> ... remember that the Systemic Stability Principle is completely false, and just happens to be a false belief that it’s often useful to hold. A system being s

> ... remember that the Systemic Stability Principle is completely false, and just happens to be a false belief that it’s often useful to hold. A system being stable in the past doesn’t mean it’s stable now, and evidence that the Systemic Stability Principle works is not the same thing as evidence that it’s right. That is, the only way you can get better at a game like this is to assume that the system is stable (otherwise you'll attribute failure to bad luck instead of bad strategy). > It’s also important to avoid refuting observations by appealing to system definitions. If someone says “This feels like it’s doing more damage than it says”, resist the impulse to say “Nope, it does exactly this value; it’s written right here.” Instead, try to design an experiment that would prove whether the value written in the system is correct. If designing the experiment is very hard, that should be interpreted as a risk factor - if no one can check that the system is doing what it ought to, then maybe it really is wrong! Play yes-and with systems skeptics, letting them invest their time into correspondence work if they think something is wrong. Or be the system skeptic yourself, if a certain observation sits wrong with you. That skill is a superpower in software development when dealing with complex systems that behave unexpectedly.