BRUTE wrote:Dragline wrote:
in Dragline's esteemed opinion, if one were to realize that a system is complex and complicated and non-linear and fractal and all that, how would one go about inducing non-random change in that system? is there a methodology? if the consequences are unforeseeable, maybe a sort of metaphorical "wading in slowly", seeing if the resulting waves lead to what was hoped?
Yes, like most of life it requires empirical observation. Basically do something and see what happens and then make an adjustment, and don't do something too drastic right away. It's no different than starting a new exercise program.
The example of the books from the article is a good one as something that could be easily corrected if somebody would have been paying attention. Providing books written in a language that people can't read is like supplying somebody with rowing equipment and not teaching them how to use it.
I like to say life is more like tending a garden (a dynamic system) than constructing a sculpture, building or some other static object. You have to pull weeds, get feedback and make adjustments as you go. But it you try to do too much all at once, you'll probably have bad results.
I'm reading an interesting book right now "The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck . . ." by Maubossin that, while focussed on business, sports and investing, gives ten guidelines for approaching human-based complex systems that are generally applicable:
1. Understand where you are on the luck/skill continuum
2. Assess sample size, significance and swans
3. Always consider a null hypothesis
4. Think carefully about feedback and rewards
5. Make use of counter-factuals
6. Develop aids to guide and improve your skill
7. Have a plan for strategic interactions
8. Make reversion to the mean work for you (or at least account for it)
9. Develop useful statistics
10. Know your limitations
But most NGOs are not designed like this. They quickly become more about marketing, which they need to do to sustain themselves and attract a steady stream of donors. So they focus on short-term appearances/fixes and not long-term results. Their incentives are all wrong and the results are haphazard. (Note that article was a bit slanted sometimes -- things like de-worming might not improve the GDP of the community very much, but I'm sure they improved the lives of people who would otherwise have them.)
The organizations that are most likely to succeed are those that are not caught in endless funding cycles and can work on long-term planning and assess results as they go. These would be things like the Gates Foundation, which adopt many of the kinds of controls in that list above and are highly focussed on "making lots of small bets" and getting feedback on them. See
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work