Popper and cloud condensers

The idea that holists, much like reductionists (more precisely, fervent advocates of either approach), fail to grasp a crucial concept has been haunting me. Whenever I read critiques of social engineering or, conversely, Popper’s “private” approach to constructing reality (which, naturally, aligns more closely with my views), my mind invariably conjures up the popular image of the Lorenz attractor. At such moments, I find myself wondering whether both sides resemble naive fantasists trying to control clouds, the only difference being that some believe you can extinguish the wind to have the clouds whimsically form a cat, while others insist that by smoothly distributing moisture condensers, these clouds will spontaneously create a cat.

In chaotic systems, things don’t work that way. There’s no possibility of giving the attractor a different shape simply by installing fans at specific points in space and erecting barriers. At best, this might only locally distort the naturally formed structure; at worst, it could lead to the total destruction of the entire structure. There’s no way… except through the parameters set by the individual elements themselves and… the parameters of the field on which these elements coexist. Applied to the Lorenz model, all coefficients are indeed parameters of the field. One could complicate the model to achieve another form by adding interaction parameters between elements. This starts to resemble cellular automata more than traditional chaotic models (also, by the way, among them are quite chaotic rules, for example Rule 30).

Wouldn’t it then be more effective and natural for society’s development to select parameters rather than creating point regulations, passing new laws, and imposing prohibitions? And to complicate individuals, allowing for the maximum natural development of each, while understanding the second seems to improve in modern civilization, albeit very slowly, until the necessity of “unloading” artificial regulatory mechanisms is recognized, which is still very distant and leaves much to be desired.

And I am strongly uncertain that even those parameters accepted and considered fundamental in modern social disciplines (such as GDP, tax base, etc.) are truly such.

At this moment, I recall an article (yay, I found it in my bookmarks! one of the few “management” articles I saved for myself), where the author tells about the experience of “optimizing” a team, where the newly arrived manager first introduced metrics for assessing productivity, and then logically intended to dismiss the least productive employees. The paradox was that the long-serving employee, whose productivity objectively was around 0, ended up in the firing line. That is, from the standpoint of production “code,” he was practically useless.

However, to me – writes the author – it was obvious that under no circumstances could this employee be dismissed. He was a central helper, he created an atmosphere, helped juniors, was attentive, and maintained an amazing friendly environment within the team. Essentially, he was one of the system-forming people in the company, despite his business value being zero.

Metrics always limit the model.

When I understood this, I immediately remembered all my experiences in different places at different times. What characters, sometimes ambiguous, sometimes outright controversial but always wonderful personalities, I encountered at various times, such as this buddy. And what beautiful teams were destroyed in the name of so-called “efficiency.”

PS… although, perhaps, the constructors of “condensers” simply misinterpret Popper.