Model of hierarchical complexity (MHC)

[Carl-Richard]

Quote

The model of hierarchical complexity (MHC) is a framework for scoring how complex a behavior is, such as verbal reasoning or other cognitive tasks. It quantifies the order of hierarchical complexity of a task based on mathematical principles of how the information is organized, in terms of information science. This model was developed by Michael Commons and Francis Richards in the early 1980s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity

It's one of the few Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development. It seems useful framework for understanding how big-picture thinking relates to ordinary ways of thinking (holistic vs analytic thinking), concepts like construct awareness, context awareness. It's a spiraling model like SD ("transcend-include", integration).

When people say things like "why don't actual scientists see the links between mysticism and quantum mechanics?", you can clearly see here that it's sufficient for a scientist to operate from the lower stages most of the time (1-10). One the other hand, taking one field (Quantum Mechanics) and seeing the connections to another field (mysticism) initiates cross-paradigmatic operations (stage 14). When that is said, just because an operation is at a lower hierarchical complexity doesn't mean it's not complicated or difficult work. It's precisely why they don't have time to think about the big picture, because it might cost them their job. That's why most scientists are technicians and not innovators. Being a career scientist (staying within your paradigm) is not the same as being a revolutionary scientist (initiating paradigm shifts).

The physicist Lawrence Krauss once said "physicists feel sorry for the social scientists, because physics is simple and social systems are complex". What more do I have to say? 

[DocWatts]

Funny your mentioning the difference between Normal and extraordinary science as I'm currently reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions right now...

As for the Model of Hierarchical Complexity, my own view is that it would be to the benefit of Integral and Metamodern communities/groups to emphasize this Model more, as it's incredibly powerful especially when used alongside more sociologically oriented models like Spiral Dynamics.

The two compliment each other quite nicely, as something like Spiral Dynamics when stretched to try and fill the role of a holistic model for individual development has some serious defects.

 

[supremeyingyang]

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

 Also, just because it's at a lower hierarchical complexity doesn't mean it's not complicated or difficult work. It's precisely why they don't have time to think about the big picture, because it might cost them their job. That's why most scientists are technicians and not innovators. Being a career scientist (staying within your paradigm) is not the same as being a revolutionary scientist (initiating paradigm shifts).

Now if that is true that the model can help us analyze this, this would be a handy tool. Test: Seem Person X be able to reach above 10 - yes or no?

That way you can assugn tasks which fit the stage of a person und thus be more productive as a organization. Innovation work for those who can handle it!

@DocWatts

is the book you read worthwhile?

Edited October 23, 2021 by supremeyingyang

[Carl-Richard]

13 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Funny your mentioning the difference between Normal and extraordinary science as I'm currently reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions right now...

Nice! I've only read some introductory stuff that gives a rough overview. I should probably read the actual book once because I'm curious about the depth of his methodology (e.g. how many revolutions he studied and to what extent they were revolutions).

 

3 hours ago, supremeyingyang said:

Now if that is true that the model can help us analyze this, this would be a handy tool. Test: Seem Person X be able to reach above 10 - yes or no?

I'm sure Piaget had tests for measuring development, so it's surely possible with a Neo-Piagetian framework as well. However, I also suspect it gets increasingly more tricky to measure increasing levels of complexity.

[DocWatts]

5 hours ago, supremeyingyang said:

is the book you read worthwhile?

 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Nice! I've only read some introductory stuff that gives a rough overview. I should probably read the actual book once because I'm curious about the depth of his methodology (e.g. how many revolutions he studied and to what extent they were revolutions).

If you're interested in both science and epistemology I'd highly recommend it for the way it explains how science actually works, as opposed to the image of science that's projected throughout our culture. And for the way it details how what is essentially a problem solving venture that's normally practiced within set limits is nonetheless able to produce gestalt shifts that are significant for the entire world.

The book covers some of the same points as Leo's science video series, but is written by a professional scientist who has a lifetime of experience with his subject matter (and who of course has a different set of biases and metaphysical assumptions than Leo).

[Carl-Richard]

00:00-1:07 This is what the transition from systematic to metasystematic looks like – going from seeing one system to many systems:

The step from systematic to metasystematic is in this case the departure from perceiving everything through one model (Newtonian mechanics) to getting familiar with many models (langangian mechanics, QM etc.), and then going from saying "this is the truth" (systematic), to "this system is right, all the others are wrong" (low metasystematic) to "they're all just different interpretative frameworks" (high metasystematic). High metasystematic is the advent of so-called relativistic thought ("so-called" because it's just what our modernistic or formal-systematic stage 10-11 culture calls it). It's relatively relative (more relative by contrast). In reality, there are different degrees of relativity all throughout the hierarchy which gets increasingly complex as you scale the stages.

Now, the statement "they are all just different interpretative frameworks" is one level of construct awareness. A higher level is when you recognize how these frameworks interact, and that is where systemic models like MHC come in. MHC lets you see the systematic structure of the relationships between metasystems and how they form higher structures (here refered to as "paradigms"). One such structure is the nested holarchy structure, or the spiraling motions of "trancend&include" (Wilber). Here you can see that the structure of different cognitive operations reflect an underlying metaphysical structure of all frameworks (here we use the external dimension of the Integral Quadrant as an example):

atoms include but transcend sub-atomic particles;

molecules include and transcend atoms;

proteins, sugars and lipids include and transcend molecules;

cells include and transcend proteins, sugars and lipids;

organs include and transcend cells;

organisms include and transcend organs;

groups include and transcend organisms;

societies include and transcend groups;

civilizations include and transcend societies;

planets include and transcend civilizations;

solar systems include and transcend planets;

galaxies transcend and include solar systems;

galaxy clusters include and transcend galaxies etc.

This is what is meant by "the fractal nature of reality". This is also why Integral Theory is so genius because it goes meta on so many aspects of all frameworks. "Levels" is the so-called "vertical development" (stages of development in SD, MHC; all stage models) that follows a pattern of nested holarchy. Quadrants are different domains of frameworks (individual-collective x internal-external) that also follows a pattern of nested holarchy. Together, it creates AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels): 

[AlphaAbundance]

@Carl-Richard Thanks for sharing, this is great. It falls under understanding, if only pure understanding (understanding for its "own sake). I wonder how you could apply this, it does offer decent insight into how work is done, the physical, mental, emotional, etc components of tasks / effort / work. Different jobs require different skillsets, and are different levels of complexity. Also it doesn't seem like this model is building on each other, a task can include some levels but not other levels.

[supremeyingyang]

@DocWatts

I put the book on my reading list!

 

On 10/23/2021 at 0:03 PM, Carl-Richard said:

I'm sure Piaget had tests for measuring development, so it's surely possible with a Neo-Piagetian framework as well. However, I also suspect it gets increasingly more tricky to measure increasing levels of complexity.

I'm not that familiar with Piaget at this point. I only had a course where is writing where central topic back in university. Which resources would you recommend for a.  MHC and b. Piaget himself? Plus I heard a lot of Wilber in the forum, but was not able to deep dive any of his books. Is that a mistake? Funny, I'm planning sort of my book diet for the year 2022, even though I hadn't this intention when I entered this thread

[Carl-Richard]

52 minutes ago, supremeyingyang said:

Which resources would you recommend for a.  MHC and b. Piaget himself?

MHC I first intuited the existence of by looking at the cognitive line of the AQAL map, but I just recently found it. I've only read the wikipedia.

I haven't read Piaget's works directly. The things I've read is undergrad level curriculum for developmental psychology that deals with children ages 0-18. Piaget's model is mainly meant for childhood development in a Western context. It's the Neo-Piagetian models that often expand to include adult development.

 

1 hour ago, supremeyingyang said:

Plus I heard a lot of Wilber in the forum, but was not able to deep dive any of his books. Is that a mistake? Funny, I'm planning sort of my book diet for the year 2022, even though I hadn't this intention when I entered this thread

Wilber has too many books ? You should maybe ask someone who is not a zoomer. Zoomers read school curriculum and that's it ?

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, supremeyingyang said:

@DocWattsus I heard a lot of Wilber in the forum, but was not able to deep dive any of his books. Is that a mistake? Funny, I'm planning sort of my book diet for the year 2022, even though I hadn't this intention when I entered this thread

Sex, Ecology, Spirituality is generally considered his Magnum opus, but I wouldn't recommend most people pick that up as their first Wilber book as it's a pretty lengthy and involved read (something like 800 or 900 pages).

A Theory of Everything or Integral Vision are good introductions to his work, and are both relatively brief reads.

Then if you're intrigued and want a far more in depth examination of Integral Theory move on to Integral Pyschology or Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.

[DocWatts]

As to the Model of Hierarchical Complexity, I've yet to come across anything like a full book about that model, but I recall a chapter or so in The Listening Society which did a great job explaining the model in non-technical language (and with examples).

[supremeyingyang]

@Carl-Richard

lol that's hardly a zoomer exclusive trait, but common in the population

 

@DocWatts

thanks for the recommendation. 'The Listening Society' seems to be awesome. Looking forward to that!

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, supremeyingyang said:

@Carl-Richard

lol that's hardly a zoomer exclusive trait, but common in the population

Ah, so it's a normie trait. Got it!  

[supremeyingyang]

@Carl-Richard

lol of course it is a normie trait

[Carl-Richard]

On 24.10.2021 at 1:35 AM, AlphaAbundance said:

@Carl-Richard Thanks for sharing, this is great.

Thank you ?

 

On 24.10.2021 at 1:35 AM, AlphaAbundance said:

Also it doesn't seem like this model is building on each other, a task can include some levels but not other levels.

The understanding of the lower levels is required in order to perform the operations in the lower levels, so in this sense, the higher tasks always involve the lower tasks, but maybe more in an implicit way rather than explicitly. The hierarchical structure means that you can start at a higher operation and trace it all the way down to the first level. I'll try: 

Cross-paradigmatic (14) : Crossing two different paradigms (e.g. evolution and economics) means seeing how they interact, e.g. the competition between market strategies fulfilling the conditions for adaptive evolution.

Paradigmatic (13): To see how they interact, you must have a basic understanding of both paradigms (evolution and economics). That means you need to have an understanding of specific aspects of each paradigm (or the relationships between different metasystems): e.g. in evolution, you have the relationship between reproduction and different selection mechanisms; or in economics, you have the relationship between scarcity and supply and demand.

Metasystematic (12): There are different systems under each of those. For example, for reproduction and selection, you have assortative mating and directional selection respectively (let's stick to evolutionary theory for now).

Systematic (11): Examples of systems within those metasystems could be inbreeding and splitting selection respectively.

Formal (10): To understand these systems, you have to commensurate synthetical statements (empirical observations) and analytical statements (logical facts), formulate hypotheses and make logical deductions, a.k.a the scientific method (or "the hypothetico-deductive method"). Let's take inbreeding as an example: "if individuals in a population with a shared ancestry mate with each other, they're practicing inbreeding. Me and my cousin are related and are mating, therefore we're practicing inbreeding".

Abstract (9): To perform these operations, you must be able to form variables and quantify propositions, e.g. analytical statements ("inbreeding is when individuals in a population with a shared ancestry mate"), or synthetical statements ("me and my cousin are related and are mating.")

Concrete (8): That requires the ability to understand complex interactions, plans, deals e.g. "me and my cousin mate every sunday, because that seems like a good time with respect to our responsibilities".

Primary (7): This requires an understanding of times, places, actions, e.g. "me and my cousin mate every sunday, because that is when our parents are gone".

Preoperational (6): This implies "when, then, why etc.". e.g. "me and my cousin mate every sunday, because it's fun".

Sentential (5): "me and my cousin mate every sunday".

I think I've made my point