High school students are taught in geometry class that the xyz coordinate system provides the first three dimensions. If you know these three dimensions, you know a specific point or location in space. If you know only two of the three dimensions, then you can be anywhere on a line that represents the third, which means you do not know exactly where you are. Even when we know these basic dimensions, we may still ask about the frame of reference. Where is the 000 point or origin of the coordinate system? Is it moving and is the coordinate system rotating? How fast?
Knowing only the three location dimensions that describe a point
in space leaves us with several questions about the context of those coordinates,
but the easiest question is simply when we are considering the point.
To keep things as simple as possible, time is often considered to be the
fourth dimension, and this is usually where our education on dimensions
stops. We can solve a lot of physics problems just knowing, comparing,
and manipulating these four dimensions in a range of complex circumstances.
Thus, we enter the emotional, confusing world of social issues and social skills. To work in this social world, we must supplement our physics skills with social skills such as empathy and wisdom. We must know the context of our problem before we commence its analysis. We must also know how its context will change in different locations and at different times. Context can change independently of place and time, depending on the subjective perceptions of the observers. This is, there are multiple contexts for any issue at a given place and time, and between places and times.
If time is the fourth dimension, then context is the fifth dimension.
When
we take facts out of their original context (their original points of application,
their intended relationships with their own and with other systems, and
their relevant timeframe), the validity of using those facts in problem
solving declines. Sometimes the only valid conclusion regarding facts taken
out-of-context and applied elsewhere is that the facts are out-of-context.
He showed me his secret nuclear weapons radiation level information, which I compared with the comparable nuclear propulsion plant information. Although the nuclear weapons community considered their personnel radiation exposure levels to be low, relative to the nuclear propulsion community exposures they were high! The Navy subsequently started monitoring its nuclear weapons people for radiation exposure. The Army and Air Force soon did the same.
Prior to this radiation level comparison there was no shortage of nuclear weapon radiation level information. The nuclear weapons people knew the facts, but they did not have a good frame of reference within which to compare those facts. Once they had that frame of reference, they quickly recognized that they had a problem. The solution to that problem was also readily identified. The recognition of problems and wise solutions to those problems are extremely dependent on context.
Knowledge addresses the first four dimensions, up to and including
time. Wisdom requires an appreciation of the fifth dimension of context,
an appreciation that enables but does not necessarily result in good solutions.
Knowledge is not wisdom, but wisdom does not exist without knowledge.
I was part of a team that assessed all of the alleged problems, focusing on criticality safety but producing a comprehensive report on all of the alleged problems. The team consisted of a dozen independent experts from all over the country. While we found that there was a basis for some of the alleged problems, the problems were far less significant than suspected by the FBI and the civilian community. Our report was a level four report, although I had not yet codified the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements.
One of the most significant problems at the DOE Rocky Flats Plant turned out to be communications. The DOE managers at the plant had simply established an information wall around the plant, ensuring that no one in the Denver community could establish a good frame of reference regarding plant safety issues. Most of the information denied to the public was highly classified, and security clearances were required to have access to the plant. Without information there is no context even for level one opinions, and there can be no application of common sense.
Once the information was presented in our unclassified report, the safety allegations largely evaporated. Plant managers also became more open in dealing with the public. Reporters were given tours of the plant, making their previously imagined dire assumptions of an out-of-control industrial facility seem ludicrous. Seeing for themselves the neat and tidy buildings loaded with safety systems, they were impressed even for people who had few facts and no experience. They had been given a frame of reference and could see the plant in context, relative to the rest of their world experience. Context had been communicated to them.
Communications minimize misunderstandings for those people who are on-the-level. Once everyone has a similar perspective on a problem, a consensus regarding the solution becomes possible. More importantly, the solution to the problem becomes more acceptable within a good communications framework even if a consensus can not be reached.
But good communications will not always be enough. The people determining what the final solution should be may have to have more technical knowledge and experience than those who have to accept and live with that solution. There is nothing that says that the required technical knowledge and experience exists in any available decision maker. Good communications facilitate the application of wisdom to a problem, but the presence of sufficient wisdom is not guaranteed. The necessary communications for this facilitation are emphasized in the four Technidigm-2000 elements referred to as levels.
Once we have good communications, we need to pick the best decision
makers. Thus, even under Technidigm-2000 it is usually more important to
have a consensus regarding who will make the final decision. In short,
decision makers must have sufficient wisdom and some measure of credibility
if they are to avoid controversy. Wisdom and credibility require knowledge,
experience, and integrity. Technidigm-2000 provides not only the necessary
communications, it also provides credibility guidance by promoting integrity
and clarifying the context for developing a solution system.
The application of generalized solutions to specific situations is often based on what engineers and mathematicians refer to as "simplifying assumptions." The difference between this technical use of assumptions and the social or governmental use of assumptions is simply a matter of application and context. Engineering solutions are problem-specific, and simplifying assumptions simply reflect the fact that extreme mathematical accuracy usually exceeds any practical need. Approximate calculations are all that are needed for most projects because accurate numbers are generally either not possible or not useful.
The future aspects of in-context situations can not be accurately anticipated in engineering, in social programs, or in government. Thus, experienced and well-intentioned people must have the authority and the opportunity to intervene as needed to ensure that the principles and objectives envisioned in a project are being met or that they are being modified to meet the changing situation. While it is only fair that laws should apply equally to everyone, it is only the principles and objectives that must be enforced relative to a given context. The prescribed methods for doing this must not violate any individual's personal freedoms and rights, but such methods should be as flexible as possible to achieve the intended results. When social guilt is present such that principles and objectives are ignored, we have a "one-size-fits-all" solution that is self-defeating, over-simplified, wasteful, and quite possibly shameful.
For example, a county government in Virginia imposed a "hiring freeze" because of budget limitations. They later discovered they had wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars because the hiring freeze prevented the replacement of expensive consultants with new county employees. The county employees who were aware of the ongoing waste did not believe that they had the power or the responsibility to seek an exception to the hiring freeze even in instances where costs could be reduced. They were aware of the hiring freeze objectives, but the underlying principles were not stated clearly and, thus, the implementation methods did not include in-context flexibility.
Principles and goals are usually context independent, but understanding
context is important to achieving goals without violating the underlying
principles. Using Technidigm-2000, the underlying principles and goals
of the hiring freeze would have been stated and imposed as guidance. The
hiring freeze would only be one example of how one might proceed in meeting
budget goals in a manner consistent with the underlying principles. Said
another way, any action contrary to the principles and goals would violate
the guidance, so hiring new employees to replace expensive consultants
would be expected, verbiage about a hiring freeze notwithstanding.
It is the organization leader's fault when it does not promote the
application of common sense within the context of specific problems. If
the boss does not understand that it is possible to be on-the-level and
out-of-context at the same time, it does not matter very much how much
integrity that boss may have. Again, Technidigm-2000's emphasis on principles
and goals corrects this problem, assuming integrity is present. Fortunately
most people in leadership positions have lots of integrity, so they only
have to develop an understanding of context to become effective leaders.
The user of out-of-context facts almost always has the advantage
in a debate simply due to placing the opponent on the defensive. Under
Technidigm-2000, the deliberate use of out-of-context strategies to gain
advantage is automatically off-the-level. A single instance of this is
enough to destroy permanently the user's reputation for integrity. Once
again, integrity is to be highly valued, frequently rewarded, and vigorously
protected.
Forecasting that a reputable opponent will be off-the-level in the future violates our notions of common sense. With a grass-roots implementation of Technidigm-2000, a politician who made such an off-the-level forecast could lose an election due to this single instance of deliberate distortion. From the opposite perspective, a politician with well established principles and integrity would rise to the top and would only have to compete with other candidates from political parties that practice the highest standards of personal and organizational conduct.
Unfortunately, in our modern, rapid pace society, out-of-context facts are often highly competitive with the actual facts of a situation, especially when out-of-context facts are offered as proof that a negative outcome can be expected. Misleading, out-of-context facts are readily generated and can be very damaging, especially when it is not easy or timely to consider the facts in their full or original context. Thus, the fifth dimension of context can be corrupted by the misuse of the first four dimensions -- place and time. This is why we hear a lot of "revelations" announced in public the day before election day, especially in close political races.
Also, even when the truth is evident, not everyone is able to recognize
its contextual details immediately. It requires an extraordinary education
and experience to be able to appreciate such subtleties at all, much less
in all situations and under time constraints. Under Technidigm-2000, the
details are not necessary, and arguments are reduced to deciding whether
someone is applying facts out-of-context. Being aware of five-dimensions
in specific instances and being able to articulate them accurately require
focused thought, but it is a lot easier than fielding the specific details
being used to confuse the situation.
The current approach to the court system that we see on television shows a culture where the two opposing sides are represented by attorneys who are striving to win regardless of the truth. This is particularly troublesome in the case of public prosecutors. Just like politics, it is sometimes very effective to dredge up what someone did many years ago to establish a pattern regarding one's behavior. While this practice demonstrates the importance of having a good reputation, it is easy to exaggerate that which can not be easily defended against. The best defense may be to show that the situation has changed, including the element of integrity.
Interestingly, it is the judge who is largely tasked with keeping things in context. The judge must respond to challenges from both sides regarding relevance. Often, the jury might have decided differently in a case if they had known about the prior behavior or even the previous physical appearance of a defendant. Sometimes a normally scruffy defendant is cleaned up to look respectable in front of a judge or jury.
It is largely due to the need to fail on the side of innocence that
makes it acceptable and even necessary for previous behaviors to be excluded
from the courtroom. However, for most situations outside the courtroom,
our notions of behavior context are best understood in terms of personal
qualities such as integrity. At least, we tend to give people of high integrity
the "benefit of the doubt" in cases where behavioral inconsistencies might
come up.
The only way to determine, encourage, and reward integrity is to look at a person's history over their lifetime. For example, everything else being equal, I would trust someone who was an eagle scout over someone who was not. We should also reward people for hard work, for observing laws consistently, and for helping others develop into better people. Technidigm-2000 provides a framework within which people can exercise their integrity and develop into better people in our technological society.
In the same vein, someone with little experience may not even realize that the facts at hand are out-or-context. Thus, with inexperience we get overconfidence. This explains the phenomenon of rebellion characteristic of youth. It is only after we collect a lot of seemingly unrelated experience that we are best able to judge the context of a new situation.
Regardless of our experience level, whether an application of information
is good or bad depends mostly on our attitude, intentions, and sense of
fairness -- it depends on our integrity. Under Technidigm-2000,
integrity is used to help us determine who is consistently on-the-level
and, thus, who is likely to do what is right regardless of personal consequences.
People of integrity do not misuse out-of-context information for their
own gain.
Consequently, the plant was shutdown for "upgrades" and was never returned to production, in spite of the tremendous efforts made to try to improve safety. Millions of dollars were wasted in the inspection process, and improvements in overall nuclear safety were negligible. The most significant safety upgrades were in the non-nuclear industrial safety area, which were being ignored while we cycled through a series of out of context issues on the nuclear safety side. Thus, out-of-context good intentions can create a net negative. Most of the people involved with that misguided effort never realized their folly.
In spite of the importance of such nuclear safety design issues, design is only one part of what is referred to as the "nuclear safety culture." To ensure that nuclear plants are safe enough to prevent another worldwide contamination incident like that at Chernobyl in 1986, every nuclear power plant in the world should have an effective nuclear safety culture. This means that every nuclear plant manager and operator must first understand that culture. To test their understanding, they can take my essay examination on nuclear safety culture.
Knowing how to pass such a test is actually trivial relative to the overall nuclear safety problem. Knowing what to do and actually doing it are two different things. It is very difficult to leave the current social culture each day and report for work at a nuclear plant that has a completely different culture, even if one knows the differences in great detail.
Under Technidigm-2000, the focus on principles and objectives is fundamental to creating and implementing improvements in almost every industry. It applies to developing and maintaining a good nuclear plant safety culture over a long period of time. The key nuclear plant safety goal might be to operate 10,000 nuclear power plants for a million years without another Chernobyl-like accident. This is a good nuclear safety context, one that is on-the-level as a useful goal, but one that requires much more effort than many of us realize.
Return to Technidigm.org Home Page