The basic principles of Systems Thinking

[Procrustes Stretched]

The basic principles of Systems Thinking:

1) Today's problems come from yesterday's "solutions."

2) The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back.

3) Behavior will grow worse before it grows better.

4) The easy way out usually leads back in.

5) The cure can be worse than the disease.

6) Faster is slower.

7) Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space.

8) Small changes can produce big results...but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious. (Most obvious solutions for complex social problems can be at best useless and at worst dangerous)

9) You can have your cake and eat it too ---but not all at once.

10) Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.

11) There is no blame.

---------------------------

http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf

COUNTERINTUITIVE BEHAVIOR
OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS
by
JAY W. FORRESTER2​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

most of you will never get IT.

and that's okay. we need ignorance. It makes the world a wonderful and interesting place as well as a frightening and troubling place. that is life, wonderful, interesting, frightening and troubling.

gotta get back to Joseph Campbell.

http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php

 

[psikeyhackr]

most of you will never get IT.

and that's okay. we need ignorance. It makes the world a wonderful and interesting place as well as a frightening and troubling place. that is life, wonderful, interesting, frightening and troubling.

The technology has gotten to powerfual and pervasive for ignorance. That is why we are headed for a systems crash. 41 years after the Moon landing and the PhD economists can't even talk about how many TRILLIONS we have lost due to the planned obsolescence of technology deliberately manufactured to be crappy.

Bring up the subject and see what kind of pseudo-intellectual trash arguments you get. Try finding an economist that can explain how a piston engine works.

psik

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Systems thinking, I never heard that term before, but it is a concept I learned pretty early in my studies. Sometimes the only way to solve a problem is let it work for you, which is why regulations rarely produce the desired result. Regulations focus on the problem, and the only real way to progress is to focus on the solution. If you do that you sometimes find that the problem works for you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

most of you will never get IT.

and that's okay. we need ignorance. It makes the world a wonderful and interesting place as well as a frightening and troubling place. that is life, wonderful, interesting, frightening and troubling.

The technology has gotten to powerfual and pervasive for ignorance. That is why we are headed for a systems crash. 41 years after the Moon landing and the PhD economists can't even talk about how many TRILLIONS we have lost due to the planned obsolescence of technology deliberately manufactured to be crappy.

Bring up the subject and see what kind of pseudo-intellectual trash arguments you get. Try finding an economist that can explain how a piston engine works.

psik

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Systems thinking, I never heard that term before, but it is a concept I learned pretty early in my studies. Sometimes the only way to solve a problem is let it work for you, which is why regulations rarely produce the desired result. Regulations focus on the problem, and the only real way to progress is to focus on the solution. If you do that you sometimes find that the problem works for you.

Many regulations work just fine, because not all regulation are equal, or are after the fact solutions meantto solve problems.

All regulations suffer from the law of unintended consequences, but arguing the case for doing nothing because of the law of unintended consequences does not make for a credible argument. Doing nothing is subject to the law of unintended consequences.

 

[Mini 14]

#11 alone will take you a long way if you ever manage people.

 

[asterism]

Systems thinking, I never heard that term before, but it is a concept I learned pretty early in my studies. Sometimes the only way to solve a problem is let it work for you, which is why regulations rarely produce the desired result. Regulations focus on the problem, and the only real way to progress is to focus on the solution. If you do that you sometimes find that the problem works for you.

Many regulations work just fine, because not all regulation are equal, or are after the fact solutions meantto solve problems.

All regulations suffer from the law of unintended consequences, but arguing the case for doing nothing because of the law of unintended consequences does not make for a credible argument. Doing nothing is subject to the law of unintended consequences.

Most people say "regulation" when they actually mean "oversight." The result is micromanagement and a market response to gaming that structure.

Passing a law and enforcing penalties for speed limits in certain areas is oversight. Intruding into the market to make it impossible to manufacture a car that exceeds said speed limit is micromanagement. If that micromanagement is successful, the original regulation is ignored which creates a false state of compliance. Then the system to enforce the regulation by way of penalties is ineffective, and someone figures out how to put together an old roadster.

We're drifting towards micromanagement and as a result are getting less actual oversight. In the business world, Sarbanes-Oxley is the best current era example. It was meant to counter fraud, but it did so in a way that was easily gamed. However since it was technically legal to commit fraud and be in compliance, the system broke down.

The recent financial reform seems to continue that strategy.

 

[asterism]

10) Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.

And a it's sister concept:

Inseminating an elephant twice only produces two additional elephants if the timing is correct. The universe is not static.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

#11 alone will take you a long way if you ever manage people.

and it will take on a long way in appreciating life for what it is -- accepting life on it's own terms.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Systems thinking, I never heard that term before, but it is a concept I learned pretty early in my studies. Sometimes the only way to solve a problem is let it work for you, which is why regulations rarely produce the desired result. Regulations focus on the problem, and the only real way to progress is to focus on the solution. If you do that you sometimes find that the problem works for you.

