Ventana software support forum

Guenther Ossimitz felt that an inter-personal argument had no intervening
levels. As SD theory claims, it does. Many of us who must attempt to solve
client problems, live in an adversarial environment. Whatever we recommend
will change the system conditions and affect some member of that system.
These affected members will produce counter-responses -- often in the form
of derogatory
arguments during executive staff meetings.... If the topic is the lay-off
of staff or the removal of divisions, the "discussions" can be quite emotive
and the consequences very serious.

Novice staff in these discussions have a difficult time. Those who have an
even more severe reaction are those who, for lack of a more direct word,
suffer personality traits dominated by personal insecurity -- they do not
have what is often defined as coping skills. Those in the meeting who are
"battle hardened" have experienced and survived worse situations, they can
step back and view the problem, *cope* with it, and develop solutions
alternatives. They have been in worse situations and the current crisis is
a "piece of cake" compared to some others they have experienced.

The same is true of a spousal argument. The "crisis" developed over time.
The coping skills of both parties are/were inadequate to the initial
conditions and each sortie of banter reduces each participants coping
skills further. A counselor (or some intervener) would allow them to step
back and view the problem. This act alone helps them increase their ability
to cope. If nurtured, over time, the coping skills improve. If a crisis
occurs that is too large for the existing LEVEL of coping skills, then the
coping skill is overwhelmed and a setback occurs -- just like when we work
on a model and hit so many problems that we feel we are useless as an SD
analyst. Yet, when we finally do succeed, we now are more capable of
dealing with even more complex or critical issues. This success and the
increase in coping skills is like a successful resolution of a issue with
the subject couple.

Causality is a sequence of events where the preceding event has an effect,
causing the next event. The sequence by definition takes time. It can NEVER
be simultaneous. Because any portion of reality of interest is a system,
there are, by definition, parts that interact. These interactions are always
feedback loops. They are always causal. They can never be simultaneous. We
can not define history until after the events happen.

(Some may object here ala Quantum Mechanics. Only the Copenhagen
Interpretation avoids causality. There are several competing
interpretations - Pilot wave, Stochastic QM, Zero-point fields, etc.) that
give identical answers in most areas. Therefore, while the Copenhagen
interpretation is mathematically accurate, the most complete (being the
oldest) and therefore the most useful, it is still not clear that a causal
interpretation does not exist. But most importantly, at the macro level,
even QM leads to causality -- the real macro-world we experience and
describe via
classical physics -- and non-simultaneous feedback loops.)

Bottom line is that if you think the (sub) system is a circular loop without
a level, then you need to rethink the logic.

G

George Backus: George_Backus@ENERGY2020.com