Originally published on my blog on July 27, 2014.

The way we handle our problems today has its roots in the scientific method and in reductionist thinking. However, with an increasingly complex world, we need another, complementary way of thinking that can help us deal with complex problems. 

The need for a wider perspective

We live in a highly complex world today, where everything changes constantly at an ever-increasing pace. Technological advancements, social movements, geopolitical tensions, the changing global economy, and an array of other drivers force individuals and organizations to adapt to a radically shifting environment. More things are happening at the same time than ever before, and the amount of information available to us is in itself enough to cause a stomach ulcer.

As our environment has become more dynamic and difficult to grasp, so have our problems. While the industrial revolution and the more recent advancements in computers and information technology have created unprecedented wealth, we have at the same time, created problems that threaten our existence on this planet. Global climate change, global terrorism, acidification of the oceans, and the destruction of natural habitats around the globe include some of these problems. 

Unfortunately, these problems are not only global and incredibly large in scale, but they are also highly complex. I use the word complex very deliberately, meaning that the issue is not reducible to parts that can be analyzed independently of each other. A complex problem is the result of interactions between multiple parts or actors that form a whole. The characteristics of the problem arise from these interactions, meaning that if the parts are separated, the problem loses some of its qualities. A complex problem is therefore different from a complicated one, which can be reduced into individual parts to study the problem.

To illustrate the meaning, let’s imagine that you have to deal with a rising drug problem in your city. The source of the problem appears to be a new gang in one particular district of the city, and the gang is bringing large amounts of illegal substances from overseas. After identifying the gang leaders and key other members, the city police finally apprehended the gang leadership and confiscated all the drugs. For a while, it seems that the number of drug offenses is decreasing. Surely the problem has been solved, right?

In reality, the opposite is the case. In the following months, a violent gang war ensues in the problem district of the city, and the number of people detained for drug abuse is actually increasing! This is because by eliminating the dominant gang, the police created instability in the hierarchy between rival gangs in the district and in the drug markets. This instability was then corrected by a violent power struggle between the gangs that remained. 

The police had therefore introduced only a temporary solution to the drug problem. In fact, the real problem is not the use of drugs in the city, which is only a symptom of the underlying cause. The use of drugs and other criminal activity in the district was the result of a variety of other societal problems, such as poverty, racial issues, and bad city planning. These underlying, systemic problems were not addressed by getting rid of one gang, which is why the drug problem only got worse.

 Picture 1. A complex problem: the drug problem in a city.  A complicated problem: fixing the clockwork of a watch.

Even though it should be clear that treating only the symptoms will not solve the underlying issue, this is the way we often try to solve societal problems. There are many reasons for this, often involving a lack of resources, a lack of ability, and a lack of motivation. However, I think the major reason for the general failure to effectively deal with the most pressing issues is humanity’s inability to understand and manage complexity. This is in large part because of the way we try to analyze and solve our problems today. It is difficult to see this because the way we approach issues has worked very well in the past and has its roots in the scientific method of analysis.

Roots of reductionism

Most of our material wealth today can be ultimately attributed to the scientific revolution that took place between the 16^th and 17^th centuries, and to the ensuing industrial revolution. The advancements made in the fields of physics, biology, chemistry, and astronomy gave way to unprecedented technological leaps, such as railways, machine tools, the combustion engine, airplanes, and the mass manufacturing of steel. It can clearly be argued that the modern scientific method is one of the most powerful tools at our disposal. 

The method of science is a very particular way of approaching a problem that includes a set of principles that guide the process. It first involves asking a specific question about reality, with the purpose of deepening and widening our understanding of natural phenomena. An example of this would be asking: why do objects fall towards the ground instead of going up? Stating the research question is a very important part of the research, and it will greatly affect the outcome of the process. The next step would then involve creating a hypothesis, an early assumption about the explanation of the observed phenomenon. This hypothesis is then tested by conducting an experiment. The results of the experiment are then analyzed and interpreted to form a theory that explains the phenomenon.  

The method of science is so powerful due to certain principles and methods that are followed during the process. According to management scientist and systems thinker Peter Checkland, the method of science is defined by three particular characteristics: reductionism, repeatability, and refutation (Checkland, 1981, 51). Firstly, the way scientists try to simplify the process of research is by reducing the studied phenomenon into parts that can then be separately experimented on. This is very useful because it allows scientists to test natural phenomena in laboratories where they can rule out other factors that might affect the behavior of the phenomenon in its natural environment. The idea originates from Descartes, who advised breaking down problems and analyzing them piecemeal, component by component (Checkland, 1981, 51).

Repeatability is the other crucial characteristic of science. Without repeatability, science would be no different from asking the oracle of Delphi. It essentially means that thehappenings in the experiment need to be repeatable in order for the results to be counted as scientific (Checkland, 1981, 53). This means that the results of a test conducted by someone in 2014 in Helsinki need to be repeatable a hundred years later by someone in Shanghai. 

The last characteristic, refutation, means essentially that the results of the experiment somehow add to the body of scientific knowledge and increase our understanding of the world. Therefore, in order for the experiment to be truly scientific, it has to be repeatable, but also meaningful. Without being meaningful in light of the existing scientific knowledge, the experiment cannot be scientific even if it follows the method of science. For example, testing the law of gravity with objects that are of different colors does not contribute in a meaningful way to our understanding of the world, even if the experiment was conducted with the proper scientific rigor. 

The way our organizations, major institutions, and experts in different fields approach problems is by adopting the way scientists approach a research problem: by reducing the problem into separate parts that can be observed, analyzed, and experimented on. The reason our corporations and other organizations value people who are analytical and can solve problems by analysis is that the method is so effective. As a result, we have become extremely good at doing analysis and taking things apart. This can also be seen in the way teaching in schools is organized around subject matters that are kept neatly separate.

Problems with reductionism

The crucial problem which science faces is its ability to cope with complexity

– Peter Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (1981, 59)

Even though reductionism and the analytical approach to problems have served us well for a long time, this way of thinking does have its limitations. The problems in the analytical way of thinking arise when the problem is not reducible to parts in a meaningful way. Descartes’s principle of dividing the problem into parts assumes that this division will not distort the phenomenon under study (Checkland, 1981, 59). Therefore, when a situation or a problem is comprised of many different elements or actors that are interconnected in one or more ways, the method of analysis no longer works. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and by separating the parts the problem loses some of its characteristics. 

When the problem is complex, meaning that it cannot be reduced into separate parts without losing its properties, reductionist thinking and problem-solving can, in fact, make the situation worse. One recent example of this was from a Jazz festival in Pori, Finland, where the organizers denied bringing alcohol to the festival area for the first time. As a result, the number of drunken people in the area rose significantly from previous years. Restraining people’s freedom resulted in the actual opposite of the wanted behavior.

Behind the events of Pori Jazz was some unidentified structure, which influenced people’s behavior. This is a very fundamental idea to grasp when dealing with complexity. According to management scientist Peter Senge, there are multiple levels of explanation in any complex situation (Senge, 2007, 52). The below picture is from Senge’s book, The Fifth Discipline, and illustrates his idea: 

Our analysis and problem-solving are typically focused on the Events explanation level. Questions like what happened, who did what to whom, what should have been done, and so forth are seeking explanations for one-time events. In Pori Jazz, the event organizers might have wanted to reduce excessive use of alcohol, but because the solution was based on event-level analysis, what resulted was an apparent increase in alcohol consumption. 

Above the Events-level of explanations are the levels “Patterns of Behavior” and “Systemic Structures”. The Patterns of Behavior explanation focuses on seeing longer-term trends and assessing their implications (Senge, 2007, 52). For example, the organizers of Pori Jazz could have taken into account that when people are restricted from bringing their own alcohol to an area, some people tend to drink more beforehand or momentarily go outside to drink large amounts of alcohol. Therefore, introducing more restrictions will result in more intoxicated people.

The final and most difficult level of analysis and explanation is the “Systemic Structures” level. According to Senge, it is also the least common and most powerful of the three. The main focus of this level of explanation is to answer “what causes the patterns of behavior?” In Pori Jazz, the combination of higher prices in the beer tents, the newly introduced restriction on own drinks in the area, and the Finnish alcohol culture might be possible parts of the explanation. What’s important to realize is that without this level of understanding of a problem no real, lasting solution can be found.

The problem gets worse when we fail to recognize that we are dealing with a complex problem. It is easy to assume that when people are prohibited from bringing their own alcohol or restricted in some other way, the result is that negative behavior is reduced. In the US, the war against drugs is another example of introducing a symptomatic solution to a complex problem. Tighter laws and enforcement have resulted in hundreds of thousands of drug offenders being put in jail instead of preventing them from becoming addicted in the first place (Incarceration Nation, Time Magazine, 2012). Focusing on punishing people, instead of preventing the problem from manifesting is the result of reductionist and linear thinking. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Systems thinking

Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static ‘snapshot.’

– Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization (2007, 68)

Reductionism has served us well in the past, and it will certainly be needed in the future. However, there is another way of viewing the world, called systems thinking, that can serve us equally well in dealing with problems that are complex. Systems thinking has its roots in the first part of the 20^th century and especially in the field of biology. Whereas reductionist thinking is based on dividing a whole into its constituent parts, systems thinking is focused on understanding how the parts interact with each other and how the whole is connected to its environment. 

Systems thinking is a conceptual framework and a way of thinking that involves seeing the world as a network of systems that interact with each other. According to systems thinker Peter Checkland, systems thinking is not itself a discipline, but a way of thinking about any kind of problem. In problem-solving, systems thinking often involves doing a systems analysis, which is aimed at identifying particular structures that influence the behavior of the system. 

But what is a system? According to systems thinker Donella Meadows, a system is “a set of things – people, cells, molecules, or whatever – interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of behavior over time” (Meadows, 2008, 2). A system can therefore be any natural or artificial thing with an identifiable structure. A galaxy, a mouse, a car, a language, and a political party, are all systems of varying size and complexity.

Fundamental to understanding systems is realizing that a system’s reaction to outside forces is always dependent on the characteristics of the system. It means that without understanding the system and its structure, it is difficult to predict what kind of new behaviors the system will exhibit when we try to influence the system is some way. 

If we understand Pori Jazz as a human activity system, it will be easier to see why there were more intoxicated people after the new restriction than in previous years. By introducing a new restriction on alcohol use in the festival area, the event organizers in fact changed the structure of the system. The new structure resulted in new behavior in the system that the organizers weren’t able to predict. Action without proper understanding of the system will usually have unpredictable and unintended consequences. 

With proper knowledge about systems and system dynamics, our organizations and our society would be much better equipped for dealing with the more complex issues we face today. Unfortunately, in spite of the recent interest in complexity and complexity theory, most of the daily decision-making and problem-solving is solely based on reductionist thinking and events-level analysis. The war against drugs and the war against terrorism are examples of mainly relying on reductionist thinking.  If we understand that drug addiction or terrorism is both the end result of particular underlying systemic structures, the declaration of war will seem ludicrous! Imagine a doctor, instead of treating a patient’s disease, declaring war against the symptoms of the disease.

Systems thinking should not be seen as superior to reductionist thinking but as a complementary and neglected way of viewing the world. Instead of choosing one or the other, I suggest we cultivate both ways of thinking. This will enable us to understand our current reality better and allow us to have a real impact on systemic, complex problems.

References:

Checkland, Peter. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. 1981, 51, 53, 59.

Fareed Zakaria, Incarceration Nation. The Time Magazine, April 2 2012. Accessed July 24, 2014. Available:  http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2109777-1,00.html

Meadows, Donella. Thinking in Systems. 2008, 2.

Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization. 2007, 52, 68.

I have recently been excited about many things. Excitement is generally a welcome feeling but I have found that too much excitement can also be distracting and I would really need to get some stuff done. I also realized that I haven’t been blogging in a looong time, so today I’m killing two birds with one stone by blowing off some of my excitement by writing about the things that I’m excited about.

Right off the bat, I want to mention that I am excited about starting my Ph.D. studies at Aalto University, where I’m currently working as a doctoral researcher in the Finix research project. The Finix project produces scientific research about different sustainability aspects of textile systems in Finland. There are several work packages in the project, and I’m focusing on circular economy management in textile ecosystems.

As part of the Ph.D. studies, I have been attending a course called Perspectives on Organization, which is essentially a reading circle around different streams of Organization and Management Theory. The readings range from classics like Cyert & March’s A Behavioral Theory of the Firm to modern studies about the role of play in the workplace. I’ve been regularly getting my mind blown during the course, and it’s also been quite humbling to learn just how little I actually knew about different management theories.

The course also prompted me to think about science in general. What the heck is science exactly? Are management studies really science? To get started, I dragged myself to Aalto University’s library (yes, an actual library!) and picked up Karl Popper’s Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach and refreshed my memory on concepts like falsification, induction, deduction, and abduction. However, pretty soon into the book, I realized that if I read Popper too literally, I would have to discount quite large swaths of social sciences as un-scientific, so I had to read something else to maintain my legitimacy as a researcher at least in my own eyes. I then picked up a book called Real Social Science: Applied Phronesis by Bent Flyvbjerg, Todd Landman, and Sanford Schram. The point the authors are making is that social sciences (and by extension management studies which are drawing heavily on social sciences and often use similar approaches) are not about finding the truth in a positivist sense like natural sciences do, but about finding practical knowledge that is relevant to people and helps them solve social problems in a particular context.

Referring to Aristotle’s three types of knowledge, the authors position natural sciences as an aim to find epistemé, i.e. universal truth, or techné, i.e. technical know-how. I was already quite familiar with these concepts thanks to David Ing’s systems thinking lectures that I attended at Aalto in 2017, but it was interesting to revisit them in the context of my own research. If you want to know more about systems thinking or epistemé, techné, and phronesis, I really recommend checking out David’s lectures on YouTube. Here’s one that really knocked my socks off when I was first getting into systems thinking: Rethinking systems thinking.

Currently, I’m also excited about reading philosophy. I’ve been refreshing my memory about continental philosophers like Descartes, and rationalist philosophy in general, but also about empiricism and the works of Hume and Locke. I was also excited to read a little about pragmatism by John Dewey, but haven’t had time to go too deep. There is so much to learn about Philosophy that sometimes it’s hard to know where to start, so I usually jump from one school of thought to another, but at some point I would like to do a more comprehensive review. I have tried reading Bertrand Russel’s History of Western philosophy, but have only scratched the surface so far.

Here’s a really fun podcast about Philosophy that you can listen to also on Spotify: Philosophize This!

Other random stuff that have been blowing my mind:

• Kurzgesagt: absolutely beautiful animated videos about space, the future, and life in general. Specific topics range from: “What If We Detonated All Nuclear Bombs at Once?” to “How to move the Sun: Stellar engines”
• Year Million on Disney+. The first two episodes start off lightly by discussing the question: what if we became immortal? Here’s an extract: “Is the end state of our civilization to exist in computers as digital consciousness in perpetuity?” The show reminds me of Yuval Noah Harari’s book Homo Deus, where Harari discusses humanity’s long-standing aims, such as increasing happiness and longevity, and takes them to their logical conclusion. One potential future image is that in the future we are all immortal digital entities living in our personally built nirvana on some server. The question is, what if I can’t pull the plug?
• Futucast podcast. I ran into this podcast when I was listening to Rahapodi, where they had the Futucast hosts as guests recently. I just listened to the Futucast episode where they interviewed a Finnish futurist, Risto Linturi, who among other things discussed his experience playing the video game Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. He described playing the game felt like being on a real vacation in ancient Greece. Speculation about our future lives in a virtual reality ensued.
• I have been excited to discuss black holes with my fiancée Emmi who is reading Stephen Hawking’s biography. My previous attempts to discuss black holes or other space-time anomalies with Emmi have usually resulted in her swift escape from the room, so we’re making progress.
• To further drive home how much of a nerd I am, I want to mention that I’ve been playing Surviving Mars in my free time and I’m happy to report that I have successfully built my first colony on Mars. Still waiting for SpaceX to top that achievement, although they seem to be getting closer
• Some Books:
  • How to be better at almost everything by Patt Flynn. The book states that it’s better to become a generalist and build skill stacks than to specialize in one area. The book is conceptually related to the book Range: how generalists triumph in a specialized world by David Epstein. Both books essentially argue that integrating skills and synthesizing knowledge is one of the best ways to become useful in today’s complex world. The book by Patt Flynn is more practical (but also discusses philosophy and principles), while David Epstein takes a more scientific look at the topic. Both recommended!
  • Rage by Bob Woodward. Bob Woodward continues his documentation of president Donald Trump. I have no words, just astonishment.

What have you been excited about recently? Please share in the comments. I also appreciate any book recommendations so I can continue building the collection of unfishined books on my night stand.