3 ms·
The point of the aphorism is specifically to dispel the notion that the straightforward definition of “purpose” is correct here.
by pmichaud 2y ago
The point of the aphorism is specifically to dispel the notion that the straightforward definition of “purpose” is correct here.
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoWhy not just use the correct word? It seems weird to drag in an unrelated term just to redefine it. The word "purpose" divorced from intent seems to only have the utility of confusing the reader/audience.
- Ma8ee 2y agoWhat is the “correct” word?
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago...presumably not "purpose"? > that the straightforward definition of “purpose” is correct here.
- pessimizer 2y agoSounds like a witty aphorism would be useful in order to express the real meaning he was trying to get at, seeing as the word you're demanding doesn't seem to exist.
- Ma8ee 2y ago> ...presumably not "purpose"? That was already very clear. But you clearly don't have any better suggestion.
- emmelaich 2y agoconsequence? As in unintended consequences.
- pmichaud 2y agoI am pretty confused about why this conversation is happening, ie why this pithy little saying isn’t self explanatory, but the saying is supposed to be witty commentary. For example, we make a system of speed limits to make roads safer, and we have a law enforcement system. We notice later that the roads are not safer, but that the police are vigorously enforcing the law and collecting the ticket profits from doing so. We ask: why does this system exist? What is the purpose of it? The naive answer is to make roads safer to drive on. The witty, savvy, cynical answer is: … Ie the reason the system still exists in the way it does is because its real “purpose” is to be a revenue generating scheme for the police, regardless of the intent of whoever set it up in the first place, if indeed anyone did.
- Earw0rm 2y agoIt exists in the way it does for multiple reasons in tension with one another. If it was just trying to generate revenue for the police, it would be better at it. Ditto, if it were just trying to make roads safer, or if its main objective was full compliance. (Which are related objectives, but not the same thing). The reality is that political pressures exist which means neither full compliance nor the engineering interventions to make roads much safer are palatable to US voters, but there are pressures in the other direction which demand something must be done. Which is how we end up where we are.
- mox1 2y agoFYI, this POSIWID concept has been heavily thought about, researched, reasoned, etc. within the cybernetics (or whatever you want to call it) community. I am not going to do it justice, but the bottom line is that systems get complex very very fast (n! factorial complexity). Cyberniticians (or Stafford Beer at least) reason that we should just treat these systems as black boxes (and examine their inputs / outputs) as any attempt to explain or rationalize the inner working of the system itself (as you are trying to do) will never go well (again because of the complexity).
- anigbrowl 2y agoThink of all the broken systems that are left in place rather than fixed.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoMore specifically, when a system that you naively expect should have the purpose of doing X is found to actually be doing Y, do not automatically assume that it means the system is failing to fulfill its purpose. Instead, look around and see if there are people who are benefitting from it doing Y instead of X, and who are maintaining the state where the system does Y instead of X. That would mean that the true purpose of the system - what it is being deliberately made to do - is Y instead of X.
- kayo_20211030 2y agoI think that's the correct reading. What the system does is its purpose; an equivalence.