December, 2002


Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:37:32 -0500
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Linda Booth Sweeney <linda_booth_sweeney@harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: one of those questions


Dear K-12 list participants:
I'd like to thank those who responded to my question about the limitations of system dynamics. Your responses were timely and very useful to my class at Harvard's Graduate School of Education.
As I learn so much from this list, I hope you don't mind if I pose another one of those kind of questions. Here it is:
What keeps people from seeing systems?
What do you think? I often wonder how a neuroscientist would respond to this question. I'm eager to hear your thoughts. No academic references necessary (but they are allowed and appreciated).


My best,
Linda
*************************************
Linda Booth Sweeney
Harvard Graduate School of Education
e-mail: Linda_Booth_Sweeney@harvard.edu
tel: 617-354-1390
fax: 617-812-8935


--------------


Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:03:27 +0100
From: Niall Palfreyman <niall.palfreyman@fh-weihenstephan.de>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions


Linda Booth-Sweeney schrieb:
What keeps people from seeing systems?


I think it's probably quite simple: linear effects are immediately
noticeable and produce obvious and clear feedback on the effects of my
actions. You stand on my foot and I immediately notice pain in direct
proportion to the extent of your weight.
The nonlinear effects which arise in systems create a delay between
cause and effect. I smoke and notice the immediate (linear) effect that
I feel relaxed. What I fail to notice is the few thousand mutations
which have occurred in my DNA, and which will in 50 years kill me.
This immediacy is also of course responsible for the apparent
effectiveness of the linear analysis into parts which characterises most
areas of technology. It's not that analysis into parts is more effective
- it's more that the effectiveness is in this case more obvious.
As always, Linda, your questions make me think

. Thank you.
Niall Palfreyman.


----------------------


From: "David Gillespie" <davidfg@fidnet.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:18:22 -0600


What keeps people from seeing systems ?


Great question. Here's 3 of what I'd guess is a long list of answers:
1) we've been taught that reality is what we experience through our sense system, but the inter-relationships making up the system's structure can not be directly observed. So the only way to see it is to create an abstract representation in our mind or elsewhere.
2) we observe in the present moment, but systems evolve over time. We have to mentally simulate the complete cycle of a system to "see" it and this takes practice.  
3) we observe particular things, but systems are usually many things inter-related in complex ways, including delays in the relationships. We've been taught that cause-effect are close in space-time, so the indirect, delayed effects of many systems make them hard to see.


David


-----------------------


From: "Paul Newton" <paulnewton@StewardshipModeling.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:24:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions


On 4 Dec 2002 at 15:11, Linda Booth Sweeney asked:
> What keeps people from seeing systems?


It seems to me that people do see "detail complex" systems, and
what's more, this is normally what they think of when they think of
"systems."
People also see dynamic systems, ie, they tell stories (which are
dynamic) and they make plans that are dynamic. But I'm not sure
people think of the dynamic system that underlies their stories and
plans as being a "system."
What I think people definitely don't see and appreciate are
dynamically complex systems, systems where non-intuitive
behavior arises from delayed and non-linear feedback relationships
among the few (simple in detail) stock levels and their flow rates
comprising the system.
So, I might rephrase your question to ask, "What keeps people from
seeing dynamically complex systems?"
I think the answer to this question is that we don't teach stock-flow
or feedback dynamics. We don't help people understand the view that
states of the world beget changes in the states, that then beget new
states, ad infinitum. Frankly I don't know what we teach people
about what causes change in the world, but whatever it is, it seems
to somehow give people an exogenous numerical data fixation with
regard to the cause of change in our world.
Teaching students that states of the world beget changes in the
states, that then beget new states, ad infinitum, would certainly
provide people a new way to think about and present their dynamic
stories and plans. And it would help them think of the dynamic
structure underlying their stories and plans, and to see this dynamic
structure as a system.
And such learning is certainly a necessary first step on the road to
appreciating, if not understanding, dynamically complex systems.
Footnote: For more on detail complexity vs. dynamic complexity,
see the excerpts from writings by Peter Senge and John Sterman at
www.StewardshipModeling.com. Click on the "Dynamic
Complexity" link at the left.


Paul Newton
607-255-5230 and pcn4@cornell.edu (while at Cornell)
920-469-9663 (permanent in Green Bay, WI)
paulnewton@StewardshipModeling.com (permanent)
http://www.StewardshipModeling.com


-----------------


From: "JOSE LEAL" <tonyleal007@msn.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:09:42 -0600


Ms. Booth,
    What keeps people from seeing systems?
    Unfortunately narrow minded administrators that can't distinguish good life long learning skills from memorizing things and data you can always read later (or know where to find). It couldn't be helped; it was my lot to live here. So if you can do something about it please do, because if I try, I'll get my head chopped off,


Best Regards,
Jose Antonio Leal


----------------------


From: "David Wilkinson" <dwilkinson45@mchsi.com>
To: "'k-12sd'" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:03:21 -0600


Linda---
What keeps people from seeing systems?
How about gravity? That's what I say when sometimes when we talk about why it is so difficult for many keep the mission or a vision in their view. I use that analogy to explain the difficulty.  For most of us, the pressures of work and immediate responsibilities "fill up" our lives so that it takes discipline to keep the "eye on the prize." When focusing on a vision is not part of our habits, we need to discipline ourselves to do so. When we get busy and overwhelmed, it is harder to be disciplined and return to past behavior. If we imagine the vision as something we see when our eyes look upward and in the distance. The gravity of everyday of life, brings our eyes downward where we can focus on each of our immediate next steps or actions. Then for us to life our eyes from the current realities we face, we must use energy and strength to fight the gravity of everyday life to regain a focus on the vision.
Barry Oshrey in Seeing Systems, states that we have four types of blindness in seeing systems in our lives. I remember one of them as being temperal and another spatial. I don't see the book nearby, so rather than get it wrong, I'll wait for others to tell us about the four types.


