4 ms·

"Every system is perfectly designed to get the results that it gets."

by bopbop 8y ago

bopbop 8y ago
So this has been down voted twice, but with no further comments. I find the statement to be a rather interesting piece of logical jujitsu that I use often - if you believe it not to be applicable in this case (or possibly at all) would you care to explain why? I would be interested in hearing your opinions.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  I didn't downvote or upvote, but one objection might be that design implies a union of intention and ability. Intention has two prerequisites of its own, desire ("I want this particular outcome") and foresight ("Doing X will lead to this outcome.") Few people desire to fail at their designs, but shortcomings in foresight, ability, or both may make those designs imperfect, leading to overall failure.
  - bopbop 8y ago
    I think we're arguing the same thing - The designers intention was to design a system that does x In reality, due to foresight, ability, etc, they have designed a system that does y Because their system sits inside other systems, it is transformed (think of your 1.0 to your 1.1 to your 2.2 to your html5). External design influences sand off and transform what they designed (i.e. google, the unwilling ad company) Every system is perfectly achieving what it is designed to do by all of these designers. Reverse engineer it's outputs and you will understand it - although you will have to figure out all of its designers. In a capitalist society, however, finding the biggest designer is easy - Follow the money. It's a bit of a truism, but I still find it to be a very useful tool. We're not talking about the code of Facebook here, after all, were talking about the social output.
jhayward 8y ago
Design requires intent. Systems are rarely intended to get the exact result they end up creating. Perhaps 'adapted' rather than 'designed' would make this statement more likely true. But then, there may be some other system that is somehow more perfectly adapted that achieves the same result. I think in the end this isn't a useful thought.
- bopbop 8y ago
  Thanks for responding, I respectfully disagree. The statement is saying if we look at the outputs of a system, it is producing exactly what it has been coded to do, intentionally or unintentionally. Facebook is producing exactly what it is designed to, not by a single overarching design but by hundreds or thousands of humans who have had input in to it. When the programs you mention don't get the results they were expecting, its either because of bugs in them, or because the programmers didn't understand why the output would be. The program, however, is doing exactly what it is designed to do. Facebook is attempting to monetize the signals between humans, like a robber baron AT&T trying to sit between every phone line extracting coin. It will continue to do so as long as that continues to turn profit and excellerate its worth on the stock market. Anything else is coincidental.

"Every system is perfectly designed to get the results that it gets."

by bopbop 8y ago

"Every system is perfectly designed to get the results that it gets."

So this has been down voted twice, but with no further comments. I find the statement to be a rather interesting piece of logical jujitsu that I use often - if you believe it not to be applicable in this case (or possibly at all) would you care to explain why? I would be interested in hearing your opinions.

CamperBob2 8y ago
I didn't downvote or upvote, but one objection might be that design implies a union of intention and ability. Intention has two prerequisites of its own, desire ("I want this particular outcome") and foresight ("Doing X will lead to this outcome.") Few people desire to fail at their designs, but shortcomings in foresight, ability, or both may make those designs imperfect, leading to overall failure.
- bopbop 8y ago
  I think we're arguing the same thing - The designers intention was to design a system that does x In reality, due to foresight, ability, etc, they have designed a system that does y Because their system sits inside other systems, it is transformed (think of your 1.0 to your 1.1 to your 2.2 to your html5). External design influences sand off and transform what they designed (i.e. google, the unwilling ad company) Every system is perfectly achieving what it is designed to do by all of these designers. Reverse engineer it's outputs and you will understand it - although you will have to figure out all of its designers. In a capitalist society, however, finding the biggest designer is easy - Follow the money. It's a bit of a truism, but I still find it to be a very useful tool. We're not talking about the code of Facebook here, after all, were talking about the social output.

jhayward 8y ago

Design requires intent. Systems are rarely intended to get the exact result they end up creating. Perhaps 'adapted' rather than 'designed' would make this statement more likely true. But then, there may be some other system that is somehow more perfectly adapted that achieves the same result. I think in the end this isn't a useful thought.

bopbop 8y ago
Thanks for responding, I respectfully disagree. The statement is saying if we look at the outputs of a system, it is producing exactly what it has been coded to do, intentionally or unintentionally. Facebook is producing exactly what it is designed to, not by a single overarching design but by hundreds or thousands of humans who have had input in to it. When the programs you mention don't get the results they were expecting, its either because of bugs in them, or because the programmers didn't understand why the output would be. The program, however, is doing exactly what it is designed to do. Facebook is attempting to monetize the signals between humans, like a robber baron AT&T trying to sit between every phone line extracting coin. It will continue to do so as long as that continues to turn profit and excellerate its worth on the stock market. Anything else is coincidental.