A more meaningful title for this page is Worms of Being - but that is harder to say and it feels wrong. We prefer the mythic title. The initial title Wyrms of Change was just wrong - dragons are about change worms are about autopoetic statis.
Draft
Dragons and Wyrms of Change is a two-stage way of using Causal Maps in a community consultation. 1. Find the Dragons, where we use a Problem Tree (a hierarchical causal map) to make the “peaks” of the problem landscape emerge. 1. **Stage two** uses a Causal Loop Diagram (a causal map that embraces feedback) to find the self-reinforcing loops that keep problems alive, and the balancing loops that could stabilise recovery.
In this framing, Dragons are the peaks you can see from a distance, and Wyrms are the loops in the substrate that keep reshaping the terrain.
# What a Dragon is in causal map terms In causal map language, a Dragon is a high-level node with high “inflow”: many causal pathways feed into it. It is usually phrased as a condition in the world (low trust, chronic instability, exclusion, poor quality, persistent harm) rather than a lack of a solution.
A Dragon is not automatically the “root cause”. It is usually the felt, systemic outcome of many roots.
# Wyrms as reinforcing and balancing loops A Reinforcing Wyrm is a vicious or virtuous circle. Once it starts, it tends to amplify itself. A Balancing Wyrm is a stabiliser. It pushes back against change, sometimes protecting the system, sometimes blocking progress. Both matter. Reinforcing loops explain why problems persist or escalate. Balancing loops explain why reforms stall, why systems snap back, or why “fixes that fail” happen.
# How to move from Dragon to Wyrm 1. Pick one Dragon at a time. 1. Trace two or three strong causal chains feeding into it (from the Problem Tree). 1. Now ask the CLD question: “Does this cause feed back into any of its own causes.” 1. Where the answer is yes, you have found a candidate loop. 1. Add polarity and name the loop. 1. Then test the loop with the group’s lived experience: “Does this story match how it actually behaves over time.”
# Example patterns that often appear
Low trust → less cooperation → poorer outcomes → more blame → lower trust.
High workload → shortcuts → errors → rework → higher workload.
Visible success → confidence → participation → capacity → more visible success.
Policy enforcement → compliance → improved outcomes → political support → stronger enforcement.
These are not universal truths. They are archetypes you can use as prompts to help the group articulate its own loops.
# Why we do it in two stages The Problem Tree stage creates shared clarity and a manageable list of peak problems. The CLD stage explains persistence and leverage: it shows why a dragon keeps coming back, and where an intervention might break a vicious loop or strengthen a virtuous one. Together they turn “we all agree it is bad” into “we can see the mechanisms that keep making it bad.”
# From Dragons and Wyrms to a Quest Tree Once the coalition has: - Named the Dragons (peak problems). - Identified the key Wyrms (feedback loops that sustain them). - Chosen a strategy (which dragons to tackle first, and which loops to break or reinforce). The next move is to flip the chosen negative conditions into positive conditions and build a Quest Tree (Objective Tree renamed). That produces a means-to-ends map that can then be translated into a plan, indicators, and learning questions.
# Failure modes 1. Too many dragons. If you cannot remember them without looking, you have not prioritised. 1. Dragons that are too abstract. If nobody can point to evidence, you have created fog. 1. Wyrms that are actually events. If the loop does not repeat over time, it is not a feedback story. 1. Skipping balancing loops. If you only map vicious circles, you will be surprised by resistance and snap-back.
# See