Simplicity = unlearning and synthesis.

In the recent “Changethis,” (changethis.com) Dan Ward does some writing about the problems of complexity and over-thinking.

Click on the title above to go to the article.

Here are some highlights and notes:

1. There is a “complexity on the other side of understanding.”

In other words, people can often go too far in trying to develop an idea. Solution: peel back the layers to get to what is good and what works.

2. Complexity and goodness are not always directly proportional.

“Here we find the learned academician who everyone assumes is brilliant because no one can understand a word he says. In fact, his academics may simply be overcomplicated and have very limited goodness.”

3. To remedy the problem, Ward recommends “unlearning and synthesis.”

“To begin moving in this direction, we must learn a few new skills and forget some old ones. In place of learning and genesis, which served us well on the trip between Simplisticness and Complexity, we must now master a skillset that includes things like unlearning and synthesis.”

4. Reduce the design to basic components.

“The idea is to prune and pare down the design, reducing it to the essential components."

“For a more academically rigorous approach, we can look to Genrich Altshuller’s Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, which identified something called the law of ideality. This law states that as systems mature, they tend to become more reliable, simpler, and more effective—more ideal. This law goes onto explain that the amount of complexity in a system is a measure of how far away it is from its ideal state. Interestingly, Altshuller postulates that upon reaching perfect ideality, the mechanism itself no longer exists. Only the function remains; the various components have been simplified to zero.”

5. Experiencing complexity is an important step.

“One cannot usually jump directly from simplistic to simple, skipping complexity entirely. The initial increase in complexity is as crucial to maximizing goodness as the later decrease in complexity.”

“We have now replaced what Albert Schweitzer called ‘naive simplicity’ with a ‘profound simplicity.’ This is done by pursuing synthesis rather than genesis and goodness rather than complexity.”

The Frustration of Being a Creative Generalist

If you're looking for a job, whether online or in a newspaper, one thing you won't see advertised is a position for a "creative generalist." After reading this piece (below) by Dr. Terry Rock, I know now that I'm not the only one who recognizes this fact. With the writings of Daniel Pink, Thomas Friedman and others, I hope this changes.

"The whole thing is worth reading, but one thing I face, and I know others face, is how to translate generalism into organizational reality. For example… finding a job as a generalist is difficult because there really isn’t “a place on most org charts and [generalists] are frequently told by HR that they’re smart but ‘we wouldn’t know where to put you.’” The flipside is running an organization that “gets” the need for generalists, but faces constant pressure to specialize."

Dr. Rock is referring to an essay written by Steve Hardy regarding creative generalism. I wrote about that piece here. You can also find the original essay at Steve Hardy's blog.

Using Chaos Theory in Organizations

Finding a link between chaos, complexity and education was the central theme of my thesis research. The research has implications in any large or small organization.

Excerpted from a piece I worked on in 2004 called Bridging the Gap: A Complex-Adaptive Solution to the Great Political Divide

…Chaos theory tells us that everything in the universe has an emerging nature, from the evolution of organisms, to volcanic eruptions, to weather patterns, to the growth of civilizations. Secondly, the greatest creativity, evolvability and progress appear to take place at the “edge of chaos.” In chaos theory, random forces can converge to form a higher order. Research in the field has gone from the study of planets to the study of the weather to microorganisms, to the growth of companies to organizational and group behavior. What one learns from a study of complexity is that random forces converge to form a higher order behavior. Keep your eye on the larger picture as we delve into the details.

Steven Johnson, in a book called Emergence: the Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software (2001) wrote about studies of slime mold in the 1960’s by Mitch Resnick. The studies revealed that microorganisms displayed collective intelligence. Instead of one large organism moving across a floor in search of food, it was revealed that the “slime” was actually hundreds of single celled organisms coming together for a larger purpose.

In fact, evidence of self-organization is everywhere. Prigognine and Stengers in their much-cited compendium Order out of Chaos (1984) said that the biosphere as a whole and all its components existed in a state far from equilibrium. Based on this, they said life, as part of the natural order, was the “supreme expression” of a self-organizing process. Simplified, this means that the air, land and sea are all part of a complex system that tends towards equilibrium. It does so because it is adaptive. If it doesn’t – if it were rigid – it would cease to exist, and we would cease to exist.

Another example of a highly productive emergent process took place at the RAND Corporation in the 1950s. As Nasser told the story in A Beautiful Mind (1998), people drifted into each other’s offices, or would just chat in the corridors. The grids and courtyards were set up “to maximize chance meetings.” The interchanges would lead to new research and colleagues exchanging challenging problems with one another. In this informal way, RAND memoranda would often start out simply as a handwritten paper being handed over to a math department secretary (Nasar).