response to
> the question of how one defines the "whole" system, is that you don't;
> "There ain't no such an animal," as my grandmother used to say. To define
> a system, any system, is to establish boundaries (ditto for processes). On
> whatever basis you establish them, the act of establishing them is to
> artificially isolate some portion of a larger whole. Once set, however, the
> "whole system" (or process) of interest is the one for which you have
> established boundaries.
> Fred Nickols
I agree with your view of the definition of a system and its boundaries in that
it is, for all intents and purposes, what we say it is. However, systems
designers will argue for certain criteria to be applied in the drawing of
those
boundaries. What seem like trivial and perhaps arbitrary boundary line
placements can mean a huge difference in the actual design and functioning
of the
system. In the world of K-12 education, for example, it is of critical
importance whether parents are inside the system or outside. And what about
students? Are they inside, outside or input-output packets that cross the
boundary to and from some other system? (These are important questions to the
leaders and governing bodies of our schools.) Internal cohesion and complexity
of interfaces are important factors as is the question of scope of control over
the components. Sometimes it is possible to define more inclusive
boundaries by
taking the model to a higher level of abstraction. In the case of K-12
education, all elements including students and parents are subsumed within the
same system if we raise it to the level of the "school community" rather than
just the "school system". But the focus of the model will change as the
level of
detail and boundaries change and it will reflect an equally valid but very
different perspective and purpose.
Lynne Bernstein
From: "Chuck Estin" <cestin@aa.net>
To: "k12 Systems Dynamics List" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: teacher opening
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:32:28 -0700
I don't know if this list is still active, but in case there are any
teachers interested in a school which has an interest in systems principles
in education, I'd like to post the following ad:
Renaissance Persons wanted to teach in small democratic public high school.
Certificate Required. Potential openings in all curriculum areas. Send
resume and cover letter to 6815 Ravenna Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98105. E-mail
contact: clakatatham@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 19:18:55 -0400
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Reply to Ed & Whole systems
> >Suppose that the "purpose of the model" is "to make sense of one's
> >perception of reality -- the whole of it"?
> The blunt answer is "You are doomed to failure."
Ed,
I have a little exercise I've used with dozens of classes from the middle
school level on up. I apologize for its length, and hope you'll bear with
me. It
usually goes something like this:
"Yesterday we introduced ourselves and took care of the
getting-class-started
stuff. Unless someone has leftover questions, we'll begin today by jumping
right
in to the study of history.
"Here's what I want you to do first: The second hand on the clock is
approaching twelve. For ten seconds, while it's moving between the twelve
and the
two, I want you to think about this room and what's in it. Nothing else.
Ready? .
. .
"Start. . .
"Okay, time's up. Now, tell me something that was true in this classroom
during those ten seconds. Melanie?"
"I don't think I know what you mean."
"Well, I don't mean anything complicated. Just tell me
something--anything--that was true here during that time."
"Uh, well, somebody's stomach growled. And they giggled."
"Good. That's two things that were true . . .two 'facts.' I'll write
a word
or two on the board to represent them. Okay, who else has a fact? Yes.
Tony."
"You mean just ordinary stuff, right?"
"Yes."
"Well, I was sitting at this desk. Playing with my pencil. Trying to
figure
out why we're doing this. Breathing. Staring at the clock."
"Good. That's five more. Jenny?"
"I don't know whether I have the right idea or not, but if I do, I can
give you
dozens and dozens of facts like that . . .hundreds . . .maybe thousands."
"Just for this little 30-by-30 foot space and ten seconds?"
"Sure. Put down 25 words for everyone's hair color, and 25 for their eyes.
Fifty more for our heights and weights. Those were all facts. You could say
dozens of things that were true just about the carpet, hundreds or thousands of
things about the clothes we were wearing--textures, fits, styles, materials
and so
on. Then there's all the furniture in the room--what it was, where it was,
what it
was made of, how it was made. In fact, just describing the clock or the pencil
sharpener--how they're put together and how they work. . . I have no idea
how many
facts there'd be in those descriptions, but I know it would be a lot."
"I agree. So, how many factual statements might it be possible to make
about
that little slice of space and time?"
"You could fill every blackboard in the school."
"Well, if that's true, how many facts might there be if we expanded the
space
and time to include what's usually studied in American history--all of the
North
American continent for 500 years? Or what if we took in all of human
history, from
this moment back?"
"It boggles the mind."
_________
"Okay. We've established that there's no end to the amount of raw factual
material we could draw from to write history. So how do we decide which
facts to
use and how to organize them?
(Silence)
Well, let's cut the problem down to a more reasonable size. Think back
to this
room and those ten seconds. How would you decide which of the available
facts to
use to write a history of just that?"
(Long silence.)
_____________________
"Tell me: What do maps, miniature cars and airplanes, recipes, dress
patterns,
mathematical equations, chemical formulae and photographs have in common?"
"Well, they're sort of copies of the real thing."
"Right. They're models. A model is a simplified representation of a more
complex reality. Models tend to leave out details and emphasize the important
parts of whatever they represent. Are there models of human
activity--'made up'
versions of life?"
"How about soap operas?"
"Good! What do you need to produce a soap opera--not to televise or
broadcast
it--just to put it on?"
"Well, you have to have some actors. And a stage or studio. And some
kind of
plot or idea."
"Is that all?"
"Oh! The actors have to actually do something. Move around. Act."
"Right. Stage. Actors. Plot. Action. And of course, the whole
thing takes
place in time, which is a fifth element. Those are the basic requirements. It
might be helpful to have a producer, a director, stagehands, an audience
and so on,
but they're not absolutely essential. If we're trying to model human
activity, we
organize it with those five elements. And. . . pay close attention. . . we
decide
which facts about actors, stage, plot, action and time are important by
deciding
which facts, if different, would cause other important facts to be
different. The
assumption that something is important because of its systemic relationship to
something else is as automatic and natural as is our use of the five
categories.
"Think about the idea of systemic relationship for awhile, and talk
about it
with your team members."
_________________________
"How many of you took biology last year? Let's see hands.
"Hmmm. A bunch. Well, between us we ought to be able to remember something
about biological classification systems. What is it biologists study?"
"Life."
"And the major divisions of living things are . . .?"
"Plants and animals."
"Okay. For the benefit of those who haven't had biology yet, or have poor
memories, I'll put the word 'life' on the board, with a branch leading to
plants
and another leading to animals. Like . . .so. Now, where do we go from
animals?"
"Vertebrates and invertebrates."
"All right, two branches from animals, one to vertebrates and another to
invertebrates. Now, if we follow the vertebrate branching . . .?"
"Uh, I think that takes us to fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and
mammals."
"Sounds right to me. Okay, five lines extending on from vertebrates. This
kind of diagram is sometimes called a conceptual tree. You can see why."
"Maybe, then, you should have drawn it from the bottom up instead of
sideways."
"Yeah, probably. But you've got the idea. All this, of course, is
just a tiny
part of the classification system biologists invented for thinking and talking
about the part of reality they're interested in."
____________________
"Okay, you know what a conceptual tree is, and you know the major
elements in
our perceptions of reality. So put the two together to organize your thinking
about that ten second slice of reality. Create a conceptual tree with
reality as
the trunk, and stage, actors, plot and action as the main branches, then
think of
sub-categories for each of the four categories."
"I'm still not clear. Give us a start."
"Well, for actors, how about 'number of' as the first branch?
Certainly the
size of the class is useful information. And climate as a subcategory of
stage or
environment is surely appropriate. If the temperature in the room during
that ten
seconds had been below freezing, other facts would almost certainly have been
different."
"Yeah, I'd have been outta here."
"There! Hear that? That's an example of systemic relationship.
Change the
temperature in the room and the number of actors probably changes. Or,
stated more
generally: There is a relationship between the environment and demographics.
That's a useful idea in human affairs.
"Okay, get on with the project. You have 'number of' as a branch for
actors,
and 'climate' as a branch for stage or environment. Keep analyzing the ten
seconds, and add as many similar branches to the four main categories as
you can."
_____________
"All right, what you've done for that ten seconds and this room, do now for a
slightly larger space and longer time. Choose some historical event or
contemporary situation and, using the model, take it apart. The model will
direct
your attention to certain aspects of the event or situation, and the event or
situation will help you refine your model by suggesting additional
subcategories
for actors, stage, plot, action, and time."
________________________________________________
Ed, if you're still with me, I'm maintaining that, in the words of
Donald T.
Campbell, "Science and ordinary knowing are now seen to be based upon
deep-seated
presumptions about the nature of the world. These presumptions, or others
to take
their place, are necessary prerequisites to perceiving and sciencing, but
they are
unconfirmable. In considerable part, these enculturared paradigms and
presumptions
will be specific to the culture of origin."
I'm saying that those presumptions are the organizers of each society's
comprehensive "macro" model of reality, that those models have five major
elements,
that those elements are systemically related, and that making these implicitly
known elements explicit has vast pedagogical implications.
Marion
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 19:14:42 +1000
From: Ian Parker <iwp@hinet.net.au>
To: "k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Introduction to Discussion Group
Hi all,
This is my first mesage in this discussion group, so a brief
introduction is in order.
I am a science teacher who is working in NSW, Australia. I've always
wanted to do it this way.......
so on with the show.....
you might like to visit my website page at:
http://www.hinet.net.au/~iwp/
For a potted CV look at: http://www.hinet.net.au/~iwp/profile.htm
On my thoughts about some of the philosophical implications of SD &
ST in science education
launch off from:
_ http://www.hinet.net.au/~iwp/welcome1.html
On my attempts to use Stella II with gifted and talented
students(GATS) in Australia in 1993
_ http://www.hinet.net.au/~iwp/SysThin/systhin01.htm
On my attempts to develop some interesting STELLA MODELS launch off
from:
_ http://www.hinet.net.au/~iwp/SaC/welcome1.html
There are some pages for science teachers as well....they relate to my
first attempts to develop LAN (or Internet) based work sites. At present
I'm working on automating student work sheet evaluation using:
_ Web pages containing forms that send e-mail responses
to a nominated mailbox
using Netscape Navigator 4.04
_ AppleScript inter-application scripting language (like
Visual Basic) that will create a report
file including sending a report via e-mail back to
students.
How far have I got with this?
Well I've done a page, sent the e-mail report, read in the e-mail
report manually, filtered it through
an AppleScript program that automatically reports the number
correct out of... and lists both the wrong
answers as well as the correct answers in a very friendly way.
I have yet to work out how to automate the sending of a reply. I
think it will involve using
an e-mail program like Eudora which is scriptable.
**************************************
And now for my questions:
1.
I do not have a copy of STELLA II Vers. 4 or 5 for the Macintosh.
Can anyone tell me if it has an embedded AppleScript Dictionary? If so
it will allow me to script it!
2.
Is there anyone working on connecting sensor probes (of any kind) to a
computer that is also
running a SD modelling program such as STELLA II with the data logging
able to directly feed
into the system model? This is one of my goals.
Let me give an example:
_ http://www.hinet.net.au/~iwp/SysThin/DLogHC.html
Although done manually, as a next step in complexity, I would have liked
the data logging process feed directly into the same computer that
handled the modeling process. For the skeptics out there the graphs are
REAL! that is they were obtained from data collected by students and
created by a Hypercard program with an embbeded graph plotting XFCN.
Well, till next time, Regards
Ian Parker
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:30:31 -0400
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: sds@cnsvax.albany.edu
Subject: System Dynamics Conference - New Zealand
Announcing...
The 17th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society
and 5th Australia New Zealand Systems Conference
SYSTEMS THINKING FOR THE NEXT MILLENNIUM
20-23 July 1999 : Wellington, New Zealand
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/gsbgm/isdc99
This conference is expected to attract more than 250 experts and
practitioners from around the world, specialising in system dynamics,
systems thinking and other systemic methodologies.
CONFERENCE INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS
Registration: A registration brochure with a registration form will be
sent to everyone on the Society's contact list at the beginning of May. In
addition, the registration form is included at the end of this e-mail
message, if you prefer to print it and mail or fax the form. The
registration form will also be available on the conference website
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/gsbgm/isdc99 for printing and return by fax or mail.
Payment will be required at the time of registration.
PROGRAMME (Currently being finalised):
The main theme of the conference is "Systems Thinking for the Next
Millennium." Sub-themes will examine the applications, contributions of
and the linkages between systems thinking, scenario planning and strategic
simulation. This theme may be addressed through the perspectives of:
- System dynamics
- Hard, soft and critical systems
- Adaptive and strategic planning
- Organisational learning and research
- Chaos and complexity
- Philosophy of systems thinking
- Action learning and research
- Community systems research
- Community and soft OR
- Management science methodologies
- Cognitive processes in systems thinking and learning
- Systems methodologies
In other areas of interest, parallel sessions and some plenary sessions
will cover the range of work being done by systems thinking and system
dynamics practitioners worldwide.
Over 270 abstracts for paper presentations, workshops and tutorials
sessions have been submitted. Please visit the website for updates.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Monday, July 19 - Evening - 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm Registration
Tuesday, July 20 All day registration
Morning -
9:00 am - 10:30 am Introductions and Keynote
11:00 am - 12:30 pm Keynote and Plenary sessions
Afternoon -
1:30 pm - 5:00 pm Parallel sessions and workshops
Evening -
6:00 pm - 7:30 pm Welcome Reception at Te Papa, Museum of New Zealand
Wednesday, July 21
Morning -
9:00 am - 10:30 am Keynote and Plenary sessions
11:00 am - 12:30 pm Fred Emery Memorial Address and
J. W. Forrester Award
Afternoon -
1:30 pm - 5:00 pm Parallel sessions and workshops
Evening -
6:30 pm Conference Banquet at the Parliament Buildings
Thursday, July 22
Morning -
9:00 am - 12:30 pm Keynote and Plenary sessions
Afternoon -
1:30 pm - 5:00 pm Parallel sessions and workshops
Evening -
6:00 pm - 7:30 pm Consultants' Shout at the Plaza International
Hotel
Friday, July 23
Morning -
9:00 am - 12:30 pm Plenary sessions and Business meetings
PARTNERS PROGRAMME:
Activities can be arranged on arrival in Wellington, ranging from guided
bus tours of Wellington and surrounding areas, guided tours of Te Papa
(Museum of New Zealand), and wine tours to rock climbing and sea kayaking.
In addition, the annual Wellington Film Festival will be running during
this time.
Contact the conference travel agent regarding all post- and
pre-conference tours, travel and accommodation queries, etc.
Conference Travel Agent:
Tim Ratcliffe
House of Travel Wellington
PO Box 3646
Wellington, New Zealand
E-mail: timr@hot.co.nz
Telephone: +64 4 494 6137
Facsimile: +64 4 494 6133
Restaurant, Shopping and What's On guides will be included in each
satchel.
ACCOMMODATIONS AND TRAVEL
A range of accommodation is available. Full details of both accommodation
and travel options are available on the conference website
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/gsbgm/isdc99
LOCAL INFORMATION
The conference will be held at the Plaza International Hotel, within easy
walking distance of the heart of Wellington city. Wellington is the
beautiful harbour capital of New Zealand and the centre of government and
business. A compact and attractive city, Wellington's blend of modern and
historic buildings house fantastic theatres, shops and restaurants.
Wellington prides itself on its lively cafe culture. The brand new and
internationally acclaimed national museum, 'Te Papa,' is just two blocks
away from the conference venue.
A couple of hours' easy travel from Wellington takes you to the famous
vineyards of Marlborough and the Wairarapa. Outdoor activities, from golf
to skiing to sailing, are readily available and Wellington is the gateway
to the spectacular natural beauty of both the North and South Islands of
New Zealand.
Wellington has an international airport and is easily accessible by air
via Auckland.
Weather: July is winter in New Zealand and temperatures will range from
40 degrees F to 50 degrees F (5 degrees C to 10 degrees C).
Local Currency: New Zealand Dollars. Most major credit cards are
accepted (Visa, Mastercard, Diners, American Express).
Airport Transfers: Taxis and Shuttle Buses are readily available from the
airport to city centre (about a 20 minute drive). Taxis are readily
available throughout Wellington city.
Dress Code: Dress will be casual, except for the Conference Banquet which
will require tidy (not black tie) dress. Note Local Information (above)
regarding cool weather during July.
VISA REQUIREMENTS
For most countries, entry to New Zealand requires a valid visa obtained
before departure for New Zealand. Applications for visas can take several
weeks to process, so please ensure that you make arrangements to obtain a
visa in plenty of time.
CONFERENCE FEES
Participants from locations other than Australasia:
Early Bird Registration - on or before 18 June
System Dynamics Society members: US$ 300 (see note 1)
Non-members: US$ 325 (see note 1)
Full Registration - on or after 19 June
System Dynamics Society members: US$ 350 (see note 1)
Non-members: US$ 375 (see note 1)
Full-time Students: US$ 100 (see note 2)
Daily Registration: US$ 125 (see note 3)
Extra Banquet ticket: US$ 40 (see note 4)
System Dynamics Society Members and Participants not from Australasia, to
register please contact:
Roberta L. Spencer, International Conference Manager
System Dynamics Society
Milne 300 - Rockefeller College
University at Albany, State University of New York
Albany, New York 12222 USA
E-mail: system.dynamics@albany.edu
Telephone: +518 442-3865
Facsimile: +518 442-3398
Participants from Australasia:
Early Bird Registration (on or before 18 June): NZ$ 550 (see note 1)
Full Registration (on or after 19 June): NZ$ 650 (see note 1)
Full-time Students: NZ$ 180 (see note 2)
Daily Registration: NZ$ 225 (see note 3)
Extra Banquet ticket: NZ$ 75 (see note 4)
Participants from Australasia, to register please contact:
Margaret Stevenson-Wright, Conference Manager Australasia
Victoria University of
Wellington
PO Box 600, Wellington,
New Zealand
E-mail: Margaret.Stevenson-Wright@vuw.ac.nz
Telephone: +64 4 496 5452
Facsimile: +64 4 496 5459
The full fee is payable upon registration.
If you would like to become a member of the System Dynamics Society,
please contact Roberta L. Spencer (system.dynamics@albany.edu).
Notes:
1. Early Bird and Full registration fee includes attendance for one person
at all regular conference activities including the Welcome Reception,
Consultants' Shout with wine and cheese, coffee breaks, lunches, the
Conference Banquet, a conference satchel and materials, and a copy of the
Conference Proceedings.
2. Student registration fee includes attendance for one person at all
regular conference activities as listed in note #1, EXCEPT the Conference
Banquet (which can be purchased as an extra).
3. Daily registration fee includes coffee breaks and lunches only.
4. For anyone attending the banquet, but not registered as Early Bird or
Full Registration.
CONFERENCE SPONSORS (as of April 12, 1999)
A.T. Kearney, Ltd., Global Locations
Arthur Andersen, Global Locations
High Performance Systems, Hanover, New Hampshire
HVR Consulting Services, UK
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, England
Pegasus Communications, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts
Powersim, Herndon, Virginia and Knarvik, Norway
Pugh-Roberts Associates, A Division of PA Consulting Inc.,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Ventana Systems, Inc., Harvard, Massachusetts
If you or your organization would like to support the conference by
becoming a sponsor, please contact Roberta Spencer
(system.dynamics@albany.edu).
CONTACTS
Conference chair:
Bob Cavana
Victoria University of Wellington
PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
E-mail: Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz
Telephone: +64 4 495 5137
Facsimile: +64 4 495 5253
Program chair:
Jac Vennix
University of Nijmegen
PO Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands
E-mail: J.Vennix@maw.kun.nl
Telephone: +31 24 361 6291
Facsimile: +31 24 361 2351
Conference Managers:
Margaret Stevenson-Wright, Conference Manager Australasia
Victoria University of Wellington
PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
E-mail: Margaret.Stevenson-Wright@vuw.ac.nz
Telephone: +64 4 496 5452
Facsimile: +64 4 496 5459
Roberta L. Spencer, International Conference Manager
System Dynamics Society
Milne 300-Rockefeller College, SUNY-A
Albany, NY 12222 USA
E-mail: system.dynamics@albany.edu
Telephone: 518 442-3865
Facsimile: 518 442-3398
FOR MORE INFORMATION AND UPDATES PLEASE VISIT THE WEBSITE AT:
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/gsbgm/isdc99
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REGISTRATION FORM
17TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DYNAMICS SOCIETY AND
5TH AUSTRALIAN NEW ZEALAND SYSTEMS CONFERENCE
WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND : 20-23 JULY 1999
Fax or Post Registration to:
Roberta Spencer, System Dynamics Society, Fax: + 1 518 442-3398
Postal: System Dynamics Society, Milne 300-Rockefeller College, University
at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York 12222, USA.
PERSONAL DETAILS (Please type or print clearly.)
Title: Ms. Mr. Dr. Professor ___________
First Name: ________________________________
Family Name: _______________________________
Name to appear on Badge: ___________________
Position or Job Title:______________________
Organisation: ______________________________
Postal Address: ____________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Telephone: _________________________________
[Country Code]-[Area Code]-[Local Number]
Fax: _______________________________________
[Country Code]-[Area Code]-[Local Number]
Email: _____________________________________
PERSON AND POINT OF CONTACT IN CASE OF EMERGENCY:
First Name: ________________________________
Family Name: _______________________________
Relationship to You: _______________________
Telephone Day: _____________________________
[Country Code]-[Area Code]-[Local Number]
Telephone Night: ____________________________
[Country Code]-[Area Code]-[Local Number]
MEALS
Do you have any special dietary requirements: YES/NO
If yes, please state what they are:
MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS
Do you have any medical requirements that we need to be aware of: YES/NO
If yes, please state what they are:
PAYMENT DETAILS
Type of Registration: (on or before 18 June)
System Dynamics Society Members US$300 _____
Non-Members US$325 _____
Full-time Students US$100 _____
Daily Registration US$125 _____
Extra Banquet Ticket US$ 40 _____
TOTAL PAYABLE US$_______
Registration ON OR AFTER JUNE 19
System Dynamics Society Members US$350 _____
Non-Members US$375 _____
Full-time Students US$100 _____
Daily Registration US$125 _____
Extra Banquet Ticket US$ 40 _____
TOTAL PAYABLE US$_______
If ordering extra banquet ticket(s), please enter names of companion(s)
for official invitation and name badge: ____________________________________
Payment method:
[ ] Check enclosed (in US Dollars, drawn on a US Bank, and made payable to
'99 System Dynamics Conference')
[ ] Credit Card:
( ) Mastercard ( )Visa ( )American Express
Card Number: _______________________________
Expiry Date: ______________________________
Billing Address: __________________________
Signature: _________________________________
(In accordance with the Privacy Act 1993, the information you provide will
be used only for the purpose for which it is collected)
Roberta L. Spencer System.Dynamics@albany.edu
Executive Director, System Dynamics Society Phone: 518-442-3865
Jennifer I. Rowe Fax: 518-442-3398
Assistant to the Director, System Dynamics Society
Milne 300, Rockefeller College
State University of New York at Albany
Albany, NY, 12222, U.S.A. http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:32:19 +1000
From: Ian Parker <iwp@hinet.net.au>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: More on Emergence
In reply to the discussion on emergence........
The issue here when trying to consider a "state variable" description of a
system is that
we do not confuse the ideas of:
"state", "state variable" "state-space" and "process"
Let's consider the question of oscillation. It's as good as any as a vehicle.
Firstly oscillation is the name of a particular kind of process because clearly
it refers to a particular
kind of change. I know this sound pedantic but this is where the discussion
lies.
The change is taking place in the state variables' current values (as
measured).
That is if we
consider say a pendulum process- one type of oscillation, then the measured
value of say
the acceleration (one of several possible state variables of a pendulum
process)
of the mass at any given time is
different from it's immediate past value and immediate future value.
This is why system dynamics in mathematical terms is actually differential
claculus. Underneath the pretty
pictures lurks a calculus engine with associated names like Euler and
Runge-Kutta.
In a large system some state variables may not change over a short time span.
It is true to say that at
least one of the system's state variable's must change for the process to be
active. This may seem
obvious but it is critical to undertand the next part.
We do not have to "stop" the process to "get a state", or measure the value of
all state variables at any given instance in process time, because we may
perform measurements using devices that don't interfere with the process too
much( we're not working at the sub atomic level here) and allow us to infer the
value from
the measurements. For example we may video tape the pendulum process and
use the
sequence of snapshots
(video frames) to measure the changes in ...<state variable>... over time.
Doing this forces you to understand these ideas.
Now, to the question of "the state". Whe need to consider what we are talking
about: the state of the
system, or the state of a particular variable. They are clearly not the same!
For example you will consider a video frame as the "snapshot of the position
state of the mass" at a particular instant in time. This of course captures one
of the "states" of the system.
The oscillation frequency could be considered to be a state variable (or
characteristic variable)
of the system. However interestingly we infer it! Anything you calculate to get
a result is
effectively an inference. This means that we only really measure: mass, time,
position, all
elese is inference! and time may not be easily measured without memory. Is time
measurement
a measurement of memory patterns?
Think what you do when you measure electrical current with an analogue meter!
You determine the POSITION of a needle! Think what you do when you measure with
a digital
meter. You choose from a set of numbers...the POSITION on a number line.
I'm not sure what this line of reasoning says about automated measurement! The
important thing is that
a stste space description is about accessible measurable dimensions. "glukes"
that cannot be measured is meaningless.
With respect to the pendulum, the only things we can measure are the mass, and
the position of the mass at any instant in time. Think what this state-ment
says.
The oscillation part of the deal refers to the "state space" of the mass. The
actual space that the mass is
allowed to occupy is rather peculiar- like a banana.
The whole thing could be described by a vector (or list):
{mass, <x-position>, <y-position>,[z-position], <time>
}.
This list (in a mathematical model) as a list of numbers represents "the state"
of the pendulum at one time.
Mass is a state variable, time is a state variable, x position, y position, z
position are state variables.
Now where does the pendulum string come into this? Well it doesn't. Actually
it's there to effectively
constrain the mass; to stop it from straying out of it's state space. Or to put
it in modern terms - determine the
period of the oscillation given the gravity field the mass is embeded in. No
they are not the same thing but different ways of perceiving the same reality!
But now we cheat bigtime! and use 300 years of accumulated scientific knowledge
and construct a model based on something far removed from Galileo's
observations.We transform this humble way of describing things into
a second order differential equation or more correctly two coupled first order
differential equations.
This is one of the tragedies of "traditional" science education and I think why
ST/SD is so exciting. Let's face it. ST/SD is what Newton and Leibnitz were
really on about 300 odd years ago.
Newton saw an apple drop and tried to answer the question: "What was the state
of the apple just before it hit me". His obvious answer: {100.5 g, 0 cm, 0 cm,
0.5 mm, -0.01 s, "ripe"}. But of course he had to invent the concept of a frame
of reference for this to make sense. The frame of reference I chose to describe
this momentous event was with Newton's left eye at {mass= ?, x=0 cm, y=0
cm, z=0
cm, time=0 s, bio-chemical state= ?}.
In relation to my left eye, I'd like a glass of {200 g, 0 cm, 0 cm, -10 cm,
3 s,
"squeezed and fermented"} right now. It just doesn't have the same nuance as a
glass of "apple cider", does it now.
Regards,
Ian Parker
k-12sd wrote:
> From: "John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
> To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
> Subject: More on Emergence
> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:33:04 -0500
>
> Niall writes about the state/behavior distinction:
>
> >>What about a system in oscillation? I would count the oscillatory
> frequency
> as an aspect of state, yet it doesn't inhere in any of the levels, nor
> even in their collective values. Rather, the frequency is an aspect of
> the BEHAVIOUR of the system - hence my original question about the
> state/behaviour distinction.<<
>
> Am I misunderstanding, or did you just contradict yourself? Yes, I
> definitely agree that the oscillatory frequency of a system is an aspect of
> the "behavior" of the system -- not the "state." To get a "state" one must
> stop the system -- and when a system is stopped, there is no oscillation!!
> Therefore, there is no oscillatory frequency. So, in my way of thinking,
> oscillatory frequency is not part of a "state" description.
>
> I think what Niall means (and, boy, am I going out on a narrow limb here!)
> is that there are important and interesting "characteristics" of systems
> that are not captured by a state description -- characteristics such as
> oscillatory frequency. And that, for me, is obviously true. Which is one
> reason why, for example, Herbert Simon pushed us toward using "process
> descriptions" of non-static systems rather than state descriptions. And I
> believe it is one reason why Jay Forrester pushes us to use dynamic
> simulations of systems (which are one kind of process description) in order
> to fully understand systems.
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 21:43:44 -0400
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Subject: The Whole
Please allow me to try to state my perspective differently. When I
ask about "the whole," I think what tends to come to mind for most
readers is "the whole of objective reality," overwhelming in its
vastness, complexity and mystery, a great deal of which will almost
certainly always lie beyond human comprehension.
We attempt to deal with that whole by way of our academic
disciplines--a random collection of conceptual frameworks that can't be
made to integrate systemically, that lack any agreed-upon overarching
aim, and that ignore spects of knowledge of undeniable importance.
But "the whole" for the individual isn't, it seems to me, that
overwhelmingly vast and complex objective reality, but individual
PERCEPTIONS of that reality. The first step in understanding THAT
particular whole, I think, is to understand its general structure and
organization.
And that, it seems to me, IS a manageable task. When I put up all
those words on the blackboard representing what kids say are aspects of
their immediate, here and now experience, and I ask them to sort them
out in what seems to them to be the most logical way, they ALWAYS
eventually come to the conclusion (on their own) that, "dissassembled,"
EVERY description of experience, EVERY analysis of experience, EVERY
thought about experience (1) locates the experience in physical space,
(2) assigns it time dimensions, (3) identifies the participant actors or
objects, (4) describes the action, and (5) gives or assumes a reason or
reasons for the action. (Or, of course, in simplest language,they come
back to the journalism student's who/what/when/where/why descriptive /
analytical model.) These five concepts, with their supporting
conceptual substructures, organize our perceptions of reality.
The academic disciplines--conceptual frameworks modeling certain
aspects of reality--are deemed necessary because it's assumed that
there's merit in slicing reality apart to facilitate detailed study. I
accept that, and believe it's functional. But as BASIC organizers of
knowledge--wwwww are, it seems to me, far superior to the academic
disciplines. Unlike the disciplines, they're comprehensive. Unlike the
disciplines, they're systemically integrated. Unlike the disciplines,
built into them are criteria for determining the relative significance
of aspects of knowledge (i.e. that which has the greatest systemic
impact). And unlike the disciplines (which are just elaborations of
various aspects of wwwww) THESE basics are already familiar to students
when they show up for the first day of school. The primary
instructional task, then, isn't to teach kids something they don't know,
but to help them make explicit and learn to manipulate what they DO
know.
Doing that presents some difficult problems, for reasons suggested
by the old saying that a fish would be the last to discover water, but
the potential educational benefits are, I maintain, enormous. Chief
among them is that, when everything a kid knows is made part of a single
conceptual framework, the basic process by means of which knowledge is
constructed--the discovery that aspects of reality not previously
thought to be related are, in fact, related--is enormously enhanced.
Freed of the arbitrary, artificial, awkward boundaries that now separate
disciplines, kids' minds can roam freely across everything they know
looking for possible relationships to explore.
Marion
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:04:14 +0200
From: Niall Palfreyman <Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: What is the "whole" system?
Jay Forrester:
> In system dynamics, there can be an answer only after the purpose of
> the model has been defined.
Marion Brady:
> Suppose that the "purpose of the model" is "to make sense of one's
> perception of reality -- the whole of it"?
Ed Gallaher:
> The blunt answer is "You are doomed to failure."
Hey, hang on a moment, Ed. Being a bit hard, aren't you?
> I suspect that one's probability of success is about the same as
> Einstein's in his attempt to identify the "theory of everything" in
> phyics. The best physicists are still looking . . .
... and just look at all the marvellous things they've found in the
process - superstrings, white holes, electromagnetic-weak field
correspondence, you name it. After all, isn't that the whole point of
aspiration? You ask a question without regard for whether the answer
exists or not, and in answering it you learn a lot.
I'm thinking of Kurt Goedel, who essentially asked the question: what is
the "whole" supersystem of the relatively simple system of arithmetic?
In one sense his search failed, because the answer he found was that
arithmetic MUST be either incomplete or inconsistent, and if we assume
it's consistent then we are led inescapably to the conclusion that there
IS no "whole" supersystem of the arithmetic system. Yet the SEARCH for
that wholeness - the ASKING of that question - led to one of the
greatest results in mathematics of all time, and can in no way be
considered a failure.
I think Marion is asking a really interesting question here - as
evidenced by the amount of discussion so far on this thread. Certainly I
have obtained many interesting hours of cogitation from the question -
thank you, Marion. The following are my perusings on the question: Does
there exist a "whole" system?
First I assume that we're talking about a real-world system, and NOT my
model of it. We are asking not "Is there a whole model of a system", but
rather "In what sense could we regard a system as being whole".
For me a system is a set of interrelated elements which together can be
perceived as a whole. How can we make a "whole" out of this? I see three
ways of proceeding:
1. The first is wholeness in the sense of explanatory reduction: are we
attending to all the internal details of the system necessary for its
understanding? Is the system "whole" in the sense that it contains all
explanatorily relevant details? An example in my mind is the Bohr atom:
it attended to the energy levels of the electrons in an atom, but it
ignored the waves which were later found to explain these energy levels.
Clearly a "whole" system in this sense of -detail- is subject to our own
perceptual constraints: we can never be sure that we're attending to the
"ultimate" level of detail. If we nevertheless choose to postulate that
there is an external reality independent of our senses, then we can
certainly imagine a system being whole in the reductive sense.
2. The next is wholeness in the sense clusure: are all sources of system
behaviour endogenous to the system? If so, then the system is closed and
therefore in some sense whole. If the system DOES make use of exogenous
influences then it is an open system, and cannot yet be considered whole
in this sense. In this case we can close the system by simply ensuring
that I include within the definition of the system ALL sources of
influence which were up to now external, PLUS all sources of influence
on those sources of influence ... and so on. In this way I have created
a closed system which as I say can now be considered "whole". My
suspicion is that there are no such completely closed systems around,
and so I have probably in the process included the whole of the
Universe. But at least we can still describe it as whole, so the answer
to Marion's question is still a "yes" in the closure sense.
3. The final way of understanding wholeness which occurs to me is in the
sense of purpose. Because the fact is that there AREN'T any systems in
nature: we CREATE systems by defining a boundary. We arbitrarily draw a
boundary and say that everything within the boundary is in the system,
and everything outside isn't in the system. Now when we draw a boundary
we necessarily do it with a purpose in mind - the boundary is the
expression of my own value system in that it expresses my own ideas
about what is and is not important in relation to my purpose in
constructing the system.
In my life I have a wide variety of purposes: to eat this mouthful of
toast, to make more money, to achieve world peace, and to fulfill my
life purpose, to name but a few examples. Now eating this piece of toast
definitely is not a purpose which I would describe as "whole" in any
sense, but from my psychotherapeutic work I am convinced that each of us
has, whether consciously or unconsciously, a purpose in our life which
expresses the "whole" of us as individuals. This purpose guides and
affects every little thing I do in my life, and does in fact express my
whole being. Please understand that I'm not talking here about edicts
from God or anything like that, but rather about that purpose which I
bring to bear on all the major decisions in my life. I think of it as a
spiritual purpose, but I realise that expression may not be to
everyone's taste.
So in this sense I can understand wholeness in regard to systems like
this: Does the purpose of this system express my "whole" purpose? Have I
defined it in a way which serves my own deepest life purpose? Or am I
defining a system (maybe a weapons system? or a rainforest logging
company?) which contradicts my life purpose?
So now back to Marion's question: Is there a "whole" system? If it is to
be whole in all three senses above, it must be a system which is
complete in every reductive detail, it must encompass the entire
Universe, and it must express the whole purpose of its designer. I have
no problem imagining the existence of a system satisfying either or both
of the first two criteria, but what does the third one mean? Which
designer? Was I even correct in my original statement that there must be
a designer?
At rock bottom I think Marion is asking a very spiritual question: how,
if at all, does God enter into SD? Does SD have a theological
standpoint? Could it contribute constructively to theological dialogue?
I think that's an incredibly interesting question.
OK, I've got my feet back on the ground. Sorry it went on so long.
Best wishes,
Niall.
We have only the world that we can bring forth
with others, and only love helps us bring it forth.
Dr. Niall Palfreyman mailto:Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com
assyst GmbH, Henschelring 15a
85551 Kirchheim bei Muenchen Tel: ++49-89-90505-230
Germany. Fax: ++49-89-90505-102/3
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 23:03:17 -0400
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu (K-12sd discussion)
From: "Jay W. Forrester" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Keeping the focus on system dynamics in K-12 education
It seems to me that much of the recent discussion on this list about what
is a "whole system" is better suited to a discussion group on philosophy.
Some discussion has been relevant to system dynamics in K-12 education but
much of the discussion seems to lack either a system dynamics content or a
K-12 focus.
I suggest that communications should reveal how the ideas expressed relate
to the system dynamics and K-12 purposes of this list.
---------------------------------------------------------
Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management, Emeritus
and Senior Lecturer, Sloan School
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room E60-389
Cambridge, MA 02139
tel: 617-253-1571
fax: 617-258-9405
Home office:
tel: 978-369-9372
fax: 978-369-9077
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 20:59:54 -0400
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu (K-12sd discussion)
From: "Jay W. Forrester" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Levels, state variables, and behavior
Some of the communications over the last month have used terms differently
than is normally accepted in dynamics of systems in general and in system
dynamics in particular. In the interest of avoiding confusion, I make the
following suggestions. Dates are the dates that communications appeared on
the K-12 list.
On March 30, Niall Palfreyman wrote:
>The set of levels in a system
>definitely does NOT for me exhaust the set of states of the system. What
>about a system in oscillation? I would count the oscillatory frequency
>as an aspect of state, yet it doesn't inhere in any of the levels,
On April 8, John Gunkler wrote:
>To get a "state" one must
>stop the system -- and when a system is stopped, there is no oscillation!!
>Therefore, there is no oscillatory frequency. So, in my way of thinking,
>oscillatory frequency is not part of a "state" description. ..........
and
>there are important and interesting "characteristics" of systems
>that are not captured by a state description -- characteristics such as
>oscillatory frequency.
Integrations, or accumulations, go by different names in different fields:
Levels, in much of the system dynamics literature and in Vensim and Powersim
State variables, in engineering systems
Stocks, in economics and in STELLA
Balance sheet variables, in corporate annual reports
Integrals, in mathematics
Accumulations, in general conversation
"Levels" and "states" are the same thing.
This is consistent with one of the many definitions of "state" in Webster's
Third New International Dictionary: The physical condition of something at
one stage in a process.
From the Vensim PLE manual: Levers are also known as stocks, accumulations,
and state variables.
From Powersim definitions:
Level: A variable type in POWERSIM models, used to represent the state
variables of a system.
Oscillation is not a system state. It is a behavior resulting from a
particular structure of levels and rates of flow interacting with one
another.
For a given system structure (and the equations specifying how the levels
determine the rates of flow), the values of the levels at a particular
moment in time completely define the system. That is why one must provide
the initial values of all levels before a simulation begins. If the values
of the levels are known, the rates of flow can be computed and the
simulation can begin. The simulation then reveals the dynamic behavior
over time of the structure, rate equations, and initial values of the
levels.
The system has a set of states, the values of the levels, at every moment
in time. It is not necessary to stop a system to get values of the states.
They do apply to only a specific time, but can be observed, and in a
simulation printed out, without stopping the system. Real-life systems
have a set of state variables, which are observable, but real systems do
not stop while we obseve them.
---------------------------------------------------------
Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management, Emeritus
and Senior Lecturer, Sloan School
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room E60-389
Cambridge, MA 02139
tel: 617-253-1571
fax: 617-258-9405
Home office:
tel: 978-369-9372
fax: 978-369-9077
From: DessaDancy@aol.com
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:02:59 EDT
Subject: Re: Question
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Hi Janice
Theory Builder software is available at the HICE, University of Michigan,
where Model-it was developed. The url for this is
http://hi-ce.eecs.umich.edu/software/theorybuilder.html
Shari Jackson, one of the developers of Model-it, is now at the Concord
Consoritium where What-if Builder software is under development. That url is
http://csf.concord.org/esf/Software.cfm
Model-it is now sold by Cogito Media.
http://www.cogitomedia.com/
Model-it doesn't use stock and flow thinking of system dynamics, but has
other tools for thinking about dynamic relationships.
Hope this helps. Let me know what you think.
Dessa
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:44:09 -0400
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu (K-12sd discussion)
From: "Jay W. Forrester" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Systems and violence
Does anyone have thoughts about how a better understanding of systems might
reduce the probability of tragedies like the one that happened at
Littleton, Colorado? Understanding by teachers? Understanding by
students? Understanding by parents?
---------------------------------------------------------
Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management, Emeritus
and Senior Lecturer, Sloan School
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room E60-389
Cambridge, MA 02139
tel: 617-253-1571
fax: 617-258-9405
Home office:
tel: 978-369-9372
fax: 978-369-9077
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:33:14 -0700
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Ed Gallaher <gallaher@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence
>Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:44:09 -0400
>To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu (K-12sd discussion)
>From: "Jay W. Forrester" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
>Subject: Systems and violence
>
>Does anyone have thoughts about how a better understanding of systems might
>reduce the probability of tragedies like the one that happened at
>Littleton, Colorado? Understanding by teachers? Understanding by
>students? Understanding by parents?
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Jay W. Forrester
Wow, what an important, timely, and thought-provoking question!
My 11-year-old smart, lively grandson has had a difficult time in school up
until the last year or so. He had the ypical problems with being bored,
and had several "average" teachers that did not have the time, energy, or
resources to deal with a 4th grader doing 7-8th grade math, etc. You all
know the scene. (A new environment this year has been a tremendous
improvement.)
Zach and I visit every few months. Several years ago we started talking
about and using STELLA on the computer, and stock-and-flow diagrams on
paper. As per Jim Waters approach, the concept of systems thinking and
understanding, with or without computers, can contribute significantly to
"maturity", and "mature thinking."
Although I am a very strong proponent of the explicit computer
modeling/simulation process, I agree as well with Jim that the conceptual
framework provides a powerful foundation for understanding and discussion.
Zach and I build several diagrams which indicate "good will", or "good
feelings", as a stock, with behavior and actions influencing flows into or
out of the stock. If he does his homework and the dishes without being told
(or with an occassional gentle reminder), good will "accumulates". Playing
computer games at the wrong time, talking back, arguing about bedtimes,
etc. "drains" the good will.
An increase in "good will" pays off in new priveleges!
Several weeks ago we visited and he mentioned how much he liked his current
school. They let him do harder projects (which are much riskier), but then
-he- mentioned that successfully completing the harder project increases
his confidence (!), which in turn encourages him to tackle harder problems
in the future. We drew a quick diagram of "confidence" as a stock, and it
made immediate sense to him. But it was crystal clear that without the
formal diagram, he recognizes the "accumulation" of even intagibles such as
"good will" and "confidence". He is well on his way to becoming a systems
thinker!
I am *confident* that even this very simple approach could be applied to
personal interactions within a school environment. There can and should be
a general understanding of the dynamic nature of the accumulation of
"feelings." What influences the increase or decrease of these "stocks"?
What can I do that contributes to these accumulations in myself? Or in
others? How might I recognize these accumulations?
These intagible feelings (on a scale of 1-10?) might include good will,
self-confidence, envy, jealousy, and so on.
What are the ultimate results of these accumulations? Since we know growth
cannot continue without bounds, what is the potential "balancing loop" for
negative and destructive accumulations? Arguments with parents? Truancy?
Drugs? Depression? Suicide? Violence?
Shouldn't it be possible for everyone to appreciate the self-interest of
recognizing these dynamic processes in themselves, and in others?
(Some of you may recognize the recent tragedy as being strikingly close to
Tim Joy's dynamic analysis of "Lord of the Flies.")
Nan and I sat next to each other at the SD banquet in Quebec last summer
and I asked the rhetorical question, "Why are we working so hard at this
stuff? Is it really that important?" And we both nodded and said, "Yes, it
really is that important!"
I was introduced to SD about 12 years ago, and it made immediate sense to
me. I have been surprised, discouraged and dismayed at times by our
seemingly slow (but steady) progress. But my enthusiasm for its potential
has not diminished one iota.
Sincerely,
Ed Gallaher
66676
From: "John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Systems and violence
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:46:41 -0500
Leave it to Jay Forrester to challenge us to do very important things. I
need more time to ponder my full answer but I wanted to say this
immediately:
I believe that we suffer from a surfeit of proposed dynamic mechanisms
("causes") for violence such as the tragedy in Littleton. Everyone has
their pet theory: lack of gun control, a culture of disdain for those who
are "different," how rare it is for many children to ever experience
unconditional love, even (I cringe to mention) the governor of my own state
suggesting that the violence would not have occurred had there been people
carrying concealed weapons in the school!!!
Where I see SD contributing most, then, would be to use modeling to sort out
the various dynamic mechanisms -- to discover which have the most effect on
the occurrence of violence. Then we could concentrate our efforts on
changing the things that matter, on policies that will prevent the dominance
of causal loops that result in violence and support the dominance of causal
loops with more positive social outcomes.
I might suggest (although I've never seen this in the SD literature) that we
might use the method of contrasts to help sort through the myriad
possibilities. That is, we might contrast the mechanisms in effect in the
"average" school (including those that have experienced violence at various
levels) with the mechanisms in effect in "non-violent" schools. The
differences may shorten the time required to discover the dynamic causes.
To create the model we would use half of the schools for which we can get
data, then use the model to "predict" the levels of violence in the other
half of the schools -- as a way of testing the model. This could lead to
both: (1) a diagnostic method for determining schools "at risk" for
violence, and (2) proposals for change that at-risk schools could adopt.
And the model could serve as a prime educational tool for all of us:
teachers, students, parents, etc.
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:35:24 -0700
From: "RICHARD TURNOCK" <Richard_Turnock@pgn.com>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Subject: Thinking online
What is the system of behavior in a civil society?
How does this system work?
Draw a stock and flow model and describe the feedback loops.
Alternative research project topics:
1. The population is exceeding the carrying capacity of the institutions
designed to maintain a civil society. We need to intervene in the part of
the system that supports the development of civil behavior in youth. What
do you propose?
2. Crime rates are dropping, violent crime and murders are lower. Some
cities are experiencing record lows. Littleton is an event that does not
represent the system of behavior and resulting patterns and trends. As a
result, people should not panic and think all schools unsafe. How does
this system work?
3. The mental models of a sufficient number of people have not shifted to
perceive this is an event that is part of a system of behavior that needs
intervention. "There is no crisis here." How does this system work?
4. The solutions proposed to intervene in the system of behavior create
other legal and social problems. As a result there is a stalemate and no
intervention in the system. How does this system work?
5. The system of behavior to maintain a civil society established
institutions that do not meet the needs of today's diversity of people
living close together in urban and suburban areas. New institutions are
needed. How does this system work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: Dakar@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:03:48 EDT
Subject: Re: Systems and violence
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
What an interesting question.
What conditions exist that make such violence more likely?
The media has been harping on
modeling of violence by media
access to firearms
seems that other variables (stocks) may be:
degree of connectedness (opposite of alienation)
academic success
unsupervised time
stress
Would the risk of violence increase when these psychological / emotional
peaks/valleys coincide?
I think the problem is interesting to ponder...would enjoy hearing others
contribute their ideas.
Jay Fogleman
Ellicott City, MD
From: "Depuy, Bob" <Bob_Depuy@kne.com>
To: "'k-12sd'" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Systems and violence
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:05:25 -0600
I would not even pretend to be qualified to address this subject; but here
are some ideas for a starting point. Top of the suspect list would be the
formation of cliques in urban high schools. I would not present cliques as
the cause but what about the structure of urban High Schools leads to the
"natural" formation of cliques. Not all High Schools have cliques.
Characteristically small rural schools do not. Why cliques? I had the
great experience of moving for my senior year from an urban school; 400 in
my Junior class, to a rural regional High School; 400 Freshman through
Seniors. However it required getting use to a unique phenomenon; meeting my
new classmates for the first time who already knew where my dad worked,
where I moved from, the grade level of my siblings, etc. As anywhere I
found classmates to like and dislike but through that year a clique never
showed up on the radar screen, anywhere. My point is in a small place
people know each other. Rural areas , or any location, are not exempt from
crimes of passion. Other significant differences exist between rural versus
urban communities but here is a nomination for a structural dynamic specific
to High Schools to examine.
Living 20 minutes away from Columbine and having two girls, ages 3 & 6,
going into the public school system makes this rank a bit higher than an
academic exercise. On the back burner, I give a good deal of consideration
to moving back to a rural area.
Bob Depuy
Lakewood, CO
Subject: Re: Systems and violence
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 99 17:22:07 -0700
From: Timothy Joy <tjoy@pps.k12.or.us>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
>Does anyone have thoughts about how a better understanding of systems might
>reduce the probability of tragedies like the one that happened at
>Littleton, Colorado? Understanding by teachers? Understanding by
>students? Understanding by parents?
A steady flow of influence, however slight on any one given day,
accumulates in significant and, oftentimes, unknowable ways. If more
teachers knew this, we'd reach out to every child, every day.
Students must realize that outcasts and outsiders really DO NOT EXIST.
Each of those boys were a part of that school, a part of that system, a
part of their lives. Ignoring them and their behavior does not make them
go away.
Their energy, rather than flourishing in appropriate ways with other
teens, was funnelled elsewhere, a subterranean culture where their
energies and interests found fertile ground. And then they returned to
their larger system.
Safety in schools means each must be part of that school. I have always
felt high schools were too large, their only real advantage from size was
fielding quality athletic teams. We have certainly also lost all
financial value from factory-sized schools. The moral and psychic values
have faded long ago. With a large school, say over 600, how can a
teacher know each student by name?
This is an intriguing, necessary question. I will keep thinking about
this.
Tim Joy
Timothy Joy
Associate Director, CC-SUSTAIN 1997-2000
www.cc-stadus.com
La Salle High School
11999 S. E. Fuller Road
Milwaukie, Oregon 97222
503.659.4155.460 {VOICE}
503/659-2535 {FAX}
tjoy@pps.k12.or.us
"No man has learned anything until he knows that every day is judgment
day." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 21:42:48 -0700
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: teresa@northwest.com
Subject: Jay's question
It seems to me that an understanding of systems would help students
understand themselves, parents understand their kids and teachers
understand both of these groups better.
Students might be more sensitive of their own maladjusted behaviors, the
underlying causes and be better equipped to address these before they cause
catastropical events.
Parents (if present in their kid's lives) would also have a keener
awareness of changes they observe in their kids and have greater ability to
recognize these as warning signs of deeper problems. Systems thinkers
can't help but think in terms of events, patterns of behavior, underlying
structures, in their daily lives as well as their work. Their observations
of people, society and the world are constant triggers for this type of
thinking.
I don't think we as teachers have any better chance of recognizing some of
these questionable behaviors in individual students because we see so much
of it in a day, the way the kids dress, their attitudes, disrespect, etc.
Perhaps if all schools were small we would have a better chance of keeping
an eye on more kids as a result of getting to know them better. I teach in
a smaller school and have some of my students for 2-3 years so I am
probably much better about noticing changes in behavior that we expect
parents to notice. The parents should be in the best situation to notice
subtle changes in behavior, attitude, etc. and for darn sure they should
know if there is an arsenal of bombs being built right under their noses in
their own homes....that they didn't see this I can't believe. Teresa Hazel
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:19:12 +0200
From: Niall Palfreyman <Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence
Jay Forrester wrote:
> Does anyone have thoughts about how a better understanding of systems
> might reduce the probability of tragedies like the one that happened
> at Littleton, Colorado? Understanding by teachers? Understanding by
> students? Understanding by parents?
Maybe something like the analysis of Hamlet's competing motivations
given as part of the roadmap? I think that in the end we have only one
way of understanding difficult behaviours, and that is to understand the
intentions and motivations which underly them. The next step is to find
alternative ways to express these intentions, which in my experience are
usually totally acceptable - merely the *expression* of the intention
needs educating.
Niall.
--
We have only the world that we can bring forth
with others, and only love helps us bring it forth.
Dr. Niall Palfreyman mailto:Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com
assyst GmbH, Henschelring 15a
85551 Kirchheim bei Muenchen Tel: ++49-89-90505-230
Germany. Fax: ++49-89-90505-102/3
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:08:40 -0500
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Melinda Salazar <msalazar@hopper.unh.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and social/political change
Has anyone mapped the characteristics of a change agent who influences
public will to
create social change? I want to look at the role/process of environmental
scientists/activists (like R. Carson, T. Colborn). What are the struggles
professionally? Risks, benefits?
Melinda Salazar
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:39:33 +1000
From: Ian Parker <iwp@hinet.net.au>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence
Hi from Australia,
Firstly my sympathies to those immediately affected and secondly to all
Americans. It is indeed a major tragedy even more so because it happened in a
school and because we expect that schools are generally more safe than
"outside".
I recently relinquished a position as a district Technology Adviser(TA) here in
NSW. One of the projects that I began but did not get very far with was how to
answer the question: "Where should district educational resources be allocated
to gain the most benefit?"
In a way this, I feel, is perhaps "the holy grail" of education. My answer to
how we might determine the answer, was to use SD to model: the school (physical
aspects), teachers(work, hapiness), students(work, happiness) and
community(values, expectations). In this way we could compare the performance
(not in a perjorative way) of a school as a system with other schools.
The most interesting part of the initial process was coming to the realisation
that we have very little data that indicates the "health" of a system like a
school. I guess we need to model a "good" school and a "poor" school.
The classical "health index" is the academic achievement record in terms of
external examination records. In many cases this record is a very poor "fossil
record".
What is and what happens in a "good" school and the converse(which is probably
more important) has not to my knowledge been well defined quantitatively.
I worked on a basic qualitative Stella II model for about 4 months but
found the
task extremely difficult especially since I was working alone.
For example, I chose what I thought were several key indicators for:
the physical environment:
* playground area/ student
* building condition
* maintenance schedule
teachers:
* average teaching load
* spread of teaching load eg. small number with low, large number with
high
* hours inservice/ year
* average days/year leave (sick, long service etc)
* average no. of different "substitute" (we call them "relief")
teachers
brought in per year
* average workers compensation claims/year
students:
* happiness { on a scale: very unhappy, unhappy, indifferent, happy,
very happy }
* average academic achievement - on some scale
* involvement in extracurricular activities(hrs/week)
* average number of close friends/student
* socio-economic status
* hours per week homework (as an indicator of commitment to study)
* actual attendance hours/total possible attendance hours (as a ratio)
community
* alignment of values with school values (index: correlation -1 to 0 to
+1)
* financial support(average $/year)
* access to school(average hours/week)
* attitude to education
My biggest problem was in determining if these were indeed key indicators, and
what kind of scale would be used and lastly how to get accurate data.
I also tried to extend this to modeling district support personnel......
but I ran out of time, and lacked the ability to get meaningful data. One
of the
parts of my project was to begin devising a simple questionnaire for students
and the community. But I did not get very far with it. However what I did
do was
written up in a report. If anyone is interested I would be happy to compose it
as a PDF (or 2 PDF files) and sent for people to have a look at.. The other
option is to compose it as HTML and attach it to my website.
Regards,
Ian Parker
From: "Ed Brenegar" <edb3@msn.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:55:12 -0400
Not long after hearing the initial comments about cause, it stuck me that
the problem here is larger than one factor, whether violent computer games
or bulli