This made me reflect that I hadn't actually thought critically about the phrase (at least, commensurate to how often it's used). For fun, if you think the purpose of a system is what it does, write what you think that means, before reading Scott's critique, then write if you've updated your opinion. For example:
(Spoilers go between two sets of "||")
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I've always hated this aphorism and I was glad to see Scott arguing against it. By definition, the purpose of a system is what it was intended to do, not what it does. Trying to redefine "purpose" to be about outcomes instead of intent is a silly linguistic game that I have no patience for. And, as Scott points out, it leads to "purposes" that are obviously incorrect.
It's meaningful with the implication that you're saying this to hold those within those systems to account.
When those in charge of systems are hostile, or the system is set up to allow value drift (let's take BLM as a system- the official statement was black lives matter, where what it actually did was burn loot murder), those who created the system rightfully should be held to account for either allowing the goals of the system to be hijacked [mistake theory] or was intended that way from the start and the declared intentions were lies [conflict theory].
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link