Once you accept that feed forward and feedback are opposing concepts, and that the flow of information can be defined as a signal you have to deal with the question of how they’re related. In what order, forward or back, and in what amounts do these signals move? How does too much, too little or the wrong direction affect taking action?
Refer back to the bumper-sticker model in the Point of Departure post. In it there was no feedback, just feed forward from Observation to Action and repeat. In the extreme this model represents an allopoietic system. These systems are designed for rapidly completing a task, i.e. Henry Ford’s assembly line. At their best they embody principles of efficiency, predictability, calculability and control, what George Ritzer calls McDonaldization. Allopoietic systems are great for getting things done so long as nothing consequential changes.
But in soccer things do change. The quality, type and amount of signals entering the system is always in flux, that’s new information. Our previous experience is being constantly updated by it, which can alter cultural traditions. Our genetic heritage is being worn down and stressed through physical effort. What worked on the information processing assembly line just minutes ago may not work now. What is required is a level of self-awareness, an appreciation that change is about to, or has happened, to avoid having the line of actions shut down.
This self-awareness is what feedback brings to the system. It slows the processing down long enough to consider the smallest anomalies that invariably crop up. It can direct the process back to reconsider things that just don’t add up. When allopoietic systems work well, and they can, we can be lulled into the trap of habit, an outdated comfort zone. This from Destruction and Creation; “When this orderly (and pleasant) state is reached the concept becomes a coherent pattern of ideas and interactions that can be used to describe some aspect of observed reality. As a consequence, there is little or no further appeal to alternative ideas and interactions in an effort to either expand, complete, or modify the concept.” In short, don’t fix what ain’t broke.
While it may not be broken, what works now needs updating because it’s in a state of constant change. As you gain in experience you gain a more refined appreciation of differences. That is expertise. In essence, you reduce the amount and quality of signals needed in order to find the “difference that makes a difference.” Better and bigger ideas come from smaller and smaller input. Again from D&C; “Such a repeated and inward-oriented effort to explain increasingly more subtle aspects of reality suggests the disturbing idea that perhaps, at some point, ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent inconsistencies may emerge to stifle a more general and precise match-up of concept with observed reality… Clearly, any anticipated difference, or differences, suggests we should expect a mismatch between the new observations and the anticipated concept description of these observations.” Doing this rapidly is what Malcolm Gladwell calls Thin-slicing. It “refers to the ability of our unconscious to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experience.”
So feedback is used within the system as a means to control the pace of and influences the direction of feed forward. It pushes back against the headlong Route 1 rush. This makes the system more responsive to change by broadening the field of view so to speak. But like every other antagonistic pair the key is to get the right balance. Too little feedback and you can miss those smaller bits in the environment that mean a great deal. You get a brutal audit. Too much feedback and you’re watching the game without being able to initiate any action at all. You might as well sit in the stands.
No comments:
Post a Comment