Beautiful

Tremendous!

❤❤❤

Holochain :))

7 min: this 'Catholic' denies the entire message of the New Testament according to Saint Augustine: that the 8 prohibitions among the 10 commandments constitute the 'letter' of the law, which is essentially reducible to the 2 positive commands: to love God and eachother (in that order)...

If you say so Dave... 😂

I'm seeing the importance of have good feedbacks. I wonder if the participants are given some basic template on what should be included in their journal or it is mostly free form. Maybe a combination of the two?

I'm based in sub-Saharan Africa. Would definitely love to be a student of cynefin, its a great body of work and i see tremendous value in your tools for navigating life. I hope for accessibility in time so i can learn thoroughly. Thank you Mr Dave and company, your contributions to knowledge are invaluable.

Really great video with explanation of liminality and dynamics!

Decision making is always done with partial data.

In looking for increased resiliency in security, consider safety is like security. Look a bit at Safety Differently? Note Todd Conklin, associate of Sidney Dekker, writes than some languages do not have a word for safety. There is a great medium article by Ron Butcher Rethinking Safety an Illusory and Context-Dependent Construct. Is security a similar illusory construct?

“I try to have an idea of the last mile…” “A lot more conscious rigor than we’re used to to navigate ourselves back” see Children of the Magenta. Both literally and figuratively.

Take the industrialized food production a step further. It is more than bad for ecology, it is also poison for the consumer. Does this analogy extend further? What would Jonathan Haidt of the Coddling of the American Mind say? The same Jon campaigning against social media due to the harms to children.

The talk of commercial fishing and the race takes me back to Jared Diamond in Collapse with his tragedy of commons discussions.

“Stochastic terrorism,” thanks ‘Good 2 Geek’ via Daily Kos.

Remember also, winning is serial. To win, you only need success in one attempt at each time. To avoid losing, however, is parallel. To avoid losing, you must defeat all attempts. Consider also Rupert Smith Utility of Force discussing War Amongst the People distinct from Industrial War. Consider Sinek’s Infinite Game. Note Russia is in a finite fight while Ukraine is in an infinite one. This also brings up the importance of Fabius. Note George Washington and Ho Chi Minh were Fabian. As was the Mujihadeen, is the Taliban. Avoid decisive battle. Corbett may have something to add. Boyd would.

Speaking of “real world” and “electronic world,” I’d suggest information should be a separate domain from electromagnetic. Currently they’re both lumped together. I’d also suggest cyber is also distinct from information. Information is aimed at human minds. It may be non-physical yet it still has physical world implication. Cyber is truly a construct yet it too has physical implication - see Stuxnet and Iranian centrifuges. Yet cyber is aimed at machines not humans. Distinction. EM can be used to convey information, can be used to convey cyber, alternately it can be used for its own completely different thing. An EM pulse is neither information nor cyber though it can affect both. Radar may be seen as informational though really it isn’t aimed at minds, it is instead about assisting kill chains. Same for IR which is more EM, same though flip side for jamming. And all EM is physically real not social construct. Disinformation, propaganda, psyops really need to be viewed distinctly from “electronic world.” In the sense of this discussion, EM is merely the medium just as air a medium through which light and radio may be traveling and water is a medium for sound. Though we do have separate air and maritime domains with completely different concerns. Note also we should be careful with the word ‘surface.’ Targeting on land is different than water, we’ve recently been using surface as a generalized term including both, we shouldn’t. We shouldn’t have air-to-surface checks, we should have air-to-ground as distinct from air-to-water. There is no singular surface domain. There is land, and there is maritime, but maritime is 3D above and below surface inclusive.

RE concern we’re abandoning the scientific method; thought that didn’t work in complexity? Only for in complication.

If you cannot accept machine based knowledge fed back in, by what right can you accept human based knowledge fed back in? If feeding back outputs into inputs becomes unstable, isn’t that true of any fed back outputs? If it be false of human outputs becoming inputs, what is unique in AI? A feedback is a feedback no matter what it feeds back. Humans have come up with some weird stuff. Yet we give humans a pass?

“We’re trying to determine accountability… who will be blamed for when something goes wrong.” Ask Sidney Dekker, that’s not accountability. Avoid blame and the second victim. Accountability is providing your account. Regarding if AI suggestions don’t make sense, do officials have power to go against? What do they do if hired consultants make suggestions that don’t make sense?

2:57 Energy Gradiants

fantastic summary, Dave. Thank you

Interesting framework....will explore more and add it to my Business Continuity career. Thank you for sharing.

what this looks like to me is basically creating a physics ruleset that acts like a programming language. everything here about constraints and such is directly out of programming.

