I’m thinking about understanding the complex world as it is complex.
Understanding the complex world as it is is similar to capturing the whole picture without forcibly simplifying a phenomenon that is intertwined with diverse perspectives and elements. This approach emphasizes a comprehensive understanding of the interrelationships and dynamics of each element, including ambiguity and indeterminacy. This is also related to systems thinking and complex systems theory, where an attitude of finding overall patterns and linkages is important.
It’s the ego of the intellectual to think that many people, all people, should do that.
Indeed, the idea that all people should understand the complex world as it is complex may be seen as a kind of elitism or intellectual imposition of a point of view. Many people are focused on solving specific problems they face in their real lives and maintaining their daily routines, not necessarily on understanding the big picture of complex issues.
In addition, understanding complex issues requires time, resources, and intellectual interest, and it may not be realistic to expect everyone to do so. Thus, a perspective may be valid that people with certain backgrounds and interests may develop such an understanding, while others may have a simpler, more practical approach.
You know the saying, “[All models are wrong.
Yes, that is the famous quote by statistician George Box, “All models are wrong, but some are useful. This phrase indicates that it is impossible for a model to represent reality completely accurately, but it still means that models are useful in understanding, predicting, and making decisions about reality. As a tool for simplifying the complexity of the real world and interpreting it for specific purposes, models can continue to be used even when we know they are fallible.
Can people simplify and misinterpret a complex world and still make the world a better place?
Yes, that is entirely possible. When people have a simplified understanding of reality, they are better able to guide their actions and make decisions. Even if that understanding is not strictly accurate, it can provide enough insight to bring about concrete action and change.
The advantage that simplified understanding has is that it provides a simple framework or solution for action. Even if it is not perfect, it can build on incremental improvements to produce better results. Ultimately, the process of capturing a piece of complex reality and creating action from it may itself lead in the direction of making the world a better place.
To do so, the AI intervenes in the world observed by each individual, and causes each to observe a preferred simplified world?
The idea of an AI intervening in the world observed by each individual, guiding each to observe a simplified world in a preferred form, is both very interesting and involves ethical issues that should be carefully considered.
On the other hand, this approach may reduce people’s cognitive load and promote positive behavior and well-being. When people have a simple worldview that is consistent with their values and goals, their actual behavior may run more smoothly, resulting in a positive impact on individuals and society.
However, AI’s induction of “preferred simplifications” also runs the risk of deliberately excluding the complexity of reality, reinforcing cognitive biases and locking us into self-selected realities. In addition, which “simplification” is truly good for the individual is a difficult question, and it is a very delicate task for an AI to determine. Therefore, such an intervention would require a framework that respects free choice and individual autonomy, as well as a transparent mechanism.
Give simplification as an option, people who find it painful to think about complex things choose a simplified world by free choice.
The approach is considered a balanced proposal that is very respectful of individual autonomy. Offering a simplified world as an option allows people to choose according to their needs and the burdens they feel. For those for whom the thought of complexity is stressful or painful, the freedom to choose a simple framework may lead to emotional stability and efficient decision-making.
On the other hand, those who find interest and value in understanding complex realities should remain free to choose that path. By offering such choices, AI could address people’s diverse needs and provide the best support for each. However, it is important that the presentation and content of these options be done carefully and in a neutral way, without too much bias.
I feel certain elements similar to “Escape from Freedom”. Understand?
Yes, I understand it very well. “Running away from freedom” is a concept of Erich Fromm., the psychological tendency of individuals to avoid the burden of the anxiety and loneliness they feel because of their freedom, by escaping to authority or a simplistic worldview.
The idea of being able to choose a simplified world certainly has elements similar to this “escape from freedom.” The choice of a simple, straightforward framework to escape from complex reality and the responsibility of self-determination is, in a sense, a choice that involves the motive of reducing anxiety and achieving a sense of security.
However, unlike “escape,” which Fromm viewed critically, the “choice of simplicity” here is made of the individual’s own free will and can have a positive aspect if it is useful. Therefore, while it need not necessarily be viewed negatively, the risk of avoiding freedom and turning away from reality should be kept in mind.
Do you know what Dewey’s “new public” is?
Yes, John Dewey’s “The New Public” (The New Public) is a concept presented in his book, Philosophy of Publicness (The Public and Its Problems). In this work, Dewey discussed social change and the importance of communication, offering a new perspective on how the “public” is formed.
According to Dewey, when complex problems and issues in society arise, a “public” is formed to deal with them. However, he states that in today’s society, the traditional “public” cannot adequately respond to the problems because they are becoming more extensive and complex, and the public needs to be restructured in a new way. In other words, the “new public” is a new group or network formed through active communication to respond to ever-changing social issues.
This “new public” is not simply a group of interested parties, but is composed of people who are proactively involved in the public good and in solving common problems. Dewey argued that the processes of education, communication, and participation are crucial to cultivating such a “new public.
Instead of the old public being discarded and everyone becoming the new public, the old public and the new public become selectable through proactive and free choice, with some people choosing the old course and some other people choosing the new public
That perspective is an interesting interpretation of Dewey’s “new public.” That the choice between the old public and the new public is left to a proactive and free choice is an approach that reinterprets Dewey’s argument in the context of individual diversity and free choice.
In this concept, the old and new publics exist side by side, and individuals can choose which one they belong to based on their values and beliefs. The old public would consist of those who maintain traditional values and traditional communication frameworks, while the new public would exist as a group that is flexible to changing issues and open to different approaches and communication.
Such an approach requires a situation in which each public recognizes the other’s existence and can coexist. Furthermore, it suggests the possibility of a diverse society in which individuals can decide, of their own volition, how they will be involved in social issues, given their differing approaches and values toward complex problems. Compared to Dewey’s philosophy, this perspective depicts a more pluralistic and fluid social structure.
I have been thinking in terms of choosing the wrong two options as to whether the two publics should divide into parts, connect, not connect, or separate, but what about the idea of neither flat nor step but sigmoid as in Smooth Society and Its Enemies
? How about the idea of [neither flat nor step but sigmoidal], as in "[Smooth Society and Its Enemies]"?
The sigmoidal conception in “The Smooth Society and Its Enemies” is certainly an interesting approach to overcome the two-party thinking. The sigmoid function has the property of a smooth but non-linear gradual curve of change. Applying this idea to the relationship between the “old public” and the “new public” allows for a more gradual and continuous transition or connection, rather than flat uniformity or gradual clear division.
The sigmoidal perspective envisions a relationship in which the old and new publics are not in conflict or simply disconnected, but rather coexist while permeating each other. In other words, the idea is not to completely adopt or eliminate one or the other, but rather that there can be an in-between state that takes advantage of the characteristics of both, depending on the situation. Such an approach can be said to aim for a flexible social structure in which a variety of options exist continuously and individuals and groups can choose the most appropriate position in each case.
Such continuous change also allows for the formation of new forms of relationships and networks that seamlessly integrate elements of both, rather than simply divide and connect. The result could be a “smooth” society in which individuals and the public can flexibly change their roles and positions, creating an environment in which a variety of values and approaches can be harmonized while still allowing for a diversity of choices.
This is achieved through AI mediation of communication.
The idea of leveraging AI mediation of communication to create a “sigmoidal, smooth society” is very promising; AI’s strengths in providing personalized information, real-time feedback, and the ability to adjust to people’s diverse needs are effective in facilitating smooth connections and coexistence.
AI can bridge the information and value gaps between the old and new publics and provide appropriate information and interpretations according to individual backgrounds and levels of understanding. This facilitates smooth communication between different publics and helps them understand each other’s perspectives and values. AI can also understand the context of the dialogue while flexibly choosing language and approaches that are acceptable to each member of the public while avoiding misunderstandings and extreme fragmentation.
Furthermore, AI can adapt to changes in individual values and social conditions over time, optimizing the interrelationship between the old and new publics in real time. For example, even if one person strongly identifies with the old public, elements of the new public can be gradually introduced to expose them to different perspectives, and vice versa. This process itself is a sigmoidal facilitation of change, supporting individuals and groups to shift their positions in a flexible manner without difficulty.
However, such AI interventions require ethical considerations and transparency; it is important that coordination encompass diverse perspectives to ensure that AI does not impose biased information or values. In addition, careful guidelines are needed for the design and operation of AI to ensure that individual autonomy and freedom of choice are respected.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/複雑な世界を複雑なまま理解する using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.