Hey everyone.

I've been doing a bit of reading into Cybernetics recently, and recall a few NLP trainers mention Ross Ashby's "Law of requisite variety" on a couple of occasions.

Having mulled over this theory, i've begun to wonder precisely how this fits in to the real world, and if the theory is in itself a meta-model with a largely generalised direction.

To simplify the theory, we might saying the following: The agent within a system, which has equal or greater variety than the system itself, has the capacity to control that particular given system (and/or destroy control within the system).

My question for you all, is how does this apply in your world, and in what form?

When we consider what it means to have a large amount of appropriate selection, meaning that we have the greatest amount of choice available to us based on the information available within that system, we may begin to see a few different outcomes that may be brought about.

Firstly I agree with Ashby when he says that in order to regulate a system, the regulator must have the greatest amount of appropriate selection. However, there is another aspect to this which is covered by "The Law of Regulatory Models".
This theory is a "stronger" version of the law of requisite variety and adds the notion that the regulator or agent within the system, not only must have the greatest amount of appropriate selection, but also have a homomorphic reprisentation of that given system.

So let me just take a moment to convert some of the above information into NLP terms in the hope of sparking an interesting discussion.

One of the varieties of the law of requisite variety that i've heard in a few NLP trainings is "The agent with the greatest flexibility within a system, will be able to control the system".
If i might convert the "Law of Regulatory Models" to NLP terms, i could say that not only does the agent need the most flexibility, but they also require the ability to chunk down the system in order to find out if the system is actually a model of a model (a meta-model), and to then determine which aspects of the origional model have been preserved.

While this may be true in certain cases I'm wondering whether there are other times when the opposit is infact true.

Lets for a moment throw in the idea, that in certain circumstances, the agent with the greatest level of flexibility, will be the agent with the greatest ability to preserve energy and reduce choice down to a finite number of possiblities. Lets also assume that the finite number of possibilities are handed down from a 3rd party. What we might be assuming now is that the agent with the greatest flexibility is the one which has a limitied set of information, and thus, a lesser level of flexibility. That is to assume that if the origional theory states that if A + F = C (agent + greatest flexibility = control), then another theory here could be A + P = C (agent + limited procedure = control).

This brings me to wonder how we can use this knowlage in an NLP enviroment, and whether the idea i put above is actually a paradox, especially when applied to a real world enviroment.

An example could be a person who comes to you because they dont know what to do with their life. They feel they have too many options available, and are finding it impossible to choose. How do you go about working with this person?

You could for instance work with them to limit their options (and thus their flexibility) in order to help them reduce the information available to a finite number of managable items, which in turn could help them choose more easily.
On the other hand (and an idea i much prefer), you could help the person by giving them more flexibility and more choice, in order for them to be able to make the right decision. I could assume then that a lack of being able to decide from a large range of options, is infact a display of in-flexibility, and thus a important part of the intervention here could be to introduce the notion of having enough flexibility to be able to reduce down the options in order to make the best decision (a paradox?).

I'm really interested in reading/hearing what you guys have to say on this and specifically, how you use the above mentioned theories in your work and lives.

Kindest Regards

Jamie Dixon

Hi Jamie,

You might remember that when I was in the UK recently, I was playing around with the remote control for Paul's TV and quickly became overwhelmed by the sheer number of channels available on SkyTV.

Of course, once I figured out that approximately 9/10ths of them seemed to be playing the exact same infomercial, it quickly became much less overwhelming... Judging by the dinosaur detective film we were watching, closely followed by the talking dinosaur drama, I think that 'underwhelming' might have been a better word...

So I think that there can be a difference between cognitive overwhelm and choice. People can have unlimited choices as long as they have good cognitive strategies for creating categories and groups as well as good decision-making strategies.

Effectively, these things need not take choice away even if they rule out choices in terms of viability given our outcomes and directionality.

For example, one of the choices that I have as I sit here by my window is to fling the window open and hurl myself out and down about 3 meters into the street below.

Now there are some circumstances that would render that a viable alternative to staying inside of my apartment or leaving via another exit or in a different manner. But my current cognitive positioning renders that particular choice possible for me but not probable or even bloody likely.

Except of course if I have to sit through another several hours of dinosaur detective films... Then flinging myself out of that window might begin to look more more attractive!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Hi Jamie

this 'law' always interests me in relation to large organisations and systems thinking. It also has distinct parallels with one on one therapeutic work.

From within the system the inter connections and web of culture will often prevent any one agent from being able to exert much pressure to change. Even the agent at the top can get caught in the 'web' and so the organisation or organism can only evovle slowly if at all.

From outside, the 'web' of culture presents a solid wall to prevent change from outside the system. From outside an external agent may attempt to pull at a loose strand in the hope that the web will begin to unravel. Generally as soon as the outside agent lets go, the web reclaims itself and settles back into its original shape. The image here in my mind is of a cat's cradle of interconnecting strands. Cutting or pulling one doesn't usually get the sysytem to unravel.

Where am I going with this?

I think the only way to change anything from the outside is to chunk up to a level where the whole system can be viewed and the connections can clearly be seen. From the Helicopter position it can become clearer where pressure or change will have its greatest effect. For the changes to happen chunk down and into the system to apply the insight from on high.

How does this work on a personal level?:s

We humans are also systems, no less complex than the organisations we may work for, which after all are a reflection of their parts, us!

So in personal work where choices are not clear or 'stuckness' exists I use 'chunking' up & down and 'sleight of mouth' (reframing) and 'perceptual positions' to loosen up the 'model' and allow the client to increase flexibility and self knowledge. The only solutions that will work are their solutions. From their position on arrival they cannot see these solutions. Moving them around internally and externally allows for insight and understanding to happen at a level that enables them to make appropriate decisions.

For myself, being outside their system, I employ the flexibility statement "If what you are doing isn't working do something else!"

Because the human body is on appearance a closed system (I can't really get inside them physically, well not all of me!) I can only work at the metaphorical level and help them to move around inside their own system and encourage them to move outside themselves too.

As I read through this to check if it makes any sense at all I'm struck by the fact that my comments about a large organisation can be read and applied to an individual too. Sometimes thinking out loud is really useful!!

Nigel

jamiedixon wrote:

Hey everyone.

I've been doing a bit of reading into Cybernetics recently, and recall a few NLP trainers mention Ross Ashby's "Law of requisite variety" on a couple of occasions.

I'm really interested in reading/hearing what you guys have to say on this and specifically, how you use the above mentioned theories in your work and lives.

Kindest Regards

Jamie Dixon

James,

I use NLP as personal therapy and to develop my
sphere of influence in the world. However, at 56, inasmuch as I already own and have everything
I really need to survive in a comfortable fashion,
(not luxury mind you) I have taken to using NLP
in sponsoring or essentially TREATING 12 Step members of Overeaters Anonymous and Co-dependents Anonymous as well as a few people I know that still have other, more serious addictions.

I know in my own life, and in the lives of others
that I counsel, the Law of Requisite Variety is a very important principle in dealing with ANGER, FEAR and RESENTMENT as well as any other debilitating THOUGHT VIRUS'S or Dragons that they may have picked up on the road of life.

If we can become flexible in our mental associations then we can gain great power over
our environment. People whose triggers include
LOUD or RUDE People can gain great flexibility by doing the phobia cure or applying SWISH patterns to those experiences, as well as learning
Sleight of Mouth techniques to open them to
a more flexible approach to dealing with angry
or rude people. Thus to me... and I try to not only model this principle in my own life but to
teach it to others... creating flexibility in a person
is akin to teaching them mental and verbal karate or kung fu. By becoming 'aware' of your environment but by displacing FEAR with an eagerness to STEP BACK before you ACT and a healthy CURIOUSITY we can extend our own and the clients ability to deal more dynamically in 'their worlds.'

Another way to say it is that 'he who controls the
frame, controls the game! And if you gain the flexibility to elegantly and dispassionately deal with INCOMING information that is let us say...
Challenging... without attaching too much danger or fear to it - then you are going to become a more (yes) flexible and capable human being.
AND BE ABLE to apply Sleight of Mouth techniques and put the ball back in the other court in such a consistent manner that you will tend to find yourself pacing and leading more than following the big dog in the pack.

AND... He who CHANGES the FRAME - CONTROLS the game. (and no I am not talking about this thread. :O)

Does that sound plausible?

Ned Goudy
Glendora, CA USA
'This is my first post on this forum.' HUZZAH!

Thank you for the replies guys.

A lot of good information here and some great answers to the questions i posed.

Michael, that dinosour film we watched was just scary. Followed by that dinosour TV show and i think we have the perfect recepie for threshhold. :-)

Anyone else who feels they have something to contribute to this thread, please go ahead.

That is to say, if you want to post...do it...... post i mean.

Kindest Regards

Jamie Dixon
the_final_call@msn.com

In my view it talks about flexibility. So that the more flexibility you are the more control you have over your environment. That is as easy and short as i can put it.

So, if i am working with a client and this person for some reason need me to scream at them to unlock something then if i am stuck and cant do it i cant help. But if I am flexibil, and see that this helps this person I then use the tool needed to do the job, even if it is not "WHO" I am. So in this way i am able to get more results by using variety / flexibility

Odd K.
NLP Trainer
Velkommen til Odd Kristensen - Neuro-Linguistic Programming

oddemann wrote:

In my view it talks about flexibility. So that the more flexibility you are the more control you have over your environment. That is as easy and short as i can put it.

So, if i am working with a client and this person for some reason need me to scream at them to unlock something then if i am stuck and cant do it i cant help. But if I am flexibil, and see that this helps this person I then use the tool needed to do the job, even if it is not "WHO" I am. So in this way i am able to get more results by using variety / flexibility

Odd K.
NLP Trainer
Velkommen til Odd Kristensen - Neuro-Linguistic Programming

K.

your job sounds interesting. I long for the day that I can YELL at people
and they pay me money for it! Ah............................. imagine that!

Happy New Year Everybody,

Ned

hahaha

No i don't YELL at people, but in one of my NLP Prac. training's one person needed the practitioner to YELL so that he would get into the right state. The Practitioner had problems to do that in order to help. So i made it more clear in my example ;-)

Odd K.
NLP Trainer
Velkommen til Odd Kristensen - Neuro-Linguistic Programming