I’ve observed that some folks (in EA or other disciplines) have skepticism for the idea of a polycrisis, while others view it as obviously correct, and others (like myself) are see it as plausible and worth exploring further. I suspect part of the differences in reaction have something to do with how we make sense of nebulosity (like Jackson’s comment suggests).
Part of what may make polycrisis framing so challenging to grapple with is that it is so big, so multifaceted, that individual attempts to ‘hold the whole concept in our heads’ is often not helpful. I’m quite interested in how we may collectively become more capable of working with this kind of incredibly complex challenge. And how might we coordinate on challenges that we can each individually only grasp a part of?
Karthik, I’d love to hear if you have more to share about your thinking on this thread overall. Cheers!
Martijn, your comment points me to something I’ve noticed around communicating ‘systems thinking’ and a complexity mindset with some EAs. Gideon points to a more fundamental ontological difference between those who tend to focus on that which is predictable (measurable and quantifieable) and those who pay attention to shifting patterns that seem contextual and more nebulous.
I read your comment as an invitation to translate across different ontologies—to explain the nebulous concretely, to explain the unpredictable in predictable terms. I personally haven’t found success in my attempts, and I’d love to hear more about how you communicate around complexity.
I’ve most often found success in pointing out parts of one’s experience that feel unknown and then getting mutually curious about the successful strategies one might use to navigate. To invite one into a place where their existing tools aren’t working anymore and there is real curiosity to try a different approach. When I’ve tried speaking about complexity in the abstract or as applied to something that people see as ‘potentially predictable’, the deeper sense of complexity tends to be missed—often getting translated into “that’s a cool tool, but aren’t you just describing a more accurate way of modeling?”
The comment below about embracing a pluralistic approach seems to provide a path forward that doesn’t rely on translation though… lots of interesting ideas in this comment section already.