Categories
2018 July

ValuDYNAMICS & complexity

Here’s a brief excerpt from my 2013 Manifesto:

“unlike the spiraling structure, which I believe to be true, there is a networking structure, which I also believe to be true; working in conjunction to support a scaffolding effect for the spiraling”

Here the question, in my mind:

Does everything and everyone become more complex over time?

This is not to say nothing and anyone ever reaches “Holmes Inflection Point” or HIP for short, but let’s assume that’s rare enough that it doesn’t matter for a generalized process.

The reason it came up is related to then, if, then how?

For instance, do each of us become more complex socially? Mathematically? Motivationally? Developmentally?

Another reason I’m asking the question is to see if you all have ideas which could help me understand an underlying structure?

Is it enough to say, we are becoming more complex.

Spiral Dynamics, or what I now refer to as Spiral Gravesian Dynamics, (SGD), so Graves remains at the Center put forward a notion that values are becoming more complex, and the system is basically driven by a spiraling of complexity from less complex to more complex values.

Complex in what?

That’s where my generator argument has found entry and it’s relatively undebatable that SGD frames social complexity as the driver for spiraling more complex and where “stage theory” seems to bust, or at least breakdown is in the arbitrariness (varied) way values systems become more complex…held against the stage requirement (MHC) of a non-arbitrary path.

As I was thinking about my own deviation from the spiral path, it seems an underlying structure but not the most important which I have put forward as “network dynamics” where spiraling is a sub-structure rather than the dominant set of rules.

“…unlike the spiraling structure, which I believe to be true, there is a networking structure, which I also believe to be true; working in conjunction to support a scaffolding effect for the spiraling…”

Why is this important?

Because it frames “be, do, have, become and contribute—non color notions for identifying Graves Values Attractors—which remain durable over time because of the kinds of problems they are fit for in particular conditions—which form basins of attraction, have their own “psychological gravity” as a result of the motive force providing energy at the core.

Now that’s a lot to say (as context) in one sentence, but not my concern.

What is becoming more complex in this process?

Everything?

Do we ever reach HIP?

Is complexity the “god-force?”

Complex how?

Why does it matter?

There seems to me to be a question that is not answered here in this brouhaha of notions and the answer seems like it’s beckoning for understanding development.

If I were to hypothesize that we are not becoming, or at least contributing to complexity as long as we are developing.

Could I falsify that with any notion of development?

How of course brings up an important follow-up question, but before how, we need to answer the question?

mike

 

14 replies on “ValuDYNAMICS & complexity”

Some thoughts your post triggered…probably not too on point. 🙂

—-

My sense is that it/life is flowing one direction or the other…becoming more complex or less complex in any given moment.

And then you can add paradox into it, where less complex is more complex. Or vice versa.

(e.g. simplicity on the other side of complexity)

Open, dissipative systems tend to hold structure for awhile then dissipate into chaos. Chaos is not complexity.

And then there are the tendencies of particular systems…e.g. to become more complex overtime. (like a growing, healthy child will tend to become more complex day by day…socially, physically, cognitively, etc)

And then there is stratification of complexity…where anything can be stripped of complexity are amended with complexity…depending on how one likes to put their reality together.

There is context dependent complexity. This the inherent challenge of SD. A particular value system is more complex to the conditions than another. This is more than just about fitness. In a particular context the value system is more complex, and others less complex. (e.g. apply green as dominant to an open battlefield environment…and you will see what an idiot sounds like).

I wonder how many other people didn’t get my HIP quote;) which covers the other side of complexity;)

Thanks for the note, what’s becoming most interesting to me is how, what people understand about my ideas, Creates feedback, aside from obvious blind spots that also emerge;)

I might be too far from this now as it’s been years since I reviewed but as I remember:

“Open, dissipative systems tend to hold structure for awhile then dissipate into chaos. Chaos is not complexity.”

Is not how I remember;)

DS hold structure for as long as they can dissipate the energy (you can apply this to the current political situation we have been discussing as well), flip at the edge of chaos into new order—one assumes that is more complex otherwise it wouldn’t “dissipate” the old less complex order.

I haven’t heard of a system which dissipates becoming simpler but I would like to as that would assure that paradox is in play;)

This statement intrigued me:

“My sense is that it/life is flowing one direction or the other…becoming more complex or less complex in any given moment.”

There is a lot packed into this statement!

In fact, if I unpack it using my unpacker;); what you’re saying here applies to HC in fact the organization and coordination of lower order actions (which could be more complex than most can handle) into higher order more complex results can yield simplicity…the car design story, it’s now simpler to design a car in 18 months than 5 years, but it too someone with capability to see/make that happen, whether it was VOL/T or not we can’t say as horizontal complexity could have done it;)

Things got more complex before they got simpler…and it’s back to my idea about the cultural scaffolding that has to be in place for things to go in that direction, perhaps.

I intended to post on Herb’s response to Jim’s conundrum about the car design analogy, we’ve often used and oversimplified.

The “design of the car” is a part of a longer task, to design and build a car that sells, lasts, has appropriate maintenance and replacement parts cycles, is profitable now, near and far and promotes the cycle of design and sales of the brand (something that is encompasses by what fiat is doing with Jeep) and of course Iacocca did with the mustang, as a couple of examples.

With that as context, time span is quite long and the amount of time span used by old design was a bigger portion of that span than it may be now, but like Jim’s note on things swinging from more complex to less complex as an underlying movement of time (such as in a clock mechanism that swings back and forth as time moves forward), the underlying me infrastructure is complexification?

[I forgot what I was going to say above now and nothing I could do for 5 minutes caused me to remember it, so I decided to write on and it came back—interesting how the mind works;)]

“Things got more complex before they got simpler…” and it’s back to my idea…about differentiation and integration, which comes first?.

I’ve been having some thoughts about disagreements that Jim and I have from time to time and it evokes the early disagreements I had with Wilber—about how fast someone could develop through levels using meditation—unrelated to my debates with Jim, et al.

What pacified me at the time with Wilber seems to evoke a similar thought with the debates now—again self-hugging as Herb suggested;)

We are looking through different lenses, like blind monks and the elephant.

I tried to find my complexity curves to post here but Internet is blinking on and off and I can’t get to my repository;)

But like the blind monks and the elephant most of us have a worldview which everything flows into and out of—I know I certainly do—and are continually surprised when you find pieces that don’t fit.

Diversity in thinking is extremely important and it brings up a question that Glenn Mehltretter and I often batted back and forth, which was the notion that any worldview could contain a full range of hierarchical complexity.

Of course if it’s survival, then you won’t see much HC there before people build a fire and make a wheel and “move on” but when you look at the 4 systems in “my first tier” which are independent of intelligence (purple wasn’t above that line), I believe you will find all manners of HC represented.

I’ve felt pressure to continuously sophisticate my “Redass” to appeal to broader groups and am still learning to subjugate myself (ugh) to promote collaboration which requires “cooperativeness” that I don’t naturally have (note the TKI model).

I can only do this consciously because unconsciously I revert to scorpion and frog, but I’m learning to notice it more often and “bite the bullet” and it’s improving my ability to learn, which serves my need for independence at more degrees of freedom, serving as a result my confidence to take on more cycles of pain;)

Yet, it seems simple but it’s actually evoking additional complexity rather than change, which is the emergent quality.

There is something to this relationship I haven’t quite got my arms around yet;)

mike

Xtracting from Jim’s quote below:

“…e.g. apply green as dominant to an open battlefield environment…and you will see what an idiot sounds like).”

This brings up a notion in VD that because these skills are largely missing in FS-GREEN, although it’s clear they are in the works—having an open battlefield metaphorically brings up the value and POWER of CP-RED, and this “recursive activity” is the game of “keep running that play until you get it right.”

Here’s the notion:

Each VA or VB or vMEME has within it he need for relevance, not change as a motivator but change as emergent needs to preserve the significance of the core, so recursion is one of the 15 PRIMES (added after the book published) @F…

In order for the socialists to increase their presence they will need to learn skills in “fighting, governing, paying” that have already paid for their emergence at some level…but in order to get to the next level they must recurse back for skills, methods, or KSEs that will promote the level of sophistication of the core to a next level of complexity.

Now here’s where history is important:

Leadership That Gets Results, 2000, HBR

6 System’s identified:
Coercive
Authoritarian*
Affiliative
Democratic
Pacesetting
Coaching

“Coercive leaders demand immediate compliance. Authoritative leadersmobilize people toward a vision. Affiliative leaders create emotional bonds and harmony. Democratic leaders build consensus through participation. Pacesetting leaders expect excellence and self-direction. And coaching leaders develop people for the future. The research indicates that leaders who get the best results don’t rely on just one leadership style; they use most of the styles in any given week. Goleman details the types of business situations each style is best suited for, and he explains how leaders who lack one or more styles can expand their repertories. He maintains that which practice leaders can switch among leadership styles to produce powerful results, thus turning the art of leadership into a science.”

However what is hidden in the weeds of the research is which style had the most positive effect on organizational climate?*

This is why “strongmen lead…and are often followed” because people want guidance and more often than not the reason governance works is people are ok with being told what to do…a conundrum for the revolutionary;)

Which is why Obama who was nice and politically correct didn’t assure another Obama-like leader will emerge as a result, in fact the opposite emerged and its continuing to emerge around the world, the same happened in Ph, and in Saudi, and many others.

