This model represents an individual as consisting of a brain coupled to an external environment. The brain will be modeled at a resolution of functional brain regions that are thought to be most important for effecting a person's learning in a classroom environment.
This model encodes both hierarchy relationships (brain and senses are part of an individual's body, which is, in turn, part of the environment), as well as causal relationships.
The hierarchy is containment and is represented by nested folders. The environment is modeled as a folder containing all objects of interest, including the individual's body as a whole system. The individual's body is modeled as a folder containing a brain and senses. The individual's body folder is contained inside of the environment folder to represent the idea that the individual's body is contained in, and is a part of, the environment.The brain object and senses objects are contained inside the individual's body folder to represent that the brain and senses together form an object and process that is internal to the individual's body (that is, is contained inside the individual's body and are part of the individual's body).
Based on 1990 SDR Article. Control systems act to make their own input match internal standards or reference signals. Competent control systems create illusions of stimulus response causality. Stimulus-response theory can approximate the relationship between disturbance and action, but it can't predict the consequences of behavior. These consequences are maintained despite disturbances. See IM-9007 for a double loop version
Three Agent Model of IM-14058 with Spatial awareness. Unconscious affective dynamics Josh Epstein's Agent Zero Book webpage Part II p.89 with spatial ABM. See next version at IM-15690
Completion of IM-15119 (which added patches to IM-14058). Unconscious affective dynamics Josh Epstein's Agent Zero Book webpage Part II p.89 with 2 agent types, spatial patches and location aware, mobile occupying (blue) agents
Unconscious affective dynamics From Epstein, Joshua M. (2014-02-23). Agent_Zero: Toward Neurocognitive Foundations for Generative Social Science (Princeton Studies in Complexity) (p. 37). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition Publisher webpage
WIP Addition of Emotion Regulation IM to Clone of IM-9007 Double loop version of IM-8908 Based on 1990 SDR Article. See also Double loop learning and Nurse Thinking Insights. See also IM-9273 for DLL LAIR model. Also Azjen's Theory of planned behavior which could be framed in COM-B WIP at IM-51900
Based on 1990 SDR Article. Control systems act to make their own input match internal standards or reference signals. Competent control systems create illusions of stimulus response causality. Stimulus-response theory can approximate the relationship between disturbance and action, but it can't predict the consequences of behavior. These consequences are maintained despite disturbances. See IM-9007 for a double loop version
Based on 1990 SDR Article. Control systems act to make their own input match internal standards or reference signals. Competent control systems create illusions of stimulus response causality. Stimulus-response theory can approximate the relationship between disturbance and action, but it can't predict the consequences of behavior. These consequences are maintained despite disturbances. See IM-9007 for a double loop version
The simple graph shows two feedback loops that interact
to make climate change and its consequences worse, leading to an unexpected
(& inescapable?) dilemma. Presently,
there are 413 ppm of CO2 gasses in the atmosphere. Even without any
further emission of greenhouse gasses, this high level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will ensure constantly worsening climatic consequences because of delays that
operate in the climate system. The dilemma is caused by relentlessly worsening
of extreme weather events, droughts, forest fires etc., the need for draconian
measures to deal with the situation and the opposition to the measures,
described by the feedback loop B2.This opposition is rooted in human nature,
the psychological defence mechanisms that cause us to repress or even deny
unpalatable truths that threaten our basic assumptions and the way we understand
life. Together, the loops B1 & B2
create a vicious reinforcing loop that describes the escalating and worsening
situation created by the dilemma.
Please look at Insight No. 238770 that
provides background information and also at the information labels attached to majority
of the variables in the model.
WIP Addition of Emotion Regulation IM to Clone of IM-9007 Double loop version of IM-8908 Based on 1990 SDR Article. See also Double loop learning and Nurse Thinking Insights. See also IM-9273 for DLL LAIR model. Also Azjen's Theory of planned behavior which could be framed in COM-B WIP at IM-51900
Based on 1990 SDR Article. Control systems act to make their own input match internal standards or reference signals. Competent control systems create illusions of stimulus response causality. Stimulus-response theory can approximate the relationship between disturbance and action, but it can't predict the consequences of behavior. These consequences are maintained despite disturbances. See IM-9007 for a double loop version
Completion of IM-15119 (which added patches to IM-14058). Unconscious affective dynamics Josh Epstein's Agent Zero Book webpage Part II p.89 with 2 agent types, spatial patches and location aware, mobile occupying (blue) agents
Completion of IM-15119 (which added patches to IM-14058). Unconscious affective dynamics Josh Epstein's Agent Zero Book webpage Part II p.89 with 2 agent types, spatial patches and location aware, mobile occupying (blue) agents
Double loop PCT IM-9007 extended to show hierarchical PCT and goal conflict psychotherapy. A simulation structure for IM-233044 See also a Suicide crisis and PCT IM-173189 simulation structure
Love affairs and Differential equations. From Michael J Radzicki (1993) Dyadic processes,tempestuous relationships, and system dynamics Syst. Dyn. Rev. 9 (1) :79-94
The fact
that we all strive to reduce psychologically inconsistent thoughts is a well-researched phenomenon. When we hold
two conflicting thoughts in our heads we feel an overwhelming desire to reduce
this conflict. This desire can be a powerful driver in the way we behave. Most
of us are aware at some level that if we took the threat of climate change
seriously we would need to completely change our routines and the way we behave.
Flying off on holiday would be out of the question. Swimming pools would be a
past luxury. Most of us would need to give up our cars and become vegetarians.
The list can be extended almost endlessly. Very often, subconsciously, we try
to reduce troubling and inconvenient facts by minimizing, ignoring or even by denying
them. Could this be why we hardly talk about climate change even in the face of
increasingly frequent extreme weather events and obvious signs that it is
occurring now?
This subject
needs to be openly talked about between us and in the press. The seriousness of global warming makes it a necessity.
Only when this happens will politicians have the space and incentive to
act on our behalf. But before this can happen we need to be aware of the reason
why we avoid talking about this subject – this graph tries to illustrate the
harmful dynamic that could be responsible for it.
