Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Summary of Donella Meadows' “Thinking in Systems” (2009)

consciouscapitalism.typepad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Summary of Donella Meadows' “Thinking in Systems” (2009)

#21

Post by theoh »

mk89 wrote: post #4
llamataboot wrote: post #3

System Dynamics remains a woefully underused theoretical system for modeling complex systems and understanding the feedback loops involved and the way the structure of the system influences the outcome. I know of no one that explains it more clearly than Donella Meadows (RIP).

I just finished reading her book, and I am trying to dig into this field to learn more about it, as I consider it pretty interesting. I am still surprised that we don't teach it at school (high school). I want to believe it will happen in the next 20-25 years.

Isn't it 50% New Age pseudoscience though? I mean, how would you respond to that criticism? Particularly at the level of detail that might be taught in schools, I wonder about its falsifiability.

I say this as someone who is prepared to consider the idea of systems thinking as a "second tier" cognitive strategy, as advanced by Wilber etc. I can't imagine that idea getting mainstream traction.

Re: Summary of Donella Meadows' “Thinking in Systems” (2009)

#22

Post by mk89 »

theoh wrote: post #21
mk89 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just finished reading her book, and I am trying to dig into this field to learn more about it, as I consider it pretty interesting. I am still surprised that we don't teach it at school (high school). I want to believe it will happen in the next 20-25 years.

Isn't it 50% New Age pseudoscience though? I mean, how would you respond to that criticism? Particularly at the level of detail that might be taught in schools, I wonder about its falsifiability. I say this as someone who is prepared to consider the idea of systems thinking as a "second tier" cognitive strategy, as advanced by Wilber etc. I can't imagine that idea getting mainstream traction.

The world is changing, as it's becoming evident that everything is more and more interconnected, and while studying History can help you figure some of these connections out, I believe that System Thinking gives a better insight about broader domains. After all, it's engineering applied to a broad field - not just maths, computers, and biology, but it's about finding out the connections that make our society/behaviors the way they are.

It's like psychology. Some people nowadays still don't consider it a science, although it applies similar principles to human/animal behavior, but it's a science, isn't it? I believe it's a good way to discover new patterns to build more sustainable societies, as psychology is a good way to improve human life and relations among humans.

Re: Summary of Donella Meadows' “Thinking in Systems” (2009)

#23

Post by llamataboot »

theoh wrote: post #21
mk89 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just finished reading her book, and I am trying to dig into this field to learn more about it, as I consider it pretty interesting. I am still surprised that we don't teach it at school (high school). I want to believe it will happen in the next 20-25 years.

Isn't it 50% New Age pseudoscience though? I mean, how would you respond to that criticism? Particularly at the level of detail that might be taught in schools, I wonder about its falsifiability. I say this as someone who is prepared to consider the idea of systems thinking as a "second tier" cognitive strategy, as advanced by Wilber etc. I can't imagine that idea getting mainstream traction.

Sure, some "systems thinking" falls under the woo-umbrella. But I'd hardly call the hard systems sciences New Age pseudoscience. System Dynamics, Agent-Based Modeling, etc all have methods and evaluative feedback loops in terms of measuring whether they are predictive or not. If you system dynamics model predicts a 10-year S-curve and you see 20 years of exponential growth, you probably don't have the model correct.

If you stop at the level of "everything is connected" - it can lead to all sorts of woo-ey conclusions - much like a light understanding of quantum physics can (some of which I happen to agree with, but aren't yet falsifiable) - but SD was developed at MIT by engineers...

Re: Summary of Donella Meadows' “Thinking in Systems” (2009)

#24

Post by tunesmith »

theoh wrote: post #21
mk89 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just finished reading her book, and I am trying to dig into this field to learn more about it, as I consider it pretty interesting. I am still surprised that we don't teach it at school (high school). I want to believe it will happen in the next 20-25 years.

Isn't it 50% New Age pseudoscience though? I mean, how would you respond to that criticism? Particularly at the level of detail that might be taught in schools, I wonder about its falsifiability. I say this as someone who is prepared to consider the idea of systems thinking as a "second tier" cognitive strategy, as advanced by Wilber etc. I can't imagine that idea getting mainstream traction.

I'm not sure how to respond to it being 50% new age pseudoscience, because I'm having trouble even putting my finger on that as a criticism. Are there more specific criticisms? A lot of systems thinking comes down to basic rationalism and causality, doing things like checking assumptions and conclusions through critical thinking. Maybe that part of it isn't rooted in empiricism, but that's not a bad thing at all. The rationalism vs empiricism debate goes back centuries.

Re: Summary of Donella Meadows' “Thinking in Systems” (2009)

#25

Post by dredmorbius »

davidw wrote: post #14
dredmorbius wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-promotion / employment solicitation is generally strongly frowned on. I'm finding your comment relevant and have moderated accordingly. Providing a bit more by way of detail on what you're doing and what specifically you're focusing on would be helpful -- the website's a tad vague on that. It's also almost always an error to comment on downvotes themselves on your own comments or posts.

Strongly disagree: people here are OK with capitalism in general, and with promoting things we have worked hard to create, as long as it's appropriate for the conversation.

There's pitching an idea or work that you've done, which seems to work, even where it goes against the HN hivemind (see especially @idlewords / Maciej Czeglowski), where good citizenship's been established.

I thought there was a general guideline against submitting employment posts, though I can't find that in the HN guidelines or FAQ. Either it's mentioned elsewhere, has changed, or my weed's too good.

As for the response -- I'm commenting on what I've observed over years. Some forms of more direct promotion seem to provoke the negatives. Sometimes I agree, sometimes not.

Re: Summary of Donella Meadows' “Thinking in Systems” (2009)

#26

Post by davidw »

dredmorbius wrote: post #25
davidw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strongly disagree: people here are OK with capitalism in general, and with promoting things we have worked hard to create, as long as it's appropriate for the conversation.

There's pitching an idea or work that you've done, which seems to work, even where it goes against the HN hivemind (see especially @idlewords / Maciej Czeglowski), where good citizenship's been established. I thought there was a general guideline against submitting employment posts, though I can't find that in the HN guidelines or FAQ. Either it's mentioned elsewhere, has changed, or my weed's too good. As for the re…

It's pretty much always been ok to promote yourself here when you've worked hard on something, and the promotion is relevant. What no one wants are spammers, but it's super easy to tell the difference in most cases. You look at that guy's posting history, he's not just pushing his site.

Re: Summary of Donella Meadows' “Thinking in Systems” (2009)

#27

Post by dredmorbius »

davidw wrote: post #26
dredmorbius wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's pitching an idea or work that you've done, which seems to work, even where it goes against the HN hivemind (see especially @idlewords / Maciej Czeglowski), where good citizenship's been established. I thought there was a general guideline against submitting employment posts, though I can't find that in the HN guidelines or FAQ. Either it's mentioned elsewhere, has changed, or my weed's too good. As for the re…

It's pretty much always been ok to promote yourself here when you've worked hard on something, and the promotion is relevant. What no one wants are spammers, but it's super easy to tell the difference in most cases. You look at that guy's posting history, he's not just pushing his site.

Again, I though the moderation was unfair and unwarranted.

Just trying to 'splain.

Post reply on HN