People want to be led, sometimes even if they have information to the countrary, the Russians didn’t elect Trump, Obama did;)

Sorry couldn’t resist;)

mike

Yes, that was my point in using the battlefield example. Red AND Blue are the dominant value systems at play.

I have posted to a number of SD lists the request for anyone to give me an example of a single complex undertaking that does not have embedded or has expressed the full range of Tier one value systems, including Red.

No one can give me one, except old line orgs like the Red Cross…that likely does not have a lot of bandwidth for Red (at least at lower maturities). And is likely dying (severely limited) because of it. Red is the only value basin strong enough (bullheaded enough) to launch at the castle gate again and again and again…which is necessary to innovate in these kinds of environments.

My thesis is that complex tasks require the full range. And this gets done largely by dint of luck, serendipity, unconscious intuition, etc. So partly why so many enterprises fail.

Simplistically….No Red – no ego force to punch through obstacles; No Blue – too light on systems to carry the weight; No Orange – no coherent business model or discipline to follow it; No Green – no capacity to create collaborative space/culture to solve higher order problems, etc.

So any complex creation is by dint of this Tier 2 example. It just isn’t being done by a Tier 2 actor/agent/leader. Self-organization at work. Not very efficient but with the launch of millions of enterprises of all sorts everyday you have the law of averages and large numbers at work to carry the lift.

Someone is going to make it up that mountain made mostly of bones of other failures, and then we will write a book about them and codify what they did in a set of best practices. Versus they launched up Mt. Everest on the one day it was 40 degrees!!! J

In terms of recursion, I see very little capacity other than to double down on what is already present within. Agree…” change as emergent needs to preserve the significance of the core.” We change just enough to allow us to express who we “really are.”

If you recurse enough to the other value basins for KSEs, then eventually you emerge another kind of capacity (e.g. 2nd Tier). But again that is a game of the 1%. And what I have realized is a game that you would have had to have played for 25-30 years.

You reminded me of a tidbit that Graves used A’N’ not GT for yellow and this idea that those values are only available recursion to sophisticate the core in first tier, but what values are those…?

Obviously combinations but this is the sticking point on both sides of SGD and ValuDYNAMICS.

” And what I have realized is a game that you would have had to have played for 25-30 years.”

Sincere inquiry…would that then be a 25-year task? Even if the person who does it didn’t articulate it in advance, but sensed his/her way there?

Some of this long-term stuff is sensed when further out, not crystallizing until within a 5-10 year window. Or 7-8 year window per the excerpt Herb offered in another thread.

Alicia Parr

As a thinking out loud, here is analogy maybe;)

A doctor going through 25 years of prep for medicine would have done L7 work.

So I think one having realized that it might take 25-30 years to get to a point where they are, are not by default doing L7 work, or a long task.

Just my take…didn’t want to let a “sincere ask” just languish;)

mike

A doctor going through 25 years of prep for medicine would NOT have done L7 work.

HEHE

To return back to my inquiry…

Mike said: ” If you recurse enough to the other value basins for KSEs, then eventually you emerge another kind of capacity (e.g. 2nd Tier). But again that is a game of the 1%. And what I have realized is a game that you would have had to have played for 25-30 years. ”

My question was whether the establishment of tier 2 basin capability could be interpreted as a 25-year task even if it weren’t explicitly stated at the outset. Can tasks even be considered such outside the bounds of a distinct role? Maybe it’s just a vague intention to become all one can be by riding the wave of compelled individual motive and capability expression. Limits of language are a real stumbling block here.

Alicia Parr

Alicia,

That quote was me. But happy to cede it to mike if he wants. I don’t think he was partial to it though. 🙂

My assumption is this thing called 2nd Tier is a 1-3% max attainment game.

A “fact” – anyone who attempted it as a task would not get there. It is an emergent property of literally millions of choices a person makes through a lifetime, the 100s of talents to strength paths taken which creates a thick talent stack, etc.

Tickets to just get in the “park” of potential second Tier are metasystemic reasoning, self-authoring, post-conventional ego positioning. That doesn’t mean you are going to be/become 2nd Tier.

SD is a values system. So in one simple respect…2nd Tier simply means you are generating a value set. It’s not a capability model. This is why you can have so many claim 2nd Tier status with little to no capability.

“I have the values for Yellow / Turquoise so I am 2nd Tier.”

Jim

Sorry Alicia, Yahoo passed me up on this one.

Yep, agree with this. And I don’t think it is a 25 year task if you can only see that you were working on the task from the rearview mirror, which is how most of our lives unfold.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *