The Linder-Lindberg Dialogues

Haha, this is becoming a series. We should release it under the name of "The Linder-Lindberg Dialogues". We could be rich! I am quite enjoying this dialogue, your points add much value to my thinking!

Here is Marcus' comment:

At least a PhD student in four months - and in social science (!), although at a technical university. :)

Your post again deserves a comment, especially since you used my last comment as a basis for it.

In general, I tend to agree with most of what you say.

Actually, this argument brings to mind a brief discussion I had with my supervisor during one of the interviews. It was a very brief discussion, no more than one or two minutes. In essence it was about a similar topic: I took a very positivistic stance, talking about models that can predict social phenomomen and that are actionable and relevant. She agreed to the latter part, but I remember her briefly refuting my positivistic views.

Needless to say, she's also (like you) experienced me as being slightly sceptic to "softer" parts of her expert areas. I am not sure that really I am.

I am actually not all that sceptic towards social science in general. Except that I am convinced that it is much easier to hide crappy research behind fancy wording in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. However, I do believe that it is a newer and less mature science than the natural sciences. I have the impression that most fields of social science are younger than e.g. Gallileos model of gravity (16th century A.D) or Copernicus model of the planets, Keplers model of planetary motion etc. (There is of course e.g. the greek Platon and his Republic, but is not as much of a science in my opinion as the physicists mentioned above. This connects to the discussion about definition below.)

Thus, if you combine the fact that social science has been successfully around for a shorter time with the notion that it is probably more complex that you imply in your post, the idea that social science is less mature as a field of study is not so far fetched. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Newton was a brilliant scientist even though his field of research (natural philosophy) was fairly immature during his times. This opinion is actually one of the reasons I decided to venture into the field (and not inte natural science), I percieve that there is more stuff with a large impact on our lives soon to be discovered there.

Now, as for the second issue of comparing the two on the same scales. I think this mostly is a matter of how one chooses to use the word "science". I simply don't normally denote bullets 2 and 3 in Wilber's list as science. They are what I would normally refer to as philosophy (with the notion that all scientific fields start as philosophy and eventually make it into scientific fields of research; psychology during Freuds time being the most famous case of such a transition). That said, I think Freud made a terrific contribution to human knowledge!

Also, you shouldn't be so hard on newtonian models. They, as other types of models, can still add value in the social sciences. There are some pretty successful but at the same time very "newtonian" models of human/social phenomena. I'm thinking primarily of economics, chicago school stuff about inflation etc. But I am sure you probably agree with me on this issue. :)

Also, as you yourself point out, natural science is way more complex today than it was three hundred years ago. Some of that complexity is probably enough to capture a lot of interesting social phenomena in a good way. Although not all of them. I don't know anyone fairly acquianted with natural science who still believes in a "clockwork universe" as described by Newton. And albeit the related notion of predermination is still not settled it is now considered, as far as I know, a philosophical issue.

In other words, I think much (although probably not all) of our disagreement simply boils down to a matter of definition of the word science.

By the way, now that you mention Integral theory, I actually have an acquaintance in Växjö, Johannes, who's very deep into that stuff. Last time we met (2 years ago) he was going to start a school about the world view in Sweden. I'll tell him about you when I meet him again!

---

Potentially, I could agree to not call "science" 2 and 3 Science. That would resolve the debate in an easy manner. We could simply call those modes of discovery "other means of seeking knowledge", while worthwhile and important, they would not be called science.

Do you remember when we were debating Howard Gardner's concept of multiple intelligences in high school? Our united opinion was that logical intelligence is the only intelligence (per traditional usage of the word), we also agreed that even though the other capacities should not be called intelligence, they were still equally important in living a happy life as a human being.

The problem with this argument becomes clear when examined from a postmodern point of view. The word "science" is not only a combination of 7 letters, it is also a "social object" which carries high levels of credibility. Denying a mode of exploration, or means of seeking knowledge, the label of "science" means to diminish its credibility.

Based on the paragraph above you could argue that anything should be called science in the name of social egalitarianism. Obvously this is not my argument. Our discussion, as you already have noted, boils down to a question of the definition of science.

I guess this is where the ball should pass over to you: What is, and what is not, Science?

Now, let's turn to the maturity or immaturity of social science. The question that arises in my mind is: what is expected of social science once it becomes "mature"? Would we be able to predict election results accurately? Would we be able to predict the outbreak of war?

I don't believe so. Human societies and cultures develop continuously, and thus the study of the social spheres needs to develop as well. The universe doesn't change fundamentally, which makes it easier to create a "mature" science of nature.

I say that it would be more fruitful to stop labeling natural/social science as mature/immature and recognize that they needs to have different foundations (per the subject studied) which creates sciences (modes of creating consistently actionable knowledge) which function differently.

Here, I will actually argue that the labeling of social science as "immature", or denying it the status of "science" at all, actively contributes to ineffective and destructive social sciences. If we assume (as I do) that social science needs a different foundation compared to natural science, and that this is not generally recognized, this forces social science into a mode of science that is unsuitable to its very nature.

Social science is thus striving towards a "maturity" that it can never achieve, using foundations which are unsuitable for the study of human beings, their groups, organizations and societies.

Looking again at the example of Newtonian clockwork metaphores. While it is clear that natural science has moved away from these kind of theories or metaphores, many social sciences still use them, or have used them, to catastrophic effect. Engineering might benefit from Newtonian models (since the model itself is based on engineering practice), but social phenomena can never be as linear as a machine. Social phenomena are by definition ever-changing, dynamic and systemic.

Applying Newtonian, engineering inspired models, to social practice ignores key dimensions of social reality. It has created doctrines such as marxism in politics, and business models that fundamentally ignores the systemic relations between a company and its environment (social and ecological), simply viewing the company as a box with inputs and outputs. While I agree that there has been important advances in fields such as economics, which seems to be inspired by Newtonian dynamics, I think it is important to try to move beyond this paradigm towards a more suitable social science paradigm.

Last, a note on Wilber. I haven't read any of his books, but he seems to have some very interesting and fresh ideas. He is also not an academic scientist, and I can see many parallels between him and his "followers" and Ayn Rand and the movement around her. It seems to be developing into a quasi-cult/sect similar to Rand's "Collective". I would probably prefer to read some of his earlier books and largely ignore the "integral movement" as such.

Social Science vs. Natural Science

My dear old friend Marcus, also a PhD student (congratulations!), commented on my entry "Is social reality "fluffy" reality?":

Although this doesn't mean that critisms along the line of "too fluffy" should be taken lightly. The person utering the words doesn't necessarily have to be blind, but might as well be clever enough to see the (often abundant) faults and errors in new and often immature parts of the general field of social science.

I guess it's even possible that, at times, these errors can be more obvious to people experienced in more mature scientific fields, ie natural science, were the logical consistency is more developed.

E.g. a professional fotball player (well developed science) might, at times, have an easy time to see the faults in the game play of professional computer game (new science) player (or more likely, in the training and teamwork of the computer gamer).

But like your post describes, at most times though, the fotboll player would probably be way off and not "see" the merits of the gamers applied tacticts.

To give good advince would often require some effort to understand the settings and rules of the computer game compared to fotball.

Well, well, I'd better get back to work. :)

---

Here is my answer to his comment:

Hmm...This is a tough one. There are two issues here that I am not entirely comfortable with:

• Labeling natural science as a "mature" science compared to social sciences
• Comparing natural science and social science according to the same scales
  

Ken Wilber, espousing the philosophy of integral theory (integrating all philosophical worldviews along a continuum according to developmental stages) has identified 3 types of science:

1. Science that grounds itself in observation and confirmation and disconfirmation of theory. This is classic natural sciences.
2. Interpretative science that deciphers the meanings, from a human perspective, of social objects, dynamics and systems according to culture (collective patterns of judgment and behavior). Cultural studies, critical theory and postmodernism are examples of this type of science
3. Introspective science. Gaining knowledge through looking into ones own mind and subconscious to see what we can learn about our self, consciousness and humanity. Buddhists frequently refer to themselves as "students of the consciousness" or a "science of mind".
   

What I want to establish is that different kinds of science (means of seeking knowledge) needs to have different foundations. Creating a ladder of "maturity" with natural science on top doesn't necessarily lead to good results in the two fields below.

