[qrian]

I tried to read many papers of Stafford Beer and cybernetics to parse some insights on complex systems to use in modern days but failed.

Project Cybersyn was just a dashboard (which was revolutionary back then of course).

Viable System Model was just another systems engineering diagram, which only has meaning to those who are deep into that field.

At least I got 'The purpose of a system is what it does' stuck in my head.

[PittleyDunkin]

> At least I got 'The purpose of a system is what it does' stuck in my head.

Which seems like a rather odd understanding of "purpose" divorced from any possible use of the word. What is the point of talking about "purpose" if you can't persuade the person intending that purpose to change their mind? Why not talk about "use" or "effect" instead?

[dredmorbius]

This piece explicates the concept well IMO:

[Beer] frequently used the phrase “The purpose of a system is what it does” (POSIWID) to explain that the observed purpose of a system is often at odds with the intentions of those who design, operate, and promote it. For example, applying POSIWID, one might ask if the purpose of an education system is to help children grow into well-rounded individuals, or is it to train them to pass tests? “There is after all,” Beer observed, “no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do.”

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminkomlos/2021/09/13/the-p...>

(Much more in the essay, but that's a gist of it.)

[gweinberg]

I don't think that's true though. Isn't the purpose what it's intended to do, not what it actually does?

[pmichaud]

The point of the aphorism is specifically to dispel the notion that the straightforward definition of “purpose” is correct here.

[1oooqooq]

cybersyn is just a dashboard if you ignore all the communist aspects he incorporated. it was a dashboard and organic feedback from the production itself. if you see production as uneducated workers and managers, then you fail to understand cybersyn. the human component is the focus. the rest is just communication improvement.

but no mba will write this

[metroholografix]

It should become clear to everyone that reads his work that "management theorist" Stafford Beer can best be characterized without any doubt whatsoever as a charlatan.

Cybernetics came out of the Macy conferences [0] and this is where one needs to go, in order to establish context. I also highly recommend Norbert Wiener's biography "Dark Hero of the Information Age" [1] as a good introduction to one of the greatest geniuses of this age, easily eclipsing Shannon and von Neumann.

Principia Cybernetica [2] is another good resource.

[0] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/C/bo23...

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Hero-Information-Age-Cybernetics...

[2] http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/

[owenversteeg]

>It should become clear to everyone that reads his work that "management theorist" Stafford Beer can best be characterized without any doubt whatsoever as a charlatan.

Yep.

Over the years I've found a few litmus tests for that sort of thing. Unclear or incomplete explanations; intentional vagueness, weird formatting, "meta" anything, "new language", incomprehensible diagrams. One or two and you're Stephen Wolfram; three or more and you're completely full of shit. Beer's book somehow manages to hit every single one in just a single page. Incredible!

If you claim something grand but can't explain your point clearly, you are almost always full of shit. If Susskind can explain the combined work of centuries of geniuses in The Theoretical Minimum, then you can explain your bullshit in a paragraph.