Difference between revisions of "Anarchy 31/Anarchism and the cybernetics of self-organising systems"
imported>Ivanhoe |
imported>Ivanhoe |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
{{tab}}The system, then, has chan­ging domin­ance and ex­hibits redund­ancy of poten­tial com­mand. | {{tab}}The system, then, has chan­ging domin­ance and ex­hibits redund­ancy of poten­tial com­mand. | ||
− | {{tab}}In practice, each pupil sits in a little cubicle pro­vided with buttons and indic­ators for com­mun­ica­tion, and a com­ | + | {{tab}}In practice, each pupil sits in a little cubicle pro­vided with buttons and indic­ators for com­mun­ica­tion, and a com­puter<!-- 'computor' in original --> is used for control, calcul­ating the various meas­ures, etc. The oper­ator is pro­vided with some way of seeing what is going on, and can de­liber­ately make things dif­ficult for the group, by intro­ducing false in­forma­tion into the chan­nels, etc., seeing how the group copes with it. |
{{tab}}The prob­lems which Pask, at the time, had used in these group ex­peri­ments had been form­ulated as con­vey­ing in­forma­tion about the posi­tion of a point in some space, with noise in the com­mun­ica­tion chan­nels. The group had been asked to imagine that they are air traffic con­trol­lers, given co-<wbr>ordin­ates spe­cify­ing the posi­tion of an air­craft at a certain time, for ex­ample. | {{tab}}The prob­lems which Pask, at the time, had used in these group ex­peri­ments had been form­ulated as con­vey­ing in­forma­tion about the posi­tion of a point in some space, with noise in the com­mun­ica­tion chan­nels. The group had been asked to imagine that they are air traffic con­trol­lers, given co-<wbr>ordin­ates spe­cify­ing the posi­tion of an air­craft at a certain time, for ex­ample. | ||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
{{tab}}It will be noted that the state of the system when in equi­lib­rium ''is'' the solu­tion to the problem. Also that this solu­tion changes with time. This is also the case in the first example from purely human organ­isa­tion which oc­curred to me{{dash}}a jazz band (an example also sug­gested by Pask). | {{tab}}It will be noted that the state of the system when in equi­lib­rium ''is'' the solu­tion to the problem. Also that this solu­tion changes with time. This is also the case in the first example from purely human organ­isa­tion which oc­curred to me{{dash}}a jazz band (an example also sug­gested by Pask). | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}Pask em­phas­ised that he had not then had the op­portun­ity to obtain suffi­cient data to make any far-<wbr>reach­ing well sub­stanti­ated gen­eral­isa­tions from these ex­peri­ments. The results he had ob­tained, however, were very inter­est­ing and, I think, give con­sider­able insight into the char­acter­istics of self-<wbr>organ­ising systems, and their ad­vant­ages over other types of de­cision-<wbr>makers. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}Some groups, after an initial stage while they were gaining famil­iar­ity with the machine, began as­sign­ing specific roles to their mem­bers and intro­ducing<!-- 'introducting' in original --> stand­ard pro­cedures. This led to a drop in effi­ciency and in­abil­ity to handle new factors intro­duced by spur­ious inform­ation, etc. The learn­ing curve rises, flat­tens, then drops sharply when­ever some new element is intro­duced. The system is now no longer self-<wbr>organ­ising. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}Neces­sary charac­ter­istics for a group to con­sti­tuted self-<wbr>organ­ising system, Pask<!-- 'Park' --> sug­gests, are avoid­ance of fixed role-<wbr>assign­ments and stereo­typed pro­ced­ures. This is of course tied up with re­dund­ancy of poten­tial com­mand. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}I think we might sum up {{q|fixed role as­sign­ment and stereo­typed pro­ced­ures}} in one word{{dash}}insti­tu­tional­isa­tion. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}Note that these char­acter­istics are ''neces­sary,'' not ''suffi­cient''{{dash}}at the very least the group must first of all con­sti­tute a system in a mean­ing­ful sense; there must be com­mun­ica­tion be­tween the mem­bers, a suffi­cient struc­ture of in­forma­tion chan­nels and feed­back loops. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}The role of the com­puter in Pask{{s}} system may be worry­ing some. Is his not an ana­logue of an author­itar­ian {{q|guiding hand}}? The answer is, I think, no. It must be re­membered that this is an arti­ficial exer­cise the group is per­form­ing. A problem is set by the oper­ator. There is there­fore no real situ­ation in actu­ality for the group to affect and observe the result of their efforts. It is this func­tion of de­termin­ing and feeding back success/<wbr>failure in­forma­tion which the machine fulfils. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}The other im­port­ant aspect of the machine as a cata­lyst in the learn­ing process, we have already men­tioned. There is a rough analogy here with the role of {{q|influ­ence leader}} in the Hauser{{s|r}} sense,<ref>See {{popup|Richard|Richard Hauser, Austrian sociologist}} and {{w|Heph­zibah Hauser|Hephzibah_Menuhin}}: '''The Frat­ernal Society''' (Bodley Head, 1962).</ref> rather than any author­it­arian {{q|over­seer}}. I will return to this ques­tion of the role of the machine shortly. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}Regard­ing the group as a de­cision maker, Pask sug­gests that this is perhaps the only sense in which {{q|two heads are better than one}} is true{{dash}}if the {{q|two heads}} con­sti­tute a self-<wbr>organ­ising system. The clue as to why a number of heads, ''e.g.'', notori­ously, in com­mit­tees, often turn out to be much worse than one, is, he sug­gests, this busi­ness of role as­sign­ment and stereo­typed pro­ced­ure. He has not, however, sug­gested why this should arise. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}Drawing on know­ledge of beha­viour of a self-<wbr>organ­ising nature {{p|274}}ex­hibited in other groups, ''e.g.'' in­formal shop-<wbr>floor organ­isa­tion, the adapt­abil­ity and effi­ciency ex­hibited in in­stances of col­cect­ive con­tract working, and similar phe­nomena,<ref>See, for example, the paper by {{w|Trist|Eric_Trist}} on col­lect­ive con­tract working in the {{w|Durham|County_Durham}} coal­field quoted by {{w|H. Clegg|Hugh_Clegg_(industrial_relations)}} in '''A New Ap­proach to Indus­trial Demo­cracy''' (Black­well 1960) and the dis­cus­sion of this book by [[Author:Geoffrey Ostergaard|Geoffrey Oster­gaard]] in [[Anarchy 2/Approaches to industrial democracy|ANARCHY 2]]. Note the ap­pear­ance of new ele­ments of job rota­tion.<br>{{tab}}Despite his empha­sis on the formal aspects of worker organ­isa­tion, {{w|Melman|Seymour_Melman}}{{s}} ana­lysis (see Note 1) of the worker de­cision pro­cess at {{w|Standard{{s}}|Standard_Motor_Company}} brings out many of the carac­ter­istics of a self-<wbr>organ­ising system: the evolving nature of the process; the diffi­culty of de­termin­ing where a par­tic­ular de­cision was made; chan­ging domin­ance; the way in which the cumul­ative ex­peri­ence of the group changes the frame of refer­ence against which subse­quent prob­lems are set for solu­tion. A better idea of the gang system from which this derives can, however, be ob­tained from [[Author:Reg Wright|Reg Wright]]{{s}} articles in [[Anarchy 2/The gang system in Coventry|ANARCHY 2]] & [[Anarchy 8/Erosion inside capitalism|8]].</ref> we may perhaps offer some sug­ges­tions as to how insti­tu­tional­isa­tion may arise in certain types of circum­stances. | ||
Revision as of 18:54, 31 March 2017
Anarchism and the
cybernetics of self-organising
systems
Firstly, what do we mean by a self-
This definition is, however, in osme ways restrictive. The best such a system can do is to reach some sort of optimum state and stay there. Also, if we regard the system as a control system attempting to maintain stability in a fluctuating environment, the types of disturbance with which it can deal are limited by the fixed maximum variety of the system. This point will be dealt with later. The essential thing is that unpredictable disturbances are liable to prove too much for the system.
Such considerations suggest that it would be more fruitful to incorporate in the definition the idea that the maximum possible variety might also differ at different times. Thus Pask restricts the term to situations where the history of ‘the system’ can best be represented as a series S₀ S₁ … Sₙ each term a system with fixed maximum variety, and each self-organising in the first sense. With this definition we are For an example of self-
In many discussions of control situations the concept of ‘Hierarchy’ appears very quickly. This may tend to make the anarchist recoil, but should not do so, since the usage is a technical one and does not coincide with the use of the term in anarchist criticisms of political organisation.
Firstly, the cybernetician makes a very important distinction between two types of hierarchy, the anatomical and the functional, to use the terminology adopted by Pask. The former is the type exemplified in part by hierarchical social organisation in the normal sense (e.g. ‘tree of command’ structure in industry), that is: there are two (if two levels) actual distinguishable concrete entities involved. The latter refers to the case where there may be only one entity, but there are two or more levels of information structure operating in the system—
Secondly, even in the case of ‘anatomical hierarchy’, the term only means that parts of the system can be distinguished dealing with different levels of decision making and learning, e.g. some parts may deal directly with the environment, while other parts relate to activity of these first parts, or some parts learn about individual occurrences, while others learn about sequences of individual occurrences, and others again about classes of sequences.