David Wilkinson
dwilkinson45@mchsi.com


-------------------


Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:25:51 -0500
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Bob Gorman <bgorman@kncell.org>
Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions


At 03:11 PM 12/4/2002, you wrote:
What keeps people from seeing systems?
 
The best I've seen on this is Barry Oshry's 2 books - Seeing systems, Leading systems.


Bob
----------------------


Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 12:52:04 -0800
From: "Richard Turnock" <Richard_Turnock@pgn.com>
To: <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What keeps people from seeing systems?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Reading from books about brain research, here is one answer: our brain does not "see" systems so that we are physically not capable of sensing systems.


Richard


-------------------


Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:56:08 -0500
From: Steve Kipp <skipp@glynn.k12.ga.us>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions


Great question, Linda.

Thanks to others for excellent thoughts and the Barry Oshry references, those sound good. Another good reference, and in my opinion a must-see for anyone remotely interested in Systems (and good conversation!), is the 1990 video called "Mindwalk" (based on Fritjof Capra's book The Turning Point). In a nutshell, which doesn't do it justice, the main argument of the film is that people don't see systems because most are stuck in a Newtonian, "clockwork" world view. The variety of viewpoints among the three main characters- a physicist, a politician, and a poet- are what make it such a great film. I know I sound like a publicist for the movie, but I am certain your class would love it, and if I have understood your work with them at all, I think that you and they would be talking about it for some time.
Don't know if it's available in video stores, but you can buy it on Amazon for about 20 bucks.


Steve Kipp

--------------------------------------


Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: "Sally Anderson" <sanderso@jkaf.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:23:46 -0700


What keeps people from seeing systems?
I have come to consider a notion that it may not be that more people do not
see systems, as it might be that once seen, we do not know how to respond
to it and that tugs at our own personal vulnerabilities and limitations.
So, it remains easier to take a part and burrow in to do what we have much
more perceived control, experience and comfort in.


Sally
Sally Anderson, Ph.D.
Creating High Performance Schools
Lead Design Consultant
Office 208-424-2620


-------------------


From: "Henry Cole" <cole@mosquitonet.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Gorman: one of those questions
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:36:22 -0900


Interesting question and perhaps the most basic question we face. I see the normal "nonsystems" answer to it lurking always in the corners of classrooms and students, ourselves, this Administration and many others do not "get It." Steve Kipp gave the first answer and one that I have used many times: showing the movie "Mindwalk." This tendency of ours is so deep seated and has been pounded into us so deeply through, in particular, science education that we all are educated to be Cartesians. I happened to meet a French Scientist at a Society meeting in Atlanta and noted to her that there seemed to be were very few French persons there. She said that it was because the French intellectual tradition was so strong and rooted in Dear Rene Decartes that a systemic view of the universe tended to be less common in France - at least fewer French came to Atlanta. (If that scientist happens to read this I enjoyed our talk and do apologize for any misquotation. Thank You.) We grew up with Newton and Descartes perhaps because, as Senge may have said in a speech once, the deep horror of the memory of great plague of the 14th century in Europe made all Europeans thankful for any solution of how to deal with nature that seemed to make greater sense of the world and the power of nature. Sir Issac then became the savior.
Peacemeal thinking is so deeply buried in our mental models, which are largely unconscious anyway, that we do not realize they are there. Even in teaching physics I find that the problem is not that the concepts are hard or difficult or even expressed in difficult geometry - although some are - but rather that they are UNBELIEVABLE. The student really spends more energy in convincing him or herself that something is IS true. I mean, come on, is the statement of the First Law of Motion hard AS A STATEMENT? The difficulty is in the belief. F=ma and E=mc2 is about as brief as they can be. Perhaps priests should be teachers.
So even with less grandiose questions than the systemic view of the world our own mental models rule our thinking.
I continue to work daily on this one. Sorry my own liberties and bizarre thinking but thanks for your own remarks on the list server.


Henry Cole


-------------------


Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 07:34:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Christian Abarca <christian_abarca@yahoo.com>
Subject: one of those questions
To: k-12sd k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu


What keeps people from seeing systems?
Two critical variables:
1. Tolerance.
2. Paradigmatic paralysis
In social sciences and in the intercultural behavior,
I know we must feedback our natural opinions, when we
think in systems behavior.
Tolerance make the difference between what I think and
want, and what the system is doing. If I have it, the
process of learning is more "perfect", because of the
oscillations.
Braking the paradigmatic paralysis is not easy. We
must take a moment to unload our mental models and to
see if we can create a new one.
Stock and flow language exists in some peoples mental
models, but its not enough.
Maybe we can do something about people working with
systems, and in the meanwhile, not loosing the meaning
of what we have to do.


Christian Abarca
christian_abarca@yahoo.com


------------------------


Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:43:53 -0500
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Linda Booth Sweeney <linda_booth_sweeney@harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Newton: one of those questions


Dear Paul,
Thanks for your response and particularly for the rephrasing of my
question. My work is now is describe how k-12 education (and
alternative ed experiences) can foster students' intuition of and
knowledge about dynamically complex systems. I'll have more to say
on that when I finish my dissertation -- by June of 2003 I hope.


Thanks again.
Linda


From: "Paul Newton" <paulnewton@StewardshipModeling.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:24:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions
On 4 Dec 2002 at 15:11, Linda Booth Sweeney asked:
What keeps people from seeing systems?
It seems to me that people do see "detail complex" systems, and
what's more, this is normally what they think of when they think of
"systems."
People also see dynamic systems, ie, they tell stories (which are
dynamic) and they make plans that are dynamic. But I'm not sure
people think of the dynamic system that underlies their stories and
plans as being a "system."
What I think people definitely don't see and appreciate are
dynamically complex systems, systems where non-intuitive
behavior arises from delayed and non-linear feedback relationships
among the few (simple in detail) stock levels and their flow rates
comprising the system.
So, I might rephrase your question to ask, "What keeps people from
seeing dynamically complex systems?"
I think the answer to this question is that we don't teach stock-flow
or feedback dynamics. We don't help people understand the view that
states of the world beget changes in the states, that then beget new
states, ad infinitum. Frankly I don't know what we teach people
about what causes change in the world, but whatever it is, it seems
to somehow give people an exogenous numerical data fixation with
regard to the cause of change in our world.
Teaching students that states of the world beget changes in the
states, that then beget new states, ad infinitum, would certainly
provide people a new way to think about and present their dynamic
stories and plans. And it would help them think of the dynamic
structure underlying their stories and plans, and to see this dynamic
structure as a system.
And such learning is certainly a necessary first step on the road to
appreciating, if not understanding, dynamically complex systems.
Footnote: For more on detail complexity vs. dynamic complexity,
see the excerpts from writings by Peter Senge and John Sterman at
www.StewardshipModeling.com. Click on the "Dynamic
Complexity" link at the left.
Paul Newton
607-255-5230 and pcn4@cornell.edu (while at Cornell)
920-469-9663 (permanent in Green Bay, WI)
paulnewton@StewardshipModeling.com (permanent)
http://www.StewardshipModeling.com
***************************************
Linda Booth Sweeney
Harvard Graduate School of Education
e-mail: Linda_Booth_Sweeney@harvard.edu
tel: 617-354-1390
fax: 617-812-8935


----------------------------


Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 07:54:10 -0500
From: Steve Kipp <skipp@glynn.k12.ga.us>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Newton: one of those questions


Paul-
What an excellent question: "What is it that people believe causes
change in the world?".
I will modify it very slightly-"What do you believe causes change in
the world?"- and use
it as a catalyst question for introductory staff development and as
an action research
question to use with k-12 students before and after using systems
concepts and tools.


Many thanks,
Steve Kipp
"...if you are learning in a classroom, what you understand is
determined by how you
understand things, who you are, and what you already know as much as
by what is covered,
and by how and by whom it is delivered."
-Peter Senge


-----------------


Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:20:29 -0500
Subject: Re: seeing "systems"
From: George Richardson <gpr@albany.edu>
To: k-12sd k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu


In one of the talks I gave a couple of years ago at a Systems
Thinking and Dynamic Modeling K-12 conference, I tried to define
"systems thinking." My definition was something like "...the
cognitive effort to uncover endogenous sources of system behavior."
[And then I spent a long time defining "endogenous," "system," and
"behavior."]
Maybe Linda and others feel that people don't perceive "systems"
because they don't see them trying to do "systems thinking," that is,
trying to uncover endogenous sources of system behavior. Uncovering
endogenous sources is hard mental work. (Sometimes we even need
computers to help us.) Worse, the idea of endogenous sources runs
counter to our everyday experiences, in which things happen, and we,
or Congress, or the President, or the stock market respond. We are
trained from birth to see causes as exogenous. It's a pretty
preposterous idea, even a threatening idea, to hunt for endogenous
sources for what is bothering me, or my systems, or my company, or
... my country.
I suspect that much of what we "systems thinkers" hope to accomplish
in our writings and teachings is, quite precisely, to attract more
and more people to the phenomenal insight and leverage we find when
we manage to uncover endogenous sources of system behavior.
...George
*George P. Richardson
*Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
*University at Albany - SUNY, Albany, NY 12222
*gpr@albany.edu *518-442-3859 *http://www.albany.edu/~gpr


------------------


From: "Paul Newton" <paulnewton@stewardshipmodeling.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:56:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Kipp: one of those questions


Steve,
I'm glad you liked the question. I like it too! This question is how I
tend to introduce how system dynamicists view change. I haven't
really explored other views of change. There are, of course, other
ways of modeling change, underneath which are views of what
causes change. It would be really interesting if someone were
motivated to do some good research on this. Perhaps Linda Booth
Sweeney's work will be it. Donella Meadows' and Jennifer
Robinson's book, "The Electronic Oracle" approaches it.
At any rate, attached FYI is a revision to my response to Linda's
question. I thought about it after sending it and wanted to make
some changes.


Paul


---------------


Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:55:19 -0500
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Bob Gorman <bgorman@kncell.org>
Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions
 
 
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:37:32 -0500
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Linda Booth Sweeney <linda_booth_sweeney@harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: one of those questions
Dear K-12 list participants:
As I learn so much from this list, I hope you don't mind if I pose another one of those kind of questions. Here it is:
What keeps people from seeing systems?
 
As this question has persisted, as all good questions do, I keep thinking about it, and searching my experience for additional info, anecdotes, ideas etc.
On thing I've noticed about young children is that they are naturally good systems thinkers. Ask Johnny why he didn't punch Jimmy the class bully? He's likely to say something like: "Cause if I do he'll tell his dad, and his dad will call my dad, and I'll be in deep trouble!" Now that's systems thinking in its simplest and purest form!
Much of what we call Street Smarts is simply systemic thinking without the fancy words.
So perhaps I want to modify this fine question a tad:
When do we lose our natural ability to see the world as whole and inter-related, perhaps analog; and start to imagine it as digital, consisting of a bunch of separate un-connected dots?
Since I'm rambling, I might as well take a shot at answering my own question.
First, I'd look at our whole educational focus which loves analysis over synthesis. We love breaking things into parts but forget that they started as wholes.
I'm reminded here of the age old wisdom:
After you've dissected a frog, you can sew it back together, but don't expect it to jump!
Over the past 40 years, I've taught, or tried to induce learning, about systems in many diverse groups.
I always start my class with the following statement, which counters what is for me a particularly sore bone of contention, the popular pseudo-definition of a system, which states: A system is more than the sum of its parts! Pure gibberish!
I start with: "A system is exactly equal to the sum of its parts, no more and no less."
Here's my rationale, so you can tear it apart....
When someone hears that something is "more than the sum of its parts", all sorts of red flags go off in their minds, and they clutch their wallets or purses. NOTHING can be more than the sum of its parts. So people hearing this as the opening statement of a course, figure they're in for some radical fiction.
My approach is to ground them in reality. The reality as I see it is that connections are as real as parts, especially since it is our minds that create the "parts".
Where is your wrist? Somewhere between what you construct as a hand and what you construct as an arm?????


Bob


-------------------


From: "Paul Newton" <paulnewton@stewardshipmodeling.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:22:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Newton: one of those questions

Linda,
After whipping off my response to your question, I was unhappy
with bits of it and therefore gave it some more thought. Attached is
my re-write that, when I re-wrote it, I liked somewhat more than my
original response to the list.
A (much) larger question might be something like, "what is it that
people believe causes change in the world?" Actually, your revised
topic, a description of "how k-12 education (and alternative ed
experiences) can foster students' intuition of and knowledge about
dynamically complex systems," is pretty close. Our teaching about
dynamically complex systems probably aligns pretty closely with
what most of us believe causes change in the world (albeit with a
significant delay).
I'll be interested to see your dissertation. I'm also curious how the
Harvard Eduction faculty respond to your work. Is the ed faculty
interested in system dynamics in K-12 education, and if so, to what
degree? What do they think of the work of Forrester's SD in K-12
project, the Creative Learning Exchange, the Waters Foundation,
Lesley College (Nancy Roberts?), etc? I'm just curious.
What does the Harvard ed faculty think causes change in the
world?


Paul


On 9 Dec 2002 at 15:37, k-12sd wrote:
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:43:53 -0500
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Linda Booth Sweeney <linda_booth_sweeney@harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Newton: one of those questions
Dear Paul,
Thanks for your response and particularly for the rephrasing of my
question. My work is now is describe how k-12 education (and
alternative ed experiences) can foster students' intuition of and
knowledge about dynamically complex systems. I'll have more to say on
that when I finish my dissertation -- by June of 2003 I hope.
Thanks again.
Linda
>From: "Paul Newton" <paulnewton@StewardshipModeling.com>
>To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
>Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:24:33 -0500
>Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: one of those questions
>
>On 4 Dec 2002 at 15:11, Linda Booth Sweeney asked:
>> What keeps people from seeing systems?
>
>It seems to me that people do see "detail complex" systems, and
>what's more, this is normally what they think of when they think of
>"systems."
>
>People also see dynamic systems, ie, they tell stories (which are
>dynamic) and they make plans that are dynamic. But I'm not sure
>people think of the dynamic system that underlies their stories and
>plans as being a "system."
>
>What I think people definitely don't see and appreciate are
>dynamically complex systems, systems where non-intuitive
>behavior arises from delayed and non-linear feedback relationships
>among the few (simple in detail) stock levels and their flow rates
>comprising the system.
>
>So, I might rephrase your question to ask, "What keeps people from
>seeing dynamically complex systems?"
>
>I think the answer to this question is that we don't teach stock-flow
>or feedback dynamics. We don't help people understand the view that
>states of the world beget changes in the states, that then beget new
>states, ad infinitum. Frankly I don't know what we teach people
>about what causes change in the world, but whatever it is, it seems
>to somehow give people an exogenous numerical data fixation with
>regard to the cause of change in our world.
>
>Teaching students that states of the world beget changes in the
>states, that then beget new states, ad infinitum, would certainly
>provide people a new way to think about and present their dynamic
>stories and plans. And it would help them think of the dynamic
>structure underlying their stories and plans, and to see this dynamic
>structure as a system.
>
>And such learning is certainly a necessary first step on the road to
>appreciating, if not understanding, dynamically complex systems.
>
>Footnote: For more on detail complexity vs. dynamic complexity, see
>the excerpts from writings by Peter Senge and John Sterman at
>www.StewardshipModeling.com. Click on the "Dynamic Complexity" link
>at the left.
>
>Paul Newton
>607-255-5230 and pcn4@cornell.edu (while at Cornell)
>920-469-9663 (permanent in Green Bay, WI)
>paulnewton@StewardshipModeling.com (permanent)
>http://www.StewardshipModeling.com
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------
>This is a monitored list for discussion of system dynamics in K-12
>education. For past discussions see:
> http://sysdyn.mit.edu/k-12sd-email-list/archive/home.html
>Send contributions and all requests to subscribe and unsubscribe to:
> k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
 
