A Learning Application of General Systems Theory
A framework on
which to hang a lot of knowledge...
Around mid
twentieth century a General Systems Theory (GST)[1] was postulated as a means
of unifying all of science, from astronomy and physics through biology to
psychology and on to the social sciences including sociology, cultural
anthropology, and more. Mathematical formulas and patterns in one area were
seen as applicable in others. Literal analogies were sought for and treasured.
A focus on the interfaces of various disciplines was promoted, as each
interface, it was thought, merited study in its own right.[2] An extensive
source book entitled, Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist,
edited by Walter Buckley with numerous notable contributors,[3] came out in
1968. Many isolated and frustrated social scientists, psychologists,
physiologists and pseudo-philosophical engineers quickly leaped aboard the GST
bandwagon, bringing with them a hodgepodge of subjects including cybernetics,
communication and information theories, concepts of open and closed systems,
and the second law of thermodynamics!
Now psychiatrists
in their everyday work routinely bridge medicine, psychology and sociology, so
some of them, too, naturally found GST quite appealing. Psychoanalysts, on the
other hand, ensconced happily in their own closed and airtight system, were
mostly resistant to the idea. Regardless, GST slipped quietly away from 'mental
health' over the intervening years and died an unnoticed death. So?
The framework of
GST initially appealed to me. I recognized in it the same systematic approach
that I once rigged up in medical school to help integrate such diverse topics
as histology, anatomy and physiology with pathology, clinical chemistry and the
various specialties—from minute or basic to large and practical. My ‘system’
was a visual skeleton upon which I could hang a decent answer to almost any
examination question. The method proved useful in postgraduate work also. How
better to tie psychology together with medicine and the social sciences? Even
though contrived, it was a real memory saver. When recall fails it affords a
sign post to stir recognition. It has been a memory jogger in later clinical
work and teaching too. The diagram on
the left lays the idea out, mostly in terms of a marital and family focus (a
current interest). Ho-hum, so what? Well…
Students of life
sciences are often confused by the all but overwhelming welter of new
hypotheses and old theories available to them. They hardly know which is truly
relevant to their own area and which is best to discard. Overarching ideas are
foreign territory. That is a good enough
reason to write this little article. I hope a student somewhere will
find it helpful.
GST as a bona fide
unifying theory for all of science was certainly stretching it. That much I too
saw. But, some of the subjects that gained a spurious connection with it were
altogether another matter. Before looking more closely at them let us examine
some of the differences between the hard physical sciences (as exemplified by
Queen Chemistry and King Physics) and their softer ‘brethren’ (Vassal
Psychology, etc.)…
Science can be separated into categories according to object or subject of study. Thus, basic matter is to the physical scientist as living cells and organisms are to the biologist. Energy is relevant to both. With the sociologist it is aggregations of people and institutions. In psychology a primary clear-cut subject is sometimes hard to define. Is it behavior? Perception? Learning? Cognition? Or simply the mind?
Another partially
distinguishing feature between the major branches of science is primary
methodology and tools used. For example, chemistry focuses its attention on
small workable components in laboratory experiments—experimental
reductionism—and subjects the factual results to mathematical analysis and the
creation of heuristic hypotheses. The same happens in physics. All branches of
science attempt to generalize in terms of verifiable theories. If only this
were true! Most of the less certain sciences have tried to emulate those
‘basic’ to them. Sociology, as a case in point, once tried to phrase its
theories in terms of evolution and ecology (from biology) and development (from
psychology). It now, however, seems secure enough to utilize its own principles
and methods, including mathematics (legitimately applied statistics). But other
‘soft’ sciences haven’t been so fortunate.
To recapitulate,
the hallmarks of hard science are, first, strict cause and effect determinism
expressed by tightly woven and perfectly predictive differential equations. The
amazingly successful technical end-results of physics and chemistry (from the
steam engine to rocket flight) elevated their methods and dictums to a position
that all other purported sciences had to emulate or borrow from in order to
seem valid. Atoms and molecules are definitely not purposive, so life
scientists felt obligated to explain living organisms in confining
deterministic terms. Determinism limits? “We’ll investigate immediate causes,
but wont try for any ‘first’ cause.” [4] Any suggestion of, heaven forbid,
‘becoming’ or teleology is tantamount to favoring theology or a degenerate
mysticism. Second, to the ‘true’ scientist matter in space-time theoretically
flows both ways, as in reversible chemical reactions, but biologists know that
time for living organisms can only proceed forward from birth to death. In
biology the facts pointed to self-organized structure at the microscopic level
and purposive behavior at the level of an integrated whole organism. This apparent
toying with time and no-no teleology[5] was a troublesome crack in the tidy
reductionist continuum from hard physical science to biology. Only recently, as
we shall see, was it smoothed over by the cracking of the genetic code. Third,
the physical scientists have firmly established that in closed systems all
structures, from rocks to plastics, eventually reach equilibrium in a diffuse
mush of chaos. But we all know that living creatures, at least for a while—for
a life-time—defy this rule too, for from the very outset they become
progressively intricately organized and complex. Every embryologist attests to
this fact.
So,
self-organization and purposive behavior are two qualities of living matter
that appear to run in contradiction to the basic precepts of physics and
chemistry. Nevertheless, for a long time, softer scientists tried to live up to
the standards of their royal superiors. Physiologists worshipped reductionism
(still do). Some, like Pavlov (working on cerebral reflexes), Claude Bernard (homeostasis),
and Walter Cannon (flight-fight mechanisms) were successful. Those who looked
at the picture of a whole animal in its natural habitat[6] or at the interfaces
of several interacting living systems, ethologists and ecologists respectively,
for many years were hardly accorded scientific status. Academic psychologists,
conforming minutely in all possible ways, tried to explain complex behavior in
both reductionist and deterministic stimulus-response (SR) experiments with
rats. Even Freud, seeking scientific legitimacy,[7] borrowed a metaphor from
nineteenth century physics in the principle of conservation of energy. I.e.,
packets of cathexis bouncing unconsciously around ids and superegos—what utter
nonsense! Both behaviorism and psychoanalysis are now passé.
Biology, in
contradistinction to psychology, has long enjoyed the grudging respect of hard
physical science. This goes back as far as the first rationalization of anatomy
by Vesalius in 1534 (the same year an aged and dying Copernicus published his
Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres). This respect further stems from Harvey’s
demonstration of the physiology of circulation in 1615. In fact these two
biological landmarks elucidating structure and function actually antedate the
acceptance of physical science itself, for Copernicus’ ideas were not taken
seriously, let alone applied, for another hundred years, until Galileo
confirmed them. And we all know what happened to him—he was forced to recant.
But that was the doing of the church, not men of reason. Anyway, along with
many practical achievements in medicine,[8] the discovery of the structure of
DNA and the breaking of the genetic code more than anything else has given
biology validity in modern scientific circles. Despite, such as Pasteur and Flemming, it never really had
it to the same extent before. The breaking of the code truly supports
evolutionary theory. And it demonstrates that purpose (the question 'why' as
well as 'what' and 'how') can be supported scientifically. That is, growth into
a complex autonomous being, is attained through the sequential unraveling of
pre-coded information.[9]
Thus, biology,
which corresponds to level 2 in my first systematic diagram above, can now
truly lead a life free of the strictures laid down by the hard physical
sciences.[10] Certainly, its subsystems obey the laws of physics and chemistry,
but its independent thrust as a life science is maintained by the realities of
evolution and genetics. There are counterpart sciences for psychology and
sociology.
Taking psychology first: The purposive growth of the embryo can be extrapolated nicely to purposive action of the entire organism, in two related ways. Here is how:
1. Through memory
and servomechanisms.[11] Every system of the body is threaded with feedback and
control: all the chemical and endocrine systems and all of the voluntary
striated muscular systems. Thus, the science of cybernetics (steersman in
Greek) comes to the fore. Time is interposed between each cognitive impulse to
action and its goal. Whether this is reaching for a pencil without
over-shooting the mark or walking to the corner store for a loaf of bread,
increasingly fine corrections are interposed between the original thought and
its completion in action. In simply reaching for an object little cognitive
input is needed; the corrections are virtually automatic. As the sequence of
action is stretched out, more thought based on emotion, learning and memory is
required. This is goal-directed or purposive behavior—teleology if you will. It
is one of the major differences between a living being and an inert chunk of
stone. It is a major difference between the life science of psychology and
physical science.
2. Purposive
behavior is also achieved through a life-long fight against entropy[12] in order
to preserve information stored in the brain. Now that statement requires some
explanation! The stored information, called memory, is derived from learning.
This brings in the brain. (We’ll set the mind aside for now.) The brain is the
repository of memories and experiences. While it consumes much energy, taking
up to 25% of the circulating blood to supply its oxygen and glucose needs, its
actual end-function is not based on the law of conservation of energy. It is
based upon one of the concepts spuriously transposed into Von Bertalanffy’s
GST: Information Theory. And, I might add, Learning Theory. Whereas the heart
pumps blood and works on the basis of mechanics, the brain processes and stores
information and enables its retrieval. It creates informational organization.
In so doing, it works against the concept of the second law of thermodynamics.
That law, as you’ll recall, says that everything that is structured and
organized, and this includes information, must ultimately dissolve into
homogeneous mush. That only happens in biology when brain cells die—or the
whole organism dies. It happens in psychology when…? In physics the degree of
chaotic mush is called entropy, which is the measure of disorganized chaos.
Now, when you think of it, not only the body is built and holds up against the
drift towards chaotic entropy, but the brain protects its store of information
against entropic drift into meaningless gibberish. In so doing it enables the
accumulation of learning and purposive behavior with a uniquely human view to
the future. We can pick up a pencil, walk to the store, plan a baby, build
bridges, or fly to the moon. Organized and with a purpose (or not, if we wish
or are so inclined).
Psychology is to the mind as
physiology is to the brain. But it is an extremely untidy subject. Maybe it is
that way because of residues of the old mind-brain dualism. In its search for
roots psychology has propounded personality theory (and tests), the concept of
intelligence (and doubtful tests), gestalt theory, motivation, behaviorism
(which actually denied the mind to please reductionist hard science), learning
theory (which really should be the basic science of all teachers), and most recently
cognitive science. When I periodically set about to organize my psychology
books it is almost chaos—almost as bad as psychiatry. Obviously, I cannot
remedy psychology’s and psychiatry’s quandaries here. Yet. So I’ll leave both
of these unfortunate disciplines and move on to the science that is the cement
of all social systems—at level 3 (of the first diagram).
By the way, here is
something to ponder: M≈ƒ(B) (where M is mind and B is brain).[13]
Lucid speech
enables advanced communication between civilized humans, more than just grunts
or shrugs. Communication is the key word. It is the matrix of social systems.
Just as cybernetic control and information storage are the basic principles of
what goes on inside the head of just one whole living being, communication is
the science of what goes on between two or more. It encompasses aspects of
cybernetics, information, symbols and meaning, thought and emotion, logic and
illogic, grammar, and more.
Human Communication Theory is an essential study.
Its basic premises,
or grammar, or (testable?) hypotheses, as organized and drawn up by me, may
seem deceptively simple. But don’t let that fool you. Their proper
understanding requires more than a cursory glance. A diagram depicting a simple
one-way communication system precedes the premises. It is helpful in following
each one as it is laid out, but is crucial to the understanding of the second
premise which succinctly states,Message sent is not necessarily message
received…
A SIMPLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
1. Communication is …ever-present,
1.1 One cannot NOT
communicate.
Even silence,
between two people who know each other, represents a message. E.g., if you
don’t write me for a long time it means, 1. Our relationship is so good and
durable it can survive anything, 2. You are in some way upset (angry, scared)
with me and your silence is deliberate, 3. You are totally indifferent to me
and no longer care. In all instances my isolated interpretation has a strong
chance of being incorrect. And everything we say or do or don't do is
communicated.
2. Communication, always involving ‘frangible’
information, is inevitably flawed,
2.1 Information
traverses numerous channels and way-stations between source and destination.
2.2 Thus, message
sent is not necessarily message received.
3. Communication …is multidimensional,
3.1 It is at two
levels: characterized by simultaneous content and relational messages.
The content message
is the main message, usually verbal (or written). The relational message is in
the overall context or “How I see you seeing me.” That is, it conveys command,
submission, query, or equality, etc. Being at a more abstract level, it is
termed a metamessage, or message about the message.
3.2 It is comprised
of two distinct message modes: 1. digital (speech) and 2. analog signals.
The analog
component is nonverbal (better than this negative attribute is the word
kinesic): facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, posture, and “leakage”
of autonomic NS effects such as sweaty palms, dilated pupils, rapid heartbeat,
etc. In living organisms analog signals usually correlate with the relational
message. Emotion is the primary ingredient conveyed by analog signals.
4. Communication is cybernetically patterned, Hence, errors can be corrected.
4.1 It is nonlinear,
i.e., circular—with feedback and control.
Circularity
supplements simple linear SR notions. Your response to me is
feedback—reinforcement and another stimulus—to me. A continuous cycle results.
But we often wear blinders: Usually I see the good, but not the bad I do to
you; and you see the good, but not the bad you do to me. I.e., each of us tends
to focus on the bad done to his own self rather than the good received. A
Blinder Syndrome: think about that!
4.2 It has a
context that is either symmetrical or complementary, at any one time, with a
safety switch function termed parametric.
Relationships that
are primarily symmetrical are based on tit for tat equal exchanges. They tend
to be competitive and when control is lost spiral up into love or down into
violence (each known as arunaway). Complementary relationships are mutually
interdependent, often authoritarian/dependent. When control is lost they grind
down into a rigid fixity. Normal, functional relationships have the capacity,
as needed, to switch back and forth between symmetry and complementarity
(parametric switches). When a relationship is defined in opposite terms by one
or both of its participants it is known as metacomplementary and has extremely
dysfunctional potential.
4.3 It has punctuation that over time becomes spurious in practical reality.
There is a starting
point in a sequence of exchanges. What an obvious statement! But what I may
claim as my starting point you may also see as yours—hence mutual claims of
plagiarism or accusations of irresponsibility. E.g., in a dysfunctional
marriage: A husband insists, “I hide behind my newspaper because you nag.” The
wife retorts, “I nag because you withdraw into the paper.” Each claims his/her
behavior is the end point to the other’s starting point. Period. Their
punctuation of the same cycle of events is irreconcilably different. And the
argument can go on forever. Such is known mathematically as an infinitely
oscillating series. As time goes on, who started what becomes irrelevant—the
argument becomes self sustaining. Ultimately, the only important issue is to
somehow interrupt the vicious cycle, not to determine who started it or who is
right or wrong.[14]
This brief taste of pragmatic communication,
as the science forming the bridge between psychology and all social systems and
between all subsequent social institutions, is usually enough to whet the
appetite of curiosity to search for further information. Ruesch, Bateson,
Haley, and Jackson are the big names in Pragmatic Human Communication.
Returning to the first diagram, we can add a fourth level—of manmade artifacts.
Verbal communication enables us to get to level 3. Two additional things jack
us up to 4: writing or symbolic notation and the rigor and discipline of
applied science. (Maybe law and religion also.) At this level the making of
ships, cars, planes, buildings, and the creation of all kinds of art is
possible. But they all are semi-permanent and eventually succumb to the
degradation of entropy. E.g., the kayak I built as a youngster is long gone.
Remnants of Ancient Rome remain after 2000 years, but will go too.
Potentially-almost-permanent is the documentation, especially electronic, of
literature, music and science, which can be copied over and over again to
preserve it against the certain decay of entropy. For instance, Shakespearean
originals are exceedingly rare, but the essential works will probably remain
‘alive’ as long as there are still interested people, printing presses and
electronic media such as the Internet. But that says nothing of the final end
point, the reverse of the big bang. or a deadly silent expansion. The big
crunch, if that's the route, will take it all away! (In the newer notion of an
infinitely inflationary universe everything slows down and freezes forever.) I
wander; but grant me a senior moment.
