Ventana software support forum

Hello,

At first crack, I cant think of any reference that perfectly matches the
desired answer to your question. But it occurs to me that if the answer were
out there, then the perfect software construct based on it, would be a
program that takes such text, and automatically crafts a system dynamics
model, regardless of loop structure, or size of the model.

But as I think of that even more, I am reminded that there are many different
ways to interpret a problem in SD, not just one.

Then, I come back to something I learned when I was interested in something
called "unified field theory" planning at the City and Regional Planning
School, at Cal (Berkeley for the "non-Bay Area people" reading this): that
social science is, by its very nature, based on the values of the researcher,
even to the point of what to study, and the methods selected. Those values
will become immediately evident as the process of research and study unfolds.
Moreover, the outcome of what is studied can be effected by the researcher.

That is different from Physics, where one cant change the course of travel
of an asteroid, just by observing it. But in social science, the future (or
present) behavior of what is studied (people and what they do) can be
effected by the researcher, as the person is working.

I personally dont have a problem with the idea that this is the nature of
the social sciences, within which system dynamics is a part. I still get the
impression, as I approach my 40th year on this earth, that such is not the
case for others.

Im at a loss to understand why this is; I think the point of SD is to offer
a way of thinking about the social system around us that openly embraces
complexity, and encourages argument.

I write this to encourage a nasty debate, because there are those who will
point to SD work in fields like Physics. But no one can challenge the
observation that SD reached the public view, when it was turned to analyze
something called "The Predicament of Mankind" by the Club of Rome, and
"Limits to Growth" was published.

In fact, that book was introduced during the era of the "environmental
movement." Its gift to the world, was the development of the idea of "Zero
Population Growth."

To further the point, one cannot challenge the fact that Jay Forresters book
Urban Dynamics focused on what people do in cities, and at a time of the
highest point of intensity of the Civil Rights movement.

Forresters model design, where the outcome of the model was interpreted by
some, though not Forrester, as anti-African American, not only placed SD in a
public light, but also caused at least one city in to adopt the urban
policies suggested in the book Urban Dynamics.

Those suggestions included the demolition of low-income housing projects,
where blacks, in disproportionate number, lived during the 60s.

Thus, the work of an SD researcher had an impact on that which was being
studied. I must also add that Jay was roundly criticized for the books
policy suggestions, leading one to wonder what he was thinking in the design
of the Urban Dynamics Model? Still, the argument was healthy, controversial,
and welcome.

Im not sure that I prefer the approach implied as desirable by some, like
Coyle. I like the current method, where we develop different representations
of the world around us, present our research and findings, and simply battle
it out, with a healthy dose of politics thrown in. Good.

To wish for "one system" to interpret text into SD, is not only...Well, the
word that comes to mind is commonly associated with Nazi Germany....But it
seems to state that SD is not a science because there is not one perfect
solution to an observed problem, or one perfect SD model that describes that
problem.

SD is as varied as our points of view. Good. The point of group modeling is
to combine those points, assuming the dynamics of the social relationships
within the group permit such a nice outcome.

I disagree with the need to transform SD into something called a "hard
science." In point of fact, given what SD is used for and the fact that
something called "hard science" exists only in fantasy, I think the endeavor
would prove to be worthless.

As long as there are people, politics and simple emotion driven desires will
always prevail. (As I think about it, we may also design machines to make
political decisions, because we are, in effect, trying to mimic our own
thought process, so the beat will go on as machines become "smarter")

This is why "hard science" does not exist. I have listened to these claims
for years, and as one who is well aware of the politics of funding research
and the hard choices one must make when work resources are constrained, the
idea of this "hard science" push is not the best use of time with respect to
SD.

I prefer to argue, to research, communicate, develop, learn, discover, and
then to do it all over again.

All the best.

Zennie Abraham
From: zenabraham@aol.com