An Introduction to General Systems Thinking

An Introduction to General Systems Thinking

SILVER ANNIVERSARY EDITION

Gerald M.Weinberg

CLICK HERE TO SKIP TO THE BEGINNING

SMASHWORDS EDITION

PUBLISHED BY:

Gerald M. Weinberg on Smashwords

An Introduction to General Systems Thinking

Copyright © 2011 by Gerald M. Weinberg

Dear Reader: Even with many layers of editing, mistakes can slip through, alas. But, together, we can eradicate the nasty nuisances. If you encounter typos or errors in this book, please send them to me at: <hardpretzel@earthlink.net> Thank you! - Jerry Weinberg

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

Smashwords Edition License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author's work.

Contents

Preface to the Silver Anniversary Edition

Original Preface

How to Use This Book

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1. The Problem

Chapter 2. The Approach

Chapter 3. System and Illusion

Chapter 4. Interpreting Observations

Chapter 5. Breaking Down Observations

Chapter 6. Describing Behavior

Chapter 7. Some Systems Questions

Notes

Appendix

FURTHER READING

Cover Photo

Dedication

Boys and young men acquire readily the moral sentiments of their social milieu, whatever these sentiments may be. The boy who has been taught at home that it is wicked to swear, easily loses this belief when he finds that his schoolfellows whom he most admires are addicted to blasphemy. - Bertrand Russell

To Ross Ashby, Kenneth Boulding, and Anatol Rapoport who got me addicted to blasphemy.

Trademark credits: All trade and product, names are either trademarks, registered trademarks, or service marks of their respective companies, and are the property of their respective holders and should be treated as such.

Preface to the Silver Anniversary Edition

The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. - Albert Einstein

For as long as I can remember, I've been interested in thinking. I started writing this book about thinking in 1961, worked on it for fourteen years, and finally published it in 1975. Since that time, I've received hundreds of letters and reviews of the book. Most of them confirm that the book has helped readers improve their thinking—which delighted me. But, because writing the book helped me with my thinking, I wasn't surprised.

I'm not a person who saves stuff. I couldn't find all the fine reviews this book received when it first appeared all those years ago, nor can I find all those letters. So, I puzzled over how I was going to write this Preface.

Well, most thinking, even general systems thinking, can sometimes use a little luck. I took a break to download my e-mail, and as luck would have it, I got one of those flattering letters, which read, in part:

My name is Wayne Johnson, and I am a veterinarian working as a technical consultant in South China. ... I discovered An Introduction to General Systems Thinking quite by accident, or serendipitously, depending upon one's point of view, about ten years ago, while looking for basic information to assist me with my growth model project. I should tell you that was one of the most influential books I have ever read. The first copy I finally had to return to the university library, and after much difficulty I was able to convince some bookseller to order me a copy of my own.

Over the years, I've never grown tired of getting letters from halfway around the world (South China) from a professional in a field I never dreamed of influencing (veterinary medicine) saying this book was one of the most influential books I have ever read.

I had, however, grown tired of the way this book had been handled in recent years. Apparently, my original publisher's models didn't include books that stayed current and in demand for a quarter-century. As a result, a series of automatic cost-of-living price increases had stuck the book with an unreasonably high price, and the reprinting algorithms simply failed to keep the book in stock—even after more than twenty printings. Used copies were sold at a premium, and my small reserve stock dwindled, so I decided to gain control of the book and put it in the hands of a more understanding publisher, Dorset. House Publishing.

And now, a few years later, revolutionary technology has led me to produce another edition—this eBook edition. Give that this book has a world-wide audience, I felt it should be more readily obtainable world-wide—and eBooks made that possible. The initial price is lower, making the book more accessible to less fortunate countries than the USA. More than that, there are no shipping charges and customs duties, which often more than doubled the price. And, perhaps even more important, it's much harder for certain countries to seize the book and prevent it from reaching its intended destination. It seems there are governments in the world that would prefer their citizens not to improve the very thinking that established those governments in the first place.

When I set out to write An Introduction to General Systems Thinking, I had already written a half-dozen books on thinking—but all in the context of thinking about computer programming. I had been doing this long enough to realize that computer languages changed a whole lot faster than people changed, so I decided to leave the programming language business to others and to concentrate on more general principles of thinking. As a result, I first published The Psychology of Computer Programming and then this book. Now, more than a generation later, both books are still around, quietly doing their work. My work.

I suppose not many people have the experience of reading their own work more than a quarter-century later, but now that I've done it twice, I find myself reflecting on what is different after all this time:

I was definitely younger then, or so it seems now. At the time, I felt rather mature and capable. I wonder if I'd have the chutzpah to start on such ambitious works today.

I know a great deal more now, from many more experiences, but my deepest interests have not changed. I'm still utterly fascinated by the human mind and its vast rainbow of possibilities. I haven't changed my conviction that most people don't think nearly as well as they could, had they been taught some principles of thinking.

My writing style has changed, and I find that some of my ancient words sound a bit quaint. For example, since publishing these books, and prompted by some feedback from readers, I have consciously eliminated sexist language from my writing. I'm happy I did. When I read authors who say that non-sexist language is too awkward, I think that says more about them than they may wish to reveal. In this edition, I have changed as much of this sexist language as I could detect.

My recent writing speaks more of I than of we or it. These are, after all, my thoughts, for better or worse, and I'm writing about thinking and about thinkers. So, when these indirect forms hide the thinker behind the thought, they do a disservice to my readers, who are, after all, interested in the subject of thinking. I hope that current readers will forgive this folly of my youth—and perhaps gain some practice at seeing the man behind the curtain of every thinking process. As a result of a great deal of intentional study, I do feel I know much more today about personal differences in thinking style—drawing on models such as those of my mentors, Virginia Satir and Anatol Rapoport; the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI); and Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP). Such models are like delicious frosting on this general systems cake. As a result of all these years of consulting, I now know more about applying these general principles to more specific situations. I've tried to capture this knowledge in my books about software management, systems analysis, problem definition, interpersonal systems, consulting, and systems design. And now, some years later, my fiction.

I'm looking forward to seeing how well these books hold up for another generation.

Original Preface

I found everything perfectly clear, and I really understood absolutely nothing. To understand is to change, to go beyond oneself. This reading did not change me.

(It would be out of keeping with the informal tone of this book to clutter the pages with footnotes and references. I shall therefore confine all the other notes to the end of the book.

Jean-Paul Sartre, Search for a Method. Translated by Hazel E. Barnes. New York: Vintage, 1968, pp. 17, 18. Sartre is referring to Capital and German Ideology, by Karl Marx.)

This book is based on a course that over the years has changed the thinking of many people. In case you think that you are not the type of person to be changed by reading a book, let me quote for you some typical comments received in course evaluations.

An electrical engineer said of the course, It made the many isolated subjects I had studied in college come together into a meaningful whole—and it also related them to my five years of on-the-job experience.

An archaeologist said, I don't think I ever understood before the role of theory in my work, and just how powerful theory can be if you don't let it master you. When I dig now, I have always in my mind a perception of the site as a whole, and as a part of a larger whole, a living culture.

A composer said, I probably couldn't demonstrate this to you exactly, but my recent compositions have been altered, definitely altered, and for the better, as a result of taking this course.

A computer systems analyst said, I should have taken this course a dozen years ago. In three months I have learned more about what systems are than I knew previously. A problem that came up in my job and that would have caused me much grief was just erased with no effort because I was able to apply the Principle of Indifference. In another case, something that a few months ago would have slipped by unnoticed and gotten us into a lot of trouble was caught just because I almost unconsciously played some observer games with it. Under one of the new points of view, the problem was obvious. So was the solution.

But a computer programmer said, I didn't learn anything in this course. It was a bunch of platitudes, no more than ordinary common sense. It was fun, but otherwise a waste of time.

