1. WHY
WORK?
An analysis of society, the economy, the
place of work in daily life and how to
achieve a fairer society with greater
economic justice.
Graham Little
2. 2
Why Work?
Understanding the importance and power
of each person in a free society. The role of
government and how each person can
contribute to a better life for all.
Graham Little PhD
3. 3
Executive summary
The global financial crash, 2008-2013, caused much financial
suffering. In America for example, it is suggested that many billions of
dollars of wealth were transferred from poorer people to wealthier and
more powerful. There were protests and marches in many countries all
demanding the same thing namely a fairer share of the economic pie.
The Western World economic management is grounded on two
fundamentally different sets of ideas. The free market economy of
Adam Smith, and the centrally controlled economy of Karl Marx.
The free market economic system is often derisively referred to
as the ‘trickle down’ theory namely that as the rich get richer some of
the wealth ‘trickles down’ to those below. This disparaging reference
reflecting the view that the system really does not work and there are
those who remain disadvantaged.
There are many variations, such as China operating a single
political system and enabling a partly free economy. The success of the
Chinese experiment is yet to be determined. In Europe the mixed
economy is free market with a social welfare safety net. The types of
problems that emerge in the mixed model are well illustrated by recent
struggle to bail out Greece, where the problem was not the debt, but
the ongoing large difference between expenditure substantially on
welfare, and government income such the welfare could not be
sustained.
Adam Smith wrote his treatise mid to late-1700s, Marx mid to
late-1800s. There has been much written since, but there has been no
fundamental change and the two extreme systems of thinking remain.
Neither the work of Adam smith nor the work of Karl Marx nor
any of their disciplines, nor any work written since, is grounded on
thorough social science. For example, there is today, other than
4. 4
expressed here, no understanding of causality and how it would apply
in a social system. The result is there is no guarantee that the improved
understanding of causality in social systems would not totally invalidate
the ideas of both original thinkers and all efforts since. At best, this
leaves the ideas of the original thinkers as tentative and potentially
unreliable. I show how the failure of these two sets of ideas is due the
fact the ideas lack intellectual substance. Both sets of ideas (Marx and
Smith) have superficial appeal, but lack the intellectual integrity to fulfil
the faith placed in them. We need better ideas and those can only come
from better social science.
In the one hundred years and more since the treatises were
written, and arising from application of the ideas of each thinker, we
have learned that at its core each system has a central strength. Free
markets best enable economic creativity and growth of wealth,
centralized distribution of wealth best protects people from adverse
economic circumstance and ensures their share arising from their effort
is not denied them due the wrong reasons, mainly politics.
This leads to the central question addressed in this work: How
do we understand the links between people, the economy, and
wealth creation, using that understanding to design an
economic/political system so that people get their fair share?
Further, and importantly, that people believe the system fair.
This is a search for economic justice. A political work based on
applying thorough social science providing insight into key linkages
between wealth creation and people. A work intended to offer direction
for change such that people feel the system just, so everyone can relax
and get on with raising everyone’s enjoyment and fulfilment from life.
Perhaps we need return to the basics, but how? Global social
science has not provided the sort of insight and understanding of social
systems, including psychology, as provided by say, quantum physics. In
5. 5
my life time the world has retreated from science and reason into a
loose spiritualism and mysticism, I argue due in no small part that there
is no science in social science, it has failed to the point that almost any
pronouncement can be made and there is no rational framework
whereby it can be refuted. People select the ideas from whatever sales
pitch most appeals.
This work begins with a search for intellectual fundamentals.
What intellectual tools do we use to conceptualize society, the economy
and our links to both? Then when we apply those tools, what emerges,
and what does it tell us? What is the solution to the question of building
a more just and more effective economic system that taps the talents
of everyone, offers fulfilment from work as a way of life, and distributes
the wealth in a manner where people are relaxed and regard the system
as ‘fair’?
Better science enables better technology that when applied leads
to better results. To achieve better science, we need better intellectual
tools to apply to the situation under study. Hence the first half of the
book is devoted to intellectual considerations then applied to the
question of our social structure and how it needs to be changed to
achieve greater economic justice. Master the first half, and the second
half falls into place. The first half provides the intellectual framework,
the tools of mind, to ‘see’ what is being said in the second half. Once
seen, and seen to be reasoned using agreed tools transparently applied,
then you will need decide if you will adopt the founding principle that
better science enables better technology, and therefore adopt the policy
emerging from the analysis.
The intellectual tools chosen are those of W Ross Ashby, the
founder of cybernetics. The nature of the tools is fully considered, and
shown how they are the crucial tools of conceptualization, producing
6. 6
understanding enabling better management of the situations to which
the understanding applies.
I make no apologies for the demand for some thinking and
reflection in order to understand. We cannot seriously expect an apt
and accurate theory of society to be achieved without some in depth
intellectual consideration of what we are doing.
I argue the future of humanity depends on commitment to the
path of reason via selection of appropriate tools and thorough
application of those tools. Human salvation lies in reason, and adopting
the ideas that when implemented enable the best result for all. The
standard is balance, fairness, and justice. There may be an emotional
preference for this or that point of view. We may favor this group more
than that group. I argue all such considerations must be placed to one
side. We need invest our faith in sound intellectual tools, thoroughly
and transparently applied, and adopt the policy arising from the
analysis.
The solution arising from the tools: A precise structural link
between individual effort and community health. Identification of the
structural obstacle that deflects the current system from achieving
economic fairness. Suggested changes to the Law and regulation
surrounding the economy and wealth creation so the system is
economically fairer. Political action so that the changes to the
appropriate Law and regulation are implemented.
7. 7
Postscript to the executive summary
I need declare my bias, every human spirit arriving into this world
has the inalienable right to fulfil itself, and to express itself in the world
as it sees fit, to enjoy a fair economic return for effort, provided in so
doing it does not interfere with the economic returns, or right of others
to do the same. I define this as ‘ethical fulfilment’.
Further, that our social systems, norms, mores, religious and legal
processes need to be orientated to supporting everyone find ethical
fulfilment in his or her life. The standard of performance measure for
all authority, moral, religious, legal, intellectual or political, is its
effectiveness in enabling greater ethical fulfilment now, today, alive on
earth, for the people in sway of that authority. The standard is to lift
the quality of life for the living, leading into yet greater quality of life
tomorrow for our children and grandchildren who in turn lift the
quality of life of their children and…
If any authority fails to meet this standard then that authority
needs removed from office, dismissed as a source of authority,
preferably peaceably, but by force of arms if needed.
9. 9
Contents
1. Why bother?..............................................................................12
2. Defining the questions ............................................................16
3. To date social science has not delivered...............................24
4. Simple thinking tools to improve understanding ................34
5. Discussion of Ashby tools and diagrams..............................51
6. Understanding ourselves.........................................................63
7. The dominance of ideas and moderation of self-interest...74
8. Beginning with social values...................................................81
9. Understanding the passionate core of culture......................88
10. Economic fairness not equality .........................................99
11. Understanding the modern economy............................ 102
12. Understanding organizations .......................................... 107
13. Linking individual success to organization success ..... 114
14. Linking organization success to economic success ..... 122
15. Linking economic success to community success....... 123
16. Linking the individual to community success .............. 124
17. Wealth creation and the role of profit........................... 126
18. The community demand is always the same................. 129
19. The issue of governance.................................................. 132
20. Placing politics within an ethical framework................ 139
21. ...okay, but what is new and what does it mean?.......... 166
22. The psychology of economics ........................................ 178
23. Understanding the economy in the community........... 186
24. Engaging the power of the people................................. 193
25. Changes to governance regulation................................. 202
10. 10
26. What is the role of competition? .................................... 211
27. Taxation and politics........................................................ 212
28. Managing automation....................................................... 219
29. The confusion of free trade............................................. 220
30. Transparency and auditing............................................... 221
31. Social motivation, satisfaction and dissatisfaction ....... 228
32. Sounds great, but what do I do...?.................................. 233
33. ...am I really expected to make an effort at work?....... 234
34. The future .......................................................................... 235
35. Appendix: Essays.............................................................. 243
Lack of ethics a recipe for disaster................................................243
The new social science paradigm ..................................................244
The structure of truth......................................................................301
The psychology of freedom...........................................................310
It is the message not the medium .................................................316
36. About Graham Little........................................................ 319
Intellectual background...................................................................319
Books.................................................................................................322
The intellectual foundation ............................................................324
What am I?........................................................................................326
Summary of intellectual background............................................329
Formal CV........................................................................................332
Research ............................................................................................334
Publications.......................................................................................336
Employment history........................................................................344
Skill summary ...................................................................................345
Personal qualities .............................................................................346
12. 12
1. Why bother?
This offering is intended to guide political action so that you, a
typical, average member of society, a working person ... whether
sweeping floors, stacking shelves, selling behind a retail counter, a
partner in a legal or accounting firm, or a working CEO ... is offered a
fully scientific analysis of society with suggested changes so that you
experience greater economic justice. Some level of injustice is likely to
always persist, no solution in practice is likely to be perfect. The intent
is for you to feel the free democratic society proposed offers greater
economic justice than our current society.
One slogan is well known: Workers of the world unite! The
slogan emerging from this book might be: Demand your fair share! The
point is we need to be united to get your fair share. Being united means
putting in power those parties that agree with the analysis and will
implement it.
Exhortations alone are shallow and empty. To guide action that
is apt and valid the analysis needs to be apt and valid. You need to
believe in the analysis. So yet a further slogan might be: Get the concept
right first!
The ideas here are neutral in the sense they are neither ‘left’ nor
‘right’. The sole concern is to scientifically understand society in a
manner enabling decisions as to the path offering the greatest
economic justice. People are important, all people, no group emerges
favored. The analysis shows that today we do have some groups
favored over others and it is that that needs to be changed. If you at
times feel disenfranchised, powerless, even in our democracy, with all
its commitment to justice, public companies, share markets,
transparency, and the like, it is because at times it is real, and you are
powerless. Like when the company you worked at for 30 years, and that
13. 13
your grandparents helped get under way, just up and left to lower
wages in Thailand, or Mexico, or...and your small community in which
you grew, and your parents grew, collapsed under the weight of debt
and lack of opportunity.
You joined the political protest, marched to Parliament, or
occupied Wall Street. But to no avail. You watched your parents go
from comfortable middle age to elderly poor. Worked hard all their
lives, lost a son in eastern wars and resistance to terrorism, solid
citizens, now broke and struggling due decisions by governance they
never met, and who had hardly even visited the town. Is that just?
We need better ideas than that of capitalism, free markets of
Adam Smith or collective central control, socialism, Karl Marx. Better
ideas where it is unacceptable for senior economist to go on TV
supporting liberalization of finance regulation that months later
resulted in what is called the global financial crash. We need curb the
potential manipulation of our social and economic systems enabling
transfers of wealth from the less off to the better off and which
contributed creating a recession throughout the rest of the world.
Exhortations are shallow, so we need solid analysis offering
definite and irrevocable insight and understanding of what is happening
and how to manage it. And more, it must be so that anyone can
understand it, not shrouded in unnecessary complexity or intellectual
jargon.
We begin by carefully defining the problem, and the questions
arising from it. Then discuss the intellectual tools we need to do the
analysis. This lays a definite foundation for building our understanding.
We proceed by discussing the general theory of psychology that
emerges by applying the tools to the circumstance ‘a person in their
environment’.
14. 14
We then apply the theories developed to understand and analyze
organizations. Here we pause, since understanding the organization
provides us with the primary tool for understanding society.
Finally, we explore what it all means and how can we achieve
greater economic justice.
I stated earlier this analysis is neutral to left and right politics,
which is strictly true, but there does emerge a crucial question the
answer to which can easily be interpreted as ‘left’ or ‘right’.
Should an organization serve society or the society serve
the organization?
I state now, in case you are of the opposite persuasion, my moral
and ethical choice is that the organization is a vehicle of
community/social wealth creation and as such must serve the
community/society. This can be inferred as ‘liberal’, or ‘left’ in the
previous terms. Especially since as I will discuss, implementing this
position will curtail the rights and authority of those governing our
organizations in many crucial ways.
The analysis shows that the modern economic structure is at root
feudal, with control of organizations effectively vested in boards of
directors, the governance, associated with senior officials and
politicians I call the power elite. With the governance replacing the
feudal lord. Efforts to spread decision making, such as public listed
companies, Union representative as part of the governance, and staff
representatives as part of governance, staff shareholding, etc., have not
achieved the high hopes and ambitions held for those ideas. The steps
to spread authority and decision making are good ideas, proposed and
acted upon with integrity, the reason they have not worked as they were
intended is due to the intrinsic structure of society, this is bought to the
fore when the tools for understanding and simplifying complex social
circumstances are aptly applied.
15. 15
The intrinsic structure of Western democratic society leads to an
Orwellian conversion, where those promoted to governance ranks are
seduced by its power and privilege. As in Animal Farm the animals
looking through the windows see the pigs socializing with the humans.
Those in favor of retaining existing governance control of our
economic organizations could be labelled as ‘conservative’, or ‘right’.
I now proceed with the analysis, and leave it to you to determine
your choice of answer to the key ethical question of economic justice
before us. In our choice lies the nature of the society in which our
children will mature.
16. 16
2. Defining the questions
Imagine being a member of a small tribe in say central Asia 5000
years ago. The tribe can trace its ancestors back for 500 years. The tribe
has extensive knowledge of food, shelter, travel, herbs for medicines,
weather, etc. There is a written genealogical history, as well as extensive
oral history and mythology. There is accurate oral narrative of other
tribes and the geography for some 2000 kilometres around the village.
There is also an oral narrative surrounding events such as earthquakes,
violent storms and wars with neighbouring tribes.
Life is peaceful, although at times hard with occasional
unpredictable weather resulting in crop failures and failure of the herds
of antelope to show when expected for reasons largely unknown. Roles
are tightly structured, with woman doing the work in the fields and
around the home and the men expected to hunt and forage for the
higher energy foods. This is seen as a natural order and part of the
written and oral history. As part of development young people are
carefully versed in all aspects of history, roles, and the actions that lead
to tribal health and wealth. There is a tribal leader but this is not
hereditary rather elected by the tribal council who tend to choose the
best person for the task. The role of tribal leader is best described as
‘chairmanship’. Tribal leadership is occasionally female.
Now imagine the mind of a person raised in the village at age say,
eighteen. They are fully mature and fully part of tribal village life. They
have a complete orientating framework of the world in which they live
and their part in it. Central to their understanding is they know their
place and their role.
In the village perhaps they lived on cultivated rice, fruit, and
hunting. Different groups in the community attended to different
things, the community was organized to get done that which it knew
17. 17
needed done for the community to survive. Survival included warriors
to protect and defend the community.
The young man knew what they needed do to ‘do their bit’. It is
most likely that everyone in the village community understood their
role and responsibilities relative to community survival. Also, that
everyone was expected to ‘do their bit’… and significant tensions
created if someone sought to avoid their community duty and expected
then to be supported by the rest of the community. It is very personal,
since the person expected to be supported is an associate or neighbor,
etc.
The link between daily actions are community success is very
clear.
Going back before such a village, say 40,000 years ago. Perhaps
living in small groups. Humanity 40,000 years ago was both physically
and behaviorally the same as today. The people 40,000 years ago were
like us.
Would there be any doubt about what was needed to be done to
survive? Would a person be in any doubt as to what they needed to do,
and what was expected of them? Would a group member be able to
goof off whenever they choose, leaving it to the rest of the small group,
maybe just two families, to do the necessary work of survival?
If it was just group of say a dozen individuals, largely a family
group perhaps, then one goofing off was a major loss of resource and
perhaps crucial skills. That was one of the benefits of the group,
everyone was seen as important, with a role to play in supporting and
enabling group survival.
There would be tensions between individuals...not everyone
always likes everyone else, and even 40,000 years ago there would be
alpha males and competition for power, and for females. Please do not
18. 18
react to the gender bias, it is only in the last few hundred years that we
have been developing gender equality.
Would interpersonal tensions and competition outweigh what
was needed for group survival? Because of internal group competition
would food not be secured, shelters repaired, predatory animals
repulsed? If concerns solely internal to the group were allowed on
average to interfere with doing the things needed by the group for
survival, then the group would not survive, and we would not be here.
Humanity is more disciplined than that!
We can put the situation in a sentence using an arrow, the arrow
meaning ‘has an effect on’. So A → B, means that if A changes, this
has an effect on B, and so B changes.
a) Actual group behavior → the essentials for group survival
→ group survival.
This equation states that unless the group’s actual behavior
matches those actions needed to ensure group survival, then group
survival will be threatened. I have defined the arrow, and will discuss
this form of expression in more detail in a latter chapter. It is applying
the tools of W Ross Ashby, the equation a) I define as an Ashby
diagram. The factors in the equation are ‘variables’ that is they are
aspects of situation chosen such as to provide insight and
understanding of the situation. Variables do not define a situation, they
merely point to a set of options to be examined to understand what is
happening.
For example, from a), we could explore how clear the group is
on those actions the best enable survival, then we could explore the
match between what the group did, and those actions needed from
survival. Imagine we investigated two groups, in similar areas, and
found one group understood the survival actions 9 out of 10, while the
19. 19
other only 7 out of 10. The difference due the fact the first group had
several sources of food and had the tools to exploit those sources of
food, whereas the second group had not discovered those sources of
food. Further study revealed the first group applied itself to the task of
the survival actions just 6 out of 10, whereas the second group applied
itself 9 out of 10, and in fact had refined and honed several skills at
food gathering. The result was it really did not need the extra source of
food. This analysis and rating of the two groups enables us to assess
their survival potential.
We are now being ‘scientific’ and ‘objective’ about the groups by
applying intellectual tools that offer understanding of what is
happening. The analysis offers solid evidence for any conclusions. The
key point is the relationship between the ‘variable’ in the Ashby
equation and the expression of the variable in an actual situation. All
variables derived from any situation hold the exact same relationship
to that situation.
The variable is a conceptualization tool, a way of thinking about
the situation. The arrow then describes how if one variable changes,
what happens to the other variables and in what order. Overall the
Ashby diagram or equation offers understanding of what is happening
within the situation chosen and describes how changes flow through
the situation leading to the final output being the final result of the
changes. Any actual situation is described by the values of the variables,
and variables themselves cannot as a matter of principle direct its own
value.
