nuclear
capability.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The capability approach is a theoretical framework that
entails two core normative claims: first,
the claim that the freedom to
achieve well-being is of primary moral importance,
and second, that freedom to achieve
well-being is to be understood in terms of people’s
capabilities, that is, their real opportunities to
do and be what they have reason to value. The approach has
been developed in a variety of more specific normative
theories, such as (partial) theories of social justice or
accounts of development ethics. It has also led to a new
and highly interdisciplinary literature in the social
sciences resulting in new statistics and social
indicators, and to a new policy paradigm which is mainly
used in development studies, the so-called ‘human
development approach’.
Despite some philosophical disagreements about the best
description of the capability approach, it is generally
understood as a conceptual framework for a range of
normative exercises, including most prominent the
following: (1) the assessment of individual
well-being; (2) the evaluation and
assessment of social arrangements; and (3)
the design of policies and proposals about social
change in society.
In all these normative exercises, the capability
approach prioritizes certain of peoples’ beings and doings
and their opportunities to realize those beings and doings
(such as their genuine opportunities to be educated, their
ability to move around or to enjoy supportive social
relationships). This stands in contrast to other accounts
of well-being, which focus exclusively on subjective
categories (such as happiness) or on the material means to
well-being (such as resources like income or wealth).
You can see, that while we have a base of information
about capability, and a philosophical foundation of why it
may be important, we know nothing really about capability
from these definitions we didn’t already assume before.
If we view capability from a ValuDYNAMIC, we might see
it related as follows:
From a power system:
Capability is used to identify people as tools to
accomplish things, so the emphasis is on "what can someone
do and what does it cost for them to do it"
From an avoidant system:
Capability may be defined as the limits to someone’s
ability, how to categorize them into particular levels of
capability in order to give "each to his own." Attempts
would be made to avoid limiting people, but to suggest
that people are governed by their limits.
From an achievement system:
Capability might be deployed as work across a system to
provide win-win opportunities for the use of capability
and what the capability can produce given particular
resources.
From an affiliate system:
Capability might be noted in relationship to individual
and collective development and the human aspects of
capability would be reinforced to provide dignity to
people who might be less capable, and fairness in a system
with equal justice.
From a differentiated system:
Capability may be defined as multifaceted, and work, or
an organization may be designed to promote levels of
fitness which when used together might provide all of
which we have discussed in other systems, but look at the
individual and collective "contribution" by the system and
the resources in it to judge overall capability.
While it’s important to take into consideration all the
various ideas about capability previously noted, the focus
on capability, and more so, multifaceted capability may be
critical when we look at social systems in which people
live, work, and relate.
Regardless of how we view capability, at some level and
perhaps more levels, we need to begin to consider how to
provide ways, or design which are able to understand
capability across a broad spectrum of capability, more so
now that we have interconnected so many resources and
consequences.
In retreating somewhat from the larger picture, which
is basically too complex to conceptualize at its
scale–which is accelerating–we look for those attributes
which are not random, but perhaps scale-free (network
effects) that can allow us Pareto distribution where
getting a few key attributes provides us with large
amounts of affect, and effect.
|
The model is based on the idea of fitness,
an inherent competitive factor that nodes may
have, capable of affecting the network’s
evolution. According to this idea, the nodes’
intrinsic ability to attract links in the network
varies from node to node, the most efficient (or
"fit") being able to gather more edges in the
expense of others. In that sense, not all nodes
are identical to each other, and they claim their
degree increase according to the fitness they
possess every time. The fitness factors of all the
nodes composing the network may form a
distribution ρ(η) characteristic of the system
been studied.
Bianconi and Barabasi proposed a new model
called Bianconi-Barabasi model, a variant to the
Barabasi-Albert model (BA
model), where the probability for a node to
connect to another one is supplied with a term
expressing the fitness of the node involved. The
fitness parameter is time independent and is
multiplicative to the probability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_model_(network_theory)
|
Enter Multifaceted Capability (MFC), as a
hypothesis
Let’s look at criteria for why MFC is important:
- Scalable, as a power law
- Increasing levels of fitness
- Identifies the likelihood of resources available
and resources needed
- Applicable across domains
- Promotes well-being, social function, happiness
and success
- Leads to resilient social policy
The question that I have been asking myself in my work:
Are we capable enough to find ways in which to
develop very simple notions about life, work and
relationships, which explain large numbers of effects?
In the past, and in my search for "Occam’s razor" in
development, we have had MANY competitors for this simple
Pareto effect: Intelligence, "g", genetics, memetics, and
all those theories intertwined, such as education, social
economic status, and even income, wealth and happiness.
Certainly the MFC Hypothesis is yet another one of
those competitors, and while it’s relatively new in terms
of its use, it’s broadly applicable to live, work and
relationships with practice.
What is an added benefit to this particular notion of
"performance and development" is that in the practice of
the work, the practice is valuable. There is a term for
that which escapes me at this moment, but perhaps someone
reading this piece can help me with this "utility"which is
described in the pursuit of something that actually
provides benefits in addition to possible gains that arise
from the results of the pursuit itself.
Thus far, the MFC hypothesis contains the following
elements:
- Perspective
- Subjectivity
- Ego Position
- Languaging
- Task Performance
- Strengths
- Sense-Making
- Sentiment Analysis
This is a long list for sure.
However, judging capability is a key factor in almost
every decision we make each day, and in MFC, the outcome
we want is to be able to design live, work and
relationships in ways that provide the returns to
investment that are critical for people to willingly
provide resources to do so.
What is key behind each of the systems in MFC is that
we are able to correlate our "judgment" to larger, more
in-depth systems of analysis which can provide for more
profound information about MFC, so we are not just making
snap judgments without a deep underlying foundation of
research and development.
As noted before, the mere introduction of these
elements into the search space creates a complimentary
benefit to us, as well as to the assessment process. Just
getting information on these elements begins to create the
necessary tension for maturation to be catalyzed in cases
where it can be.
In the end, MFC must create increased levels of
awareness, purpose, competence, well-being, and results,
in whatever form to be utilized by individuals and the
collective to promote freedom for people to be who they
are, and in doing so, a greater good.
This perspective of the greater good actually emerges
from the wellth and scaffolding of the individual good, so
an equilibration is clearly necessary in identifying how
society maintains each level in a scaffolded network of
effects, and why "inevitable changes" are of the
deconstruction and construction of this individual and
collective good. Mike addresses how to find your
authentic MFC in view of collective scaffolding.
If you would like to know more about MFC, it’s
application and the elements listed in the model, I have a
discovery session planned for four weeks starting on Feb
6, through 27, 2013 at 5 pm est. Just click here to
register before Feb 6, 2013. Early Bird registration is
$197 and is good until February 5th at which time it goes
to $297.
