3 ms·

“Though this pheonomenon is often discussed, it doesn't seem to be named. Let's call it the strong version of Goodhart's law“ I wonder why the author called it

by gond 2y ago

“Though this pheonomenon is often discussed, it doesn't seem to be named. Let's call it the strong version of Goodhart's law“ I wonder why the author called it that way when this seems to me clearly derived from Ross Ashby‘s law of Requisite Variet[1], predating Goodhard by 20 years. As I see it, it is not even necessary to put more meaning it Goodhard as there actually is. Requisite Variety is sufficient. Going by his resume, I strongly assume the author knows this. Russel Ackoff, building on countless others, put into two sentences for which others needed two volumes: “The behaviour of a system is never equal to the behaviour of its parts. - It is the product of their interactions.“ [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics)

appendix-rock 2y ago
Love myself some cybernetics! All engineers are doing themselves a disservice by sitting here writing smooth-brained rants about “dumb MBAs making my job hard” instead of reading up on this field and understanding the true complexities that are inherent in people working together.
- gond 2y ago
  Agreed. I wonder if this is still the aftermath of the chasm which resulted when ‘Marvin Minsky et al‚ disowned Cybernetics, took some parts out of it and gave it a shiny new name. Especially Systems Theory in its second manifestation (Maturana, Luhmann, von Förster, Glasersfeld - and Ackoff) is extremely powerful, deep and, reasons beyond me, totally overlooked. Have to say tho, most MBA‘s I encountered sadly never ever heard of Cybernetics or Systems Theory. :-(
  - pradn 2y ago
    How has Systems Theory changed how you think? Is there a good book you recommend on the topic? Thank you!
    - gond 2y ago
      I made a mistake here, leading astray. It's second-order cybernetics, not second order systems theory. I melted the two in my head, reason is that (Social) Systems Theory according to Niklas Luhmann [1] incorporates several parts of second order cybernetics (most of the people mentioned before show up there) and blends it all together to a point where I have difficulties to distinguish the separate parts. This is all not 'new' in the literal sense. Luhmann died in the late 90s. I tried to come up with a spot-on-book of Luhmann, but that lead to nothing. It's all spread out (papers and books) as far as I know. There is a (transcribed) lecture given in 1992, which may come close, but I couldn't find a translated version of it. One of the parts which hit home for me was the introduction of a differenciated form of distinctiveness, in turn partly enabled by the introduction of an observer, and observation in general. Heinz von Foerster gave an often cited sentence which I think fits the part, albeit Luhmann gurus will probably moan my simplification : "Objectivity is the delusion that observations could be made without an observer." Apart from that, sorry for not being more helpful here. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann

by gond 2y ago

appendix-rock 2y ago

Love myself some cybernetics! All engineers are doing themselves a disservice by sitting here writing smooth-brained rants about “dumb MBAs making my job hard” instead of reading up on this field and understanding the true complexities that are inherent in people working together.

gond 2y ago
Agreed. I wonder if this is still the aftermath of the chasm which resulted when ‘Marvin Minsky et al‚ disowned Cybernetics, took some parts out of it and gave it a shiny new name. Especially Systems Theory in its second manifestation (Maturana, Luhmann, von Förster, Glasersfeld - and Ackoff) is extremely powerful, deep and, reasons beyond me, totally overlooked. Have to say tho, most MBA‘s I encountered sadly never ever heard of Cybernetics or Systems Theory. :-(
- pradn 2y ago
  How has Systems Theory changed how you think? Is there a good book you recommend on the topic? Thank you!
  - gond 2y ago
    I made a mistake here, leading astray. It's second-order cybernetics, not second order systems theory. I melted the two in my head, reason is that (Social) Systems Theory according to Niklas Luhmann [1] incorporates several parts of second order cybernetics (most of the people mentioned before show up there) and blends it all together to a point where I have difficulties to distinguish the separate parts. This is all not 'new' in the literal sense. Luhmann died in the late 90s. I tried to come up with a spot-on-book of Luhmann, but that lead to nothing. It's all spread out (papers and books) as far as I know. There is a (transcribed) lecture given in 1992, which may come close, but I couldn't find a translated version of it. One of the parts which hit home for me was the introduction of a differenciated form of distinctiveness, in turn partly enabled by the introduction of an observer, and observation in general. Heinz von Foerster gave an often cited sentence which I think fits the part, albeit Luhmann gurus will probably moan my simplification : "Objectivity is the delusion that observations could be made without an observer." Apart from that, sorry for not being more helpful here. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann