From: "John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: The next step in dynamics of violence
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999

Dr. Forrester, the one thing that has prevented me from taking the (obvious)
next step you suggest is the issue of behavior modes. I need to ask the
list for some help about this.

What data (behavior over time) would be most descriptive of the "problem" we
are trying to understand? My dilemma: since outbreaks of violence, like
Littleton, are (thankfully) rare events, I don't believe that such outbreaks
make very useful data points. So, what are useful data (especially data
that we can look at historically, rather than data we must create now)?
Here are a few of my top-of-the-head ideas:
- incidence of other kinds of negative behaviors short of deadly violence
(fights, threats, etc.)

- win/loss records of school athletic teams (perhaps this correlates with
the emphasis a school places on athletics, which perhaps correlates
negatively with self-esteem of non-athletes)

- a subjective measure of distinctiveness of dress within the school
(where schools with uniforms establish the zero point for distinctiveness)

- data derived from school accreditation committees (this only works well
for private schools, I believe, but could establish some tests of a
model) -- e.g., I know that the North Central group looks at how well a
school fosters self-esteem. If this data could be compared from school to
school it might be very powerful.

- some cross-cultural/cross-national data about how violent the larger
society around the school is (crime statistics, gun laws, violence in kid's
entertainment, etc.)

- school size, class size, percentage of students involved with
"official" school groups (to get a sense of percentage who must form their
own cliques)

These aren't good enough, I fear, to create behavior modes we can model and
test our models against. What data can we use? What are the "critical"
visible signs that are most indicative of the violence problem? As soon as
we know some of these, we can get right into modeling.

Date: Sun, 02 May 1999
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence

> Me:
> > > .....My main point here is that the _origin_ [of behavior] is the
> individual.....

Marc,

And MY main point was that individuals are products of their culture, and
will behave accordingly. Variations will primarily reflect differences in
emphases on PARTICULAR cultural assumptions.
I suspect we're defining "culture" differently.

Marion
--
SUPRADISCIPLINARY, SEAMLESS CURRICULA

http://digital.net/~mbrady/

Date: Mon, 03 May 1999
From: Niall Palfreyman <Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The next step in dynamics of violence

Jay Forrester wrote:

> I suggest that each person start by setting down several, not more
> than five, system levels that seem to interact to produce the part of
> the behavior that is being represented. Try to say something about the
> behavior mode that is being represented. Give clear and explicit
> names to the levels. Think of the diagram being a closed system.
> Try, in words, to say something about how the different levels
> influence the flows to and from the levels.

OK - I'm new to this, but it looks like a great chance to learn. Let's
give it a try:


Levels:
-------

1. Aspiration to Worth: The inner recognition by a student of his or her
own worthiness. Note that this is NOT the same as the worth the student
actually feels, but rather his or her aspirations to worth. I believe
that each of us has this aspiration.

2. Worth expressed: The totality of the messages from the environment to
the student which say: "I find you worthy". This message can come from
parents, from school and from fellow students, and may be conveyed
explicitly or implicitly.

3. Worth experienced: The student's perception of the
communications of worth from his or her evironment. There might be many
such messages arriving from school, friends or parents, but the student
has never learned to interpret them as such.

4. Competence: The student's perception of his or her own competence.
THIS IS SEPARATE FROM WORTH. However unfortunately we all-too-often
confuse the two.

5. Action/Predisposition to action: My need to DO something. When this
rises high enough I will do something, which may be an act of violence,
if I find no other way to act.


Influences:
-----------

1. If I have low aspiration to worth (1) then everything's OK - I don't

expect to feel worthy, so I'm not disappointed when I don't get any
messages asserting my worth. I just spend my life feeling like a limp
rag and don't hurt anyone. NOBODY is in this situation.

2. If I get an ongoing message from my environment that I'm worthy (2),
AND I'm capable of experiencing it (3) then I might build up an
aspiration to my own worth (1).

3. If there is a mismatch between the aspiration (1) and my experience
(3), this is registered as a rise in frustration, or need for action
(5).

4. One common possibility is that messages regarding competence are
reinterpreted as messages concerning worth. So instead of interpreting
negative feedback on my competence as a learning opportunity, I
interpret it as a reduction in my experienced sense of worth (3).

5. If I equate competence (4) with experienced self-worth (3), and there
is a mismatch between my experienced worth (3) and my aspiration (1)
(leading in turn to a frustrated need to act - 5), then I still have a
way out. I can simply ACT. By doing something mind-bogglingly competent
like killing a group of students, I can at one stroke lower my
frustration (5), raise my competence level (4), and thus raise my
experienced worth (3) to match my aspiration (1).


So in a nutshell, on this analysis, the problem is a combination of:
Aspiration to self-worth.
Lack of perceived self-worth.
Equation (via competence) of action with worth.


I'm sure I've missed something out somewhere, but that's basically how I
see it.

Best wishes,
Niall.

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999
From: George Richardson <gr383@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Violence
To: k-12 listserve <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>

A thoughtful article related to this discussion appears in the Christian
Science Monitory, 29 April 1999 -- "Young and male in America: It's hard
being a boy." You can find it online at http://www.csmonitor.com

...GPR

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Chair of Public Administration and Policy Phone: 518-442-5258
University at Albany - SUNY, Albany, NY 12222 Fax: 518-442-5298
http://cnsvax.albany.edu/~gr383/

From: "Marc S Abrams" <msa@panix.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999

Hi Niall,
You said:
> So the individual affects the system, which affects the individual,
> which affects the system... What other area of thinking than system
> dynamics could possibly stand a chance of making sense of all this?

Yes, but _only_ if we understand _how_ this happens. Current modeling
practices treat individuals as input -> output functions. This is a _huge_
mistake. Further discussion of _why_ this is so is not pertinent to this
list. Again, I refer to George Richardson's book _Feedback Thought for
Social Systems and Systems Theory_ , Bill Powers Perceptual control Theory.

I believe SD provides a means for modeling human behavior. I am attempting
to do so.

If anyone has similar interests, I would be happy to share what I've done so
far, and where I believe I can go with it.

Marc Abrams

Date: Sat, 1 May 1999
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu (K-12sd discussion)
From: "Jay W. Forrester" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
Subject: System levels

Niall Palfreyman wrote:
>The state of an ISOLATED variable is nothing other than its
>level. But what is the definition of the state of a SYSTEM? Merely the
>collection of individual states of the variables?........
>Oscillation is a behaviour. Fine. And its frequency? Is that not counted
>as an implicit state variable in SD?

"State" and "level" are two names for the same thing. Also, the concept
does not apply to all variables, only to the integrations, which are the
variables represented by rectangles in the diagrams in system dynamics
software.

Rates of flow are also variables, but they are not system state variables.

Lest the terms become confusing, one should not talk about the state of a
system, except as the values of the level variables at a particular moment
in time.

