Systems in our lives. Part 4

The phrase “systems thinking” defines an understanding of the interconnections of many different elements of the surrounding reality. The structure of human life consists of a huge number of small parts that intersect and complement each other, creating community and ensuring the achievement of a given goal.

This type of mental activity is characterized by the perception of processes and objects as a whole, by identifying the connections between them. Everything that surrounds a person in everyday life is a combination of parts into a logically justified single structure. Any object, theory, phenomenon is a specific system created by the orderliness of the elements involved in it.

Formation of systems thinking

In pedagogy, several theoretical developments can be identified that explore the problem of developing systems thinking among schoolchildren:

Dealing with theoretical issues of systematicity.
Forming a systematic style of thinking.
Dedicated to the problem of experimental and theoretical research.

In addition to theoretical ones, there are practical prerequisites for the formation of systems thinking. For this purpose, new courses and subjects are being created that create new holistic ideas about the picture of the world based on a systematic approach.

In practice, systems thinking is manifested in the mastery of certain skills:

consider the phenomena and objects around us as systems, developing and interconnected.
establish cause-and-effect relationships, analyze situations, detect contradictions, solve emerging problems.
find implicit, hidden connections and dependencies.
draw conclusions and, based on them, anticipate possible consequences.

Development of systems thinking

The systems approach is very useful: knowing its basics, we can better imagine our goals, formulate them and implement them. Systems thinking helps us explore systems without getting carried away and without missing the point. It also helps you create new systems and manage systems. Systems thinking teaches you to combine the knowledge of various sciences and allows you not to become an object of manipulation, not to succumb to the hypnotic assurances of advertising, which is often very one-sided. By developing systems thinking, we learn to predict future developments.

Young children intuitively become familiar with systems and subsystems, for example, by assembling a car or house from construction kit parts or disassembling an alarm clock into wheels, cogs, arrows, glass and other components. By developing systems thinking, we gradually develop the ability to reason and explore different aspects of life from a systemic perspective. Developed systems thinking allows you to easily identify patterns, make forecasts for the development of events and influence their course.

The development of systems thinking involves acquiring and improving certain skills and abilities:

consider ongoing phenomena, processes, situations as a specific system;
identify the main, basic elements of the system;
master analysis and synthesis to the extent that you can creatively use the existing knowledge base and generate new ideas;
be able to evaluate the situation critically under conditions of system analysis;
have the skill of reflection (comprehension, self-analysis, assessment of one’s activities in the process of systemic analysis of processes or phenomena);
be able to analyze and predict the development of the system.

Thinking based on a systems approach considers an object or phenomenon from different sides, in different aspects, holistically, interconnected, taking into account other systems and connections. TRIZ (the theory of solving inventive problems) is based on a systems approach, because without knowledge of the system it is impossible to make it better.

Concretely actionable thinking

This type of thinking involves solving specific problems that does not contradict the conditions of implementation. It is also called technical, and it needs to be developed by people working in almost all directions. The development of technical or engineering thinking, as it is called, does not require the completion of complex tasks; for this it is enough:

solve puzzles;
solve crosswords;
solve riddles;
solve logical problems.

Ability implies a competent combination of thoughts and a practical approach, which is important for modern progress. This type is the first to appear in a person; it is responsible for attentiveness and observation.

Systems thinking technology

Simulation modeling, interactive games, systems thinking schemes, and others are used as technologies for the development of systems thinking in adults

In school practice, when working with texts, two types of technologies are mainly used:

Indirect, based on the elaboration and assimilation of knowledge on subjects (note-taking, planning, retelling, text analysis, dialogue, highlighting theses, writing a report).
Metacognitive technologies. These include technology for the development of critical thinking, methods of system analysis and others. They develop the ability for independent thinking, analytical abilities, the ability to generalize, systematize, compare and other components of systemic thinking.

When analyzing a system, it is important to learn to identify its main parts and functions. To do this you need to answer a number of questions:

What is this system for?
How does it work?
What parts help perform its main function?
What are the connections between them?

If you doubt whether a certain part of the system is the main one, try eliminating it. If the system “falls apart”, it means that this part was the main one. It is also possible to determine the important connections of the system, excluding connections between the main parts.

In the book “Technology of Systems Thinking”, created by a team of authors based on the ideas of Candidate of Philosophical Sciences G.P. Shchedrovitsky, detailed instructions are provided. It is recommended for those cases when difficulties arise, and acting according to a familiar pattern and using stereotypes is useless.

This systems thinking technology contains a number of step-by-step recommendations:

1) Define the “framework”

To do this, set goals and guidelines for the future and create a list of tasks that need to be solved on the way to the goal.

2) Define the process

decide what management processes will be involved (this could be development, creation, recreation, etc.)
identify the processes taking place.
find the process that needs to be changed.

3) Analyze the situation and create the boundaries of the control system

4) Create block diagrams

identify important points for the operation of the system;
identify the interdependence of these points;
draw the connections between them;
identify which processes are important for the successful progress of the business;
distribute functions to those places where tasks to achieve goals can be solved.

5) Determine what is known about the difficulties

what tasks currently have neither resources nor solutions;
what are the problems;
what connections are missing, which existing ones are problematic?

6) Draft new organizations

determine what they are;
which ones will remain unchanged;
which of them will receive other functions;
what material they will work in.

Organizations mean people, groups, organizations. The material for organization is personnel, technology, equipment, and software.

7) Select and train new specialists

Determine and voice your requirements for personnel.

Thinking and activity

To change your life and its quality, you need to be able to look at things from a different angle, learn to act differently, and therefore think. The thinking of people who have achieved success and realized their potential is fundamentally different from the thinking of hard workers who are drowned in everyday worries and problems. But the success of Think Like a Millionaire and others like it suggests that people are trying to learn how to think in ways that solve financial problems and move forward.

Thinking and action are inextricably linked. For business people, for example, there is a formula that invariably leads them to success. It consists of the components of thought, action and responsibility. The formula is universal and applicable to any field of activity. But the beginning is laid in the depths of consciousness. Successful activity is always a consequence of correct thinking.

The Art of Systems Thinking

One of the world's most famous systems thinking experts is American researcher, writer and teacher Donella Meadows. In her book “The ABCs of Systems Thinking,” she introduces the basics of understanding systems, their structure and behavioral characteristics. The author convinces us that systems thinking is an important tool that cannot be avoided when solving problems of all kinds, no matter what area of our lives they concern. Without knowledge of the ABCs of systems thinking, without understanding the peculiarities of the behavior of systems, it is difficult to learn how to interact with them successfully.

All systems have some properties, while individual parts of the systems do not. Analysis of the parts that make up a system does not reveal the properties of the system itself. These properties are revealed as a result of the system when we observe it in action.

In their book The Art of Systems Thinking: Essential Knowledge of Systems and Creative Problem Solving, the authors (Joseph O'Connor and Ian McDermott) make several important points:

It is important to learn to understand what type of complexity is encountered in the system: dynamic or detailed. By detailed we mean complexity, which is associated with the number of elements that are analyzed, and by dynamic, we mean complexity, which is associated with the relationships and interconnections of elements.
The more connections there are in the system, the more opportunities there are to influence the system.
It is important to correctly find the point of application of forces - and then the lever will work.
Point changes will not work: there will always be some side effects.

The art of systems thinking is knowledge that allows you to learn to think more broadly and holistically, overcome rigid thinking and solve emerging problems. Mastering the art of systems thinking leads to the understanding that thinking is inseparable from the problems that arise in us. Problems are a consequence of previous events and our thoughts about them. We ourselves are an integral part of our problems. By applying the principles of systems thinking, we will be able to better understand our own beliefs and methods of action, because even the process of thinking itself is a system of our views and beliefs.

Systems in our lives. Part 4

The systems approach is often called systems thinking.

Systems thinking - a way of seeing a system in an object - manifests itself in the mental division of an object into interconnected elements, the interaction of which is subject to a certain order, i.e. is organized.

Systems thinking addresses the whole and its parts, as well as the connections between parts. It studies the whole to understand the parts. It is the opposite of reductionism, i.e. the idea of the whole as the sum of its constituent parts. A set of unrelated parts does not form a system. It's just a jumbled mess.

Systems thinking allows us to look beyond what appear to be isolated and independent events to see the underlying structures. Through this, we recognize the connections between events and thus improve our ability to understand and influence them.

To constructively study a system, a systems approach involves drawing up its model, i.e. a simplified, if possible formalized (for conducting quantitative research) analogue. The model should be focused on reflecting exactly those properties that are of greatest interest.

First of all, the degrees of freedom of the system should be determined, i.e. a set of independent possible variations of parameters describing the state of the system. Subsequent actions should identify changes in state due to disturbances in the environment and system transformations. To do this, it is necessary to find the structural elements that determine the functioning of the system and meaningfully describe their work. Next, you need to outline the connections that unite the elements in the system and give them a simplified interpretation. It is advisable to record the operations performed graphically in the form of a portrait of the system.

Now it is necessary to establish the identity of the model to the real system. To do this, the easiest way is to compare the behavior of the system and the formed model when exposed to disturbances. Ideally, it is possible to achieve identity of reactions, but this is usually not achieved. The differences will be especially noticeable in emergency situations, when the system encounters conditions that were unplanned when it was created.

Let us present a general scheme for forming a system model. There are three stages to this process.

A. System analysis stage. The actions that make up the stage are aimed at studying the system and end with obtaining a conceptual model. Their main content is the representation of the system in the form of a set of elements (decomposition), a sequential examination of each and the connections between them.

B. Model synthesis stage. It consists in obtaining models of individual elements, formalizing their connections and in a consistent transition from elements to a holistic model. The stage is completed when the researcher has a mathematical model of the system at his disposal. Naturally, for poorly formalized systems one can be content with having only a strict description of fragments of the system, then part of the system will be characterized verbally, in natural language. However, the study of such a symbiosis of formalism with verbality is far from a trivial task.

B. Stage of checking the adequacy of the model and system. This procedure accompanies all stages of model construction. Its task is to satisfy the subject’s requirements to ensure the adequacy of the model and the system under study in the sense of achieving the necessary accuracy in describing the processes of interest to the subject.

Adequacy control is carried out using the identification theory. The content of the latter is to determine the identity of the entire system or its element to the accepted analogue (model). In this case, the “black box” methodology is used: the input and output signals are known, the model is selected with a certain degree of reliability, and it is necessary to introduce such coefficients into the model or transform it structurally so that, in accordance with a given criterion, the dynamic identity of the reactions of the system and the model is achieved. In other words, checking the quality of the model of the entire system or its element should show that it reacts in the same way as the system (element) to the same input influences.

Scheme for forming a mathematical model of the system

Systems thinking is closely related to concepts such as emergence and feedback.

Emergence ( integrative quality ) . From the definition of the system, striking conclusions follow. First, systems function as wholes, which means that they have properties that differ from the properties of their constituent parts. These are known as emergent properties. They "emerge" when the system is running.

Systems have emergent, or emergent, properties that none of their parts have. By disassembling a system into parts and analyzing each of them, you will not be able to predict the properties of the entire system.

By dividing a system into components, you will never discover its essential properties. They appear only as a result of the action of an integral system. The only way to find out what they are is to make the system work.

Man, as a system, is full of emergent properties. For example, consciousness is a systemic, emergent property. Who could have foreseen that billions of connections between neurons would make self-awareness possible? And all our feelings are part of our “I”. It is you who has the ability to see, not your eyes. Put your eye on the table - it won't see anything. Sight, hearing, touch, smell or taste cannot be found in any part of the body. You live only as long as all parts of your body act in harmony. If you separate any part of the body, it will die. A post-mortem autopsy reveals the mystery of death, not life.

Here's another example. The motion of a car is also an emergent property. A car needs a carburetor and a gas tank to move, but put a carburetor or a gas tank in the middle of the road - will it go far?

Feedback

All parts of the system are connected directly or indirectly, and therefore a change in one part generates waves of changes that reach all other parts. This means that they will also change, and the waves from this process will eventually reach the part in which the change began, and it will have to react to this new impact. Thus, the change returns to the starting point in a modified form - the result is not a one-way street, but a loop. It's called a feedback loop. When two parts are connected, the effect goes in both directions, like a telephone line: if you can call a friend, he can call you too. Feedback involves either some of the system's output being fed back into its input, or the system using information about the output from a previous step to make changes to what it does in the next.

The presence of feedback is an integral characteristic of systems: no feedback, no systems. There are two main types of feedback:

Reinforcing feedback is when a change in the state of a system serves as a signal to strengthen the initial change. In other words, the system produces more change in the same direction.
Balancing feedback – when a change in the state of the system serves as a signal to start moving in the opposite direction in order to restore the lost balance.

Reinforcing feedback. It is often called “positive,” but this is not a very good name, since it gives the impression that we are talking about something necessarily good and approved. Communication of this type can be useful, but it can also become a cause of misfortune when it leads the system to destruction. It all depends on what exactly is changing. To avoid confusion, we will always talk about “reinforcing” feedback.

Such feedback pushes the system along the chosen path. Depending on the initial conditions, it can lead to growth or decay of the process. Reward is part of this feedback loop; if it is rewarding, it will lead to more of the same behavior. This could be a gift, money, words of encouragement, or even a smile. You perform an action, receive a reward, and repeat the action—that’s a reinforcing feedback loop. Reward itself cannot be considered feedback unless it leads to reinforcement of the same behavior.

Balancing feedback. Eternal growth is impossible. Someday the second feedback mechanism comes into play and stops growth. It is called balancing feedback, i.e. resistant to change. A loop of such a connection operates where a change in one part of the system leads to such consequences in its remaining parts that the initial change is inhibited or played back. This form of feedback resists change and maintains the stability of a system that would otherwise be destroyed by reinforcing feedback.

Balancing feedback is sometimes called “negative” feedback, but this name is misleading for two reasons. Firstly, "negative feedback" is often interpreted as criticism, and secondly, the word "negative" usually refers to something bad. But there is nothing good or bad about balancing feedback in itself. Its presence simply means that the system is resistant to change. This may come in handy for us, or it may hinder us - it all depends on what we are trying to achieve. If we want to change a complex system, balancing feedback turns out to be a “resistance force.” And if we strive to preserve the system, we will call the same quality “the force of stabilization.”

Our bodies have many balancing feedback mechanisms. For example, the temperature of the human body is constant. A small part of the brain called the hypothalamus acts as a "thermostat" control mechanism. When the temperature deviates from the norm, it triggers changes that eliminate this phenomenon. Other balancing feedback mechanisms ensure stability of heart rate, blood pressure and body temperature under a variety of external influences. It is the reliability of these mechanisms that makes us viable. The balancing feedback mechanism regulates the difference between the actual and desired state of the system.

Balancing feedback is aimed at achieving a goal. All systems have balancing feedback mechanisms that ensure their stability, and therefore every system has a goal, even if it is only to ensure that the system remains unchanged.

Balancing feedback directs the system towards a goal, i.e. to a state where the balancing feedback mechanism is turned off and the system becomes balanced.

Balancing feedback is always aimed at reducing the difference between the actual and desired states of the system. As long as this difference remains, balancing feedback will move the system towards the desired state. The closer to the goal, the smaller the difference between these states and the less the system changes.

So, a measurement mechanism is needed, otherwise the system will not be aware of the difference between its actual and desired states. The measurements taken by the system must be sufficiently accurate so that there is no risk of triggering unnecessary feedback mechanisms. In addition, the accuracy of measurements must be adequate to the tasks of the system.

Proactive feedback. Most often, feedback produces chains of cause-and-effect relationships in which each action influences the next. For example, the feeling of thirst makes us drink, and when we get drunk, we get rid of thirst. What we say in communication shapes the interlocutor’s response, and what he says causes our response. In response to a decrease in temperature, the thermostat turns on the boiler, causing the temperature to rise and turning the boiler off. Cause-and-effect relationships form a vicious circle: what was a cause from one point of view becomes a consequence from another. In time, the cause always precedes the effect.

Feedback is an interesting and slightly different version of feedback. It's all about our ability to anticipate the future. Foreseeing an event that has not yet occurred causes something to happen that would not otherwise have happened. Thus, the future influences the present. For example, when you anticipate inevitable failure, you actually fail most of the time. After all, what's the point of trying your best if everything is doomed to failure? On the other hand, when you expect success, your energy and optimism make it more likely. Feeling successful is the best path to success. And defeatist attitudes lead to defeat.

Our successes, fears and ideas about the future help us create it as we envision it. So the best way to ensure that you have a boring and unsuccessful day is to “know” in advance that it will be so. Expect the worst, think only about unpleasant things and convince yourself that you know the future. And since you know in advance that the day will be boring, you will feel out of place all day, taking on different things, trying to quickly get through everything and finally find yourself at home. If at the same time you still remember from time to time other days when everything went well and was good for you, you can be sure that the day will turn out to be exactly as you foresaw. And when you want the day to turn out good, do the opposite: look forward to it, think about all the interesting things it will bring you, and let it be important and bright in your imagination. Give yourself completely to any task. You will be pleasantly surprised (or disappointed), but, as a rule, thoughts about the future “move” events in the expected direction. Preemption creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sometimes preemption leads to paradoxical results. The very attempt to avoid an event is enough for it to happen. It's like backing towards a hole, trying not to fall into it.

This type of proactive feedback is the basis of the “be natural” paradox. The more you try to do something that can only happen naturally, the less natural you are. You can even tie yourself and others in knots, achieving behavior whose entire value lies in spontaneity and spontaneity.

Sometimes proactive feedback allows you to disrupt the predicted course of things. Foresight of future events can affect the present in such a way that the exact opposite of the forecast happens. For example, telling a motivated athlete that he will lose can have a mobilizing effect on him. The more you convince him, the more determined he will be to win. By predicting failure, you can push him towards success.

Thus, four types of feedback can be distinguished:

Reinforcing feedback occurs when information about changes in the system flows back into the system and reinforces the change that has begun. In other words, the “result” of change strengthens its “cause” and, thus, strengthens the change itself. The system deviates faster and faster from its original position.
Reinforcing preemption can create a situation of self-refuting prophecy, when foresight or prediction helps the system move away from the predicted state.
Balancing feedback occurs when information about changes in the system flows back into the system and dampens the change. In other words, the “result” of changes suppresses their “cause”. The state of the system is stable - this is its “goal”.
Balancing feedforward occurs when anticipating or predicting a change brings the system into the predicted state. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Changing goals

The balancing loop is driven by the difference between the actual and desired state of affairs. The system works to reduce this difference, bringing the actual position closer to the desired one. But there is another way to reduce the difference: lower the level of expectation, the standard, and make the desired state more accessible. This change in purpose can be a good move. For example, if you choose a more realistic target for your body weight - one at which you feel comfortable. Sometimes goals are completely unrealistic, and a person benefits from “lowering the bar.” For example, the ideal of a super-thin figure, characteristic of people suffering from a mental disorder, anorexia, is completely unrealistic and brings them to the brink of death from exhaustion. Therefore, part of the treatment of such patients is changing their ideas about the image of the ideal body. There are also known businessmen who are driven by completely impossible ideas, only this time the inflated standard relates not to body weight, but to business goals. The feedback loop can become endless and exhausting if external or internal goals are unrealistic, so that the ideal is unattainable under any circumstances. However, it also happens that lowering goals is used to justify truly low efficiency.

There are two mechanisms that result in a decrease in the level of goals. First, goals may be adjusted to fit the existing level rather than moving it closer to them, and the result will be stagnation rather than improvement. A previously unacceptable state of affairs may become the norm. Habituation is a sign of degradation of goals if what previously seemed intolerable is now considered acceptable. This sometimes happens at the level of entire states, say, when the population gets used to high levels of inflation or unemployment. This happens in business: a manufacturer can be happy that he manages to fulfill orders within a week. For ten days, he believes, this is truly unacceptable. But gradually this period becomes the norm, and then, lo and behold, two weeks. When the delivery time is extended to two weeks, customers begin to protest loudly, so a new goal is set - ten days and not a day more. This is the story of the British postal service, which once introduced two delivery times for letters - first class, faster, and second class, slower. Previously, people expected their letters to be delivered to their recipients the next day. Under the new system, first class letters were delivered the next day, which was once the norm for all letters, only now the service was slightly more expensive. Gradually even first class letters stopped being delivered the next day. Today, only express mail items are guaranteed to be delivered within such a time frame, and they cost even more.

When we become accustomed to lower levels of health and material well-being, our goals drift downward accordingly.

The slow decline in standards is difficult to notice because we become accustomed to the status quo. When efficiency declines take months or years, businesses don't hear the alarm bells. Minor changes are unnoticeable, but when you look back, you can see how many small changes merge into one big one.

The second way to reduce goals is more indirect and consists of a “creative” approach to the interpretation of the goal. For example, when high unemployment causes political embarrassment, it is easy to remedy the situation by changing the definition of “unemployed” so that fewer people qualify for the relevant status. The railroad can be astounding about the accuracy of train arrivals if a delay is considered to be more than ten minutes behind schedule.

The UK National Health Service can afford to claim that patients are seen within ten minutes of arriving at the clinic. But this ceases to please when it turns out that an “appointment” is considered to be receiving a coupon at the reception, after which you can languish in line to see the doctor for another three hours. This kind of deceit does not make it possible to compare the effectiveness of the system in different periods.

Goals can not only be lowered, but also raised. If the sales plan is met without difficulty, an increased target may be set for the next month. This kind of drift can be dangerous if, for example, the “usual norm” turns into dozens of bottles of wine and whiskey a week, and the growing craving for alcohol does not allow a person to feel the harm being done to himself and his family.

In systemic terms, the greater the difference between the actual and desired state, the greater the temptation to downgrade the goal or subtly redefine it. The greater the reduction in the goal level, the smaller the difference between the actual and desired state becomes: “it is not difficult to escape from the biggest problem.”

How to prevent this? Goals drift when standards are set based on past achievements rather than a vision for the future. Goals can be prevented from drifting upward or downward by setting standards outside the system, say, a business should better focus on industry indicators, and in personal matters you can rely on the advice of a person you respect.

Limitations of logical thinking

Logic is usually identified with clear, objective thinking, the best method for solving problems. Generally speaking, we don't think very logically. Most often, creative insights are born from the imagination, and only then a person puzzles over how to logically justify them. Our thinking is emotional and associative, although sometimes we underestimate this feature and overestimate the importance of logic.

Logic has its place, but it cannot be relied upon when dealing with complex systems. The world is illogical, it is chaotic, imperfect and, as a rule, ambiguous. A consequence of the understanding that our judgments and decisions are rarely unambiguous, that they are characterized by approximateness and uncertainty, has become a new discipline - “fuzzy logic”. In ordinary logic, the answer to a question is usually “yes” or “no,” and in fuzzy logic, the answer is “maybe” or “possibly.” Fuzzy logic is more suitable for complex systems. Traditional logic is linear: from A follows B, from B follows C, and so on until the final conclusion. Systems are nonlinear; in other words, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and is qualitatively different from it.

Systems give rise to strange and illogical paradoxes. Take the problem of traffic jams. When there are too many cars on the road, congestion occurs and cars move very slowly. An obvious and logical solution to this problem is the construction of new roads: the more extensive the road network, the easier it is to move along it. It turns out that this is not always true. Adding new roads to an already congested road network can only make matters worse. This rule, formulated in 1968 by German researcher Dietrich Brass, is known as Brass's paradox. He formulated it while observing the efforts of the Stuttgart city council to relieve traffic in the city center by building a new road. When it was laid, the transport situation became even worse. It turned out that the problem was not in the roads, but in the intersections - in the articulations of the roads, as every systems-minded person understands. Simultaneously with new streets, new intersections appear, i.e. points of traffic jams. The Brass rule is also useful to consider when developing optimal ways to disseminate information in business, as well as when communicating between work colleagues. There is an optimal number of information channels, and introducing additional ones does not necessarily improve the situation.

Systems thinking reveals three misconceptions about the nature of cause-and-effect relationships.

1. Cause and effect are separable, and the effect comes after the cause. Cause and effect are words that have different meanings, but depending on your point of view, they can refer to the same event. In the case of feedforward feedback, it is clear how the effect of a cause can turn out to be the cause of the same effect. Does a shortage create the accumulation of inventories or does the accumulation of inventories create a shortage? It is impossible to answer this question unequivocally, because there is a circular dependence: if the threads are always in the same direction, you will return to where you started. Which comes first depends on where we started. We are accustomed to thinking in terms of either cause or effect. In systems it can be one and the same.

2. In time and space, the effect follows immediately after the cause. This is a natural assumption, and when the effect comes immediately after the cause, it is easier to establish a connection between them, but this is not the case for the system. There is always a delay in it, and the effect may appear in another part of it. When dealing with the system, you need to be prepared for the fact that the consequences will last far in time and space.

Let's take pain for example. If the problem occurs in a part of the body that is devoid of pain receptors, the feeling of pain is felt elsewhere. Heart failure often manifests as pain in the left arm. A pinched nerve in the spine can cause leg pain. An injury to one part of the body sometimes causes pain in another.

3. The effect is proportional to the cause. This idea is true for material objects: in a car collision, damage is proportional to mass and speed, but this is not true in the case of living and mechanical systems. In mechanical systems, you can get a significant effect from minimal effort when the car "jumps" with a light press on the gas pedal. This happens because the system amplifies the effect. In living systems the relationship between cause and effect is even more striking. Tiny viruses can cause a large-scale epidemic. The introduction of one pesticide can have a significant effect on the ecological balance of a large region. If you hit a living creature, it can either run away or, for example, bite. The energy of the reaction (consequence) is proportional not to the force of the blow, but to the characteristics of the offended creature and is known as accompanying (collateral) energy. It was present even before your blow (i.e. before the “reason”).

Sometimes an action does not cause consequences because the system has a threshold of perception. If the stimulus has a magnitude below this threshold, nothing will happen. But, having exceeded it, we will receive in full. Even if you hit your dog lightly, he can bite very hard. The response is not always proportional to the impact.

Taking into account the time factor. Logic does not take into account the time factor. It works with “if-then” statements, i.e. with cause-and-effect relationships. For example, water boils at a temperature of 100° C, which means: if the temperature rises to 100° C, then the water will boil. Therefore, 100°C makes water boil. (All other things being equal, of course.) Time is absent in these arguments.

Now let's see what happens when we use the same line of thinking when analyzing a system, for example, maintaining a constant body temperature. If your body temperature rises, you will sweat. But if you sweat, your body temperature will drop. If we formally follow the above logical scheme, it follows: if the temperature rises, then it decreases. This is some kind of logical nonsense, but, nevertheless, it is precisely this kind of cases that we encounter every day.

This example shows why logical reasoning is not the same as cause-and-effect. The fact is that the latter unfolds in time. Logical statements are often retroactive and can be reversed. But nothing like that can be done with cause and effect. As noted, systems operate in cause-and-effect loops, so that an “effect” in one part of the loop may later turn out to be a “cause” of changes in another element of the loop.

Systems thinking tests

In the modern world, tests for systematic thinking help to identify such important professional qualities as leadership, ability to work in a team, resistance to stress and others. They are in demand when choosing a candidate for a position or an employee whose new responsibilities require mastering the skills of a systematic approach to a problem, searching for solutions and implementing plans. For example, the SRT (Systems Reasoning Test) test, which includes identifying the main elements in large amounts of information, analyzing graphs and diagrams, identifying patterns, and finding relationships. Thanks to this test, it is possible to determine whether at this stage the candidate can cope with work tasks that require a systematic approach.

One of the tests from CEB SHL, designed to identify the ability to quickly analyze scattered (at first glance) information and determine relationships and ways of their application, is called “Fastrack”. Its essence is to, having received information about several different situations presented on small multi-colored cards, systematize it, identify key points and relationships between them, and derive rules on the basis of which a solution can be found.

“Information Analysis” tests reveal the level of certain abilities:

Understand the text and evaluate the correctness of logical conclusions. The essence of the task is as follows: you need to read the text, analyze the statement stated in it, draw conclusions about falsity, truth, or the impossibility of assessment due to insufficient information.
Interpret the data. This test reveals the level of ability to analyze numerical tabular information, including statistical information, and draw correct conclusions on this basis.
Analyze charts. This test measures abstract thinking ability. Based on the analysis of a series of diagrams, you need to find a logical pattern and continue the sequence in the only correct way.

One of the test options for systems thinking is the method of L. I. Sharagina. In this case, you will need to ask the maximum number of possible questions to the concepts denoting a phenomenon or object. To evaluate the results, the questions received are divided into two groups:

General questions that do not contain information about the phenomenon or object.
"System" questions:
reflecting the connection of the system with other systems or with processes in which the object (phenomenon) is involved;
reflecting the relationship of this system with a person;
reflecting the relationships between system elements.

Such an analysis will show not only the breadth and depth of thinking, but also, based on them, systematic thinking. In the described methodology, the breadth of thinking is reflected by the number of questions related to system categories; depth – the number of questions asked in all categories; Systematicity will show the result of the product of the breadth index and the depth index.

Systematic thinking makes it possible to see the situation broadly and deeply, identifying the causes that give rise to problems and finding ways to avoid their occurrence in the future.

Thanks to developed systems thinking, we see how decisions made are reflected in events and other people. The ability to consider the full facts affecting a problem, as well as the impact of one's decisions on others, is often a necessary condition for success.

You can develop thinking, attention, memory and perception comprehensively, regularly and with pleasure with the help of online educational games.

We sincerely wish you success in self-development!

Preface

As I watched this book come into being, I was aware of its significance and its enormous potential value for all of us. So when I was asked to write the foreword, I was humbled and honored.

Why is this book so important today? First of all, because it helps its readers understand why the world we built turned out to be so complex and what to do about it. Over time, the fabric of our existence becomes more dense, and interactions accelerate. And when we cannot comprehend the complexity we have created, then, overcome by a feeling of helplessness, we become victims of our own misunderstanding.

Why is it that the closer we are to a goal, the less achievable it seems? Why does something that has developed so successfully sooner or later end in failure? And when everything collapses, why does it happen so quickly? Why does every problem we solve turn into a bunch of new ones? And why do those of them, which seemed to be finally resolved yesterday, appear before us again after a few weeks or months? Why is it that, in pursuit of reasonable goals, people give birth to something that none of them wanted, for example, bureaucracy? Why is it that no matter how much you earn, there is never enough money? Why is it that in promising joint projects the result so often is not mutual benefit, but enmity between the partners?

The list of questions is endless, and we, accustomed to looking for cause-and-effect relationships everywhere, naturally try to find a mistake. Systems thinking allows us to understand why we cannot limit ourselves to this search, and reveals to us the nature of such situations. With the help of systems thinking, it becomes possible to move from simply recording ongoing events to understanding the structural relationships that give rise to certain sequences (patterns) of events. And when we imagine the actual basis of the situation in which we find ourselves, we have the opportunity to develop a more meaningful, rational response to it. Then you can show responsibility and interact with structures in such a way that improving the situation is not accompanied by the emergence of new problems elsewhere.

As our daily experience shows, systems thinking can be relied upon. In The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Peter Senge, who contributed greatly to the popularization of systems thinking, puts it in the context of the disciplines required by the learning organization. Systems thinking is fifth among them. Reading Senge's work for the fifth time in five years, I thought it should be called "The First Discipline" because the other four are applied to systems thinking .

The Art of Systems Thinking allows you to develop an understanding of this area and learn how to use it, which explains its importance in everyday life. By recognizing the complexity we have created and discovering the great simplicity behind it, we can stop being victims, because new understanding gives us the opportunity to change our actions and, through it, our entire lives.

You may have heard of the “butterfly effect”: the flapping of its wings in Miami can cause severe hail in Beijing. Our actions today have much more immediate and long-term consequences than in the past. And the pace of such interactions continues to increase. This is why systems thinking is more important for our time than any other system.

I want to express my sincerest gratitude to the authors who have given us the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of this world.

Gene E. Bellinger

Annandale, Virginia, USA

February 1997