Very interesting. These issues also arise at a very small scale all the time - eg how will people respond to a small technological innovation such as, say, variable speed limits on motorways. The answers in reality are often surprising and require research to explain.
I’m temperamentally (ie probably wrongly) sceptical about the potential of experiments to predict what *will* happen; and think there is more value in existing methods for exploring what *could* happen, as a basis for good scenario planning. But it’s always good to see people trying to predict more.
A key part of the challenge for both kinds of question is, to extend your line of thought, that new technologies don’t just change what people do do, and what they think it is acceptable to do, but also the kinds of behavioural and social ‘niche’ that are available for behaviour to take place in. There’s a strong parallel, I think, with biological evolution. The challenge is not just to predict what will happen, but to anticipate the future taxonomy that will be needed even to describe it.
I agree with all this Simon. From my physicist's perspective, I'd say (as I did in Critical Mass) that we probably can't predict specific trajectories into the future, but we can hope to map out the phase space of possibilities - which has the benefit too of showing us what is *not* possible, or unlikely. The challenge, of course, is that social systems tend not to be closed systems, so it's not like mapping out the phase diagram of water (which actually is absurdly complicated already...).
Yep. As I think I’ve said Critical Mass greatly influenced/shaped my thinking. I’d just add that I don’t think it’s only about systems bringing closed or open. It’s also (not sure what right words are) about some systems being ‘taxonomically creative’. You can’t entirely predict the weather but you can know with certainty what concepts you’ll need to describe it. Not true, I’d argue, when talking about human behaviour. (That’s my key quibble with Susan Michie’s behaviour change ontology project, though I greatly admire and support what they’re trying to do.)
Very interesting. These issues also arise at a very small scale all the time - eg how will people respond to a small technological innovation such as, say, variable speed limits on motorways. The answers in reality are often surprising and require research to explain.
I’m temperamentally (ie probably wrongly) sceptical about the potential of experiments to predict what *will* happen; and think there is more value in existing methods for exploring what *could* happen, as a basis for good scenario planning. But it’s always good to see people trying to predict more.
A key part of the challenge for both kinds of question is, to extend your line of thought, that new technologies don’t just change what people do do, and what they think it is acceptable to do, but also the kinds of behavioural and social ‘niche’ that are available for behaviour to take place in. There’s a strong parallel, I think, with biological evolution. The challenge is not just to predict what will happen, but to anticipate the future taxonomy that will be needed even to describe it.
I agree with all this Simon. From my physicist's perspective, I'd say (as I did in Critical Mass) that we probably can't predict specific trajectories into the future, but we can hope to map out the phase space of possibilities - which has the benefit too of showing us what is *not* possible, or unlikely. The challenge, of course, is that social systems tend not to be closed systems, so it's not like mapping out the phase diagram of water (which actually is absurdly complicated already...).
Yep. As I think I’ve said Critical Mass greatly influenced/shaped my thinking. I’d just add that I don’t think it’s only about systems bringing closed or open. It’s also (not sure what right words are) about some systems being ‘taxonomically creative’. You can’t entirely predict the weather but you can know with certainty what concepts you’ll need to describe it. Not true, I’d argue, when talking about human behaviour. (That’s my key quibble with Susan Michie’s behaviour change ontology project, though I greatly admire and support what they’re trying to do.)