cybernetics

rsc said...



1. "Are you suggesting that e.g. the AKSA is ruled by dumb officers who ..." -- I am not suggesting anything about the personal qualities of the persons involved. But it does appear from out side the 'black box' that there is room for improvement in at least one area related to managing public outrage to Show Pony risk on public beaches. This may be for good reasons, but it is still the situation of concern that is real. I've seen no answers here. But this SB forum may not be the right place for real answers -- however, you can see several people are trying to make it a more public issue (at least within the kitesurfing fraternity). Otherwise, why the post in the 1st place? I'd assume it is related to overwork, and also perhaps not a better understanding that there are alternatives in order to work more effectively (smarter not harder) with what you've got.

I am suggesting that whatever is, is "hence preventing the kiting community from adapting appropriately to the environment?" This statement looks correct to me. I'm suggesting in a self-help paradigm that culture (as displayed here) is the low hanging fruit that you and others can work with without need for expensive consultants etc.

And "Do you want to hire McKinsey consultants instead?" -- no, I'm suggesting that if 4-5 people here can get their heads around this perspective then they will be able to work out a neat and effective solution that will largely conform to the ethos of the kitesurfing culture (and one I like) -- do it your/our selves an minimise need for oversight and more regulation. If you succeed then it may set the standards and give rise to removing heavy handed regulations in other places as well.

2. "If you don't want to post your solutions here, ..." -- I think I have just posted something (a start at least) just prior to you reply. We crossed in the mail.

"... what effect to you expect from your efforts, other than making people aware of cybernetics and the SB posting guidelines?" -- the effect I'm seeking is a more viable kitesurfing culture and, by implication, safe and responsible and low risk behaviour such that it meets the needs of its members (current & future) and achieves its stated goals and aims (in this case low maintenance and self governance).

3. "Personally I don't see a big issue in the SB rules..." -- SB rules are not the issue.They seem fine to me. I was just using them and the type of martial I'm seeing here as an opportunity to point out a difficult and subtle point about intangible culture and attitudes. The values behind these attitudes can be considered and if addressed (and I'm not saying how to address them effectively) then I believe everyone here will benefit. Public risk and outrage will reduce and kite surfing (with a few minor but fundamental modifications to its operating heuristics) will continue to grow and prosper -- and be inviting to a whole new demographic. One that is mature, responsible, low performance, and not without money. I'm suggesting it is good for business.

4. "Do you want 5 pages of detailed rules that are inhaled by everyone who signs up here?" -- they already exist and should be read and followed I assume. Or are they just window dressing? It is not a SB issue. They look quite good to me. They in no way interfere with what and how I wish to communicate. I've raised a couple of minor cases where I think a more disciplined moderator function would be concerned. Not to admonish or teach moderators -- could not care less. But rather to point to the attitudes behind these examples. They appear to me to either ignorance or willful rebellion against the rules and conventions. I do not like rules either. But some are necessary -- as we know driving on the roads. I would rather use heuristics than rules -- a technical word but it is accurate -- i.e. rules of thumb. Conventions etc. That is what kitesurfing culture is wanting (rather than rules and policies imposed from outside). I agree -- but public safety comes first.

5. I'm not pushing cybernetics. Nor am I touting for business. I study the area and I'm contributing my 2 cents worth like many are, and everyone else should be. Why are they not? That is my culture question. And for me the evidence is here in abundance. Assume a bullying culture and then seek to find evidence to disprove it. Bullying is a low-level 'reptilian brain' governance function/system. It comes into play when there is nothing else higher than it in operation. If it is recognised then it can be dealt with. If it is ignored then it continues and grows.

School yard, place or work, beach. All the same. Cybernetics (or more correctly, management cybernetics) does not give answers. It suggests where to look. It is like an x-ray. One can see the bone fracture. It is radiology. The doctor must them make the call on what to do about it etc. Here it seems that 'doctor' is either some senior leaders (a bit of a paradox in a largely autonomous collective) or, more likely, the community itself as all members self-adjusting to new information in a responsible way. But, in either case you still need to be either largely invisible or communicating effectively with the larger public. Signage is not for kitesurfers per se, it is for the public to know better. No different to jetskis etc in that dept.

6. "Seems rather contradictory to kiteboarding in general, which derives its attraction largely from the aspect of freedom. It's about finding the right balance." -- Yes, here you are getting very close imo. The right balance is exactly what should be sought. That is what a System 5 perspective is and should be trying to achieve. First they have to watch the show. Before that there has to be a show to watch. System 4 can only bring options to the table (as can System 3). In theory we all have all these roles. In practice (i.e. the real world) we perform roles in a more specialized manner and these are 'contracted' with others in a viable community for the greater common good.

The question is: how does kitesurfing become (remain) a viable community that is highly self-regulated and sustainable?

I'm suggesting:

(a) more effective self-regulation through cultural adjustments; and

(b) better communications with the wider public to demonstrate responsibility and help them judge better what is acceptable and what is not at 'Brighton' beach. At least as a start.

myusernam said...


Rsc you have no life mate. Why would you spend so much time drafting such long reports and posts. you need to get yourself some healthy outdoors interests and have some fun. If you look around on seabreeze you will find people raving about kiting, windsurfing, supping etc. They hang out here because they love their sport so much they cant get enough of it and so when they're not out doing it they come here to read about the sport they love and also make friends, share a joke etc.

You should keep kiteboarding up and maybe the thrill of the sport will grab you and you will look back and think to yourself "I wasted all that time reading and then writing about that crap" Surely even people that do this stuff for a living find it dry? If you do it for a living then why are you writing about it here?

Don't you have a family you could spend time with? A hobby that consumes you? (keep kitesurfing up) Don't you have stuff that needs doing round the house? If you've got that much energy why not try some charity work, rather than trying to argue with people.

Also if you are communicating to people the golden rule is to communicate in a language that they will understand. Obviously not many people are fluent in cyber****e (why would they be, sounds like a intellectual quirk that never took off)

You shouldn't use anacronims or abbreviations that your audience can not reasonably be expected to know (vsm2 or theta level 6 or whathaveyou). Also you should learn how to make a point without using so many words.

Monkel said...

I

I'd strongly urge you discard the role of agent provocateur and to get in touch with WAKSA (if you haven't already) and make yourself available for service to the committee when the AGM comes around again (not to be misinterpreted as providing advice a la a consultant)