 
***************************************
Linda Booth Sweeney
Harvard Graduate School of Education
e-mail: Linda_Booth_Sweeney@harvard.edu
tel: 617-354-1390
fax: 617-812-8935
--
---------------------


Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 07:54:10 -0500
From: Steve Kipp <skipp@glynn.k12.ga.us>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Newton: one of those questions


Paul-
What an excellent question: "What is it that people believe causes
change in the world?".
I will modify it very slightly-"What do you believe causes change in
the world?"- and use
it as a catalyst question for introductory staff development and as
an action research
question to use with k-12 students before and after using systems
concepts and tools.


Many thanks,
Steve Kipp


k-12sd wrote:
From: "Paul Newton" <paulnewton@stewardshipmodeling.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:22:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Newton: one of those questions
Linda,
After whipping off my response to your question, I was unhappy
with bits of it and therefore gave it some more thought. Attached is
my re-write that, when I re-wrote it, I liked somewhat more than my
original response to the list.
A (much) larger question might be something like, "what is it that
people believe causes change in the world?" Actually, your revised
topic, a description of "how k-12 education (and alternative ed
experiences) can foster students' intuition of and knowledge about
dynamically complex systems," is pretty close. Our teaching about
dynamically complex systems probably aligns pretty closely with
what most of us believe causes change in the world (albeit with a
significant delay).
I'll be interested to see your dissertation. I'm also curious how the
Harvard Eduction faculty respond to your work. Is the ed faculty
interested in system dynamics in K-12 education, and if so, to what
degree? What do they think of the work of Forrester's SD in K-12
project, the Creative Learning Exchange, the Waters Foundation,
Lesley College (Nancy Roberts?), etc? I'm just curious.
What does the Harvard ed faculty think causes change in the
world?
Paul
-------------------


Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:57:43 -0500
Subject: Re: one of those questions
From: George Richardson <gpr@albany.edu>
To: k-12sd k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu


On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 10:45 AM, k-12sd wrote:
On 4 Dec 2002 at 15:11, Linda Booth Sweeney asked:
> What keeps people from seeing systems?
Paul Newton replied:
It seems to me that people do see "detail complex" systems, ...
People also see dynamic systems, ...
What I think people definitely don't see and appreciate are
dynamically complex systems,
So, I might rephrase your question to ask, "What keeps people from
seeing dynamically complex systems?"
I think this is getting close to the issue. It sounds like Linda wants to ask
> What keeps people from seeing systems the way we see them?
As Paul implies, people see "systems" all the time, all around them:
the banking system, the welfare system, school systems, political
systems, transportation systems, urban systems, criminal justice
systems, and so on.
In fact, people have been talking about "systems" in some form for
more than 2000 years. Our word "system" comes from the late Latin
word that is almost identical to ours -- systema -- and that comes
from the Greek sustema, assembled from the Greek words to combine and
set up.
In the 18th century, we have Adam Smith's lovely definition: "A
system is an imaginary machine invented to connect together in the
fancy those different movements and effects which are already in
reality performed."
So people see systems all the time and have done so probably for
millenia. But I think we suspect that our system dynamics training
sensitizes us to aspects of systems that are really important but are
largely missed by what others see in their "systems:" dynamics,
accumulations that are dynamically significant over our chosen time
frame, feedback loops, saturation effects and other nonlinear
phenomena that can shift loop dominance over time, feedback loops
that naturally compensate for policy interventions and render them
useless, and so on and on.
Maybe Linda's question would be better still if we tossed out the
word "systems" in it and put in its place those characteristics of
systems we really want to ask about. It is, after all, such a
universally used word that it has almost no precise meaning. There
are days, in fact, when I've wished we'd never called the field
"system" dynamics.


...George
*George P. Richardson
*Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
*University at Albany - SUNY, Albany, NY 12222
*gpr@albany.edu *518-442-3859 *http://www.albany.edu/~gpr


-----------------


Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:30:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Palfreyman: one of those questions
From: George Richardson <gpr@albany.edu>
To: k-12sd k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu


On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 10:41 AM, k-12sd wrote:
Linda Booth-Sweeney wrote:
What keeps people from seeing systems?


