site banner

Scott: Come On, Obviously The Purpose Of A System Is Not What It Does

astralcodexten.com

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: I think it's a useful way of re-framing obviously dysfunctional systems, so as to analyze their dysfunction, but Scott is persuasive that it's not a good means of understanding systems, in general, so people should be more cautious about adopting this framing and using the phrase, rhetorically.

(Spoilers go between two sets of "||")

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So 'the purpose of a system is what it does' is kind of stupid when you refer to systems which genuinely accomplish their stated purpose. The police catch most criminals. The subway transports a lot of people and most people who live in New York use the subway to get around. Duh. That both spend a lot of money doing dumb things as well('the purpose of the police is to idle their vehicles') is irrelevant. Duh.

But, when you get to organizations that don't do their stated purpose and instead choose to do other things, it becomes more reasonable. The purpose of NASA is firstly to make claims about global warming and secondly to explore space. The purpose of the public school system is primarily to put taxpayers on the hook for corrupt construction deals and secondly to pay staff, with educating kids a distant third. Both of these claims are debatable but they are not absurd. The purpose of a system is what it does is a statement referring to institutional capture. It's not a universal law.

The police catch most criminals.

Citation very much needed.