A Simulation Model to explore Community Dynamics based on Inner Peace, Perceived Kindness and Actions of Kindness
Jeffery Jonathan Joshua (ישוע) Davis, Colin C. Day, Matthew Reso & Florian Schübeler*
The Embassy of Peace, Whitianga, New Zealand
Abstract - In previous papers we have studied the complexities of individual inner peace, small community dynamics, and social harmony. Here we are interested in modelling the dynamics of a small community where what we consider a relevant soft variable, perceived kindness, is modulated predominantly, both qualitatively and quantitatively by inner peace. We aim at providing new tools and mental models to complement and integrate other related models to describe complex community dynamics. As in a previous study, we have developed another simulation model also derived from a larger system dynamics model, describing some of the complexities associated in understanding the dynamics of an economy based on actions of kindness (Schübeler et al., 2018) (Davis & Schübeler, 2019). Again, as in previous studies, soft variables become very relevant in modulating community dynamics, where variables like perceived kindness and inner peace may show to be more relevant than even resource availability, for example. Here we explore different scenarios in a horizon of two (2) years. We conclude that high levels of perceived kindness can be achieved given sufficient “infusions” of inner peace and once perceived kindness has reached a certain threshold, it requires less actions of kindness (low maintenance) to sustain those high levels, since presumably people who have mastered inner peace require less external feedback, support and acknowledgment than others whose physical, mental and emotional stress levels are high, to the detriment of individual inner peace. The reader is strongly advised to read our previous work and related literature to properly understand the greater picture, in which this model fits, as well as the methodological framework and quantitative methods used.
Introduction
In combination with our last system dynamics simulation model (Davis & Schübeler, 2019), one of the motivations for creating the simulation model presented here is to gain more insight into the relevant variables and factors that foster an environment to cultivate inner peace and altruistic behaviour, as part of the foundation of social harmony. Having a deeper understanding would allow our team to provide other communities with similar aims, values and vision, with the experience and expertise, which we have gained over the last nineteen (19) years in our small (pilot) community, comprised of all the people participating with The Embassy of Peace in Whitianga, New Zealand. In this way we provide the systems knowledge, which could potentially guide people towards achieving sustainable peaceful communities. The simulation model we develop here builds on previous studies (Schübeler et al., 2018) (Zhuang et al., 2016) (Davis & Schübeler, 2019) (Davis & Schübeler, 2018).
In order to understand the larger context concerning the models that we present here, we encourage the reader to look at previous work describing a system dynamics model of an economy based on actions of kindness (AoK) (Schübeler et al., 2018), as well as a simulation model developed from a subsystem of the larger system dynamics model (that we call “left side”) (Schübeler et al., 2018) (Davis & Schübeler, 2019). The main conclusion we derived from this previous simulation is that quality of space is the most significant variable towards the sustainable and healthy growth of a community. Here we look at the “right side” of the larger systems model (AoK model) in order to explore the effect of inner peace on perceived kindness. Two (2) variables that link the left and right side of the AoK model are Quality of Community Space (QCS) and Perceived Kindness (PK). In future work we will develop another simulation model that combines and integrates the two (2) sides of the AoK model, in order to study new scenarios that take into consideration such a synthesis and its effects. This we conjecture will allow a more complete understanding of the factors affecting the community with better insights into the path of growth to follow.
What we emphatically concluded in our previous paper (Davis & Schübeler, 2019), which was an exploration of the dynamics of the community based on number of people, resources and quality of space, is that quality of space is paramount to sustain a healthy community, such as an Embassy of Peace, monastery or any other community that puts peace and harmony at the core of its raison d'être. Here we explore the relationship between inner peace and actions of kindness and their influence on perceived kindness. The level of perceived kindness in turn directly influences the quality of space (see AoK model) (Schübeler et al., 2018) and will be one (1) of the main links integrating the left and right sides into a more complete future simulation model as mentioned before.
As in a previous paper, we use Insight Maker as our simulation software and we have programmed a simulation model of the “right side” of the AoK model, which is the focus of this paper.
This model includes one (1) level, Perceived Kindness, with an associated carrying capacity. Other variables such as rates and parameters are included to represent the relationship between inner peace, actions of kindness and perceived kindness. A general mathematical model of this subsystem (“right” side) is described as follows:
The name of the variables will be described in detail throughout the paper and in the glossary section. The differential equations are solved numerically by the Runge-Kutta 4th Order method. Using this model we simulate seven (7) different scenarios with initial conditions for Perceived Kindness set at 50 in a scale from 0 to 100. The first five (5) scenarios explore the impact of inner peace increasing from an initial very low amount in Scenario 1, to a very high amount in Scenario 5. In Scenario 6 we start with a low initial amount of inner peace, as with Scenario 2, and see what is the effect of two (2) significant “infusions” (injections) of inner peace into the system. Finally, in Scenario 7 we also start with a low initial amount of inner peace, as with Scenario 2, and look at the effect of a gradual increase in the amount of inner peace.
Here we observe that Inner Peace is the salient factor comparable to what Peter Senge refers to as “Presence” (Senge et al., 2005) within a community or group of people. This factor impacts the level of Perceived Kindness, which in turn impacts Quality of Space, and as we concluded in our previous work (Davis & Schübeler, 2019), quality of space is paramount to the health of a community. Therefore it is essential for the individuals in the community to learn how to maintain inner peace and thereby build resilience for whatever challenges, external or internal they encounter.
As with our preceding and complementary paper (Davis & Schübeler, 2019), here we again observe that the results associated with different simulated scenarios matches our anecdotal evidence based on years of experience and therefore we think that the model is reflecting our experience of reality relatively well. If we take inner peace to be related to compassion and vice versa then our anecdotal evidence is further supported by recent studies on Heart Rate Variability (HRV) and psychophysiological coherence related to inner peace, meditation and compassion (Davis et al., 2018a) (Luo et al., 2018) (Kirby et al., 2017).
Description of the Model
In our previous work (Schübeler et al., 2018) we introduced a system dynamics model for an economy based on actions of kindness and then translated one (1) part of this model (“left side”) into a simulation model that we presented in (Davis & Schübeler, 2019). The second part of this model, the “right side”, we introduce here to the reader in Figure 1, as a system dynamics diagram. Here we can appreciate how Actions of Kindness and Perceived Kindness are part of a reinforcing feedback loop (marked 
), while Perceived Kindness and Kindness Dissipation form a counterbalancing feedback loop (marked 
) (Roberts et al., 1996). This means that Actions of Kindness and Perceived Kindness are behaving in the same direction (growth or decay), while Perceived Kindness and Kindness Dissipation are behaving in opposite directions (growth/decay or decay/growth). Both variables Actions of Kindness and Kindness Dissipation are also influenced by the variable Inner Peace. While the variable Inner Peace belongs to no feedback loop, it acts as a modulator that accelerates or decelerates the growth of Actions of Kindness and Kindness Dissipation. It is important to note that on one hand Inner Peace stimulates a snowball effect on the side of Actions of Kindness via a positive causal relation (
), while on the other hand it modulates the length of the dissipation delay (and hence Kindness Dissipation) via a negative causal relationship (
) that in turn affects the dynamics of the counterbalancing loop.
In order to be able to simulate the dynamics described above, we translated the system dynamics model from Figure 1 into a simulation model. Now that the reader has familiarized him or herself with the system dynamics diagram, we are ready to introduce the simulation model in Figure 2. In order to derive such a simulation model we used the free, open source, web-browser based,
Our simulation model has the level Perceived Kindness at its centre and the previously introduced variable Actions of Kindness is the inflow to this level. This flow or rate we called Actions of Kindness and it contributes positively to the amount of kindness by which the level Perceived Kindness changes per month. Similarly, the variable Perceived Kindness Dissipation is an outflow rate affecting Perceived Kindness. This flow we called Perceived Kindness Dissipation and it captures the amount by which the level Perceived Kindness diminishes per month. There are two (2) main variables that influence the behaviour of AoK, namely Inner Peace and Carrying Capacity Threshold for AoK. Inner Peace is described by a function that creates an oscillating dynamic for Inner Peace and can take any positive value. However, values above an average of ~ 3.5 can all be regarded as a kind of “maximum” level of inner peace. This may be described and clarified via the following analogy, where we imagine that this maximum level for Inner Peace represents the kind of inner peace that a person such as Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus) or Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha) have experienced and expressed in their lifetime where the differences between the two (2) can be considered irrelevant and may be regarded as part of the same maximum range or level. The second variable, Carrying Capacity Threshold for AoK (maximum of 100), modulates AoK by limiting the values for AoK via a logistic function, in a similar manner that carrying capacity limits a level. The parameter CF 1 simply functions as a unit converter and is assigned the value 1 in this particular simulation.
The outflow Perceived Kindness Dissipation is influenced by two (2) delay factors that are each described by their own transfer function (converter). One (1) delay factor is dependent on the level of Perceived Kindness and is called Community Salient Delay Factor (CSDF), and the second delay factor depends on Inner Peace and is called Inner Peace Delay Factor (
Finally, we introduce the variable Inner Peace Projection, which is described as a time series, where months is the input value and Inner Peace is the output value. This converter allows us to inject additional inner peace per month into the system as can be seen in Scenario 6.
Data Modelling and Analysis
Modelling unstructured situations that involve complex systems is a challenge that can only be overcome by inquiring about the complexities we aspire to understand and this is accomplished via a creative process of questions and answers, specially when there is no structured data available in order to apply statistical methods for parameters and functions estimation. Purely measurable parameters of material and energy resources are not enough to describe the wellbeing and the overall happiness of a community for example. Happiness and social harmony, together with love for a fellow human being, are considered soft and immeasurable variables. However, as soft as they may be, they can be quantified via storytelling and the subjective assignment of values in a certain scale, as it has been done in decision theory and analysis when assigning subjective probability and utility values (Raiffa, 1968) (Watson & Buede, 1987). The kind of questions and answers via storytelling recollections have been described by Senge et al. (Senge et al., 1994) and the understanding of feedback loops by graphical data analysis has been described in relatively good detail by Roberts et al. (Roberts et al., 1996).
We followed these kinds of methodologies and procedures in order to rationalize, quantify and structure the data we provided to the model according to general systems laws (Weinberg, 1975). In many cases we use heuristic devices (Encyclopedia.com, 2016) and subjective approximations as well as the recollection of patterns of growth and oscillations that we have experienced as a community in the last decade. This allowed us to relate quantitative and qualitative-soft variables, all important to explain community dynamics. If we ought to understand sustainability and creative change for the future, we will need new models that include qualitative variables as already pointed out in (Meadows et al., 1992) to mature our values-based decision-making process (Davis et al., 2018).
As time goes by it will be of great value to monitor the system and measure and quantify the key variables and parameters to learn more and refine our understanding of the community dynamics here described. For now we will use the simulation model as a learning tool that will also allow for the design of future data collection.
Simulation Scenarios and Results
In all the following scenarios we simulate the system over a period of twenty-four (24) months and the initial level of Perceived Kindness (PK) is set at fifty (50). In Scenarios 1 to 6, Inner Peace (IP) oscillates within a set range between a minimum and a maximum. In the first five (5) scenarios (Scenarios 1 to 5), we progressively and gradually increase the range of IP from very low (Scenario 1) to very high (Scenario 5), in order to explore the effect that the amount of Inner Peace has on the level of Perceived Kindness in the community. In Scenario 6 we look at the effect of injections of inner peace on the system and in Scenario 7 we look at the impact of a gradual increase in Inner Peace on Perceived Kindness.
Scenario 1 starts with very low values of IP oscillating in the range of 0.425 to 0.775. As can be seen in Figure 4, this is a collapse scenario whereby IP is so low that it causes an almost immediate decline in Actions of Kindness (AoK), which in turn causes the level PK to drop rapidly almost to zero (0) in a very short time of three (3) months and reaches zero (0) by month seven (7). This behaviour is caused by small values of IP in the community, which are too low to sustain PK. The variable Perceived Kindness Dissipation (PKD) increases rapidly in the first two (2) months since the initial conditions of PK begin to dissipate immediately without sufficient replenishment. Then, when PK reaches very low levels, PKD drops towards zero (0), which means that perceived kindness has been exhausted in the system with no more left to be dissipated.
Again in Scenario 2, shown in Figure 5, the level of IP is low, oscillating in a range of approximately 0.52 and 1.08, which is slightly higher than in Scenario 1. Here we see that PK decays slowly over the 24 months of the simulation, since the values of IP are still too low to prevent this decline. In this scenario, AoK oscillates within a range, which shows a mild overall tendency to decline during this period. This already suggests how important it is for individual members of the community to improve on their inner peace.
As shown in Figure 6, Scenario 3 displays a community
This matches our experience of reality, whereby it is always valuable to have actions of kindness in the community, however, if inner peace is sustained sufficiently high, then less actions of kindness are required to maintain the kindness perceived within the community. For example, when one is in a very peaceful state of being, she or he is more propense to perceiving kindness in the community, and even a small act of kindness, such as serendipitously receiving a glass of juice from a friend, may be perceived as a very salient event for her or him, in other words, only little actions of kindness are required to maintain perceived kindness at high values in her or him. In this case, we could say that he or she is in such an elevated state of inner peace, that he or she holds a lasting memory of perceived kindness, without the need to receive more kindness from the community.
Scenario 4, shown in Figure 7, depicts a community growing rapidly in PK with IP oscillating in a range of approximately 0.6 to 1.3. Comparing with Scenario 3, we can see that the higher level of IP causes PK to correspondingly grow to a higher level. Note that the oscillations in PK have a significantly smaller amplitude than in all previous scenarios. In this a smaller AoK inflow is required to fuel the system since IP and PK are much higher than in previous scenarios. We conjecture that this scenario represents a community whose members put in a significant amount of time and energy in order to cultivate inner peace, which in turn contributes to the growth of PK, and therefore a lesser flow of AoK is needed to sustain PK at a high level.
Scenario 5, shown in Figure 8, depicts a community initially growing rapidly in PK where IP oscillates in a range of approximately 2 to 5.6. PK increases steeply towards maximum carrying capacity (set at 100 in this simulation model) in a very short time and then plateaus with minimal oscillations very close to maximum. Correspondingly as PK rapidly increases, AoK drops very rapidly from a very high initial level (~140) to a very low level (stabilising in a range between about 10 and 14) with oscillations of very small amplitude.
In order to explain this dynamic, we can say that when a community exists in a high state of inner peace, PK in the system is very high and there is very little need for AoK. In this scenario, IP oscillates at such a high level that PK remains close to maximum and therefore PKD remains very low throughout this simulation. This scenario is a good example of a community comprised of people existing in a high state of consciousness, comparable to Siddhārtha (Buddha) or Yeshua (Jesus).
Figure 9, showing Scenario 6, simulates a community with the same initial amount of IP, PK, PKD
In Scenario 6 we observe that the injections of IP are very valuable since they boost PK above the threshold, which maintains the community in a metastable regime, thereby making a powerful contribution to the level of perceived kindness in the community as time goes by.
Figure 10 shows Scenario 7 where IP increases slowly with oscillations over the twenty-four (24) month duration of the simulation, and PK also increases with oscillations. PK, AoK and PKD all oscillate with larger amplitudes in the first twelve (12) months, and subsequently level out towards the end of this period.
We conjecture that the steady increase of IP could be due to the cultivation of inner peace via daily meditation, prayer, the embodiment of spiritual values and a personal connection with The Creator (Zhuang et al., 2016), to name a few. The initial condition of IP is similar in this scenario as compared with Scenario 3. However, it is important to note that PK increases much slower in Scenario 3, with oscillations of a higher amplitude, while in this scenario, PK increases faster with oscillations of smaller amplitude in the second twelve (12) months.
In this scenario, we depict the effect of, for example, the strong commitment of the members of the community to the cultivation of inner peace. Over time the resultant effect (of higher values of IP) will be a strong growth in PK. In other words, as IP grows, it is plausible that the members of the community will perceive their environment to be more loving, kind and nurturing.
Next we present a set of comparisons between the different scenarios. From these comparisons, the reader can clearly grasp the effect that improvements in inner peace have on the perception of kindness in the community. These improvements in inner peace are modelled by: (a) an increase in the average quantity, (b) opportune injections of inner peace and (c) a steady growth of inner peace.
Figure 11 provides a comparison of PK in different simulated scenarios, labelled as Simulation Results 1-7 for Scenarios 1-7 respectively. In general, Figure 11 shows the different possible dynamics for PK in different scenarios, which include collapse, decay, growth and stabilisation around maximum.
In this comparative analysis we can observe more clearly the difference between PK dynamics in each scenario, where Scenario 1 depicts the collapse situation, Scenario 2 shows a steady decay with oscillations, and Scenarios 3 and 7 show very similar dynamics where an oscillatory growth pattern reaches a steady state due to carrying capacity. Note that Scenario 4 will also reach a similar steady state as in Scenarios 3 and 7, however without initially dropping, showing a better outcome overall. Scenario 6 shows a dynamic that is very similar to those in 2, 3 and 7 up to the sixth month, however after that, Scenario 6 displays a steep growth pattern in PK that reaches a steady state similar to those in Scenarios 3, 4 and 7. Scenario 5 shows the best outcome of all scenarios with a marked initial growth pattern that reaches carrying capacity in a relatively short period of time.
In summary, Scenario 5 is preferred over all scenarios followed by Scenario 4 and then 6. Scenarios 3 and 7 are considered medium good and better than Scenarios 1 and 2 where the collapse scenario is the worst possible situation that represents the disintegration of the community.
The insights derived from this learning process equipped the community at The Embassy of Peace in Whitianga with opportune information in order to create a desired outcome and avoid the paths of decay and collapse.
Figure 12 compares the IP simulation results for all seven (7) scenarios. We can see that all scenarios apart from the scenario associated with simulation 5 oscillate at a similar low level of IP ranging from around 0.4 to 1.6. The simulation results for Scenario 5 stand out from the others and show the highest level of IP oscillating with values around 2 to 5.6, which is the main cause that makes Scenario 5 the preferred one in terms of PK. As for the other scenarios, it is important to note that a relatively small increase in IP, on average or by scheduled interventions, can cause a significant improvement in the dynamics of PK, even when the oscillatory pattern is preserved.
Figure 13 compares the simulation results for AoK for all seven (7) scenarios. Apart from the collapse in Scenario 1, we observe damping oscillations in all other scenarios, significantly larger in Scenarios 2, 3 and 6. Scenario 5 shows a strong initial drop in AoK followed by oscillations with the lowest amplitudes, something closely associated with a high level of both IP and PK in this scenario’s system dynamics, presumably associated with a high state of consciousness among the community members. Scenario 6 shows a peak amplitude around the eighth month, which relates to the injection of IP around month seven (7). In general, it is verified that at higher levels of PK, the community needs just enough actions of kindness to remain stable.
Figure 14 shows a comparison between the simulation results for PKD for all seven (7) scenarios. Similar to the
Conclusion and Future Perspective
We conclude from the simulations based on the sub-system and model which we present here, that when the amount of inner peace within a given community is too low, regardless of the quantity of actions of kindness performed, the level of perceived kindness falls and when perceived kindness falls below a critical level, the community is at risk of collapse. Conversely, once the quality of inner peace increases sufficiently, it requires less actions of kindness to maintain or increase the level of perceived kindness and once it reaches a certain threshold, the community maintains stability.
In order to surpass this threshold (see Scenario 3 above), a collective atmosphere of perceived kindness is required. This derives from a synergy which is achieved through the cultivation of inner peace by each individual that, aided by actions of kindness, ideally should reach a sustainable equilibrium or metastability, in order for the community to withstand the inevitable physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual obstacles and challenges, which for most people are inherent in the kind of world within which we find ourselves in the 21st century. To achieve such a benevolent atmosphere in the community, we have thought to represent it in our simulation model as the level of Perceived Kindness. In our observation, in order to achieve a salient atmosphere of kindness in community living, requires determination and perseverance, and above all it requires a solid spiritual foundation. We need to reiterate the conclusions of our previous work (Zhuang et al., 2016) which states that spiritual foundation is built upon practices like meditation, prayer and the reading of spiritual wisdom texts, in combination with physical exercise, time in nature, arts and playful time, something that together with performing actions of kindness in the right doses, will contribute to individual inner peace and will also reinforce such spiritual foundations and the overall atmosphere of perceived kindness.
Communities reaching a high point of equilibrium in terms of perceived kindness maintain themselves in such equilibrium by an inflow of actions of kindness to compensate for perceived kindness dissipation. In order to sustain such equilibrium it requires the cultivation of inner peace, which is usually achieved as a form of metastability, rather than a fixed point. We propose that this metastability, i.e. the maintenance of high levels of perceived kindness achieved through the cultivation of inner peace, is the desirable goal to achieve a peaceful community. The question for the community when it starts to grow, then becomes, how to maintain this metastability? We are convinced that this question can be better addressed and answered by the application of systems modelling as presented in this paper and still requires much more investigation. We intend to expand on this exploration in future studies.
We have worked in close collaboration with The Embassy of Peace community members in Whitianga, New Zealand, who have provided their years of experience, views and mental models and the foundation to enable us to develop the simulation models presented here and in previous papers. The results associated with the different scenarios analysed are in consonance with anecdotal evidence, indigenous and endogenous to The Embassy of Peace, as well as accounts from other similar communities in different parts of the world. However, further studies to monitor and quantify relevant variables in order to develop databases are needed and will support in testing future hypotheses about the validity of these models. So far we rely on a combination of subjective and objective experience aided by simulation to complement a community dynamics learning process.
We have now explored, in this and previous work (Davis & Schübeler, 2019), the two (2) main subsystems of a larger system dynamics model of an economy based on actions of kindness and altruistic work (Schübeler et al., 2018). In future work we intend to model and simulate the synthesis of these two (2) subsystems and hence the larger system.
It is important to note that even though these simulation models provide us with useful tools to gain insights for analysing complex community dynamics, it is vital to translate our intellectual understanding into heartfelt opportune action and to continuously assess and reassess the quality of actions and the community atmosphere, which sometimes comes with a reassessment of individual and community shared values and vision. In our experience one of the greatest challenges will be to develop enough of these communities in the world which can learn from each other and align together to propagate peace and goodwill on a large scale, such as nations, regions and ideally and eventually on a planetary scale.
We need to remember that for most human beings the existence of and a relationship with The Creator is the central pillar of their spiritual foundation for the achievement of inner peace, where actions of kindness are directly related to doing the Will of God. This is very eloquently expressed in the statement: “Religion is not a technique for attaining a static and blissful peace of mind; it is an impulse for organizing the soul for dynamic service” (The Urantia Book, 2015). We conjecture for those who embrace the existence of The Creator, that purpose and above all, the desire and determination to do the Will of God, will allow them to keep the community atmosphere and spirit alive, vital and growing towards ever greater levels of peace, joy and loving-kindness, until a high quality plateau is reached (Maslow, 1943; Maslow, 1971; Maslow, 1969; Maslow, 1968; Maslow, 1970). However, this level of service can also be achieved by people without a personal relationship with The Creator, who have embraced a philosophy of peace grounded in spiritual values and active compassion to all sentient beings. With or without embracing The Creator, such determination and commitment by individuals to be peace and do good, provide the spiritual stamina, that together with skills, enables them and their communities to contribute towards the upliftment of human consciousness. We propose that it is this kind of altruistic collective purpose, which is the “engine” driving such communities to sustainable growth.
Glossary
Actions of Kindness (AoK): An Action of Kindness is an event that entails an interaction between a giver and a recipient or receiver, be it an individual or a group. Such an action stands as an opportunity to do good and have a positive impact primarily for the recipient, however, also with a spiritual or emotional benefit for the giver. The giver enjoys the act of giving or doing good. The reader must note that there are indirect benefits from such actions of kindness, which also have positive consequences in other people’s lives and communities at large.
In folk wisdom we could describe it as ‘what goes around comes around.’ At a deeper level the laws of cause and effect may create social feedback loops of happiness and inner peace based on interactions between people that are intended to manifest kindness towards the other.
Actions of kindness differ from actions based only on good intentions in a way that consider more deeply the real needs of the receiver above only the good intention and the different biases, for example cultural or religious biases, of the giver (Ackoff, 1978). Actions of kindness have no strings attached to the recipient and can be regarded as genuine acts of unconditional love. In a sense, for the knower of God, actions of kindness are inspired by The Creator and fuelled by spiritual values.
Perceived Kindness (PK): The perception of the quality of being kind by an observer via his or her cognitive and perceptual capacity according to his or her own learned behaviours, cultural and embodied spiritual values. It can be understood as the perception that an observer experiences regarding another human being and his or her disposition to act kindly towards others.
Perceived Kindness Dissipation (PKD): A rate or flow that represents the speed at which Perceived Kindness tends to dissipate in brain dynamics of individuals in relationship to others and the environment. It is affected by the level of kindness in the system and a time dissipation delay that determines its own exponential decay. Left alone to its own intrinsic dynamics, without the increase of kindness in the system, it will decrease (dissipate) to zero (0).
Carrying Capacity Threshold for AoK (CCTA): The maximum value that the level Perceived Kindness can take, which is associated with the maximum amount of actions of kindness that the system or community can generate per unit of time.
Soft Variables: A type of variable in a system dynamics model that includes qualitative factors, such as intangibles like love and peace or social variables like morale for example, that are closely related to spiritual and behavioural values. Because of their qualitative nature, soft variables can be difficult or impossible to measure or estimate, however, they can be quantified by providing an appropriate scale. These variables are in all certainty, just as necessary a part of the system as hard-quantitative variables are in order to model, explain or predict the overall dynamics.
Acknowledgments
The team at The Embassy of Peace in Whitianga, New Zealand would like to acknowledge The Creator for being a continuous source of inspiration, inner peace and harmony to our currently small societal community. We would also like to acknowledge the dedication and support of Enya, Sarah, Keryn, Carey, Shiloh and Kali for the completion of this work. We also want to express our gratitude to the team of Insight Maker, whom we have never had the privilege to know in person and who, with their hard work, have provided a free and open source online simulation platform of high quality, and in so doing, enabling others to do altruistic work.
References
- Ackoff, R.L., 1978. The Art of Problem Solving: Accompanied by Ackoff's Fables. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
- Davis, J.J.J., Hobi, S.F. & Schübeler, F., 2018. A Reflection on Future Strategies for Farming, the Use of Technology and Environmental Restoration. [Online] Available at: LINK [Accessed 24 February 2019].
- Davis, J.J.J. & Schübeler, F., 2018. A One Hundred Year Horizon of Planetary Peace Propagation: An Embassy of Peace Growth Model. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, 9(2), pp.124-45. LINK
- Davis, J.J.J. & Schübeler, F., 2018a. A Seminal Model to Describe the Dynamics of the Peace Propagation Process within a Community. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, 9(2), pp.146-63. LINK
- Davis, J.J.J., Schübeler, F. & Kozma, R., 2019. Psychophysiological Coherence in Community Dynamics – A Comparative Analysis between Meditation and Other Activities. OBM Integrative and Complementary Medicine, 4(1), pp. 1-24. LINK
- Davis, J.J.J. & Schübeler, F., 2019. A Simulation Model to explore Community Dynamics based on Resources and Quality of Space. Journal of Modeling and Simulation. 1(28), pp. 1-16.
LINK - Encyclopedia.com, 2016. Heuristic Device. [Online] Available at: LINK [Accessed 24 February 2019]. Originally published by Oxford University Press 1998.
- Insight Maker, 2017. [Online] Available at: LINK[Accessed 24 February 2019].
- Kirby, J.N., Doty, J.R., Petrocchi, N. & Gilbert, P., 2017. The Current and Future Role of Heart Rate Variability for Assessing and Training Compassion. Frontiers in Public Health, 5(40). LINK
- Luo, X., Qiao, L. & Che, X., 2018. Self-compassion Modulates Heart Rate Variability and Negative Affect to Experimentally Induced Stress. Mindfulness, 9(5), pp.1522–28. LINK
- Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), pp.370-96. LINK
- Maslow, A.H., 1968. Toward a psychology of being. 2nd ed. New York, USA: Van Nostrand.
- Maslow, A.H., 1969. The farther reaches of human nature. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1(1), pp.1-9.
- Maslow, A.H., 1970. Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences. New York, USA: Viking Press.
- Maslow, A.H., 1971. The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York, USA: Viking Press.
- Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L. & Randers, J., 1992. Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future. Post Mills, VT, USA: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
- Raiffa, H., 1968. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices under Uncertainty. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley.
- Roberts, N. et al., 1996. Introduction to Computer Simulation: A System Dynamics Modeling Approach. Portland, OR, USA: Productivity Press.
- Schübeler, F., Zhuang, E. & Davis, J.J.J., 2018. A System Dynamics Approach to Modelling an Economy based on Actions of Kindness. [Online] Available at: LINK [Accessed 24 February 2019].
- Senge, P.M. et al., 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York, USA: Currency, Doubleday.
- Senge, P., Scharmer, C.O., Jaworski, J. & Flowers, B.S., 2005. Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations and Society. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
- The Urantia Book. 2015. Broomfield, CO, USA: Uversa Press. Paper 100:3.1 (1096.6) Concepts of Supreme Value p.938.
- Watson, S.R. & Buede, D.M., 1987. Decision synthesis: The principles and practice of decision analysis. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
- Weinberg, G.M., 1975. An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Zhuang, E., Reso, M. & Davis, J.J.J., 2016. A System Dynamics Approach to Modelling Individual Peace towards the Creation of a Social Peace Propagation Model. Scientific GOD Journal, 7(5), pp.289-315. LINK