We have different styles, I guess. I find it immensely difficult to create and work on new ideas in an atmosphere of violent clash, but I can understand (just…) that others may prefer it the latter way. (Wild Welsh versus Insipid English, perhaps? ) In my experience, though, there are ways to critique that work well, and others that don’t. So I don’t like to ‘dish it out’ not because I “can’t take it” but because I see the damage that it does. Yet each to their own, really.

On dowsing, you probably know that that’s been one of my main methodological research-fields for several decades now. I agree that it cannot be taught, but as with any skill it is possible to provide conditions under which it can be learnt. I also agree strongly with you that it present “a really interesting anomaly that requires investigation” – but a conventional scientific approach to such investigation will always have trouble, because science requires repeatability, which by definition is in short supply in such contexts. More on that in the post that I’m working on at the moment.

Once again, though, many thanks – is much appreciated.

I much prefer directness to the innuendo of your previous comments. Given your dislike of criticism such name calling would be hypocritical at best. Some things however are flat out wrong (the dichotomy between tacit and explicit knowledge, creationism and many others) and no one does any one any favours by saying anything else. Some theories and people have made a huge contribution but are clearly wrong in some aspects (the failure to appreciate context in Weick and Sutcliffe for example); for the avoidance of doubt I suspect this will be the case with my work as well. Indeed I hope it is or there will be nothing new to work through. Basically if you think I am being bigoted then say so and say why and there is no problem. However don’t be surprised to get a response in kind. If you can’t take it don’t dish it out is a good motto.

In this respect I think you need to understand that if you want to contribute to the development of a field or a model you must expect rigorous debate and challenge. This happens all the time in debates I have with Boisot, McKelvey and many others in the field (compared to which our couple of disputes are a minor storm in an insignificant tea cup). Without such rigor there is little chance of progress. If you find this unpleasant then you are going to have problems, but you are not afraid to dish it out you know (look at the above) so I think you can probably cope.

I have a strong bias towards the natural sciences and the Cynefin framework is built from a science based position. However natural science is not longer in the Newtonian paradigm and it seems to me that you characterise it in that way. I can study and value indigenous knowledge without the need to resort to a concept of an unknowable other (such as magic). To take another example, I have seen two many examples of dowsing not to believe it works in some way, I can also see that in all the cases it is a deeply embodied skill that cannot be taught. That leads me to look at the way in which the left, autonomic brain builds patters and the sensor networks. I also have to respect the fact that all controlled tests have failed to establish authenticity. This provides an interesting dilemma. On the one hand I have seen it work with water engineers, and with the man/jcb symbiosis that dug out the drive to the side of my house, on the other hand controlled tests have failed to validate. That means we have a really interesting anomaly that requires investigation – but it does not allow a strong claim for authenticity and the solution will be scientific.

I hope that helps

On Chaos, I take your point, yet I wonder whether you’re perhaps placing complexity at ‘the Theory of Everything’ in much the same way as Taylor did with his simple Newtonian concepts. Rather than the somewhat Spiral-like linear development you’ve presented, I tend to think of it more as occupations of conceptual/methodological space, kind of like a four-axis version of your triangle-mapping. That’s what I’m aiming to explore in the post I’m writing now.

On bigotry, I would much prefer to keep this professional and politely discreet, but you insist that I must say this out loud. So I do apologise, yet it _is_ necessary to say this to you. I will never say anyone ‘is’ bigoted, because that precludes the possibility of change; yet unfortunately it is indeed true that – as evidenced all too often in that seminar, and even in your replies here – you do tend to display behaviours which would be experienced by many as “an odd kind of sort-of scientific bigotry” in the sense described above: an over-certainty in self combined with perhaps too much eagerness to assert that others are flat-out ‘wrong’, without much if any acknowledgement or respect for the contexts in which they may well be right, in their own terms at least. I too have been on the receiving of this from you, and can tell you that it is unpleasant in the extreme: it certainly suppresses willingness to engage with you, because, to use your own phrase, it does feel very much feel that “the old dominant paradigm suppresses the new idea” – with ‘the old dominant paradigm’ in this case (somewhat ironically, given the struggles you’ve had in establishing the value of complexity-thinking) being your own personal dominance in Cynefin and the related contexts of complexity. To be frank, I am literally afraid of how you will respond to this: you will appreciate, I hope, that it does not make it easy to engage with you in what should otherwise be a strictly technical discussion on the merits and flaws of various ideas – especially when those ideas are, of necessity, often in a half-formed and uncertain state. So I do ask you to face that unfortunate tendency in the way you engage with others, because it would make it much easier for us in turn to engage with you and your work. Having said this, I can only hope that you take this as it is indeed meant, as respectful critique of professional actions and professional behaviours. And I do emphasise, strongly, that I say all of this with the deepest respect for you, in every sense, as one of the great thought-leaders and great men of this field.