The relationship between an Ashby diagram and an actual
situation to which the diagram applies is one of theory and empirical
research, theory as variables and their relationship to the values of
those variables as expressed in the actual situation. This structure of
our thinking is very important. It is elaborated in following chapters,
20. 20
but it is best if this key point is grasped now, hence I suggest pause and
reflect.
Understanding of any situation depends on conceptualization of
the variables that describe the key elements of the situation, and the
use of the arrow to describe how a change in one of those variables
influences the other variables. This is our conceptualization of
circumstance, our theory. Any actual situation is described by the
values of the variables, and can be said to be the empirical reality
relative to our theory. In a later chapter I will discuss understanding
humanity, and show how this is fundamental to understanding
ourselves involving separation of our knowledge, as in theory and
empirical data, from an actual event, as in the values of the variables in
our theory. What is crucially important is understanding the separation
of our knoweldge from actual events. Second, that the separation of
knowledge and event is intrinsic to the structure of our psyche, it can
be no other way. Finally, arising from this it is crucial we understand
and are clear on the relationship our knowledge must necessarily make
with events we experience. We never experience our theories, as a
matter of principle we can only experience the values of the variables
in our theories.
I repeat, all understanding depends on conceptualization. This is
fundamental to the nature and operation of our mind. It immediately
follows that in our knowledge is the conceptualization whereby we
‘understand’, and the experience of the events to which we apply and
explain our understanding. Our understanding must not be confused
with our experience of the situation, they are very different things.
It then further follows we need intellectual tools we apply to our
experience of any situation. The tools then enable us to build better
conceptualizations, better theory of the situation, and we can then test
our theory to the situation to see if it fits the facts we know arise in the
21. 21
situation. The better the intellectual tools, the better the theory the
better the understanding the more likely theory matches data, and from
the theory we can derive more effective technology to manage the
situation.
For any situation the variables selected should express the
‘essence’ of the understanding we seek...an imprecise term, but apt
since there is no way a priori, to determine the variables. It is a
judgement based on experience, insight and trial and error searching
for the theory that best fits the facts. Understanding is defined as apt
and accurate when an Ashby diagram matches the empirical evidence
and provides accurate prediction of the outcome in some specific
situation.
a) Actual group behavior → the essentials for group survival
→ group survival.
We can now state equation a) is our theory, conceptualized by
applying Ashby tools, linking actual human behavior in a village or
family group many thousands of years ago.
When an Ashby diagram provides the correct answer, it provides
understanding of the events within the situation by way of how one
variables influences another, such that we have prediction of the
outcome from specific changes. I define this as understanding of the
mechanisms inherent within the situation. Understanding based on
Ashby diagrams is an advance on merely using mathematics to calculate
the correct answer. Mere calculation provides no insight into the
mechanisms, whereas Ashby diagrams does offer such insight. Ashby
diagrams are to be preferred since once we understand what is going
on, then we have the option of managing it more effectively. (Refer
The Origin of Consciousness in About)
We can describe a situation where the group loses its focus, and
fails to survive as follows.
22. 22
b) Actual group behavior → internal competition
↓_
The essentials for group survival.
The line through the arrow states that those things essential for
group survival are not attended too therefore group survival is
jeopardized. The group can correct jeopardizing its survival by
choosing to shift its focus and action from internal issues b), and back
to survival issues a).
In a small community 40,000 years ago, the analysis is easy to
understand. Survival is very real and the group likely on the very edge
of it every day. The overall Ashby equation describing the economic
development of the community 40,000 years ago is below
1. Understanding of factors determining economic
development of the community within its environment.
Arising from cultural history, experience, trial and error and
smart individuals.
↓
2. Identify those actions, called ideal actions, necessary for
economic development. Derived from the understanding of
the factors determining economic development,
independent of any one person, but subject to creative
effort to find more effective ways to economically develop
the community.
↓
3. The economic development work distributed through
various sub-groups with actual behavior matching ideal
actions to a crucial minimum required standard. If the
people do not match actual behavior with the ideal actions
23. 23
to the minimum required standard, the whole community
can suffer.
This is a verifiable and testable scientific theory linking
measurable variables in causal sequence offering insight and
understanding in ancient communities of the link between individual
conduct to group survival.
For the purposes of this discussion it is shown as directional,
however human conceptualization would relate the output from one
step to the insight of the step before, and so the community would
evolve deepening understanding of what it was doing and how to do it
better. For example, experience of a poor crop after some particular
weather could result in the group deciding that if the weather is ‘such
and such’, then it is best if the crops are managed by doing such... The
understanding could be recorded in the community records and
thereby become part of the cultural understanding of the group passed
from one generation to the next. Accepting the definition of improving
survival was an aspect of economic development, we can now state that
the community was engaged in economic development.
The questions we must consider are whether it is different today?
Is any aspect of this analysis applicable today? If so, why, and how can
we understand it? Specifically, if we apply the Ashby tools and build
Ashby equations describing the situation today, how will it differ from
the analysis of the community 40,000 years ago, and what will it tell us
about our modern society?
24. 24
3. To date social science has not
delivered
The key question is how do we build a wealthy, fair society in
which everyone enjoys life to its full?
The question has a long history; it likely did not begin with Plato
and the ancient Greeks, but that is a good start. Rousseau wrote how
the world belonged to everyone, and how society eroded the natural
moral goodness in people. In modern times we have many authors each
pressing claim to this or that point of view, but is any of it sound
science consistent with operation of the human mind, as introduced in
the previous chapter?
The focus is on making our communities wealthier on the
assumption that if the community is wealthier then it can afford better
sanitation, education, food, water, shelter, security, medical services,
social support infrastructure, and can reduce the adverse effects of
poverty. In short, greater wealth enables better health.
It is accepted that better science builds better bridges. Then
better social science will build better society. Over the last fifty years
the world has retreated from reason and moved deeper into mysticism
and informal religions of many types. We have continuing debate over
evolution for example, and the polemic of Richard Dawkins informs
and divides.
We can ask why people persist with such unreasoned views. The
answer I think is much simpler than frequently recognized, they seek
answers that satisfy. This retreat from reason is due substantially the
failure of social science to deliver answers. Some would say science
cannot deliver the answers to social issues people seek but I regard this
position as excusing their lineage of thought from the failure.
25. 25
Reason, and science is a product of reason, is human kind’s only
salvation. If we are to invest faith in something, then let it be reason,
since we all can believe in reason. No other belief has such reach. But,
and it is an important but, to use reason we need an agreed starting
point and agreed tools and method we apply to our start point.
Freud, Jung, Skinner, Karl Marx, Adam Smith and everyone in
between, before and since, has failed. As the world came to understand
the emptiness of theory after theory, then anyone with a point of view
and willing to climb on a soap-box could proselytize with impunity,
since there were no clear well defined tools to be used or intellectual
standards that had to be met. Any demand for such standards and
people merely pointed to this or that existing assertion or failed theory
and the demand was immediately eroded, since repeatedly standards of
intellectual structure had not been insisted upon. I will discuss later
what exactly is meant.
We come to a key point: Theoretical physics is a respected
discipline, theoretical social science almost regarded as a joke.
I recall couple of years ago I attended a writers meeting. During
the coffee break I chatted with a charming woman who told me she
was a novelist with five books to her name. She said she sold sufficient
to be a full time writer. She asked what I do. I told her I was a business
consultant and writer. She asked what I wrote about. I replied
organizations, society and theoretical social science. She laughed and
said ‘so you are a creative novelist as well’.
In thirty years of reflection on failed social science I concluded
the problem was not the people, not the intellectuals or practitioners,
but the tools that were being applied. I likened the tools to giving a
house painter a wet blanket for a brush together with a pail of oil paint
and telling them to paint the house and then criticizing them for doing
26. 26
a poor, messy job. Theoretical physics is a respected discipline yet
theoretical social science is not. Why? The answer is twofold.
First, lack of adequate tools for theory creation: In physics
mathematics is used to guide conceptualization but that does not work
very well in social science, so we need improved systematic tools for
theory creation. Second, and more general, a broad lack of
understanding of the crucial strategic development of science, deeply
embedded in the notion of how science grows, how scientific
understanding grows.
I do not wish to go too far into epistemology, sufficient to point
out that if we build a house on sand, or like one of the three pigs we
build it of poor materials, we ought to not be surprised when it fails.
As with houses so with understanding: To build secure
understanding we need build it of strong materials resting on a solid
base.
Let’s begin with one of the world’s great slogans: Workers of the
world unite! That line from Marx and Engels has echoed through the
world and shook its very foundations for the 130 years since it was
written… Why? Such ideas only find such strong popular root when
they crystallize a line of thinking that was already occurring, hence the
slogan of Marx and Engels merely focused and gave voice to an
inarticulate feeling among people that their social world was lacking.
The slogan – workers of the world unite - and supporting analysis
also gave a direction to correct the sense of dissatisfaction within
society that direction was called socialism, supported by a movement
called unions. The slogan was about the mobilization of groups of
people to combat the power and authority of other groups of people.
That was the very essence of Marx, commonly called class conflict.
But we still have not answered how? We still do not have a clear
and accurate causal theory of society where we can see how it occurs.
