If a system moves people around and some of them die, that’s the purpose of the system.
You can say “we don’t want any of them to die” and that’s true, but the system doesn’t reflect that.
You can say “fewer people will die because more people can get to hospitals, but some will die as a result of people moving around” and the system will demonstrate that.
Is that a “we don’t want anyone to die” system or is it a “we are going to accept some people dying as a result of the system so that more people can be saved” system?
I’m not sure why you got down-voted for this as I think you illustrate the intent of the above-mentioned heuristic quite well. The intent of the heuristic isn’t to objectively define what the purpose of a system is(because, well… lol), but to change the framing of it in order to better understand it’s function and how well it serves it’s “purpose”. People who design and implement these systems tend to become married to the idea of that system just needing a tweak here and there to finally serve it’s purpose 100%, usually without considering that the system may already be working optimally.
The reason I think your example of the Healthcare System(in America to be specific) is a great example is that those who are served by said system see it’s flaws first-hand versus those who design and maintain it. To the individual(s) on the receiving end, the purpose of the system is effectively something completely different than the original purpose given. To then apply the framing that the purpose of the Healthcare system is to add stress, bankrupt the sick, skyrocket costs, make people die from neglect, etc, we then see the system not as a flawed one that just needs a few tweaks, but as fundamentally missing the mark before it’s epistemological foundation is even laid. We’re able to get the engineers see what the maintenance crew sees, so to speak.
What the heuristic doesn’t do is objectively establish the purpose of a system. That’s silly, as purpose is necessarily subjective. I think our boy was trying to find a way of not only better analyzing a system, but to also help the designers of those systems see it from the perspective of those on the receiving end. What better way than to think of a system as working exactly as intended?
As for me, I think we tend to subconsciously project our intent into the world, effectively turning our framing of things we do/create as objectively inheriting the purpose we had in mind, regardless of the outcome. This can really muddy the waters with what we mean when we discuss something like purpose, which I suspect is the source of apparent confusion within this particular thread. Purpose being subjective, it will change from person to person, and purpose being subjective, it’s a poor indicator of how a system functions.
A thought exercise was all well and good, but my impression from the absolute tone of his comments was that he believes a system which does x but due to flaws in the system also does y, is intended to do both x and y, period. Which is absurd and paranoid.
Exactly. It’s absurd to say the designers of any system absolutely intended any and all outcomes of said system, in the same way It’s absurd to attribute someone’s intent as whatever you deem to be the outcome. To kind of bring it all around, it’s absurd to say the designers of our overall system legitimately intended all the flaws that came with it. In fact, with things like the [American] Healthcare system, it wasn’t really “designed” so much as it kinda happened. The heuristic to think of the system as working as intended is a great way to analyze it and all, but it’s still important to keep in mind that the illuminati wasn’t up there wringing their hands and cackling about how much suffering the barbaric American Healthcare System would cause.
If a system moves people around and some of them die, that’s the purpose of the system.
You can say “we don’t want any of them to die” and that’s true, but the system doesn’t reflect that.
You can say “fewer people will die because more people can get to hospitals, but some will die as a result of people moving around” and the system will demonstrate that.
Is that a “we don’t want anyone to die” system or is it a “we are going to accept some people dying as a result of the system so that more people can be saved” system?
Okay, take the medical system. People die. But far less than without. Is the purpose of the system to kill people…?
I’m not sure why you got down-voted for this as I think you illustrate the intent of the above-mentioned heuristic quite well. The intent of the heuristic isn’t to objectively define what the purpose of a system is(because, well… lol), but to change the framing of it in order to better understand it’s function and how well it serves it’s “purpose”. People who design and implement these systems tend to become married to the idea of that system just needing a tweak here and there to finally serve it’s purpose 100%, usually without considering that the system may already be working optimally.
The reason I think your example of the Healthcare System(in America to be specific) is a great example is that those who are served by said system see it’s flaws first-hand versus those who design and maintain it. To the individual(s) on the receiving end, the purpose of the system is effectively something completely different than the original purpose given. To then apply the framing that the purpose of the Healthcare system is to add stress, bankrupt the sick, skyrocket costs, make people die from neglect, etc, we then see the system not as a flawed one that just needs a few tweaks, but as fundamentally missing the mark before it’s epistemological foundation is even laid. We’re able to get the engineers see what the maintenance crew sees, so to speak.
What the heuristic doesn’t do is objectively establish the purpose of a system. That’s silly, as purpose is necessarily subjective. I think our boy was trying to find a way of not only better analyzing a system, but to also help the designers of those systems see it from the perspective of those on the receiving end. What better way than to think of a system as working exactly as intended?
As for me, I think we tend to subconsciously project our intent into the world, effectively turning our framing of things we do/create as objectively inheriting the purpose we had in mind, regardless of the outcome. This can really muddy the waters with what we mean when we discuss something like purpose, which I suspect is the source of apparent confusion within this particular thread. Purpose being subjective, it will change from person to person, and purpose being subjective, it’s a poor indicator of how a system functions.
A thought exercise was all well and good, but my impression from the absolute tone of his comments was that he believes a system which does x but due to flaws in the system also does y, is intended to do both x and y, period. Which is absurd and paranoid.
Exactly. It’s absurd to say the designers of any system absolutely intended any and all outcomes of said system, in the same way It’s absurd to attribute someone’s intent as whatever you deem to be the outcome. To kind of bring it all around, it’s absurd to say the designers of our overall system legitimately intended all the flaws that came with it. In fact, with things like the [American] Healthcare system, it wasn’t really “designed” so much as it kinda happened. The heuristic to think of the system as working as intended is a great way to analyze it and all, but it’s still important to keep in mind that the illuminati wasn’t up there wringing their hands and cackling about how much suffering the barbaric American Healthcare System would cause.
I’d say the purpose of the medical system involves taking measured, educated risks.