#socialsystemsthinking — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #socialsystemsthinking, aggregated by home.social.
-
Social Systems Thinking
Systems
Systems are collections of parts whose relationships change relatively slowly, so they can be recognised as a whole. The behaviour of the whole is more than just the sum of the behaviours of the individual parts.
Systems Thinking
Systems Thinking is a collection of tools that allow us to understand what systems do, how they do it, and how to change them.
It allows us to make some predictions of how systems will behave in the future. It is partly an additional set of tools which augment the ways in which we think about simpler problems and partly a method which selects the right tool for the job and acknowledges that the simpler tools may give a wrong, but potentially persuasive answer.
Social Systems
Social systems are systems whose main parts are human beings[1], but may be made up of smaller social systems and infrastructure. For example, a country such as Canada is made up of a population of about 40 million people, has a federal government and Provinces, has transportation systems, border control points, several education and health systems and more.
The behaviour of social systems is more complex than that of inanimate systems for four reasons.
- Their principle parts—humans—are already very complex systems themselves. Many sources have claimed that the human brain is the most complex system in the universe (e.g. Patrick Kraus—The Most Complex System in the Universe)[2].
- Each human can play many different roles in different social systems which make up a bigger system and the way they play those roles differ widely between people in the same in ways that, for example, the a cog in a mechanical system does not do.
- We, the humans who are trying to understand the systems, are part of and shaped by the very systems we are trying to understand. And that shaping includes stories about how the systems work
- Social systems change significantly while remaining recognisably the same system. We call this “history”.
Social Systems Thinking
Social Systems Thinking is a collection of tools that allow us to understand what social systems do, how they do it, and how to change them. Just as the simpler tools that are used to understand simple collections of things are not always adequate for systems, so the systems thinking tools for inanimate systems like clocks and heating systems are not always useful for understanding the more complex behaviours of social systems.
- InB4 There are many other species which form social systems, but for brevity on this site I don’t usually bother writing “human social systems”↩︎
- If each human brain is an example of the most complex system in the universe, isn’t global society—an interacting collection of eight billion of them—even more complex?↩︎
-
Social Systems Thinking
Systems
Systems are collections of parts whose relationships change relatively slowly, so they can be recognised as a whole. The behaviour of the whole is more than just the sum of the behaviours of the individual parts.
Systems Thinking
Systems Thinking is a collection of tools that allow us to understand what systems do, how they do it, and how to change them.
It allows us to make some predictions of how systems will behave in the future. It is partly an additional set of tools which augment the ways in which we think about simpler problems and partly a method which selects the right tool for the job and acknowledges that the simpler tools may give a wrong, but potentially persuasive answer.
Social Systems
Social systems are systems whose main parts are human beings[1], but may be made up of smaller social systems and infrastructure. For example, a country such as Canada is made up of a population of about 40 million people, has a federal government and Provinces, has transportation systems, border control points, several education and health systems and more.
The behaviour of social systems is more complex than that of inanimate systems for four reasons.
- Their principle parts—humans—are already very complex systems themselves. Many sources have claimed that the human brain is the most complex system in the universe (e.g. Patrick Kraus—The Most Complex System in the Universe)[2].
- Each human can play many different roles in different social systems which make up a bigger system and the way they play those roles differ widely between people in the same in ways that, for example, the a cog in a mechanical system does not do.
- We, the humans who are trying to understand the systems, are part of and shaped by the very systems we are trying to understand. And that shaping includes stories about how the systems work
- Social systems change significantly while remaining recognisably the same system. We call this “history”.
Social Systems Thinking
Social Systems Thinking is a collection of tools that allow us to understand what social systems do, how they do it, and how to change them. Just as the simpler tools that are used to understand simple collections of things are not always adequate for systems, so the systems thinking tools for inanimate systems like clocks and heating systems are not always useful for understanding the more complex behaviours of social systems.
- InB4 There are many other species which form social systems, but for brevity on this site I don’t usually bother writing “human social systems”↩︎
- If each human brain is an example of the most complex system in the universe, isn’t global society—an interacting collection of eight billion of them—even more complex?↩︎
-
Social Systems Thinking
Systems
Systems are collections of parts whose relationships change relatively slowly, so they can be recognised as a whole. The behaviour of the whole is more than just the sum of the behaviours of the individual parts.
Systems Thinking
Systems Thinking is a collection of tools that allow us to understand what systems do, how they do it, and how to change them.
It allows us to make some predictions of how systems will behave in the future. It is partly an additional set of tools which augment the ways in which we think about simpler problems and partly a method which selects the right tool for the job and acknowledges that the simpler tools may give a wrong, but potentially persuasive answer.
Social Systems
Social systems are systems whose main parts are human beings[1], but may be made up of smaller social systems and infrastructure. For example, a country such as Canada is made up of a population of about 40 million people, has a federal government and Provinces, has transportation systems, border control points, several education and health systems and more.
