|
Deep Roots
Posted by Jack Harich on 12/28/2010
In Reply To:Deep Roots Posted by Chad Green on 12/28/2010
On 12/28/2010 3:11 AM, Chad Green wrote:
> Scott et al.,
>
> The current model of learning must change, and indeed it will given the use of appropriate high leverage points as Jack and Tim pointed out earlier. Incidentally, if you click on the link that Jack provided (http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/LeveragePoint.htm), the image at the top is posted prominently on my cube wall for daily reflection. Is anybody else inspired by this image of hope?
Hi Chad,
Good to hear. One of the images that inspired me was this one:
www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/010/ArchimedesLever.jpg
“Give me a lever long enough, and a place to stand, and I can move the earth.” ~ Archimedes, 287 to 212 BC, was a Greek mathematician, physicist, engineer, and astronomer. Archimedes invented the Law of Levers.
> What it means to me is this: resistance to change is futile because somebody somewhere is going to figure out how to make the desired change happen. That person could be you, me, or somebody that we both least expected.
Well, resistance to change often succeeds. That why history is so full of promising societies that declined or disappeared, or large social problems appeared and were never solved. I'd guess that in nearly all cases, some saw the need to change. But change resistance prevailed.
> The funny thing is, we all naturally intuit this need for change, but we resist it. Why? Is it because we are afraid to admit that our models don't always work under all circumstances? I'm sorry, but I thought only virtues met that high standard. Could models and virtues be one and the same? Now that would be the day, wouldn't it? Instead, why can't we grasp the limitations of modeling in general like statistician George Box when he stated famously: "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." Physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow adopt a similar line of reasoning in their latest book The Grand Design: http://physics.about.com/od/stephenhawking/f/ModelDependentRealism.htm.
The reason societies resist change is dominant social ages are following explicit or implicit goals that conflict with the need for change.
This point is explained in the "Change Resistance as the Crux" paper at:
www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/009/ChangeResistanceAsCrux.htm
One must not confuse systemic change resistance with individual change resistance, which I believe is what you are discussing. Otherwise one falls into the Fundamental Attribution Error. See:
www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/FundamentalAttributionError.htm
Don't worry. I used to fall into this trap myself. That's why I wrote it up.
> So perhaps all we really need is a less wrong and more useful learning model for the 21st century? Now that doesn't sound all that difficult, does it?
Sounds like you are gradually discovering the need for a formal problem
solving process that is continually improved. That is the ultimate
learning model. The best example is the Scientific Method.
> As others on this list have suggested, perhaps we could begin the process by understanding the prevailing paradigm and its historical context before deconstructing and transforming it in the Heideggerian tradition. For example, with respect to Scott's root cause answer, I'd like to know your thoughts on the following animated talk by Sir Ken Robinson entitled "Changing Education Paradigms": http://www.youtube.com/user/theRSAorg#p/u/6/zDZFcDGpL4U
Are you suggesting beginning analysis before picking a process that fits
the problem?
I should mention that I don't have the time to perform a deep, rigorous
analysis of the education problem. I'm already working full time on the
sustainability problem.
But the two problems are related. The analysis on the sustainability
problem has gone so deep that it appears that resolving the four root
causes identified so far on the the sustainability problem would have
the pleasant "side effect" of also solving the education problem. This
is a pretty advanced argument and analysis. It's been written up in this
book:
www.thwink.org/sustain/manuscript4/CommonPropertyRights_Book.htm
This book lies at the heart of a research project starting in Australia.
Project manager is Philip Bangerter. He anticipates ramping up to ten
full time researchers in two years. Right now it's me full time and
several Australian environmental economists putting in several hours a
week to get two more papers published, plus Philip at about 6 hours a
week. Thought I'd mention all this so the book and my humble statements
are taken seriously. One of the topics we discuss occasionally, believe
it or not, is the education problem. It's so intertwined with the
sustainability problem.
The book manuscript is updated daily and is free. The book is $15.00
plus postage from Lulu Press, a print-on-demand published. The books are
of excellent quality. Updating the Lulu Press book takes about an hour,
so I only do it every few weeks or when I order books. I ordered 3
yesterday for people who want copies and updated it then. But today I've
made some important improvements and will make more tomorrow. The cake
is not quite out of the oven. So if you want a printed book, let me know
and I will update the Lulu Press copy. Currently the book runs 412
pages. It's designed to be very readable by the non-specialist, except
for about 20 pages on simulation model description where you will have
to slow down and maybe read twice.
Everyone - I honestly believe that if you study this book, it will
greatly help you to see how to approach solving the education problem,
or any difficult complex social system problem. It would completely
change the way we are approaching the education problem.
> Does this perspective capture everything we need to know about the situation at hand? Of course not, but it is compelling storytelling. I have other useful resources to share with you all, but first there is something very important that I need to resolve with your assistance. It relates to a recent post by Gene on Clemson's (1984) Systems Laws (http://bit.ly/c6qNZS), more specifically, Law #2 which reads as follows:
>
> "Feedback. The output of a complex system is dominated by the feedback, and within wide variations the input is irrelevant. All attempts to develop the system from outside are really inputs to the system, which law two indicates, are to a large extent, irrelevant."
>
> For now, let's assume that the complex system above refers to our human brain. Given this specific context, does anybody see anything illogical about this law given the current challenges of the 21st century (e.g., need for creativity, global understanding, and sustainability), perhaps from the perspective of a second- or third-order cyberneticist?
I don't understand what you are asking, after reading it twice. Could
you simplify? There are always plenty of conclusions that can be drawn
from a generalized law.
Thanks,
Jack
|
