
How to Be a Systems Thinker - raleighm
https://www.edge.org/conversation/mary_catherine_bateson-how-to-be-a-systems-thinker
======
wyc
A great book for this is Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows. She has many
illustrative examples that really help get the points across. Coming from an
electrical engineering background, I found her discussion around the
interactions between positive and negative loops to be very interesting.

[https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-
Meadows/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-
Meadows/dp/1603580557)

~~~
neurocline
I tried reading this book several years ago and bounced right off. Given the
multiple recommendations, I'll give it a second try.

~~~
hiq
You can always start with the summary given at the end of the book (IIRC), and
maybe that'll be enough to trigger your interest and motivates your going
through at least some of the chapters.

------
arca_vorago
"How do you deal with ignorance? I don’t mean how do you shut ignorance out.
Rather, how do you deal with an awareness of what you don’t know, and you
don’t know how to know, in dealing with a particular problem?"

I don't really like the rambling tone of the article which never really
addresses it's central premise-questions.

Look, systems thinking is about thinking. Thinking is about how you were
trained to think. To become a systems thinker, learn how to think better, how
to think differently, how to think critically, and how to think logically. Now
self-examine, correct problems, and repeat loop.

For example, the thing many elite schools teach that most others don't is the
trivium and quadrivium approach to thinking.

Another trick is less tangible. Find brilliant people and learn from them.
Learn what they do wrong, not just what they do right.

Finally, as a sysadmin, if you learn to think in a flowchart about just about
any problem you will be fine... but the trick to that is to be specific about
what the problem is.

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
agree there are better authors to learn how to think: D. Kahneman, A. Tversky,
D. Hofstaedter, D. Dennet, K Popper, B. Russell, K. Goedel, N. Taelb, ... if
you are in this same echo-chamber as me I'd love to hear who I forgot

My experience here is if you start with one of the above names (and are a fan
of logic), you most likely end up reading all of them. (But maybe it's just me
idk?)

~~~
dredmorbius
Meadows and Forester.

~~~
dredmorbius
That should be "Forrester".

------
kawera
What a great last paragraph:

 _" The tragedy of the cybernetic revolution, which had two phases, the
computer science side and the systems theory side, has been the neglect of the
systems theory side of it. We chose marketable gadgets in preference to a
deeper understanding of the world we live in."_

~~~
carapace
Yes! I have been bewildered as to why Cybernetics has been so woefully
neglected.

"Introduction to Cybernetics" is available as a free PDF. (Linked from this
page:
[http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASHBBOOK.html](http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASHBBOOK.html)
)

Cybernetics is formally _beyond_ logic. It deals with _circular loops in
causality_ in the most general yet concrete sense.

One way I try to describe it (to an audience like HN readers) is that
Information Theory is about making the real world behave like symbols, while
Cybernetics is about making symbols behave like the real world.

~~~
pm90
This sounds very interesting. I don't think I ever encountered Cybernetics in
college nor in all these years as a professional software engineer. Any more
resources apart from the linked pdf that you would recommend, perhaps tailored
to someone with a CS background? (I'm reading through the pdf, just wanted to
see if there were other treatments on this topic)

~~~
carapace
"Introduction to Cybernetics" is technical and very much in the spirit of CS.
A lot of what gets called "cybernetics" tends to be kind of "fluffy" and I
personally avoid that stuff. I'd recommend Norbert Wiener's "Cybernetics: Or
Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics:_Or_Control_and_Co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics:_Or_Control_and_Communication_in_the_Animal_and_the_Machine)

And "Behavior, Purpose and Teleology" by Rosenblueth, Wiener and Bigelow:

[http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/books/Wiener-
teleology.pdf](http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/books/Wiener-teleology.pdf)

------
goofingaround
>... we’re all seeing is that a lot of work that has been done to enable
international cooperation ... pulled apart. We’re seeing the progress we
thought had been made in this country in race relations being reversed. We’re
seeing the partial breakup ... of a united Europe...

> One of the problems when you bring technology into a new area is that it
> forces you to oversimplify.

It is fortunate that we have thinkers such as this to simplify the world for
us.

Should we pine for the united Europe of Rome? Of the Reich?

Was it evil to tear down those cooperative societies?

~~~
analog31
REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine,
public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what
have the Romans ever done for us?

XERXES: Brought peace.

REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

\-- _Life of Brian_

------
fallous
I jarred a bit at her use of the word "metaphor" to describe understanding,
and upon reflect I think I understand why I reacted that way. Metaphors lack
the requisite understanding of an analogy in that they apply at best partially
to artifacts of the intended reference. An analogy has to match, or at least
rhyme, with the logic of a system in order to apply.

There is a reason that analog computing mattered, and why no one seriously
focuses on metaphoric computing (except, you know, as a metaphor for something
that isn't computing). I suspect that metaphors are the tools of cargo cults
while analogies are the tools used by those that actually understand a system
in order to convey it to those that do not.

~~~
smallnamespace
> I suspect that metaphors are the tools of cargo cults

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you using some much more restrictive
definition of 'metaphor'?

For example, as far as I can see, one can't escape metaphor because they're
deeply embedded in the very language you're using right now.

The most basic metaphors are ones that refer to the body or the physical
world. Jar [1] originally refers to a 'screeching sound'. Understand probably
from the literal sense to 'stand between' [2]. Compute derives from 'com'
(together) + 'putare' (reckon, settle an account) [3]; the latter root
originally comes from Indo-European 'to prune'. Almost _all_ vocabulary is in
fact a form of extended metaphor; in fact, it cannot be any other way, because
to describe a new thing requires one to compare and contrast it to existing
things.

You yourself are making a metaphor when you say that an analogy has to 'at
least rhyme' — a metaphor for poetic sound similarity to stand for a sort of
logical similarity.

The distinction between an analogy, where one explicitly calls out the
comparison ('like', 'as'), and a metaphor, where the relationship is taken
implicitly, is much blurrier than it seems. All our language and thinking is
saturated with metaphors at _every single level_ , to the point where they
seem to be taken for granted and disappear.

IMO, the problem is not metaphors themselves, which are unavoidable; it's
picking _wrong_ metaphors (which is really using the wrong language) that lead
us astray.

[1] [https://www.etymonline.com/word/jar](https://www.etymonline.com/word/jar)

[2]
[https://www.etymonline.com/word/understand](https://www.etymonline.com/word/understand)

[3]
[https://www.etymonline.com/word/compute](https://www.etymonline.com/word/compute)

~~~
fallous
"at least to rhyme" is very specifically a metaphor in that it does not
require systemic logical matching... I don't literally require rhyming or a
logical system that is comparable. It's also utterly useless for _system
thinking_, which is the author's subject matter, precisely because it is at
best loosely related.

An analogy, or analog, is a much deeper match in that means to transfer the
understanding and knowledge of an existing system to a new target system that
closely parallels that understanding and knowledge. Analog computing was
literally "creating a model of the problem" that closely matched the real
problem.

Agreed that metaphors are not inherently bad, but the dependence on metaphors
rather than analogies is symptomatic of a lack of depth in understanding when
attempting to convey knowledge.

------
Barrin92
>. It’s important to be aware of it, to realize that there are limits to what
we can do with AI. It’s great for computation and arithmetic, and it saves
huge amounts of labor. It seems to me that it lacks humility, lacks
imagination, and lacks humor. It doesn’t mean you can’t bring those things
into your interactions with your devices, particularly, in communicating with
other human beings. But it does mean that elements of intelligence and
wisdom—I like the word wisdom, because it's more multi-dimensional—are going
to be lacking.

This I think is a very salient point. What is missing in the field at the
moment to truly advance is a theory of 'agency' or how intelligent systems can
be trained to venture out into the world and develop their own models, set
their own incentives and continuously interact with their environment and
develop their own 'games' from unstructured data rather than optimising
towards some fixed goal.

------
codecurve
There are actually a lot of great materials available on Systems Thinking,
here are a few of our favourites:

Articles:

\- Introduction to Systems Thinking
([https://thesystemsthinker.com/introduction-to-systems-
thinki...](https://thesystemsthinker.com/introduction-to-systems-thinking/))

\- Tools of a Systems Thinker ([https://medium.com/disruptive-design/tools-
for-systems-think...](https://medium.com/disruptive-design/tools-for-systems-
thinkers-the-6-fundamental-concepts-of-systems-thinking-379cdac3dc6a))

\- The Mythical Leverage Point ([https://blog.kumu.io/the-mythical-leverage-
point-d582ce4b8b4...](https://blog.kumu.io/the-mythical-leverage-
point-d582ce4b8b49))

Videos:

\- Peter Senge Introduction to Systems Thinking
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXdzKBWDraM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXdzKBWDraM))

\- I Used To Be A Systems Thinker
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ymt_TbNNwE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ymt_TbNNwE))

\- The (Failed) Promised of Systems Thinking
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=614&v=aelqgvFXGi...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=614&v=aelqgvFXGiQ))

\- Systems Practice Mindsets
([https://vimeo.com/212281432](https://vimeo.com/212281432))

Courses:

\- +Acumen Systems Practice Course
([https://www.plusacumen.org/courses/systems-
practice](https://www.plusacumen.org/courses/systems-practice))

Books:

\- Thinking In Systems: A Primer by Donella Meadows
([https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-
Meadows/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-
Meadows/dp/1603580557/))

\- Fifth Discipline Fieldbook ([https://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Discipline-
Fieldbook-Strategies...](https://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Discipline-Fieldbook-
Strategies-Organization/dp/0385472560))

\- Systems Thinking for Social Change ([https://www.amazon.com/Systems-
Thinking-Social-Change-Conseq...](https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Thinking-
Social-Change-Consequences/dp/160358580X))

Articles on Leading Systems Change:

\- Dawn of Systems Leadership
([https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_dawn_of_system_leadershi...](https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_dawn_of_system_leadership))

\- Acting and Thinking Systemically ([https://thesystemsthinker.com/acting-
and-thinking-systemical...](https://thesystemsthinker.com/acting-and-thinking-
systemically/))

\- Transforming the Systems Movement
([https://thesystemsthinker.com/transforming-the-systems-
movem...](https://thesystemsthinker.com/transforming-the-systems-movement/))

Relevant Tools and Websites:

\- Kumu ([https://kumu.io](https://kumu.io)) - Web-based tool for building
interactive system maps.

\- The Systems Thinker
([https://thesystemsthinker.com/](https://thesystemsthinker.com/)) - Complete
library of all "The Systems Thinker" publications over the past 30 years

\- Loopy ([http://ncase.me/loopy/](http://ncase.me/loopy/)) - An playground
for building interactive systems maps.

(Disclosure: I'm a Developer at Kumu)

~~~
carapace
\- "General Systemantics" by John Gall (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics)
) It's humorous but I'm being serious.

He has such chestnuts as: "A complex system that works is invariably found to
have evolved from a simple system that works."

~~~
rymohr
Love John Gall's approach to systems. There's actually a section in Kumu's
manifesto that quotes Gall's law:

    
    
        A complex system designed from scratch never works
        and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have
        to start over with a working simple system.
    

[https://kumu.io/manifesto#start-with-simple](https://kumu.io/manifesto#start-
with-simple)

------
solidist
Great post, but lofty.

Here is an example of a relatable situtational system thinking in the very
small:

[https://medium.freecodecamp.org/how-to-organize-your-
thought...](https://medium.freecodecamp.org/how-to-organize-your-thoughts-on-
the-whiteboard-and-crush-your-technical-interview-b668de4e6941)

I havent read much on the theories, but part of my write was also inspired by
two books and hence why I am responding to help others. Pragmatic Thinking and
Learning by Andy Hunt and The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge helped me with
this type of thinking.

A few things key concepts. Organization of related systems and their
interaction patterns. But a key, that you are also apart of the system as you
interact.

For instance, the causal link of bringing sweet smelling dry erase markers.
You could shift the whole system of interview rating based on memory of smell
on that sweet expo choco mint as you erase your complex mistakes away.

Or they could think that you're just crazy.

------
cJ0th
I want to like the idea but articles like this one are just intellectual
drivel to me. People are systems thinker by nature I believe. If there are
negative side effects to their actions then it's rather because they don't
mind. A company, for instance, cares about environmental side effects only as
much as it needs to in order to keep going. But that does not mean they don't
see, say, their supply chain as a system.

