Can you use the Barbara Minto pyramid principle approach including a SCQA section to report on: How do the authors in 'v2-combined' view the comments below (the criticised systems thinker is ( name removed) by the way): Content of LinkedIn post
The critique provided identifies a growing rift between scientific rigor and rhetorical sophistry within the systems thinking / complexity community. Based on the authors in the v2-combined collection, this “drama” is viewed not merely as a personality clash, but as a fundamental collision between different paradigms of complexity and the role of the observer.
SCQA Analysis
-
Situation: The systems thinking community is historically divided into “waves” of thought, with modern practitioners (like Derek Cabrera) claiming to provide a “Fourth Wave” unified theory (DSRP) that functions as the universal “DNA” of systems thinking.
-
Complication: Critics argue that these “unifying” theories are more rhetorical than scientific, often using big words to mask a lack of experimental results. This leads to “cult behaviour” where the ego of the practitioner and the talk-value of an idea supersede its replicable utility.
-
Question: How do the foundational authors in this collection view the validity of these “weak ideas” and the charges of sophistry and “Darwinian” comparisons?
-
Answer: The collective perspective suggests that modern “unified” theories like DSRP are guilty of methodological imperialism and category errors. By attempting to reduce the rich, non-linear history of systems science to four simple cognitive labels, these practitioners commit a “reification fallacy”—treating a subjective mental sensation as an objective physical property.
1. The “Biological Metaphor” as a Category Error
The comparison of cognitive rules (DSRP) to biological DNA is viewed by several authors as a profound scientific error.
-
Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Information: David L. Abel distinguishes strictly between “Random Sequence Complexity” (noise) and “Prescriptive Information” (instructions that program function). He would argue that DSRP is merely a descriptive label—a way humans talk about things—not a physical code that creates function.
-
The Cybernetic Cut: Abel and Howard Pattee emphasize the “Cybernetic Cut”. Biological DNA requires “Semantic Closure,” where physical dynamics read symbols to build more dynamics. DSRP lacks this physical mechanism; it exists only in the mind of the observer, not in the material “DNA” of the system.
-
Misplaced Darwinism: Abel notes that “natural selection” only acts on already-living phenotypes. Putting a cognitive theory on the level of Darwin without a mechanism for genetic selection is “inverse vandalism”.
2. The Deconstruction of Emergence
The criticised position often claims that “the whole is always equal to (not greater than) the parts” if relationships are counted as parts.
-
The Death of Holism: Robert Rosen and Paul Cilliers argue that complexity is incompressible. If you can reduce a whole to a simple sum of parts and rules (an algorithm), it is a “simple mechanism,” not a complex system.
-
Non-Computability: Rosen defines a complex system as one with non-simulable models. A theory that claims to “calculate” complexity via four simple rules is a return to the Newtonian paradigm, which treats the world as a predictable clockwork machine.
3. Methodological Imperialism and “Silver Bullets”
The charge of “cult behavior” and “sophistry” is often linked to the sale of a single “correct” methodology for all problems.
-
Restricted vs. General Complexity: Michael Jackson and the Meeting of Minds (MoM) collective critique “restricted complexity”—the attempt to find universal “best practice” laws for complexity. They argue this is a “functionalist” trap that protects management egos rather than addressing systemic reality.
-
Methodological Imperialism: Jackson’s System of Systems Methodologies (SOSM) demonstrates that different problems (Unitary, Pluralist, Coercive) require different tools. Claiming DSRP unifies all these is “imperialism” because it ignores the unique requirements of power dynamics and coercion.
-
Quick-Fix Sellers (QFS): The MoM collective explicitly warns against consultants who package linear thinking as “Systems Thinking” to appeal to corporate buyers.
4. Sophistry and “Value Rigidity”
John Flach’s invocation of Robert Pirsig points to the psychological trap of “stuckness.”
-
Static vs. Dynamic Quality: Pirsig defines “Value Rigidity” as the inability to re-evaluate what one sees due to an obsession with a previous mental model. When a practitioner puts themselves on the level of Darwin, their model becomes a “Static Pattern” that filters out any conflicting data (the “Cleveland Harbor Effect”).
-
Linguistic Pollution: John Warfield and Neil Postman argue that big words and overly complicated theories create “linguistic pollution”. This “Stupid Talk” fails to achieve a rational purpose and instead serves to sustain the status of the “system-monger”.
Summary Table: Critical Divergence
| Rhetorical Claim | Systemic Critique | Author |
|---|---|---|
| DSRP is the “DNA” of systems. | It is a Category Error; labeling is not programming. | David L. Abel |
| Whole = Parts + Relationships. | It is Reductionism; complexity is non-computable. | Robert Rosen |
| DSRP is a “Unifying Theory.” | It is Methodological Imperialism; it ignores power. | Michael Jackson |
| Science is about the “Big Answer.” | Science is about Systemic Learning and “Accommodation.” | Peter Checkland |
| Does this analysis help clarify why the “Darwinian” comparisons in modern systems thinking are viewed by these authors as a departure from systemic rigor? |