Subject: Systems Language - closed loops

Posted by Niall Palfreyman on 2/7/2010
In Reply To:Systems Language - closed loops Posted by Tim Joy on 2/6/2010

Message:

Farr, Warren III W. schrieb:
> Having experience with this student difficulty, would you say that it is the result of SD language limitations, or the result of a difficult concept for students, requiring extra practice to absorb? SHould we work on new language, or more examples?
>
Tim Joy schrieb:
> A teaser question that Barry Richmond often asked a new audience . . . how is it that birth rates have been falling virtually everywhere around the globe for the last 20 - 30 years, and yet the population continues to climb and will climb for another 30 to 40 years?
>
Eric Stiens schrieb:
> I have found that disaggregating then reaggregating (for example, splitting the rabbit stock into rabbit babies and rabbit adults, with the amount of rabbit adults affecting the birth inflow, and then just reaggregating into one rabbit stock) can be helpful ... Another point I make is that "nothing changes without a cause" ...
> (duh! more rabbits are alive to have more babies!)
Nicely put! I think Forrester and Richmond introduced two important distinctions into our thinking and language: the distinction between a process and its accumulation, and the distinction between historically incrementing a variable and instantaneously setting the value of a variable. As Eric points out, the power of this language is that it disambiguates a species from the mechanism of its change, making available to us a choice of interventions in the system which would otherwise not be available. It is similar to the extension of choice made possible by Newton's laws: that physical cause (force) does not _set_ the velocity of a body - but rather _changes_ the existing velocity. This is a very abstract idea with which we still haven't really come to terms (try dropping your keys onto a piece of paper on the floor, while jogging past at constant speed - they'll always drop _beyond_ the paper).

So what am I trying to say? I think SD represents a powerful extension to our way of thinking about everyday processes by offering us a new choice for intervention which the world desperately needs in order to change. Even if I never apply it to real-life systems, the mere fact of admitting this choice into my way of talking will influence for the better my perception of the world. However it is not an easy extension for newcomers to grasp. Eric's "duh" comment is valid, and is bolstered by our wish to see the world in terms of interacting things rather than in terms of accumulating processes. I am looking for a language, and, yes, also many examples, which open people's eyes to the possibility of seeing their neighbour and their environment not as a 'thing', but as a process which is always moving, always changing, and with whom one can consequently always make a fresh start at any moment of any day.

Phew! That cost some sweat and tears - words don't come easy, do they?

Best wishes,
Niall.

Follow Ups:

Systems Language - closed loops - Warren Farr 2/7/2010 
Systems Language - closed loops - Richard Turnock 2/7/2010