Re: [projectvrm] Wicked problems vs. tame ones

[Guy Higgins < >]

I don’t think that government “by the poor” is any better than government “by the rich.”  We have an excellent mechanism in place right now — democracy!  The problem is that we’re too lazy to participate and so we choose the “default option” (re-elect the incumbents) far too often, or we don’t vote at all (the new mayor of NYC was elected by something like 8% of the voters), or we vote for the person who most strikes our fancy (better looking, great sound bites, etc).  None of these lead us to a good government.  

People complain (on rare occasion) about how their personal data is being taken and used without their permission, but almost no one (present company excepted) actually does anything about it.

Electing the best people to govern us is the same problem faced by VRM — we have to get enough people interested in the idea (government or VRM) for them to invest their personal effort in participating intelligently.  I’m not holding my breath …

Guy

From: Tom Crowl < "> >
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:17:46 -0800
To: Doc Searls < "> >
Cc: Guy Higgins < "> >, ProjectVRM list < "> >, Andy Oram < "> >, "Grant, Frank (Perkins Coie)" < "> >, David Brin < "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Wicked problems vs. tame ones

RE: " liberating customers from systems that value holding them captive is the core challenge of VRM"

I agree... and I'm not trying to be political here (at least not in a Left/Right sense) but would add that this is a reflection of the quandary that the individual faces in relationship to large interests (both public and private) which has existed since the birth of agriculture...

And that its that relationship that must be addressed.

This doesn't mean that wandering into the weeds of political ideology can solve it... but it does mean that stronger mechanisms for customer/citizen/user feedback to both government and private interests may be required to secure the customer/vendor relationship as well as others.

I don't like to be a broken record... but both the micropayment and the core it requires are essential to the empowerment of the individual vis-a-vis these large sectors.

This conclusion arises out of a recognition that excessive* wealth and power concentration is (unfortunately)... a sort of natural cancer which we see seems to almost inevitably arise in scaled human societies.

I suggest this is a 'natural' result of the altruism dilemma... which has consequences an ideological altruism may ameliorate but not eliminate.

In fact... while I don't hold my breath... rule by poor people (sortition?) would likely lessen this problem... simply because the poor WANT to be rich... so overall (and evidence supports it)...

they're fine with some making more for others... and reward for innovation and hard work... and would NOT demand a total leveling... or all become bums 'leaching off the state"....

However the rich DON'T want to be poor... and this accelerates the concentration problem which comes with the altruism dilemma... when they're in charge.

Maybe this little 'theory' sounds silly or simplistic... but I think I'm on to something. 

Its not about leveling the society... its about leveling the landscape.

Tom Crowl

http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Doc Searls < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

That's good. I like "rugged landscape."

Links:

<http://www.lsa.umich.edu/polisci/people/faculty/ci.pagescott_ci.detail>
<http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~spage/>
<http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/complexadaptivesystems/>
<http://knackeredhack.com/2007/04/30/how-chippy-do-you-like-your-ice-cream/#more-166>
<https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=4758>
<http://bit.ly/19FstmJ>

On Jan 19, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Guy Higgins < "> > wrote:

> It strikes me that this set of bullets describing wicked problems also
> applies to problems involving complex adaptive systems.  Inherently, VRM
> is dealing with complex adaptive systems involving players who want to
> control their private data and players who want to make use of other
> player¹s private data.  Scott Page uses the term ³rugged landscape² to
> create an image of a solution space in which there are numerous potential
> solutions (peaks) and it is not obvious nor easy to determine which
> solution is optimal.  Scott goes on from that image to one he calls
> ³dancing landscapes² in which the attributes of a rugged landscape apply
> but the peaks and valleys all change in response to the actions of players
> in the solutions space and even in response to externalities.  This latter
> solution space of dancing landscapes is where complex adaptive solutions
> and wicked problems dwell.
>
> Don¹t know if this perspective is helpful or not ‹ but fer what it¹s worth
> Š
>
> Guy
>
> On 1/19/14, 10:04 , "Doc Searls" < "> > wrote:
>
>> The quoted passage below showed up in another list. It looked to me like
>> it might be relevant to VRM, so I'm sharing it.
>>
>> Here is the original:
>> <http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Plan
>> ning.pdf>
>>
>> While the excerpt below lays out what "wicked" problems are, what
>> intrigues me is that it poses them against "tame" ones.
>>
>> I think the problem of customer captivity is not the captivity itself,
>> but the valuing of it ‹ and the normative nature of value systems, even
>> when those systems later fall into discredit and abandonment. And I think
>> my problem with marketing-framed answers to the questions raised by VRM
>> ambitions is that they strike me ‹ in the context posed by this piece ‹
>> as tame. I don't mean that in a negative way. I mean it in the sense that
>> marketing is a mature, deep and well-understood field. What VRM poses is
>> the idea of free customers, which marketing on the whole doesn't care a
>> lot about or would rather not see. (Perhaps Graham can correct me on
>> that, or shed more light on the matter.) In any case, marketing is a
>> corporate practice, and VRM is about personal ones. Today we have a
>> limited box of tools at customers' disposal. VRM seeks to add more tools
>> to that box.
>>
>> I suggest that liberating customers from systems that value holding them
>> captive is the core challenge of VRM. There are other challenges in the
>> shaft behind that arrowhead, such as making VRM work. But liberation is
>> key. I think doing that is a wicked problem.
>>
>> Einstein said (or is said to have said ‹ it's not clear), "You cannot
>> solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it." I
>> suggest that a corollary might be, "Wicked problems are ones that cannot
>> be solved from any level place," meaning any tame (mature,
>> well-understood) place.
>>
>> Obviously, those places don't go away. Newton's proven theories did not
>> cease to apply when those of relativity theory and quantum mechanics came
>> along. But the thinking that yielded the latter was not Newtonian. It was
>> different. Einstein credited "the gift of fantasy" for his own insights.
>>
>> Anyway, those are some digressive thoughts on a Sunday morning. I'd
>> tighten them up if we didn't have guests. But we do, so there ya go.
>>
>> Doc
>>
>>
>>
>>> Excerpted from:
>>> Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). ³Dilemmas in a General Theory of
>>> Planning,² Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
>>>
>>> Wicked Problems
>>> According to Rittel and Webber, wicked problems have 10 characteristics:
>>>     € Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. Formulating the
>>> problem and the solution is essentially the same task. Each attempt at
>>> creating a solution changes your understanding of the problem.
>>>     € Wicked problems have no stopping rule. Since you can't define the
>>> problem in any single way, it's difficult to tell when it's resolved.
>>> The problem-solving process ends when resources are depleted,
>>> stakeholders lose interest or political realities change.
>>>     € Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad.
>>> Since there are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is
>>> resolved, getting all stakeholders to agree that a resolution is "good
>>> enough" can be a challenge, but getting to a ³good enough² resolution
>>> may be the best we can do.
>>>     € There is no immediate or ultimate test of a solution to a wicked
>>> problem. Since there is no singular description of a wicked problem, and
>>> since the very act of intervention has at least the potential to change
>>> that which we deem to be ³the problem,² there is no one way to test the
>>> success of the proposed resolution.
>>>     € Every implemented solution to a wicked problem has consequences.
>>> Solutions to such problems generate waves of consequences, and it's
>>> impossible to know, in advance and completely, how these waves will
>>> eventually play out.
>>>     € Wicked problems don't have a well-described set of potential
>>> solutions. Various stakeholders have differing views of acceptable
>>> solutions. It's a matter of judgment as to when enough potential
>>> solutions have emerged and which should be pursued.
>>>     € Each wicked problem is essentially unique. There are no "classes" of
>>> solutions that can be applied, a priori, to a specific case. "Part of
>>> the art of dealing with wicked problems is the art of not knowing too
>>> early what type of solution to apply."
>>>     € Each wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem.
>>> A wicked problem is a set of interlocking issues and constraints that
>>> change over time, embedded in a dynamic social context. But, more
>>> importantly, each proposed resolution of a particular description of ³a
>>> problem² should be expected to generate its own set of unique problems.
>>>     € The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways.
>>> There are many stakeholders who will have various and changing ideas
>>> about what might be a problem, what might be causing it and how to
>>> resolve it. There is no way to sort these different explanations into
>>> sets of ³correct/incorrect.²
>>>     € The planner (designer) has no right to be wrong. Scientists are
>>> expected to formulate hypotheses, which may or may not be supportable by
>>> evidence. Designers don't have such a luxury‹they're expected to get
>>> things right. People get hurt, when planners are ³wrong.² Yet, there
>>> will always be some condition under which planners will be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>
>