Social System Principles

The invisible Network

A human society, as for all social species, is a network of entangled minds – and nothing more. Yes, human beings comprise a physical entity, but the material individuals you see are only urns of bone and flesh cathedral of the brain. The organizational framework itself, the organization chart, is a confection of the mind. There is no physical artifact involved in orchestrating organizational dynamics. You don’t even have to be on the same planet to replicate the social behavior. There is no central control room, no router, no super-omniscient overseer cranium.

Accordingly, social system behavior influence is a mind-only trip of spontaneous opinions. There is nothing material, tangible, or concrete that distinguishes a human throng at the beach from the plumbers union. You can’t tell which is which until they  act. Everything starts and operates via the invisible communications network of entangled minds. In fact, receiving membership status in a social system is, exactly, formal admission to its network. It is the platform of social media.

Because the network of subconscious minds that defines a social system has no mass, it is not subject to those laws of nature, like gravity, inertia and space-time that channel how mass behaves. The characteristic of the subconscious mind that carries the most significance into social behavior is the speed by which it chooses and decides. No act of choosing an opinion, position, or task action takes it more than a few milliseconds and it can go through multiple decision cycles in every second. For the subconscious mind, the cognitive acts of reflection, evaluation, and tradeoffs are impossible to complete within its decision cycle.

Since your imaginations are not subject to the wear and tear of entropy build-up and friction, they do not age. No matter the advances in knowledge, your subconscious delusions remain timeless, intact and equal in validity to the imaginations of everyone else. Losing an argument about your delusions does nothing to degrade your belief in them.

If the human aggregation is not a social system, whatever behavior you predicted will be wrong. If the collective of humans is a social system, you can predict its behavior with unerring certainty. Social systems are fractal. Large social systems, the ones that spawn MitMs, are a consortium of small social systems with identical mechanisms of action (MoA) dictated by groupthink.

If everyone in the particular social system was gunned down except two, the social behavior that triggered the massacre would continue intact. If you added fresh personnel to the twosome, the numerically-restored collective would behave exactly as the original. Social systems are Holographic. Every individual member carries the same template of behavior (invariant human nature and groupthink) into whatever subgroups might form.

There are significant ramifications in the collision between the subconscious (domination) and the conscious-mind network of implementation. The two cultures have different purposes. The divide is by individuals as well as languages, a combination that delivers mutual incomprehension. Those individuals in the aristocracy camp of delusions intentionally lack basic knowledge possessed by the implementers.

Those into zero-sum domination cannot describe the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. They place imagination as content, over method. They reject the noble moral principle that investigation of facts brings things closer to the truth. Desperate to protect ruling-class infallibility, authorities the possibility of objective knowledge. What authorities ought to do is constrained by what their groupthink allows them to do.

The implementers don’t savvy management school textbooks. They instinctively reject humanist rationalizations about why aristocrats deserve the separate treatments of law they flaunt. They take notice that scientists and humanists alike, when they leave their subspecialty, are laypeople and their rate of fragmentation increases with time. When a society has no system-think wisdom to coordinate the authority camp with the implementation camp, collapse is inevitable.

Actionable quality information, AQI, aka ground truth, is the necessary basis of every task action of implementation. Failures to use AQI and system-think are always punished by the conductor of reality. Actions congruent with natural law in implementation are fundamentally moral. Actions incongruent with natural law are intrinsically immoral. Working within the grain of human nature, implementers doing their job don’t concern themselves with perpetuating traditions. Nothing human is alien to MitMs. They know the position of the universe and its laws with regards to human life, including yours and theirs, dear Mother Nature, is clear. Every inch of the billion light years wide space in the cosmos would kill you if you went there.

Put the blocks of the logic together and you have begun to assay the MitM role absolutely crucial to species success. Simply put, no one but the MitM, free from the cages of groupthink, could possibly serve the integration/translation function. A comparison of the two creeds, delusion and reality, defines the situation.

Volunteers, the lot

Every member of a human society is a volunteer. There may be all manner of domination ruts, deceptions, and coercion going on, but at foundation bedrock everyone serves society as a volunteer. Everyone knows that charitable organizations using volunteers for delivering client services treat them dramatically better than those on the payroll.

It is a travesty for the upper hierarchy to abuse its workforce as if they were indentured serfs. Social conditioning has enabled the perversion by convincing the lower classes they are unworthy of humane treatment. Deception aside, the fact remains that everyone in a society serves voluntarily and should be appreciated as such. That means the Rogerian Triad should be the template for all network transactions. Notice that “inalienable rights” is entirely congruent with “volunteer.”

Simply aligning your perception with the truth of “volunteer” status will bring you wondrous insights into the prime movers of Wit’s End society. When “volunteer-think” becomes habitual, you will witness positive reciprocity – so much benefit for so little effort.

Invoking the magic of hyper-learning

In the course of traversing from Plan A to Plan B functionality there are some very significant milestones that measure hyper-learning progress. You will find no mention of these trail markers in the social literature because they are unique to Plan B. During the transmutation, the interventionist issues no imperatives. The MitMs are given no requirements to test the concepts presented in the episodes. No one is criticized. There is no homework to turn in.

The interventionist works tirelessly to establish high-stakes trust with the MitMs in the FLLP as step one. He avoids jokes and only tells stories of self-deprecation at the hands of his mother-in-law. Laughter is part of every episode because laughter is the lubricant of class participation, a feature of hyper-learning. No joke.

Laughter about the self-deprecating interventionist is the signal that the group is in trust-building mode. Surrounding every episode, the interventionist spends time one-on-one in situ with each MitM. Over time the MitMs learn the interventionist keeps the interaction strictly private. By the time of episode four of season one, trust has accumulated to the point where hyperlearning pops things into overdrive.

The signal that the MitMs have reached high-stakes-trust mode is driven by the subconscious mind. The sign is universal and it originates with the MitM. Nothing is scripted. The signal is sarcasm directed at the interventionist, always in a group setting.  When the MitMs feel free to yank on the interventionist’s beard in public, the interventionist knows he’s been accepted into the brotherhood as a member in good standing. He can now make errors and return the sarcasm tit for tat without concern for social status. He will henceforth automatically get the benefit of doubt.

When the interventionist gets this signal, he can ramp up the transfer of developed knowledge. If he overdoes it, the MitMs will tell him so without hesitation. The level of trust is maintained when the MitMs test out in their world what they have learned, on their own initiative, at the last episode. When they find out on their own that everything promised in the episode to work, works for them, the supercharger of hyper-learning kicks in.

What the interventionist is teaching the MitMs is how to build high-stakes trust with their workforce. The workers know the whole time who is the keystone. When they kid him, they know who has the “power.”

A philosophical note about Plan B

The literature of society has a lot to say about its choice between a defensive or an offensive-based operating policy. The comparison of strengths between defense and offense as strategy is found in:

  • Military
  • Sports
  • Social status
  • Business
  • Government
  • Mathematical physics

It has been recorded for millennia that a strategy of offense (e.g., siege machinery) is significantly more successful that a strategy of defense (castle and moats) in social hostilities. Defensive practice and fixed positions are relentlessly undermined by the 2nd Law while offensive practices are unlimited and readily adjusted by direct experience – the antidote to 2nd Law degradation. Perhaps the football parallel is the place to start.

In football, defense is initially easier to learn than offense.  At the beginning of the NFL season, scoring tends to be lower than later in the season. That’s because it takes time for an offense to hone its skills and coordinate its actions, while a defense can more readily show up and be turned loose to respond to whatever the offense is trying to do.  As the season goes on, scoring increases as the offense begins to improve the coordination of their plays while the defense shows relatively less improvement.

At work, as in football, playing defense is a primarily reactive affair. We typically respond to what is happening in front of us. It’s easier to play defense because we don’t have to think as hard or make as many decisions as we do on offense. When it comes to day-to-day work in the office, defense involves responding to e-mail and requests for meetings from others and waiting for something urgent to grab our attention.  Many of us—perhaps most of us—work in a defensive posture.  We arrive at work and go straight to our desks where we open our laptops, check our e-mail, and respond to whatever the world has for us that day.

Playing offense is different. It is a primarily intentional, proactive approach. It’s more difficult than defense because it requires us to discern for ourselves what our priorities should be and to stick with our plans in the face of distractions and temptations. An offensive posture at work involves beginning the day by reviewing our projects and setting goals for the day before we look at e-mail or text messages or expose ourselves to any other potential distractions.  It also involves allowing urgent but relatively unimportant tasks to go by the wayside (which is much easier said than done) so that more critical initiatives receive the time and attention they require.

In football, defense is more exhausting than offense.  Announcers frequently can be heard saying “the defense is tired because they’ve been on the field for a long time.”  They never say the same thing about the offense.  Why?  Because playing offense is energizing.  We are motivated when we see our plans put into action.  The same is true at work.  When we play offense, we find ourselves energized at the end of the workday, with a sense of accomplishment around what we’ve achieved, and renewed excitement for the next day.  When we play defense, when we spend most of our day responding to noise and distraction, we often leave work exhausted, wondering if we made any real progress and wary of what the next day will throw at us.

Spend more time working and socializing with people who share your goals and projects, because they will naturally encourage us to stay on task. In just our first day of taking a decidedly offensive mindset at The Table Group, we made noticeably more progress than usual and our sense of excitement and anticipation for the future had increased significantly.  We also found that many of the defensive issues that occupied most of our attention seemed to disappear or shrink in importance.  Which gives credence to the old saying, “a good offense is the best defense.”

Plan A follows a strategy of defending status quo in its organization and operations. The Nash Equilibrium, a natural law, serves to erode advances made in any individual factor so disturbances, good or bad, are neutralized as fast as they form

Defensive mechanisms in hierarchical operations are operationalized by psychological mechanisms in each member of the organization. Defense over offense unfailingly delivers the organization into Plan A. It is categorically impossible to displace OD with something better by dealing with individual defense mechanisms. It has never worked because it can’t work.

Accepting the defects in defense as a constraint, the Plan A to Plan B transposition process runs on offense from day one. The FLLP strategy is to displace the defensive mindset with an offensive repertoire of task actions. The policy is proactive rather than reactive. When the offense strategy pays off, defensive mechanisms retreat into the long-term parking lot of the subconscious mind.

The power of offense in attaining Plan B largesse by Plan A defense displacement is measured by direct experience. On the football field the success of offense is validated by points added on the scoreboard.

The practices of offense by the interventionist that work for the keystone are available for keystone use on their revenue crew. For the interventionist, once past the initial silence-breaking therapy, keystones offer little resistance to hyperlearning. For the keystones, his Plan B example will take a few months to build high-stakes trust with his workers, pre-disposed to distrust him based on prior direct experience. Meanwhile the foreman has to endure defensive routines from their workers until the dam breaks and trust can build.

Hits: 113