Adaptation

Description

Uncertainty.

Issues Addressed

This section lists problem-factors and thinking-traps that this process can address. In general, addressing the issue requires the issue to be filtered through the processes of self-awareness qv and open-mindedness qv.

Overconfidence

Beware overconfidence that we got it right first time.

Relationship with Other Components

Input

expected and actual sys behaviour

Output

decision: hold current course or iterate process

Similarities

Relationship with Other Components.

To Do

Requires performance monitoring. Ideally, set up triggers to assess performance and detect things going bad when implementing the initial action(s). project-management qv?

iterative: initial action selection may be based on initial conditions (eg, dissatisfaction with GW); subsequent behaviour of the system after initial action implementation may prompt iteration because achievement changes (eg, GW solved so worry about something else, or GW getting worse so try something else to fix it).

PhD: three forms of dynamic (reactive) management: anticipate actual event, competition between actions (assess actions), and competition between system models (assess and revise system models: systems-thinking qv). A problem with dynamic methods (alone) is that they defer action until after the shit has hit the fan (or maybe too late to prevent it); they don't attempt to prevent the shit from doing so.

Disadvantage: it's reactive, so slower than proactive. It may be too late! It can also be iterative, rather than finding one solution that works and sticking with it (therefore > $).

Being reactive isn't entirely evil because responses can be based on more current and accurate information.

Some actions have irreversible consequences, which limits the effectiveness of adaption qv to recover from mistakes.

Should identify and monitor signals that adaption is necessary, rather than assuming that it won't be. Waiting too long to adapt is bad.

project-management qv explore-exploit: need to schedule specific tasks to monitor and hence learn about system. Adaptation can be considered to be learning better exploit actions.

Other

We can wait until the problem gets worse and then deal with it, or we can change our actions if our previous attempts to fix the problem didn't work well.
Adaptation may always be required for non-trivial problems because of the impossibility of following all links in thing-scope, time-scope, etc. Plus, chaos (complex-behaviour qv), inaccurate data, approximate equations, assumptions, mistakes, changing circumstances, etc.
Adaptation can be more suitable for slowly-changing (long time-scope) problems because such problems may give us time to assess the situation and react. However, beware of the non-obvious risks of deferring responses to such problems.
Instinct qv and emotion qv (eg, compassion) will adapt at the speed of evolution, which is too slow to deal with consequences of exponential population growth. We need to adapt faster than our comfort zone. Obese people are still drawn to fatty and sugary foods; that made sense in early evolution but not now.
Not only must all options remain in the pool when deciding an initial action, but they must remain in the pool for as long as subsquent adaption may be required. An action that isn't competitive initially may prove to be competitive if previously-chosen actions aren't as effective as expected (perhaps because we learn more about the problem of the actions).
We can more easily adapt from actions that don't have irreversible consequences (risk management: probability qv). Introduced species.
Adaptation works best if we planned to do it before we discovered that we needed to (eg, picking broadly-applicable actions, monitoring system behaviour). Schwartz (1996) recommends determining appropriate warning signals in advance. Important incidents to monitor can be identified from the models of the structure of each scenario (van der Heijden 1996). Looking for, and reacting to, incidents also provides a means of dealing with ‘unknowables’ (scenarios that could not have been previously imagined: uncertainty: see probability qv) (van der Heijden 1996).

Why do some people use alcohol, drugs, binge eating, distraction, etc, to mask negative emotions caused by dissatisfaction?[BW] It indicates a decision to make the emotion go away by chemical means rather than by solving the problem to the extent possible, which shows the influence of emotion on priorities. Maybe the priority, or objective function, is to make the unpleasant emotion go away rather than to solve the problem that causes the emotion. It may also relate to a ring-of-responsibility (problem-assessment qv) issue: feeling bad about something that the individual can't change to the extent desired. Looking at the issue backwards: if the decision is alcohol, then the problem being tackled is that of feeling bad (ie, emotion).

"...instead of trying to make our responses just right for the climate of the future we should seek out resilient and flexible solutions, remedies that will be robust in a wide range of possible climate outcomes."