Even in the anatomical sense, then, the term need have none of the connotations of coercive sanctions in a ruler-
An important phenomenon in self-
Prior to this Pask had developed individual teaching machines which were important advances in the growth of applied cybernetics.[3] However, on considering the problem of group teaching (for skills where some calculable measure of the pupils’ performance, the rate of change of which will serve as a suitable indication of learning, exists), he did not simply combine individual machines.
The important insight he had was that a group of human beings in a learning situation, is itself an evolutionary system, which suggested the idea of the machine as a catalyst, modifying the communication channels in the group, and thus producing different group structures.
In the development of the individual teaching machines, the possibility of the pupil dominating the machine had already arisen. This Pask now extended by introducing the idea of a quality ‘money’ allocated to each member of the group, and used by each of them to ‘buy’ for himself control over the communication structure of the group and over the partial specification of the solution provided by the machine. Now, in the individual machine, the degree to which the pupil was helped was coupled to change of his degree of success. If he was becoming more successful then the help given was decreased. In the group machine, the allocation of ‘money’ is coupled to two conditions—
The system, then, has changing dominance and exhibits redundancy of potential command.
In practice, each pupil sits in a little cubicle provided with buttons and indicators for communication, and a computer is used for control, calculating the various measures, etc. The operator is provided with some way of seeing what is going on, and can deliberately make things difficult for the group, by introducing false information into the channels, etc., seeing how the group copes with it.
The problems which Pask, at the time, had used in these group experiments had been formulated as conveying information about the position of a point in some space, with noise in the communication channels. The group had been asked to imagine that they are air traffic controllers, given co-
It will be noted that the state of the system when in equilibrium is the solution to the problem. Also that this solution changes with time. This is also the case in the first example from purely human organisation which occurred to me—
Pask emphasised that he had not then had the opportunity to obtain sufficient data to make any far-
Some groups, after an initial stage while they were gaining familiarity with the machine, began assigning specific roles to their members and introducing standard procedures. This led to a drop in efficiency and inability to handle new factors introduced by spurious information, etc. The learning curve rises, flattens, then drops sharply whenever some new element is introduced. The system is now no longer self-
Necessary characteristics for a group to constituted self-
I think we might sum up ‘fixed role assignment and stereotyped procedures’ in one word—
Note that these characteristics are necessary, not sufficient—
The role of the computer in Pask’s system may be worrying some. Is his not an analogue of an authoritarian ‘guiding hand’? The answer is, I think, no. It must be remembered that this is an artificial exercise the group is performing. A problem is set by the operator. There is therefore no real situation in actuality for the group to affect and observe the result of their efforts. It is this function of determining and feeding back success/
The other important aspect of the machine as a catalyst in the learning process, we have already mentioned. There is a rough analogy here with the role of ‘influence leader’ in the Hausers’ sense,[4] rather than any authoritarian ‘overseer’. I will return to this question of the role of the machine shortly.
Regarding the group as a decision maker, Pask suggests that this is perhaps the only sense in which ‘two heads are better than one’ is true—
- ↑ See Seymour Melman: Decision-Making and Productivity (Blackwell, 1958).
- ↑ Gordon Pask: “Interaction between a Group of Subjects and an Adaptive Automaton to produce a Self-
Organising System for Decision-Making” in the symposium Self- Organising Systems, 1962, ed. Jovits, Jacobi and Goldstein (Spartan Books). - ↑ See Stafford Beer: Cybernetics and Management (English Universities Press, 1959) pp. 123-127, and Gordon Pask: An Approach to Cybernetics (Hutchinson 1961).
- ↑ See Richard and Hephzibah Hauser: The Fraternal Society (Bodley Head, 1962).
- ↑ See, for example, the paper by Trist on collective contract working in the Durham coalfield quoted by H. Clegg in A New Approach to Industrial Democracy (Blackwell 1960) and the discussion of this book by Geoffrey Ostergaard in ANARCHY 2. Note the appearance of new elements of job rotation.
Despite his emphasis on the formal aspects of worker organisation, Melman’s analysis (see Note 1) of the worker decision process at Standard’s brings out many of the caracteristics of a self-organising system: the evolving nature of the process; the difficulty of determining where a particular decision was made; changing dominance; the way in which the cumulative experience of the group changes the frame of reference against which subsequent problems are set for solution. A better idea of the gang system from which this derives can, however, be obtained from Reg Wright’s articles in ANARCHY 2 & 8.