2.4 Beware of Strongly Coupled Systems!
21
the behavior of single system components are limited, as the system-immanent interactions may have a stronger influence. Fifth, extreme events occur more often than
expected and they may affect the entire system.
8
In spite of all this, most people still have a component-oriented worldview,
centered on individuals rather than groups and interdependent events. This often
leads to “obvious”
9 but wrong conclusions. For example, we praise heroes when
things go well and search for scapegoats when something goes wrong. Yet, the
discussion above has clearly shown how difficult it is for individuals to control the
outcome of a complex dynamical system, if the interactions between its components
are strong. This fact can also be illustrated by politics.
Why do politicians, besides managers, have (on average) the worst reputation of
all professions? This is probably because we think they are hypocritical; we elect
them on the basis of the ideas and policies they publicly voice, but then they often do
something else. This apparent hypocrisy is a consequence of the fact that politicians
are subject to many strong interactions with lobbyists and interest groups, who have
diverse points of view. All of these groups push the politicians into various directions.
In many cases, this forces them to make decisions that are not compatible with
their own point of view—a fact, which is hard to accept for voters. However, if we
believe that democracy is not just about elections every few years, but also about a
continuous consolidation between citizens and their elected representatives, it could
be argued that it would be undemocratic for politicians to unreservedly place their
own personal convictions above the concerns of citizens and businesses in the systems
they are supposed to represent. Managers of companies find themselves in similar
situations. They are exposed to many different factors they must consider. This kind of
interaction-based decision-making extends far beyond boardrooms and parliaments.
Think of the decision-dynamics in families: if it were easy to control, there would
be probably less divorces…
Crime is another example of social systems getting out of control.
10 This can
happen both on an individual and collective level. Many crimes, including murders,
are committed by average people, rather than career criminals (and even in countries
8 In social systems, this may lead to an erosion of trust in private and public institutions, which can
create social, political or economic instability.
9 Watts [7].
10 The traditional explanation is that a crime is committed if the expected reward is larger than
the likely punishment, multiplied by the probability of being caught and convicted. Theoretically,
therefore, it should be possible to eliminate all crime simply by raising the punishment. If all
criminals were rational egoists, who constantly calculated their expected payoff from crime, this idea
should even work. Assuming sufficiently high conviction rates, the strong punishment would make
crime “unattractive” because of the expectation of making a “loss”. However, empirical evidence
questions these simple assumptions. On the one hand, people don’t behave entirely rational. For
example, they don’t usually pick pockets, even though they could often escape punishment. On the
other hand, deterrence strategies are surprisingly ineffective in most countries and high crime rates
are often recurrent. For example, even though the USA have 10 times more prisoners than most
European countries, the rates of various crimes are still much higher. Therefore, the conventional
understanding of crime is wrong.
21
the behavior of single system components are limited, as the system-immanent interactions may have a stronger influence. Fifth, extreme events occur more often than
expected and they may affect the entire system.
8
In spite of all this, most people still have a component-oriented worldview,
centered on individuals rather than groups and interdependent events. This often
leads to “obvious”
9 but wrong conclusions. For example, we praise heroes when
things go well and search for scapegoats when something goes wrong. Yet, the
discussion above has clearly shown how difficult it is for individuals to control the
outcome of a complex dynamical system, if the interactions between its components
are strong. This fact can also be illustrated by politics.
Why do politicians, besides managers, have (on average) the worst reputation of
all professions? This is probably because we think they are hypocritical; we elect
them on the basis of the ideas and policies they publicly voice, but then they often do
something else. This apparent hypocrisy is a consequence of the fact that politicians
are subject to many strong interactions with lobbyists and interest groups, who have
diverse points of view. All of these groups push the politicians into various directions.
In many cases, this forces them to make decisions that are not compatible with
their own point of view—a fact, which is hard to accept for voters. However, if we
believe that democracy is not just about elections every few years, but also about a
continuous consolidation between citizens and their elected representatives, it could
be argued that it would be undemocratic for politicians to unreservedly place their
own personal convictions above the concerns of citizens and businesses in the systems
they are supposed to represent. Managers of companies find themselves in similar
situations. They are exposed to many different factors they must consider. This kind of
interaction-based decision-making extends far beyond boardrooms and parliaments.
Think of the decision-dynamics in families: if it were easy to control, there would
be probably less divorces…
Crime is another example of social systems getting out of control.
10 This can
happen both on an individual and collective level. Many crimes, including murders,
are committed by average people, rather than career criminals (and even in countries
8 In social systems, this may lead to an erosion of trust in private and public institutions, which can
create social, political or economic instability.
9 Watts [7].
10 The traditional explanation is that a crime is committed if the expected reward is larger than
the likely punishment, multiplied by the probability of being caught and convicted. Theoretically,
therefore, it should be possible to eliminate all crime simply by raising the punishment. If all
criminals were rational egoists, who constantly calculated their expected payoff from crime, this idea
should even work. Assuming sufficiently high conviction rates, the strong punishment would make
crime “unattractive” because of the expectation of making a “loss”. However, empirical evidence
questions these simple assumptions. On the one hand, people don’t behave entirely rational. For
example, they don’t usually pick pockets, even though they could often escape punishment. On the
other hand, deterrence strategies are surprisingly ineffective in most countries and high crime rates
are often recurrent. For example, even though the USA have 10 times more prisoners than most
European countries, the rates of various crimes are still much higher. Therefore, the conventional
understanding of crime is wrong.