Costly mistakes in a fight for social change hurt the amount of difference we can make. Now that we have covered what systems are like in the last few posts, we can get to making our case that: “Because you’re doing it all wrong, it seems like what we are doing is wrong”. To get here, we first looked at “the science of how systems hold together”, then we looked at how that played out in social systems. Now we are going look at how things that look great at first glance can look bad when informed by what systems science shows these forces actually do. Any kind of social change applies, but let’s illustrate how this works with a simple example: “not enough people have reverence for logic”. *We want to avoid the key mistakes many people make in fighting for social change:
- Getting lost on the battlefield
- Getting blindsided by resistance
- Making enemies of the behavior instead of the system
- Calling the wrong cavalry
- Openly charging the gates
- Getting stuck in the trenches
The problem with getting lost on the battlefield
So back to our example, there should be “reverence for logic”, but that’s not the system norm. Think about this as adding and subtracting. We can’t get more “reverence for logic without increase of change or “(+ change) feedback”. A system has a lot of different ways to stop us with “(– change) feedback”. All systems from solar systems to social systems work this way. They also have systems inside of their systems. So inside of the social system, there’s a system of those with reverence for logic and a system of those without it. It’s normal for us to have our numbers and them to have theirs. The symbols + and – help show change in boundaries. Remember enmeshment-dependent systems from the last post? There are times you are on the defense (-) and behind your lines (inside your system) and times when you are on the attack (+) and behind enemy lines. We are lost on the battlefield once we start thinking we are simply defending (-) because our defense tactics aren’t always best for invading a system and appointing a new norm. Too many people are getting lost on the battlefield because they aren’t recognizing what’s (-) and whats (+) and how those reactions play off each other. I’d argue it makes it really hard for them to disarm countermeasures against their invasion. They fight hard, and it looks epic, but they don’t know if they are in friendly or enemy territory. Based on where you are on the battlefield, how you fight may need to change. People often guess as insiders what the other system is doing based on what they know. Guessing about what’s behind enemy lines leads to wrong guesses and those lead to wrong moves.
What to do instead:
We can be aware of the lay of the land and where irreverence for logic gets the most support, and where it is most vulnerable as a norm. Then we need to adjust our approach with that in mind. If we keep track of where we are fighting, we can know what to use to help us hit the system we are fighting where it hurts the most. It’s also important to do recon work. Don’t guess what the system you are trying to invade is doing. Find out from people inside of the system what their worldview is and why they feel they are doing things. Translate what you get from them into a systems framework with (+ change) and (- change) to understand the forces and reactions at work.
The problem with Getting blindsided by resistance
Most ideas in a social system are also norms, and thanks to system forces, they can grow resistances and immunities in the same way that a body can toward diseases. A lot of people are only expecting resistance from the people that can’t see how obvious it is that “there ought to be reverence for logic”. In general, people think there’s something wrong with someone who can’t see whatever obviously good thing the change brings, or what obviously bad thing the change gets rid of. But it’s important to know that system forces can hold norms in place and correct and reinforce in lots of different ways. The official term for that is “equifinality”. And it makes fighting get a bit dirty. Remember, tolerance is a norm, so system forces control average tolerance, and intolerance gets people doing mental gymnastics.
What to do instead:
It’s best before joining a fight to get to know what the system you want to fight uses as weapons and why it uses them from recon rather than guessing the reasons. If you don’t have a chance for that, find that out at least soon after you’ve started. Be just as ready for resistance and mental gymnastics as you would be when stepping in front of a wave. Avoid the trap of “people should not be resisting”. All systems in the universe that can change, resist change. If it’s the norm, the forces of the system impress on them that they should be resisting. Also, expect resistance in the form of a stronger version of whatever you are trying to stop. Don’t let that discourage you. That’s a normal system countermeasure to also be ready for and ready to disarm. It’s a system so even the countermeasures will be so normed that you will usually see a way to deflect them, undermine them, or weaken them.
The problem with making enemies of the behavior instead of the system
The system is the enemy and mistaking the behavior of people in that system as the enemy is costly. If we are trying to get people to have reverence for logic, illogical people aren’t our enemy. Their behavior is the product of that system. People are key system resources to capture and use for the fight. When invading a system, behavior, for the most part, is a manifestation of a system norm. If you see individual behaviors as the enemy, your tolerance will be calibrated to fight the individual behavior of offenders at the expense of the system. You won’t be as motivated to disable the behavior without aggression, and you are probably going to struggle with wanting those with the behavior to be stolen and added into your system.