Many regulations work just fine, because not all regulation are equal, or are after the fact solutions meantto solve problems.

All regulations suffer from the law of unintended consequences, but arguing the case for doing nothing because of the law of unintended consequences does not make for a credible argument. Doing nothing is subject to the law of unintended consequences.

Where did I say anything about doing nothing, or anything about doing away with regulations?

Why don't you attempt to address what I actually said, instead of what you think I said?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Systems thinking, I never heard that term before, but it is a concept I learned pretty early in my studies. Sometimes the only way to solve a problem is let it work for you, which is why regulations rarely produce the desired result. Regulations focus on the problem, and the only real way to progress is to focus on the solution. If you do that you sometimes find that the problem works for you.

Many regulations work just fine, because not all regulation are equal, or are after the fact solutions meantto solve problems.

All regulations suffer from the law of unintended consequences, but arguing the case for doing nothing because of the law of unintended consequences does not make for a credible argument. Doing nothing is subject to the law of unintended consequences.

Where did I say anything about doing nothing, or anything about doing away with regulations?

Why don't you attempt to address what I actually said, instead of what you think I said?

"regulations rarely produce the desired result. Regulations focus on the problem, and the only real way to progress is to focus on the solution."

Inference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

10) Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.

And a it's sister concept:

Inseminating an elephant twice only produces two additional elephants if the timing is correct. The universe is not static.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Systems thinking, I never heard that term before, but it is a concept I learned pretty early in my studies. Sometimes the only way to solve a problem is let it work for you, which is why regulations rarely produce the desired result. Regulations focus on the problem, and the only real way to progress is to focus on the solution. If you do that you sometimes find that the problem works for you.

Many regulations work just fine, because not all regulation are equal, or are after the fact solutions meantto solve problems.

All regulations suffer from the law of unintended consequences, but arguing the case for doing nothing because of the law of unintended consequences does not make for a credible argument. Doing nothing is subject to the law of unintended consequences.

Most people say "regulation" when they actually mean "oversight." The result is micromanagement and a market response to gaming that structure.

Passing a law and enforcing penalties for speed limits in certain areas is oversight. Intruding into the market to make it impossible to manufacture a car that exceeds said speed limit is micromanagement. If that micromanagement is successful, the original regulation is ignored which creates a false state of compliance. Then the system to enforce the regulation by way of penalties is ineffective, and someone figures out how to put together an old roadster.

We're drifting towards micromanagement and as a result are getting less actual oversight. In the business world, Sarbanes-Oxley is the best current era example. It was meant to counter fraud, but it did so in a way that was easily gamed. However since it was technically legal to commit fraud and be in compliance, the system broke down.

The recent financial reform seems to continue that strategy.

Dealing with financial markets is a special case.


After the S&L scandal of the 80s, bigwigs said the problem was not enough guidance during deregulation.

As long as there are humans trading there will be fraud and corruption of any and all rules. Human nature. There is NO solution except constant vigilance as a way of mitigating the human element.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Systems thinking, I never heard that term before, but it is a concept I learned pretty early in my studies. Sometimes the only way to solve a problem is let it work for you, which is why regulations rarely produce the desired result. Regulations focus on the problem, and the only real way to progress is to focus on the solution. If you do that you sometimes find that the problem works for you.

Many regulations work just fine, because not all regulation are equal, or are after the fact solutions meantto solve problems.

All regulations suffer from the law of unintended consequences, but arguing the case for doing nothing because of the law of unintended consequences does not make for a credible argument. Doing nothing is subject to the law of unintended consequences.

Most people say "regulation" when they actually mean "oversight." The result is micromanagement and a market response to gaming that structure.

Passing a law and enforcing penalties for speed limits in certain areas is oversight. Intruding into the market to make it impossible to manufacture a car that exceeds said speed limit is micromanagement. If that micromanagement is successful, the original regulation is ignored which creates a false state of compliance. Then the system to enforce the regulation by way of penalties is ineffective, and someone figures out how to put together an old roadster.

We're drifting towards micromanagement and as a result are getting less actual oversight. In the business world, Sarbanes-Oxley is the best current era example. It was meant to counter fraud, but it did so in a way that was easily gamed. However since it was technically legal to commit fraud and be in compliance, the system broke down.

The recent financial reform seems to continue that strategy.

You have some good points here. I do not necessarily agree with the way you define everything, but that would just be arguing semantics, and is pretty much a waste of time.

My problem with regulations, or micromanagement, is that it tends to focus on problems. If they focused on solutions instead things would work better, at least in my opinion. I will admit the possibility that I could be wrong here, but I will also claim the arrogance to doubt it.

 

[asterism]

10) Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.

And a it's sister concept:

Inseminating an elephant twice only produces two additional elephants if the timing is correct. The universe is not static.

Thanks for ignoring my first draft, which said:

"Getting an elephant pregnant twice only produces two additional elephants if the timing is correct. The universe is not static."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Many regulations work just fine, because not all regulation are equal, or are after the fact solutions meantto solve problems.

All regulations suffer from the law of unintended consequences, but arguing the case for doing nothing because of the law of unintended consequences does not make for a credible argument. Doing nothing is subject to the law of unintended consequences.

Most people say "regulation" when they actually mean "oversight." The result is micromanagement and a market response to gaming that structure.

Passing a law and enforcing penalties for speed limits in certain areas is oversight. Intruding into the market to make it impossible to manufacture a car that exceeds said speed limit is micromanagement. If that micromanagement is successful, the original regulation is ignored which creates a false state of compliance. Then the system to enforce the regulation by way of penalties is ineffective, and someone figures out how to put together an old roadster.

We're drifting towards micromanagement and as a result are getting less actual oversight. In the business world, Sarbanes-Oxley is the best current era example. It was meant to counter fraud, but it did so in a way that was easily gamed. However since it was technically legal to commit fraud and be in compliance, the system broke down.

The recent financial reform seems to continue that strategy.

You have some good points here. I do not necessarily agree with the way you define everything, but that would just be arguing semantics, and is pretty much a waste of time.

My problem with regulations, or micromanagement, is that it tends to focus on problems. If they focused on solutions instead things would work better, at least in my opinion. I will admit the possibility that I could be wrong here, but I will also claim the arrogance to doubt it.

There is no solution to the troubles of financial markets. Oversight is the best we can do and that is all open to the temper of the times.

There is no way to eliminate fraud and destruction in financial markets when greed and the profit motive are allowed to join forces.

Nothing wring with profit. Greed in the big picture, greed itself, is harmless as long as it is not running the system.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And a it's sister concept:

Inseminating an elephant twice only produces two additional elephants if the timing is correct. The universe is not static.

Thanks for ignoring my first draft, which said:

"Getting an elephant pregnant twice only produces two additional elephants if the timing is correct. The universe is not static."

r u on drugs?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

10) Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.

And a it's sister concept:

Inseminating an elephant twice only produces two additional elephants if the timing is correct. The universe is not static.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most people say "regulation" when they actually mean "oversight." The result is micromanagement and a market response to gaming that structure.

Passing a law and enforcing penalties for speed limits in certain areas is oversight. Intruding into the market to make it impossible to manufacture a car that exceeds said speed limit is micromanagement. If that micromanagement is successful, the original regulation is ignored which creates a false state of compliance. Then the system to enforce the regulation by way of penalties is ineffective, and someone figures out how to put together an old roadster.

We're drifting towards micromanagement and as a result are getting less actual oversight. In the business world, Sarbanes-Oxley is the best current era example. It was meant to counter fraud, but it did so in a way that was easily gamed. However since it was technically legal to commit fraud and be in compliance, the system broke down.

The recent financial reform seems to continue that strategy.

You have some good points here. I do not necessarily agree with the way you define everything, but that would just be arguing semantics, and is pretty much a waste of time.

My problem with regulations, or micromanagement, is that it tends to focus on problems. If they focused on solutions instead things would work better, at least in my opinion. I will admit the possibility that I could be wrong here, but I will also claim the arrogance to doubt it.

There is no solution to the troubles of financial markets. Oversight is the best we can do and that is all open to the temper of the times.

There is no way to eliminate fraud and destruction in financial markets when greed and the profit motive are allowed to join forces.

Nothing wring with profit. Greed in the big picture, greed itself, is harmless as long as it is not running the system.

Do you really think adding more regulations and oversight is going to stop people from doing things that are illegal? Look at the guy that leaked those documents to Wikileaks recently. He was in one of the most secure places on Earth, was searched going in and out of the romm he worked in, yet still managed to download classified materials to a CD and walk out with it. How would more oversight have prevented that?

People who want something badly enough will always figure out a way to do it, and the really smart ones have the advantage of learning from other people's mistakes. They can test the system and find the weaknesses, and no matter how smart the person who designs it is, they cannot possibly think of everything.

Look at number 8 on your list and apply some thought to finding a solution instead of focusing on doing something that cannot possibly work. Apply a small change in the right place instead of applying an obvious solution in the wrong one. Learn form your own posts and stop spouting the tired ideas that others do. Be an individual.