Poser(s)

[CrbnBlu@aol.com]

Just thought Id ask about whether is it possible to have a system dynamicist
that doesnt understand system dynamics?

And, if its possible, what are some of the implications?

And, if its not possible, why not? Whos qualified to decide?

And, how would you know if you completely missed the point, if noone would
tell you?

Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com

["Robert M. Kane"]

The only one who fails to understand system dynamics is the one that has
learned to discount his own experience. The impact of isolated abstraction
tends to encourage new participants to imagine that it is unfathomable.
Sustained conversation resolves these issues.

Bob Kane
robert_kane@ds.Cubic.COM
Institute for Sustainable Agriculture in the Tropics,
Jaen, Peru

[Stephen Wehrenberg]

CrbnBlu@aol.com wrote:
>
> Just thought Id ask about whether is it possible to have a system dynamicist
> that doesnt understand system dynamics?

Sounds like a semantic issue to me, though that doesnt justify blowing off the
question. I think the answer hinges on how one deals with the concept of
understanding. If we consider understanding to be a higher level construct (on a
continuum from mere awareness to exalted wisdom) than just knowledge, Id have to
say "yes, it is possible." I base that on my academic experience ... we are
pretty good at ascertaining what students "know" as they progress in their
learning, but we are hard pressed to determine what they "understand."

Is it possible to have managers who dont understand management? Of course.
Manager is a title ordained by position, not by a higher authority (Platos
manager?). Is it possible to have a physicist who doesnt understand physics?
Less likely, but still possible.

> And, if its possible, what are some of the implications?

Simply that saying something is so does not make it so. So what?

> And, if its not possible, why not? Whos qualified to decide?
> And, how would you know if you completely missed the point, if noone would
> tell you?

This wouldnt have anything to do with System University on the Net, would it?
Are you trying to make a case for granting "system dynsmicist" status?

Good for you!

Steve

--
Stephen B. Wehrenberg, Ph.D.
Chief, Forecasts and Systems, US Coast Guard;
Administrative Sciences Program, The George Washington University;
wstephen@erols.com

[CrbnBlu@aol.com]

irt: robert_kane@ds.Cubic.COM (Robert M. Kane), Wed, May 22, 1996 2:57 PM
irt: wstephen@erols.com (Stephen Wehrenberg), Wed, May 22, 1996 2:57 PM EST

I found Bobs comment most meaninfgul, especially the part about "Sustained
Converstation."

The only one who fails to understand system dynamics is the one that has
learned to discount his own experience. The impact of isolated abstraction
tends to encourage new participants to imagine that it is unfathomable.
Sustained conversation resolves these issues.

And Stephen added: (along with other memorable notes)...

I think the answer hinges on how one deals with the concept of understanding.
If we consider understanding to be a higher level construct (on a continuum
from mere awareness to exalted wisdom) than just knowledge, Id have to
say "yes, it is possible."

And to answer Stephens question about Systemic Univeristy on the Net, my
Poser(s) message really had to do with various previous posts relating to the
character of messages on this list, and the effect those posts had on our
willingness to communicate openly with each other.

Are we into the undiscussables arena yet?

If we each act in a manner which we consider meaningful at the time we act,
then how is it that we so often act in a manner which specifically precludes
us from accomplishing what we seek to accomplish? Is it because of that what
we believe isnt so, or is it because we dont know what we dont know? Or
maybe both.

So how is it that one comes to understand when they are operating based on
false beliefs, or in an arena where they dont know what they dont know?

Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com

["Robert M. Kane"]

Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com asked:

> So how is it that one comes to understand when they are operating based
> on false beliefs, or in an arena where they dont know what they
> dont know?

There is no way to draw a firm conclusion in the abstract. The only
resolution is a test through action and the proof of the action is in measured
success. The responsibility of any serious thinker is to be in constant
search of test venues. The greatest hazard of contemplation is to extrapolate
on unproven conclusions; finding your way back up a false path may not even be
possible.

Bob Kane
Institute for Sustainable Agriculture in the Tropics
Jaen, Peru