undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMerovius27d ago0 comments

Wow that post is bad. The author clearly never actually attempted to understand what POSWID actually means and where it is coming from. Perhaps, instead of looking at Twitter, they should have opened Wikipedia. Or, better yet, Stafford Beers books (though admittedly, he was a pretty atrocious writer).

The follow-up is slightly better. But still not very convincing, IMO. They get far too stuck on a literal interpretation. Of something that self-describes as a heuristic.

0 comments

mekoka27d ago

> what POSWID actually means

The phrase does not make more sense even if we go all the way back to Beers. I certainly don't feel alone in not understanding how he went from his (fair) observation that "[There's] no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do" to his more controversial conclusion: "The purpose of a system is what it does (aka POSIWID)".

Surely, there were many more sensible (but perhaps less quippy) stops between the two.

MeroviusOP27d ago

> perhaps less quippy

Being quippy is the point. That's how aphorisms work: creating a short, pithy distillation of a complex argument, that you can then use pars pro toto to make a point.

I certainly agree that POSWID is easily (and perhaps frequently) misused. But that doesn't invalidate it in general.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse