undefined

points

[-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

You are misunderstanding the saying. It is entirely about unintended consequences and viewing the system for what it actually does and not any stated intentions of the designers.

by aidenn07 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I will propose that you are wrong.

1. We must ignore the intentions of the designers (your claim), and instead see what the outcomes are

2. Therefore we should ignore Beer's intentions when designing the phrase POSWID, and instead see how it is used.

3. The overwhelming majority of people using it on the internet (including the GP comment) is to imply that the people perpetuating the system actually desire the outcome.

So the purpose of POSWID is clearly to imply intent.

by jimbokun8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Well that’s stupid and completely ignores the meaning of the word “purpose”.

by delusional5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It does not ignore the word. It subverts it, and that's the point. It's the system equivalent of "death of the author", which states that omes a work is written, the authors intent loses relevance and the work must be examined on its own. The aurhors opinion or relationship to the work carries no more weight than any other persons.

That's not "true" in any demonstrable sense, but it can be a useful form of analysis. As it is with "purpose of a system"

by TeMPOraL2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'd go further and say this is also the cybernetics equivalent of the religious teachings about humans, specifically the whole "judge by one's deeds, not by one's words" thing. So it's not like it's a novel idea.

Also worth remembering that most systems POSIWID is said about, and in fact ~all important systems affecting people, are not designed in the first place. Market forces, social, political, even organizational dynamics, are not designed top-down, they're emergent, and bottom-up wishes and intentions do not necessarily carry over to the system at large.

by actionfromafar2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

If you accept what the system actually does now, and decides to live with it as it is, you just deprecated the original "purpose" and made it irrelevant. You embraced "the purpose is what it does" - to you.

IMHO the saying is meant to make you reflect.

by hrimfaxi10 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I think the point is that if the side effects become known and are accepted, or if they are known and rejected, then indeed the purpose of the system is what it does.

by nurbl4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I think the point of the saying is that as systems tend to expand, sooner or later we become part of them. That means that we can no longer see them from outside, we're now part of the system and our goals and the system's goals will align. Then the purpose of the system can't be anything else than what it does.

by user39393828 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Same. Anyone who has designed anything at all in any domain realizes that what your intentions are and what materializes are often not the same. You have practical constraints in the real world. That doesn’t somehow make the constraints the purpose. The saying makes no sense.