Broken Symmetry

Co-opetition by Nalebluff and Brandenburger

A blurb on the jacket to Information Rules by Shapiro and Varian leads me to the website for this book by Nalebluff and Brandenburger:

Q. How does someone put this idea of CO-OPETITION into practice?

A. The key is looking at business as a "game." Once you do, you can much more easily spot both the competitive and cooperative aspects of what's going on. Then, after you have a more complete picture of what's going on, there are some simple concepts from game theory that allow you to change the game so you'll do better.

I came to this view through Csikszentmihalyi's version of systems theory. Game theory has always seemed to static. But I liked Nalebluff's Thinking Strategically. Another book for the reading list...

Feedback Loops in Education

From the Frontal Cortex blog:

Kids learn material much faster when they screw-up first. In other words, getting the wrong answer helps us remember the right one.

Not only kids, I might add. The information content of negative feedback is greater than that of positive feedback. The trick is creating an environment in which it is both encouraged and welcomed.

The work of Carol Dweck has been covered in earlier posts here and here. When I heard her speak to an audience of parents in Palo Alto about a year ago (all there to figure out how to get their kids into Stanford, natch), I asked her whether anybody had looked to see whether the growth mindset was correlated with higher levels of flow experiences. She said that a study had been done of race car drivers, which found some correlation between the two. I haven't been able to find a link on the web.

The Wire and Csikszentmihalyi's Theory of Flow

Last night I finished the last episode of Season 1 of The Wire. If you haven't seen any of this, check it out. The show compares favorably with any film or lit I've consumed in many years.

The show, in fact, provides a good fictional depiction of a complex system, of the kind discussed repeatedly on Broken Symmetry. Of particular note in this regard is the term chosen by characters in the show to describe the complex system of which they are a part -- "the game."

The term naturally calls to mind Csikszentmihalyi's theory of flow, which was discussed in an earlier post, which included this excerpt C.'s book Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience at 81:

Cultures are defensive constructions against chaos, designed to reduce the impact of randomness on experience. They are adaptive responses, just as feathers are for birds and fur is for mammals. Cultures prescribe norms, evolve goals, build beliefs that help us tackle the challenges of existence. In so doing they must rule out many alternative goals and beliefs, and thereby limit possibilities; but this channeling of attention to a limited set of goals and means is what allows effortless action within self-created boundaries [i.e., flow]."

It is in this respect that games provide a compelling analogy to cultures. Both consist of more or less arbitrary goals and rules that allow people to become involved in a process and act with a minimum of doubts and distractions. The difference is mainly one of scale. Cultures are all embracing: they specify how a person should be born, how she should grow up, marry, have children, and die. Games fill out the interludes of the cultural script. They enhance action and concentration during "free time," when cultural instructions offer little guidance, and a person's attention threatens to wander into the uncharted realms of chaos.

When a culture succeeds in evolving a set of goals and rules so compelling and so well matched to the skills of the population that its members are able to experience flow with unusual frequency and intensity, the analogy between games and culture is even closer. In such a case we can say that the culture as a whole becomes a "great game." Some of the classical civilizations may have succeeded in reaching this state. Athenian citizens, Romans who shaped their actions by virtus, Chinese intellectuals, or Indian Brahmins moved through life with intricate grace, and derived perhaps the same enjoyment from the challenging harmony of their actions as they would have from an extended dance. The Athenian polis, Roman law, the divinely grounded bureaucratcy of China, and the all-encompassing spiritual order of India were successful and lasting examples of how culture can enhance flow -- at least for those who were lucky enough to be among the principal players.

On my view, this is the most compelling explanation for why the characters are at once enthralled and entrapped by the institution of which they are a part.

Creating My Own Create Your Own Economy

On Saturday, I received my hard copy of Tyler Cowen's latest work of popular economics, Create Your Own Economy: The Path To Prosperity in a Disordered World. Although a work of popular nonfiction, which read easily over the course of a few hours this weekend, this book is chock full of creative insights into what might be called an alternative economic vision of social life. I say "alternative" because until recently most academic economists had confined their interests to finance rather than culture, although Cowen is careful to trace the threads of Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, and Thomas Schelling (among others) from which his unique vision is woven together. In the sense of developing this alternative vision, this book is actually the continuation of his last, Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist. In both books, Cowen assumes the point of view of individual consumers; his data is drawn from individual stories and experiences; his understanding of group behavior and consumption are correspondingly richer with local and temporary detail than most economic analyses of culture. Read in conjunction with Schelling's Micromotives and Macrobehavior and Robert H. Frank's The Economic Naturalist, one can see how the methodologies of Thomas Schelling are facilitating a gradual evolution in economic thought among his students and (thanks to their attention to the needs of non-economists), the public at large. All are recommended reading.

A central premise in Create Your Own Economy is that technology is fostering a more "autistic" lifestyle. Cowen envisions "autism" as a superior ability to filter out particular bits of information from the barrage of stimuli we experience in everyday life, to absorb those filtered bits, and to imbue those disparate bits with meaning by ordering and re-ordering them into a collage of our own creation. John Milton would be proud. It is part of Cowen's project in this book to encourage a more positive definition of autism, a definition that focuses on the cognitive strengths of people who might otherwise be called autistic only because of their inferior ability to communicate in traditional social settings. We might even call this "positive abnormal psychology." Although this aspect of the book is interesting, and is sure to get attention from both the autistic community and the community of psychologists and clinicians who specialize in working with people diagnosed with autism, my focus as reviewer will be on how this vision of culture could be seen through the lens of science. More specifically, I'm going to explain how Cowen's vision of a more creative economy fits with the systems theory that has been the theme of Broken Symmetry. I think it would give Prof. Cowen pleasure to see somebody using his own work as a source of information to be re-ordered within the particular mental framework I bring to bear on understanding economics and culture -- i.e., to see me creating my own Create Your Own Economy. So here's how this book fits within my interior world.

I see Cowen's book as premised on a particular epistemology of culture. Although that epistemology is not quite laid out systematically, what is clear from his unique vision of autism, Hayek's Sensory Order, and his pyramid diagram is that culture is embedded in the neural networks of individuals. For Cowen, economics and culture emerge organically from a process of filtering, absorbing, and reordering information. This is an appealing vision because it promises the possibility that someday economic theories might be understood in terms of biology. And Cowen mentions neuroeconomics in passing, but again Cowen's focus is on culture.

What is interesting is what Cowen does not say about these neural networks and their process of development. Cowen's emphasis is on the largely individualistic process of ordering information that flows into our neural networks. What he does not emphasize is the activity -- especially the social activity -- required to obtain desired bits of information and (perhaps more importantly) to decide what bits should be given privilege in our internal ordering.

For example, in his Chapter on the contrast between autism and Buddhism, Cowen's vision seems heavily weighted in favor of the autistic approach to interior life. On Cowen's view, educational institutions are mostly about using social influence to encourage non-austistic young people to develop more autistic habits. The trouble with this view is that it does not seem to leave enough room for the possibility that some learning and information processing may occur at the social level -- i.e., that some ordering of information cannot be done autistically.

In that vein, I find another theory of learning interesting. According to psychologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, learning is an individual process, but one that alternates between modes of openness and closedness to external feedback. There is potentially a deep scientific basis for Csikszentmihalyi's theory, which is drawn from the science of networks and self-organized criticality. Given the right balance of external stimuli and internal constraints, networks can self-organize into structures that optimize the flow of information. Optimal flow through networks was studied by Mandelbrot in connection with Zipf's Law. But today it is known that the same self-organized critical structure can be found in an incredibly diverse array of networks in nature, including neural networks and even our economy. In each case, the network structure emerges from an evolutionary process whereby particular network structures persist over time only so long as they can accommodate the stable or unstable variations in flow through the network.

This theory of flow is complementary with Cowen's vision of autistic culture. In particular, the closed mode of operating corresponds directly with Cowen's vision of autism. What seems to be missing from Cowen's vision is the other phase, the phase of extreme openness to feedback and diverse stimulus. (Is this what zen meditation is designed to facilitate?) Within the theory of autism presented by Cowen, it would seem that such openness would be difficult for autistics. Yet it would seem equally important to the creativity and learning characterized by Csikszentmihalyi as "flow."