Beyond that, I hope that we can now return the focus to the underlying concepts and possibilities implied in the relationships between the Complex and the Chaotic – because I do believe that there is much that we (collectively, not just you and I) can learn. Will you help us in this?

In any case, once again, many thanks.

I’ll skip over your interpretation of the comments about Nonaka et al, other than to suggest that bigotry occurs when someone mistakenly assumes that because they know they are right, therefore everyone else is wrong. That’s the kind of crude two-valued ‘either/or’ logic that is so popular in the Simple or Complicated domains, but in the Complex domains is often dangerously misleading – instead, as you know, a context-driven ‘both/and’ logic is preferable there. So, for example, even Six Sigma _does_ have its value – though I’d agree that there aren’t that many contexts that have many millions of exactly identical events, which is the only type of context where a literal ‘six-sigma’ would make much sense.

As for the rest, I believe that we agree for the most part – and I’ll happily acknowledge that you have a far better grasp of the formal science of complexity than I will ever achieve. Yet as for how and where it connects with the Chaotic domain – following the stated logic of Cynefin, that is, which may not quite how you originally envisioned it – I believe there’s still a lot more that we can do there. I certainly believe at present that simply treating it as a source for Complex-domain data, whilst obviously valid, is not making anything like the best use of its possibilities. I also suspect that abductive reasoning, as you’ve described it, may more properly belong in the Chaotic domain rather than the Complex. I’ll develop some more ideas on that for another post over the next couple of days.

In the meantime, once again, many thanks.

I happily plead guilty to deriding six sigma in all its manifestations; its a cult and it damages people

I have a huge respect of Weick and regard him as one of the sources for my work. I disagree with his work (with Sutcliffe) that fails to take account of context in seeking to transfer capability. I use a metaphor to illustrate this (I can get the same behaviour as firefighters if I burn the office down every morning). It think you are in danger of confusing disagreement and distinction making with derogation which would be a pity.

Ditto Nonaka although to a lesser degree. He wrote a good book about Japanese manufacturing, but a very bad KM book. The misreading of Polayani and the SECI model that arose was just the sort of start that KM didn’t need.

I don’t think I have ever called any of them a bigot, or accused them of taking a bigoted perspective by the way (to use your words)

Chaos in the Cynefin framework is a state of randomness. Taking any action means that you establish connection of some sort which moves it out of the chaos domain. I find your “runaway to the safety of other domains” a misleading comment. OK you want to make something more of the chaos domain – feel free, but don’t misrepresent the model

Shamanistic knowledge (which I have studied in depth) is complex not chaotic, its based on connectivity that we don’t fully understanding. Its concrete not symbolic so we cannot articulate it in the way that we can outline rules of accounting. Polynesian navigation, dreamtime are all examples of complex systems in practice, not chaotic ones. The practice of a spirt journey is very similar to the exercises of Loyola and other meditation techniques. I take this sort of thing seriously, both the practice and the growing body of scientific insight. I get very concerned about western romanticization of such practice, and also the retreat from reason which often accompanies it. I’m sure you share that view. The disagreement is that I see it as part of the richness of complexity you on the other hand ….

…. want to call this sort of thing magi. That is of course your own affair. However, given the common meaning of that term I think its use does a disservice to indigenous knowledge and would result (I know this is not your intent) in a consequential lack of respect.

Having a vision is very different from vision statements in corporate and government speak. Please don’t confuse my attacks on the meaningless second form with my respect for the first.

Shawn’s otherwise excellent video does not deal with the role of disorder. A lot of what you mean by chaos is in my terms disordered (subject to the qualification on indigenous knowledge above. Exploring disorder and its boundaries is one of the areas where I am doing a fair amount of development at the moment

I don’t see how I can have subconsciously picked up on the use of ritual, when it is an explicit part of the method set. I first formally used it over two decades ago in a major project (and many times since) so my use and acceptance of it is long standing and explicit. One of the reasons for this is that the cognitive science understanding of how ritual triggers change in the brain allows scalability.

Interesting reading as ever, I look forward to more