Frequency is not a state variable. In fact, frequency is not a system
variable, it is not the value at a point in time of either a state variable
or a rate of flow. Frequency is a description of an oscillation, which is
a possible mode of behavior of a system. The oscillation occurs as a
result of the way levels and rates in a particular oscillatory system
interact with one another.

---------------------------------------------------------
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, 02 May 1999
From: "Richard Turnock" <Richard_Turnock@pgn.com>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Subject: stocks and flows

Here is the beginning of a stock and flow modeling idea:

Stock : "Activities for youth"
Inflow : increase in available activities
Outflow : decrease in available activities

As more adults work outside the home and in service industries, the number
of activities for youth decreases because there aren't enough adults to
supervise and adults aren't creating activities for youth.

Attributes of "activities for youth":
1. perception of value to youth
2. perceived quality of activity
3. increased sense of belonging
4. adults listen to youth
5. adult supervised or guided

The attributes could be used to develop a coflow model. Similar to an
inventory stock and attributes about the inventory. The costock would be
"benefits to the community" and the attributes would be how the score was
determined for each activity. Like the cost of each item in inventory to
determine the book value.

Stock : "population of youth"
Inflow : birth rate
Outflow : maturity to adulthood

The "activities for youth" model becomes the carrying capacity for the
"population of youth" model. The attributes of the "activities for youth"
stock determines the benefit for youth. Activities with low scoring
attributes would not benefit the community. When youth are involved in
activities with high scoring attributes then the benefits to the community
increase.

Stock : community benefits
biflow : number of youth times the number of activities times the
attribute score

As more adults work outside the home and don't spend time on activities
with youth, then the number of activities and the attribute score decrease.
This causes the benefits to the community to decrease.

If the attributes have a low score, or there aren't enough activities
(because there aren't enough adults to create and supervise the activities)
or there are too many youth compared to the available activities, then the
benefits to the community will decrease over time. If the attributes have
a high score, there are enough activities and there are enough adults
involved with youth, then the benefits to the community will increase.

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999
From: George Richardson <gr383@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Re: Levels, state variables, and behavior
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>

The puzzles we're having over system "states" comes from the several
languages we use when we talk or write notes to this listserve.

Jay's statement that system "states" are the "levels" (stocks,
accumulations, integrations) in the system is using the strict language of
a modeler. Engineers talk about these as "state variables." So levels
become system states, and nothing but a level is a system state. And
that's by the technical definition of the word "state" in this dynamic
modeling context.

But we also talk informally about our "state of confusion" or "state of
excitement," to describe concisely some dominant characteristic of
ourselves or the world around us. We might say "this system is in a sorry
state" (there seem to be a lot of those around us right at the moment).

The latter sort of use gets us to say things like "global population is in
an exponential growth state," or "that company's inventory is in an
oscillatory state." (I probably wouldn't say either of these, but we
could.) We don't mean anything here about "state variables" -- we just
mean to identify some dominant descriptive characteristic. We might ask
"what is the state of the period in those oscillations?" Again, the word
"state" here is just a loose placeholder for some descriptive
characteristic.

I'm intending these comments to help improve the state of our conversation
about dynamic systems. Maybe they will result in greater accumulations in
some of our personal state variables, or increase the outflows from some
of our other state variables. :)

...George

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Chair of Public Administration and Policy Phone: 518-442-5258
University at Albany - SUNY, Albany, NY 12222 Fax: 518-442-5298
http://cnsvax.albany.edu/~gr383/

Date: Mon, 3 May 1999
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Ed Gallaher <gallaher@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: The next step in dynamics of violence

>Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 14:25:05 +0200
>From: Niall Palfreyman <Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com>
>To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
>Subject: Re: The next step in dynamics of violence
>
>Jay Forrester wrote:
>
>> I suggest that each person start by setting down several, not more
>> than five, system levels that seem to interact to produce the part of
>> the behavior that is being represented. Try to say something about the
>> behavior mode that is being represented. Give clear and explicit
>> names to the levels. Think of the diagram being a closed system.
>> Try, in words, to say something about how the different levels
>> influence the flows to and from the levels.
>
>OK - I'm new to this, but it looks like a great chance to learn. Let's
>give it a try:

Just a quick procedural question while I am gathering my thoughts on
violence models.

We need some common ground to quantify subjective "levels".

Pain is certainly subjective, but there is a need to attempt to quantify
pain in medical practice. This allows the caregiver to treat/medicate the
patient more effectively.

Patients are asked to provide their best estimate of the current pain level
on a scale of 0-10. 0 is no pain, 1-2 would be noticable but "inconvenient"
(e.g. hangnail, stubbed toe, paper cut), progressing to distressing and
then to incapacitating. A score of 10 is the most excruciating pain you
might imagine, even though you've (hopefully) never actually experienced it.

Is there any (accepted) similar range of scores that would help us in SD as
we try to quantify subjective "quantitities" such as self-confidence,
jealousy, good-will, hate, anxiety?

I would like to propose, for the current exercise at least, that this 0-1-
range would be useful, and might be generally acceptable and understandable.

It would be up to the model developer to provide some sort of guidelines to
calibrate the reader to the 1-10 scale for each "subjective level".

e.g. anxiety = 0 = very relaxed, comfortable, at ease; 1-2 I might be late
for work; 3-5 "will she go out with me, or laugh at me?"; 6-8 "will she
marry me?"; 9-10 I am a defendant and the jury is out. Will they return
with the death penalty, or simply life in prison?

Comments? Particularly from Jay and George? (I'm not trying to re-invent
the wheel here.)

Ed Gallaher

Date: Tue, 4 May 1999
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: martens@pc.jaring.my
Subject: RE: Systems and violence

All belonging to this list are of course converted believers of a system
structure drives its own behaviour.

The social behaviour is also triggered by the social system, which is
difficult to change and to model.

Think of the movie: " Dead Poets Society ", isn't it just brilliant.
Exposing violent behaviour driven by parent's lack of understanding in a
system covering its own mistakes.

In the film the violence is directed inwards, into suicide. In others, and
only then do we take any notice, it becomes an outward explosion. Like the
recent killings. But the root cause is the same.

Use the movie as an example and let the students develop an SD model of the
behaviour. The outcome of a discussion of causes and effects might be very
interesting.



Hans Martens
martens@pc.jaring.my

Date: Tue, 04 May 1999
From: Niall Palfreyman <Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence

Marc Abrams wrote:

> Current modeling practices treat individuals as input -> output
> functions.

Not so! I am involved in psychotherapeutic health counselling, and in
that area there seems to be a growing wealth of SD models. You could try
the following book at Amazon for starters:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0722534426/qid%3D925807357/002-5577616-84
47417

I'm afraid it uses causal loop diagrams, but it's a start.

> I believe SD provides a means for modeling human behavior. I am
> attempting to do so.

::beams:: So am I - how interesting!

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

From: "Marc S Abrams" <msa@panix.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999

Marion,
> And MY main point was that individuals are products of their culture,
and
> will behave accordingly. Variations will primarily reflect differences in
> emphases on PARTICULAR cultural assumptions.

> I suspect we're defining "culture" differently.

Me:

I am afraid not :-). Variations reflect differences in how individuals
internally ) deal with the environment ( which includes, but not restricted
to, culture ) as the environment affects the individuals ability to get what
they want,

Marc

Date: Tue, 04 May 1999
From: Ian Parker <iwp@hinet.net.au>
Reply-To: iwp@hinet.net.au
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: The next step in dynamics of violence

Hi all,

I've just read the latest offering from the k-12sd news group.

If you are interested in my thoughts about 12 months ago on modeling a student,
a teacher, and a school have a look at:

http://www.hinet.net.au/~iwp/SaC/Grail/Part01.htm

I did not try to work on the community level.....but had some thoughts on the
matter.

As you can see I was more interested in how consultancy and educational system
support functioned in relation to the school etc.

The work described was dome almost exactly 12 months ago... Little di I know
then of it's potential relevance 12 months later and half way round the world.

The task is enormous...... say no more at this stage :)

Regards,

Ian Parker

Date: Tue, 04 May 1999
From: George Richardson <gr383@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Re: The next step in dynamics of violence
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>

On Tue, 4 May 1999, k-12sd wrote:
[...]
> Is there any (accepted) similar range of scores that would help us in SD as
> we try to quantify subjective "quantitities" such as self-confidence,
> jealousy, good-will, hate, anxiety?

I don't believe there is a system dynamics "standard" approach to scaling
such subjective quantitities (qualities?).

Zero-to-one scales seem appropriate for concepts that have clear limits,
like "100% acceptable, not at all acceptable," or "zero energy, 100%
energy" (as in Homer's nice study of burnout cycles in the first issue of
the System Dynamics Review, I believe).

Sometimes a scale might need a fuzzy upper bound, or no upper bound, as
"anxiety" seems to me. Zero anxiety is clear, but "100%" anxious is less
clear to me; I might use a scale that goes from zero to numbers above 1,
e.g., zero to 2 or 3 or 8 or... . One might ground such a scale on
thoughts like one being "twice as anxious as 'normal' conditions," or
"three times as anxious as normal," scaled as 2 or 3.

In the school violence setting, one might want to formulate something
about "clique-ishness," or "rejection," or "trust," and some of these
might feel best on zero-to-one scales, and some might feel better on zero
to "multiples of normal conditions" scales.

The key, it seems to me, is a scaling formulation that is intuitively
reasonable and interpretable by people working with the model and
interpreting its output and dynamics. Can people tell real stories from
the values and dynamic patterns the simulation produces? The model has to
help us think, rather than cloud our thinking with quantifications that
intrude themselves into our thoughts and get in the way.

In most modeling situations, a scale that feels natural seems far
preferable to me to a rather artificial metric based on something that
scientists could measure, e.g., heart rate or oxygen concentration in the
blood as a proxy or metric for anxiety. (There might be times you'd want
to be that tied to measurables, but not often.)

(Ed: I think the above qualifies as mostly an "I don't really know"
answer!)

...GPR

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Chair of Public Administration and Policy Phone: 518-442-5258
University at Albany - SUNY, Albany, NY 12222 Fax: 518-442-5298
http://cnsvax.albany.edu/~gr383/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 May 1999
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: "Jay W. Forrester" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: The next step in dynamics of violence, defining scales

Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 12:30:46 -0700
From: Ed Gallaher <gallaher@teleport.com>
>
>Just a quick procedural question while I am gathering my thoughts on
>violence models.
>
>We need some common ground to quantify subjective "levels".
>
>Pain is certainly subjective, but there is a need to attempt to quantify
>pain in medical practice. This allows the caregiver to treat/medicate the
>patient more effectively.
>
>Patients are asked to provide their best estimate of the current pain level
>on a scale of 0-10. 0 is no pain, 1-2 would be noticable but "inconvenient"
>(e.g. hangnail, stubbed toe, paper cut), progressing to distressing and
>then to incapacitating. A score of 10 is the most excruciating pain you
>might imagine, even though you've (hopefully) never actually experienced it.
>
>Is there any (accepted) similar range of scores that would help us in SD as
>we try to quantify subjective "quantitities" such as self-confidence,
>jealousy, good-will, hate, anxiety?
>
>Comments? Particularly from Jay and George? (I'm not trying to re-invent
>the wheel here.)
>
======================
The pain example is excellent. One can choose almost any kind of scale as
long as it is explained. Usually the explanation will be by example as
Gallaher has done.

It is hard to use or appreciate a scale if it has not been explained. My
wife, Susan, was last month in a hospital emergency room with a broken hip
and was repeatedly asked how much pain she felt on a 0 to 10 scale, without
anyone telling her what the scale meant. Not knowing the meaning of the
scalae makes it hard to answer. We did not know of the official scale
definition that Gallaher gives above.

---------------------------------------------------------
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: "Jane-Gus Root" <ez2read@ime.net>
To: <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Thoughts on teaching model building
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999

Good morning
While I've been stimulated by recent discussion on generic sd & violence,
I'm presuaded that for decision-makers, modeling is a tool for
understanding local probklems and examiing alternative solution approaches.
I've had some successes in helping groups wrestle with "Where can we make
a difference that will make a difference?"
I've been teaching Dynamo, Stella and sd for over 25 years to folks from
middle school through graduate school, in businesses, government agencies
and school boards. But I've yet to find good ways to introduce the
concepts and skills involved in the interactions among "converters:"
1. Additive - when the rsult is simply the sum of the separate
contributors, with different coefficients to express their relative
influences;
2. Multiplicative - when thee results goes to zero if any of the
components contributors go toe zero, and different exponents express their
relative influences.
3. Some combination of both 1 and 2 above.
This distinction is easier to make with folks having math backgrounds, but
difficult for those with arts/language/education orientations.
In teaching the modeling process, I've had modest success by starting with
simple stock-flow-converters diagrams and assigning each a value of 1.00
("Whatever it is, we'll call it 100% or 1.00. Then we'll se how it changes
as we change other things.") Then they can quickly see the differences in
behavior-over-time graphs. This approach makes it easy/logical to use
comparative -sensitivity runs to see those differences as we change sliders
(for each of the converters).

Has anyone worked out effective approaches to these difficulties? Any
references?

Gus Root, PhD - retired - consultant to our local school board and
superintendent

Date: Wed, 05 May 1999
From: Niall Palfreyman <Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Cc: DessaDancy@aol.com
Subject: Re: Systems and violence

(Thanks to everyone who also wrote in about this error! Moderator)

Hi,

Dessa Dancy has just pointed out to me that the URL:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0722534426/qid%3D925807357/002-5577616-84
47417

which I mentioned in my book referral got chopped in two in transit. If
you paste them together again then you'll arrive at the book, which is:

"The Art of Systems Thinking : Essential Skills for Creativity and
Problem Solving" by Joseph O'Connor and Ian McDermott.

Sorry!
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

From: "Marc S Abrams" <msa@panix.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999

> All belonging to this list are of course converted believers of a system
> structure drives its own behaviour.

Yes, and for individuals, a very specific kind of structure called a control
loop. Actually a hierarchy of many control loops.

> The social behaviour is also triggered by the social system, which is
> difficult to change and to model.

Here is where we part ways :-). The "social system" does not "trigger"
anything. It certainly "affects" us, and we must make adjustments for it.
But, In fact, out behavior is our attempt to manipulate the environment to
help us get what we want. Our behavior is an _input_ to our system not an
output of it.

> Think of the movie: " Dead Poets Society ", isn't it just brilliant.
> Exposing violent behaviour driven by parent's lack of understanding in a
> system covering its own mistakes.

Not really, but it's a _very_ common misconception. Unfortunately.

> In the film the violence is directed inwards, into suicide. In others,
and
> only then do we take any notice, it becomes an outward explosion. Like the
> recent killings. But the root cause is the same.

> Use the movie as an example and let the students develop an SD model of
the
> behaviour. The outcome of a discussion of causes and effects might be very
> interesting.

It might prove to be interesting. But in fact would be wrong, and would
provide the student(s) with erronous ideas.

Marc

Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 12:02:37 -0700
From: "RICHARD TURNOCK" <Richard_Turnock@pgn.com>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Thoughts on teaching model building

>>> "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu> 05/06 10:44 AM >>>
From: "Jane-Gus Root" <ez2read@ime.net>
Subject: Thoughts on teaching model building
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 22:10:58 -0700

In teaching the modeling process, I've had modest success by starting with
simple stock-flow-converters diagrams and assigning each a value of 1.00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I used the same approach when I had limited time (3 class periods) to show
high school students how to use Stella. I had them build the basic linear
and compounding models. Then I showed them an earth energy model for
calculating the temperature of the earth. I used zero for the stock and
1.0 for each of the converters; then entered the basic equations. The
behavior over time was the same as if I had put in the actual numbers.

Richard Turnock

From: "John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: The next step in dynamics of violence
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999

George Richardson mentions what he calls "multiples of normal conditions"
scales. There is a well-established form of these scales (in
psycho-physiological research) called "magnitude estimation" scales.

They work essentially the way George described but the language used is
slightly different. Rather than referring to a "normal" state, one takes a
more general "reference" state. [This might very well be the normal or
usual state, by the way.] Then other conditions are compared to this
referent state by means of multipliers (including fractional ones.) So
state A may be 2 times the referent; state B may be 2.5 times; and state C
may be one-third the referent. It is important that the reference point be
one that the people using the scale are very familiar with, otherwise they
will have difficulty comparing other conditions to it.

This scale has the advantage of being a ratio scale (by definition) which
allows for some nice mathematics to be applied. However, it has no zero
point and no (theoretical) maximum. In fact, the choice of reference point
sometimes has a lot to do with preventing the expected maximum from being
too high or the expected fractions from being too "fine."

I also want to echo George's suggestions for making scales intuitively
reasonable and interpretable. In my experience, magnitude estimation scales
can be both.

From: LucasRPS@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999
Subject: Student Reaction
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu

Dear Group,

It would be helpful to share the specific student discussions and insights
that K-12 teachers have observed in their classes as they use models to
explore the complex issues and social aspects of the Colorado incident.

K-12 teachers continue to expand their use of SD with students in classrooms
(to include current events and critical topics) because of the positive
student learning they see in their classrooms. As students share their
models, they give us insights to the mediating, mentoring, and monitoring we
must use to help shape their mental models and possible actions.

If we attempt to work with childen based on the dynamic models we feel are in
place around a topic like violence in schools, we miss the mark. We have to
start by understanding their perceptions based on the culture they live in -
from their music, to their video games, to their internet sites, to their
values.

SD gives us tool for listening, learning, and sharing across generations and
experiencing. The outstanding teachers who touched our lives were more
concerned with how they taught, not what they taught. What are the students
saying in their models? (Inquiry vs Advocacy)

Tim Lucas
Superintendent
Ho-Ho-Kus, New Jersey

Date: Fri, 7 May 1999
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: martens@pc.jaring.my
Subject: Re: Systems and violence

Dear Marc

Thank you for the input on using the movie 'dead poets Society' as a study
of a system's structure driving its own behaviour.

To see the environment as something to manipulate to get what you want is of
course a true, but also useless statement, unless it is followed by an
answer to the question "To what extend are you willing to sacrifice the
environment to get what you want?" or vice versa.
Because it is the answers to this that determines the series of events,
which makes up your life.

It is in the interaction and any input is also an output. If it is a
question of manipulating the environment for our needs, as you say, the
response of the system (the output) to our behaviour (the input) will
determine the next action (input+1) from us until we either achieve what we
want, or accept to change and want something else. This choice is based on
how much we are willing to sacrifice either the environment or our needs.
Everybody is everybody else's environment.

In the movie, the parents were willing to sacrifice their son's own
ambitions and interest to get their own ambitions fulfilled. Unfortunately,
at the same time the son was willing to sacrifice his life if he could not
get what he wanted. Others were not.
Were the parents also willing to sacrifice the son's life to fulfill their
ambitions?
Could the 'tragic' outcome have been avoided by better understanding of SD?

It could be interesting to know why you find that such an evaluation of SD
could lead students to erronous and wrong ideas.
What wrong ideas?

Violent behaviour in any form arises when the system is not responding to
other inputs. The sensitivity of the system determines the input required to
get the action required. Perhaps our social system is not as responsive to
the need of certain groups as it is to others. Hence violence and suicides
risks are higher in certain groups than in others.

Is violent behaviour against Jugoslavia a correct action, because we cannot
get the environment (personalised by Milosovic) to behave the way we want by
using other means?

Whether any action is considered socially acceptable depends on what we want
to achieve by the action. Hence either a warcriminal or a hero, depending on
who writes the history book.

regards

hans

.>From: "Marc S Abrams" <msa@panix.com>
>To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
>Subject: Re: Systems and violence
>Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 15:59:34 -0400
>
>> All belonging to this list are of course converted believers of a system
>> structure drives its own behaviour.
>
>Yes, and for individuals, a very specific kind of structure called a control
>loop. Actually a hierarchy of many control loops.
>
>> The social behaviour is also triggered by the social system, which is
>> difficult to change and to model.
>
>Here is where we part ways :-). The "social system" does not "trigger"
>anything. It certainly "affects" us, and we must make adjustments for it.
>But, In fact, out behavior is our attempt to manipulate the environment to
>help us get what we want. Our behavior is an _input_ to our system not an
>output of it.
>
>> Think of the movie: " Dead Poets Society ", isn't it just brilliant.
>> Exposing violent behaviour driven by parent's lack of understanding in a
>> system covering its own mistakes.
>
>Not really, but it's a _very_ common misconception. Unfortunately.
>
>> In the film the violence is directed inwards, into suicide. In others,
>and
>> only then do we take any notice, it becomes an outward explosion. Like the
>> recent killings. But the root cause is the same.
>
>> Use the movie as an example and let the students develop an SD model of
>the
>> behaviour. The outcome of a discussion of causes and effects might be very
>> interesting.
>
>It might prove to be interesting. But in fact would be wrong, and would
>provide the student(s) with erronous ideas.
>
>Marc

Date: Fri, 7 May 1999
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Melinda Salazar <msalazar@hopper.unh.edu>
Subject: Re: The next step in dynamics of violence

In the discussion re: violence/systems/schools, George Richardson said: I
don't believe there is a system dynamics "standard" approach to scaling
such subjective quantitities (qualities?).

Mona Grieser, development consultant for World Bank, etc., with others,
designed "Valuing Spirituality in Development": Initial Considerations
Regarding the Creation of Spiritually Based Indicators for Development in
response to the Bank's invitation for world religions to contribute
thinking about values in development. The booklet is published by the
Baha'i Publishing Trust in Wilmette, Il. or can be downloaded at
http://www.bahai.org/bworld/frame.cfm?token=89013&CL=1

Melinda Salazar

Date: Fri, 7 May 1999
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: "Jay W. Forrester" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Student Reaction

>From: LucasRPS@aol.com
>Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 01:17:49 EDT
>Subject: Student Reaction

>It would be helpful to share the specific student discussions and insights
>that K-12 teachers have observed in their classes as they use models to
>explore the complex issues and social aspects of the Colorado incident.
>........
>As students share their
>models, they give us insights to the mediating, mentoring, and monitoring we
>must use to help shape their mental models and possible actions.
>.........
> We have to
>start by understanding their perceptions based on the culture they live in -
>from their music, to their video games, to their internet sites, to their
>values.
>......
>SD gives us tool for listening, learning, and sharing across
>generations.... What are the students
>saying in their models?
>
>Tim Lucas
=================================
Very good points from Lucas.

Is anyone sharing the exchanges on the violence discussion with students?
Are there any student groups that have been challenged to build relevant
models?

In general, on all subjects, it would be good to have student
participation in this discussion list. Are there any students enrolled in
the 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: Fri, 7 May 1999
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: "Jay W. Forrester" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence

>Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 11:15:00 +0800 (MYT)
>From: martens@pc.jaring.my
>Subject: Re: Systems and violence

>Thank you for the input on using the movie 'dead poets Society' as a study
>of a system's structure driving its own behaviour.
>
>but also useless statement, unless it is followed by an
>answer to the question "To what extend are you willing to sacrifice the
>environment to get what you want?"
>
>It is in the interaction and any input is also an output. If it is a
>question of manipulating the environment for our needs, ....
>This choice is based on
>how much we are willing to sacrifice either the environment or our needs.
>Everybody is everybody else's environment.
>
>In the movie, the parents were willing to sacrifice their son's own
>ambitions and interest to get their own ambitions fulfilled.

==================================
Perhaps I misunderstand, but these statements seem to imply a zero-sum game
in which a gain at one point in the system is always at the expense of a
loss in some other part. I believe such tradeoffs are seldom necessary at
the beginning of system improvement. If such trading of advantages were
true, it would imply that the system is already perfectly designed for
someone's objectives.

Instead, in most systems, the operation is so far from optimum that major
improvements are possible in essentially all measures of success before
tradeoffs begin to dominate.

---------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 7 May 1999
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: Lees Stuntz <stuntzln@tiac.net>
Subject: Article on violence

Dear Fellow Members of the K-12sd Listserv,

I am talking with Pegasus, publishers of the Systems Thinker*,
about a short piece to go as an insert for the next issue of the Systems
Thinker, focusing on schools and violence. When they contacted me, I sent
them our conversation as a place to start. I would like to use our
conversation as that starting place in the article which I will write next
week. Any ideas or quotes will be attributed and I will e-mail to ask you
if I wish to use a quote.
The folks at Pegasus will make this insert available for free from
the website and I am free to send it to you all once it is finished. I
will also use it in our CLExchange. They and I see this as a wonderful
opportunity to broaden the conversation about violence in the schools using
the tools of system dynamics to gain insights and perspective.
I am hoping that more people will take the time this weekend to
answer Jay's challenge, and I quote:

"I suggest that each person start by setting down several, not more than
five, system levels (stocks, accumulations, integrations, states, the words
all mean the same thing) that seem to interact to produce the part of the
behavior that is being represented. Try to say something about the behavior
mode that is being represented. Give clear and explicit names to the levels
(these are the rectangles used in the diagrams of most of the system
dynamics software applications). Think of the diagram being a closed
system, that is, the behavior mode being considered is controlled by the
subsystem being identified. The idea of a closed (endogenous) system means
that all of the inflows and outflows associated with the identified levels
are influenced only by the levels that have been set down. Try, in words,
to say something about how the different levels influence the flows to and
from the levels. Use less that five levels if you can.

Please respond by describing the behavior mode that you are representing,
list the levels that seem important, discuss how the named levels might
control the flows into and out of the levels. "

I will start writing this on Monday after Nan has a chance to sort
through the influx (I hope) of e-mail.

Thank you for your help,

Lees

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/

*http://www.pegasuscom.com (added by the List Moderator)

Date: Fri, 7 May 1999
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Rolfe Stanley <rstanley@together.net>
Subject: RE: The next step in dynamics of violence

I believe you have described what, in many sciences, we call normalization.
Comparing a value to some standard. For example in stable isotope
geochemistry the ration of C13/C12 in a sample is compared to the same
ratio in a standard. That difference is divided by the the ratio in the
standard then multiplied by 1000 to give the delta value of the material.

>From: "John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
>To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
>Subject: RE: The next step in dynamics of violence
>Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 16:00:30 -0500
>
>George Richardson mentions what he calls "multiples of normal conditions"
>scales. There is a well-established form of these scales (in
>psycho-physiological research) called "magnitude estimation" scales.
<snip>

Rolfe Stanley
Stanley Computer Center
Fletcher Extension

Date: Fri, 07 May 1999
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence

> [Marion] "I suspect we're defining "culture" differently.
> [Marc] I am afraid not :-). Variations reflect differences in how individuals
> internally ) deal with the environment ( which includes, but not restricted
> to, culture ) as the environment affects the individuals ability to get what
> they want,

Marc,
If I'm reading the above correctly, you're seeing "the environment" as
"bigger" than culture, encompassing it -- something located "in" an
environment.
????
For me, the term "culture" refers to the ultimate "macrosystem." It
encompasses a people, their environment, their cognitive system, and their
patterns of action. (I'm a member of the dominant "Anglo" culture in North
America. "My" culture has a particular cognitive system -- a cluster of
assumptions that guide behavior which I tend to accept without examination.
One
of those assumptions is a theory of causation -- that things happen either
because of the operation of chemical and physical forces, or because of human
intent. Consistent with this theory of causation, wishing it to rain, I'm
prone
to think, along with others in my culture, that under certain circumstances,
seeding the clouds with silver iodide particles will do the job.
Other cultures (subcultures) in North America have different theories of
causation. Wishing it to rain, some will dance. Some will manipulate or
propitiate via magic. Some will pray. Some (believing that whatever will be
will be) will do nothing. Each culture will have "proof" that its theory of
causation isn't a theory but a fact, and will see the actions of those in other
cultures as misguided.)
I agree that "variations reflect differences in how individuals...deal
with
the environment." But those variations will be variations on a theme
written by
the particular culture within which the individual has been socialized. The
variations loom so large in our perceptions (e.g. the behavior of the
shooters in
Littleton) because they contrast with the norm. The basic "themes," on the
other
hand -- because most of us are permeated by our native culture's premises
and are
unaware of alternatives (e.g. every human is an lie below our usual
threshholds
of awareness.
It's those "themes" to which (because of their explanatory power) I
want
to call attention. They lie at the heart of all dialog, including all dialog
about systems.
????????

Marion
--
SUPRADISCIPLINARY, SEAMLESS CURRICULA

http://digital.net/~mbrady/

Date: Sat, 8 May 1999
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: martens@pc.jaring.my
Subject: Re: Systems and violence

Jay W. Forrester wrote:
>Perhaps I misunderstand, but these statements seem to imply a zero-sum game
>in which a gain at one point in the system is always at the expense of a
>loss in some other part. I believe such tradeoffs are seldom necessary at
>the beginning of system improvement. If such trading of advantages were
>true, it would imply that the system is already perfectly designed for
>someone's objectives.
>
>Instead, in most systems, the operation is so far from optimum that major
>improvements are possible in essentially all measures of success before
>tradeoffs begin to dominate.
===========================
Dear Jay,

Thank you for your comment.

As far as I understand it a zero-sum game means that the pros are balanced
by the cons, which is not necessaily the case here. but I do believe that
any gain also result in a loss in one way or another even in the beginning
of system improvements. ( We can hardly talk about beginning of any social
system, can we?) Let me try to explain why.

In my humble opinion, any dynamic system is moving in a certain direction
and the outcome will (intentionally or unintentionally) 'serve a purpose'.
If you agree with the purpose you are better off by the working of the
system, others who do not agree are worse off. This does not mean that the
system is designed perfectly for any purpose, which is most likely never the
case due the impact of many interest, but any move away from the existing
state will bring the balance in the direction of something, who will then
have gained.

You cannot qualify a change as good (more gain than loss), without having a
value system to use as gauge. One of which could be as Marc said, whether it
serves your needs (short term/long term). But there is more to life than
selfishness, that is why I pointed out that personal needs can be altered to
serve the purpose of the environment. This 'conflict of interests' is build
into the control loops of each person.

But there is always somebody who disagrees with the weather.

To me the usefulness of SD is that it can help expose and identify the
actual working of a system and the outcome in whatever way or form it is
being measured. Using SD thinking will help us understand and be on the
lookout for the importance of 'other factors' not yet considered. This kind
of thinking will broaden our horizon. Having to discuss the influence of the
system on various factors, we are in a situation where we are forced to talk
honestly about purposes and the opportunity costs of actions
created/demanded by the system or our individual needs.

If we can get to a situation where people have to expose their true
interests, is to me a great step forward. In that aspect it is not a zero
sum game, because we might get new insights in the process.


regards

Hans Martens

martens@pc.jaring.my

From: "Marc S Abrams" <msa@panix.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999

Hi Hans,

For the purposes of this list I will not stray from SD being the focus of
our discussion. But some of the points need more space and time then this
list will or should allow for this topic. If you would care to continue this
privately I would have no problem with that,

SD has been used very successfully in analyzing systems. Actually trying to
_implement_ a solution has been more problematic. I attribute this _not_ to
any deficiencies ( real or imagined :-) ) with the modeling paradigm. I
believe the problems lie in how we represent human behavior in these models.

Hans, I am going to reply to your post point by point. I am _not_ trying to
be pedantic nor am I trying to be smug. I just don't want to get into this
on this list I would be happy to expand my arguments privately.

> To see the environment as something to manipulate to get what you want is
of
> course a true, but also useless statement, unless it is followed by an
> answer to the question "To what extend are you willing to sacrifice the
> environment to get what you want?" or vice versa

You misunderstand my intent. The "environment consists of _everything_
external to our bodies. These include but are not limited to; Other people,
culture, laws & rules, things we do ( eating, entertaining, etc. ) When I
say "manipulate" the environment, I mean, we try to eliminate _those_
disturbances in the enviroment that are preventing us from realizing goals
we may have. The environment provides "disturbances" or constraints to our
ability to do what we want to do. Our behavior ( which includes the use of
words ) is our attempt to change things so what we "perceive" is in line
with what we want ( our goals ). The environment and the disturbances in it
are "independent" variables..

People will do just about _anything_ to reduce error. ( the difference in
what they perceive vs. a goal they have ). What makes this much more
complicated then it seems, is that it has been postulated that we are
organized hierarchically and have _many_ levels and many things going on on
the same levels,

> Because it is the answers to this that determines the series of events,
> which makes up your life.

What makes up "your life" are a continuing series of interactions between
you and aspects of the environment with which you must deal with to realize
what you want.

> It is in the interaction and any input is also an output. If it is a
> question of manipulating the environment for our needs, as you say, the
> response of the system (the output) to our behaviour (the input) will
> determine the next action (input+1) from us until we either achieve what
we
> want, or accept to change and want something else. This choice is based on
> how much we are willing to sacrifice either the environment or our needs.
> Everybody is everybody else's environment.

Not bad :-). But let me talk through the feedback loop. A few important
points:
1) this loop does _NOT_ ( sorry for shouting :-) ) work _sequentially_ It
happens _simultaneously_

2) This is a _continuous_ process.

Our sensory organs and imagination "perceive" the world ( or our little
piece of it anyway :-) ). This perception is compared to a reference level
we have for what we perceive. If there is a difference between the two an
error is generated and we "act" ( output ) to reduce the error. This action
( output ) _combines_ with the environment and becomes new input ( a new
perception )
The feedback loop is complete.

Remeber this is a contiuous, simultaneous process. While actions are
combining with the environment, new errors are being produced and new
perceptions are being formed, It is a never ending process.

> In the movie, the parents were willing to sacrifice their son's own
> ambitions and interest to get their own ambitions fulfilled.
>Unfortunately, at the same time the son was willing to sacrifice his life
if he could not
> get what he wanted. Others were not.

> Were the parents also willing to sacrifice the son's life to fulfill their
> ambitions?
> Could the 'tragic' outcome have been avoided by better understanding of
SD?

Hans, SD is a modeling tool. It is not a theory of human behavior. Which is
my whole point in a nutshell. SD _could_ be used to model human behavior,
far better then what has been done. But in order to do that you need to have
a good theory of how people work and _that_ has been sorely lacking. I
believe SD is uniqley suited fior this. What is not are the current
convential Psychological theories of human behavior. Which have been
hammered into our heads for a _very_ long period of time. The SD and
educational community is very familiar with introducing new concepts :-)
> It could be interesting to know why you find that such an evaluation of SD
> could lead students to erronous and wrong ideas.
> What wrong ideas?

That the "environment" and the things in it "cause" our behavior.

One tangential point here. I can model _anything_ in SD. I can show you how
Hitler was a very brave and fearless leader who was largely misunderstood
"using" SD. Do I want my kids learning that and then thinking that it was
"validated" by a model so it "must" be true.

> Violent behaviour in any form arises when the system is not responding to
> other inputs.

Sorry Hans, Violent behavior takes place for a lot of reasons. But not
"responding" to inputs is not one of them In fact that's _exactly_ what they
are "responding" to. The difference between what they perceive and what they
want.

>The sensitivity of the system determines the input required to
> get the action required. Perhaps our social system is not as responsive to
> the need of certain groups as it is to others. Hence violence and suicides
> risks are higher in certain groups than in others.

What is the "sensitivity of the system"? Populations studies of
proportionality among it's members is a terrific use of statistical surveys
( if they were conducted properly ). Generalizing them for _any one_
individual is criminal.

> Is violent behaviour against Jugoslavia a correct action, because we
cannot
> get the environment (personalised by Milosovic) to behave the way we want
by
> using other means?

You should ask more questions if you need clarification on someones view
point. I don't know hau what I said turned into this.

> Whether any action is considered socially acceptable depends on what we
want
> to achieve by the action.

No. what is considered "socially acceptable" depends on what _individuals_
are willing to accept from others.

>Hence either a war criminal or a hero, depending on
> who writes the history book.

Yep.

Marc

From: KCStarguy@aol.com
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999
Subject: system dynamics with sim
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu

I am seeking to use system dynamics and stella to develop a better
understanding of the use of simulations that I work with like robotics,
SimCity200), SimLife, SimFarm and others.
If you have done something like this or would like to join and possibly work
together on it , let me know.

Eric Flescher, Ed.D (KCStarguy@aol.com)
The word 'engage' is what Jean Luc Picard says for the Enterprise to go
somewhere- it should not be used to indicate what students are learning with
computers and technology:
Coordinator, Project S.I.M. (Simulations, Interdisciplinary internet and
Metacognitive activities)Simulation Station website - http:
//members.aol.com/kcstarguy/sim/
Editor/Webmaster, MacsU.N.I.T.E.-MacIntosh Users Network for Integrating
Technology into Education- to subscribe send email to
macsunite-subscribe@egroups.com
use PC for teaching, learning,education? sign up for TechU.N.I.T.E.
-Technology Users Network for Integrating Technology into Education- send
email to techunite-subscribe@egroups.com

From: "Marc S Abrams" <msa@panix.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Systems and violence
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999

Hi Marion,

Hope you had an enjoyable weekend :-)
>
> > [Marion] "I suspect we're defining "culture" differently.
> > [Marc] I am afraid not :-). Variations reflect differences in how
individuals
> > internally ) deal with the environment ( which includes, but not
restricted
> > to, culture ) as the environment affects the individuals ability to get
what
> > they want,
>
> Marc,
> If I'm reading the above correctly, you're seeing "the environment"
as
> "bigger" than culture, encompassing it -- something located "in" an
> environment.
> ????

Yes, the "environment" is _everything_ that exists outside of the
individual.

> For me, the term "culture" refers to the ultimate "macrosystem." It
> encompasses a people, their environment, their cognitive system, and their
> patterns of action. (I'm a member of the dominant "Anglo" culture in North
> America.

You and I diverge here. "Cognitive Systems", & "patterns of Action" belong
to individuals not groups of them. You could certainly argue that people
exhibit "patterns" of behavior. But those "patterns" are generated by
_individuals_. I too am a member of the "Anglo" culture in North America.
What exactly does that tell us about you and I as individuals?

>"My" culture has a particular cognitive system -- a cluster of
> assumptions that guide behavior which I tend to accept without
examination.

We disagree here. There is a lot more then "culture" that "affects" what we
do and don't do. The "reason" ( I use scare quotes here because it is
usually _many_ reasons why any one thing happens ) The reason you accept
certain things without examination might be because it helps you reach other
goals. ( Maybe, having a "good" relationship with your family, might be one
"reason" )

> One of those assumptions is a theory of causation -- that things happen
either
> because of the operation of chemical and physical forces, or because of
human
> intent. Consistent with this theory of causation, wishing it to rain, I'm
> prone to think, along with others in my culture, that under certain
circumstances,
> seeding the clouds with silver iodide particles will do the job.

I have a different "causal" model. It's called control theory and is the
basis for SD modeling. Unfortunately most people are unaware of it's
application to human behavior.

> Other cultures (subcultures) in North America have different theories
of
> causation. Wishing it to rain, some will dance. Some will manipulate or
> propitiate via magic. Some will pray. Some (believing that whatever will
be
> will be) will do nothing. Each culture will have "proof" that its theory
of
> causation isn't a theory but a fact, and will see the actions of those in
other
> cultures as misguided.)

No question. Except it is _individuals_ who practice the various "arts".
Eastern philosiphy and religon are currently popular. It is individuals who
beleive in religon, astrology, magic, etc. People will do and believe
_whatever_ _they_ feel is going to help them get what they want. No
exceptions. If I believe in the concept of an after life and I feel that
getting to heaven is important. I will do what _I_ believe necessay to get
there. _How_ i come to and _maintain_ or _change_ these beliefs is another
matter :-).

> I agree that "variations reflect differences in how
individuals...deal with
> the environment." But those variations will be variations on a theme
> written by the particular culture within which the individual has been
socialized.

Not necessarily. I am not willing to generalize to _all_ people. It
absolutely may be a major factor for _some_, but not others.

>The variations loom so large in our perceptions (e.g. the behavior of the
> shooters in Littleton) because they contrast with the norm.

Our perceptions of Littleton are not different. You and I would have no
argument over _what_ happened. We would vehemently disagree as to _why_ it
happened. Our perceptions are what we directly experience from the
environment. What we _think_ about our perceptions are a different matter.

>The basic "themes," on the other hand -- because most of us are permeated
by our native >culture's premises and are unaware of alternatives (e.g.
every human is an lie below our usual
> threshholds of awareness.

Living in NYC, and in a "culturally" diverse neighborhood, I could not
disagree with you more :-)

> It's those "themes" to which (because of their explanatory power)
I
> want to call attention. They lie at the heart of all dialog, including
all dialog
> about systems.
> ????????

What you speak of is _why_ we attribute what we do to things. As I said
before, this will vary according to the _individual_ involved.

_Why_ we attribute what we do to things is _really_ interesting and is a
great deal more complex and involved then any one aspect of the environment
( i.e. culture ).

SD provides us with an opportunity to model aspects of the world relevant to
our needs. We need to better understand how _individuals_ actually interact
with others and other aspects of the environment.

Marion, it's been fun. Thanks for the exchange.

Marc

From: KCStarguy@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 23:12:36 EDT
Subject: microworld
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu

Anyone work with the new Logo Microworld? My wife is working with it in her
masters program at Lesley College?

It is like a combination of Hyperstudio, logo and KidPix. Real neat.

Why has Apple hidden this and not promoted it? It is head over heels better
then regular logo which we use in my summer camps.

Eric Flescher, Ed.D (KCStarguy@aol.com)
Coordinator, Project S.I.M. (Simulations, Interdisciplinary internet and
Metacognitive activities)Simulation Station website - http:
//members.aol.com/kcstarguy/sim/
Co-director/ Webmaster- Computer Magic and Worlds to
Explore-http://members.aol.com/kcstarguy/camp/

Date: Tue, 25 May 1999
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu,
From: Ian Whalley <musik@waikato.ac.nz>
Subject: Music and systems dynamics
Cc: drees@voyager.co.nz,
Robert Gregson <ramg@macquarie.matra.com.au>
, stephenw@mailserv.waikato.ac.nz

>Does anyone use or know of the application of systems dynamic analysis to
>the discipline of music?
>Rolfe Stanley

In response, I will present a paper at the 17th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society http://www.vuw.ac.nz/gsbgm/isdc99/ on 21 July in Parallel session six called.

Beyond Pitch/Duration Scoring: Towards A Systems Dynamic Model Of Electroacoustic Music.

The paper including simulation and abstact will be published as part of the conference proceedings.

Ian Whalley
___________________________________________
Ian Whalley, Senior Lecturer, Music Dept.
Faculty of Arts and Social Science
The University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105,
Hamilton, New Zealand. Phone:8562889 x 8084.
Fax: 64 7 8562158. Music Sec. 67 7 838-4380.
http://WWW2.waikato.ac.nz/humanities/music/

From: "Marty Quinn" <mwcquinn@nh.ultranet.com>
To: "Melinda Salazar" <msalazar@hopper.unh.edu>
, <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: QUERY SD and music (SD2181)
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999

Dear Melinda and the SD list,

After reading through some of the January archive regarding music and SD,
and not knowing what Systems Dynamics means to all of you, I hesitate to
offer
any comments. Nevertheless, perhaps some may find useful applications
in the expression of the climate system of the earth over 110,000 years in
the
form of music as a holistic representation of a large system. I may be
totally off
from the point of what you all are talking about, so please just ignore
this if so.

That work can be heard on the web at
http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~mwcquinn/icecore.html
Also, DNA expressed thru music and geometry can be heard and seen at
http://www.casi.net/srl

Warm regards,

Marty Quinn
Design Rhythmics Sonification Research Lab

Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 08:44:16 +1000
From: Robert Gregson <ramg@macquarie.matra.com.au>
To: system-dynamics@world.std.com
CC: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Subject: Re: QUERY SD and music (SD2181)

Dr John Geake of Melbourne University and I have a joint paper now
in press on that topic.
Emer. Prof. Robert A.. M. Gregson
Australian National University

Rolfe Stanley wrote:
> Does anyone use or know of the application of systems dynamic analysis to
> the discipline of music?
>
> Rolfe Stanley
> From: Rolfe Stanley <rstanley@together.net>
> Stanley Computer Center
> Fletcher Extension

Moderator's note: Please e-mail Mr. Gregson directly for a copy of his paper.

Date: Fri, 28 May 1999
From: Niall Palfreyman <Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: microworld

Eric Flescher wrote:

> Anyone work with the new Logo Microworld? My wife is working with it
> in her masters program at Lesley College?

No, I haven't. But I have read the book "Turtles, Termites and Traffic
Jams" by Mitchel Resnick of the Media Laboratory at MIT, which presents
the language StarLogo. This is used for modelling systems of large
numbers of parallely operating agents. It looks like riveting stuff, and
is available for both PC and Mac. I just wish I didn't work solely on
UNIX and was able to investigate it more closely. You might be
interested in looking into it. The StarLogo site is at:

http://lcs.www.media.mit.edu/groups/el/Projects/starlogo/


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, 28 May 1999
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: "Janice C. Kowalczyk" <kowalcjn@ride.ri.net>
Subject: Re: microworld

Yes, I use it and as a matter of fact I am an instructor at Lesley and I
could not agree with you more. It is head over heels ahead of any other
previous Logo. Logo matured as computers have matured..so much more is
possible now. But Hal Ableson said it better any years ago.

"Logo is a name for a philosophy of education and for a continually
evolving family of computer languages that aid in its realization"
...Hal Abelson

In the course I teach at Lesley, (and there are a few that use Microworlds)
we use STELLA, Microworlds and Star Logo in a course called: Microworlds,
Models and Simulation

Microworlds in the title represents the idea of a learning microworld not
the program name.....and of course Stella supports this kind of learning
environment also.

Why has apple not promoted it?...simply because it is not an apple product
(and also works on PC's) but a product of LCSI in cooperation with
researchers at the MIT Media lab.

Janice K.

>From: KCStarguy@aol.com
>Date: Sat, 22 May 1999
>Subject: microworld
>To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
>>Anyone work with the new Logo Microworld? My wife is working with it in her
>masters program at Lesley College?
>>It is like a combination of Hyperstudio, logo and KidPix. Real neat.
>>Why has Apple hidden this and not promoted it? It is head over heels better
>then regular logo which we use in my summer camps.
>> Eric Flescher, Ed.D (KCStarguy@aol.com)

Janice C. Kowalczyk
Assistant Director,
Leadership Program in Discrete Mathematics,
Rutgers University
Office: 401-841-5583
Home: 401-849-7546

"We are continually faced by great opportunities brilliantly disguised as
insolvable problems"

End of May 1999