The behaviour of social systems is more complex than that of inanimate systems for four reasons.
- Their principle parts—humans—are already very complex systems themselves. Many sources have claimed that the human brain is the most complex system in the universe (e.g. Patrick Kraus—The Most Complex System in the Universe)[2].
- Each human can play many different roles in different social systems which make up a bigger system and the way they play those roles differ widely between people in the same in ways that, for example, the a cog in a mechanical system does not do.
- We, the humans who are trying to understand the systems, are part of and shaped by the very systems we are trying to understand. And that shaping includes stories about how the systems work
- Social systems change significantly while remaining recognisably the same system. We call this “history”.
Social Systems Thinking
Social Systems Thinking is a collection of tools that allow us to understand what social systems do, how they do it, and how to change them. Just as the simpler tools that are used to understand simple collections of things are not always adequate for systems, so the systems thinking tools for inanimate systems like clocks and heating systems are not always useful for understanding the more complex behaviours of social systems.
- InB4 There are many other species which form social systems, but for brevity on this site I don’t usually bother writing “human social systems”↩︎
- If each human brain is an example of the most complex system in the universe, isn’t global society—an interacting collection of eight billion of them—even more complex?↩︎
-
Social Systems Thinking
Systems
Systems are collections of parts whose relationships change relatively slowly, so they can be recognised as a whole. The behaviour of the whole is more than just the sum of the behaviours of the individual parts.
Systems Thinking
Systems Thinking is a collection of tools that allow us to understand what systems do, how they do it, and how to change them.
It allows us to make some predictions of how systems will behave in the future. It is partly an additional set of tools which augment the ways in which we think about simpler problems and partly a method which selects the right tool for the job and acknowledges that the simpler tools may give a wrong, but potentially persuasive answer.
Social Systems
Social systems are systems whose main parts are human beings[1], but may be made up of smaller social systems and infrastructure. For example, a country such as Canada is made up of a population of about 40 million people, has a federal government and Provinces, has transportation systems, border control points, several education and health systems and more.
The behaviour of social systems is more complex than that of inanimate systems for four reasons.
- Their principle parts—humans—are already very complex systems themselves. Many sources have claimed that the human brain is the most complex system in the universe (e.g. Patrick Kraus—The Most Complex System in the Universe)[2].
- Each human can play many different roles in different social systems which make up a bigger system and the way they play those roles differ widely between people in the same in ways that, for example, the a cog in a mechanical system does not do.
- We, the humans who are trying to understand the systems, are part of and shaped by the very systems we are trying to understand. And that shaping includes stories about how the systems work
- Social systems change significantly while remaining recognisably the same system. We call this “history”.
Social Systems Thinking
Social Systems Thinking is a collection of tools that allow us to understand what social systems do, how they do it, and how to change them. Just as the simpler tools that are used to understand simple collections of things are not always adequate for systems, so the systems thinking tools for inanimate systems like clocks and heating systems are not always useful for understanding the more complex behaviours of social systems.
- InB4 There are many other species which form social systems, but for brevity on this site I don’t usually bother writing “human social systems”↩︎
- If each human brain is an example of the most complex system in the universe, isn’t global society—an interacting collection of eight billion of them—even more complex?↩︎
-
Social Systems Thinking
Systems
Systems are collections of parts whose relationships change relatively slowly, so they can be recognised as a whole. The behaviour of the whole is more than just the sum of the behaviours of the individual parts.
Systems Thinking
Systems Thinking is a collection of tools that allow us to understand what systems do, how they do it, and how to change them.
It allows us to make some predictions of how systems will behave in the future. It is partly an additional set of tools which augment the ways in which we think about simpler problems and partly a method which selects the right tool for the job and acknowledges that the simpler tools may give a wrong, but potentially persuasive answer.
Social Systems
Social systems are systems whose main parts are human beings[1], but may be made up of smaller social systems and infrastructure. For example, a country such as Canada is made up of a population of about 40 million people, has a federal government and Provinces, has transportation systems, border control points, several education and health systems and more.
The behaviour of social systems is more complex than that of inanimate systems for four reasons.
- Their principle parts—humans—are already very complex systems themselves. Many sources have claimed that the human brain is the most complex system in the universe (e.g. Patrick Kraus—The Most Complex System in the Universe)[2].
- Each human can play many different roles in different social systems which make up a bigger system and the way they play those roles differ widely between people in the same in ways that, for example, the a cog in a mechanical system does not do.
- We, the humans who are trying to understand the systems, are part of and shaped by the very systems we are trying to understand. And that shaping includes stories about how the systems work
- Social systems change significantly while remaining recognisably the same system. We call this “history”.
Social Systems Thinking
Social Systems Thinking is a collection of tools that allow us to understand what social systems do, how they do it, and how to change them. Just as the simpler tools that are used to understand simple collections of things are not always adequate for systems, so the systems thinking tools for inanimate systems like clocks and heating systems are not always useful for understanding the more complex behaviours of social systems.