I think it's probably quite simple: linear effects are immediately
noticeable ... The nonlinear effects which arise in systems create a
delay between
cause and effect.
We have to be more careful with our language in our discussions on
this listserve. There is nothing inherent in linear systems that
says effects are immediately noticeable, and nothing inherent in
nonlinear systems that says there are delays. In fact, our standard
representations of both material and information delays are linear
structures.
For that matter, there is nothing inherent in linear "effects" that
says they wouldn't be perceived as a "system." After all, people do
talk about "linear systems."


...George
*George P. Richardson
*Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
*University at Albany - SUNY, Albany, NY 12222
*gpr@albany.edu *518-442-3859 *http://www.albany.edu/~gpr


-----------------


Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:57:57 -0500
From: Steve Kipp <skipp@glynn.k12.ga.us>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Richardson: seeing "systems"


In response to Linda's questions, George Richardson wrote:
Uncovering
endogenous sources is hard mental work.
and:
Worse, the idea of endogenous sources runs
counter to our everyday experiences, in which things happen, and we,
or Congress, or the President, or the stock market respond.
 
Yes, yes, and yes! We are up against some pretty tough external realities...but in a later posting in this thread, George offered another version of Linda's question: "What keeps people from seeing systems the way we see them", and this made me think an endogenous question: "What are WE doing that keeps people from seeing systems the way we see them?"
If I could begin to answer my own question, I think our own enthusiasm sometimes works against us. George said:
"I suspect that much of what we "systems thinkers" hope to accomplish in our writings and teachings is, quite precisely, to attract more and more people to the phenomenal insight and leverage we find when we manage to uncover endogenous sources of system behavior."
I would add that, in our exuberance to spread the word, we sometimes go too far too fast without fully assessing peoples' needs as learners. I have done this more times than I care to remember. But the bottom line is that most people simply are not interested in learning about systems for systems' sake, or even for the sake of attaining a better understanding of their own problems, no matter how excited we may be about it.
But hope springs eternal. I think we have to show people that they will get better results if they think and act systemically. I do my best work to this end when I start, not with "hey, I can show you how to think better" (insulting implication: "you are currently not thinking very well"!), but when I start with open-ended questions, like those suggested by Paul Mack in Schools That Learn: "What do you want to do? Why do you want to do it? What will that give you? What is getting in your way?" (p.384). Open ended questions open the door, get the conversation going, people get involved...then at the right time, in the right way, as dictated by the situation as it has unfolded, we improve the conversation by using systems concepts and tools where they fit naturally. Then they say, not always, but often enough, "wow, that was good, let me try that..."


Steve Kipp


--------------


Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:41:20 +0100
From: Niall Palfreyman <niall.palfreyman@fh-weihenstephan.de>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Richardson: one of those questions


George Richardson schrieb:
We have to be more careful with our language in our discussions on
this listserve. There is nothing inherent in linear systems that
says effects are immediately noticeable, and nothing inherent in
nonlinear systems that says there are delays.


True. I guess rather than "delay" I should say "surprise". We tend to
expect things to carry on smoothly the way they always have done: even a
more complicated linear system like a bungy jumper bouncing around on
the end of a bungy tends to continue behaving over the coming few
seconds the same way she has for the last few seconds.
I understand this "commonsense" idea of smooth continuation as being an
everyday expression of our search for linearity (direct proportionality
of effect to cause) of the underlying mathematical system. Whenever we
are confronted with surprising behaviour, we try to explain it by
looking for something which changes proportionally to the perceived
cause of its change.
So I think my statement now becomes: We don't find it hard to see
systems. Rather, we find it hard to see endogenous (within-the-system)
causes of surprising system behaviour. Because we believe that all cause
is linear (i.e. effects in direct proportion to their perceived cause),
our reaction to any surprising (i.e. _not_ in direct proportion to its
perceived cause) behaviour is to either seek a deeper linear
relationship in the system (like acceleration in the case of the bungy
jumper), or else to postulate the existence of an external "thing" which
causes the behaviour in a "proper" (i.e. linear) sense. I like Bob's
analogy of the wrist as a "thing" which explains the odd behaviour of
the hand and arm when they're joined together.


Niall.


----------------


Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:21:48 -0800
From: "Richard Turnock" <Richard_Turnock@pgn.com>
To: <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Seeing Systems


The Question
Interesting that this group of people, with all our education and
experience, can't agree on how to word the question we want to ask.
Norah Jones has her first CD out - I recommend it for anyone who
likes slow, soft jazz, beautiful voice. Anyway, one line goes
something like this "...I'm looking for the answer to a question I
can't ask."
What if we focus on what words to use to frame the question before we
try to answer it? Oh, no another question!
The People
Imagine an "S" shaped curve over time showing the increasing
percentage of people that "see systems the way we see systems"
as Steve Kipp said.
The sequence of people over time might fall into categories:
experimenters, early adapters, pragmatists, late adapters, resisters,
and the ones that never get it. The largest percentage of people are
the Pragmatists. So, all of us early adapters and experimenters need
to find a way to communicate with the Pragmatists.


Richard
 
-------------------


Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 13:46:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Christian Abarca <christian_abarca@yahoo.com>
Subject: Abarca: connecting "systems"
To: k-12sd k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu


From the sd bigbang question
To Steve
What can we do to uncover the connections and
underlying states of the variables in systems.
The thing is, right, not to teach directly systems
stuff. We have to teach our competences looking for
interrelated things that connects the issues (like
literature) and why this issues move something in our
students (maybe cause and effect of the angry and
desperation of Hamlet and, like a mirror, what happen
in our mental models that we can see working has
Hamlet).
We must be very flexible with our competences, to be
aware of any paradigmatic paralysis that do not permit
see things as students see.
Dialogue is critical, empathy too.
I use and transform two kind of (Austin) speech acts
(the perlocutives ones).
In a system everything is connected, so any speech
act, including perlocutives, could be tools to work
with issues, to connect literature and talk about it
(intralocutives acts), and then, the students and I,
begin to interact de nucleus of what I am teaching
with their own processes of understanding the actions
and how they influence their behavior, or how the
actions are repited in their own lives.
Using system dynamics ñcausal loops, stock&flow maps
and BOTGs- is the methodology I used now. Many have
not a pc in their homes but they sure understand the
complexity of a dynamic structure of a system, or a
motivation to act, or any action.
I think the basis for understand the complexity of
systems and taking it to our lives or to our students
lives, stay in language. Going deeper, I believe that
the students not only begin to learn in this manner,
they begin to understand that everything is connected.
Some students begin to study the wide system in which
Hamlet was writing. And thatís great.
Some other begin to compare the same motivation of
Hamlet in other novels and plays. And thatís great
too.
And finally they take insight that this occurs now in
our time, in politics, between teachers, in their
homes, etc.
From this stage everybody in the classroom noted that
we can change our lives, our mental models, taking off
of our paradigmatic paralysis.


Christian Abarca
 
-------------------


Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:10:47 -0500
From: Steve Kipp <skipp@glynn.k12.ga.us>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Turnock: Seeing Systems


Richard Turnock -
Imagine an "S" shaped curve over time showing the increasing
percentage of people that "see systems the way we see systems"
as Steve Kipp said.
Actually, George said that...I just added the "what are WE doing to
prevent them
from seeing". Don't mean to be picky, but I try to be a stickler for
references,
and I don't want GPR accusing me of stealing his thoughts! :-)
But I think you are right on about reaching a large number of Pragmatists in
order to tip the overall S-curve upward. And there will always be somewhat of a
normal curve along your continuum; we can't try to reach them all, but we can't
just go for the elites, either.


Steve Kipp


----------------------


Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:45:33 -0500
From: Steve Kipp <skipp@glynn.k12.ga.us>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Abarca: question to Steve


Christian Abarca wrote:
The thing is, right, not to teach directly systems
stuff. We have to teach our competences looking for
interrelated things that connects the issues
Yes...so WE have to be as adept students of systems as we are able, so that we
have the skill to see potential intersting connections, spark the interest of
our students, and be ready to run with them in the surprising new directions
that their input will take us, without getting lost. Right?
We must be very flexible with our competences, to be
aware of any paradigmatic paralysis that do not permit
see things as students see.
Challenging, but effective!
I think the basis for understand the complexity of
systems and taking it to our lives or to our students
lives, stay in language. Going deeper, I believe that
the students not only begin to learn in this manner,
they begin to understand that everything is connected.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "stay in language". If I assume you
mean "rely more on Systems-facilitated discussion than on just pure computer
modeling", I agree that for many people, discussions of BOTG, or causal loops,
or computer model output opens the door and gets them well into the room. Which
tremendously elevates the quality of discussion! Computer modeling is still one
of the best ultimate tests of our mental models...but people just aren't all
going to learn how to model, and I'm not satisfied with only those
who can model
having a deep understanding of systems.
And finally they take insight that this occurs now in
our time, in politics, between teachers, in their
homes, etc.
That's one of the best ways to know it's working, right?!


Steve Kipp


------------------------


Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:24:35 +0100
From: Niall Palfreyman <niall.palfreyman@fh-weihenstephan.de>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Turnock: Seeing Systems


Richard Turnock schrieb:
The sequence of people over time might fall into categories:
experimenters, early adapters, pragmatists, late adapters, resisters,
and the ones that never get it. The largest percentage of people are
the Pragmatists. So, all of us early adapters and experimenters need
to find a way to communicate with the Pragmatists.


I find this an exciting way of thinking about it. The question becomes
now for me: How can I best communicate my enthusiasm for systems to a
Pragmatist?
It seems to me it would be great if we could compile a short (8-9) list
of simple problems from various areas, each of which somehow presents
difficulties for solving without consideration of systems issues. Once a
Pragmatist has admitted that one of these problems is (a) interesting
and (b) difficult, we whip the systems solution out of a hat and Bingo!
S/he's dead impressed. I've tried to do something similar with the
cluster of subjects around my own area of bioinformatics, but without
the preliminary stage of setting the issues up as difficult to solve
without systems thinking.
What do you think about each of us contributing such a problem/solution
from our own subject area and so amassing the ultimate Systems
Persuader? <grin> I'm thinking of a Clifford Simak book I once read, in
which someone made a kaleidoscope - all anyone had to do was to look
once through the kaleidoscope, and they suddenly realised the inner
Unity of all beings.


Niall Palfreyman.


-----------------


Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:51:36 -0800
From: Della Robertson <frobchen@earthlink.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Palfreyman: Seeing Systems

I am at the bottom of the S-curve. Thanks to some ongoing training, I am using
ST in the classroom at a simple level. Last week, I placed two graphs on the
white board (9th grade class) and asked the students to create their own labels
for the x and y axes. I gave them time to think and then asked for
volunteers to
come to the board and share their "stories". One student placed "Thoughts about
war with Iraq" on the y axis, and time in months along the x axis.
The graph was
linear with a positive slope. He said that his graph represents the fact that
more and more people are thinking about going to war. (Maybe the graph should
have been exponential, rather than linear; I don't know). The exciting part of
this story is that the class entered into an intelligent discussion about war,
foreign policy, national interest, etc. One girl raised her hand and said,
"Going to war with Iraq is like one of those 'fixes that fail'. More problems
will result from a war." Prior to this students worked on "Food Chain" produced
by High Performance Systems and on part of a packet on Systems Dynamics and
Modeling written by Diane Fisher. These resources are very helpful.


Della Robertson
Norwalk High School
Norwalk, California
 
--------------
 
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:08:22 -0800
From: "Richard Turnock" <Richard_Turnock@pgn.com>
To: <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Palfreyman: Seeing Systems
From: Niall Palfreyman:


I find this an exciting way of thinking about it. The question becomes
now for me: How can I best communicate my enthusiasm for systems to a
Pragmatist?
 
We need to find out what the valid requirements are for a pragmatist.
Probably they need to get practical results from dynamic modeling
that helps them in their day to day work so that they experience
practical application of the understanding about how systems work
that results from using the tools in a procedural method. In other
words my intuitive leaps of faith won't work.
There seems to be a gap between the theory/instruction and the
practical application in day to day activities. I think of systems
when I read the newspaper or listen to folks blame someone. Getting
people to question their own feelings and thinking is difficult.
My brother tells the story about a guy working for him in Southern
Oregon on a ranch where they were using well water to raise trout in
raceways (rectangular above ground tanks at different levels). The
guy told my brother he saw a Beaver near one of the tanks and that it
was eating the little fish. My brother started to question him about
what he saw and the guy got mad and said "I know what a Beaver looks
like!" (Apparently not everyone knows a Beaver is a herbivore.)
So when I question a pragmatist about their description of how a
system works, they will get upset and say "I know what a system looks
like!"
Now that's why people don't "see systems."
Richard


--------------------


From: Quaden@aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:58:23 EST
Subject: Re: Seeing Systems
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu


Hi,
Maybe one reason why students do not see systems is that they do not have the
tools available to see systems.
As a teacher I am attracted to system dynamics, because the field provides a
number of tools that will allow students to see systems. I know that the
tools in themselves do not guarantee systemic thinking, but they make
systemic thinking more accessible.
When seeing professional dynamicists like Jim Lyneis and George Richardson
in action, I am always struck by the fact that they approach the problems at
hand through the active use of the tools. In other words they try to solve
the problem by doing systems and in the process of doing systems dynamics
they see systems.
So what can we do as teachers to help students see systems: start by having
them use the tools.


Rob Quaden
Carlisle Public Schools


----------------


From: KCStarguy@aol.com
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 11:16:03 EST
Subject: When do we lose our natural ability to see the world as
whole and inter-related
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu, KCStarguy@aol.com


Interesting question (below)
"When do we lose our natural ability to see the world as whole and
inter-related ?"
(1) It starts when students (and teachers) are in elementary schools where
the basics are reading, writing and arithmetic . Basic skills are supposedly
taught but in a sense, the basic skills needs to think are ignored.
(2) There is little focus on understanding but "getting the right answer."
(3) There is little education in the art of "seeing" and "thinking" but
"memorizing and "content."
(4) As the very insightful book "The Minds Eye" elaborates upon, the world is
text and linguistic based and the visual perception and visual parts of
education are considered second class and not as important.
(5) There is little focus on integration, interconnectedness and how things
work. In Math, the right answers count.
(6) Kids are not used to thinking with technology. When they see visuals they
think of cartoons, wondering around , mindless games and more.
(7) Commands and using the program are taught logically instead of focusing
on the intuitive and visual.
(8) One needs to learn the intracacies of the software and the levels of use.
(9) The parts are taught but there is little focus on how to develop "the
sum." or work backwards if needed.
(10) Little focus on the training and use of metacognition (self thinking)
needed to work through the levels of the systems.
But the biggest thing is that systems deals with visual based maps and
intracacies. However that is not how it is taught for the most part.
Most of the teaching of system (as I see it) does not deal with the visuals.
Instead the math/logic are the main components and there is very little
teaching that integrates the math/logic with the visuals.
It is somewhat the same problem with GIS system and working with that program
that I have problems with along with stella. It is reconciling these issues
that keep me from going further in both and reconciling the intracies of the
visual/spatial education with the inherent focus on the math/logic ideas.


Dr.Eric Flescher (kcstarguy@aol.com)
Project S.I.M. (Simulations, interdisciplinary Internet and Metacognitive
activities)
Technology Education Adjunct Faculty, Mid Nazarene University, Olathe, KS
Gifted Education consultant/ project based learning and technology, Kansas
City, KS schools


---------------
End of December, 2002