[growingkittens]

This article does not begin to cover systems thinking. Cybernetics and metacybernetics are noticably missing. Paul Cilliers' theory of complexity - unmentioned. Nothing about Stafford Beer and the viable system model. So on and so forth.

The things the author complains about seem to be "parts of systems thinking they aren't aware of". The field is still developing.

[non_aligned]

"Metacybernetics" is a concept with a small handful of Google hits, some of which appear to be obscure research papers and some appear to be metaphysical crackpottery on blogs.

I think it's worth considering that the theories you're familiar with are incredibly niche, have never gained any foothold in mainstream discussions of system dynamics, and it's not wrong for people not to be aware of them (or to choose not to mention them) in a post addressed at general audiences.

Further, you just missed the opportunity to explain these concepts to a broader HN audience and maybe make sure that the next time someone writes about it, they are aware of this work.

[voidhorse]

Cybernetics was the birthing place of neural networks. Hardly niche.

I don't think commenters should be expected to provide full overviews of topics just to inform others. Parent gave plenty of pointers beyond metacybernetics, all of which are certainly discoverable. If you are curious, read about it. It's not the responsibility of random strangers to educate you.

[homarp]

>cybernetics was the birthing place of NN

would https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Sturgis_McCulloch be what you mean?

and if not,can you give the right pointer?

[rorytbyrne]

Cybernetics is essentially control theory, and many of the methods in neural network research came from there. For example backpropagation can be traced back to Pontryagin in the 1950s.

Training a nonlinear system to behave in a way you want is the raison d’etre of optimal control theory.

But I wouldn’t say it’s the birthing place of neural networks, personally.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpropagation#History

[growingkittens]

Metacybernetics is the only obscure word on that list, and it refers to all of the first-order cybernetics, second-order cybernetics, etc.

You missed the opportunity to ask a simple question - what is metacybernetics? - and decided everything on that list was just as niche.

[spectraldrift]

It seems odd to me that someone would write such a polished and comprehensive article and yet completely misunderstand the definition of the central topic.

[growingkittens]

That happens in system dynamics a lot, actually - there are many independently developed theories in many different disciplines that do not intertwine historically at all. I have met multiple people who work with systems mathematically on a professional level who had no idea about these other things.

[voidhorse]

I've seen this too. In particular there seems to be a huge dividing line between systems research stemming from the physical-mathematical heritage of formal dynamical systems, and the other line mostly stemming from everything Wiener did with cybernetics (and some others who were contemporaneous with Wiener). Both sides can be profitably informed by the other in various ways.

[Terr_]

On that note, a relevant recent book-read: "Unnacountability Machines" - https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/U/bo252799...

There was some hard to follow explanations in it, but the author tries to connect the history and goals of cybernetics versus modern problems like being unable to get support from a company.

[zer00eyz]

Because people wandering in are going to wonder about the term cybernetics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_Cyberneti...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_theory

[dkdcio]

why not just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics