Purdue
UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS
Department of History
Managing the Endowment of
Child Entities in Complex
Systems
THE CASE OF NATIONAL BANKING LEGISLATION, 1781-1846
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Paper delivered at the Sixth Annual Complexity in Business Conference
(October 31, 2014, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center)
2./ Acknowledgments
• Dr. Jun Xie, Professor, Department of Statistics, Purdue
for assistance with programming in R;
• Prof. John Larson, Department of History, Purdue
for supporting this and related projects with a research
appointment at Purdue
• Ben Aschenbrenner, Jefferson County Community College, Louisville,
KY
for assistance with the NetLogo animation of ‘Solver World.’
3./ Twenty-Nine Constitutional Moments
From 1781 through 1846 officials
(under Constitutions I and II)
wrestled with the problem of creating national banking
institutions
which would serve the needs of the national government
(among other constituencies)
This essay will take us
from
Hamilton’s Bank of North America
to
Polk’s Independent Treasury System
4./ Twenty-Nine Events Parsed into
Ten Discrete Event States
TWENTY-NINE EVENTS IN TEN NATIONAL BANKING PROJECTS
(OR DISCRETE EVENT STATES) 1781-1846
2 OCL 668
PETER J. ASCHENBRENNER
Department of History, Purdue University
paschenb@purdue.edu
TABLE 668C:
NATIONAL BANKING IN 10 DISCRETE EVENT STATES
Congress (C),
President (P),
Or Court (O)
Project One – Discrete Event State One
Congress passes bill
C
Project Two – Discrete Event State Two
Senate passes bill
C
House passes bill
C
Pres signs bill
P
Project Three – Discrete Event State Three
House bill defeated by one vote
C
Vice-President casts t/b vote against charter renewal in Senate
C
Project Four – Discrete Event State Four
Senate passes bill
C
House passes bill with amendments
C
Senate agrees to amendments
C
Pres vetoes bill
P
Project Five – Discrete Event State Five
House passes bill
C
Senate passes bill with amendments
C
House agrees to amendments
C
Pres signs bill
P
Project Six – Discrete Event State Six
Maryland ct/appeals invalidates bill
O
USSC upholds bill
O
Project Seven – Discrete Event State Seven
Senate passes recharter bill
C
House passes recharter bill with amendments
C
Senate agrees to amendments
C
Pres vetoes bill
P
Project Eight – Discrete Event State Eight
Senate passes bill
C
House passes bill
C
Pres vetoes bill
P
Project Nine – Discrete Event State Nine
House passes bill
C
Senate passes bill
C
Pres vetoes bill
P
Project Ten – Discrete Event State Ten
House passes bill (ITS)
C
Senate passes bill (ITS)
C
Pres signs bill
P
Event
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
S/F
Date
S
May 26, 1781
S
S
S
Jan. 20, 1791
Feb. 8, 1791
Feb. 25, 1791
F
F
Jan. 24, 1811
Feb. 20, 1811
S
S
S
F
Dec. 9, 1814
Jan. 7, 1815
Jan. 20, 1815
Jan. 30, 1815
S
S
S
S
Mar. 14, 1816
Apr. 3, 1816
Apr. 5, 1816
Apr. 10, 1816
F
S
June, 1818
Mar. 6, 1819
S
S
S
F
June 11, 1832
July 2, 1832
July 3, 1832
July 10, 1832
S
S
F
July 28, 1841
Aug. 6, 1841
Aug. 16, 1841
S
S
F
Aug. 23, 1841
Sept. 3, 1841
Sept. 9, 1841
S
S
S
Apr. 2, 1846
Aug. 1,1846
Aug. 6, 1846
5./ No Time for Bayes
Bayes Theorem can be exploited by Parents in Venue when they are deciding whether to
even attempt to enact legislation.
(As noted, for this purpose, the President is both Parent and Child.)
A Bayesian would credit the path of successes and failures (1781 to 1832) as:
S/SSS/FF/SSSF/SSSSS/FS/SSSSF with the ‘/’ grouping belief states into seven belief stages
for the seven previous intervals 1781/1791/1811/1815/1816/1818-19/1832. Beginning with
Hamilton’s Bank of North America (May, 1781) and Washington’s approval of the first
federal bank (February, 1791), S’s and F’s may be assigned from the Whig (or Hamiltonian
or pro-bank) point of view.
As of March, 1841 the seven previous battles supply these scores: First, 3 of 7 attempts at
such legislation were successful = .4281 which can be taken as the value of the prior
hypothesis for pro-bank forces as the Twenty-Seventh Congress opened. Second, of the 4
stages that ended with an S, 3 started with an S for a score = .75 (the ‘true’ positive). Third,
of the 5 stages that commenced with an S, 2 ended with an F for a score = .40 (the ‘false’
positive). Applying the ‘long’ version of Bayes (in its ‘hope’ or ‘optimistic’ format) yields
.4281*.75/{[.4281* .75] +[.5719*.4]}=.3211/.3211+.2287=.5840.
The legislators’ assessment of their chances must be revised upwards from .42 to .58, a
revision driven (mostly) by the relatively low rate of false positives in the (previous) political
history of banking legislation.
6./ Bayesians in Congress Guess Their
Chances for a Bank Bill Were Better
Increase in Likelihood to 1841
= Caucus Guess at Success in Venue
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1
2
7./ A Naïve Bayesian Look at Optimistic
Assessments by Pro-Bank Congressmen
8./ Getting to Bank.
These were the most prominent of ‘child entities’ created from the
time the Confederation Congress went to work until the outbreak
of the Civil War. This takes us from 1777 to 1861.
There was no more controversial government program that went
into effect, at least until the fugitive slave laws were amended in
1850.
It is fair to say that the origin of political parties, under the first
system (Republicans challenging Federalists), may be traced to
debates over the first bank bill (1791).
9./ Designing my Animated ‘Solver World’
 I found that there were two kinds of ‘turtles.’
 The good and the bad.
 There were no ugly turtles.
 Was this based on any historically identifiable
pattern of events?
If it were, then I could track the interaction
between the two breeds.
10./ “Proved to be a fruitful source of
favoritism and corruption … ”
The reaction among old-school Virginians against the Bank reached its peak
in 1841 when John Tyler, the first accidental president (post-1804), who
vetoed two bank bills in one session of Congress: his first.
Tyler offered semantic pedigree in his first veto message (“looking to the
powers of this Government to collect, safely keep, and disburse the public
revenue”) but then he makes a straight-up QA argument: the last bank,
taken as a Child-Agent didn’t perform well enough: “Its power of local
discount has in fact proved to be a fruitful source of favoritism and
corruption, alike destructive to the public morals and to the general weal.”
I have therefore scored this on line 6 of the roadmap. This is a Child-Agent
argument buttressing his role as law-maker in which he is also a Parent. I
equate “power of local discount” with patternable events.
About which, more, later.
11./ What would the Ratio Be?
I then considered the ratio between the good and bad
turtles.
Since the bad turtles ate the good ones, I couldn’t start
with more bad than good. I also had to consider the rules
of behavior I was going to establish between the two.
In the next two slides I used a sports metaphor to help
me understand how to vision the conduct of turtles as
‘combatants’ or participants in venue, that is, in ordered
discourse.
12./ A Sports Metaphor.
A sports metaphor may explain the points I seek to make. Assume players
engage in patternable behavior on a field of play. Afterwards they are asked
to name features of their behavior. They might respond with the following:
(a) There is a beginning, middle and end to each session of play. ‘We know
where we are as the clock counts off the remaining minutes of play.’
(b) A score attaches to each session of play. ‘We believe
that our behavior is a cause of that score.’ In other words
they don’t believe that the outcome is totally random or
beyond their ability, individually or collectively, to affect
the outcome.
(c) ‘We do not know the ultimate score of the session which engages us, but
we expect that, on failure of our side to win, we will not be wholly
exonerated.’
13./
Portable Predicates.
These three predicates are portable to other fields of human endeavor.
• Expectation of determinacy. This variable that will yield information so
that the players can know (in idiomatic English) ‘where’ they are in the
course of each session. This variable assumes that situations that have
determinate outcomes were meant to turn out that way.
• Rational hope: This plays off quantifiability, the variable that, when set
to 1 or 0, for instance, yields a win or loss, success or failure, at the
conclusion of each session. In other words, it is rational for a delegate to
hope that behavior on her part, given a successful outcome, will be
credited to her efforts.
• Rational fear: This plays off casual inference, but to the opposite effect.
In other words, it is rational for a delegate to fear that behavior on her
part, given an unsuccessful outcome, will be treated as a factor in that
unsuccessful outcome.
Very loosely the latter two predicates inform offensive and defensive moves.
14./
Asymmetries in the P C
Endowment.
The Parent has programmed the variable Success/Failure to range
through the binary values = 1,0.
The Parent expects that it will make a more sophisticated
(=qualitative/statistics/maths-based) assessment of the Child’s
chances at the time of endowment of the mission
• The Parent wants the Child to expect a determinate outcome
• Parent to Child: ‘Hope for Success and Fear Failure’
• Child to Child: ‘Where am I? What possible worlds are revealing
themselves as I perform the mission?’
This an important asymmetry in their roles and is built into the
process of endowing Child-Agents.
15./ The President is an Only Child-Parent
The President and Supreme Court both have unusual (and
previously unnoted) features.
That’s endowed with these predicates.
The President is both a law-maker and law-enforcer.
As a law-maker she interacts with legislators in both their
majoritarians and super-majoritarian flavours.
So she is both a parent and child.
She has to take into account both the QA (before the law is
passed) and the QC (getting reports from his child-agents) after
the law is passed.
16./ The Supreme Court is Strictly QC
The Supreme Court, as noted above, is not a child body. No body is
sending it on a mission, unless you treat the convention as the parent
and the constitution as the MSI.
(You can do that, but then you have to treat everyone of the 107 federal
officials to like effect.)
The Supreme Court is strictly QC and is nobody’s child.
The President (as a child agent) does his own QA and QC as well as
does QA when the laws are being written.
This makes a diffuse and entirely remarkable division of labor when
 Responsibility which looks to the future
and
 Accountability which looks to the past
are taken into account.
17./ “Mission specific instructions”
help us clarify
Relationships requiring QA and QC in differing degrees:
• Congress created and funded the Supreme Court, but the Supreme
Court is a not a child body with respect to Congress.
• Shareholders in the Bank of the United States owe their financial
opportunity to make/risk their investment in the bank shares to
Congress, but Congress is not their parent.
In general, if a Child can fail in a way that the Parent can anticipate,
quantify and code then the relationship is one of parent and child
and in that case the investigator should look for an instance of
Mission Specific Instructions.
18./ Introducing The Problem Solvers
And Their Animated Adventures
There are the good gals and guys:
‘We never met a Mission we couldn’t tackle.’
Meet their worst enemies, the System Corruptors:
‘Your Accomplishment is what we hate.’
Welcome to Solver World!
19./
The Solvers Feed on the Grass
Grass is growing everywhere and is literally underfoot.
Imagine a field of challenges, textually represented by evergrowing public need to solve crisis and exploit opportunity in the
early American republic
The System Corruptors feed on the Problem Solvers. Think of
Perpetrators of Bribery or Public Contract Cheats or Sloths
20./
Move, Eat, Grow, Die: The Rules
The world grows food, which is problems that the Solvers feed on.
Think of this as a field of challenges, 40 squares x 40 squares in
dimension, which emulates a chess/checkers board, 25 times
enlarged.
 The Corruptors gain energy from destroying the Solvers;
 The Solvers gain energy from grazing over the field of
challenges; they solve problems that are always springing up
underfoot;
 The Grass = field of challenges is randomly assigned to split
between green patches and brown patches.
21./ Corruptors and Solvers are
Randomly Placed and Move Accordingly
You can see this from the first slide, that is, at Set Up.
The Solvers and Corruptors randomly move three spaces at a
time.
This emulates a world in which, day by day, as a problem solver,
that is a construction person, you don’t know if you are living in a
space which requires national attention. If your patch doesn’t
require any attention or requires only state or local attention it’s
non-green = brown.
Corruptors and Solvers are randomly placed, irrespective of their
respective numbers. Each ‘breed’ moves in a random direction …
This is also reflected in the ratio between the two breeds. ….
22./ Predictions Based on 48:13 Ratio
23./ Advances in Writing MSIs before 1800
In the 1700s, Parent Agents (= actors and bodies) refined the
technique of writing Mission Specific Instructions and Project Specific
Instructions which the Parent would issue to Child Actors and Bodies.
Examples of Mission Specific Instructions are:
● Battle plans given by a commander to his theater/field officers.
● Orders given to a leader of a party of exploration.
● Instructions by a client to a lawyer.
● Instructions to a commercial agent in a distant city
● A business case for an operating division or subsidiary
Any project specific authorization from a board or committee.
24./ Predictions Based on 48:13 Ratio
25./ A Tree, its Fruit, a Famous Mutiny.
The Royal Navy sent Lt. Wm. Bligh on a voyage to Tahiti in 1787
to transport and transplant breadfruit trees to the west Indies as a
cheap source of food for enslaved workers. The return voyage to
the Caribbean was barely underway when Bligh’s appetite for
flogging his sailors – in strict compliance
with the letter of the Articles of War –
inspired three movies.
26./ Bligh’s Mission: Go Get Breadfruit
His Mission Specific Instructions: sail to Tahiti and get
breadfruit trees and bring back to the West Indies for
transplanting.
These MSIs were supplemented – as they always are
– by professional, business or vocational know-how
in published artifacts. These were
 The Articles of War, a purely naval code of discipline, stem from this source. These were first
written in 1661 in the reign of Charles II. The punishments listed were brutal, but the principle
has remained to present times: "For the good of all, and to prevent unrest and confusion." The
latest version was amended in 1779,
 The King's Rules and Admiralty Instructions which made their first appearance in 1731,
contain general regulations, including discipline, governing the naval service.
The MSIs don’t have to tell a naval officer to follow the Articles of War and the King’s Rules.
Plus Bligh had to employ general knowledge, as in ‘be a gentleman’ when you run a ship in the
King’s Navy. If it sounds unmanageable read Ann Blair’s Too Much to Know.
27./ The Verdict at the Court of Inquiry
•
•
•
•
In the 1935 version, the President of the Court of Inquiry which
acquitted Bligh refused to shake Bligh’s hand after the verdict.
Charles Laughton kept a stiff upper lip.
In the 1962 version, the President of the Court of Inquiry lit into
Trevor Howard – flogged would be a good way of putting the
tongue-lashing.
Trevor Howard bit his lip.
This is an example of Parent QC. In addition, Bligh was condemned (in
the 1962 movie, not by Nordhoff and Hall’s novel, 1932) for not having
done his own QA after his nth flogging.
28./ ‘No code can cover all contingencies.’
“By the force of evidentiary conclusions you, Captain William Bligh, stand
absolved of military misdeed, yet officers of stainless record and seamen,
voluntary all, were moved to mutiny against you. Your methods so far as this
court can discern show what we shall cautiously term an excess of zeal. We
cannot condemn zeal. We cannot rebuke an officer who has administered
discipline according to the Articles of War, but the Articles are fallible as any
articles are bound to be. No code can cover all contingencies.
We cannot put justice aboard our ships in books. Justice
and decency are carried in the heart of the captain or they
be not aboard. It is for this reason that the Admiralty has
always sought to appoint its officers from the ranks of
gentlemen. The Court regrets to note that the appointment
of William Bligh was in that respect a failure.”
We are in October, 1790 and back in London,
18 months after the mutiny in April, 1789.
29./ No Help for the Child Agent at a
Distance in the 1700s.
 Mission Specific Instructions and Project Specific Instructions
Are Goal-Oriented.
 Mission Specific Instructions Omit Many Details of Procedures
and Means = Assets to Fufill the Parent’s Goal/s.
Automating the crafting of better Mission Specific Instructions was
a landmark accomplishment of system dynamics; the system designers
and managers embraced ambitious goals but lacked the ability to
communicate updated information to agents and transport
reinforcements at a distance to agents once endowed.
Better Get it Right the First Time, Sailor.
30./ Parent Agents and Child Agents
Paired in the Nascent Government.
•
•
•
•
Congress and the President.
The President and members of her cabinet
The Secretary of War and his general officers
Any public official and her subordinate official
The Child encounters the future present on behalf of the Parent
The Child is endowed to take this risk of failure on itself
The Parent arms the Child with all and only the information needed
This is supposed to be the MSI and professional/business/vocational know-how;
this is paired know-how that is know-how paired with MSI
But the Child always must resort to general knowledge to supplement these two
resources. ‘Be wise, be just, be a gentleman, don’t deny the mission,’ are implied.
On a rare occasion the Child Agent can force the Parent’s hand. More, later.
31./ Kinetic Assessment
Generally MSIs inform the Child what the Parent expects
And also supply code to the Child so she can perform the method assigned
to her – this is, quintessentially, a QA function requiring good coding.
a bank of the United States shall be established … the capital stock whereof
shall not exceed ten millions of dollars, divided into twenty-five thousand
shares, each share being four hundred dollars; and that
subscriptions, towards constituting the said stock, shall, on the first
Monday of April next, be opened at the city of Philadelphia, under the
superintendence of three persons as shall be appointed for that purpose by
the President of the United States and subscriptions shall continue open,
until the whole of the said stock shall have been subscribed.
Colour Code:
The Switch is Coded Red Variables in the Switch are Blue
The Loop is Coded Green
32./
MSIs = Endowments in Words.
Mission specific instructions assume that there is a body of professional,
entrepreneurial or vocational know-how that the Child will refer to, in
revolving issues that arise in the course of the mission.
A good example of stand-alone know-how in ancient print culture:
Vitruvius On Architecture (= architect of Augustan Rome) is 93,614 words
(En) See also:
Aristotle’s Politics (Bk III offers advice to public officials) is 67,723 (Gr)
The Royal Navy’s Articles of War (1749 ed.) runs 8,000 words
Gen. John Armstrong’s Hints to Young Generals (1812) is 12,982 words
Wm. Blackstone’s Commentaries (1765) are 676,000 words
Jos. Story’s Commentaries (1833) are 575,000 words
In contrast:
The MSI establishing the first Bank of the United States runs 3350 words.
This is the first highly contested MSI issued by the U.S. Congress
33./ 107 Federal Offices
Created/Contemplated By Delegates
INITIAL FEDERAL OFFICES CREATED / CONTEMPLATED
BY THE PHILADELPHIA CONSTITUTION
2 OCL 168
PETER J. ASCHENBRENNER
Department of History, Purdue University
paschenb@purdue.edu
TABLE 168A
TITLES AND OFFICES SURVEYED
Office
Senator
Representative
President
Vice President
Judges of the Supreme Court
Cabinet Ministers: Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Attorney General
Ambassadors: Ministers Plenipotentiary to Den Hague, to Paris, to London
Chargé d'Affaires to Madrid
Total
TABLE 168C
INTERACTION AMONG ACTORS/BODIES FOR MODELLING
Actor/Body
President
Vice President
House M
Total I’s
12
8
10
Most I’s With
7 House M
4 Sen M
10 Sen M
Count
26
65
1
1
6
4
4
107
Fewest I’s With
No I’s With
Supreme Court [Chief Justice]
Null
Hse M, Sen sM
Hse sM, Supreme Court
Hse sM, Sen sM, Supreme Court
null
Hse sM, Sen sM,
Senate M
11
7 Pres, House M
VP
Supreme Court
V P, House M, Sen M,
House sM
5
4 Pres
Sen sM
Supreme Court
Senate sM
5
4 Pres
V P, Supreme Court
House M, Senate M
Supreme Court
3
2 Hse M, Sen M
President
V P, Hse sM, Sen sM
Grand Total 54 Intersections for ‘n take k’ = ‘7 take 2’ and ‘7 take 3’ cumulated
34./
Introducing Kinetic Assessment.
When the parent assigns a task to a child, she can take the opportunity
to assess, that is, to quantify its chances for success or simply to
verbalize her opinion of its likelihood of success. Obviously this is
before the child sets out on its mission.
When the child is about to complete the mission, he can assess the
likelihood of success.
Although we do not think of the 1700s as an interval in which risk
management relied on quantified assessments, in fact there was a lot
more statistical and mathematical sophistication at work than scholars
have supposed.
This is important for you to know because this discovery is what led
me into the research I am going to present which involves automation
of the process of manufacturing MSIs.
 Sophistication in writing code
 Sophistication in automating the process of writing code
35./ Automating Text in Venue:
Americans understood this better than anyone else
How to automate the crafting of chartered text, day by day, hour by hour, in
a constitutional assembly.
This became a very American way of manufacturing a proclaimed charter
from the 1770s forward.
The techniques in this exploitation of parliamentary procedure were put to
the test from 1775 forward:
 Through 1786 fifteen different state charters had been crafted with
81,893 words
 With a total of words appearing once (duplicates discarded) at 3,894
words
 This compares favorably with the word counts in the Articles of
Confederation (Constitution I) which total 3,453 words employing 775
unique words
 Constitution II rings up 4,321 words with 831 unique words
36./ Americans Thought It Was Obvious
 The causal link was obvious to Americans but not to everyone
else:
 Better statutes were / would be written by governments
operating under better charters, that is, proclaimed charters.
 Everyone else (who mattered) thought public need was better
served when governments had unlimited borrowing, taxing
and spending powers.
 Were Americans right that their codelaw was written better?
 Not just written faster or with concentrated accountability.
 But just plain better?
37./ A Roadmap: Our First Look
Who’s
Whose
Judging? Performance?
QA? QC? In
Venue?
Mission
Start?
Parent
Parent
QA
NA
Parent
Child
QA
Parent
Parent
QC
NA
Parent
Child
QC
Sometimes Yes
Child
Child
QA
NA
Yes
Child
Child
QC
NA
Yes
Yes
NA
38./ Oak is Oak is Oak
●
Compare this statute:
Congress funds acquisition of live oak preserves in 1799 [Act of
February 25, 1799; 1 Stat. 622; “proper measures to be taken to
have [timber] preserved for the future use of the navy”]
●
With this one:
Parliament creates forest preserves (1808) [48 George III, c. 72;
“Measures for insuring a more adequate Supply of Timber … for
the Use of the Navy.”]
QTA of 25K words from 1801 show that public need scores more
or less the same on either side of the Atlantic. A proclaimed
charter doesn’t explain the marginal difference.
39./ Better Code Writing Peaked at 1750.
Isn’t this just Java?
o Declared variables
o Ranging values for your variable
o Writing switches
o Loops which run code for as long as you have ordered
o Subroutines nested in switches
Page-turning Ruffhead may convince you or not.
Even the howlers are modern. Here’s a ‘come on man!’ from 1846
40./ “This stupid way
of using provisos
renders it hard to
tell if this is a
general enactment.”