But why is it so important to maintain balance between openness and closedness? By the end, what becomes clear is that Cowen envisions a radically different structure for society in which individuals cluster into small units -- perhaps even as small as one. And perhaps Cowen is right that this is where current technology is leading us. But can that kind of culture survive?

Robert H. Frank, also a student of Schelling, provides an answer in a recent NYT editorial titled, "The Invisible Hand, Trumped by Darwin?":

By calling our attention to the conflict between individual and group interest, Darwin has identified the rationale for much of the regulation we observe in modern societies... Ideas have consequences. The uncritical celebration of the invisible hand by Smith’s disciples has undermined regulatory efforts to reconcile conflicts between individual and collective interests in recent decades, causing considerable harm to us all. If, as Darwin suggested, many important aspects of life are graded on the curve, his insights may help us avoid stumbling down that grim path once again... The competitive forces that mold business behavior are like the forces of natural selection that molded elk. In each case, we see instances of socially benign conduct. But in neither can we safely presume that individual and social interests coincide.

Technology has enabled us to take finer and finer control over the flow of information and goods that we access as individuals. But over very long times, the benefits of finer control over flow have tended to accrue to the most well-organized groups rather than the most well-ordered individual minds. So perhaps the most dramatic impact of technology will be in how it enables us to be more social, even as autistics.

"Computational Social Science"

From David Lazer, Alex Pentland, Lada Adamic, Sinan Aral, Albert-László Barabási, Devon Brewer, Nicholas Christakis, Noshir Contractor, James Fowler, Myron Gutmann, Tony Jebara, Gary King, Michael Macy, Deb Roy, Marshall Van Alstyne:

To date, research on human interactions has relied mainly on one-time, self-reported data on relationships. New technologies, such as video surveillance (1), e-mail, and “smart” name badges, offer a moment-by-moment picture of interactions over extended periods of time, providing information about both the structure and content of relationships. For example, group interactions could be examined through e-mail data, and questions about the temporal dynamics of human communications could be addressed: Do work groups reach a stasis with little change, or do they dramatically change over time (2)? What interaction patterns predict highly productive groups and individuals? Can the diversity of news and content we receive predict our power or performance (3)? Face-to-face group interactions could be assessed over time with “sociometers.” Such electronic devices could be worn to capture physical proximity, location, movement, and other facets of individual behavior and collective interactions.

The data could raise interesting questions about, for example, patterns of proximity and communication within an organization, and flow patterns associated with high individual and group performance (4). We can also learn what a “macro” social network of society looks like (5), and how it evolves over time. Phone companies have records of call patterns among their customers extending over multiple years, and e- Commerce portals such as Google and Yahoo collect instant messaging data on global communication. Do these data paint a comprehensive picture of societal-level communication patterns? In what ways do these interactions affect economic productivity or public health? It is also increasingly easy to track the movements of people (6). Mobile phones allow the large-scale tracing of people’s movements and physical proximities over time (7). Such data may provide useful epidemiological insights: How might a pathogen, such as influenza, driven by physical proximity, spread through a population?

Available here. To model that data, you need a theory of highly integrated, complex dynamical systems. That set of theory is what I refer to as "systems theory" on this blog.

Computational social science is actually not new. Csikszentmihalyi started collecting such data with pagers decades ago using his "Experience Sampling Method" (ESM).

Via Dan Katz at the Computational Legal Studies blog.

Csikszentmihalyi on Flow

See here for an introduction to flow psychology written by Csikszentmihalyi himself:

A successful interaction involves finding some compatibility between our goals and those of the other person or persons, and becoming willing to invest attention in the other person's goals. When these conditions are met, it is possible to experience the flow that comes from optimal interaction. For example, to experience the simple pleasures of parenting, one has to pay attention, to know what the child is "proud of" or "into"; then to share those activities with her. The same holds true for any other type of interaction. The secret of starting a good conversation is to find out what the other person's goals are: What is he interested in at the moment? What is she involved in? What has he or she accomplished, or is trying to accomplish? If any of this sounds worth pursuing, the next step is to utilize one's own experience or expertise on the topics raised by the other person--without trying to take over the conversation, but developing it jointly. A good conversation is like a jam session in jazz, where one starts with conventional elements and then introduces spontaneous variations that create an exciting new composition.

