WAVES 24: Why complexity matters? with Dave Snowden & Nora Bateson

So, thank you so much Dave and Nora for coming to Helsinki and for being here with us today. Very briefly, we have

um a a group here of people interested in change and uh we all know uh slightly on a generic

level that we face complex challenges and we live in complex you know context but could you open up to us a bit what

is complexity? How does complexity

is complexity? How does complexity relate to complicated? And how do we how should we

complicated? And how do we how should we think of this? Dave, go ahead. Okay,

I've been delegated. Okay, there's a very simple

delegated. Okay, there's a very simple way. First of all, it's important to

way. First of all, it's important to realize that complexity is a science.

It's not a way of thinking. And it's

also important to realize that complexity is not a subset of systems thinking. It has different origins,

thinking. It has different origins, different backgrounds, and limited intersections. Yeah. Um, the best way

intersections. Yeah. Um, the best way I've learned to understand it two ways.

One is to look at the origin of the word complicated and complex. So complicated

comes from a Latin root word which means to be folded. And something which can be folded can be unfolded. It doesn't

change. Whereas complex comes from a Greek word root word which means to be entangled and something which is entangled cannot be unentangled and tangled the same way. Which means any

system which is complex has a high degree of path dependency. what has come before influence what is and what is next. That's one factor. The other

next. That's one factor. The other

factor I think is in a complex systems approach to change, you don't focus on individual change. That's really bad

change. That's really bad science. You can't change a system by

science. You can't change a system by changing the individuals in the system.

There are simply too many of them and it's too big a task. But you can change the way in which they interact. And some of the work we're

interact. And some of the work we're doing on peace and reconciliation at the moment, which I'm moving on to in Berlin next week and Washington the week after, by way of Oxford, is to bring young

people together from opposite sides of the political spectrum to work in very small groups on problems which they agree they have in common and not talk about their

differences because there are some fundamental principles to managing complex systems. One is the principle of oblquity. In fact, there's a really good

oblquity. In fact, there's a really good book written with that title. And

anybody with teenage children knows this already. You don't tackle complex

already. You don't tackle complex problems directly. You tackle them

problems directly. You tackle them indirectly. And that also links in with

indirectly. And that also links in with another key concept is people have to have the right to interpret their own experience and find their own solutions.

It is not the role of middle class comfortable change agents to tell them how they should be. And there's far too much of that. Yeah. So it's called epistemic justice in the literature.

It's giving people the right to work out solutions for themselves in their own time. And we first did this in Northern

time. And we first did this in Northern Ireland in the 70s instead of bringing people into a big hall and getting everybody to talk about how they should really like each other. Facilitators

love that sort of thing because they feel good about themselves afterwards.

But it makes bug roll difference.

uh we took small groups of Catholics and Protestants and dumped them it in the slums of Rio de Janeiro for 6 months and we didn't talk about their differences and they found out pretty fast that they had more in common than

they realized and they had a conversation about their differences when they were ready to have it in their own language at their own time without facilitation. And probably the most

facilitation. And probably the most important thing about a complex system change is you have to change the dispositions of the system. so that good things are more likely to happen rather

than trying to decide how the system should be. Yeah, you change the

should be. Yeah, you change the ecosystem in which you're working rather than deciding what the output is. And

that by the way was the major error of systems thinking. It thought you could

systems thinking. It thought you could define everything as an engineering model. And you remember it all came from

model. And you remember it all came from engineering with the honorable exception of your father. Yeah. And it was kind of like we set the objectives, we close the gap. Yeah. Complexity takes another

gap. Yeah. Complexity takes another approach and the easiest way to remember this and I'll finish with this point. We

called it the Frozen 2 strategy. So, has

everybody seen Frozen 2 yet? Right. It is a great complexity

yet? Right. It is a great complexity movie. You don't need children or

movie. You don't need children or grandchildren to watch it? Professor

Snowden said you should watch it. All

right, that's your excuse. In the middle of that movie, um the real heroine of the Frozen series, who's the younger sister without the magic, Yeah. sings a

beautiful song subsequently made famous by a Ukrainian refugee. All I can do is do the next right thing. Right? And that in complexity is

thing. Right? And that in complexity is called the adjacent possible. Going back

to Stuart Calfman. So all I can do in the face of uncertainty is understand where the hell I am. Stop talking about the future. Talk about where you are and

the future. Talk about where you are and identify where people can go next.

Encourage them to go there and then look again.

Yep. I agree.