What to do instead:
Focus on how the system is the enemy. Making your norm more “normal” is to get your system forces to have more control over more people. Outside of laws, your system can’t take dominance without stealing people from the opposing system. If you antagonize people about being more logical, for instance, you just make them more aware of how you are invading their system and that can make them more resistant. But if they don’t see your invasion as much of a concern, everything it does to infect their system goes by pretty unnoticed, and that allows you to get a foothold in enemy territory. That infection behind enemy lines can then change people from being a part of that system to being a part of yours.
The problem with calling the wrong cavalry
Say while having a public conversation with a bunch of people, someone uses some really terrible point that shows no respect for logic. But let’s also say a lot of people use that point all the time. Still, you can tell it’s really ridiculous. So you start to make fun of the idea. Well, you just called the wrong cavalry. Mockery is a kind of signaling used to alert people of threat to a norm. But it’s not normal to have the respect for logic to that level. Now you need to try to fight against that use of logic with the system while the system reacts to you and it responds by fighting you back through punishing equifinality.
What to do instead:
Do the opposite, disable the alarms when they happen. Systems have a “normal range” for each norm. The system raises the alarms when something looks past the normal range. Do whatever you can to make your “abnormal but better norm” to seem “normal enough to just pass”.
The problem with Openly Charging the Gates
Suppose the way we try to make reverence for logic more normal is by direct confrontation. I don’t mean by being rude or hostile, I just mean directly confronting the behavior every time we see it. Charging the gates is when your system tries to fight another system by targeting what it has most grown immune or resistant to attacks from and where it can best mount a defense.
What to do instead:
Attack the system like a virus, and sneak past the defenses of the system. That takes knowing the spot you are on in that battlefield. For instance, for building reverence for logic, instead of saying “intellectual honesty”, try “open-minded” or “fairness”. Look for where the system you are fighting is building up resistances and how to undermine them. If the opposition adapts to resist certain keywords, don’t use those keywords. If people don’t react well to “trust science” use “have a safer filter for mistakes”. Instead of trying to get people to be more compassionate or thoughtful, try to elicit empathy through sharing experiences. Also, systems can be enmeshed with different value systems. So know which value system you are engaging. For instance, how you approach a Christian will be different than how you approach a Pagan.
The Problem with Getting stuck in the trenches
If you try charging the gates, you are likely to get stuck in trench warfare and that doesn’t get either side very far. Also, the dominant system has the advantage of pulling more resources to defend itself and it can fight dirty because of equifinality. If you find yourself in trench warfare over how important logic is, your shot at making an impact is pretty limited. The chances are that your efforts will get canceled out and your impact is likely to have little lasting effect.
What to do instead:
Find a weak point that isn’t defended and make a charge for that. For instance, a lot of social systems aren’t really able to signal well if you disarm their hostility. Instead of fighting, find a way to disable their defenses. Undermine the key reasons the system is using to mobilize resistance against you. Expect that any hostility is going to drag you into trenches. Get help from someone who also knows systems science before settling on that there’s nothing else with which to fight back other than hostility.
*If you find yourself in the trenches, and still after all that, you don’t have anything else to fight back with other than hostility, that probably means the boundaries and demands of the system on you are way too taxing. Everyone has their breaking point and things under more pressure just break easier because of that pressure. At RS, we don’t want to over-norm boundaries over special conditions like that. There may be ways to reinforce yourself against the toll the system involved is taking, or to enhance your coping skills but to figure that out is a case by case basis, so see what’s there and if it can help. We have coping resources, so get in touch with us and we can see if the coping resources we can share can be of any help.
Author: John Kelly
Resources
American Association for the Advancement of Science
http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap11.htm#2
The Open University
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/the-environment/environmental-studies/understanding-the-environment-complexity-and-chaos/content-section-2.1
This is entry 3 in our “Systems Science and Receptive Skepticism” series. Make sure to visit entries 1, & 2 for more info and resources on the fundamentals of systems science.