Ref the "systems vs. reductionist thinking" theme that has cropped up:
My view on this goes back to the tool-box theory: the systems view and the
reductionist view both contribute.
Imagine trying to understand the behavior of a simple reinforcing loop:
MARKETING leads to higher SALES leads to a higher MARKETING-BUDGET which
closes the loop with more MARKETING
Seeing the systemic view, the reinforcing loop, is vital to understanding
the relationships between the three variables. BUT, to fully understand
the kind of behavior this loop will produce, one also needs to understand
the workings inside the variables.
For instance, do SALES rise linearly with increases in MARKETING? If so,
at what rate? or is there a non-linear relationship that varies based on
the amount of MARKETING, i.e. diminishing returns? Prying open the
"boxes" on a systems diagram, to get at and understand their behavior, is
(I think) a task well suited to reductionist thinking.
Which leads me back to this quote:
> I believe we break them down into their component parts so that we may
> work with the part(s) we understand. Most systems are too complex, going
> beyond our experiential frame of reference, for us to be able to
> understand them as a whole.
This is probably true, particularly with respect to social systems, but, I
think there are examples of this individual limitation being transcended,
particularly in large engineering projects.
No one person knows enough to build a jet airliner, but the designers must
know enough about the system (i.e. the plane) to make wise systemic
choices. For example: "what is the trade off between a heavier engine
that consumes less fuel and a lighter engine that consumes more fuel?"
These same designers must also know enough of the component design to
meaningfully give specifications to sub-teams, each of which focuses on a
less and less systemic view (e.g. the engine team designs the best engine,
while a specific sub-team designs the best fan blades), but each of which
also has enough guidance and/or knowledge of the whole system that the
individual parts will function as a system when brought together.
I would argue that the design and construction of anything too complex for
one person, or even a small team, to fully comprehend shows that it is
possible to balance both systemic thinking and reductionist knowledge
and/or organization in a functional way. I would offer jet airliners,
micro-chips, moon rockets, and special-effects laden movies as examples of
the working combination of a systemic knowledge or vision and intensely
specialized, reductionist capabilities in specific parts of the system.
Regards,
Robert Lucadello
RLucadello@AOL.com
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>