27. 27
We do not have a theory of society that links people in fact to society,
and to the economy.
Socialism failed, why? We still do not really understand it,
because we have no theory of society that is able to explain it. Again
why…?
The question is why a theory like Marx, of such deep popular
appeal, fail to serve that popular appeal? This question is not about
Marx at all, but is about the structure of knowledge and what
constitutes sound reasoned thinking and what does not.
Would you build a house from the top down? The idea is silly.
One must begin with the foundations which themselves need to be
strong if the house is to be strong. In intellectual endeavor what is it
that represents strong foundations and strong building materials? I
have considered this question in depth in The Origin of Consciousness
and will not repeat the analysis merely consider the conclusions.
I have already discussed the need for well-constructed tools, and
the importance of their thorough applications. I elaborate these points
in the following chapter. The second crucial issue is what I define as
strategic science. To build the house we must begin at the bottom with
the foundations, so we must do first things first. The exact same
principle applies in intellectual endeavor, and this is the chief reason
why Marx theories failed, they were not built on a secure base, they
were not built on a base at all, and as a result they were simply wrong.
The theories of Marx, touched a popular nerve, they were nice theories
offering warm feelings to people, but failed people because they did
not work in practice.
I stress at this point that we need deeply understand the
relationship between first, our conceptualizations or understanding or
theory, second the empirical data which our theory must describe and
for which our theory must account, third the situation itself with which
we are faced, and finally our emotions as regard that situation.
28. 28
Decisions about our theories must be detached from our feelings about
the situations to which our theories apply. This emotional detachment
applies even to our personal theories, and we all have them it is how
we work as a species. Decisions on which theory provides best
understanding of a situation is an intellectual decision, and while we
may use intuition, we do not use our emotion as regards the situation
which can easily lead us in the wrong direction intellectually.
Strategic intellectual endeavor is when the core underlying issues
that bear to some topic are fully accounted for in discussion of the
topic.
I continue to use Marx as an instructive example of the
intellectual failings of theory which offers emotional appeal. Imagine a
theory of society that explains things by way of conflict between
groups, class conflict. What questions could be asked of such a theory?
I offer several below.
What exactly is the relationship of society to individual
psychology?
What exactly are the causal factors in any group? Including very
large groups.
What is cause? Since if the theory to be viable it needs to be
causal.
To what extent to ideas influence people?
If ideas influence people, then how does the theory of class
conflict influence the psychology of people engaged in that conflict?
What we know is knowledge. Seems silly but it is important to
remind ourselves of that fact, what we know is knowledge. This raises
other questions... What is knowledge and what is science as a subset of
knowledge? How do we understand science, and can we scientifically
discuss society without understanding knowledge and hence science?
Can we scientifically discuss anything without understanding science?
That is, if what we know of society is knowledge, which it must be,
29. 29
then how can we apply knowledge without knowing what knowledge
is and where it comes from etc., ...? We all sort of sense we know what
knowledge is, but really, what exactly is the link between knowledge
and objects of that knowledge, and how is it generated in our
psychology, and how is it causal, etc. It gets very deep very quickly.
Knowledge lies in the answer wisdom in the next question. The
thrust of strategic science is to ask the next question.
Terrible things these questions… we are not allowed to assume
anything, we are not allowed to take anything for granted, we must
validate everything. It does slow things down a lot, but makes us really
think and dig deep into what we really understand before moving on
to the next topic. A thoroughly questioning mind… a hard task
master… brings integrity and balance to our intellectual effort, to
science, and in particular brings depth and solidarity to our reason. It
is only in the depth of this questioning digging hard into global
understanding and relating our questions to earlier questions either
answered or identifying and acknowledging those yet to be answered -
first things first - then and only then are we truly entitled to call
ourselves ‘scientists’. This idea of scientist travels far beyond the
evening news clip as the latest somewhat superficial scientific
breakthrough is given its 90 seconds of fame. Too frequently such a
news item is driven by the ego of the scientist more than by the realistic
significance of the research.
I easily asked a lot of questions about the work of Marx that he
did not address nor even seriously conceptualize. His work lacked
scientific depth, was written about with a vigor and authority his work
did not justify. He did not have answers he had an opinion, it lacked
intellectual integrity.
Intellectually at stake is a truly fundamental idea for all of science.
It not legitimate to discuss some topic when there are unresolved issues
that could impact the topic and reorder our understanding of the topic.
30. 30
When we do discuss a topic, and leave issues that could impact the
topic unresolved then we must ensure people understand what we have
done. This is called intellectual integrity, when the discussion on the
topic in question has no unresolved underlying issues.
The work used as example, the intellectual work of Marx, lacked
intellectual integrity. Now that seems particularly unfair since Marx
wrote and used the insight and tools of his day, but none the less it is
accurate.
For Marx, he needed to preface his work … I have spent many years
reflecting on this topic, in the absence of a general theory of psychology, and general
theory of cause, both of which could influence this work, I speculate that…
I doubt that with such a preface the ideas would have had the
same impact on the world, and as I discuss later, millions of people
would not have died in the name of the ideas he initiated.
The fundamental scientific principle of first things first is a fierce
ethical rule intrinsic to the very nature of serious intellectual endeavor.
Strategic science controls what we can say on any topic, limiting
discussion on any topic within the bounds of what is already known on
issues prior to the topic but essential to the full understanding of the
topic.
It is important to understand that any criticism of Marx for
example, is not ideological. If we assume that Adam smith and his book
Wealth of Nations was the beginning of the free market viewpoint,
then his work is deficit in exactly the same way. For example, there is
no ‘invisible hand’ of a market. Any inference that there is begs the
question, ‘how?’ what are the causal mechanism, which of course needs
an understanding of cause. I stress that all this comment is about the
intellectual foundations, it is not about the ideology of left or right. It
is about building our understanding so that we can be confident in what
we ‘see’ and so enabled to make better decisions on the structure of
our society putting in place that structure we know works and is fair. I
31. 31
would make the same criticisms of Freud, Levi-Strauss, Skinner, and
work of most historical intellectuals. First things first was not an
intellectual demand made of them, was not the core epistemological
foundation on which historical social science including psychology was
built, as a result theory after theory failed. Social science has failed.
It is important that the principle of first things first is intrinsic to
science, and accepted as intrinsic to our personal reasoning. The
principle of first things first limits any discussion on any topic by what
is known of crucial issues related to but prior to the topic. ‘First things
first’ is a principle intrinsic to the very development of our knowledge.
It is not some ethical choice made by a person. If we want our ideas to
have solid foundation, then we must apply first things first, and we
must use well defined tools.
Anyone not obeying the rule of first things first are engaging in
speculation without intellectual foundation, without intellectual
integrity. Speculation without foundation is science fiction, not science.
If we are to act and to change our social structure so it better
serves us then we need do so applying ideas that have intellectual
integrity. We need to be confident we are not merely making more
intellectual mistakes that have dogged our social structure for hundreds
of years. We need understanding with depth of reasoning behind it. We
need give substance to our slogans.
Around mid-1980s, Karl Popper had shown that knowledge
exists independent of the knower. A text book contains knowledge
independent of the people, and this knowledge then can have its own
‘life’, be developed, etc., in ways not seen by the author. Popper called
this knowledge objective knowledge, or World III, to use his
terminology.
Following Popper, I reasoned that everything that was free
standing had a structure, therefore if knowledge existed in its own right,
was free standing, then knowledge had to have a structure. Also, about
32. 32
mid-eighties, I read the W Ross Ashby book, Design for a Brain,
Chapman Hall, London and came to understand immediate and
ultimate effects, etc., the intellectual tools of the British cyberneticist.
It was immediately apparent that applying the tools of ultimate
and immediate effects produced knowledge with a very precise
structure. I understood the tools of Ashby were the very processes of
conceptualization. Over the following twenty years I then established
a general theory of psychology applying Ashby tools to the system
‘person in their environment’, while simultaneously showing how
Ashby tools were the conceptualization of how we as a species
conceptualized. This was the crucial reflexive criteria essential for any
general theory of psychology. Humans produced knowledge, a general
theory of psychology was knowledge therefore the theory had to
directly account for its own existence. This type of reflexivity
permeated Western philosophy as wonderfully illustrated by Douglas
Hofstadter, in Gödel, Escher and Bach. As much as anything else, it
was the resolution of this crucial reflexive criteria that gave me
confidence my general theory of psychology was valid and the only
available general theory of psychology. It still is the only general theory
that meets the crucial criteria of reflexivity. (Refer The Origin of
Consciousness, in About).
Ashby also showed how the tools gave knowledge that could be
made mathematical. I reasoned the tools of Ashby in fact were
precursors to mathematics, perhaps the conceptual foundation to
mathematics as attempted many decades before by Bertrand Russell
and Alfred Whitehead in Principia Mathematica. Principia is a
substantial work destroyed by Gödel who showed that within any
formal set of axioms there were always legitimate sentences possible
that could not be proved from within the axioms. Gödel was important
since he proved mathematics was an open system not bounded by its
axioms.
33. 33
As an aside, theoretical physics uses mathematics to build and
explore theories, if we apply the principle of ‘first things first asking the
next question’ we ask ‘why?’ Why should the universe follow any set of
reasoning we humans may have invented? The theory of knowledge
that emerged in The Origin of Consciousness explains why that is so,
since if the fundamental foundation structure of knowledge is
immediate and ultimate effects, and these are mathematical, then our
scientific knowledge is intrinsically mathematical. We do not actually
know if the universe follows our mathematical formulas, but we do
know that our knowledge of the universe does.
Einstein wrote E=mc² before it was discovered empirically, that
is we had the theory substantially before we had the empirical proof.
The equation was part of the theoretically structure that lead to the
atom bomb. It follows that while our knowledge of the universe
parallels mathematics, there must be at least under some circumstances
congruence between our knowledge of the universe and the universe,
for if not, then the bomb would not have the explosive power as
expressed in the Einstein equation.
I do not wish to go in too far, the crucial point is that the tools
of Ashby, ultimate and immediate effects, and primary operations,
supported by my work on variables and their relationship to
perception, to psychology and to perceptual fields, represents nothing
short of a re-conceptualization of social science. A new social science
that explains why statistics exists in any science and offers greatly
improved theoretical insight and understanding of the intellectual
structure of social science.
For a cornerstone paper, see The Origin of Consciousness, or
see the post on LinkedIn, The intellectual structure of social science
(refer About).
34. 34
4. Simple thinking tools to improve
understanding
It is easy to rant over the failings of social science, as it is easy to
rant over any perceived failing. The hard part is coming up with
effective alternatives. Then the even harder part, proving one’s
alternative is in fact better.
One cannot build a house from the roof down. No business
person of sound judgment would sign off on a business plan for a
product without analysis of the market, competition, customer
preferences, likely pricing, capital needed and gross margin, etc.
This principle, of ‘first things have to be done first’ is equally
applicable to intellectual endeavor. For example, if one seeks a general
theory of say, psychology, and if one wants it to be reproducible, and
hence causal, then there has to be a theory of cause. Second, to identify
the mechanisms in the system person ↔ environment there has to be
understanding of the tools being used in theory creation. If we do not
do these first things first, then we are left with the potential for
someone come after us and develop a theory of cause that could alter
all our work.
Technically I define ‘first things first’ as: Discussion on any topic
must be bounded by what is known of the prior issues that are able to
impact the topic. If we do not resolve issues prior to the topic that
could influence the topic, then we can have no security on any
pronouncements on the topic. If we leave unresolved any issue that
could influence the topic, and if that issue is resolved in the future, then
it could negate all we may say on the topic. I define intellectual integrity
of any proposition as one where all prior issues are resolved and
accounted for. If any prior issues are not accounted for then we must
declare the lack of intellectual integrity up front so that people are
35. 35
placed in a position to fully assess the proposal we make on any topic.
If issues prior to any topic are not resolved, and we make
pronouncements on the topic and do not declare the limitations of our
work, then we fail the standard of ensuring our work has intellectual
integrity. For example if a builder builds a house knowing the
foundations are weak because they did a poor job, then to have integrity
they need declare this to the potential buyer. We all know that does not
happen, and we all understand exactly why, they would never close the
deal. It is all too common when ideas are offered to people they lack
intellectual integrity, for the same reason, if they were offered with
intellectual integrity the limitations of the ideas would be so apparent
the proposer would never close the deal.
The rule is first things must be done first. Far too often this rule
is ignored. Speculation is defined as any statement on any issue that is
not grounded in all that has gone before and where the first things have
not been done first. Speculation is not acceptable, and is not science,
rather it is science fiction. This rule of first things first is quite ruthless.
For example, the works of Marx, Freud, Jung, behaviorism of Skinner,
and sociologist Levi-Strauss, Tolman, Eric Berne, and the economic
work of Adam Smith are all dismissed as speculative since they lack
adequate intellectual foundation. This is harsh judgement, unkind and
unfair, but if we are to fit rules of engagement to our intellectual efforts
to build a thorough social science then the works of these prominent
writers must be seen as purely historical with limited modern
significance. They are historical lines of thinking, and accepted as that,
but lacking in intellectual integrity, and with limited integration, by
which I mean limited insight into the link say, between a general theory
of psychology, and a general theory of society, and insight into the
economy, given that we are the only actors.
The principle of ‘first things first’ directs that we must resolve
the underlying intellectual issues that could impact our discussion of
36. 36
any topic. In social science, two essentials are an understanding of
social causality, and tools integrated into causal understanding suitable
for creating theory, both applied to build a general theory of
psychology.
You would not go to catch fish with a paint brush. The right
tools are crucial to do a good job including social science theory
creation. The use of variables and application of the Ashby principle of
primary operations and immediate and ultimate effects enables
conceptualization of the mechanism of any system, the steps applying
Ashby tools are below (derived from Ashby’s Design for a Brain).
1. Variables are the concepts used in describing the working
of any system. It is the interaction of variables that converts
inputs into outputs. Variables are then our
conceptualisation of the mechanisms of the system that are
linked via the Ashby immediate and ultimate effects to
describe how the system works. In the first instance we
create a descriptive explanation of the system; then by
extending the conceptualization using Ashby’s immediate
and ultimate effects and the relationship between the two
we build a causal explanation of the system. There is no a
priori method of determining the variables that need used
to describe a system. Variables selection to describe the
operation of any system is the result of conceptual analysis,
experience and trial and error.
2. Primary operations is producing a perturbation in one
variable and then watching the order in which variables are
impacted. More simply, primary operations is creating
change in one variable and then watching how the change
travels through the interlinked system of variables.
37. 37
3. If two variables A, B have a relationship so that when A
changes B changes then we can say A→B, and describe this
as an immediate effect.
4. If then variable C conceptualised, such that A→C→B. Then
A→C and C→ B are the immediate effects underlying A→B
which is described as an ultimate effect.
5. The relation between variables A→B is then the descriptive
explanation of the system. The relationship A→C→B is the
causal explanation relative to A→B. Cause only exits in
immediate effects relative to ultimate effects that is cause
only exists in our understanding. This point is crucial.
6. Any causal explanation must stand in relation to a descriptive
explanation. Cause is the conceptualisation of the immediate
effects relative to the ultimate effects. It is the
conceptualization of the mechanism of how the change in
the system occurs. Necessity is the physical process whereby
a change in A results in a change in B. We do not know in
advance the mechanism where the change in A results in a
change in B. When we first examine any new system the
mechanism is unknown to us. We merely observe inputs
converted to outputs. This leads to the crucial relationship
between ourselves and our understanding of Nature. I
postulate via the universal mechanistic postulate that there is
always a mechanism. Cause is knowledge, and is the
conceptualization of the mechanisms, and as such is what we
know of the necessity inherent in the system under study.
7. The tools provide direction of communication between
variables and do not necessarily describe the mechanism of
the communication channel. This is especially crucial
38. 38
understanding when dealing with situations where all we
have are the variables and their linkages.
8. Ashby diagrams also have a special property. That is in any
sequence of immediate effects we can directly form an
ultimate effect between the variable at the tail of the first
arrow with the variable at the head of the last arrow. So if
A→C→B→D→E is a flow of change from A to E, then we
can form an ultimate effect directly linking A and E, A→E
which describes how a change in A ultimate effects a change
in E. We will use this property of Ashby equation later in the
analysis.
All systems exhibit outputs resulting from the operation of the
internal mechanism within the system. Operation of the internal
mechanism relative to an input is defined as necessity. Arising from
my theory that Ashby tools are a model of scientific knowledge itself,
gives rise to the formal definition of cause: Cause is a relation between
classes of relation between classes of events. This can then be translated
into more comfortable language by saying cause is the relationship that
immediate effects make with ultimate effects, when the immediate
effects can be said to be the cause of the ultimate effects.
Conceptualization of the internal mechanism in a system in relation to
the outputs is cause. Cause is not necessity it is our conceptualization
of the mechanisms hence is our conceptualization or understanding of
necessity.
39. 39
The figures 1 and 2 illustrate the relationship between internal
mechanisms, necessity, theory creation tools and cause.
For example, we saw the sun rise and set yesterday, but because
we saw it happen yesterday is no good reason for assuming it will
Output of any system relative to an input
depends on internal mechanisms of the
system processing the input.
Figure 1: Necessity as the internal mechanisms of a system
Input Output
Mechanism = necessity
The tools enable conceptualization of the
system and its internal mechanisms.
Input A→ [C→D→E→ etc.]→B Output
Input Output
Figure 2: Cause as the conceptualization of the internal
mechanisms
Cause = conceptualization of the mechanisms =
understanding of necessity.
Proposition: A theory is causal if and only if it identifies the
mechanisms.
40. 40
happen again tomorrow. This was analyzed by the Scottish philosopher
David Hume around 1750 and is called causal expectation. Causal
expectation arises from figure 1 where we see it happen but we do not
really know why. Causal understanding is in figure 2, and is our theory
of the mechanisms within the system, the set of linked boxes through
which flows the perturbation. Our causal understanding is accurate if
and only if theory fits the facts and is predictive of future events.
Science is the social-intellectual process devoted to causal
understanding of the environment and the universe beyond.
When a theory is not causal then the only recourse to
understanding data is the use of statistics and probability. This exists
today for example, in current modern physics, quantum theory, treats
photons as a point particle, which is immediately in breach of this
proposition, and is therefore not a causal theory. This proposition
directs effort in physics to understand the internal mechanisms of a
photon and its links to its environment, then and only then science can
progress beyond current probability.
This theory of knowledge goes further in that it is projected that
‘there is always a mechanism’, this is the universal mechanistic postulate.
The result of this postulate is that there is no such thing as ‘science’, it
is all technology, since there is always an underlying level of mechanism
and insight we do not know nor understand but which we can learn to
predict by use of clever statistics. For example if we view what we
observe of photon under specific circumstances, we can refer to these
as ultimate effects. Then the universal mechanistic postulate proposes
that there are immediate effects underlying these ultimate effects, and
our task as scientists is to uncover them.
From figure 1 we can understand the solar system as a set of
mechanisms that produce the inputs and outputs we see, sun rises and
sets. We do not know what those mechanisms are, but we know they
41. 41
must exist, and the sun rising and setting is due the internal mechanisms
of the solar system.
Every system we can think of is the same and has within it, its
own internal necessity, the mechanism by which it goes tick tock, tick
tock... As an aside and fully covered in The Origin of Consciousness,
humanity does have free will embodied in our capacity to create ideas
and chose which one to act out. The capacity to create ideas and act
them out exists in all aware species, but in humankind to the greatest
extent. It is the full analysis of causation that leads to the understanding
that humanity is not bound by mechanistic necessity that determines
the non-aware aspects of the universe, that which is normally referred
to as Nature. We choose our path and hence our destiny.
Now, we apply tools of physics and astronomy, and we arrive at
gravity, nature of the sun, nature of movement of planets etc. What we
have now is a conceptual analysis of the mechanisms. Our conceptual
analysis is not the mechanism; it is our knowledge of the mechanisms.
And under the terminology used here it is called cause which is not
necessity but our understanding of necessity.
Going from figure 1 to figure 2 is to go from the fundamental of
the universe, mechanism processing inputs to produce outputs (figure
1); to conceptualization of those mechanisms into diagrams and
equations and descriptions whereby we can explain why this input
results in this output (figure 2). Figure 1 represents how we must
initially perceive the universe. We then seek explanation, which gives
rise to figure 2, our understanding of the universe.
It is crucial to understand these relationships between
perception, knowledge, cause, mechanisms and necessity. What the
terms mean and how we manage them to improve our knowledge and
via improved knowledge we improve our interaction with our
environment, including our social environment. It is crucial to
42. 42
understand the relationship between our perception and our intellect.
We experience things via our perception but only understand things via
our intellect.
In much earlier times people gave thanks to the gods for rain and
sun… their explanation at that time for the ‘mechanism’ of the box
called weather. Today, we have different explanations that serve the
same psychological purpose.
Imagine viewing ruins of houses and circumstances of some
ancient civilization. If we return to the ruins in a year or 100 years they
will be unchanged other than obvious physical decay. Are ruins the
civilization? Obviously not: So, what is needed for a civilization to
dynamically exist? What is it that makes ruins ‘living’, or conversely,
what is it that is missing in ruins that makes them ‘dead’ in the sense
they are unchanging in every way other than physical decay.
Now, imagine walking into a room, there are cups and plates
scattered about, seats in a semi-circle, two white boards filled with
notes; scraps of paper with more notes and four groups of five chairs
arranged away from the main group of chairs and well separated from
each other about the room. We can surmise there was some form of
group workshop, and from the notes we may even surmise what the
workshop was about. If we leave the room overnight and return in the
morning, then the room will be as we left it, no living actions will have
altered the features in the room.
The group room is to the group as ruins are to the civilization;
both are the remnants of dynamic causality of the living; both are
missing people engaged and active in the processes implied and
relevant to remnants. The remnants of the group activity are part of
the group outputs. There are other outputs in terms of what members
of the group carried with them in their minds relative to the activity.
For ruins and for a workshop room, then the outputs that continue in
43. 43
the minds of the members can be referred to as ‘cultural’, so now we
have two types of output, physical remnants and cultural outputs
carried forward in the mind of those participating.
In archaeological studies much of the effort goes into estimating
from remnants the nature of the minds that generated the remnants. A
very similar problem remains after any group exercise, for example, the
CEO talking to the collective regional staff, the impact on staff may be
gleaned by social acclamation such as clapping, but really the detailed
analysis of the group response can only be by way of survey of each
individual mind.
These arguments are more fully developed in The Origin of
Consciousness. The consequence is that the mechanisms of
team/group outputs are via the individual mind. A theory of teams
requires a causal understanding of psychology. There is no causality in
a group, it all occurs via the individual minds.
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the different processes and how they
impact the ‘group internal mechanisms’ (P is for person, and +, -, & 0
for the impact positive, negative or neutral).
Figure 3 is for a group input. Figure 4 is where each person in
the group is addressed individually.
44. 44
Group input:
Talks, group
training,
newsletters
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Outputs
P1 +
P2 -
P3 0
P4 +
P5 0.5
Figure 3: Statistical impact on a group
Net group impact +2.5.
Outputs only able to be considered statistically.
Does not directly engage the group internal mechanisms.
Results only
Individual input
into each mind
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Outputs
P1 +
P2 -
P3 +
P4 +
P5 +
Figure 4: Causal impact on a group
Net group impact +4.0.
Outputs able to be considered causally.
Directly engages the group internal mechanisms.
Results only
45. 45
Any group wide phenomenon that appears to have group wide
impact is merely a ‘shotgun’ scatter into the group with take up via
some percentage of individual minds in the group (figure 3).
The critical mass is when sufficient people adopt the way of
thinking that we can say the group now thinks such and such, but this
is convenient abbreviation. All social causality is via the individual mind
(figure 4) and any form of group development via the mind of each
person will be much more effective than group events.
There is no causality in ‘culture’ or society all causality in social
system is by individual action. So called ‘social action’ is merely the net
sum of the action of the members of the group, but the causation of
that action can only be analyzed in terms of summing the action of each
individual. The sum should be direction and intensity, so it perhaps
best thought of a vector addition with the length of vector indicating
the emotional intensity.
Imagine a box, call it box1; we know it is the internal mechanisms
of box1 that turns inputs into outputs. Now, imagine we
conceptualized the mechanisms of box1 to produce causal
understanding of what happens. What do we have? Conceptualization
of the mechanism produces a lot of linked smaller boxes inside the
box1, with each smaller box having an input converted by its internal
mechanisms to an output. Each ‘box’ is then a variable describing the
nature of what happens in the box, with variables linked in immediate
effects flows where change in one variable flows through all variables.
In summary, our understanding of what happen in box1 is the Ashby
diagram describing descriptive explanation.
Now imagine we take one of the boxes inside box1, call it box2,
and we then analysis the internal mechanism of box2, what do we get?
Conceptualization of the mechanism produces a lot of linked smaller
boxes inside the box2, with each smaller box having an input converted
46. 46
by its internal mechanisms to an output. We create within box2 an
Ashby diagram of the flow of change through box2.
Now imagine we take one of the boxes inside box2, call it box3,
and we then analysis the internal mechanism of box3, what do we get?
…etc.
The conceptual analysis goes to infinity, or goes to an Ashby
diagram which are all immediate effects, that is there are no underlying
effects and the diagram is not able to be reduced into its components.
There is no infinity in the real world (see The Origin of
Consciousness, About, for a full discussion on Reality and reality as
the external world and our understanding of it). There is an infinite
regress of ignorance. That is we can shrink our ignorance each time
knowledge grows, but we can only ever shrink it, we can never know
it all, and we can never know with complete certainty.
The question is whether or not there is ever any level of ‘box’
that has no internal mechanism? So then we have the ‘final and ultimate
box’. There could be such an ‘ultimate box’, but this is a huge decision,
to date, all of human intellectual history has always uncovered the
internal mechanisms of every ‘box’ we have ever created and then
discovered that the internal mechanisms themselves are just more
boxes with internal mechanisms. For example, ancient people praying
to gods for rain are merely assuming that what they think are the
internal mechanism of weather – the actions of gods – can be slanted
in their favor. Today we know the internal mechanism of weather are
not gods but complex patterns in our atmosphere, so we seek a weather
map hoping for good news.
It is this mechanistic regression argument that ends up with the
universal mechanistic postulate that there is always a mechanism.
Technically I define the postulate as: If A→ B denotes a correlation of
the universe, that is a set of events E(A) and E(B), that occur with such
47. 47
regularity and similarity as to be classified A and B. For example, the
sun rising and setting. And if A→ /m B denotes there is no mechanism
operative between A, B. And if A→ c/B denotes there is no
communication channel between A, B. Then: there exists no A→ B
such that A→ /m B, or A→ c/ B or both are ever valid. This is the
formal expression of the universal mechanistic postulate; more simply
put, there is always a mechanism.
The fact that events seem, to us, to occur without a mechanism
or in ways we cannot or are unable to conceive is a statement about our
ignorance, more precisely a statement about 'what we left behind' when
we classified the events used to explain the system.
This discussion brings to the fore an important principle, that it
is not possible to treat issues as separate, especially in social science.
The question referred to above, namely ‘whether or not there is
ever any level of ‘box’ that has no internal mechanism so we have the
final and ultimate box?’ Can be formally defined as ‘does there exist
any X→Y such there is no underlying immediate effects X→Z→Y?’
We get the same answer, namely ‘perhaps’ ... but assuming there is such
a proposition goes counter to the whole of humankinds experience to
date, and if we assume there is no such underlying immediate effect
(the Z) it will certainly reduce our search for it.
This philosophy is very different from that presented by such as
Descartes and Hume, where problems are isolated and resolved one at
a time. The argument here is based on the insight that if we are to
discuss a topic, then we need deal with any issues not resolved but if
resolved could impact the topic. This I call the ‘strategic’ aspects of
science, and gives rise to the ethics of first things first. Second, in social
science in particular then issues of knowledge depend on a theory of
psychology, and cause must be knowledge, therefore depends on
theories of knowledge. This theory of cause leads to the separation of
48. 48
cause and necessity with necessity being a property of the system,
implicit in the mechanisms that generate the outcomes of the system,
while cause is the conceptualization of those mechanisms and so is the
conceptualization of necessity.
There are some deeper issues related to our perception and the
truly fundamental perceptual structure of the universe based on
events. For a detailed discussion, see The Origin of Consciousness. I
will not dive this deep, suffice to say that the intellectual position
from which the models are build is as deep as any understanding can
go, and should anyone be interested read the suggested texts to cover
these aspects.
Recently, in private discussion I was asked ‘but why are these
intellectual foundations important, and why will they lead in an
improved direction compared to previous attempts’. This did surprise
me, since to me it is self-evident, and I had not realized it was not to
others, so I will now digress to cover the point.
The theory of causality tells us that group outputs are due the
mechanisms internal to the group. Applying the tools of theory
creation to groups we find the only mechanisms internal to a group are
in fact the individual mind of each member of the group.
The short summary of this analysis is: There is no causality in a
group; all causality is via the mind of the each individual in the group.
So group outputs are a form of mean, or perhaps better thought of as
the vector addition of the magnitude and direction of the attitudes and
emotions of each individual in the group.
So…? I can hear the question.
This is now crucially important. Adam Smith for example, argued
for free markets. That is groups of people when left to their own
decisions without constraint by regulation will make better decisions
49. 49
on behalf of society than when regulation is used. Adam Smith called
it the ‘invisible hand’. The idea of the ‘invisible hand’ is that people
acting in their self-interest will interact in group to direct resources and
distribute those resources in in the most favorable manner for society.
People act in accord with the background ethical structure. In Adam
Smith’s day there was a very different ethical structure to society, one
of focus on the greater social good in a background of Calvinism. With
the ethical structure of today, leaving people to act in their self-interest
leaves people to act according to principle of them taking what is best
for them and to hell with the rest. The failure of the argument is that
people act according to the broader ethical structure of society, not
merely according to the economic issues, Adam Smith understood this,
whereas modern interpretation consistently failed to do so. The
‘invisible hand’ argument was used in determining the deregulation of
the financial sector an action that contributed to the financial crash of
2008.
Until now decisions between ‘free market’ and ‘regulated market’
degenerated into an ideological discussion between capitalism and
socialism; one promoting freedom and the other pressing various
restrictions, eroding social creativity and progress and encouraging
handouts.
With the intellectual fundamental we are so much better placed
to analyze the circumstances. We can ask a much better question
directly related to the known and understood causality in groups.
When legal restraint is removed from people is it valid to assume they will
act in a manner consistent with social service, act in the manner as assumed by
Adam Smith? Is it valid to assume they will not act in a manner that most
advantages themselves and those they know best, even at significant disadvantage to
others in society?
50. 50
The question is now not about groups, or about markets, or
‘invisible hands’ or ideology, but about what we can sensible expect in
an individual mind when that mind can see opportunity to advantage
itself even at the expense of others… Will people necessarily act with
compassion, with social responsibility and with ethical good intent…?
The evidence says ‘no, people in the modern world are likely to act with
a bias toward self-interest’.
So what exactly has the intellectual foundations done for us?
Precisely, given us a definite intellectual framework within which we
can ask much, much better questions. From these question we gain
much better insight into what is likely to happen, and that insight is
stripped of it ideological trappings, so we look at it without preferences
involving freedom, socialism and capitalism etc. We can look at it on
basis of ‘if we enable this in the minds of these people, what are they
likely to do?’
The greatly improved intellectual foundations provide us with
the objective intellectual framework enabling clarity of insight free of
ideology.
Imagine a senior economics professor on TV saying they think the
financial industry should be deregulated, but that would result in the opportunistic
and powerful people getting richer at the expense of the average worker … I don’t
think the idea would have got very far. And while that may not have
stopped the global financial meltdown it would have moderated it.
Regulation is not about groups, nor about societies or
communities. Regulation is about the individual mind and the curbing
of the excesses of greed, avarice, opportunism, deceit and
manipulation. Social rules, laws and regulation are not ‘social’ at all, they
are psychological. It follows when assessing the impact of law or
regulation it is not judged based on statistics, but on its impact on the
individual mind.
51. 51
5. Discussion of Ashby tools and
diagrams
W Ross Ashby is the founder of cybernetics which is strictly the
analysis of self-regulating systems. I adhere to this fundamental
definition, specifically since I apply the Ashby tools to analysis social
systems, which are clearly self-regulating.
The definition extends further, in that all human output is, well,
by humans. Everything we know of anything is knowledge by
definition. After Popper, we know that knowledge once shared has an
existence of its own. It follows that we now have three ‘entities’ in an
interactive situation, knowledge, our minds, and objects to which our
knoweldge applies. This in itself is an interactive feedback system with
inherent self-regulation. In short I argue the Ashby tools apply to all
aspects of what we do and are the best set of tools for the creation of
theory of anything, psychology, social science, or of the external world
itself.
We are as we are due our fundamental nature defined as the
ability to create ideas and apply them in survival. We ‘see’ in mind the
situation, we ‘think up’ lines of action, apply them in mind first so ideas
die in our stead. Then once we find a line of action that is non-
threatening, we do it.
We can now define ‘seeing’ as having an Ashby diagram showing
the change to occur and how that change will impact various variables
in the situation, including ourselves. This is more precise than what
may actually happen, but it carries the essence of it, and by using Ashby
tools and diagrams we can make our thinking much more precise and
effective.
We can now define ‘conceptualize’ as applying Ashby tools to
build a theory of the flow of change through the variables such as to
52. 52
enable understanding the mechanisms of the situation. We can then
‘see’ how we can intervene and/or act as to avoid the consequences of
the situation. If we ‘see’ with precision, see the variables, and how the
change will flow through those variables and we understand what the
change in each variables means for us, then we are strongly placed to
act with much greater effect than if we did not know what was going
to happen.
It is the quality of conceptualization skill that is the foundation
of our human nature. Some people have this skill much, much greater
than others. It is the core skill of thinking and intelligence. Regardless
of difference in intelligence between humans, every human has this skill
beyond that of any animal. It is our capacity to think, reason,
conceptualize, and share that with others of our species that sets us
apart from all other known species.
In The Origin of Consciousness I discuss how there are two third
level conceptualization tools able to lead the conceptualization process.
By lead I mean we can use the tools to determine linkages between
variables we did not otherwise realize exist, so E=mc² was written as a
result of this process. The other to lead the conceptualization process
is Ashby tools. Of the two, Ashby tools are the more powerful, since
in order to build an Ashby diagram one must begin with an assessment
of the variables that apply within the system under study so there is
congruence between the variables and the system. That is not
necessarily the case with mathematics, where for example, the factors
in the equations of quantum physics have to be ‘interpreted’ relative to
the situation.
The most famous physics conference was the Solvay conference
of 1927, where a handful of the world’s leading physicists of the day
met to discuss the emerging quantum theory. The conference lead to
the Copenhagen interpretation, which at its core proposes the Ψ
53. 53
function in the base Schrodinger wave equation was a probability
function. It was during this debate that a disgruntled Einstein quipped
‘God does not play dice’, to which Bohr reputedly replied ‘Albert, stop
telling God what to do’. The misinterpretation at Solvay is exactly
consistent with this epistemological analysis, where mathematics is
pushed to provide statistical prediction of events, in this case what
fundamental particles will do under what circumstance, but where the
variables used in the mathematics equations bear no relationship with
identifiable variables that would drive necessity within the system under
study. As a result, the mathematical variable has to be ‘interpreted’.
It is unquestioned the application of statistics is a powerful
technological tool, as evidenced by this book, written on a modern
computer, exchanged over the internet with those interested in
publishing, and even able to be read via the technology arising from
this Copenhagen interpretation. What is questioned is whether the use
of statistics to predict events in fact reflects the underlying physical
reality. In the theory in The Origin of Consciousness I argue that the
modern interpretation that the universe is probabilistic is wrong. The
error is a failure to fully understand that physics is knowledge therefore
the interpretation of any physics variables is not a problem of physics
but an epistemological problem fully subject to a general theory of
psychology, itself fully subject to a general theory of cause.
The Origin of Consciousness offers the only available general
theory of psychology with full intellectual integrity. The general theory
of psychology predicts: (1) Knowledge is mathematical, but we do not
know if the underlying reality is or not. (2) Mathematics can use
variables unrelated to the actual mechanisms within any system, and
produce equations using those variables that may or may not enable
prediction of that system. (3) Where any equation uses variables not
derived from the system, such as Ψ, and it succeeds in accurately
predicting the outputs from any system, then the prediction is via
54. 54
statistics, there is no other alternative. By comparison E=mc² involves
variables directly derived from any system, the variables do not need
interpreted.
Ashby tools are superior tools of third level conceptualization
because they only use variables from the system that do not need
interpretation. The Einstein mass-energy conversion equation is
expressed in Ashby tools as mass→ E that is change the mass has an
effect on the energy available. The constant in the equation being the
square of the speed of light so a very small change in mass produces a
very large amount of energy. This is the exact same conceptual
structure as the equation across a TV between knob position and sound
volume which could be simply expressed as v=Kp with K the constant
provided the TV being studied was always the same. The constant that
emerges in such equations is then an expression of the mechanism that
links the selected variables, v and p, or E and m for the Einstein
equation. Therefore if there is a constant, it means we do not know the
mechanism and express it as the constant linking two variables. We
need be more aware of how our mathematical formulations that on the
surface offer so much knoweldge disguise the fact of how ignorant we
remain. Strategic science reminds us by stressing at all levels we need
seek the next question and the underlying immediate effect. We do not
know the mechanism whereby mass converts to energy, just as we do
not know the mechanism whereby a single radioactive atom goes
critical and disintegrates. We just know the technology as expressed in
atomic power and bombs.
Quantum physics is the most accurate scientific theory ever
created with predictive power that is legend. What this says of humanity
is that we are extraordinarily clever at the application of statistics to get
the right answer. We are extraordinarily clever at using our knowledge
to manipulate events in physical reality, that is to manipulate input-
output relationships across ‘boxes’ where we do not really know what
55. 55
is happening inside the box to generate the input-outputs we so cleverly
use. The interpretation of quantum theory as reflecting the intrinsic
probability of the universe is at best, a possibility, and at worst simply
wrong. We do not know, and given the general theory of psychology
where all growth of knoweldge is an infinite regress of ignorance, we
can never know! This is the necessary relationship we have between us,
our knoweldge and experience of physical reality beyond both.
Physics as knowledge means that any interpretation of physics is
subject to the demand of intellectual integrity as all other knowledge
we seek to apply. Which means we are not able to ‘interpret’ any
knowledge in the absence of a general theory of psychology and a
general theory of cause. The physicists of Solvay 1927 did not
understand this demand that if their pronouncements were to have
intellectual integrity they had to be made from with an apt general
theory of psychology, and one did not exist in 1927. There has been no
general theory of psychology with intellectual integrity until publication
of The Origin of Consciousness in 2014.
Several physicists of the day in 1927, including Einstein, I suggest
sensed the issue raised here, namely that to reflect the external reality
then physics must use variables consistent with the mechanism of the
reality. Other physicist, notably Bohr, argued that science was about
outcomes, and if the equations got the correct result then they had to
reflect what was happening. These were alternative approaches to
science of the day, referred to as realism and instrumentalism. These
are issues of epistemology not issues of physics. Hence there was a
discomfort that the mathematics was going too far. But the
instrumentalists won the day, and since, the ‘interpretation’ of quantum
physics as reflecting an inherent probability structure in the universe
has ruled thinking. Simply put, in 1927 the understanding of a general
theory of psychology and the links to knowledge and cause was non-
existent. Understanding of strategic science and the rule of first things
56. 56
first was non-existent. It is superficially appealing that if one has
equations that get the right answer to a high degree of accuracy, then
those equation had to reflect what was happening. The general theory
of psychology applied here proves that that is not true, and to reflect
the mechanism of physical reality then one must use variables derived
from that reality.
The threads of quantum physics have also penetrated to ideas on
consciousness where it is proposed that supposed intrinsic quantum
variability is the basis of consciousness. But what if quantum variability
is nothing more than inadequate interpretation we created in our
ignorance...? This also illustrates an important point I will cover in
more detail later, namely how threads of thinking become entwined in
ideas we hold often far removed from the intellectual topic to which
the threads of thinking directly apply, and we assume them to a degree
we do not see them for what they are. Probability as intrinsic to the
universe is merely a hundred years old, but its influence is already wide
spread. There exist other such threads that can reach back in a culture
thousands of years subsumed as part of the culture and dominate minds
today.
Strategic science stressing we link what we think now with the
underlying issues that could if resolved impact the topic, is the only way
I can see where we avoid sliding down intellectual rabbit holes from
which we when we learn we then need extricate ourselves. Best to make
greater effort with better tools and get it right first.
The importance of such philosophical debate is shown by the
extent the popular mind is aware of quantum physics, probability,
Schrodinger cat, etc. The theories offered here propose all probabilistic
interpretation is a seriously misinformed view of the physical world in
which we live. If it can happen in the esoteric world of atomic physics,
it can certainly happen in the more directly significant world of the
57. 57
economy, psychology, government regulation, politics, freedom or
serfdom, and community wellbeing.
Imagine a tree... now imagine every aspect of the tree in a ’box’
in mind. The box is defined as an isolated system. We can now imagine
all the functions within the tree, flow of water, leaves, photosynthesis,
growth rings, etc. I refer to these functions of the tree as the
‘mechanisms’. When we first isolate the tree in the box we do not know
what the mechanisms are, we just know via the universal mechanistic
postulate they will exist. Our task is to conceptualize them, and use our
understanding to better manage the system.
We now have the general proposition of mechanisms inherent to
an isolated system. We can now apply the Ashby tools to the tree in the
box, and can select variables, and then impose a perturbation to a
variable and watch which variables are then effected and in what
sequence. The Ashby diagram of the mechanisms then offers causal
insight into what is happening in the system, in our example, in the tree.
Necessity is defined as the operation of the mechanism with the system,
in our example, the tree in the imagined box. Cause is defined as the
conceptualization of necessity, which is the conceptualization of the
mechanisms.
Now imagine we have an Ashby diagram of the tree in the box
that predicts or pictures all the ultimate effects relationships of the
variables that describe the mechanisms. We have what I define as a
descriptive explanation.
Now imagine for every ultimate effect in our Ashby theory of the
tree, we have the immediate effects. For example, growth rings, and the
understanding of the role of cellular development that creates the
growth rings. That is we now have an explanation of every ultimate
effect of our Ashby diagram of the mechanism of the tree in terms of
the variables and relationship between those variables whereby that
58. 58
relationship occurs. I define the immediate effects underlying the
ultimate effects and giving rise to those ultimate effects, as cause of the
ultimate effects.
So causality is defined in relation to the system we start with.
Again imagine the tree in the box... we can ask what caused it... and
reply the tree in the box is as it is due the Ashby diagram describing the
mechanisms within the tree. Those mechanisms are the necessity of
growth and survival of this tree. Necessity meaning the tree must be
consistent with its own internal mechanism and structure and can be
no other way.
The conceptualization of those mechanisms in an Ashby diagram
is our understanding of those mechanisms, as such it is our
understanding of necessity as implicit in the tree, and we can say the
diagram whereby immediate effects relate to ultimate effects is the
cause of the tree. With cause being defined as our understanding of the
physical necessity within the tree whereby the tree is as it is.
Now again imagine the tree in the box. We imagine the system
as isolated, but that is often not very realistic. It is a useful intellectual
and reasoning device to separate, isolate and so build understanding of
parts of a whole system one part at a time.
Imagine the tree now linked to its environment. Now we must
repeat the whole process and integrate variables within the tree with
the variables within the environment, such that if a variables in the
environment change, which of the variables within the tree are
immediately effected. This is another lengthy journey, involving the
exact same processes already discussed, hence I will pursue it no
further.
Imagine the world as in a painting. It is static. Now imagine living
in such a world. Nothing would ever change. It may be very boring but
59. 59
it would be safe. Now introduce change. The world becomes dynamic,
but a lot more dangerous.
Ashby diagrams project the flow of change through any system
such as to enable us to predict what is going to happen.
What is this thing ‘flow of change’?
Imagine that bridge across the river, the flood washed out the supports so that
it is no longer safe. The safety of the bridge is dependent on the strength of the
supports. The strength of the supports depends on the volume of water. We can use
the Ashby tools and write the Ashby equation: Volume of water → strength of the
supports →safety of the bridge. This equation states that a change in the volume of
water can produce a change in the strength of the supports, which can produce a
change in the safety of the bridge.
So the idea of the flow of change is not the flow of ‘something’, it is the analysis
of how a change in one variable has an effect on the other variables linked to it.
If we take the Ashby equation above then we can separate the immediate
effects and the ultimate effects and we can write: Volume of water →safety of the
bridge. That is the volume of the water has an effect on whether or not the bridge is
safe. The way the volume of water has an on effect the safety is via erosion of the
bridge supports. We can now say that the ultimate effect of the volume of water on
bridge safety is via the mechanism of the erosion of the supports.
This relationship between ultimate effects and mechanism is crucial within
the methodology applied throughout The Origin of Consciousness. Much more will
be made of both of these concepts as we explore the arguments.
So what exactly have we done here…? We have created some variables …
volume of water, safety of the bridge, strength of the supports… and we have linked
those variables in a sequence to offer understanding of what can happen, a sequence
with definite survival consequences. We have created knowledge of Reality we have
sharpened our reality relative to Reality making our reality more congruent with
Reality.
