A hands-on, layman view of complexity

Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2019

The rise of complexity sciences has led to the development of new language about systems. Concepts such as 'complex systems thinking' or 'complexity thinking' have appeared in the literature, appealing to ways of thinking (in) complexity. The notion of 'complex thinking,' may be considered as referring to a mode of thinking more congruent with the complexity of the world. The widespread and sometimes undifferentiated usage of these concepts results in a lack of clarity and terminological confusion, which jeopardizes their heuristic and pragmatic value. We identify literature using terms related to thinking (in) complexity and use a combination of computational and qualitative methods to extract definitions and analyse their usage. We map the relationships of the concepts and their usage across different intellectual communities. Our goal is to clarify these concepts and to strengthen their pragmatic value for the promotion and management of positive changes in complex systems.

2011

Futures, 1996

is easy to overlook the fact that the apparent simplicity of the past was often more a function of the constraints put on the framing of the issue or problem at hand, both conceptually and in policy making, than it was a reflection of any inherent properties. Revisiting several case studies helps to illustrate the point that complexity, now or in the past, resides especially in the social relationships within and between institutions and agents. Much current thinking about complexity is moving towards development of ever more sophisticated methodologies with which to probe complex systems, hence to facilitate their management and control. We argue that such methodological elaboration frequently acts as a direct substitute for institutional development and reflexivity, and we urge instead for exploration of new forms of institutional mediation. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

1986

to name a few. The 384 pages of this volume contain most of their contributions, organized in five sections: understanding complexity, complexity in focus, complexity in nature, complexity in society, and overviews.

Artificial Life, 2010

2002

The theories of complexity comprise a system of great breadth. But what is included under this umbrella? Here we attempt a portrait of complexity theory, seen through the lens of complexity theory itself. That is, we portray the subject as an evolving complex dynamical sys- tem, or social network, with bifurcations, emergent properties, and so on. This is a capsule history covering the 20th century. Extensive background data may be seen at www.visual-chaos.org/com- plexity.

Science in context, 2005

For several decades now a set of researches from a wide range of different sectors has been developed which goes by the name of "science of complexity" and is opposed point by point to the paradigm of classical science. It challenges the idea that world is "simple." To the reductionist idea that each process is the sum of the actions of its components it opposes a holistic view (the whole is more than the sum of the parts). The aim of the present article is to analyze the epistemological status attributed in the science of complexity to several fundamental ideas, such as those of scientific law, objectivity, and prediction. The aim is to show that the hope of superseding reductionism by means of concepts such as that of "emergence" is fallacious and that the science of complexity proposes forms of reductionism that are even more restrictive than the classical ones, particularly when it claims to unify in a single treatment problems that vary widely in nature such as physical, biological, and social problems.

Complexity, science and society, 2007

Abstract: The science of complexity is based on a new way of thinking that stands in sharp contrast to the philosophy underlying Newtonian science, which is based on reductionism, determinism, and objective knowledge. This paper reviews the historical development of this new world view, focusing on its philosophical foundations. Determinism was challenged by quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Systems theory replaced reductionism by a scientifically based holism. Cybernetics and postmodern social science showed that ...

2023

The word "complexity" for many remains a terra incognita, so much so that some mistake it for "complication" while for others it is synonymous with "confusion", a way of not wanting to see reality in its clear contours. Unfortunately, for decades now it has not been possible to go beyond the cultural contrast between the use of absolute laws-values and unpredictability, which automatically leads to cultural relativism. In this book I will try to show how there is a path other than determinism and unpredictability and this path is what complexity science has been developing for at least 30 years. This path is the path of complexity. The greater complexity of individuals and societies today does not mean that simple aspects have disappeared: there are times when I must choose, either this or that and war is one of them. Complexity does not deny data, information, indeed there is no complexity without content and information. Complexity is made up of networks, hubs, links, vision, strategy, priorities and requires a new mental approach and is what people and institutions (primarily schools) are missing. This book aims to introduce elements of understanding of a reality with which we must increasingly come to terms; we are immersed in a complex world but we face it with inadequate tools because they were fine once or with fantasies without cultural foundations. Complexity is not a simple word, but a cultural universe whose characteristics we must know and recognize.

2011

Complexity fascinates and confounds. At times it is reminiscent of that proverbial enigmatic, shadowy and elusive nocturnal creature that appears only fleetingly for us to catch a glimpse of before it disappears mysteriously back into the darkness and beyond. Despite its profound effect on virtually every aspect of modern life, full understanding and comprehension of complexity eludes us at every turn. Its reticence in revealing itself fully to our scholastic gaze may have something to do with our academic temperament and the nature of our investigative approach. In this chapter, I propose a more oblique and circuitous strategy for understanding and managing the complex: one in which, paradoxically, the act of detour allows better access to its hidden nature and inner workings. In other words, I suggest, we need to complexify our thinking in order to learn and better appreciate the nature of complexity. In this effort to complexify thought, this chapter resonates with the concerns raised by several other chapter contributions in this handbook including that of Shotter and Tsoukas and Kurt Richardson in seeking to wean our thought processes from the dominance of natural scientific thought on the nature of complexity. More specifically, it advocates learning from the arts the art of complex thinking for the arts have long explored and appreciated the subtleties, paradoxes and nuances associated with the human condition. It urges us to set aside our natural inclination to apprehend social phenomena 'head-on' by showing how in that very act of direct apprehension we unwittingly forfeit access to those very insights we so very much seek. Social and managerial complexity retreats into the shadows when directly confronted. They are best approached through stealth. We propose here an indirect strategy for gaining access to the phenomenon of complexity in social life and suggest their implications for management.