Slashdot Mirror
Systemantics
That means theories like
Systems in general work poorly or not at all.
Some might question whether this is really true for computer systems built with modern technology. After all, for a computer to function, millions of microscopic parts must act in perfect synchronicity at superhuman speed.
But in reality, computers fail much more frequently than we notice. A large chunk of their innards are dedicated to failing gracefully. There's ecc in just about every piece of hardware. Without it, computer hardware would fail too often to be usable. Software is no different--it can fail sooner or later, gracefully or catastrophically, but it's going to fail. Overall, computers work poorly, but they work.
Complex systems usually operate in failure mode.In other words, something's always broken at any point in time. The measure of a complex system's quality is how drastically a particular failure impacts the rest of the system.
Loose systems last longer and work better.
Most Slashdot readers probably read the above and think either "Hallelujah!" or "Duh." But it's a small example of something I liked a lot about Systemantics. Buried under several layers of satire and pessimism is a genuine desire to help the reader avoid the mistakes of past systems designers and managers. There's more to this book than just pessimism.
What's Bad: Systemantics suffers a little from being a quarter-century old. Several references to Watergate and a few other cultural nods may be a bit lost on anyone under 40.
But the book's only real flaw is the author's occasional condescending tone. Every dozen pages or so, Gall takes the opportunity to criticize a real-world example. Some of these anecdotes serve as supporting evidence for an argument. Others are genuinely entertaining (the section on Job Goals and and Objectives is outstanding). But the author sometimes tries too hard to be satirical, and comes across as flat or patronizing, or departs on tangents unrelated to the book's central ideas.
Summary: Despite small imperfections, there's a wealth of real knowledge in this small volume. The author helpfully outlines the main points at the book's end (some of which I've bulleted above). The book's overall message couldn't be more clear if it summarized itself. Which it nicely does:
It is hardly necessary to state that the very first principle of Systems design is a negative one: Do it without a system if you can.Systems are seductive. They promise to do a hard job faster, better, and more easily than you could do it by yourself. But if you set up a system, you are likely to find your time and effort now being consumed in the care and feeding of the system itself.
- New problems are created by its very presence.
- Once set up, it won't go away, it grows and encroaches.
- It begins to do strange and wonderful things.
- It breaks down in ways you never thought possible.
- It kicks back, gets in the way, and opposes its own proper function.
- Your own perspective becomes distorted by being in the system.
- You become anxious and push on it to make it work.
You can find used copies of Systemantics from bn.com and other online sources, though good-condition copies fetch high prices. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to submit a review for consideration, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
...was apparently WRITTEN with a KEYBOARD that HAD a STICKY caps lock KEY.
The Army reading list
..sounds *really* boring.
Why should I read it? That's the point of a review, right?
In sort, everyone.
Even more, it should be required regular reading for managers and other bureaucrats - say every six months or so.
It's only $27.95 from here.
John.
How is this news? The book was published in 1977.
Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
...start this trend of making up stupid-sounding words to sell their ideas. This might be a work of genius, but the 'systemantics' part makes it sound like another bullshit buzzword work.
I'd be more proud if we got cheap oil out if it. As it is, I am feeling cheated that I have to pay a buck fifty for a gallon of gasoline.
Sorry, bad pun. Damn you Ayn Rand.
Who is John Galt??
Ahahaha, I kill me!
This book is about as useful as 'The art of war', which is to say: not that useful to me. It is an insightful summary of the Blindingly Obvious, though it does serve a purpose to educate the 'systems-people'... the Conquer Cancer example is particularly useful.
I'd think that the cynical Slashdot crowd will not learn a great deal from this book... except perhaps gain some ammunition to educate others.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
"Systemantics" is a work in the context/field of General Systems Theory, pioneered by the philosopher Ervin Laszlo.
General Systems Theory says that "invariances of organization" exist; that some things allow complex organization and will be found throughout organized systems, and we can meaningfully study systems through studying these invariances. Also by creating analogies between systems (i.e. such as an ant colony and a communist society). We must also look at parts of a system in a holistic setting- i.e. examine not only parts of a system and their properties, but also their relationships to other parts. Etc. It's good. Check out The Systems View of the World if you're interested.
Systemantics seems to be a work aimed at discovering and exploring these "invariances of organization".
RD
Funny, I remember seeing this review somewhere before (third review down). Is someone at Amazon going to be cheesed you stole their review?
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
I found a copy of the first edition of this book in a used book store almost 10 years ago for a dollar. I read it, and despite agreeing with the (fair) criticisms in the review, learned a new perspective from which to view my job, and the systems I encounter in daily life.
I had given up on the idea that this book had been read by (almost) anyone else, as nobody I had ever spoken with seems to have read it, but anyone who borrowed it from me enjoyed it thoroughly. Most also tried to keep it (bastards), and only a few failed to see the genius behind the pessimism the review (rightly, imnsho) criticized.