I'd say thinking in systems is more of an art than a rational thing. You have
to do it as often as possible to get better at it but there isn't much you
really need to know. Sit down, think really hard for 2 minutes, rest a bit and
repeat the process as often as necessary.

~~~
mhluongo
"Oh, you're a theoretical physicist? I find theoretical physics is just
thinking. Think hard, and repeat!"

There's more to both the study of systems and the mindset than "think".
Knowledge of a subject is knowledge of differences and distinctions-
reductionism doesn't mean you know something, often quite the opposite.

It took many of us a long time to better think about complex systems,
especially those systems we grew up as a part of. There are a number of useful
mental patterns that have helped me in my limited journey (eg OODA, feedback
mechanisms from cybernetics) and it's not clear to me I'd have recognized the
concepts were valuable enough to name on my own.

------
hyperpallium
Article doesn't define it, but "systems thinking" is an actual thing:
[https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory)

~~~
emmelaich
Oh thank you thank you. At first I thought was justing thinking in the systems
engineering area (which it is partly).

And then I grew more mystified as the article didn't touch on that.

So I suspected that it was just waffle which that wikipedia article addresses:

> _[criticised as] ... said to be nothing more than an admonishment to attend
> to things in a holistic way._

Which I think is actually right. Too high level to be actionable or definable.

------
fjsolwmv
Systems Thinking has been a huge buzzword in the Coursera course catalog in
recent years (that's where I first heard the term called out as a special
thing outside of just "how we learn science"):
[https://www.google.com/search?q=coursera+systems+thinking](https://www.google.com/search?q=coursera+systems+thinking)
gets many hits.

------
csnewb
I've been seeing a lot of threads/articles about systems thinking come up on
HN lately. As a developer, why is it important to learn "systems thinking"?
How will it make me a better developer?

~~~
smadge
> How will it make me a better developer?

Well, focusing a component of the system (software development) while
neglecting to consider how that component interacts with the whole system
(society and ecology), is exactly the sort of myopic thinking that systems
thinking proclaims to remedy.

------
sharno
Seems to me like category theory for mathematics, but a more generalized one
that could be applied to things in life. Sounds cool

------
somtum2
What are good resources to help start thinking in systems when designing
software?

~~~
fallous
It may seem glib, but the best resource to spur one to think systemically is a
three year-old child. Their favorite word seems to be "why?" and they will
keep asking it until you either reach an abstraction they accept, you get
tired and concede you don't know by saying "because I said so," or they get
tired and find something else. The third option is rare in my experience.

------
bshepard
I found this paragraph especially thought-provoking: "Americans are inclined
to talk about the "war against drugs," or the "war against poverty," or the
"war against cancer," without questioning whether "war" is an appropriate
metaphor. It’s a way of talking about complexity, but if it doesn’t fit, it
will cause you to make errors in how you deal with your problems. The war on
poverty failed partly because poverty is not something you can defeat, and
that makes warfare an inappropriate metaphor. The same is true with the war on
drugs, which has gotten us into some ugly situations. "

~~~
fallous
Actually the term "war" in the contexts of drugs and poverty is appropriate
since they both depend upon force as the means to achieve their goals as they
depend upon government action.

~~~
janimo
It is only appropriate if you cannot conceive government actions that have
nothing to do with force :)

~~~
fallous
And what actions would those be that do not, eventually, rely upon force?

~~~
bshepard
Whether or not things eventually rely on force seems like more of a
metaphysical question than a political one; the resources spent on the
perpetuation of the military-industrial complex could have been (could still
be) diverted towards raising the living standards of the poorest, ensuring a
basic security net for all, providing decommodified healthcare and education.
It is interesting to think about why this choice wasn't made, why it doesn't
get made.

~~~
fallous
It isn't metaphysical, it is purely a practical observation. How do you
propose to "raising living standards" and all the other offerings using
government but not using force?

~~~
bshepard
By transferring government resources from the perpetuation of force (military
industrial complex/prison archipelago) towards the social expenses mentioned
above. This would involve a diminution of force, and an increase in
cooperative social relations.

~~~
maccam94
I think you're not catching what fallous is saying, because s/he's using
libertarian vernacular. Libertarians view taxation as force, because if you
don't pay the tax the police can forcefully take your property/valuables. IMO
this view is shortsighted and doesn't properly assess the advantages to
generally granting the government a monopoly on the use of force.

~~~
fallous
You're mistaking my pointing out the means as a critique of the ends. If you
do not pay your taxes not only can the police take your property but they can
and will imprison your person. That is the reality of the situation and I
support the collection of taxes (and the enforcement required) with the full
understanding of what my support entails. I don't try and drape fig leaves
around it.