Oh, come on. That was easy. I think um you know for me I I grew up in a household where my father um Gregory

Bateson was one of the people who actually helped to bring cybernetics um and then that that became systems theory

u related to complexity theory into the world. And uh there was a major

world. And uh there was a major difference though. Imagine my

difference though. Imagine my surprise when after growing up in a household in which this idea of a system

was not something that was organized and engineered and diagrammable. A system was something

diagrammable. A system was something juicy. It was something messy. It was

juicy. It was something messy. It was

something alive.

and and that juiciness, that messiness, I think, is what's really important. Um,

so, you know, when you think about do the next right thing, do the next thing that's the best thing to do. Um,

allowing people to be in communication and not making direct correctives. In in

these cases, what we're looking at is something that's a little bit untamed.

that there is a way in which people can be in communication that is not directed that allows for the next best thing to

happen. There's a way in which when

happen. There's a way in which when we're working with actually with complex systems they will

actually with a shift in disposition the shift will come. But this is a very different way of coming at a very different approach than to think about

here's what we want the change we want to see and now let's make it happen. Um

that approach gets you in trouble. So I

guess I mean I'm just coming from a a session in Singapore where we had um a group of people who were from you know

all the big wars right now from from Russia and Ukraine from um Islamic communities and Jewish communities

and we did not talk about that thing. We talked about a whole lot of

thing. We talked about a whole lot of other aspects of life and let them find each other and when they start to find each other they make relationship and

when they make relationship then they can make all sorts of things happen. Um the mistake is to start right

happen. Um the mistake is to start right in the middle of the conflict and try to fix it from there. Complicated. So sometimes you

there. Complicated. So sometimes you know people talk about complicated is like a rocket ship and complex is raising children something like that. Yeah. Paul

Killas said it's an airplane in a mayonnaise. Yeah. Yeah. There you go.

mayonnaise. Yeah. Yeah. There you go.

You both talk about perceiving complexity. What do you mean?

complexity. What do you mean?

Okay. So I'm a materialist, right? I

mean there's there's a whole philosophical movement called new materialism which is worth people looking into right because it also recognizes that narrative structures in

human systems actually have material reality and if you don't know it we now know from epigenetics that culture inherits. We know the biological

inherits. We know the biological mechanisms by which culture inherits and narrative plays an important key point in that. So we're very much entrained by

in that. So we're very much entrained by the patterns of the narrative in the society and the groups we grow up in and those narratives have material reality.

So I think it's really important to realize that reality exists and you've got to live with it. Yeah. And we always talk about there's ontology how things are, there's epistemology, how we know

things, and there's phenomenology how we perceive things. And you need to keep

perceive things. And you need to keep them rubbing against each other constantly because they can never be perfectly aligned. But you've got to

perfectly aligned. But you've got to recognize that reality is part of the equation. That's why we take a a natural

equation. That's why we take a a natural science approach. So to take an

science approach. So to take an illustration, let's come back to the individual. Human beings are defined by

individual. Human beings are defined by their interactions. About five or 10% of your

interactions. About five or 10% of your decisions are made by your brain. Most

are made by your body or by your social environment.

It's why most of us dislike phrases like mental models or mindsets because they're really bad concepts. Yeah.

They're framing human beings in the context of computers. And that's where that language comes from. Right. So if

you want to change human beings, you've got to change that social context in which they operate. Yeah. In order for things to change. And that's also ethical. It's not ethical to try and

ethical. It's not ethical to try and change somebody's mindset. It's

perfectly ethical to change their interactions.

And I think the ethics of this is important. We move on to that. And

important. We move on to that. And

picking up a point from Nora, we talk about messy coherence. And coherence is a really

coherence. And coherence is a really important word in philosophy of science at the moment because it basically says that we know that evolutionary theory, for example, is probably

wrong. But what we now have in the

wrong. But what we now have in the theory is coherent to the facts as we know them. So you know, if you go back

know them. So you know, if you go back 20 years, epigenetics wasn't known. Now

we now know it, everything changes. On

contrast with that, young earth creationism is incoherent. There's no point in pursuing

incoherent. There's no point in pursuing that pathway. It's just ridiculous.

that pathway. It's just ridiculous.

Although it's quite scary. Um, if you don't know it, twothirds of the chief knowledge officers of American government departments are young earth creationists. I find that really, really

creationists. I find that really, really depressing. Yeah. If you look at their

depressing. Yeah. If you look at their title, right? So one of the key things

title, right? So one of the key things and I think this is a key thing for change agents. There's a tendency in

change agents. There's a tendency in change people to say everybody's views are equally valid. Well, sorry they're not. Yeah. Some views are

not. Yeah. Some views are reprehensible. Yeah. And some views are

reprehensible. Yeah. And some views are actually based on really bad science. So

eliminating incoherent pathways is actually quite important because it allows us to focus. And you know the fancy academic word for messy coherence is coherent heterogeneity.

And I'll make this point because it's a really important point. Um, I'm Welsh.

All right.

Um, I'll just do a sidebar. You can come back to this later. I first got into complexity when I was doing an ontological synthesis of Catholicism, Hinduism, and Marxism. Uh, which got me

summarized for heresy. So, there are some interesting pasts in this background. All right. Um, but

background. All right. Um, but

retrospective coherence. The other thing about being Welsh is rugby is a is a is a religious matter. It's not a support.

It's a religious matter. And I'm in a depressed state at the moment. All

right. Eight losing bonus points is not where I expected to be at this stage of the season. And I support Cardiff rugby.

the season. And I support Cardiff rugby.

We play at the Arms Park. We play in Bloom Black. We're very civilized rugby

Bloom Black. We're very civilized rugby players. Yeah. If we get a yellow card,

players. Yeah. If we get a yellow card, it's because the other side bribe the referee. We never

referee. We never cheat. Yeah. We're very civilized

cheat. Yeah. We're very civilized spectators. We cheer the other side if

spectators. We cheer the other side if they do well. Yeah. It's a civilized place to go Cardiff if it's a capital city. Then there are those bastards down

city. Then there are those bastards down the road in Clinley. We call them Turks because in

Clinley. We call them Turks because in the 19th century they hijacked the Turkish ship and we never ever will let them forget it. Yeah, they definitely bribe referees. It's the only reason why

bribe referees. It's the only reason why we got that red card last time we played them. They're filthy and the spectators

them. They're filthy and the spectators are partisan. But when the English arrive,

partisan. But when the English arrive, we're Welsh. Now that's called coherent

Welsh. Now that's called coherent heterogeneity. It's something change

heterogeneity. It's something change agents need to understand because they tend to homogenize. Let's get everybody together

homogenize. Let's get everybody together with people who think like us and reinforce our belief systems. Homogeneous systems do not

evolve. Heterogeneous systems do. So

evolve. Heterogeneous systems do. So

it's the ability to be different in some contexts and the same in other contexts which is a key skill to develop.

I think with my work where I'm working with perception of complexity is um first of all recognizing that there

are deep and old habits um that are informed by mechanistic

success and industrialized uh epistemological familiar language usage, uh, ways of thinking about how you get a

thing done, ways of thinking about how a family is structured, and and looking at how these models of of

industrialism have actually, and I'm going to use this word, infected um our health system, our education system, system, our understanding of

things like statistics, uh the way that we think about psychology. I mean, all these things

psychology. I mean, all these things have roots that go way back into a notion um that ties into what we were talking about just a moment

ago of fixing the parts and looking at if you could just fix the parts, you would get a better hole.

And so I guess the perception of complexity is that way in which I might look at you or I might look at a a

forest and instead of saying oh look at that tree or oh look at that person I'm actually able to begin to perceive that that tree is not just a

tree. That tree is the culmination and

tree. That tree is the culmination and the ongoing entangling of the living processes of hundreds of thousands of

organisms as are you. And so if I can

you. And so if I can perceive in any small way the people, the families, the communities, the

societies around me, not as entities in and of themselves that are closed, but recognizing all the

relationships that it's taken for this system to become the way it is becoming.

that then when I am in relationship to it when I'm in communication with you or a tree or a family that that

communication will come from a different place it will be guided from a different approach. Um so for me that's really

approach. Um so for me that's really important. I I developed this concept of

important. I I developed this concept of samaththesy which is a word that no one can say but um the the sim means together and the matsy means learning

and this idea that we're in this learning together. So that when you come to a

together. So that when you come to a crooked tree in the woods, instead of saying that tree is crooked, let's fix it. What do we need

to do to fix that tree? That instead you might ask, how is that tree learning to be in its world? And if you ask that question, you

world? And if you ask that question, you start to look in a different way. Right?

Then that crooked tree, you can see that crooked tree is reaching into the light over here because there's shadows over here or that the tree is leaning this

way because there's a wind or that there are insects over here or that there are, you know, more nutrients in the soil on this

side. And when you look at at a living

side. And when you look at at a living system in the way that is forming and informing into its world, it with that

sort of a question, the way that you can respond to it is totally different. If I

come in saying, "What's wrong with this kid? We need to fix this kid. What's

kid? We need to fix this kid. What's

wrong with this family?"

me that approach is going to lead me to a whole list of direct correctives that do not shift the

interactions. Okay, so that's the thing.

interactions. Okay, so that's the thing.

If you can perceive the complexity, then the way you come in will be in that question more of how do we how do we

allow these interactions to shift? It's

interesting. is one of the dirty old habits which if I want to get technical are called assembages all right but dirty old habits is a much better name um is actually what's called fundamental

attribution error is we assume there is a reason for everything and there isn't in a complex system there is no material linear

causality so you have to recognize that the dispositional state influences the way things develop and there are three really interesting models we're currently looking at from nature one is looking at the way that fungal roots

connect tree roots and it's a symbiotic relationship.

The fungal roots are isomic. They're

entangled. The tree roots go in in straight lines in effect. Now what's

interesting is the fungal roots will redistribute resources to younger trees in a drought condition in a forest. Now if you look in organizations

forest. Now if you look in organizations informal networks do the same sort of thing. Having recognized this, a large

thing. Having recognized this, a large part of our work is to create dense informal networks in order to connect people across silos. You don't force

people to connect. You create informal networks. The other one's there's a

networks. The other one's there's a lovely exercise you can do which is tell everybody in a room you need a bigger room than this with a flat four. Get

everybody to identify their worst enemy and their best friend. Uh before you do this, say don't

friend. Uh before you do this, say don't look at anybody or say anything and tell them they can choose people at random, but they never do. So video it and study it afterwards. It can teach you a lot.

it afterwards. It can teach you a lot.

All right? And then tell everybody to protect to actually make sure their best friend is between them and their enemy.

And the group dissipates over the room within seconds. Change the rule so that

within seconds. Change the rule so that they have to protect their best friend from their enemy. and the group clumps into the rule clumps in the second that comes from antelopee

behavior. So what happens with antelopee

behavior. So what happens with antelopee if they see a predator each antelope identifies another antelope and places themselves between that antelopee and the predator and that's what keeps the

herd together. A really simple

herd together. A really simple heruristic but that actually means the system can align and go into new territory without having to have a

purpose northstar or a direction. And

one of the big switches we're working on at the moment is switching from purpose to alignment.

Yeah. Because alignment gives you adaptability. And the other really

adaptability. And the other really interesting one is the waggle dance of bees. Now this is famous example. So if

bees. Now this is famous example. So if

bees are seeking a new you know that the drones get fed up with the old queen, they hatch out a new queen. They end up with a swarm hanging from a branch.

Individual bees go out and try and find a good place to stay and then they come back and they dance on the swarm. They

literally do a figure of eight dance which indicates where the new hive should be. And there are bees which

should be. And there are bees which actually deliberately disrupt some of the dances. The negative disruption is

the dances. The negative disruption is key to the system. And after a short period of time, the entire hive, you know, the entire swarm goes to a

location. If anybody wants the research

location. If anybody wants the research on this, it's fascinating. They always

go to the best location they could have found.

Yeah. Because you got multiple micro interactions. Now we're now looking at

interactions. Now we're now looking at that in decision making because if you can move into largebased network solutions, you can create novelty in a way that you can't go create with

individual direction. So again, it comes

individual direction. So again, it comes back to something both Norah and I have said both on this occasion and before.

It's all aboutworked intelligence.

It's all about diversity and I mean there's some other things we could go into but it's fundamentally it's about interactions at scale right and if we're going to solve

the problems we face in the world at the moment we got to do things at scale not in small groups of people and that's something which change makers if I'm honest are not really focused on we got

to find ways to get that focus rearranged I'm thinking also about where that perception sits. So,

perception sits. So, um, one of the stories that I use in my warm data courses is the story of the

the moose and the rattlesnake. And um, I'm I'm a

rattlesnake. And um, I'm I'm a California kid. I grew up running up and

California kid. I grew up running up and down the mountains of Northern California. And if you live like that,

California. And if you live like that, you have to learn to see a rattlesnake because there's rattlesnakes on the

path. And so when I was very young, I

path. And so when I was very young, I learned to spot rattlesnakes. And if you and I went for a walk in the woods and we came to a rattlesnake, I would

probably see it.

And and I wouldn't. I can tell you that from personal experience.

So, so they camouflage, you know, they're the diamonds on their back may look very symmetrical when you see the rattlesnake in the zoo, but when it's

actually on the path, the it it it mimics the way the light comes in and the the formation of the uh particular

rocks that are in California and so on.

So, you probably wouldn't see it. Now,

not seeing a rattlesnake can be a problem because they sunbathe right across a path.

Okay, if you step on it, you could get bitten. Now, that's nice. But when I

bitten. Now, that's nice. But when I moved to Sweden, that piece of wisdom and knowledge didn't do me much good because

in Sweden there's no rattlesnakes, but there are moose. And you would think that I would

moose. And you would think that I would be able to see a moose. It's a big

moose. It's a big thing. But I can't see the moose. And my

thing. But I can't see the moose. And my

husband's like, "Nora, there's a moose.

Watch out. Don't hit the moose." And I'm like, "What moose? What moose? What

moose? That moose?" He says, which fortunately I didn't hit. So what's

happening there?

Well, one of the things that's happening there is that it's not actually the rattlesnake that I'm

seeing. What I'm actually perceiving is

seeing. What I'm actually perceiving is the differences and the nuances in the California forest. I know those

California forest. I know those differences, but because I haven't been in Sweden so very long, when the when the moose stands at the edge of the

forest, I can't actually figure out the difference between its horns and the forest because I'm not I don't know the

forest. The key thing here, the word

forest. The key thing here, the word that I want you to notice is difference.

So I'm not perceiving those relational properties characteristics that would highlight that difference that is the

moose. You see it's the conditions

moose. You see it's the conditions because I think this is probably one of the most important points. So human

beings evolve to only engage active cognitive thought if there's an anomaly.

Right? This is Clark's work and Seth's work and other people. So fundamentally

the way we make decisions is we're constantly creating micro hallucinations and they are hallucinations right from our own experience the experience of others that

we hear through stories and from pure imagination. Yeah, I'm actually really

imagination. Yeah, I'm actually really good at this. This is the abductive stuff that you and I both work on. Um

and those are constantly interacting with signals. Now this is not a linear

with signals. Now this is not a linear process. We're not an intelligent

process. We're not an intelligent camera. This is nonlinear. And as those

camera. This is nonlinear. And as those signals interact with the hallucinations, stable patterns form and we go with the stable pattern. That's

how we make decisions. We're not

rational beings. You can't just if this nonsense idea that if you just educated people properly and gave them the right information, they would might make the right decisions is one of the most

dangerous illusions that change makers have. Right? It's not the way we make

have. Right? It's not the way we make decisions. If you want people to change,

decisions. If you want people to change, you've got to create anomalies. You know, if you're walking

anomalies. You know, if you're walking down the street, and I came out of the hotel this morning, I started to walk down the street. I wasn't paying attention. I fell over. I had to go back

attention. I fell over. I had to go back into the hotel and change. I then paid a lot of attention to walking. So when you get an anomaly, you think differently.

And the key thing if you want, you've got to create these contrast. So for

example, one of the things we do is we'll gather stories from a very large population. Remember I talked about

population. Remember I talked about scale and then we'll show people how different groups of people interpreted the same story. At no stage are we saying you should think like this. We're

saying well you saw it like this and you saw it like that. What do you think it means? What you're doing is you're

means? What you're doing is you're creating anomalies across boundaries which people have to take account of.

Yeah. They can't just dismiss it. Yeah.

So I think that the concept of anomaly or differences that's really important to the way human beings make decisions particularly if you want them to change.

Most of the time we're really conservative. You know whatever is

conservative. You know whatever is working we just go with we we don't bother checking it. It's really

important to the way we think about information.

Um, and I think when we look at these kind of slight differences or even larger comparisons or contrasts, um, say

between the moose's horns and the the tree line, um, th those differences are relational. That is relational

relational. That is relational information.

Um just as the rattlesnakes, the difference between the way the rattlesnakes camouflage, it's ever so slight. Um but in that difference is a

slight. Um but in that difference is a relationship between the snake and the the stones, between the moose and the forest. Um so what we're talking about

forest. Um so what we're talking about when we're talking about perception of complexity I think is actually um we're looking at relational

information and this is not the kind of information we've been trained to seek out. Um, we've been trained to seek out

out. Um, we've been trained to seek out information in bits and blobs and and bits and blobs are nice, but they're better when they're

next to each other and you can start when you're talking about the stories that are not the same. It's one thing to say this group of people had this story and this group of people had that story.

And if you happen to be a participant looking at both of those, what are you thinking? Well, you're thinking, "Huh,

thinking? Well, you're thinking, "Huh, there's possibility for a lot of stories here, which is actually the message, isn't it?" Right? It's not that this

isn't it?" Right? It's not that this person's these guys are right and these guys are wrong. It's the possibility of recognizing, oh, there's a multiplicity of of Again, I think stories. Yeah, it's

really important. This is a sort of messiness that we're talking about. One

of the really strong tendencies in western thinking and this goes back to before Augustine is manachanian thinking. Yeah. It's the creation of

thinking. Yeah. It's the creation of dichotoies. There is this thing which is

dichotoies. There is this thing which is good. There is this thing which is bad.

good. There is this thing which is bad.

Yeah. And it's actually it's a very dominant thinking. And the famous thing

dominant thinking. And the famous thing we say in theology is that Paul took the worst of Christ, Augustine took the worst of Paul and Calvin took the worst of Augustine. Right? Sorry if you're

of Augustine. Right? Sorry if you're into theology you'll understand that.

Right? Um but fundamentally the danger is we like to say there are good things and there are bad things. Yeah. Yeah.

That's mastery which we've disagreed on before. Right. I I don't buy that

before. Right. I I don't buy that concept because the world is far more fragmented and far more interconnected than talking about two things in contrast with each other will

ever explain. But it's a really strong

ever explain. But it's a really strong tendency in western thinking that we need to avoid. And you can see this in change agents. You know we're together.

change agents. You know we're together.

We know that we need to change the planet. We know ecology is a disaster.

planet. We know ecology is a disaster.

Why won't those idiots listen to us?

Let's just tell them it's harder. Well,

sorry. That isn't going to work. You're

not going to get people to actually make the dispositional change which will allow politicians to make the long-term decisions they've got to make for the planet until they see local threat and

local issues. That's one of the areas

local issues. That's one of the areas we're working on at the moment. How can

we create stories about small local things that make people aware of climate change? Because if we get that to a

change? Because if we get that to a critical mass, that will change the state and politicians can then make the bigger decision. Yeah. And that's a

bigger decision. Yeah. And that's a different approach to change. Change the

environment so that good things are more likely happen. Stop trying to decide

likely happen. Stop trying to decide what the good things are in advance.

Wonderful. Thank you. Hold on. Yes.

I just want to go back to this for a second because I think it's really important. It came up this morning in

important. It came up this morning in our warm data lab.

Um, but one of the reasons that I think we're all in this room here today is that there is

a really high degree of polar polarization and divisiveness that has infiltrated into our communities. It's

infiltrated into our families.

even at this point. Um,

and one of the ways that you generate polarization and divisiveness is by removing context, by removing the

complexity. So, this this when we're

complexity. So, this this when we're talking about getting people together to tell stories that aren't the stories of the thing they're in conflict on, what

we're actually doing is generating complexity.

And and this is it may not seem like it, but when when you tell a story from your life, when you look at any moment in your life, what you're going to be doing

is bringing a lot of things in. Any

story is going to be your economics, your culture, your family, your history, your technology, your politics. I mean,

any story. How you got here today includes all of that stuff.

So when people are in storytelling modalities, they are in complexity. They

are speaking into the ecology, the livingness, which is something completely different than when you take that away and they begin to fight about

abstractions.

Homarans, Homol Ludens, and Homman um hang on, narans, Ludens, and Faber.

not homo sapiens, right? Yeah. We're

toolmakers. We're jokers. We're

storytellers. And if you start to think about those three, we need to create tools which allow people to bring themselves together in ways that they find coherent. We need more humor in

find coherent. We need more humor in society than we've got at the moment.

Life has become deadly serious and that goes with manarchy and thinking. Yeah.

And above all, we need to understand these micro stories because they're the fundamental patterning of human sensem.

And they are the complexity. Yeah. That

that's the thing that I think we can lose because you could you could think, oh wow, you know, we're going to in order to get this complexity, what we need is a super big spreadsheet. Oh

Jesus. Right. And if you have a super big spreadsheet, if I could just get all the data in there, then I could make the proper computations.

Wrong. Because that, see, that's just it. That's not where it

it. That's not where it lives. Okay? This idea that if you get

lives. Okay? This idea that if you get lots and lots of information that you're going to get the complexity does not take into account that it's not in the

data, it's in the relationship between them. Your story is going to hold only

them. Your story is going to hold only relational information.

Thank you so much. Uh do we have time for questions? Yes. Uh then we can uh open

questions? Yes. Uh then we can uh open up for a few questions. There is one straight away. Please when is the the

straight away. Please when is the the microphone is is coming. Thank you so much. Uh David, Nora. And

much. Uh David, Nora. And

are we done already? No, we have we have a few minutes. We're in the normal microphone handing out. Sorry to Hi, thanks for really fascinating talk. Um,

I was just wondering actually so many questions so I'm going to try and combine two into a single question. Um

so uh the idea of adjacent possible and sort of doing the next right thing and I was just wondering that in a context where and and maybe possible solution to

this apparent conflict in a context where we take it as a given that one cares about the holistic wellness of a given system. How do we avoid uh certain

given system. How do we avoid uh certain kind of dysfunctions like um overoptimizing locally uh and multipolar traps? Does it require that

multipolar traps? Does it require that those who are taking these next actions are somehow aware of the holistic picture or how how do we bridge that gap

so that local interactions don't lead to wider dysfunction?

You want to go first or should I?

You could go first. Okay. Um, first of all, I would ban the word holistic.

It is a really dangerous word. If you look at the preconditions

word. If you look at the preconditions for emergence, you require lots of what are called actants which are things which agents in the system. You need

rich interactions and none of the agents must have knowledge of the whole. Right? The minute you start to

whole. Right? The minute you start to say I understand the whole or we need to think holistically, you actually are making a major mistake because you can't. And then you start to assert

can't. And then you start to assert power about that world view you have and you don't tolerate views which actually contradict it. So I'm I'm dubious about

contradict it. So I'm I'm dubious about the holistic word. Yeah. If you want to look at some of the work we're doing there, we're currently working with distributed resource allocation. So if you look in the

allocation. So if you look in the theoretical biology, it's also dumbar but theoretical biology is a better base. There's a natural group of five

base. There's a natural group of five people which is a number of active decision makers as an extended family.

So in groups of five or less we'll compromise. Once you go above five we

compromise. Once you go above five we fall into our tribes. So we're now working in the development sector on how do you allocate $500 $100

amounts because you know that will make a big difference and you can afford more failure whereas actually the big banks can only allocate 50 million. Now I've

spent a lot of time with Muhammad Yianis on this in the development. This is

Gramming Bank stage three. Right. What

we're now saying is if you can assemble four roles. Yeah. Which for example, one of

roles. Yeah. Which for example, one of the ones we're working on is village priest, head person, youngest girl in the school, oldest teacher in the school together with a fifth agent who's

completely anonymous who works for the bank. So you don't know who they are.

bank. So you don't know who they are.

You can spend $100. Provide you record why and what.

$100. Provide you record why and what.

And then we can see what's working.

Yeah. And the rest of the money can follow what actually works rather than people who are good at applying for grants. Now, we're really excited by

grants. Now, we're really excited by this. That's what I'm going on to work

this. That's what I'm going on to work on in Germany next week because it allows you to allocate small amounts of money to highly projects which bring together people who would normally

disagree with each other so that you create empathy between them. And that's

an example of working at scale.

Yeah. You don't talk about the problem, you change the interactions at scale and the anonymity means you've got auditability. If you haven't got

auditability. If you haven't got auditability, grant givers won't give everything. So, it's a more effective

everything. So, it's a more effective technique as well. Now, that's the adjacent possible. You're saying where

adjacent possible. You're saying where people are at the moment is they know there's this problem. You can't take them to anybody can spend whatever money. So, you move them to the adjacent

money. So, you move them to the adjacent possible. Well, if people can assemble

possible. Well, if people can assemble these groups and one of them is one of your agents who can decide whether it's okay or not. That's a safe adjacent possible, you can shift them there, then

you can shift them. Again,

we have time for one short maybe we take one one more okay more question. If

there is um if not then uh you want to comment very briefly and then if you would.

Yeah, I was just going to say that I think the way that that I would respond to that is very similar but totally different.

um that there's a a question of where that possible is sitting and the the danger I think is

what you're pointing to which is that the habituated way of thinking you're sitting on a board of directors and something comes up and everybody's used to aligning toward a particular notion

of practicality a particular notion of logical um and and actually authorizable behavior. Now the problem

authorizable behavior. Now the problem is that the logical practical authorizable behavior is the behavior and the the the the form of actions that

has kept us in the systems that are perpetuating the the systemic problems. So this is this is an issue right of how

do you get a like a board of directors out of the box? Um and so what I have

found in that space is that it's necessary to um begin to look at lots of other contexts. So this is what the warm

other contexts. So this is what the warm data lab is all about is actually looking at a question that is not the question you think you're asking and to look at it from lots of contextual

places and start to generate stories.

Now what I see happening is that there is a this this is sort of something like a compost pile and it makes it

fertilizes possibilities that are completely out of the perception of the the group to begin

with. They are not even remotely

with. They are not even remotely perceived on topic. So that's the sort of place where we are generating that.

Yeah. And I think I mean Norah and I have crosschanged our staff between the two methods. There's there's a lot of

two methods. There's there's a lot of interesting synthesis there. I think one point if you really want to be a change agent, go and study retroviruses.

Retroviruses are really interesting.

They corrupt the DNA of the host. And that's what you've got to do.

host. And that's what you've got to do.

So if you're working in a large organization with corporate politics, you're not going to get overcome that by telling them they're wrong. So they're

all focused on outcomebased targets. I'm

telling them that they're right. Yeah.

Well, that's even worse. I'm just I'm taking it granted. You can't tell them that either. I I don't think I've ever

that either. I I don't think I've ever told anybody they were right. It's

against my principles. But not

surprising. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um some of them are kept closer to the truth than others. All right. And and when we first

others. All right. And and when we first met, we agreed we disliked all the same people. Yes. And that was the bonding

people. Yes. And that was the bonding moment. All right. So then we knew we

moment. All right. So then we knew we were friends. Yeah. When we got to Meg

were friends. Yeah. When we got to Meg Weekly, we knew we were there. All

right. So that was the way it worked.

But um one thing she to say for executive for example is outcomebased targets produce perverse incentives. Everybody executive knows

incentives. Everybody executive knows that at the moment they just don't know alternatives. So you say why don't we

alternatives. So you say why don't we introduce vector-based targets when it's complex because vectors measure speed and direction of travel for energy use.

So you don't say abandon targets. You

say well maybe we should use this type of target here and that type of target there. So that's the adjacent possible

there. So that's the adjacent possible concept. You you've got to start with

concept. You you've got to start with where people are if you want to change them. You've got to stop telling people

them. You've got to stop telling people where you think they should be. Right?

