Among the great lies that people tell is that they can tame complexity through technical means, quickly, when the truth is much slower than that.
Hot takes, tips and tricks, and simplistic models of AI, data, governance, and decision-making aren’t going to solve complexity. Complexity won’t be solved. Some complex problems might get solved, but most won’t, although some problems might evolve and transform into something else.
You might be able to manage some of the effects of complexity (we do this all the time), and there will be times it will overwhelm your capacities (which also happens).
That’s the problem of complexity; it’s not something that fits models of management or control. It’s a phenomenon that’s all around us shaping our environments and circumstances, yet is profoundly unwilling to succumb to technological intervention.
But this makes for lousy storytelling. We’d rather tell tales where we scale the mountain, slay the dragon, win the race, or fall in love.
Complexity defies good storytelling because it’s rarely got a definable start or end point and the things that happen in the middle are a little all over the place. Yet, adding a little complexity to a story is what makes for great tales. It’s what can make a story more dramatic.
Speed, Scale and Other False Tales About Complexity
Understanding complexity has a speed and scale problem. While there’s little doubt there’s a lot going on in complex systems (which is what makes them difficult to understand), all those activities aren’t the same or in some standard form. The rate of change, intensity, volume, and time-scale of activities within a complex system will all be variable to different degrees. Within living systems, these are often slow. (Or at least, slow-seeming to us).
Yet the problem isn’t with complexity itself, but humans’ modern tendency toward viewing things in moments, weeks, or quarters. There’s also a tendency to view things that are processed and communicated quickly as more authoritative. This is called fluency in cognition research, and research on fluency shows that when statements that are easier to read, see, or mentally process, they are more likely to be judged as true, even when their actual truth might be suspect. Research with experiments find that repeated exposure increases processing fluency, which in turn raises perceived truth of statements due the ease in which they are made (the “illusory truth” effect).
To provide another example, consider AI and it’s rapid appearance of problem solving. Simply because an AI model can detect more of what’s going on in a complex system, it doesn’t necessarily provide us with the means to know what to do from what information we have. Instead, it provides improved confidence in the information we have to make assumptions. It’s much like the coffee meme above.
What I’m seeing are tales often repeated about complexity. With the right tools, we’ll solve it. We’ll figure out complexity easier with [x] technology. Higher processing speeds will be the key. Just add more coffee.
I’m always up for coffee, but because I am, I know that the best coffee is enjoyed slowly. The same is true with any tool, technology, or technique that gets pitched to address complexity.
Don’t be fooled.
Instead, complexity continues to write the same story it’s always wrote: more of it makes things more, not less complex.
Wanting to Believe
It’s easy to imagine that we’ll tame complexity. It’s tempting to believe we’ll do things better, stronger, faster (our own Steven Austin) with the technology.
Just as I have with this post, we’ll envision images, get tools like Gemini to create solutions, and we’ll solve the problem it presents. Sure, an AI-generated, human-guided Six Million Dollar Man running away from complexity below an adapted poster from the X-Files with a classic coffee meme sandwiched in between is fun, but what does it tell us about storytelling in practice?
The real tale of complexity is tricky and takes time. It’s why tools like Sensemaker are so difficult to learn and use. It’s as much about the problem space, the need to work together, and the sensemaking challenges posed by the data as much as any issue of software. It requires sensemaking, which is a social process.
What these images from pop culture do is help us tell the story about our own cultures of practice. We are a part of them. Maybe it’s one that values “moving fast and breaking things” or maybe it’s more slow-paced and deliberative. If you find yourself striving for more, reaching for more, and generating more as the motivator and guide for action, it’s worth considering if you’re likely to fall into the trap of looking for quick fixes to complexity.
We might want to believe, but that doesn’t mean the story is true.