So, in this text, you'll learn about the very powerful "Model of Hierarchical Complexity" because with it you can understand better what you can understand and where you can be useful. I believe if you know those things, you'll have a pretty darn good chance of finding a place in the world where you are engaged in meaningful activities and making the world a better place.
You'll also learn why a fictional fart is part of the existential crisis of the Western world and why Friedrich Nietzsche is going to be relevant for at least another 150 years.
The Model of Hierarchical Complexity (MHC)
The MHC is a framework by Michael Commons that can be used to assess the complexity of a behaviour. The sixteen-stage hierarchy is completely formal, meaning that the content of the behaviour doesn’t matter. Therefore any human behaviour can be analysed by using the MHC.
The MHC has three core ideas. First, a higher stage in the hierarchy is defined in the terms of the next lowest stage. Second, the higher stage organises the lower stage. Third, the organisation is non-arbitrary, which means that similar behaviours can be understood to belong to the same stage not only because of their possible causal connections, but also because of their qualitative sameness.
To put it in more simple terms, this means that behaviours categorised under a certain stage share something more in common, than just being followed by each other. For example, constructing a sentence is a process that I have to repeat several times to construct a paragraph. Even though this and the previous sentences together form a unified paragraph, the sentence forming rules that guide my behaviour function independently of the specific whole that is created here. Furthermore, the sentence creation is defined by certain rules regarding words (lower stage complexity), and the paragraphs are organised based on higher stage rules regarding groups of paragraphs, passages, sections, chapters and complete texts.
Horizontal and vertical complexity
Before going into the sixteen stages, horizontal and vertical complexity need to be understood. When looking at a task on a certain stage, it can be broken down into simpler tasks that belong to a stage below it. These tasks are either completed, or not completed. This creates a simple yes-no binary, which can be understood as “bits”. The amount of bits (individual tasks that either get the value of “done” or “not done”) determines the horizontal complexity of the tasks. So, gluing a stamp on a letter is less complex horizontally than gluing a stamp on ten letters.
Vertical complexity on the other hand is more qualitative in nature. So, if my goal is to organise a party with ten attendees - and I’ve decided there won’t be a party unless ten people come - just sending one letter will not get the job done. Therefore me sending ten letters is the prerequisite for the complex phenomenon of a party to happen. As the ten letters are sent, a higher-order task of “invite ten people” is accomplished, bringing me further to the goal of organising the actual party. And, for a more complex social gathering getting the ten people together might need to be done nine more times to get a hundred people together, in groups of ten, for a bigger party down the line.
The 16 stages of MHC
Let’s now look at the sixteen stages of the MHC.
First there is stage 0, which is calculatory. This is the simplest form of binary yes-no, 0-1 tasks. Us humans do not really perform these kinds of tasks consciously, as our sub-structures down to the sub-atomic level operate in this way.
On stage 1 the tasks are automatic. This again is very simple. For example a weird seaweed can either close or open based on water currents.
Stage 2 is sensory- or motor-based. Here a series of stage 1 tasks are combined into movement of limbs, eyes or similar structures. Also the act of sensing the environment - seeing red for example - happens here too.
On stage 3 tasks become circular sensory-motor -based. Reaching, grabbing and circular babbling are examples of this level.
Stage 4 combines into sensory-motor tasks. For example, a previously disorganised act of grasping now becomes a functional category of grasping when that is appropriate. As a human baby develops, this is the part where they start sub-consciously realising that grasping is a suitable action for certain situation, but not others.
On stage 5 relational tasks start building up. Simple words can be attached to certain relatively constant parts of the environment, such as “mama” when it comes to an infant and the mother. The concept of “mother” starts developing here.
The 6th stage is sentential. Here the singular concepts start forming wholes, such as “my mum”. Here the differentiation between the object and subject start developing, imitation becomes possible as the previous stages become more solidified in the capabilities of the actor.
Stage 7 is preoperational. The distinction between events and objects starts to emerge. The ability to understand sequences of events as stories develops. “My mum gave me potatoes and I ate them” is an example of a simple storyline that represents this stage.
On stage 8 - the primary stage - a host of complex tasks can be accomplished. Time and place become more operational concepts, storylines become more complex and the ability to abstract in the form of simple arithmetic becomes possible.
Stage 9 is the concrete stage. Several everyday adult interactions happen on this stage. Forming groups, following complex social rules and ignoring simple ones happen here. For example the ability to make deals, to trade, starts happening here. The act of making a deal requires “if-then” style of thinking and the ability to think further ahead, which is only possible after the previous stages have formed the basis for this.
Stage 10 - the abstract stage - starts to resemble relatively functional human being. The ability to understand stereotypes, logical quantification between concepts such as “none”, “some” and “all” emerges here. The ability to form statements such as “we all get paid if we do these tasks” becomes apparent here, as the concepts of time, place, actors, states and types become available.
Stage 11 is formal. Arguments using empirical, algebraic or logical evidence and the ability to solve problems using unknown variables develops here. Correct scientific solutions can be attained here.
On the systematic 12th stage multivariate systems and matrices can be constructed. For example, on the previous stages a phenomenon such as the “wage gap” maybe understood more readily from the point of view of a single variable. Here the ability to understand a topic and solve problems regrading it becomes more sophisticated and several complex phenomena can be synthesized into a whole. Legal, societal, corporate, economic and national systems are examples of things happening on this stage.
