Project Cybersyn was just a dashboard (which was revolutionary back then of course).
Viable System Model was just another systems engineering diagram, which only has meaning to those who are deep into that field.
At least I got 'The purpose of a system is what it does' stuck in my head.
Which seems like a rather odd understanding of "purpose" divorced from any possible use of the word. What is the point of talking about "purpose" if you can't persuade the person intending that purpose to change their mind? Why not talk about "use" or "effect" instead?
[Beer] frequently used the phrase “The purpose of a system is what it does” (POSIWID) to explain that the observed purpose of a system is often at odds with the intentions of those who design, operate, and promote it. For example, applying POSIWID, one might ask if the purpose of an education system is to help children grow into well-rounded individuals, or is it to train them to pass tests? “There is after all,” Beer observed, “no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do.”
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminkomlos/2021/09/13/the-p...>
(Much more in the essay, but that's a gist of it.)
> that the straightforward definition of “purpose” is correct here.
That was already very clear. But you clearly don't have any better suggestion.
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.
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.
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).
but no mba will write this
Cybernetics came out of the Macy conferences [0] and this is where one needs to go, in order to establish context. I also highly recommend Norbert Wiener's biography "Dark Hero of the Information Age" [1] as a good introduction to one of the greatest geniuses of this age, easily eclipsing Shannon and von Neumann.
Principia Cybernetica [2] is another good resource.
[0] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/C/bo23...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Hero-Information-Age-Cybernetics...
Yep.
Over the years I've found a few litmus tests for that sort of thing. Unclear or incomplete explanations; intentional vagueness, weird formatting, "meta" anything, "new language", incomprehensible diagrams. One or two and you're Stephen Wolfram; three or more and you're completely full of shit. Beer's book somehow manages to hit every single one in just a single page. Incredible!
If you claim something grand but can't explain your point clearly, you are almost always full of shit. If Susskind can explain the combined work of centuries of geniuses in The Theoretical Minimum, then you can explain your bullshit in a paragraph.