The critique of the 17% outliers (a concept from Dave Snowden referring to minority “weak signals” that reveal system shifts) centers on the risk of turning these signals into a new form of “privileged data.”
Dennis Noble, within the tradition of Relational Biology, would argue that prioritizing any specific subset of data—even “outliers”—risks repeating the reductionist error of privileged levels of causation[1]. In his view, causality is circular and distributed; there is no “master level” (like a gene or a 17% outlier) that can be understood in isolation from the boundary conditions imposed by the whole system[2][3].
1. The Critique of “Privileged” Signals (Aspect: Causality)
Noble’s Biological Relativity asserts that no level of observation has priority[1].
• The “Mush” Problem: If you isolate 17% of outliers, you are still creating an abstraction. Noble would argue that these outliers only have meaning because of their circular interaction with the 83% “majority” and the environment[2][4].
• **The View of Other Authors:**James Wilk takes this further, arguing that focusing on such abstractions is a form of “mid-level modeling” that obscures the unique reality of a situation[5]. He suggests that we should not look for “types” of data (like outliers) but for the one specific, singular constraint that, if lifted, would “flip” the system[6][7].
2. The “Green Lumber” Fallacy (Aspect: Uncertainty)
Noble’s critique aligns with Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s warnings about the Narrative Fallacy and Green Lumber Fallacy[8][9].
• Taleb’s View: If experts analyze 17% outliers without having Skin in the Game, their interpretation is merely “cheap talk”[10]. He argues that in Extremistan (complex systems), we cannot predict which outlier will become a Black Swan[9][11].
• The Critique: Treating a specific percentage of data as a “predictive signal” is a form of “Fragilista” thinking—it tries to make the unpredictable look manageable through a new set of labels[12][13].
3. Intrinsic Complexity vs. Man-Made Complication (Aspect: Structure)
Alan Kay would likely view the obsession with outlier detection as potentially adding complication (human-introduced noise) rather than addressing intrinsic complexity[14][15].
• Kay’s View: Complexity should be handled through Architecture, not just better “data-mining” of signals[16][17]. If the 17% is just a way to “better” the old way of thinking, it is “inverse vandalism”—improving something that shouldn’t exist in that form to begin with[18].
• The “Biological” Shift: Kay advocates for a shift from “clockwork” monitoring to “biological” systems that scale by encapsulation and message negotiation, where the system doesn’t need a central observer to spot 17% of anything to remain viable[19][20].
4. The Ethics of Framing (Aspect: Stance/Observer)
Paul Cilliers and C. West Churchman provide an ethical critique of the “17%” metric.
• Cilliers’ Modesty: He warns against the “arrogance of absolute coherence”[21]. To claim you have a metric (the 17%) to master complexity is to deny the incompressibility of the system[22][23].
• The Witness (Churchman): Churchman would ask, “Who is the victim?” of this framing[24][25]. If we focus on 17% outliers to “manage” the system, we might be “sweeping out” the very human, ethical, and political variables that the “majority” (the 83%) are experiencing as reality[24][26].
Summary Table: The Critique of the 17%
| Author | The Critique | Practical Advice |
|---|---|---|
| Dennis Noble | No level is privileged; outliers ignore circular causality[1]. | Look at Boundary Conditions and the whole system[2]. |
| James Wilk | Outliers are “mid-level abstractions” that hide singular truths[5]. | Filter for the idiosyncratic lynch-pin[6]. |
| N.N. Taleb | Predicting which outlier matters is a “sucker’s game” without skin in the game[27]. | Focus on Fragility and Via Negativa[13][28]. |
| Alan Kay | Seeking signals in the mush is “complication”; architecture is the answer[14]. | Shift from “clockwork” monitoring to biological architecture[29]. |
| Paul Cilliers | Models of outliers are still “reductions” and ignore “otherness”[23][30]. | Adopt a stance of Modesty and permanent vigilance[31][32]. |
In your current practice, are you using the “17% rule” as a way to find a “master key,” or are you treating it as just one limited “vantage point” among many?
References
[1] 💬Perspectives.md [2] 💬Environment.md [3] 💬Questions.md [4] 💬Questions.md [5] 💬What is Complexity.md [6] 💬What is Complexity.md [7] 💬What is Complexity.md [8] 💬Gists.md [9] 💬Keywords + Jargon.md [10] 💬Perspectives.md [11] 💬Perspectives.md [12] 💬How To Guides.md [13] 💬What is Complexity.md [14] 💬Distinctions.md [15] 💬What is Complexity.md [16] 💬Nutshell (Process).md [17] 💬Questions.md [18] 💬Questions.md [19] 💬Distinctions.md [20] 💬Perspectives.md [21] 💬Distinctions.md [22] 💬Distinctions.md [23] 💬Distinctions.md [24] 💬Environment.md [25] 💬Gists.md [26] 💬Nutshell (Process).md [27] 💬Perspectives.md [28] 💬How To Guides.md [29] 💬Questions.md [30] 💬Perspectives.md [31] 💬Gists.md [32] 💬Gists.md