"It's stories all the way down"

Great post over here at Ben Myer's "Faith and Theology" about the role narratives play in determining the way we view reality. At it's strongest, narratives become our reality. As Ben says:

"There is nothing “more real” than the stories we tell ourselves; it’s stories all the way down."

(Image: Wikipedia - Space Turtles)

Social complexity and wicked problems

I'm more and more nervous about what I think Conklin is doing in his book "Dialogue Mapping" (refer my initial post). I don't think it's helpful to pull social complexity out from wicked problems. As if wicked problems can exist in the absence of social complexity. Or, at least, in the absence of social factors.

Conklin wants to say that wickedness is a property of the "problem/solution space" and social complexity "is a property of the social network that is engaging with the problem".

However, I don't think you can have "wickedness" in a problem unless you have social factors. They are a necessary condition for wickedness. (However, they are not a sufficient condition - you need other things as well to get "wickedness").

"Dialogue Mapping"

"Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems" is a relatively recent book (2005) on dialogue and wicked problems by Jeff Conklin. You can read the first chapter of the book here. Jeff is part of the CogNexus Instititute.

I'm not sure I agree with Conklin's take on wicked problems. He seems to want to strip the social complexity out of them. He says: "... while wickedness is a property of the problem/solution space ... social complexity is a property of the social network that is engaging with the problem". I'm not sure these things are so easily teased apart. Expecially since Rittel's original paper (as Conklin acknowledges elsewhere) sees one of the contributors to "wickedness" being the various views of the "publics" and "sub-publics" affected. I can see why Conklin might want to separate out social complexity - to get some clarity - but I'm not sure if it is helpful.

quaestio

More from de partitione oratoria.

Cicero sees questions falling into two types (Id, at 4):

• One type of question is "unlimited" ("infinita") and is called a "discussion" ("consultatio").
• The other type is "limited" ("definita") and is called a "cause" ("causa").

oratio

More from de partitione oratoria.

The speech "oratio" has four parts (Id, at 4). Two establish the case: "the statement of facts" ("narratio"); and "the proof" ("confirmatio"). Two serve "to influence the mind of the audience": "the exordium" ("principium"); and "the peroration" ("peroratio").

vis oratoris

More from de partitione oratoria.

The first part of the broad theory of rhetoric is the "speaker's personal resources" ("vis oratoris"). A speaker's personal resources consist "in matter and in language" ("in rebus et verbis") (Id, at 3).

The term "invention" ("invenire", lit, "to invent") applies to matter: "delivery" ("eloqui", lit, "to utter") applies to language. "Arrangement" ("collocare", "to arrange") applies to invention. Delivery includes voice, gestures etc.

Into how many parts do you divide the theory of rhetoric?

I'm dipping into Cicero's "de partitione oratoria" ("The Classification of Oratory") at the moment (Rackham's translation in the Loeb Classical Library).

He says that the theory of rhetoric ("doctrina dicendi", lit. "the teaching of speaking") should be divided into three parts (de partione oratoria 3):

• The speaker's personal resources (lit. "strength") ("vis oratoris").
• The speech ("oratio").
• The question ("quaestio").

Chess - sitting on the boundary between "wicked" and "tame"

Interesting piece here from John Kay on how winning at chess is both like and unlike winning in business.

You can succeed in chess through "brute force and ignorance", if you can process possible moves as fast as IBM's Big Blue. That may be why chess responded so well to a 5 year planning approach under the former Soviet Union.

Nonetheless, as Kay points out, a game of chess is best won through innovation and experimentation. The same skills you need in business. And the same skills that the former Soviet Union seemed incapable of displaying.

I wonder if chess responds both to an "innovation" approach and to an "algorithmic" approach because it sits on the boundary between "wicked" and "tame" problems?