The Purpose of a System Is How We Shape It

O. Cox
{"title":"The Purpose of a System Is How We Shape It","authors":"O. Cox","doi":"10.1145/3613906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"our ideas look like? To answer this question, I aim to do a few things in this article. First, I’ll try to establish a base of values that we ought to pursue in the technologies we develop. Then I’ll narrowly define a term—ideisomorphism—that I have used a great deal in various articles up to this point to refer to tools that are naturally suited to the expression of human thought. With this definition established, I’ll explain in terms of cybernetics why our information systems need ideisomorphism to function properly. Finally, I’ll discuss a quantitative framework for measuring the extent to which tools are ideisomorphic. Why are our information systems places where ideas go to die? Why do so few of us, and fewer organizations, gain any level of mastery over our documents, ideas, and data? The reason is that our information management systems are not shaped like human consciousness. Drawing upon the field of cybernetics , I claim that to manage and master today’s immense variety of information, we need immense variety within our information systems. Without tools that mirror the range of human consciousness, our information will swallow us up; perhaps you feel like it already has. What might tools with the nuance and humanity necessary to express Insights → Our computers and their software are not currently ideisomorphic: They do not make it natural to express human ideas. → In terms of cybernetics, they are not “good regulators,” which is why so much human energy is crushed by computers. → Because of the feedback loop that exists between computers and ideas, the danger is that we will eventually think like machines at the expense of the subtlety and surprise of human thinking. C OMMENTA RY","PeriodicalId":73404,"journal":{"name":"Interactions (New York, N.Y.)","volume":"30 1","pages":"44 - 49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactions (New York, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3613906","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

our ideas look like? To answer this question, I aim to do a few things in this article. First, I’ll try to establish a base of values that we ought to pursue in the technologies we develop. Then I’ll narrowly define a term—ideisomorphism—that I have used a great deal in various articles up to this point to refer to tools that are naturally suited to the expression of human thought. With this definition established, I’ll explain in terms of cybernetics why our information systems need ideisomorphism to function properly. Finally, I’ll discuss a quantitative framework for measuring the extent to which tools are ideisomorphic. Why are our information systems places where ideas go to die? Why do so few of us, and fewer organizations, gain any level of mastery over our documents, ideas, and data? The reason is that our information management systems are not shaped like human consciousness. Drawing upon the field of cybernetics , I claim that to manage and master today’s immense variety of information, we need immense variety within our information systems. Without tools that mirror the range of human consciousness, our information will swallow us up; perhaps you feel like it already has. What might tools with the nuance and humanity necessary to express Insights → Our computers and their software are not currently ideisomorphic: They do not make it natural to express human ideas. → In terms of cybernetics, they are not “good regulators,” which is why so much human energy is crushed by computers. → Because of the feedback loop that exists between computers and ideas, the danger is that we will eventually think like machines at the expense of the subtlety and surprise of human thinking. C OMMENTA RY
系统的目的在于我们如何塑造它
我们的想法看起来像?为了回答这个问题,我打算在这篇文章中做一些事情。首先,我将努力建立一个我们应该在开发的技术中追求的价值观基础。然后,我将狭义地定义一个术语——理想同构——到目前为止,我在各种文章中使用了很多,用来指代自然适合表达人类思想的工具。有了这个定义,我将从控制论的角度解释为什么我们的信息系统需要理想同构才能正常工作。最后,我将讨论一个量化框架,用于衡量工具在多大程度上是理想同构的。为什么我们的信息系统是思想消亡的地方?为什么我们中很少有人,也很少有组织能够掌握我们的文档、想法和数据?原因是我们的信息管理系统不像人类意识那样形成。在控制论领域,我声称,要管理和掌握当今丰富多彩的信息,我们需要信息系统中的丰富多彩。如果没有反映人类意识范围的工具,我们的信息就会吞噬我们;也许你觉得它已经存在了。表达见解所需的细微差别和人性化工具→ 我们的计算机及其软件目前并不是思想同构的:它们并不能使表达人类思想变得自然。→ 就控制论而言,它们不是“好的调节器”,这就是为什么如此多的人类能量被计算机压垮的原因。→ 由于计算机和思想之间存在反馈回路,危险在于我们最终会像机器一样思考,而牺牲人类思维的微妙性和惊喜性。商业
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信