Complex Systems and Emergent Behavior: Most simply, a system is a collection of parts or pieces that interact, affecting each other over time. Each piece (more . . .)

Using Intuition: Decision Theory uses the mathematics of probability to guide decisions. But setting the odds and making sense of the numbers (more . . .)

About this site

Essays

Current Working Notes

My personal website is at ODBlog . I write about decision theory at my site On Deciding . . . Better . This site is a hyperlinked set of essays using Tinderbox.

Syndication available

The most fascinating aspect of the behavior of units once connected is that they behave in ways not predicted by knowing how individuals behave. We can't predict the system's behavior, much less control it.

Many commentators expressed dismay when Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean for the Democratic Presidential nomination, seemingly annointing him as the party's candidate months before the first primary vote would be cast. This is not the way the system is supposed to work, they said. Party politics had conspired to undermine the democratic system.

I think its upsetting because these events occurred before the voters could control them. But its worthwhile asking how "Party Politics" can act, given that it is not a person place or thing. What is the "Democratic System"? And how can Al Gore acting now make it impossible for voters to choose months from now?

Its not a large conceptual jump from the individual as a system with emergent behavior to viewing groups of people as systems with emergent behavior. Families, companies and political parties all behave in ways that can't be predicted by the actions of individuals and the rules of their interactions. Thus the "Democratic Party" can select a nominee through emergent behaviors like momentum building behind a frontrunner even before the first vote is cast. Is it inevitable? The future can be predicted in a general way by estimating the chances that Howard Dean will actually be on the ballot in November, 2004. On reflection, its clear that many unforeseen events and emergent behaviors of the system may occur before then putting someone else on the ballot. We err when we mistakenly believe a the present state of the system necessarily predicts the future state of the system. Experience may tell us that it is the most likely future for us, but it is by no means certain.

By accepting that the present is the future, we give up control of the future. Those who would like a different outcome must act now and continue to act in ways that make their favored outcome more likely.

But how to affect the future of a system with emergent behavior. If On Deciding . . . Better endorses a candidate, it is unlikely to have much of an effect. My vote in the Maryland primary will have even less effect. On the other hand, an endorsement by Bill Clinton would have a major impact. His vote will have the same impact as mine. Our inability to understand complex, emergent behavior is exceeded only by our inability to control it, whether we are part of the system or not. And here, I think, is where the frustration and feelings of powerlessness come in. The system will act with our without us in ways we don't understand or control.

Live within your sphere of influence and sphere of concern. Stephen Covey, in his original distillation of what he called the "wisdom literature", put it that way in his book, "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". I realized later that his principles were firmly grounded in Decision Theory and Systems Theory. The actions of Al Gore, the Democratic National Committee and the Convention are well outside my sphere of influence. It would take time and energy to gain influence there. My existence as a voter in the primary and as the writer of On Deciding . . . Better constitutes my ability to influence. Frustration and fear are not effective ways to act on the concern that my choice in 2004 may be between Howard Dean and George W. Bush.

Copyright 2003 by James J. Vornov