Diversity's Role in Complex Systems Part 3

In the previous two parts, we looked at some examples of complex systems, the ways in which diversity strengthens them, and the pitfalls inherent in attempts to over-optimize them. Now, I'll expand on this alongside some discussion of systems theory before moving on to a discussion of more human-centered systems in future posts. This will serve as a basis for further discussions, but I'll be able to pause here for my trip to Greenland.

So, what is a complex system? Basically, a complex system is a set of interacting objects or agents in which their interactions lead to feedback. Without going into too much detail and chaos theory, because of this feedback, the behavior of complex systems cannot be fully predicted from an invariant set of rules. Furthermore, small variations in starting conditions can lead to arbitrarily large divergences in the outcome. Weather and climate systems are the classic examples – we know where hurricanes are likely to form and where they are likely to go, but we cannot predict their exact behavior. The large-scale behavior of the storm is determined by the local actions of its myriad constituent parts.* 

Thus, in an ant colony or beehive, the large-scale behavior is determined by the local interactions between each actor, their neighbors, and their environment. (This is also related to the concept of emergence, wherein a sufficient density of interaction will trigger a state or phase change in the system.) In systems like these, there is no central command/control; ants have no hierarchy (the queen doesn't give orders).

We can also speak of these systems as decentralized or distributed systems and these peer-to-peer interactions as a heterarchy. If this sounds like computer networking lingo, that's because it is; another way to approach systems is as networks. In fact, the Internet can be implemented as an entirely peer-to-peer system, although in practice, there are a few central servers that route traffic around different regions, but they aren't actually necessary.

In distributed systems, the variation of actors leads to a stronger, more resilient system for the same basic reason that biodiversity is important. However, even in a hierarchical or centralized system, diversity still matters. To be clear, many human systems are actually far more peer-to-peer than is commonly realized, but that's for future posts.

We might think about all of the different roles in a large corporation. The engineer who designs an engine probably doesn't know how to actually make it; that's the job of the machinist. But a machinist needs someone to take care of acquiring and supplying the material, the job of a logistics clerk. If specific knowledge experience matters for narrowly defined tasks, i.e. machinist, engineer, etc., then its easy to see the ways in which more holistic difference is important and useful for an organization. We'll deal with this more in the future, but an interesting example of this in play is Volvo's 2004 YCC concept car. Around 2001, Volvo decided to try to better meet the needs of female driver, so the YCC car was designed by an all female design team. The result revealed a different set of design priorities than are typical in the auto industry. Some of these were major features- self-opening trunks designed to be easy to access with bags in ones hands (something which has since become much more common), while others are so obvious one wonders how it was missed and how it has still not become standard such as indentations on the headrests for ponytails. Now imagine what sort of cars we might get (particularly in the US) were they designed with middle-low income urban families in mind, or were the stereotypical Soccer-Mom van actually designed by Soccer-Moms. Instead, we just get more SUVs. While a lot of the time we think of a blue ocean opportunity as coming from some brilliant innovation, simply expanding the diversity of people involved in the business can provide those sorts of opportunities.

We will deal with all of this more in the future, including the topic of protocols or norms,** but I am going to Greenland tomorrow. My next post will outline the challenges in the Greenlandic economy and ways that circularity and community driven cooperation can help address many of them.

*The three-body problem is another example of a complex system. In other words, the kinematics of any two objects can be outlined with universal rules. The moment you add in that third object, all that goes right out the window. An interesting property of such systems is that scale becomes very important. Zoom into the storm, and it's just water droplets and sunlight. The storm is a state that we identify, and looking at it through different parts of the processes that form it (i.e., thermal flow, humidity, wind patterns) can make its borders blurry or nonexistent. There's some lovely interplay with Zen Philosphy here, and this layered, intentionality-driven approach is something Deleuze is very interested in, but that's for later. To be clear, there clearly is a hurricane. There's wind, rain, and waves, but where and when it begins or ends is unclear, and it is our observation and conceptualization framework that makes it a storm rather than a bunch of water droplets and wind. Which is what it really is. There is no hurricane, just a name given to myriad interrelated actors, which, in concert, will blow down your house.

**That's actually very important as actors in a system have to be able to exchange information and material. We may hate them, but imagine a world without standardized forms. It doesn't matter which side of the street people are supposed to drive on; what matters is that there is one side that everyone is supposed to use. The key is to have sets of protocols that facilitate the cooperation of as broad a group of people as possible. There have to be rules, but, for the most part, they're not the sort of cultural norms that people tend to focus on. We will get into that more in a discussion of moral psychology and the way that what people perceive as normative tends to get imbued with an emotive sense of rightness.