The name General Systemantics sounds an awful lot like General-Semantics, a theory of language and meaning that influenced Gregory Bateson, a cyberneticist and systems theorist. Is there any relation?
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
Here is my take on the book. It is in general excellent and this is one of those books that should have become required reading, but possibly because it is too thought provoking, never became prominent. A great pity. It is as entertaining as Parkinson's works on his famous laws, and to me personally it has proven a good deal more valuable in practice. (Parkinson himself reviewed it and liked it!) It is a pity it is out of print. I hope that its follow-up (which I have not yet read) is as good. Though jocularly written, this is really valuable, stimulating material. Its aphorisms may read like jokes, but they are all the more valuable for being quotable and easy to remember in context. Thinking back on all the godawful systems that I have seen, political, management, engineering and computer, there is not one that could not have been mitigated by intelligent anticipatory digestion of this book. Unfortunately mentalities prominent among power-seekers, control freaks and grandiose designers, not to mention outright dishonesty among managers with conflicts of interest, cause considerable resistance to the ideas and attitudes that Gall promotes. If you are one such, I have nothing to say to you. If on the other hand you enjoy a bit of thoughtful and edifying entertainment, do your best to read this book.
Or it could be the combination of two Greek roots to create a word which esentially means "the art of infering properties of systems."
I agree, applying and perfecting foreknowledge are bad, I'm sure you can send me a pamphlet describing in full the advantages I would enjoy by joining your Amish community. Now get the fuck off the internet before Jebidiah cataches you!
He's Stewie from Family Guy!
Who is John Gall?
:(
Sorry, couldn't help it
We call these invariences and their inevitability, "Entropy." They will eventually cause the universe to become a cold dark place, where nothing lives, and if anything did, it would just wait around waiting for something to happen (which wouldn't). At observers will be managers, and the universe will be called "an executive meeting."
Someday I'll learn to type.
as others have pointed out
If you've ever read:
The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship: Or the Art of Winning Games Without Actually Cheating
by Stephen Potter
You would immediately recognise the style. I think one of the editions actually credits Stephen Potter for his work.
ATTENTION MODERATORS!:
THE "Review" above is lifted directly from an Amazon Review. The link is a redirect to goatse! This is neither "insightful" nor "interesting"! Pay attention when moderating!
What specious doublethink. *YOU* put him in power in the first place, amerikan...
Who is John Gall?
It is hardly necessary to state that the very first principle of Systems design is a negative one: Do it without a system if you can.
And how do you do that? Even anarchism is a system in which the majority is commited to opposing any conglomeration of power by a minority.
Maybe you need to get out more. Just because she dresses in read pleather and shows some cleavage doesn't make her a true babe.
Shes actually quite average.
Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Done!
WAY TO 45 ASS
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
if this war is for human rights, why then not invade China? N.Korea? Zimbabwe? Hell, South America?
YOU provided Hussein with the power and means to be a "bloody tyrant". in most cases, supply carries a harsher sentence than posession.
This war was the acid-test for the neocon junta that has invaded YOUR government. if i were you, i'd be looking to have another revolution right now to give your country back to "we, the people".
Wrong. Removing S.H from power is the first decent thing the US has done since WWII.
Shame you had to do it with all the typical american gusto and kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and even hundreds of people on your own side, while simultaneously cracking down on civil liberties in your own country and instigating a state only a stone's throw away from totalitarianism and making the war's instigators very very rich men.
way to fucking go guys. The faster you remove your crackpot government from power, the better for all of us.
It is an insightful summary of the Blindingly Obvious
Yeah, everything's so simple when you're 17.
I'd think that the cynical Slashdot crowd will not learn a great deal from this book... except perhaps gain some ammunition to educate others.
Even supposing that there is nothing new to be gleaned by the average Slashdotter, never underestimate the value of "some ammunition to educate others." Being able to clearly and concisely explain your position to a manager is invaluable. This is particularly true when the manager is on the cusp of deciding between the systems guy's proposal and yours.
For a quick head check on this, consider whether you've ever been in a meeting where such a decision was on the table, and found yourself sighing and saying, "but this is the better way to do it." If you're right, but they're not agreeing, this is precisely the sort of material you should be looking for.
You can continue to be frustrated by their blind inability to see that you are right, or you can realize that blindness is curable, and learn how to be a better communicator.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Only a small and untalented mind could come up with a pessimistic list like that. Only a man who has never made a working system in his life can hold beliefs like these. Beliefs that are self-perpetuating, contagious (though only to other small minds), and just plain wrong. Let me elaborate:
# Systems in general work poorly or not at all.
Only if the designer is a talentless slob or a commitee, which is all too often the case in the modern world. If your mind is clean and ordered, so will its products be. If your mind is a mess, full of nothing but superstitions, half-formed beliefs, prejudices, other people's opinions and bad advice, is it any surprize that it can not come up with anything that is good?
# New systems generate new problems.
Baloney. The problems are inevitably the same; there just aren't too many of them to begin with. Only applications vary, but to a small mind that is not capable of abstraction, each such application looks novel, untried, and unfamiliar. And what hope does he have of solving it in this particular incarnation? No more than in any of the previous ones.
# Systems operate by redistributing energy into different forms and into accumulations of different sizes.
A beautifully vague statement worthy of a beggar fortuneteller.
# Systems tend to grow, and as they grow, they encroach.
Systems created by small minds always grow because the mental process of abstraction is essential for their reduction. Look at any software project and you'll discover dozens of code passages that do exactly the same thing, but differ due to a haphazard and mindless design of the data structures.
# Complex systems exhibit unpredictable behavior.
If you create a system you should understand it. If you can not understand it, you should not create it, but delegate the task to someone who can.
# Complex systems tend to oppose their own proper function.
If you do not know what the system's proper function is (see previous point), how can you be surprized that your guesses prove wrong?
# People in systems do not do what the system says they are doing.
Because you, as the system architect, failed to understand its purpose, the people will naturally be forced outside it in order to accomplish it.
# A function performed by a larger system is not operationally identical to the function of the same name performed by a smaller system.
See the growth point above.
# The real world is whatever is reported to the system.
Garbage in, garbage out. Garbage without, garbage within.
# Systems attract systems people.
Systems attract stupid people who are too afraid to make a decision for which some system can not be blamed.
# The bigger the system, the narrower and more specialized the interface with individuals.
When you can not see the similarity between interfaces, they breed like rabbits. Sadly, each one eventually becomes attached to an individual who could be fired.
# A complex system cannot be "made" to work; it either works or it doesn't.
A perfect description of the mindset of a man who can not "make" anything work. Without abstraction and thought, information never becomes knowledge. Without knowledge, understanding is impossible. Without understanding, the man is a nothing but a pathetic blind, mute, and helpless cripple, created by his own listless hand.
# A simple system may or may not work.
A truly simple system always works. The hard part is making a system simple. Now that is the true talent.
# If a system is working, leave it alone.
And stick your head in the sand while you are at it.
# 15. A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.
Bloated beyond recognition by clinging imbeciles whose only intelligence lay in avoiding screwing up the work of the person who created the simple system.
# Complex systems designed from scratch
I'd think that the cynical Slashdot crowd will not learn a great deal from this book... except perhaps gain some ammunition to educate others
:)
:)
Don't you think that much of the slashdot crowd actually would tend towards being a systems thinker? There's those the "virtues" mentioned by Larry Wall -- laziness, hubris, impatience -- and systems appeal to those traits within each of us. We like automating things for the sake of speed and not having to attend to them -- and for the satisfaction of having built the system.
But I think a systems thinker *can* be different from a systems person. Systems thinkers can be very aware of the likelihoods of breakdown and the problems inherent in a system and build tolerance for failure and worst case scenarious (as good engineers do). In this respect, while probably as much or more prone to the system siren call as anyone, the tech savvy may be much more likely to respect inherent problems, pitfalls, and limits.
This book is about as useful as 'The art of war', which is to say: not that useful to me. It is an insightful summary of the Blindingly Obvious
Perhaps instead of Blindingly Obvious you might say obvious to the "Beginner's Mind" in the eastern/zen sense. When you are uncluttered with predjudice and aware/attentive/observant, many things in Art of War are obvious. When you're intent on a prize and have come to count on certain assumptions for a long time, you're highly likely to miss many blindingly obvious possibilities and a few similarly obvious realities. The Art of War could be seen as a means to help you return to these sorts of insights again.
Tweet, tweet.
So the Slashdot editorial process must be a system.
Just read the review and was highly amused... Back in the day the guy was my Pediatrician, and on one of my last few visits, he told me about it, and I got an autographed copy for my 18th birthday. (You know, when you stop seeing a pediatrician.) Anyway, reading the book was very weird, because the writing style and points of view expressed in the book are quite different than things he would normally say. I was, however, intrigued by many of the concepts he discussed. I've actually tried to make references to the book in real life (specifically the Climax Design phenomenon) but I'm usually met with blank looks and confusion. I wish more people would read this, even though it's hard to get ahold of!
lo... behold:
New problems are created by its very presence.
Once set up, it won't go away, it grows and encroaches.
It begins to do strange and wonderful things.
It breaks down in ways you never thought possible.
It kicks back, gets in the way, and opposes its own proper function.
Your own perspective becomes distorted by being in the system.
You become anxious and push on it to make it work.
Cheers,
who is john gall?
If there is hope, it lies in the prowles.
This site has more reviews for this book.
No we didn't. We put his political party in power.
He then threw a small coup and killed most of his own party.
Granted we should have stopped supporting him after that, but hey, I was 8, so no voting for me...