Thanks for this short summary. Interesting

Beautiful... Thank you! I learned so much from your conversation :)

Great story Dave. Hat off to you and the team for what you have explored and learned.

Thank you Dave. Good to understand the "forlopp" of your hinking. I imagine you love beautiful words. Forlopp is one of my favorites. It was used in PLEX programming to associate the instances in relating processes within an AXE. Forlopp = Sequence of related events.

I have two suggestions for enhancing the Cynefin Framework. 1. There is a difference between "solving a problem" and "applying 'C'uriosity to disolve a problem". IOW, the mindset or environment we are in when using the Framework seems to me to be an important factor. 2. Disorder is a group's mental state, or 'C'onfusion. Even more importantly, at the individual or 'C'ommunication level, we need to recognise two other states: Disconnect and Unbalance. Disconnect(ed) in a sense that I am not acting as myself and I am not able to improve the situation. Unbalance(d) means that I am doing too much of some things and not enough of other things and, unknowingly, I am allowing 'C'onstraints to sabotage me in the future. Perhaps, we also need to be clear about, when addressing any issue, that we need to identify/address "the population", which is another word for a system. Only then will our assessment be felt as empathy, will make us 'C'onscious of the whole (the well-being) and allow us to move out of "Disorder".

Curious about the word you discuss about 30mins in - that means something like homesickness for a place that no longer exists or that might never have been. I couldn’t make it out. What word is that?

Damn this is pretty money. Listing off a syllabus of of concepts, like Eminem’s Rap God. Would love to hear some basic principles on determining scope for constraints.

😆 *Promo SM*

In the government example - why do you put many groups of 3 people to understand the things to improve, but not ask everybody - this should be more democratic? // actually the same could be done in a company

In the first part you criticize "purpose" statements and later remember the 4 causes of Aristotle... (one of them is purpose), does that make sense?

is the sound a problem only for me?

Though I agree with most of the things said, I strongly disagree with the "Waterfall has value" idea. Waterfall is a degraded version of the methodology developed at the SAGE project in 1953-1956. Benington, who published the original waterfall paper in 1956, later said that he was misunderstood, and that he had left out important things that the SAGE project did, for example prototyping. He called Waterfall "disastrous". Winston Royce, in 1970, also protested against waterfall. He is often mistakenly regarded as the creator of waterfall, but his paper is really about an iterative method, with prototyping. In 1994, the US Department of Defence expressly forbid their subcontractors to use Waterfall, because of the disastrous results. From a queuing theory point of view, Waterfall maximizes the internal build-up of Work-In-Process, which maximizes project lead time, risk, and cost. There is great value to be found in traditional, heavyweight methods, like CPM, Critical Chain, the Spiral Method, RAD, and so on, but Waterfall has none of the desirable properties of those methods. So why Waterfall?

Do you see LLMs as a threat to Sense Maker?

Very interested in the last 3+1 visualization of the framework.

In networks, things that are ordered have strongly connected nodes with harmonic regularity and things that are complex have lavers of influence beyond the observable layers.

😱 "Promosm"

Easily understood! Great examples and insights.

The second part: RE-EMERGENCE: Complexity Yarns with Indigenous Thinkers Series Yarn #2 👉kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5y4g3SYp5momKs The second part: RE-EMERGENCE: Complexity Yarns with Indigenous Thinkers Series Yarn #3 👉kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJ-vpXmrjtiqd80 The third part: RE-EMERGENCE: Complexity Yarns with Indigenous Thinkers Series Yarn #4 👉kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHq0moFue76VjcU

Great conversation that somehow I missed...love listening to you talk in this way Dave...give us more of it please because it's really accessible to everyone who is not big into (your) theory, as important as praxis is

Just brilliant

This is, from an organisational design point of view, poetically beautiful...

Would love to learn more about mapping constraints

The speakers' political commitments give a lie to all the talk about the importance of context, viewpoint diversity, etc. You'll note that Dave's go-to example of "extremism" is populism - i.e. right wing extremism. For him, viewpoint diversity is all well and good, as long as it doesn't include 'right wing' ideas. Complexity goes out the window when it comes to politically emotive subjects like Trump or Brexit. This is a *huge* blind spot.

Thanks for sharing - a lot of food for thought. My top two takeaways for now... big scale: There's no point in searching for a new grand narrative, because it has to emerge. small scale: Personal experiences are trans-contextual. I'll be looking for ways to appreciate that. Btw, in the description, the Star Trek links for 1. and 2. point to the same video, and both to the start (t=0s).

This is great!! Dave, do you have any material on things to consider when training a customer to talk to tech?