For a particularly inspiring historical example of how flow can be achieved in even the humblest of lifestyles, see here.

Does Rational Choice Theory Explain Computer Viruses?

Our system, like so many in corporate America over the past few days, has had a very bad cold. I was wondering this morning whether it was really sufficient in terms of theory to say that some people maximize utility by writing programs that wreak havoc. Even if that's true in some sense, how is it useful as an instrumental matter?

Csikszentmihalyi's theory of flow seems to provide a more instrumental framework for understanding and preventing malicious hacking. Malicious hackers write viruses because it is the only challenge they can find that is well-matched to their abilities. They do it because it's the most challenging game available to them and their peers in their local social network. The prescription for reducing the number of malicious viruses, according to flow theory, is to provide more opportunities for public recognition to these hackers that are more socially productive. For example, a national security hacking challenge designed to recognize the hackers who are the very best at defeating some very difficult security. Or a prize for writing software that spreads the fastest through a social network without leaving a footprint. The winners might be the best candidates for public service in these fields. Note that this is one of the mechanisms Google has in place for identifying talented software engineers.

Quote from Creativity by Csikszentmihalyi: Hayek and Evolutionary Culture

Chapter 13 of this extraordinary book is titled, "The Making of Culture." In it, C. presents prescriptions for how to foster a more creative culture. Within the systems theory of creativity that he promotes in this and others of his books, part of the cycle of creativity involves evaluating new work for its worthiness as an addition to an existing domain of symbolic knowledge.

One of the useful observations C. makes in this context is that the impact of a new discovery may extend beyond the domain in which it is made. An obvious example is the discovery of a self-sustained nuclear chain reaction by Enrico Fermi. A less obvious example, perhaps, is the emergence of cosmetic dentistry after the fluoridation of the water supply. As C. puts it: "Left with carte blanche, every field naturally wants to control as many of the resources of society as possible, and more."

At bottom, C. refuses a laissez faire attitude to competition among fields because, however sensible a new discovery might appear to the experts in a given domain, there is no guarantee that the same discovery will be well-received in the culture that comprises all domains. For C., new discoveries should be evaluated both by the experts of a domain and by experts on culture as a whole. His specific suggestion is the most benign of the many similar suggestions that have been made along these lines in the past. Specifically, he envisions:

[A] civil service above party politics and disciplinary fashions, composed of those who aspire to be 'good ancestors,' as Jonas Salk called them, and who would be willing to represent the claims of evolution when assessing whether scientific advances should receive social support. Inevitably such a group would be composed mainly of older individuals, and therefore it would be open to criticism from younger colleagues who are more concerned with advancing their own scientific careers. On the other hand, the probability for dispassionate wisdom is greater among those who have had more, and more varied, experience and who can see their expertise in a broader context -- and those in turn are likely to be older persons. Yet our society expects very little from its elders. This might be one important contribution of seniors that will benefit everyone.

A gerontocracy. Well this is certainly less menacing than the cultural revolution envisioned by Mao, at least at first. Mormons should be pleased.

Alas, C. has faltered here. For after having spent hundreds of pages analyzing and explaining his evolutionary theory of culture and psychology, he fails to follow it through to its logical conclusion: If individuals are happiest when in a psychological state most conducive to evolution of self, then why should not society be happiest under a government most conducive to evolution of culture?

The thinker most often associated with this notion of evolutionary culture is F.A. Hayek. Hayek is also well-known for promoting markets as an efficient mechanism for allocating resources within society.

But C. dismisses the suggestion that the invisible hand can serve effectively to arbitrate the demands of competing fields on cultural resources. First, he points out that no markets are in fact, free. In effect, this is a nod to public choice theory, which acknowledges how well-organized or rich minorities can manipulate government into distorting markets. That's true, of course. Yet it's more an indictment of government than of markets. C. does not thereby prove (and I would say he cannot prove) that because markets can be manipulated they should be supplanted with a gerontocracy.

Second, he points out that market decisions tend to be short-sighted in various ways, such as being oriented too much toward the present. In effect, this is a nod to bounded rationality and behavioral economics. As our present predicament demonstrates quite clearly, markets can and do blow up when too few participants are capable of valuing what is exchanged -- a valuation that gets more difficult the larger and longer the scales of exchange. But again this proves merely that markets have problems, not that a gerontocracy should be preferred to markets.

C. nonetheless for these reasons dismisses the market as a sufficient mechanism for arbitrating the competing claims of new discoveries from different domains. Oddly, however, he writes the following immediately thereafter:

The greatest art, East or West, was not produced when the artists set the agenda, but when patrons insisted on certain standards that benefited them. Patrons wanted primarily to be admired by the public, so the art they demanded had to appeal to and impress the entire community. In this sense, medieval and Renaissance art, commissioned by popes and princes, was in reality more democratic than it has become since the art world gained the power to separate itself from the rest of society -- as a field with its own peculiar tastes and criteria of selection.

This is fishy. Having dismissed the market as a mechanism for arbitrating taste, C. now appeals to the wisdom of patrons who sought approval from... the market of public opinion. If C. is correct in his assertion, then it might follow that the greatest art resulted when patrons were best able to constrain artists to produce what the market demanded. Yet this is exactly the benefit of markets that people like Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek have cited in their support! Almost no advocate of free markets (and certainly neither Friedman nor Hayek) has promoted an unmediated free-for-all of exchange. There is always a legitimate role for government to serve -- like good patrons or popes -- in constituting and mediating transactions. The point is that spontaneous ordering is the best way to match the standards placed upon artists to the constantly evolving tastes of society. As Hayek explained, this is because of the "knowledge problem" faced by any individuals who might otherwise seek to match the supply of new discoveries to the demand of cultural desires. A gerontocracy is no match for spontaneous ordering -- an ordering that might even be conceived as cultural flow.

This is not to say, of course, that there is no room for improvement in how markets are regulated. Public choice theory and behavioral economics should be incorporated into regulatory systems design -- along with any and all new discoveries that can improve the stability and growth of our system. But we should not discard our system, the best the world has ever seen, in favor of rule by faculty committee. That experiment was tried one too many times in the 20th Century, and with nasty results.

Revitalizing a Culture of Innovation in the United States

Innovation flows in cycles. Ideas are generated by individuals, evaluated by a field recognized as experts in a domain, and either accepted or rejected as creative contributions. Over many cycles, the domain evolves with the consensus of its experts.

Perhaps because of our cultural history of rugged individualism -- a culture that rightly praises the lone artist, inventor, or poet --, our thinking about innovation tends to start and end with individuals. We have come far enough in our understanding that it is clear that a formula for individual creativity, if one exists, is so complex a mix of nature and nurture -- of genetic endowments and family, cultural, and social influences -- that there cannot be enough certainty to justify political intervention at this level of social life.

We should not conclude from this, however, that there is nothing that can be done to promote innovation. New and useful ideas may be generated at apparently random intervals by creative individuals, but the field entrusted with defining a domain of knowledge may be more or less receptive to those ideas. Somewhat paradoxically (since a field of experts is nothing more than a group of creative individuals, which I have denied we understand well enough to regulate), we do understand enough about what makes a field more or less receptive to new and useful ideas to justify a few political interventions. The reason for this is simple: We have not (at least not until recently) had the technological capacity to store and process enough information about individuals to have certainty about them. The same is not true of groups. We have retold, recorded, and revisited histories of various groups of people for thousands of years.

What are the lessons of that history? Painted in broad brush strokes, they are summarized by Csikszentmihalyi in his work on Creativity:

Better training, higher expectations, more accurate recognition, a greater availability of opportunities, and stronger rewards are among the conditions that facilitate the production and the assimilation of potentially useful new ideas.

These characteristics have been found in every great civilization, be it Greece, Rome, Florence, Venice, Victorian England, or the Silicon Valley and New York of today. Our civilization is now in crisis, and innovation offers it its best hopes for the future. We must save ourselves from this crisis by learning new and useful ways of living. To that end, we could do worse than to make our many fields of endeavor more receptive to the new and useful ideas of individual artists, authors, and inventors.

Here is a sketch of how reform might be accomplished:

• Training: We have the best universities in the world. Lately, they have stayed that way because they have been fed by a stream of immigrants who are eager to learn and have been raised in cultures that place a high value on formal education. Art, mathematics, music, and science are hardly valued in our culture the way they were many years ago. When budget cuts are needed, some of these are first to go. Math and science are not cool to American kids. Why not?
• Expectations: The answer is expectations. Adults in this country place too little value on learning for the sake of learning. There is something beautiful and good about having an understanding that brings order to the universe, be it artistic, musical, or mathematical. But our expectations for the next generation are only that it will be more practical and prosperous in solving whatever problem is immediately before us. The rational hypothesis has been accepted and become a reality for all too many of us. A more humane hypothesis that recognizes and encourages the enjoyment of learning and discovery must take the side of rational self-interest before our posterity seeks training and rises above our expectations.
• Opportunities: We excel at least in this respect as a nation since indeed opportunities to join a field and contribute to a domain of knowledge are open in the United States even to many beyond our borders. But we should not rest on our laurels, and would do even better by making those opportunities available to even larger groups, especially when it can be done at low cost. Why not let students who graduate with Ph.D.s from U.S. universities remain in the U.S. if they so choose? At least we should not use money to make fewer opportunities available!
• Recognition: If we are lucky, our culture will evolve to more widely value creativity. In the mean time, the recognition sought by many creative individuals will be not (or not only) the recognition of experts in a given domain, but the recognition of the managers and investors who decide what new and useful ideas are accepted for development, marketing, and distribution to the whole of society. Those managers and investors should be held to the standards of public service commensurate with their level of responsibility to society as a whole. Although government regulation has failed again and again to keep up with changes in a given domain, the web of knowledge that is being spun with new technology offers us all a chance to hold these leaders responsible when their decisions are too short-term or provincial. We should expect these leaders to establish a public presence on the Internet, and to have at least some channel for receiving feedback from people other than the ones they see and talk to on a day to day basis.
• Rewards: For the truly creative individual, seeing a new and useful idea accepted into the domain is its own reward. Yet material and psychological needs remain. Material needs are often met in this country -- although it certainly harder for the average artist and author now than it was before digital performances were available to everyone. But psychological needs for reward and recognition remain. Without some reward or recognition, there is no game to be played, no competition to be won. If competition is an engine of creativity, then rewards should be set commensurate with the importance of the creative contribution. Our patent and antitrust systems are perhaps the most sophisticated means for maintaining such competitions that the world has ever known. We should beware of cutting back at the rewards of patenting when we are so in need of new and useful ideas.

The Three Laws of Performance by Zaffron and Logan

Back in October I read and blogged about Tribal Leadership by Logan, King, and Fischer-Wright. The thesis presented in Tribal Leadership is that the health of organizations correlates with growth in the average number of connections between members of the organization over time. If you haven't read Tribal Leadership, then you should check it out. That book, unlike this one, also includes a useful cheatsheet, which summarizes the most important points of the book. It's the better place to start, and should probably be read in conjunction with The Three Laws of Performance.

Both of these books promote what Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi would call a systems model for explaining individual and group performance. According to the systems model, there is no particular habit or activity that will guarantee an individual who practices it better performance or more creativity. The reason for this is that whereas an individual produces the performance or creative work, the work must then be evaluated and accepted by the field of experts for the symbolic domain of the performance before it can become a part of that domain. In other words, transcendent performances (including creative works and the accomplishment of challenging business goals) require collaboration between individuals and groups. Growth (or decay) results as groups and the individuals who constitute them evolve to tackle successively more complex goals.

The Three Laws of Performance provides a list of rules (and stories explaining how they work in practice) that promise to help individuals in leadership roles facilitate the group coherence and cohesion that are necessary to bring about transcendent performance. The book is based on a wealth of experience from decades of applying the ideas it explains. If you're interested in this kind of theory, the book is worth a read. It was disappointing, however, that the authors didn't make more of an effort to connect their ideas up with similar work done by others in the past. I'll explain with reference to the three laws themselves.

The first law of performance holds that how people perform correlates to how situations "occur" to them. This odd choice of word raises many questions. Fortunately, the authors were merciful enough to address the confusion upfront:

So what exactly does occur mean? We mean something beyond perception and subjective experience. We mean the reality that arises within and from your perspective on the situation. In fact, your perspective is itself part of the way in which the world occurs to you. "How a situation occurs" includes your view of the past (why things are the way they are) and the future (where all this is going)."

Now without a systems model in mind, this is nearly incomprehensible to me. Again, the best way that I have of understanding it is in terms of a systems model that includes feedback loops between individuals, the field that includes those individuals, and the domain of symbolic knowledge that the field operates within. If you want a picture, consider this diagram from Roger Penrose's Road to Reality:

In this diagram we see the feedback loop that connects the physical world, our mental picture of it (our consciousness), and our models of it in a given symbolic domain (such as language or mathematics). We can associate each stage of the loop with different people who work within a particular symbolic domain. For a domain to be cohesive, each individual within the group has to a have a mental picture of the entire domain. For it to be coherent, those pictures have to be consistent with the rules of the domain set by a group of recognized experts. So the bottom left corner would correspond to individuals within the group. The top corner corresponds to the domain as it is defined by the group of people who are considered experts in the domain. Note that although the rules of the domain are determined by the group of experts, the domain exists independent of any one of the experts -- making it possible for individuals in the bottom left corner to contribute, and for the domain to outlive any particular expert.

Finally, in the bottom right corner we have the physical world in which everything is embedded. It is through this corner that new information (including experimental observations or discoveries) enters the loop.

Having a systems model in mind makes the first law more comprehensible, at least to me. With the systems model in mind, we can reinterpret the first law as "how individuals perform correlates to their memory and forecast for how the group and the world itself have and will evolve over time." (Or something pretty close to that.) So far this might seem fascinating, but also useless. So what? Should seeing things this way make any difference in how we act?

The answer is yes because as Werner Erhard knew well, it is possible to change the loop by convincing individuals to change how they understand their past and forecast their future, especially as it relates to others within the group. As the Author's Note makes clear, part of the intellectual history of this book is derived from the knowledge and experience of people who worked with Erhard in the est seminars popular several decades ago. Incidentally, that inheritance might also explain the willingness to leave some terminology inscrutable. Part of the ethics of est seems to have involved challenging the audience to engage with the teaching intellectually -- a practice best exemplified by Socrates and worst exemplified by Heidegger, both of whom might also be considered antecedents to this sort of philosophy.

Back to the book. The remaining two laws basically spell out a prescription for how to implement transformational change within an organization given that the systems model applies. So the second law holds that "how a situation occurs arises in language." This is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is now an accepted fact at least among cognitive psychologists. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis explains how corners of the loop are linked.

The third law holds that "[f]uture based language transforms how situations occur to people." In other words, when enough individuals working within a domain decide to change the domain, then the domain and hence the activities of the indviduals and groups that constitute it will shift into a different mode of operating. What is perhaps less intuitive is the fact that such shifts may occur voluntarily when enough individuals agree to make them happen. That's another reason why this book should be read in conjunction with Tribal Leadership.

I like the vision that the authors have in this book, and believe their prescriptions are sound advice for carrying out transformational change within an organization. There is so much theory compacted into a short book, however, that it is a bit difficult to digest, and is probably best used in conjunction with training by somebody familiar with the theory. (The authors are also professional consultants with an impressive track record of helping organizations achieve transformational change.)

As a final note, I was reminded by this book of this post on how Thomas Schelling's concept of focal points is useful in facilitating institutional change, and this book review on how the culture of reformed Protestantism may have influenced the Founding Fathers. There is more to be said about insitutional design than is captured by the static mental models of economic equilibrium taught in law and business schools, and this book is a good contribution to the evolution of these mental models.

UPDATE: If you're interested in systems theory in business, then you might also like some of the books and papers published by Prof. John Sterman at MIT.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Per new FTC rules, I want to disclose that I received a free copy of this book before providing the review here. I guess they found me because of my earlier review of Tribal Leadership and thought I'd be interested. I probably would have written a nice review if I didn't feel myself pulled in that direction by my desire to get more free books in the future!