- InB4 There are many other species which form social systems, but for brevity on this site I don’t usually bother writing “human social systems”↩︎
- If each human brain is an example of the most complex system in the universe, isn’t global society—an interacting collection of eight billion of them—even more complex?↩︎
-
This post was prompted by a question from Tim Verstynen (@tdverstynen) on Mastodon.
Has anyone come across a good (empirically testable) definition of a system? Like what defines a system, what determines its boundaries, and when does one system become part of another?
I was taught, and have taught, in the old days when my primary interest was in systems design based on computers and computer/human interaction, that there is no definitive answer to this question. Since switching my perspective to that of social systems (which may or may not involve computers), I have become more convinced of that. Systems which aren’t explicitly designed are messier and it is rarely possible to “carve nature at its joints”, as Plato put it.
Consider a pond. You can certainly study it as a system, specifically as an ecosystem. Limnologists do that for a living. Are its boundaries the surface of the water and the substrate down as far as most of the burrowing animals habitually go and the roots of any plants? And we probably have to consider the parts of any plants that are rooted in the pond but protrude above water. We choose a boundary, based on what makes our studies simpler. We usually choose it so that the traffic in resources and information across the boundary is minimized; that makes it easier to study.
But there are many animals that are important within that ecosystem that spend much of their lives elsewhere. What about the small, impermanent puddle that nourishes mosquito larvae on fallen leaves, until they leave the puddle and feed on us, give us parasites and are also fed on by birds? You can’t understand much about the mosquito/host/parasite/predator ecosystem by looking only at the puddle? Is it a system? Almost everything we might be interested in, occurs outside the puddle. Does it have the same boundaries as a bigger pond which is more self-sufficient in nutrients?
What about a desert ecosystem? Where are its boundaries, if it borders on, and shades into, another system, like a dry grassland?
In another domain, government could be considered as a system. Where is its boundary? Are political parties part of that system? Surely the legislature is a subsystem of government, but its components (human members) are usually also members of a political party, yet the parties also have many components which are not part of the legislature (party officials, for example). The answer to the question probably depends on the purpose of your study. You need to decide what makes your study simpler, which choice of boundary minimizes the interactions between inside and outside while maximising the interactions within the system.
-
This post was prompted by a question from Tim Verstynen (@tdverstynen) on Mastodon.
Has anyone come across a good (empirically testable) definition of a system? Like what defines a system, what determines its boundaries, and when does one system become part of another?
I was taught, and have taught, in the old days when my primary interest was in systems design based on computers and computer/human interaction, that there is no definitive answer to this question. Since switching my perspective to that of social systems (which may or may not involve computers), I have become more convinced of that. Systems which aren’t explicitly designed are messier and it is rarely possible to “carve nature at its joints”, as Plato put it.
Consider a pond. You can certainly study it as a system, specifically as an ecosystem. Limnologists do that for a living. Are its boundaries the surface of the water and the substrate down as far as most of the burrowing animals habitually go and the roots of any plants? And we probably have to consider the parts of any plants that are rooted in the pond but protrude above water. We choose a boundary, based on what makes our studies simpler. We usually choose it so that the traffic in resources and information across the boundary is minimized; that makes it easier to study.
But there are many animals that are important within that ecosystem that spend much of their lives elsewhere. What about the small, impermanent puddle that nourishes mosquito larvae on fallen leaves, until they leave the puddle and feed on us, give us parasites and are also fed on by birds? You can’t understand much about the mosquito/host/parasite/predator ecosystem by looking only at the puddle? Is it a system? Almost everything we might be interested in, occurs outside the puddle. Does it have the same boundaries as a bigger pond which is more self-sufficient in nutrients?
What about a desert ecosystem? Where are its boundaries, if it borders on, and shades into, another system, like a dry grassland?
In another domain, government could be considered as a system. Where is its boundary? Are political parties part of that system? Surely the legislature is a subsystem of government, but its components (human members) are usually also members of a political party, yet the parties also have many components which are not part of the legislature (party officials, for example). The answer to the question probably depends on the purpose of your study. You need to decide what makes your study simpler, which choice of boundary minimizes the interactions between inside and outside while maximising the interactions within the system.
-
I'm moving my #SocialSystemsThinking workbook to WordPress.
Not sure if it's more procrastinating but I'm also trying for more readable text.
Now there's a comments box, which I don't have on github.
I'll leave the old site up for now, until I get most of the content rewritten, I hope in a week.
-
I find it helpful ti consider that social systems don't have *a* purpose.
They have a purpose (desired effect) for each interested party, and an actual effect on each interested party.
-
"Every time police officers kill someone, it reinforces the perception of policing as a militaristic profession, which compounds the problem of who wants to become a cop."
-
Before retirement as an IT architect, that's what I practiced and taught.