20:00 About epistemic tribes. I agree. And now, I wonder if it is a sort of natural desire to feel more comfortable in the world because we feel our internal values around us. For example, those who are drawn to your content may be drawn somewhat because it feels like something we would personally say, but coming from someone else. So in a way, it is us finding ourselves in the world. As for my own tribe, it’s funny. I realized what my tribe is even though I despise the designation of tribe. But when I think about who I aspire to be, the people I agree with, the people I admire for what they represent, I see that my tribe is technical masters, innovators, and mavericks. People like this shy away from others and group affiliations. But they also are inspired by one another at a distance through example, quote, and philosophy. I wonder how many people are like me who are unaware of their tribe because the tribe is so obvious, it is invisible. Until you realize that many people disagree about who the “admirable people of the world” are. It’s interesting to reflect on whether these people who disagree also see their own values as reality just as unconsciously as I see mine.
Hey again, David. You and I share a love of many things, including complexity science. I've watched your videos for almost a full year soon, and I respect you quite a lot. That being said... don't you think that a purely anthropocentric perspective in almost any facet of complexity science neglects the multifaceted and interconnected nature of systems, leading to biased, incomplete, and less effective understanding and solutions? I think that embracing a more holistic view that includes both human and non-human elements is crucial for accurately analyzing and managing complex systems. I'm not completely disagreeing with you, as you're on the money with most concepts, but from what I can tell, anthropocentrism simply creates blind spots. You don't have to respond. You never do, anyway. I've been watching your videos for almost a year now, so when I see you making a mistake, I just want to help with the message you send. All the best, man. Edit: For spelling
@@encouraginglyauthentic43 Oh, absolutely! Many systems are anthropocentric because they deal primarily with humans! But I also believe that we're overlooking many critical aspects of many systems, including anthropocentric ones, that may provide a better understanding of the complexity therein. David is spot on with many concepts! I just think he jumps the gun on some ideas, at times. Beautiful mind and soul, tho! Edit: changed some phrasing
I did not say anthropocentrism, you did. You are projecting your idea onto what I said. "Complexity science" was created by and for humans. It does not exist in nature. You must understand that all systems, first and foremost, are created by and for humans. Now, that's not to say that "nature" was created by and for humans, I'm not talking about the Strong Anthropic Principle (though I believe it to be the case). The concept of "ecosystem" is a human concept, and nature exists whether or not we attach labels to things. This perspective is absolutely critical to adopt first as a systems thinker.
@@Systems.Thinking Hey, just want to say thanks for finally responding to me, bro. No need to respond to this one; just want to clarify a few things, as I think you're misunderstanding me. First, I understand your point about "complexity science" being a construct created by and for humans. However, my reference to anthropocentrism wasn't about the creation of these concepts but rather the lens through which we apply them. Complexity science, while developed by humans, can and often does account for non-human systems, such as ecosystems, which are inherently complex and not solely a product of human design. When we examine systems like ecosystems, it's crucial to adopt a perspective that transcends human-centric views. While humans label and study these systems, their existence and function are independent of our interpretation. By recognizing and incorporating non-human elements and interactions, we gain a more comprehensive and unbiased understanding, leading to better insights and solutions. I believe this holistic approach provides for much analysis and application of complexity science. It ensures we don't overlook critical components and relationships that are not immediately apparent through an anthropocentric lens. Again, Thanks for your work and the thought-provoking content, bro. I hope this clarifies my perspective. Best regards, my man.
I've found you recently. Versatile. Sharp. Condensed summary. Interesting. Nice with homework. Could have added tribes and the practical applicable purpose. My interest is how systems influence change and innovations, particularly in addressing sustainability challenges. Would be great to listen to your thoughts on that. Thanks ❤
Great presentation, when are we gonna dig deeper into the emergent properties and other factors that contribute to making a system work, things like Environmental, initial conditions...etc.
Jesus Christ, your System Thinking Course should be mandatory class in schools. Even if you learn through documentaries and read books, discuss with friends, most of the time you shed light on one aspect of the bigger picture and even then everything is wrapped in a nice story that adds lots of noise. And in your videos all that disseminated information is all coming together. Excellent work!
20:00 About epistemic tribes. I agree.
And now, I wonder if it is a sort of natural desire to feel more comfortable in the world because we feel our internal values around us.
For example, those who are drawn to your content may be drawn somewhat because it feels like something we would personally say, but coming from someone else.
So in a way, it is us finding ourselves in the world.
As for my own tribe, it’s funny. I realized what my tribe is even though I despise the designation of tribe.
But when I think about who I aspire to be, the people I agree with, the people I admire for what they represent, I see that my tribe is technical masters, innovators, and mavericks.
People like this shy away from others and group affiliations. But they also are inspired by one another at a distance through example, quote, and philosophy.
I wonder how many people are like me who are unaware of their tribe because the tribe is so obvious, it is invisible.
Until you realize that many people disagree about who the “admirable people of the world” are.
It’s interesting to reflect on whether these people who disagree also see their own values as reality just as unconsciously as I see mine.
Hey again, David. You and I share a love of many things, including complexity science. I've watched your videos for almost a full year soon, and I respect you quite a lot.
That being said... don't you think that a purely anthropocentric perspective in almost any facet of complexity science neglects the multifaceted and interconnected nature of systems, leading to biased, incomplete, and less effective understanding and solutions? I think that embracing a more holistic view that includes both human and non-human elements is crucial for accurately analyzing and managing complex systems.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you, as you're on the money with most concepts, but from what I can tell, anthropocentrism simply creates blind spots.
You don't have to respond. You never do, anyway. I've been watching your videos for almost a year now, so when I see you making a mistake, I just want to help with the message you send. All the best, man.
Edit: For spelling
Wouldn't a truly holistic view, also acknowledge that some things are specifically for certain things?
@@encouraginglyauthentic43 Oh, absolutely! Many systems are anthropocentric because they deal primarily with humans! But I also believe that we're overlooking many critical aspects of many systems, including anthropocentric ones, that may provide a better understanding of the complexity therein. David is spot on with many concepts! I just think he jumps the gun on some ideas, at times. Beautiful mind and soul, tho!
Edit: changed some phrasing
I did not say anthropocentrism, you did. You are projecting your idea onto what I said. "Complexity science" was created by and for humans. It does not exist in nature. You must understand that all systems, first and foremost, are created by and for humans. Now, that's not to say that "nature" was created by and for humans, I'm not talking about the Strong Anthropic Principle (though I believe it to be the case). The concept of "ecosystem" is a human concept, and nature exists whether or not we attach labels to things. This perspective is absolutely critical to adopt first as a systems thinker.
@@Systems.Thinking
Hey, just want to say thanks for finally responding to me, bro. No need to respond to this one; just want to clarify a few things, as I think you're misunderstanding me.
First, I understand your point about "complexity science" being a construct created by and for humans. However, my reference to anthropocentrism wasn't about the creation of these concepts but rather the lens through which we apply them. Complexity science, while developed by humans, can and often does account for non-human systems, such as ecosystems, which are inherently complex and not solely a product of human design. When we examine systems like ecosystems, it's crucial to adopt a perspective that transcends human-centric views.
While humans label and study these systems, their existence and function are independent of our interpretation. By recognizing and incorporating non-human elements and interactions, we gain a more comprehensive and unbiased understanding, leading to better insights and solutions.
I believe this holistic approach provides for much analysis and application of complexity science. It ensures we don't overlook critical components and relationships that are not immediately apparent through an anthropocentric lens.
Again, Thanks for your work and the thought-provoking content, bro. I hope this clarifies my perspective.
Best regards, my man.
I've found you recently. Versatile. Sharp. Condensed summary. Interesting.
Nice with homework. Could have added tribes and the practical applicable purpose.
My interest is how systems influence change and innovations, particularly in addressing sustainability challenges. Would be great to listen to your thoughts on that.
Thanks ❤
Great lesson as always, David...Very informative.
I couldn't help hearing Charlton Heston screaming "Systems are people, they're made of people!"
"Silos are for farmers" 😂
Great presentation, when are we gonna dig deeper into the emergent properties and other factors that contribute to making a system work, things like Environmental, initial conditions...etc.
Eventually...
so when I say "I'm against the system" I actually say "I'm against people." 🤔
Yep
Jesus Christ, your System Thinking Course should be mandatory class in schools. Even if you learn through documentaries and read books, discuss with friends, most of the time you shed light on one aspect of the bigger picture and even then everything is wrapped in a nice story that adds lots of noise. And in your videos all that disseminated information is all coming together. Excellent work!