People often can't see past their own hostility when figuring out what a system 'does'. And now they have have a clever sounding way to pretend that they're describing a system with detached reason, not just describing their attitude towards the system.
It's like a art review where a writer - completely unaware of what they're doing - talks only about the work, but says nothing about the work and opens a window into their soul. A lot of people don't even recognize when it happens in that context. It's even easier for a speaker to deceive a listener (and themselves) in the context of speaking on systems. Systems thinking is hard and almost everyone is terrible at it.
Your metaphor is not clear to me, but you seem to be asserting more of an empirical problem with people, not saying anything about the heuristic itself. It does not speak to how we know a system does what it does, or that we can even know I guess, so even if you have some kind of point here I don't see how it applies in this case.
"If we know what a system does, we know that it is its purpose": is that ok?
People often can't see past their own hostility when figuring out what a system 'does'. And now they have have a clever sounding way to pretend that they're describing a system with detached reason, not just describing their attitude towards the system.
It's like a art review where a writer - completely unaware of what they're doing - talks only about the work, but says nothing about the work and opens a window into their soul. A lot of people don't even recognize when it happens in that context. It's even easier for a speaker to deceive a listener (and themselves) in the context of speaking on systems. Systems thinking is hard and almost everyone is terrible at it.
Your metaphor is not clear to me, but you seem to be asserting more of an empirical problem with people, not saying anything about the heuristic itself. It does not speak to how we know a system does what it does, or that we can even know I guess, so even if you have some kind of point here I don't see how it applies in this case.
"If we know what a system does, we know that it is its purpose": is that ok?