41./ Kinetic Assessment Will Have
its Day in Court
It’s going to happen sooner or later.
The Parent can check her coding for
• Compile error
• Program error
• Syntax error
This is the best she can do for QA.
(And keep her fingers crossed for Runtime error =
The Parent can’t do QC until the voyage is over.)
• QA = Quality Assurance. How much Quality do you want to design
into the mission; more precisely, design into the process of
endowing the mission.
• QC = Quality Control. What went right? Wrong? And why?
42./ What if Someone QC’d an Act of
Congress? Or a Naval Officer’s Mission?
Congress is a parent;
A Lieutenant in the Royal Navy is a child-agent.
So the Lt. gets a court of inquiry for his QC;
Congress gets an editor of a volume of public
statutes;
The effect is the same.
After the mission, you get criticized for how you
handled yourself.
43./ The Roadmap Says We’re on Line 4
Who’s
Whose
Judging? Performance?
QA? QC? In Venue?
Mission
Start?
Parent
Parent
QA
NA
Parent
Child
QA
Parent
Parent
QC
NA
Parent
Child
QC
Sometimes Yes
Child
Child
QA
NA
Yes
Child
Child
QC
NA
Yes
Yes
NA
44./ Randomizing Delegate Behavior
for August 24, September 5,6
In my model of delegate behavior at the federal convention,
I obliged the model to randomize the assignment of values in the
variable StrongWeak and ran the model one thousand times; this
simulated alternative preferences attracting delegate support in each
of the twenty-five venues. In only two runs were p-values returned at
values significantly lower than the p-value .007535 which the model
returned for the preferences reported.
Runs 506 and 712 scored p-values of .0004273 and .0007002
respectively which put the outcomes, conditional on the validity of the
null hypothesis, into the critical region at the .95% level of confidence.
45./ A Switch/Loop to Run 1000 Alternate
Federal Conventions/Art II, Sec. 1, Cl. 1-3
46./ The One Thousandth Iteration of an
Alternative Outcome at Philadelphia
47./ See Hot Pink Handout.
Here is a table from Our Constitutional Logic, my on-line library of
research tables and articles. It shows how the Rutledge and Brearly
committee reports were literally fed into the convention’s 25 venues,
which thereby processed the assumptions in each possible outcome;
automation required robust procedural rules and any two delegates
to propose a preference for the consideration of their fellow
delegates.
The handout – replicated on the next two slides – is the exact
equivalent of the visualization I have given you in NetLogo. One in
real time; one which permits real time assessment and allows
consumption of the entire process by which Article II, Section1 was
crafted.
48./ Twenty –Five Votes from 2 OCL 750
49./ Handout from 2 OCL 750, p. 2
50./ The more complex the system …
… the more we have to go back to the human perspective.
And the human perspective, I think, is very, very robust, which is that
human beings handle complex environments best when they can visualize where
they are in a rest period, in a visualization interval, after automation.
So you automate and then represent for the purpose of people being able to
assess what has just happened in the automation. I call this look/graph/math or
math/graph/look.
We have automation so we can stop automating, or stop responding to the
automation, look at a visualization, and assess the visualization. That’s our sort of
on-the-journey kinetic assessment.
As a child we’ve all been given missions, even if we gave the mission to us
ourselves. We all are on missions and we want to know how can we assess how
we’re doing.



We visualize,
We can automate the process by which
We give ourselves the opportunity to assess what world we’re in.
51./
Automate and Visualize
Whether you are writing MSIs in
 code (as the 1700s or 2000s understand the language)
 semi-regimented language (like public statutes then and now) or
 natural language
You will benefit from visualization of the QA moment (= the kinetic
assessment) while writing the endowed MSI for the Child-Agent.
Whenever you are fulfilling MSIs
from the 1700s to the 2000s
You will benefit from visualization of the QA moment (= the kinetic
assessment) while fulfilling the endowed MSI for the Parent-Agent.