You are currently viewing On the Science of Change

On the Science of Change

  • Post category:Science

Suppose we have a new strategy for “changing the world”. Suppose further that part of that strategy is called “authentic democracy”. Say that it’s open, honest, and non-violent. All you have to do is inform yourself, think, express your opinion regarding any issue, and click in a vote for or against change. It could be exciting. It could be global. It’s fun. You’ve never seen anything like it. 

It is often said that “change is just the way things are”, that everything changes. Why then do we not teach a general theory of change in our schools? Perhaps we, as a civilization, are unconsciously afraid of change such that we subtly discourage deep thoughts about change. Or is change too uncertain, complicated, too close to an elusive goal like that of physicists: unified field theory, or at a more frightening level, perhaps a theory of change would lead to a general theory of economic and political transformation!

This essay is written to stimulate steps toward a science of social and psychological change. Our proposed science of change includes more genuine democracy and more efficient social decision-making without resorting to authoritarian means. We will elect our administration from among our membership. We will place issues before you that are topical but also ideas that have to do with deep structural and long-term change. When enough of our readers and registered members have signed in, we will begin a weekly vote on sections of a proposed constitution called The Universal Model (1995). It’s designed to be scalable, i.e., usable at any size from small groups to an authentically democratic global federation, and to be adaptable to any culture. It is strictly secular, but it guarantees and protects freedom of religion.

However, since organized religions are: (1) significant powers that are based on a different source and logic, and (2) because religion has a primary allegiance other than to secular democracy, organized religion’s representatives and stealth candidates for office will be excluded from participation in this secular government. Their job, we believe, is to make religious organizations more democratic and more consistent with the Universal Value described in the Syntropic Systems Paradigm.

The Language Barrier

The evolution of mind and of society has taken us to the point of needing a new science if our species is to continue to survive and evolve. This new science will of necessity be based largely on the massive computing power of millions of minds—naturally, as well as artificially, intelligent minds. At present, however, our minds are separated by barriers that we inherit from a past period during which those barriers were useful. Today they are a significant hindrance but, nevertheless, one that can be resolved.

In order to develop a global democracy or a truly global science, for example, we must resolve the language problem. As soon as we at SVH can, we will publish in several languages, but that is not the best answer. The simple and rational solution would be to adopt a universal second language that’s powerful yet much easier to learn than most natural languages. That has been the one hundred twenty-six year goal of the Esperanto movement that now claims Esperanto speakers in more than one hundred countries. The progress has been slow, but for a number of years it has been possible to circumnavigate the world and stay almost every night with an Esperanto-speaking host.

People, however, are attached to their mother-tongues. We tend to identify with the language, culture, and history that was the larger part of our early existence. That’s the language that makes it easiest for words and thoughts to flow from one’s mind. We are then reluctant, or don’t have the resources, to learn a new language unless we’re going to be in frequent contact with members of a different language community. The easy-to-learn second language is intended to supplement, not replace, anyone’s mother tongue.

This website will continue to support teaching Esperanto from pre-school on through every college and professional school as one of the best possible solutions to the Tower of Babel dilemma. In the meantime, a technological solution is on the horizon. Supercomputers are learning to analyze words, count associations, and translate relatively simple linguistic communications. In some narrow contexts, the linguistic ability of supercomputers is already shockingly sophisticated.

In his book, How to Create a Mind, Ray Kurzweil provides the following example from the game of Jeopardy: [Remember that an “answer” is provided by the game’s Host, and you are to respond by forming the relevant question.

1.  A long tiresome speech delivered by a frothy pie topping.

2.  A garment worn by a child, perhaps aboard an operatic ship.

3.  Wanted for a twelve-year crime spree of eating King Hrothgar’s warriors; officer Beowulf has been assigned the case.

4.  It can mean to develop gradually in the mind or to carry during pregnancy.

5.  National Teacher Day and Kentucky Derby Day.

6.  Wordsworth said they soar but never roam.

7.  Four-letter word for the iron fitting on the hoof of a horse or a card-dealing box in a casino.

8.  In act three of an 1846 Verdi opera, this Scourge of God is stabbed to death by his lover, Odabella.

The “answers” (without the question form) were:  meringue harangue, pinafore, Grendel, gestate, May, skylark, shoe. For the eighth question, Watson replied, What is Attila? The host responded by saying, “Be more specific?” Watson clarified with “What is Attila the Hun?” which is correct. Watson answered all of the first seven questions correctly on the first try.

Clearly, sophisticated, computerized, linguistic abilities are on the way. One can envision a day when an international meeting is computer-facilitated by instantaneous translations of a speech, flashed on a screen and transmitted to earphones in the language most familiar to each attendee. Instantly translated, person-to-person conversations will take a little longer. Of course if battery power fails, the whole experience will be rather disappointing—unless the participants have each learned a Universal Second Language.

International meetings among scientists are a hallmark of scientific endeavors that have broad significance. Such meetings are hampered by the current lack of a universally understood language. English-language adherents often claim they already have the solution, but only about one-sixth of the world’s population can speak English, and only about 27% of Internet use is in English. Further, mastering English (or Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) is time-consuming, and because English is a complicated natural language and difficult to pronounce for many people, it leads to many misunderstandings among people who learn it as a second language. How is it possible, then, to develop a truly global science of psychological and social change, so that every scientist, and almost every citizen, has easy access to ideas coming from every other part of the world unless we have a Universal Second Language?

In addition to the stumbling block of language there are other obstacles. The following ensemble of strategies, taken together with the huge factor of evolutionary need, will help overcome some of those difficulties:

  1. First, every attempt to change a complex system results in the change agent becoming a part of the system. Thus a new system is created, and the management of that system requires a higher level of organization or a specialized unit. This could lead to an infinite series, but since it is only necessary to attain a sufficient level of objectivity the distance from the original target of change need only suffice. The change agent must model the subject system and itself in interaction. It must then effect change “as if” viewing the target system from a higher level. New, faster computers make modeling and experimentation easier. The appropriate analog may be that of DNA in a cellular nucleus with its encoded map of the molecular structure of the cell, but as we head into the future we will need a level of consciously anticipating and guiding the system of change to a desired new structure.
  2. Rapport may be defined as a positive, empathic, mutual-causal process between or among two or more systems. As part of the new system, the change agent is usually wise to attempt to achieve rapport by representing the higher interests of the subject system as well as the goal of change. The establishment of Jen (pronounced wren), consciously recognized by both parties, is an important part of the strategy. When possible, base it on a contract agreed to by all parties. Fear, anger, deception, or coercion lead eventually to resentment, distance and repeated disruptions of the larger fabric of organization. That is to the detriment of all parties concerned. When rapport is not possible, game theoretical constructs or distance and isolation of the target system may be the only recourse.
  3. Mathematics, a very logical form of language, may be involved. The branches most useful may be derived largely from the self-reproducing cellular automata developed by John von Neumann. Other useful tools will include cybernetic theory, chaos theory, game theory, Bayesian probability theory, and hidden hierarchical Markov chains. “Big data” analytic algorithms such as those in use by IBM’s “Watson” will be important, and of course, there will be new techniques and algorithms not yet currently employed or even invented.
  4. New cross-level system hypotheses will be formed and tested.
  5. Properly applied, the New Science combines a bracketed Universal Value with the methods of science. Any intelligent system—living and non-living—can do this.  It is ultimately aimed at survival and evolution toward greater adaptive and creative intelligence. [See A Modest Proposal for a New Science of Mind and Society.]
  6. Peaceful co-evolution of intelligent systems becomes a necessary part of the strategy in order to reduce the wasteful effects of conflict, war, and an imbalance of population size in relation to our supportive ecosystem.
  7. The ultimate goal of every research project in the New Science is to learn more about how to move each of our systems, living and non-living AI, in the direction of the Syntrope (as described in The Modest Proposal). Research protocols should explain how each project is designed to do that.
  8. “Authentic democracy” is a stage in the evolution of democracy toward an open, fully democratic, global federation that can minimize the entropic effects of syntropic systems while optimizing the freedom of thought and creativity of individuals groups, and nations. [See Creating Democracy In Time (1994) and Syntropic Mind, Vols. I & II, for further elaboration and definitions]