3 ms·

I agree with the point, but disagree with how the word "trigger" is being used here. An identifiable "trigger" is usually present, but it's not the root cause,

by nknight 15y ago

I agree with the point, but disagree with how the word "trigger" is being used here. An identifiable "trigger" is usually present, but it's not the root cause, it's the last condition to be satisfied, the final event that "triggered" the Rube Goldberg machine that brought the system down. Identifying that trigger can be valuable, because it sometimes points to a clear design problem, like an error in assumptions about how the system is used.

barrkel 15y ago
Sorites paradox; in complex systems - especially ones with feedback - knowing the tipping point trigger isn't very useful. Traffic jams can be caused by density of traffic. A slight variation in speeds cascades through human delay in reaction, causing a longitudinal wave to ripple backwards through the traffic. If the amplitude of the wave gets high enough, sections of traffic will periodically reach a standstill while the wave works its way through. There's no meaningful trigger here. Decomposing the whole into parts won't solve the problem. If you didn't know that traffic density causes jams, looking into the root cause would seem mysterious, because the chaotic behaviour that gives rise to the initial perturbation is essentially unimportant. It's the interaction between the parts that matters, not the "trigger". And even when you've "solved" this by building more and wider roads to spread the density, you find a different level of homeostasis; better transport infrastructure like roads encourages people to take more journeys, live further apart with more space, further away from work and play, leading to more traffic again. Sometimes, when solving a problem, looking inwards, to parts, to triggers, to root causes, isn't the right approach; looking outwards, to the holistic whole, running experiments and simulations, creating new theories, is better. But this is a synthetic approach, not an analytic one driven by 5 Whys.

by nknight 15y ago

barrkel 15y ago

Sorites paradox; in complex systems - especially ones with feedback - knowing the tipping point trigger isn't very useful. Traffic jams can be caused by density of traffic. A slight variation in speeds cascades through human delay in reaction, causing a longitudinal wave to ripple backwards through the traffic. If the amplitude of the wave gets high enough, sections of traffic will periodically reach a standstill while the wave works its way through. There's no meaningful trigger here. Decomposing the whole into parts won't solve the problem. If you didn't know that traffic density causes jams, looking into the root cause would seem mysterious, because the chaotic behaviour that gives rise to the initial perturbation is essentially unimportant. It's the interaction between the parts that matters, not the "trigger". And even when you've "solved" this by building more and wider roads to spread the density, you find a different level of homeostasis; better transport infrastructure like roads encourages people to take more journeys, live further apart with more space, further away from work and play, leading to more traffic again. Sometimes, when solving a problem, looking inwards, to parts, to triggers, to root causes, isn't the right approach; looking outwards, to the holistic whole, running experiments and simulations, creating new theories, is better. But this is a synthetic approach, not an analytic one driven by 5 Whys.