You can't teach all of the people all of the time. We start with some promise of success and some warning that success is not guaranteed. To make things worse, books about thinking are a pox on the market—those who can't think write books about thinking. So beyond the several hundred testimonials running about 9 to 2 in favor of a significant change in thinking, what promise is there that this book can change your thinking and your understanding of the thoughts of others? Scholars learn to think in at least two distinct ways. One method begins with the mastery of the details of a discipline and then proceeds to transcend them. We speak of this transcendence in such approving terms as, thinks physically, knows anthropological theory, or has mathematical maturity. What have we done in attaining this disciplinary maturity? For one thing, we have learned how to approach a problem—that is, what should be our first few thoughts.

This disciplinary method of teaching works well. First—obviously—it builds on the foundations of wisdom left by others and conserves the effort of retracing their steps. Second—and in our fragmented society, not so obvious—the disciplinarian confines herself to a rather small range of problems, a range in which she is fairly confident of her ability to get results. A successful disciplinarian knows what problems to avoid.

But what of problems that refuse to be avoided? What of the depletion of our natural resources by an ever-increasing population in an ever-more-wasteful economy? What of expanding technology, usually the obedient servant but occasionally the terrible master? What of grisly wars and impoverished peace? What of death, and what of me, dying?

Such problems fall outside any discipline. Many lesser problems too come supplied with no familiar label. This book attempts to teach an approach to thinking when the labels are missing, or misleading. This approach precedes the disciplinary studies—and sometimes bypasses them, or integrates them. We call this way of thinking and teaching the general systems approach.

The general systems approach is not my invention. Many people have made original contributions to the general systems approach, but I am not among them. Why, then, do I write this book? Only because, through a dozen years of attempting to teach general systems thinking I have found that none of the introductory books make it accessible to a truly general audience.

My role, consequently, is to integrate a mass of material into an introductory form. I have tried to gather insights both from general systems theorists and from disciplinarians, to arrange them in a consistent and helpful order, and to translate them into a simpler and more general language so that they become common property.

There is, then, a double meaning to the word general in the title: the most generally applicable insights made available to the most general audience possible.

By elevating particular disciplinary insights to a general framework and language, we make some ideas of each discipline available for the use of all. If these ideas have been well chosen to have general application, then this approach should yield for the disciplinarian a certain economy of thought—he need not retrace steps taken in other disciplines. This book, then, is not for systems specialists, but for systems generalists.

Who are those generalists? Certainly they include—and have included in my courses over the years—almost anybody who uses his or her brain to make a better living, or to make living better. I have had managers and other organizational leaders, social and biological scientists, computer systems designers, many engineers, and a whole host of college undergraduates in all fields. I have had anthropologists and actors, businessmen and biologists, cartographers and cab drivers, designers and dilettantes, electrical engineers and Egyptologists, French majors and farmers—we need not continue the exercise all the way to zoologists.

Few of these people had mathematical training much beyond high-school algebra, and some not even that. The treatment of mathematical subjects in the book is geared to this level because it is the level on which most people- most educated people—happen to find themselves. A control systems engineer who reviewed this book felt a danger that, should his students read it they would not want to study their calculus and differential equations.

But read what a chemistry student said:

The follow-on for this course for me is a course in differential equations. I always dreaded the thought after finishing calculus, and since it wasn't required, I just kept putting it off. But I knew I needed it, vaguely, and now I know why I need it precisely. More than that, I've lost my fear—they can't touch me now that I know what it's about.

Or a sophomore biologist:

I haven't taken any math since high-school algebra. That's really stupid for a biologist, but until this general systems course I never knew that. I'll start calculus next semester, if they'll let me.

Can these claims be true? Leaf through the book, and you will find a variety of graphs, diagrams, symbols, and even equations. Don't let them frighten you. They are not there to mystify. Just because ordinary people are so often alienated from science and technology by such devices, a book on general systems thinking must be designed to lift the veil off their mysteries.

The appropriate mathematical symbolism will first be justified, then explained, as needed. Contrary to popular belief, scientists use mathematics to make things clearer, not more obscure. I intend to use math only that way, so, if you find the symbolism unclear, try once more. (Check the Appendix for some help.) If it is still unclear, give up, blame it on me, and proceed with your reading. You won't miss too much.

Not all sciences confound with mathematical symbols. Ordinary words do quite nicely—especially if the writers don't really know what they are talking about. My computer experiences have made me aware that people often have but a foggy idea of what they are saying. Through translating thoughts into computer programs, I have learned many fog-clearing techniques. These techniques would have been impossible without the knowledge gained from computing, which is why so few of them are understood by older scientists—and systems theorists. This book will not teach you to program computers, but it will teach you to think the way a computer programmer should.

And speaking of fog, let us leave no illusions about the clarity of my own thoughts. Over the years of writing, entire sections of this book have been scrapped as the mist has been dispelled. Moreover, I am not afraid to employ slight inaccuracies to make the lessons more forceful and therefore more memorable. In other words, I choose vigor over rigor.

So do not take this book too seriously. It is not a bible, nor a proof, nor even a cohesive argument. It is, indeed, my first few thoughts, a collection of hints, nudges, pushes, and sometimes shoves, which aim to assist your first few thoughts on any systems problem. As another of my students said, I feel that this course has made me twice as good a (computer) systems designer, but I know it has made me ten times as good a thinker. I hope it will do as much for you. It may do more.

How To Use This Book

In manuscript form, this book has been used in several ways, but particularly for individual or class use. Although the reader will undoubtedly discover his or her own ways of using it, some notes on how I have seen it used and planned its use might be in order.

For individual use, the best approach is probably just to read it straight through, ignoring all the bibliographic material. The Questions for Further Research at the end of each chapter should probably be read as part of the text, to give an impression of the scope of problems to which the chapter materials might apply. Should some problem or quotation strike you as particularly intriguing, make note of it and then use the references to take it up later. Since the book is intended to introduce you to new ways of thinking, many quotations and references have been given—not to lend a patina of scholarship, but to give you numerous pointers toward other paths to learning. (Today, a great many of these references can be found on the Internet, which ought to simplify your ongoing study.)

Not all of the references represent good examples, so further assistance is given through the medium of the Recommended and Suggested Readings at the end of each chapter. The fundamental difference between recommended and suggested is that over the years I have found it imprudent to recommend that someone read an entire book. Either they don't do it, or they do and have a rather different perception than mine of its worth. In the latter case, I have made an enemy; in the former, I have made someone wish to avoid me. But do read some of the suggested books anyway.

You have a great variety of options for classroom use,. For a typical university curriculum, the seven chapters may be assigned one roughly every other week, with intermediate weeks used for the recommended readings. This is the scheme we use when we are dealing with a mixed audience—that is, with students from a variety of disciplines all in one class. When the class is more homogeneous, more specialized readings may be substituted. This approach has been used, to our knowledge, at least in management science, computer science, and behavioral science.

The text itself is suitable for any level, from sophomores on up—making adjustments by assigning differing amounts of supplementary reading and questions for further research. The research questions themselves are usually suitable for either a short essay or a term paper. In higher-level courses, we have students prepare one or more of these questions for class presentation. For those students without mathematical background, the notational exercises are highly recommended.

The very flexibility of this book and generality of its material make it difficult to set in a university curriculum. In what department does it belong, really? At what level student is it aimed? These questions, so frequently asked of me, might be symptomatic of the excessive categorization of our society—breaking down knowledge into disciplinary fiefdoms and people into age-graded human waves passing through an education factory. But those who ask the questions are often sincere in their attempt to cut through the present university structure and obtain something better. I should try to give them a helpful answer.

With regard to where, a course or sequence in the general systems approach might be found in any department where there is a willing instructor and a cooperative chairman. In some places, cross listing of a course is the traditional way of handling such hot potatoes. In others, provisions already exist for all-university (or at least all-division) courses. Quite often, the Philosophy Department would be an appropriate place, except that our ex-resident philosopher, Virg Dykstra, always taught us that there shouldn't be a Philosophy Department—just a philosopher in every department. So perhaps there ought to be a general systems course in every department, taught by its philosopher. Alternatively, the book can certainly be supplementary reading in a variety of courses.

With regard to who or when, I can be more specific if my own personal prejudices may be allowed to creep out. I have taught this material to sophomores, juniors, seniors, beginning and advanced graduate students, as well as to those long out of formal education. For some reason, the most exciting times were with seniors or those long out of school. The seniors seem to be looking for a way of integrating a befuddling mass of four years' worth of factual material into something they can actually use. Although at first glance the idea of this material being useful might seem hilarious, more than a few students have returned or written to tell me that this was the most useful course they took in four years of college. I hope that speaks well for the course and not badly for the college.

Perhaps this practicality is what makes the course take so well with working people, whose consistent reaction is to bring tales to class of how they applied, or should have applied, some general systems law or other to their daily labors. On the other hand, beginning graduate students seem too often obsessed with achieving the maximum specialization possible in the minimum time, while sophomores just want a few specifics on which to hang their generalities. But, naturally, people don't fall so neatly into these class categories. I'd hate to think of the learning I would have missed by excluding certain graduate students and sophomores from my classes.

Acknowledgments

This book is the work of many people, work that merely happens to be assembled by one. First are the students who found themselves used as guinea pigs over the years and didn't squeal too much except when it really hurt. Second are the co-teachers who used and/or contributed this material in working with me: Ken Boulding, who let me help out in his Senior Honors course at Michigan; Jim Greenwood, who took over for me at the IBM Systems Research Institute in New York; and Don Gause, who shared the teaching with me in the Human Sciences and Technology group at the State University of New York at Binghamton. Third are all those who taught me directly, but especially those to whom this volume is dedicated, Ken Boulding, Anatol Rapoport, and Ross Ashby. Fourth are all those whose material has been so liberally borrowed by me for the book, and may anyone who has not received proper credit please forgive me enough to let me know of my oversight. Fifth are the ever-so-many people who have contributed editorial work over the ever-so-many years this work has been in progress: especially Sheila Abend and Shanna and Mike McGoff. Finally, and in the place of greatest gratitude, are the two who read and ripped to shreds every word and diagram so as to convert a lumpy oatmeal pudding into what I hope is more like a wedding cake: Joan Kaufmann and Dani Weinberg.

Chapter 1. The Problem

Today we preach that science is not science unless it is quantitative. We substitute correlation for causal studies, and physical equations for organic reasoning. Measurements and equations are supposed to sharpen thinking, but ... they more often tend to make the thinking non-causal and fuzzy. They tend to become the object of scientific manipulation instead of auxiliary tests of crucial inferences.

Many—perhaps most—of the great issues of science are qualitative, not quantitative, even in physics and chemistry. Equations and measurements are useful when and only when they are related to proof; but proof or disproof comes first and is in fact strongest when it is absolutely convincing without any quantitative measurement.

Or to say it another way, you can catch phenomena in a logical box or in a mathematical box. The logical box is coarse but strong. The mathematical box is fine grained but flimsy. The mathematical box is a beautiful way of wrapping up a problem, but it will not hold the phenomena unless they have been caught in a logical box to begin with. - John R. Platt¹

The Complexity of the World

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. - Will Rogers

The first step to knowledge is the confession of ignorance. We know far, far less about our world than most of us care to confess. Yet confess we must, for the evidences of our ignorance are beginning to mount, and their scale is too large to be ignored!

If it had been possible to photograph the earth from a satellite 150 or 200 years ago, one of the conspicuous features of the planet would have been a belt of green extending 10 degrees or more north and south of the Equator. This green zone was the wet evergreen tropical forest, more commonly known as the tropical rain forest. Two centuries ago it stretched almost unbroken over the lowlands of the humid Tropics of Central and South America, Africa, Southeast Asia and the islands of Indonesia.

... the tropical rain forest is one of the most ancient ecosystems ... it has existed continuously since the Cretaceous period, which ended more than 60 million years ago. Today, however, the rain forest, like most other natural ecosystems, is rapidly changing. ... It is likely that, by the end of this century very little