Systems Paradigm Overview

Take the full course: bit.ly/SiCourse
Download booklet: bit.ly/SiBooklets
Twitter: bit.ly/2JuNmXX
LinkedIn: bit.ly/2YCP2U6
In this video we will be giving an overview to what we call the systems paradigm, which is the fundamental set of concepts that support systems theory and constitute this particular way of looking at the world. In order to try and create a clear understanding, we will do this by contrasting it will the more traditional paradigm taken within modern science.

[@migintusr2]

I really love your videos, they are taking my thinking skills to levels i never thought possible. Thanks for such a good work.

[@odebroqueville]

Really nice series described with impeccable clarity. Thank you.

[@jasim3839]

This video beautifully explains the historical overview of systems philosophy. If you want to view more of their content, I would recommend understanding this first.

[@psicologiajoseh]

This content is very valuable! Thank you sincerely for sharing it.

[@azatkadyrov3634]

Wow! Great stuff!

[@niklasgustafsson413]

It would be great to have some sources and suggested readings on the topic (books,articles)

[@shidlkrim]

+Complexity Lab Suggestion: Create a playlist for the lecture series so more people find it

[@SystemsInnovationNetwork]

Yep, there is a playlist for this course already: goo.gl/1jmYbm

[@andrewdegozaru74]

Great videos. Thank you for putting them together.

[@leepretorius4869]

What is the best way to address an issue raised in this video? If there’s an idea here that is flawed in some way (for example, a bias or reductionist idea) how should we communicate it to the community?

[@aerobique]

Simple and hopefully bit constructive I would say. How else?
The only other way I can think of might be:. To eXpoSe hidden cultist "woRDsALaT!" by reasoning Hillary's demonic slave nEw WoRlD! oF forced puppY-eAtinG 5g nazicommunism to sHeEple📢📢📢🎳☠⚔👾📢 (Adding. "they!". "the elite!" and indeed "agenda!" multiple
times is key to be very clear about seriousness though)
,😁😝

[@tannide54]

Your video has a seductive knowledge base N tone

[@gurkenhamster]

Great video! One thing: I would argue that Hegel and Marx, being dialecticians and thus also being interested in the interactions between parts and feedback loops (such as between nature and humans, the mode of production and society, or the proletariat and the bourgeoisie), would actually fit into the systems paradigm, or at least could be made coherent with it. It was a bit misleading to present systems theory as a wholly new idea, while the idea of looking at things in their process even goes back to Heraklit

[@Zayden.]

I think a lot of modern scientists are independently gaining similar insights as Hegel, Marx and Engels did, and yes even Heraclitus.
What is now called the science of complexity was called the logic/philosophy of materialist dialectics by Marx in the 19th century.

[@wpoon1]

Live has different values to different people. Such values create either burdens or joyfulness to us.

[@thanks600]

When faced with unknown system, one tends to do reductive and subsequently systemic in loops with information gained from one complement subsequent mental model fueling next thinking paradigm.

[@mobiledevices307]

I don't think the statement @13:30 , "The relationship between parts is given higher ontological precedence" is very well put one; My complain is two fold, first in consideration of language; If this is an introductory course the word precedence is ambiguous, does this mean it comes before and is necessary for the precedent the decedent? If so this is counter-intuitive and its validity should be at least briefly addressed. To see the counter intuition, see ask the following: Can a chessboard arrangement be 'prior' to pieces themselves?
Secondly (and more personally) I thought if one were to represent components and relationships, graph theory comes quickly as candidate framework. Edges[relationship] and nodes[components] is isomorphic in a sense that they are both "vectors" entities that contains values. Given if no information is stored outside of the edge or the nodes [that no master list of each exists] they are fundamentally the same and sits same ontological level in terms of complexity. It seems rather inconsistent to open the video saying that there is feedback and thus inability to separation causation because both bottom-up and top-down vector of influence both exist only to end on saying top-down dominates.
[Bottom/down and top/up refers to hierarchy of complexity, i.e. Individual pieces of furniture is down / basic/ and a room with arrangement of furniture is up]
But again, I mean, in general, I do agree the focus of Systems Theory is relationships but only because it is lacking else where.

[@SystemsInnovationNetwork]

For your first question: precedence in this sense is meant to mean "the condition of being considered more important than something else"
Second question: both bottom-up and top-down causation are of importance depending on the context, but systems theory is particularly interested in top-down causation because it is traditionally given less recognition.

[@wordprocessbrian4497]

If there is one piece to move on a chessboard, does the chess piece move the player, since the player has no choice?

[@dhiyaneshsivakumaran9201]

@@wordprocessbrian4497 the contract between players to abide by the rules influence the player, not the chess piece.

[@hamzahassan6726]

16:42 mic drop

[@daniel-zh4qc]

History is missing - plotinus, schelling, hegel, spinoza, husserl, whitehead, deleuze, etc. - ie the history ....

[@ChandlerRandolph-yc5re]

oh my god

[@Gorboduc]

This whole series is very bad copy: tons of backward branching constructions, indeterminate pronouns, and 40-word sentences with their point buried somewhere in the middle. It's very wearing on the ears.