What is Reddit's opinion of Thinking in Systems: International Bestseller?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

By popularity on Reddit, this product is:

#1 in Sustainable Business Development books

18 reviews of this product found across Reddit:

I literally don't feel like I'm human. Not in a cool way where I'm special or unique. More like maybe my original destiny was to be a nonphysical systems planner for a planetary organism but something went wrong and now I have to live in a body.

I also find it much easier to understand myself and other people if I back off until I can see what's happening as a whole system. When I'm zoomed in, I see things as "behavior" or "personality traits" and they're confusing. When I stand back far enough that the system is holistically viewable, I can see that these "traits" or "behaviors" are simply emergent properties of the system as it currently functions.

INFJs, you would all love the work of Donella Meadows: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/1603580557

Yep. A lack of basic systems thinking is why we are all fucked. The term "feedback loop" came from this discipline. The more I learn about systems thinking and complexity theory the more I understand about the world and how deeply hopeless our plight is.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1603580557/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_N.a9FbRM79XRR

/u/The_Dude_of_Pala gave great insight, and points well to the idea that duality while is often not always a useless tool, so I give you the middle path of monistic riddles and dualistic finger pointing.

The teacher you’re looking for smiles in the mirror.

I have been a practicing secular Zen Buddhist/Taoist for long enough to realize, when dealing with dualistic thinkers, to give them a less dogmatic label: reality junkie.

We live in a world obsessed with empirical truth. Scientists and researchers galore. While the Dao teaches us that all things are transitory, some things are in a transition lasting eons. Some things transition in beautiful harmony, following similar ebbs and flows.

This is the insight of the world outside of the dichotomous boundary I see from other comments you’ve drawn as the “inner boundaries”. See the generalizations or abstractions, the “systems” if you will that govern the transitionary nature of the world, and the boundaries we invent to define these systems.

These abstractions of transitionary principles will help you become the leaf on the pond, the feather in the wind, the atom in the vacuum, following the ebbs, seeing the flows, and watching the cycles.

I don’t offer you a riddle, you can find your own map of the territory, or I can share one with you. This is up to you.

Once you do this, you will find the universe is speaking to you at all times, and you will be able to listen and learn from the greatest teacher.

For anyone who wants to get a good understanding of resilience in general, I highly recommend the book Thinking In Systems. It has a great section on resiliency as a matter of good and bad system states.

Thinking in Systems: A Primer by Donella H. Meadows

Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows is good https://www.amazon.se/Thinking-Systems-International-Donella-Meadows/dp/1603580557

> I have no idea what you're on about. This interaction is actually very simple. Here is what happened: You used an extremely tired talking point (that I'm sure you picked up on right-wing media) about how gun restrictions are futile because Chicago has gun restrictions yet still has a high amount of gun violence.

Um no. I was talking about system thinking perspective about banning of guns. What is best way to remove feedback loops (i.e gun related crimes). Um no I did not refer to some right wing media outlets I was just referencing to data that is publicly available. So your assumption about me is wrong.

When I was talking about feedback loops and 12 leverage points I thought we are having intelligent discussion about proper way to tackle the issue. Feedback loops are based on Donella Meadow's work (mainly book called Thinking in systems).

>I responded by pointing out how it's pretty easy it is to cross a bridge 30 minutes away to Indiana and have virtually limitless access to guns. If anything, the only point you've managed to highlight is the need for firearms regulation at the federal level.

This wasn't what I asked. But sure Guns should be regulated only to law abiding citizens who are mentally stable, but how you are going to do that? What type of regulations you are suggesting, then? Do you have idea for such regulation? If you can't answer to these then how on earth politicians can answer.

Idea of banning guns or regulating them to extreme extent is (from systemic perspective) is attempt to change paradigm which in reality doesn't easily change by swinging that daddy government's regulation wand (especially when politicians have poor understanding of good regulations and lobbyist).

https://www.amazon.ca/Thinking-Systems-Primer-Donella-Meadows/dp/1603580557/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=thinking+in+systems&qid=1636645160&s=books&sr=1-1

This book is good at explaining my perspective of how the existing means of production are being more and more squeezed to pay a living wage without increasing margins. It is also used to macroeconomic exams for universitys.

Or how someone like Elon could make $300 billion with a business that has only ever yielded a couple billion in profit, and how his net worth is not based on the value of labour he exploited as he hasn't even had $100 billion in revenue..

Its because the financial liquidity injection QE and mortgage backed security asset purchase program is effectively bidding up the valuations or PE ratios of the means of production without them becoming more productive, therefore increasing the net worth of shareholders substantially without the company having to make an equal profit growth.

https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/1603580557/ref=nodl_

I found this to be a good intro.

Thinking in Systems: A Primer is a good start.

Thinking in Systems was one I enjoyed for my Master’s coursework.

I take my concept of what a 'system' is from the book Thinking In Systems. This is a really good way of conceptualizing behavior. For example, your body is a system of cells, but no individual cell is required to keep you alive. This is similar in concept to the Ship of Theseus.

Given that, Systemic Racism is a system where the outcome is racist, but no individual part of it is, at least not intentionally.

An example of gentrification:

A city creates tax incentives for developers to invest and improve a neighborhood which has a larger proportion of people of color than the surrounding area. The city's goals may be to improve the neighborhood on behalf of those residents. The intention is improvement with no racist motives underlying this (arguably, the opposite).
The developers use those tax incentives to create upscale housing because that the most profitable. While there may be a requirement for affordable housing, this upscale housing is the main focus. The developer isn't racist, just purely profit driven.
The neighborhood gains traction as a trendy area as a result of new development, creating a feedback loop that promotes more development in the area. The desirability of the neighborhood goes up as a nature consequence, but there is no racist motive to displace anyone.
Property values go up due to increased demand, properties get reassessed and property taxes are raised accordingly. This has the effect of pushing out poorer residents, essentially forced to sell and move. This isn't inherently racist because it's just a response to market demand in the area. Alternatively, even if taxes are fixed, these residents may decide to move to capitalize on the increased property value. Regardless, the outcome is gentrification of the area.
The remaining residents look around and see the character of their neighborhood completely remade and complain about the invading yuppies.

(This conflates race with class, but that's the reality today, and another systemic problem)

Nowhere in this example is there any racist intent, but the outcome ends up being displacement of people of color. This is a (admittedly cartooned) version of what has happened in many cities on the west coast, Brooklyn, etc. Nobody did anything 'wrong' per se (i.e. there is no crime committed and there is no perpetrator), but there are still victims in outcome. That's what makes it systemic.

Did you read Thinking in Systems: A Primer?

I'm telling you... you do not have to wait to become a web designer especially if you have any CS chops. It sounds like you need some kind of validation lol? In design you have to be an entrepreneur, design your own experience, find out some people who are doing design x software email them... surprise them, designers love surprises and something different... make your own luck.

As far as Amazon good books, you really want to aim for a whole view of design at this point. Think of it like you wouldn't learn run before you can walk, there is A LOT out there.

Games are a combination of systems, I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/1603580557

I'm glad you're calling it a system, even if your only reference to such is the typical cliche at this point. But it is a system, and as such its behavior can be understood and altered.

Some basic elements to the system:

Human/animal nature: it's in the very basic programming of every living organism to try to maximize the benefit extracted from one's environment. This is how living organisms are successful, from the day-to-day, individual scale to the species scale on up. Just about every civilization has followed the pattern of growing until the local resources are exhausted, and then collapsing (as you alluded). Therefore, when the carrying capacity for a given group is limited not just by the local resources, but the resources of the planet as a whole, some very effective measures are needed to combat that basic instinct and encourage longer-term thinking.
Cancerous growths: due to the condition above, certain institutions within society are essentially hijacked by individuals who shift the institution's priority from serving society (as nearly every societal institution is created to do) to serving the will of the individual in charge. Lately this has taken the form, by and large, of companies whose primary goal is pleasing the shareholders instead of the customers.
Unprecedented potential for aggregation of power: The internet is a fantastically powerful tool- it could conceivably be used as the infrastructure for a global democratic forum, empowering those who have never before had a voice in the political process; or it could conceivably be harnessed, censored, and monitored by an incredibly small group of people. It's the responsibility of every concerned citizen to work against the realization of the latter, because some very powerful people want that very much.

There are a number of effective leverage points in the system, unfortunately many of them are being pushed in the wrong direction at the moment- education, for instance...

In any case, there's a really great introductory book on systems theory- Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows. That would probably give you the best perspective for understanding how each of these issues came to be the way they are.

That and evolutionary psychology. Read lots of that.

Winning goes to the winners---in any system.

A great book that explains this by Donella Meadows: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/1603580557

Winners use their winnings to consolidate and grow their wins. Ever play monopoly?

The only reason that nearly every matured market has exactly 2 dominate players is anti-monopoly laws.

Coke and Pepsi, McDonalds and Burger King, PC and Mac, Android and iPhone, Facebook and Twitter, Wal Mart and Target.

It's a meritocracy, yes--but winning goes to the winners. Meritocracy over time equals monopoly.

Donella Meadows literally uses this as an example of the escalation system trap in her book Thinking in Systems.

> Escalation

>Islamic militants kidnapped an Israeli soldier Sunday and threatened to kill him unless the army quickly releases the imprisoned founder of a dominant Muslim group in the Gaza Strip … The kidnapping … came in a wave of intense violence, … with the shooting of three Palestinians and an Israeli solder who … was gunned down from a passing vehicle while he was on patrol in a jeep. In addition Gaza was buffeted by repeated clashes between stone-throwing demonstrators and Israeli troops, who opened fire with live ammunition and butter bullets, wounding at least 120 people.

>“I'll raise you one" is the decision rule that leads to escalation. Escalation comes from a reinforcing loop setup by competing actors trying to get ahead of each other. The goal of one part of the system or one actor is not absolute, like the temperature of a room thermostat being set at 65°F, but is related to the state of another part of the system, another actor. Like many of the other system traps, escalation is not necessarily a bad thing. If the competition is about some desirable goal, like a more efficient computer, or a cure for AIDS, it can hasten the whole system toward the goal. But when it is escalating hostility, weaponry, noise, or irritation, this is an insidious trap indeed. The most common and awful examples are arms races and those places on earth where implacable enemies live constantly on the edge of self-reinforcing violence.

http://www.natcapsolutions.org/Presidio/Articles/WholeSystems/ThinkingInSystems_MEADOWS_TiS%20v13.2_DRAFT.pdf