Recently I read the book "Leadership and the New Science". The narrative of the book centers on the adoption of Newtonian models by social sciences and their practices, and the negative effects of this. Think about terms such as "social engineering" (favored by Swedish social democrats such as Jan Myrdal) or "re-engineering" within business theory. They all point towards an adoption of Newtonian ideals in the practical fields of business and government. Newton essentially viewed the universe as a large clockwork, a machine. While this theory yields considerable results within engineering and natural science, it does not necessarily have a positive impact on human beings and the ways in which they organize themselves (communism is perhaps the largest and most unfortunate example of the dissapointing results that viewing society as a large machine yields). Natural science is now moving away from Newton towards more esoteric and dynamic theories such as quantum mechanics, string theory and chaos theory, just to mention a few. Social sciences still mimic Newtonian natural science, which is very unfortunate.

What I am trying to get at is that social science and introspective science needs to have their foundations in human nature and experience. Only then can it yield results which are positive for our societies, organizations and ourselves.

Coming back to the "fluffiness". I agree with Marcus that accusations of "fluffiness" should be taken seriously and be used as an incentive to increase the clarity of our worldviews and scientific theories. However, a constant, generalizing lament of:

"Oh, why can't the social sciences be as exact, quantitative and clear as the natural sciences?"

is not going to yield any positive results. Human experience is far messier and complex than any process describable by natural science ever can be. Why? Because human experience, by necessity, must transcend and include natural science theory.

Social science theory is far more difficult to confirm or disconfirm than natural science theory. I guess the major reason is the lack of possibilities to conduct actual social sciences experiments. Possibly real life experiements are necessary for social sciences to evolve. Maybe communism was necessary, as an experiment, showing us some principles for how not to organize our societies.

Still, we would need a clear language to describe and converse about our own personal experiences, the dynamics of groups and the proper organization of organizations and societies. Such a language (a set of theories) could drastically decrease the purported "fluffiness" of social reality.

As I am writing these lines, I also realize that the natural messiness of the human experience also forbids the same kind of clarity that was demanded by Newtonian models of reality. However, new developments in natural science also seem to introduce aspects of "fluffiness" into the natural sciences, at least when exploring fundamental physical process, close to metaphysics.

If I were to be a writer

So far I have written 2 postings on what I would to if I were to be a consultant and a PhD. But what if I would be a writer? What books would I want to write? Here’s a few books that I would be excited to research and write:

• Revolutions. A book about the great revolutions of our societies. French Revolution, American Revolution, the fall of Apartheid in South Africa, the fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet, Open Reform Policy in China under Deng Xiaopeng. The book would also contain a theory of social change and ideas for how positive change can be fostered in the future.
• Human-centric organizations. An exploration of organizational principles and their practical applications. The book would focus on what kind of organizations would allow human beings to tap their full potential, and how these organizations can be nurtured. Would also contain different organizational applications to describe the different forms of organization needed to achieve a wide variety of goals.
• Strategic foresight. A book about strategy based on the organizing principles of life, rather than the mechanical metaphors of Newton. What mindsets, frameworks, principles and practices are necessary to produce intelligent strategy in an organic world?
• Mapping social reality. I am increasingly interested in the field of social reality. It would be interesting to creative a comprehensive theory and map of social reality. What are the basic building blocks of social reality? What are its most important principles and processes? What technologies can be used to facilitate social processes towards meaningful outcomes? This would be kind of a physics (or metaphysics) theory of the social world.
• Social capitalism. Market economies proved to be superior to centrally planned economies. Yet, they have not been able to achieve some of the most pressing problems of the world: HIV/AIDS, environmental challenges, poverty etc. How would a new social capitalism look, that could address these issues? What institutions would we form, what thinking would be required?

Maybe these books have already been written. If that is the case I am looking for them! Maybe they have not been written, and then time will tell if it is my calling to write one of them. =)

Is social reality "fluffy" reality?

I just finished reading Reos Partner's report on the Bhavishya Alliance, an Indian multi-stakeholder partnership set up to address child malnutrition. It uses the Change Lab approach based on the U-process.

The report is a very honest attempt to describe the successes, learning points and ideas for improvement that emerged out of that process. It's inspiring to see the depth of insights into the layers, complexities and dynamics of social reality.

Social sciences are often described as the "soft" stuff, the "touchy-feely" things as well as being "fluffy". I concede that this is probably how it appears to certain observes, but I would also like to point out that it could say more about the perceiver than the perceived.

