Stages of Immersion in Systems Methodology Using the "Hammer" Example
Let's take a look at the progression of learning systems thinking, continuing our example with the hammer discussed in previous sections.
In student culture, there are jokes about how university students think, where upperclassmen know more about life than freshmen. A similar dynamic can be seen at Aisystant, with the instructor asking the student: “Give an example of a physical object.” The way you answer this question reveals the depth of your immersion in systems thinking.
A student in the preparatory course “Systems Self-Development” would answer the question about a physical object with “a hammer.” And that answer would be accepted. In the preparatory courses at AISYSTANT, the primary focus is on distinguishing the physical world from the mental space. This is important so that concepts like “age,” “freedom,” “love,” or “theory” are separated from objects such as “hammer,” “textbook,” or “shorts.”
A student in the “Rational Work” course, or someone with strong ontological mastery[1], cannot answer like a student in the preparatory program. They understand that the word “hammer” can refer to an instance of the class “Carpentry Tools.” Therefore, you cannot simply say “hammer.” The correct answer would be: “this large hammer in your hand.” In other words, it is necessary to clearly define the context so it is understood that you are referring to a specific physical object, not an ideal abstract object (an instance of some class).
A student studying systems thinking will go further—they can already reason not just about a physical object, but about the “hammer” system. That is, they understand that there is the word “hammer,” but in different contexts, it can mean different things. For example, it can refer to a class instance, a specific physical object, or a system. In the latter case, the “hammer” system could be “this stone in my hand.”
This is similar to the well-known phrase: “Will Will will Will will Will's will?”[2] The word “hammer” is the same, but it can refer to completely different types, and it is important to consciously distinguish between them. While in everyday life this lack of distinction between types may go unnoticed, in complex work projects, it is difficult to succeed without this skill.
The gradual immersion into a complex methodology, as demonstrated with the hammer example, is a common practice in educational culture. For instance, children first learn about numbers, then about natural numbers, and later about integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and eventually, as students, they study complex numbers[3]. We structure our trajectory for learning complex systems thinking in a similar way.
A person studying systems thinking masters general techniques for thinking about systems, understands different types of systems, and also grasps the distinction between the classic systems approach 3.0 and previous generations. In the following courses of the main “Organizational Development” program, you will learn specific principles for working with different types of systems, such as a person, an enterprise, an IT system, or a car.
It is not strictly necessary to take the “Rational Work” course for this, but it is extremely helpful for developing ontological thinking, without which systems thinking cannot be established. ↩︎
In English, this can sound like “Will Will will Will will Will's will?” Here, too, there are different types: agent, document, action. ↩︎
And some answers from early learning have to be corrected as a result of deeper immersion in the methodology. ↩︎