This made me reflect that I hadn't actually thought critically about the phrase (at least, commensurate to how often it's used). For fun, if you think the purpose of a system is what it does, write what you think that means, before reading Scott's critique, then write if you've updated your opinion. For example:
(Spoilers go between two sets of "||")
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The precision of the estimate is unreasonable but yeah, the purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure some of the patients. If someone was under the impression that the purpose was to cure 100% of people that walk through the door, they would be operating under a poor map of reality.
Yes, again, this is pretty much the purpose of the Ukrainian military. Much like the cancer hospital, rational actors would probably prefer that it be able to achieve total victory, but because that isn't actually possible, constructing a machine that grinds Russia into a years-long stalemate is much more practical.
Again, perhaps too specific, but yeah, the purpose of the British government is approximately this. If your model of the British government was that it was entirely to serve the British people, you'd come away with a worse model than the guy that looks at this outcome and concludes that this is pretty much what the system is for.
This one is just sleight of hand - the purpose of the bus system is to move a whole bunch of people, and it does exactly that. If the objection is just that systems also have externalities that doesn't really seem like it's actually arguing with the central thesis of POSIWID.
Scott's central examples of how wrong POSIWID is are all things that I think are tolerably good examples of how POSIWID is a better model of reality that listening to people tell you what a system is supposed to do. If you look at the outcomes, you'll get some reasonable understanding of what the system is constructed to do.
More options
Context Copy link