Ed Schein, professor at MIT writes that "We don't talk about what we can see, we see what we can talk about". Denoting a phenomenon as "fluffy" is akin to saying: "My view is blurred." However, it doesn't necessarily say anything about the perceived object per se.

My belief is that there is a wealth of knowledge (academic and common) on physical processes, stemming from natural science. However, there is a vast lack of knowledge about social reality, its processes as well as the inner workings of the human psyche. If we were to increase this knowledge, then these phenomenon, which are all around us, might not seem as "fluffy" as in the past.

Zen Quote #2

"Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water."

Web Presence

I was thinking of the idea of create a larger web presence. The first thing I did was to check out possibilities for web hosting. I have actually had 2 websites earlier. One was hosted at Telia (Swedish telecom company) and the other one was hosted under the domain aronlindberg.com. The first was dedicated to the tabletop game Warhammer, and the second one was a way to disseminate my lecture notes, study notes and summaries of course literature during my business studies. It turns out that aronlindberg.com is still available at some 15-20 euros per year.

I do know how to program basic HTML, but essentially I am somewhat challenged when it comes to web design. However, I recently discovered Open Source Web Design which supplies website templates, for free!

That means that I don't need any expensive web design software, all I need is a simple text editor. Also I don't need to spend hours and hours, meticulously designing the perfect website. No, I can just start filling my website with content right away! Yippie!

Drifting with intention

Building on my last post on a career as a consultant, I thought it would be great to elaborate a bit on the path towards that goal. Having surfed the electric waves of the www for many hours I know that this particular field is not huge. There are no established, major companies that would hire and educate you to enter this field. Essentially it is a field of academic researchers (who double as consultants), entrepreneurs, hippies and people who slowly entered this field after a couple (or a whole career) in business or NGO work. How would I enter this field? Here’s a few ideas on how I can enter this field:

• Complete my MsC and get some conventional (McKinsey, BCG etc.) consulting experience
• Studying a PhD program in organization studies, preferably at MIT (where the SoL community is based)
• Start a not-for-profit, one-man, consulting enterprise within the field, catering mainly to the needs of small enterprises and NGOs, in order to get practical experience
• Continue my autodidactic education through reading within the fields of management, psychology, spirituality and development
• Start to build a web presence through a blog (this one!) and a website featuring my writings, reflections and case studies on related topics
• Build my network within the field through attending events and conferences, participating in virtual forums and magazines, starting/participating in PoC, SoL, Berkana, Presencing Institute etc.

Any other ideas?

If I were to be a consultant

I wrote earlier what I would like to study if I were to be a PhD. I thought I would like to spill my guts on the topic of what I would do if I were a consultant. I have wanted to be a consultant for quite some time now. I guess I am attracted by the theoretical approach to business, but also to the supportive, indirect, facilitative, “midwife”, incubating and empowering approach to business. I believe that business is extremely important, but I don't necessarily consider myself to be a businessman or an entrepreneur. I would rather see myself as a facilitator helping to create a new brand of social capitalism and human-centric organizations.

As a consultant, my interests would be similar to what I would study if I were to be a PhD. However, I would like to break it down in a more detailed fashion. To start with the role as such, I would not necessarily call it a consultant, but rather a designer and facilitator. I would help to design processes, structures and frameworks that can help organizations become more empowering, and also to help the transition through various change processes. I would also like to participate in the design of the new brand of capitalism through engaging in social innovation, especially on topics such as micro enterprise, multi-stakeholder partnerships and social enterprise.

Here's a comprehensive list of the design/facilitation services that I could offer as a consultant:

• Design and facilitation of strategy-related processes. This would include design of strategy frameworks, processes for planning and foresight as well as facilitation of dialogue to create concrete plans. Scenario planning and strategic dialogue/awareness are cases in point.
• Design and facilitation of change interventions. When organizations need to go through periods of intense change to transit to more human-centric and empowering structures and mindsets, an external designer and facilitator can help to make the process smooth. This is commonly called change management, simply.
• Design and facilitation of social innovation labs. This includes diverse topics such as civic scenario planning, incubation of micro and social enterprises as well as multi-stakeholder partnerships (private, government & NGO) to address social challenges.