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

A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

thesystemsthinker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#11

Post by vlovich123 »

gumby wrote: post #2

> Effective research is not disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or multidisciplinary; it is transdisciplinary... Disciplines are taken by science to represent different parts of the reality we experience. In effect, science assumes that reality is structured and organized in the same way universities are. Not just the sciences. Rigid, path-dependent taxonomies are a plague in all disciplines and in daily life.

I don’t know if it’s a plague. I see value in both approaches and going to one extreme or the other seems unhealthy. You want generalists to be working with specialists. Just generalists or just specialists won’t perform as well as a healthy mix and going to one extreme let’s the other outcompete you in certain areas.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#13

Post by beaconstudios »

vlovich123 wrote: post #11
gumby wrote: post #2

> Effective research is not disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or multidisciplinary; it is transdisciplinary... Disciplines are taken by science to represent different parts of the reality we experience. In effect, science assumes that reality is structured and organized in the same way universities are. Not just the sciences. Rigid, path-dependent taxonomies are a plague in all disciplines and in daily life.

I don’t know if it’s a plague. I see value in both approaches and going to one extreme or the other seems unhealthy. You want generalists to be working with specialists. Just generalists or just specialists won’t perform as well as a healthy mix and going to one extreme let’s the other outcompete you in certain areas.

the plague is that right now we _are_ going to one extreme - the extreme of separation and specialisation. Systems thinkers want the two integrated, they don't want to throw out analysis and replace it with synthesis, they want the combination (synthesis!) of the two.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#14

Post by Layke1123 »

ryanschneider wrote: post #4

> The principal function of most corporations is not to maximize shareholder value, but to maximize the standard of living and quality of work life of those who manage the corporation. Providing the shareholders with a return on their investments is a requirement, not an objective. I love this quote. At first it sounds very critical, but thinking about it more it reveals something deeper: companies are a collection o…

Unless you find a way to fuck your workers over by using government welfare to supplement their living costs, this enabling you to save money for yourself and provide ROI. Win win lose!

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#15

Post by heymijo »

ryanschneider wrote: post #4

> The principal function of most corporations is not to maximize shareholder value, but to maximize the standard of living and quality of work life of those who manage the corporation. Providing the shareholders with a return on their investments is a requirement, not an objective. I love this quote. At first it sounds very critical, but thinking about it more it reveals something deeper: companies are a collection o…

> companies are a collection of people

Peter Drucker was on top of this. It's so obvious yet so often forgotten (ignored?). An organization is a group of people.

Jumping back to systems thinking. People can respond a number of ways in organizations. Enter 'policy refusal' (see Donella Meadows' systems literature for more). Executive wants A to happen. A is not in employees' best interest. Employees ignore, delay, obfuscate, outright refuse, or actively undermine A.

People are very good at policy refusal. Executives are good at not knowing its happening.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#16

Post by solatic »

> The educational system is not dedicated to produce learning by students, but teaching by teachers—and teaching is a major obstruction to learning.

Yes and no. Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt has a different take (one I agree with), which argues that the educational system is dedicated to producing political discipline. Yes, this serves the interest of the teachers, and no, the system is not designed to produce learning. But it's highly arguable whether you could truly design, build, and sustainably run an institution which reliably produces autodidacts and independent thinkers, particularly at higher levels, particularly since it's difficult to impossible to measure how reliably such an institution is succeeding at its mission.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#17

Post by trixie_ »

ryanschneider wrote: post #4

> The principal function of most corporations is not to maximize shareholder value, but to maximize the standard of living and quality of work life of those who manage the corporation. Providing the shareholders with a return on their investments is a requirement, not an objective. I love this quote. At first it sounds very critical, but thinking about it more it reveals something deeper: companies are a collection o…

I'm not a huge fan of this quote because it's an opinion presented as a fact.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#18

Post by charles_f »

solatic wrote: post #16

> The educational system is not dedicated to produce learning by students, but teaching by teachers—and teaching is a major obstruction to learning. Yes and no. Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt has a different take (one I agree with), which argues that the educational system is dedicated to producing political discipline. Yes, this serves the interest of the teachers, and no, the system is not designed to produce le…

I think the point here is on instructionism vs. constructionism - learning by experience (constructing things) seem to work better and in particular for long term assimilation than learning from instructors telling you. I think Epstein was putting it in Range as something along the lines of "you need to struggle to really learn". Constructionism can take many forms, from hands on projects and workshops, to frequent internships and apprenticeships.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#19

Post by gumby »

beaconstudios wrote: post #13
vlovich123 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if it’s a plague. I see value in both approaches and going to one extreme or the other seems unhealthy. You want generalists to be working with specialists. Just generalists or just specialists won’t perform as well as a healthy mix and going to one extreme let’s the other outcompete you in certain areas.

the plague is that right now we _are_ going to one extreme - the extreme of separation and specialisation. Systems thinkers want the two integrated, they don't want to throw out analysis and replace it with synthesis, they want the combination (synthesis!) of the two.

The reason I say “plague” is that effort and discussion (not just public discussion) focus on the map, not the territory itself.

Just look at us politics today: the discussions around “infrastructure” and “defense” are hobbled by the descriptions of those words rather than addressing the structural issues themselves.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#20

Post by charles_f »

I liked the article ; one additional lesson I got from it is that you should not change your writing paradigm mid post. The first few bullets are things that he's disproving. Then they're things he concluded. I had to read again to understand he changed his writing
Post reply on HN