Companion Guide

Getting Started with the Complexity Literacy Toolkit

This past weekend I published my nascent "Building Complexity Literacy” piece and this is the scaffolding for it. It's part of the work of infrastructure building as I continue to reverse engineer why I'm this way 😂

I’m not a complexity scientist, but I am a nimble systems navigator. Nobody taught me this work, but everyone has taught me something. I’ve existed in challenging ecosystems, bucked trends, gone my own way—and all roads still lead back to connection with others.

What’s been tricky is recognizing how often I’ve been ensnared by well-meaning but wildly dysfunctional organizations. Here’s the thing: I don’t think it’s anyone’s fault. Being a good human is hard work when current systems are designed to benefit only a small—and ever-shrinking—part of society.

There’s more of us than there are of them. Let’s help each other out.

What This Toolkit Does (And Doesn't Do)

The Complexity Literacy Toolkit isn't about calling out specific people or organizations. Instead, it gives you pattern recognition skills to evaluate any complexity-based work you encounter—including this document and its sources.

Think of it as learning to spot the difference between:

• Someone using complexity science to describe patterns they've observed in real systems

• Someone using complexity terminology to manufacture credibility for frameworks they invented

Something entirely fabricated (which can be super fun, with consent!)

The first builds tools that increase your agency. The second creates dependency on their expertise. The third can catch you off guard

Why This Matters Right Now

Complexity thinking is having a moment. That's genuinely good—we need better tools for navigating complex social systems, understanding emergence, and working with rather than against natural patterns.

But whenever powerful frameworks gain traction, operators show up to exploit them. We're seeing:

• Invented typologies disguised as discovered patterns

• Proprietary language for concepts that already have standard terms

• Assessment tools that diagnose problems only their services can solve

• Credential theater replacing demonstrated competence

• Guru dynamics wrapped in complexity terminology

The toolkit helps you distinguish authentic complexity work from this predatory theater before you invest time, money, or trust.

How To Use This Toolkit

1. For Quick Assessment

Jump straight to the checklist in the 'Practice Exercise' section. Run any complexity-based framework through those ten questions. If you're getting concerning answers on multiple items, dig deeper or proceed with caution.

2. For Building Understanding

Read the five core concepts section. Understanding what these terms actually mean (from legitimate complexity science) helps you spot when someone's misusing them. You don't need a PhD—just familiarity with the real definitions.

3. For Recognizing Red Flags

Study the 'Common Manipulation Patterns' section. These tactics show up across contexts—from coaching programs to organizational consulting to online courses. Once you know the patterns, they're hard to unsee.

4. For Evaluation Practice

Use the questions in each concept section to evaluate specific claims. Practice with frameworks you already know—including ones you currently trust. The goal is developing discernment, not cynicism.

5. For Collective Learning

Share this toolkit in your networks and discuss what you're noticing. Complexity literacy works best as a distributed skill—multiple perspectives catching what any individual might miss. Compare notes. Reality-check together.

Common Questions

"Isn't this just cynicism disguised as critique?"

No—it's discernment. Cynicism assumes everyone's operating in bad faith. Discernment recognizes that some people do authentic work while others exploit frameworks for extraction. The toolkit helps you tell the difference. We also all exist in different capacities, let’s meet people where they are and not foist unrealistic expectations one way or another, grace and space babes.

Good work holds up under examination. If questioning makes something collapse, it wasn't solid to begin with.

"What if I use these criteria and dismiss legitimate work?"

Possible, but less likely than the reverse (accepting problematic work because you didn't know what to look for). Use the checklist as investigation prompts, not absolute verdicts. If you're uncertain, ask questions. Authentic practitioners welcome inquiry.

Also: apply these same criteria to this toolkit and its sources. Pattern recognition cuts all directions.

"Can't people just be mistaken without being predatory?"

Absolutely. Not everyone exhibiting these patterns is deliberately exploitative—some genuinely believe their invented frameworks are discoveries, or don't recognize their dependency-creating dynamics. The toolkit helps you evaluate impact regardless of intent.

That said: impact matters more than intent when you're deciding where to invest your resources.

"What if someone hits some authentic markers and some red flags?"

Common, actually. People synthesize ideas in messy ways. Look at the overall pattern:

• Are they moving toward or away from transparency over time?

• Do they respond to critique by improving or by defending?

• Is the dependency increasing or decreasing as people engage with their work?

• Are they building commons or extracting value?

Direction of travel matters as much as current state.

"How do I know if MY work passes these tests?"

Run it through the checklist honestly. Better yet, ask others to evaluate your work using these criteria. If you're doing authentic complexity work, you should want this kind of examination.

Finding gaps isn't failure—it's feedback for improvement. Authentic work gets better through reality-checking, not worse.

What Makes This Toolkit Different

Most resources either:

• Teach you to trust credentials and authority (making you vulnerable to credential theater)

• Encourage blanket skepticism (throwing out good with bad)

• Focus on specific individuals rather than recognizable patterns

This toolkit instead builds structural literacy—you learn to evaluate the mechanics of how frameworks function:

• Do they observe or invent?

• Do they distribute or concentrate power?

• Do they increase or decrease your agency?

• Do they acknowledge or ignore context?

• Do they welcome or deflect critique?

These patterns are recognizable regardless of who's using them or what domain they're working in.

About the Sources Behind This Toolkit

Full transparency (because that's an authenticity marker): This toolkit emerged from work developing Strange Attractor Academy and the Cascading Conversations framework—approaches to complexity navigation grounded in 30+ years of applied research running restaurant systems, collaborative co-parenting arrangements, and community organizing.

The actual complexity science definitions come from the Santa Fe Institute's Complexity Explorer glossary—the academic standard for these terms. The application to evaluating frameworks comes from lived experience watching both authentic and predatory work operate in real communities.

This document was developed collaboratively with Claude (Anthropic's AI). That collaboration is explicit because transparency about tools used is one of the authenticity markers. The synthesis is human, the formatting and articulation got AI assistance, the complexity science is cited from legitimate sources.

Apply the toolkit's criteria to this work too. Does it increase your ability to evaluate complexity work independently? Does it distribute intelligence rather than concentrating it? Is the methodology transparent? Can you verify the definitions against original sources?

If the answers concern you, trust that. The toolkit is meant to be stress-tested, not accepted on faith.

Where To Go From Here

1. Practice with the checklist

Evaluate frameworks you're already using. Run popular complexity-based programs through the questions. Build your pattern recognition muscles on known examples before applying to new situations.

2. Learn the actual science

Explore the Santa Fe Institute's Complexity Explorer resources (complexityexplorer.org). Free courses on complex systems, emergence, networks, and more. Understanding the real science makes misuse obvious.

3. Build collective literacy

Share this toolkit in your networks. Discuss what you're noticing. Reality-check frameworks together. One person can be gaslit; communities build resistance through distributed pattern recognition. Find other emotional and intellectual trampolines.

4. Support authentic work

When you find complexity practitioners doing legitimate work—transparent methodology, increasing agency, distributed power, accessible knowledge—amplify them. The best antidote to predatory theater is thriving alternatives.

5. Stay curious and critical

This isn't the final word on complexity literacy. It's a starting framework that should evolve as we learn more. Contribute improvements. Point out gaps. Help this tool get better through collective refinement.

A Final Note on Self-Consciousness

Yes, this toolkit references work I've developed (Strange Attractor Academy, Cascading Conversations). That feels awkward—like maybe it's self-promotional rather than genuinely useful… if the toolkit is good, it should work even when applied to its sources. The criteria don't care who created what—they evaluate structural patterns.

So yes, I reference my own work. And I invite you to apply these exact standards to it. If it doesn't hold up, that's important information. If it does, then the self-reference serves as worked example rather than just promotional claim.

The goal isn't building my credibility—it's building your discernment. Use these tools to evaluate everything, including their source.

The complexity science is real. The tools are powerful. The exploitation is predictable. The antidote is literacy.

Learn to spot the difference. Build collective immunity. Support authentic work.

©️bee mayhew November 2025