And that's where the adjacent possible comes in. And that's one of the things

comes in. And that's one of the things we do. Nor does it in warm data labs. We

we do. Nor does it in warm data labs. We

do it with Sensemaker software. We map

where the adjacent possibles are at a fractal level in organizations. And then

you ask this really simple change question. How do you create more stories

question. How do you create more stories like these and fewer stories like that? That is a whole new theory of

that? That is a whole new theory of change because that can engage anybody regardless of the level of education.

How do we create more stories like this and fewer stories like that?

Thank you. Um Nora, would you like to we we are coming to an end to this discussion. Thank you. Uh would you like

discussion. Thank you. Uh would you like to to share one of your poems uh as a final uh um final word and then uh otherwise I

thank you already now for the discussion and do we have 50 seconds left? Is that

is that our 48 47? It's going down. All

right. I can see the Well, I'll tell you what. 1.3 speed or I want to do I want

what. 1.3 speed or I want to do I want to actually read two because I know it's we're out of time, but it doesn't

matter. 185. And one of them is called

matter. 185. And one of them is called kinky. And I I think this one ties

kinky. And I I think this one ties nicely into what we've been saying.

And then I want to read you another one that kind of comes back to like why why is this important? But for now,

kinky. When you see the clarity of a

kinky. When you see the clarity of a future horizon, turn quietly into the thick bush.

The more elegant response is the one that wiggles, slipping from grasping anxiety, avoiding clean

edges. Time brings away through the

edges. Time brings away through the impossible. But it oozes slimy,

impossible. But it oozes slimy, entranced by the twisty, sticky, unwieldy bits, the tangents, the

detours, the curly pockets of crud and life. The clear path is in itself a

life. The clear path is in itself a warning trimmed and tucked by procrustian impulses of industrial

habit. Instead, find the vital tangle of

habit. Instead, find the vital tangle of broken lines and crags, a fest of possibility in the festering societies

of ideas decomposing.

Stinky belly buttons have more to offer the scouts now than a thousand articles of strategic

analysis. Weird dreams untidied sing the

analysis. Weird dreams untidied sing the airy maps so they will not be found by the ones looking for

management. And numbers will mock their

management. And numbers will mock their lovers. Memories are rioting against

lovers. Memories are rioting against reason. The future won't fit in to the

reason. The future won't fit in to the fear of rotting. It is the green stuff itself. The future is kinkier than we

itself. The future is kinkier than we thought.

So, I hope you can take that with you because it is important to keep a sense of humor and to keep an eye out for

those beautiful weird moments that open the adjacent possible. And the reason is that the stakes are high. It matters

a lot.

Um, this is a piece that I uh I wrote for my kids. And if any of you have kids or you

kids. And if any of you have kids or you have nieces or nephews or you have godchildren or grandchildren or maybe you once were children, you might relate

to this. It's called mama now, but it could

this. It's called mama now, but it could be papa now or godmother now or auntie now or uncle now or whatever.

Yeah, I wrote this for my kids about what it's like to be a parent in this moment. Your eyes will see the derailing

moment. Your eyes will see the derailing of assumptions. Your hands will hold the

assumptions. Your hands will hold the crumble of the old matrix.

I do not have any authority to lean into. I have empty pockets where parents

into. I have empty pockets where parents used to advise their children. I do not have any maps, myths, or mother wisdom for

you. I can fix your breakfast, but not

you. I can fix your breakfast, but not the culture. And when you ask how to be

the culture. And when you ask how to be a good person, I cannot lie to you.

Everything you touch in a day is in some way bloodied. You have been born into an

bloodied. You have been born into an edgeless violence. But I will not judge or

violence. But I will not judge or measure you against a bygone metric. I'm here too, ready to learn

metric. I'm here too, ready to learn with you.

Unsure how to be or who to be. I can only read fragments of your

be. I can only read fragments of your worry as the future is a horizon of

confusion. I cannot protect you and yet

confusion. I cannot protect you and yet it is my only job. Aching as I witnessed from this

job. Aching as I witnessed from this side of the hourglass, other generations of parents knew the outlines. school,

career, family and retirement. But your life will be

retirement. But your life will be another shape entirely forming in the

fractures. When you say you need a goal,

fractures. When you say you need a goal, I offer you an expired ticket. Superficial memes roll off the

ticket. Superficial memes roll off the tongue right into your detector.

Success in the existing system is not going to do you much good. Your integrity is your

good. Your integrity is your rage and I will nourish it. Your dignity is your

it. Your dignity is your curiosity and I am tiny beside it. Your courage is your

it. Your courage is your pain and I will sing to it with you.

We will riot together. We will notice the nuance of

together. We will notice the nuance of small grace in the day. We will wash the grit of loss for

day. We will wash the grit of loss for each other. I am your

other. I am your mama and your future is the story of a storm. I am your cabin, your boots, your

storm. I am your cabin, your boots, your rrook sack.

Thank you.