Stage 13 is metasystematic. Different systems are combined into larger wholes. They can be compared, analysed, separated and unified to form complex contracts and promises spanning across long periods of time and large physical spaces. These are tasks that require a high level of coordination and a high level of trust, but also checks and balances in the whole organised structure.
The 14th stage is paradigmatic. The grand statement of something being a “paradigm shift” works well here. As several metasystems merge into a larger whole, the commonalities they share form a paradigm, a large, unified way of thinking, perceiving and acting in the world.
In the 15th stage, the cross-paradigmatic stage, different paradigms start interacting. As a paradigm shifts (for example the so-called “Linguistic turn” in the arts, humanities and social sciences) several different meta-systems underwent a large-scale change that affected a whole family of scientific and academic fields. Thus new paradigms can be created on this stage.
On the final, 16th stage meta-cross-paradigmatic changes can occur. The vastness of this stage is hard to comprehend. An example of this could be Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous exclamation about the “Death of God”. In his thinking the Western World was, is and would be going through a massive, cross-paradigmatic process of change, as the commonly shared concepts of good, evil, true, false and several others were questioned. These kinds of deep changes in the complex psycho-socio-biological environments take time to happen and are extremely hard to conceptualise or pin down.
In a way the 16th stage is the highest level of abstraction, spanning the largest timeframes and the largest geographical and virtual spaces. The most entrenched axioms of communal thinking are made conscious on this stage, and very, very few people can act on this level (keep in mind action is simpler and more intuitive than verbal communication).
The Death of God and a Flatulence
Let’s look at an example that hopefully can make this 16-stage system a bit more easily digestible. I’ll start from the 16th level and progress down as best as I can. I will use my own background as a way to ground the examples, because it is impossible at this time to explain this in any other way. The example is completely fictional.
16: Let’s start with the “Death of God”. It’s a powerful conceptualisation of the changes in the philosophical and sub-conscious changes in the way Western culture(s) understand and operate in the world.
15: Underlying this massive change is the cross-paradigmatic conflict between religion and science. Western science can be argued to be born out of the judeo-christian way of thinking that elevates truth as the highest value to be pursued. As the non-scientific, religious basis gave birth to the sciences (through the wacky scientist-alchemists like Newton and Leibniz) the cross-paradigmatic conflict started to build up.
14: The paradigm called “science” has been in constant flux for centuries. In the 20th century philosophical schools like logical positivists, relativists, realists and others have put thrown their hat in the ring to get their say what are the axioms and underpinnings of science itself.
13: In the metasystemic part of science called the “arts, humanities and social sciences” countless students perform their daily rituals that shape and are shaped by these decade-long arguments going on in the higher levels.
12: In the systematic category under arts, humanities and social sciences is the subject known as “study of religion”. It is a multivariate system of doing research into the religious behaviour of humans, drawing from many fields such as psychology, anthropology, social sciences, theology and more.
11: If I still were a member of the academia, I might be conducting a study, where I collect empirical evidence to make my case for the religious nature of certain modern political movements and their group behaviours. I’d try to arrive to sound scientific solutions that would answer my research questions.
10: Conducting the study I would perform many abstract actions, such as thinking about “is the library going to be empty enough for me to focus on writing and is the cute librarian there so I can avoid looking her in the eye”.
9: These abstract tasks are broken down into concrete tasks. I could for example have agreed with my professor that the summary of my study is ready for next Wednesday's meeting and here I am in the library writing it.
8: As I’m writing the last sentences of the summary (on the “primary” stage” of relatively simple actions), a fellow student walks in.
7: She asks with a simple pre-operational question “what are you doing?”
6: I answer with a simple sentential remark “my summary”, as I’m just opening a chocolate-peanut butter protein bar. She asks “where’d you get that” still painstakingly keeping us on the 6th and 7th stages.
5: Finally I am able to become simpler, and I answer “Lidl”, which is a local store. This nominal stage utterance satisfies my fellow student so much that, unbeknownst to me, she...
4: …let’s out what is known as a “silent killer” - a flatulence. However, my sensory-motor experience is currently directed at the sweet taste of the protein bar, I smile as the pre-programmed, psycho-behaviorally conditioned response kicks in.
3: As I’m holding the bar of protein with the confidence of hundreds of thousands of circular sensory-motor grasping events, the silent killer attacks my nostrils.
2: My sensory system senses a disturbance and various signals are generated in my body. My eyebrows raise involuntarily as a micro-expression that asks “seriously?”
1: At the same time the automatic response from my tear ducts has started forming a massive tear in my nasal cavity.
0: This involuntary, autonomically created response happens as a simple yes-no/0-1 digital process, as the silent killer is coercing my olfactory system with its fumes either to kill itself immediately or protect itself with liberal amounts of nasolacrimal fluids.
So, in a way a smelly fart is related to the Death of God.
In any case, I hope this little story helps you appreciate the inter-connectedness of the world and understand the Model of Hierarchical Complexity better. Go forth and be yourself!
Thanks for reading.
Read more about MHC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity
Read more about the Death of God here: http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/the-gay-science/aphorism-125-quote_e4828eb63.html
Read more about flatulence and eyes here: https://www.healthline.com/health/can-you-get-pink-eye-from-a-fart
| I found this! |
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti