What do you think?
Rate this book
An Introduction to General Systems Thinking
For more than twenty-five years, An Introduction to General Systems Thinking has been hailed as an innovative introduction to systems theory, with applications in computer science and beyond. Used in university courses and professional seminars all over the world, the text has proven its ability to open minds and sharpen thinking.
Originally published in 1975 and reprinted more than twenty times over a quarter century -- and now available for the first time from Dorset House Publishing -- the text uses clear writing and basic algebraic principles to explore new approaches to projects, products, organizations, and virtually any kind of system.
Scientists, engineers, organization leaders, managers, doctors, students, and thinkers of all disciplines can use this book to dispel the mental fog that clouds problem-solving. As author Gerald M. Weinberg writes in the new preface to the Silver Anniversary Edition, "I haven’t changed my conviction that most people don’t think nearly as well as they could had they been taught some principles of thinking.”
Now an award-winning author of nearly forty books spanning the entire software development life cycle, Weinberg had already acquired extensive experience as a programmer, manager, university professor, and consultant when this book was originally published.
With helpful illustrations, numerous end-of-chapter exercises, and an appendix on a mathematical notation used in problem-solving, An Introduction to General Systems Thinking may be your most powerful tool in working with problems, systems, and solutions.
Originally published in 1975 and reprinted more than twenty times over a quarter century -- and now available for the first time from Dorset House Publishing -- the text uses clear writing and basic algebraic principles to explore new approaches to projects, products, organizations, and virtually any kind of system.
Scientists, engineers, organization leaders, managers, doctors, students, and thinkers of all disciplines can use this book to dispel the mental fog that clouds problem-solving. As author Gerald M. Weinberg writes in the new preface to the Silver Anniversary Edition, "I haven’t changed my conviction that most people don’t think nearly as well as they could had they been taught some principles of thinking.”
Now an award-winning author of nearly forty books spanning the entire software development life cycle, Weinberg had already acquired extensive experience as a programmer, manager, university professor, and consultant when this book was originally published.
With helpful illustrations, numerous end-of-chapter exercises, and an appendix on a mathematical notation used in problem-solving, An Introduction to General Systems Thinking may be your most powerful tool in working with problems, systems, and solutions.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
229 people are currently reading
3972 people want to read
About the author
Gerald M. Weinberg
95 books373 followersGerald Marvin Weinberg (October 27, 1933 – August 7, 2018) was an American computer scientist, author and teacher of the psychology and anthropology of computer software development.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
May 20, 2016
This is one of those few books that I revisit every few years and always learn something new from. If you're a systems designer of any sort (I'm a computer software architect/developer) then you'll find it remarkable how Gerry articulates things you've sort of noticed but never personally fully quantified resulting in those wonderful "ah-ha" moments. Then he proceeds to map those back to first principles and relate it to all kinds of other relevant considerations you had never considered. Pearls of wisdom throughout but it's not light reading. Will change your mind's shape so don't worry if all of it doesn't make sense the first time. Give it a few runs through every year or so.
July 31, 2013
The book is excellent and deep. The author is a guru in System Thinking and you feel it almost from the first page. Huge number of examples and suggestions for discussions is the most valuable part of the book. Spending most of my time in IT I had a limited view on the application of System Thinking. This book opened my eyes to many interesting directions and spheres I wasn't aware of.
At the same time the book is difficult to read. Sometimes I found myself moving slowly through sentences trying not to lose a narrative thread. The author tried to improve a reader's experience by adding multiple Laws. The idea is good but it didn't drastically change the situation
At the same time the book is difficult to read. Sometimes I found myself moving slowly through sentences trying not to lose a narrative thread. The author tried to improve a reader's experience by adding multiple Laws. The idea is good but it didn't drastically change the situation
November 9, 2014
To be a successful generalist, then, we must approach complex systems with a certain naive simplicity. We must be as little children, for we have much evidence that children learn most of their more complex ideas in just this manner, first forming a general impression of the whole and only then passing down to more particular discriminations.
Weinberg tries to explain how our preconceptions and biases get in the way of understanding the world around us.
I am more interested in system thinking to apply to creating complex creations.
Weinberg tries to explain how our preconceptions and biases get in the way of understanding the world around us.
I am more interested in system thinking to apply to creating complex creations.
May 14, 2018
A lot of systems thinking writing is just piles of self-justification management trash; most of it doesn't worth the time spent reading. This one though is a completely different beast.
I feel like, what Baudrillard did for reality deconstruction, Weinberg does for knowledge and thinking processes. His work on relationships between identity, change and regulation is just unparalleled. So, if you enjoyed the first you will enjoy this too.
also, prepare for a very condensed stream on knowledge in your face
I feel like, what Baudrillard did for reality deconstruction, Weinberg does for knowledge and thinking processes. His work on relationships between identity, change and regulation is just unparalleled. So, if you enjoyed the first you will enjoy this too.
also, prepare for a very condensed stream on knowledge in your face
Read
June 10, 2012There are a lot of good ideas here, but for a book that is supposed to help people think it is incredibly badly organized, and he uses terms he does not define and laws he never states explicitly. (I read it as an ebook from Smashwords, which enabled me to look up terms or laws that I thought I could not remember, so I can be confident of that.)I am really surpirsed it is considered a classic.
It is clearly intended to be a textbook. There are some quite interesting "problems" at the end of each chapter giving a situation in some field and asking the reader to apply the principles of that chapter to the situation. Many of these could be term-paper topics involving reading other articles or books.
This would be a very hard book to rate: I liked the approach but hated the reading of the book. My recommendation would be to find a different book on the same topic if possible.
It is clearly intended to be a textbook. There are some quite interesting "problems" at the end of each chapter giving a situation in some field and asking the reader to apply the principles of that chapter to the situation. Many of these could be term-paper topics involving reading other articles or books.
This would be a very hard book to rate: I liked the approach but hated the reading of the book. My recommendation would be to find a different book on the same topic if possible.
June 3, 2018
Interesting, but not so well written/edited. Hard to see how these ideas can be put into practice.
May 9, 2020
I can't tell if I didn't like the style or the content. Weinberg and I are both "computer guys" and so felt I was understanding.
And that feeling was that the book doesn't do a very good job explaining a method of thinking.
On the other hand, anyone who approvingly quotes Bakunin is someone to take seriously! 😁
And that feeling was that the book doesn't do a very good job explaining a method of thinking.
On the other hand, anyone who approvingly quotes Bakunin is someone to take seriously! 😁
March 29, 2018
Although it has been more than three years (March 9, 2015) since I first purchased Weinberg's book, "An Introduction to General Systems Thinking", in many ways it represents the perfect compliment to the works, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" and "An Introduction to Special Relativity" — both written by David Bohm.
Where Bohm leaves off, pleading for a more carefully structured approach towards understanding the process of thought, Weinberg gladly picks up both the trail and the mantle. It is important to note that this is a book about General Systems "Thinking", and not just another book on general systems theory.
Throughout his work Weinberg carefully delves into the nature of thought, placing particular emphasis on many of the assumptions laid down by modern science that remain unspoken and behind the scenes. He is one of the few authors that I have come across that manages to stay away from the "a system is a collection of interconnected parts" definition, choosing to define it instead as "a way of looking at the world".
This definition provided me with yet another perspective on the relative nature of physical reality, and the importance of incorporating the perspective of the observer in our investigation of ourselves, others, and the world around us. Five out of five stars for the clarity and thoughtfulness that the author aspires to, along with the realization that I will continue to reference this book for many, many years to come.
Where Bohm leaves off, pleading for a more carefully structured approach towards understanding the process of thought, Weinberg gladly picks up both the trail and the mantle. It is important to note that this is a book about General Systems "Thinking", and not just another book on general systems theory.
Throughout his work Weinberg carefully delves into the nature of thought, placing particular emphasis on many of the assumptions laid down by modern science that remain unspoken and behind the scenes. He is one of the few authors that I have come across that manages to stay away from the "a system is a collection of interconnected parts" definition, choosing to define it instead as "a way of looking at the world".
This definition provided me with yet another perspective on the relative nature of physical reality, and the importance of incorporating the perspective of the observer in our investigation of ourselves, others, and the world around us. Five out of five stars for the clarity and thoughtfulness that the author aspires to, along with the realization that I will continue to reference this book for many, many years to come.
January 31, 2023
This book is so over my head that it's not even funny. It's one of those books that you have to read once just to get an idea of what the book is about. Then you have to read it at least one more time. I've read it once and I've had enough of it for now. I'm not sure I know what the book is about. Maybe I'll read it again in the future.
April 20, 2017
I read until the 4th chapter. Utterly terrible writing. Pseudo-intellectual gibberish for the most part and trivial for the other part. This sounded very promising, but ended up a disappointment. Writer, I take this personal.
July 27, 2022
The face that launched a 1000 books to reclaim the word metaphysics from the land of woowoo.
Notes
Differentiate between Machines (low randomness, low complexity), Aggregates (high randomness, low-high complexity), and Systems (everything else). Law of Medium Numbers where law of large numbers breaks down (statistics) and there is no determinism (mechanics). Most real-world situations have medium numbers: parts of a computer, cells in a body, individuals in organizations. Same logic - gases were understood first, then crystallines solids, while liquids are still intractable.
The determinism of science means laws, like laws of mechanics apply to those elements which adhere to laws of mechanics - tautology of definition but supported by empiricism
4 equations needed to describe 2 bodies: each by itself, 1 interaction, and 1 field-equation that describes activity in absence of both. (A, B, AB, ~AB)
Genius of Newton is not in the formula, but the tiers of simplification performed. Square law of computation means n entities require n^2 equations to describe them. Newton took 10^5 bodies of solar system, reduced them to 9, then further reduced body to points, and reduced 9^2 (interactions between planets) to 9 (interaction between planet and sun).
Sociometric method to study group structures (J. L. Moreno), like econometric. Take group and study individual pairs of dynamics like-dislike, interact-avoid, important-indifferent. The line where this becomes unfeasible (too many equations) separates social psychology from sociology.
Thermometer in hot water first dips, not measuring level of mercury ie differential heating of mercury, but relative heating of mercury and glass. First glass expands on touching hot water, but not yet Mercury which thus dips in level.
Superobservor: that perspective which is dominant over all other perspectives (ie, not dependent on any other perspective), like seeing cartesian plane from Z dimension. So if X can see 1,2 and Y can see 1,2, Superobservor on orthogonal plane can see 1,1; 1,2; 2,1; 2,2.
Incompleteness: y = f(a,b) instead of f(a,b,c…etc). Overcompleteness: y=f(a,b) when y=f(a).
A real, detailed view of the world is a diet too rich for science.
System vs Environment: where is the boundary. Is lung within or without (continuous with the air outside).
American National Parks were separated based on scenery and not on ecology and flow of resources.
Across the ends of the Appalachians, any adjacent pair of frogs can mate, but those from either end cannot, so where does one species begin and end.
Since t will never take on the same value twice, regardless of all your piety and wit, you entirely eliminate the possibility of a cycle or a crossing of any kind. Cycles are no longer the same states traversed repeatedly, but similar states being traversed at different times. Moreover, measured time enables us to discriminate between similar cycles that progress at different rates.
The physicist's view of time as unidirectional and always independent can be traded for the "frequency-domain" view in which all phenomena are conceived of as compositions of cycles—not very far from the consciousness of the American Indian.12
Time scale has no meaning in an absolute sense, but only relative to some other time scale. While 4000 years might be a step function relative to the total evolution of humanity, 10-9 seconds might be a slowly rising function in a high-speed computer circuit.
a pregnant woman at 40 is 10 times as likely to bear such a child as a pregnant woman of 25. One explanation of this effect is that the ovum can be fertilized over a span of several days, and only if it is fertilized toward the very end of this span—when a separation of chromosomes called nondisjunction has occurred—will it result in a Down's child. The frequency of intercourse in such a situation is analogous to the frequency of observation. With intercourse occurring daily, there is essentially no chance of fertilization occurring at the end of the span. But if intercourse occurs, roughly, every ten days, then the chance of such fertilization rises tremendously.
Why is it that when you arrive at a bus stop, you are more likely to see a bus going in the opposite direction before your bus arrives? Because the bus is on a cycle, and you are more likely to be closer to your origin end
Nauru was mandated to Australia and prohibition was imposed. Infant mortality rose to the 50 percent level within six months. The reason? The people's natural diet was so low in vitamin B, that infants being nursed got the required amount of it only when the mother was drunk.
Notes
Differentiate between Machines (low randomness, low complexity), Aggregates (high randomness, low-high complexity), and Systems (everything else). Law of Medium Numbers where law of large numbers breaks down (statistics) and there is no determinism (mechanics). Most real-world situations have medium numbers: parts of a computer, cells in a body, individuals in organizations. Same logic - gases were understood first, then crystallines solids, while liquids are still intractable.
The determinism of science means laws, like laws of mechanics apply to those elements which adhere to laws of mechanics - tautology of definition but supported by empiricism
4 equations needed to describe 2 bodies: each by itself, 1 interaction, and 1 field-equation that describes activity in absence of both. (A, B, AB, ~AB)
Genius of Newton is not in the formula, but the tiers of simplification performed. Square law of computation means n entities require n^2 equations to describe them. Newton took 10^5 bodies of solar system, reduced them to 9, then further reduced body to points, and reduced 9^2 (interactions between planets) to 9 (interaction between planet and sun).
Sociometric method to study group structures (J. L. Moreno), like econometric. Take group and study individual pairs of dynamics like-dislike, interact-avoid, important-indifferent. The line where this becomes unfeasible (too many equations) separates social psychology from sociology.
Thermometer in hot water first dips, not measuring level of mercury ie differential heating of mercury, but relative heating of mercury and glass. First glass expands on touching hot water, but not yet Mercury which thus dips in level.
Superobservor: that perspective which is dominant over all other perspectives (ie, not dependent on any other perspective), like seeing cartesian plane from Z dimension. So if X can see 1,2 and Y can see 1,2, Superobservor on orthogonal plane can see 1,1; 1,2; 2,1; 2,2.
Incompleteness: y = f(a,b) instead of f(a,b,c…etc). Overcompleteness: y=f(a,b) when y=f(a).
A real, detailed view of the world is a diet too rich for science.
System vs Environment: where is the boundary. Is lung within or without (continuous with the air outside).
American National Parks were separated based on scenery and not on ecology and flow of resources.
Across the ends of the Appalachians, any adjacent pair of frogs can mate, but those from either end cannot, so where does one species begin and end.
Since t will never take on the same value twice, regardless of all your piety and wit, you entirely eliminate the possibility of a cycle or a crossing of any kind. Cycles are no longer the same states traversed repeatedly, but similar states being traversed at different times. Moreover, measured time enables us to discriminate between similar cycles that progress at different rates.
The physicist's view of time as unidirectional and always independent can be traded for the "frequency-domain" view in which all phenomena are conceived of as compositions of cycles—not very far from the consciousness of the American Indian.12
Time scale has no meaning in an absolute sense, but only relative to some other time scale. While 4000 years might be a step function relative to the total evolution of humanity, 10-9 seconds might be a slowly rising function in a high-speed computer circuit.
a pregnant woman at 40 is 10 times as likely to bear such a child as a pregnant woman of 25. One explanation of this effect is that the ovum can be fertilized over a span of several days, and only if it is fertilized toward the very end of this span—when a separation of chromosomes called nondisjunction has occurred—will it result in a Down's child. The frequency of intercourse in such a situation is analogous to the frequency of observation. With intercourse occurring daily, there is essentially no chance of fertilization occurring at the end of the span. But if intercourse occurs, roughly, every ten days, then the chance of such fertilization rises tremendously.
Why is it that when you arrive at a bus stop, you are more likely to see a bus going in the opposite direction before your bus arrives? Because the bus is on a cycle, and you are more likely to be closer to your origin end
Nauru was mandated to Australia and prohibition was imposed. Infant mortality rose to the 50 percent level within six months. The reason? The people's natural diet was so low in vitamin B, that infants being nursed got the required amount of it only when the mother was drunk.
February 2, 2018
I’m always wary when I encounter a cliché, or an orphaned maxim. Often there are useful pieces of knowledge underlying the creation of these bundlings, but they’re not necessarily conducive to deriving it. Rather, the underlying utility is only recoverable through the process of independent, if potentially guided, discovery. This is after all why a good maths teacher will attempt to give you more context for a theory than just its corresponding formulae.
This book suffers from the sense of cliché, not in its contained ‘laws’ (whose context is well described), but in its general form. I understand that ’Systems Thinking’ is the art of being a generalist, breaking down problems, and applying cross-domain metaphors—but I don’t understand the conclusive picture these traits should ‘click’ into. As a result, I currently consider ’Systems Thinking’ as I consider ‘Constructivist’ political thought: largely a descriptive framework with narratives conducive to post-hoc extension, and largely not an applicable or predictive framework.
Most likely I’d reach the a more fundamental understanding from rereading the book, or approaching it in the seminar setting described in the preface. It’s also possible that I have too much computer science background to appreciate the book; it is after all an attempt to more generally apply a set of scientific, and often computer science oriented, principles.
This book suffers from the sense of cliché, not in its contained ‘laws’ (whose context is well described), but in its general form. I understand that ’Systems Thinking’ is the art of being a generalist, breaking down problems, and applying cross-domain metaphors—but I don’t understand the conclusive picture these traits should ‘click’ into. As a result, I currently consider ’Systems Thinking’ as I consider ‘Constructivist’ political thought: largely a descriptive framework with narratives conducive to post-hoc extension, and largely not an applicable or predictive framework.
Most likely I’d reach the a more fundamental understanding from rereading the book, or approaching it in the seminar setting described in the preface. It’s also possible that I have too much computer science background to appreciate the book; it is after all an attempt to more generally apply a set of scientific, and often computer science oriented, principles.
April 16, 2019
As the book points out in the beginning a person with a CS background might not get much out of it and I fully agree with this statement. My reason for the low rating is that I was expecting more in terms of way to think about things differently, meaning to see or extract general pictures. The book is more about possible ways to consider things. One of the most useful passage for me was the following:
"In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." Well, it never turns out quite that way, as H.G. Wells knew he wrote his story "The Country of the Blind." A one-eyed man who happens upon a blind society does not become its king, for he cannot even function and is thought to be insane or sick. Because of the importance of category systems in a social group, it is not the outsider with a "better" system that becomes king, but the insider who most thoroughly masters the internal system. Should one of these "leaders" be removed to another group, his "native talent" evaporates, and probably becomes a severe handicap.
May 7, 2022
I picked this book up on a whim during a rare day off of work. As someone who is not a "thinker", but is interested in understanding what it means to be one, the title was too intriguing to ignore.
I first tried to read a couple summaries and spark notes, but this is not the kind of text that lends itself to shortcuts, even if the highlights are a set of laws and their respective definitions. This is a book that requires your undivided attention and the steady scaffolding of the author. It's the type of book that starts with a seemingly simple example and then breaks down every possible detail of that example over the course of multiple chapters and from an array of perspectives. It's dense, hard to follow at times, but incredibly satisfying when the concept finally click in your head. There's a lot to learn from this book, and I didn't even scratch the surface of those learnings. I look forward to undoubtedly appreciating and getting more from the text as I re-read it in the future.
I first tried to read a couple summaries and spark notes, but this is not the kind of text that lends itself to shortcuts, even if the highlights are a set of laws and their respective definitions. This is a book that requires your undivided attention and the steady scaffolding of the author. It's the type of book that starts with a seemingly simple example and then breaks down every possible detail of that example over the course of multiple chapters and from an array of perspectives. It's dense, hard to follow at times, but incredibly satisfying when the concept finally click in your head. There's a lot to learn from this book, and I didn't even scratch the surface of those learnings. I look forward to undoubtedly appreciating and getting more from the text as I re-read it in the future.
January 16, 2026
This book went over my head, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.I'm just dipping my toes into Systems Thinking and I am still not sure how I can turn this knowledge into actionable insights, so I shall read more books on the topic.There is some math in here, or rather some mathematical notations (mostly around set theory and functions), but apart from that virtually everything is described with tangible examples – and pretty damn entertaining (and sometimes mind-blowing) examples at that.This is literally a textbook, there are even exercises (and solutions) at the end of each chapter. I didn't do the exercises (they are really tough), but I think I still was able to follow along nicely until maybe the last two chapters, at which point the house of cards that the author had built up became too vast for me to keep in my head.Anyways, it's fun to read. I do think it has already helped me to have a more open mind when thinking about systems and trying to think “scientifically”.This is a book that I will quite possibly read several times and eventually try myself on the exercises.Recommended!
January 9, 2022
This is probably a valuable book, but I think it is a philosophy textbook more than something written for the general public. As such, most of the ideas in this book didn't really click with me. I might come back to this book later, but as of now, I felt lost most of the time.
I would've given a better rating but I was also not satisfied with the Kindle Edition specifically (purchased from Leanpub, presumably straight from the author). The book is riddled with typos (probably originating from a scan), none of the footnotes or other links work (the book often refers to Figures in different chapters, making things very hard to find) and prettych much all of the graphics are low quality or unreadable. My recommendation would be to go for a printed edition if possible.
I would've given a better rating but I was also not satisfied with the Kindle Edition specifically (purchased from Leanpub, presumably straight from the author). The book is riddled with typos (probably originating from a scan), none of the footnotes or other links work (the book often refers to Figures in different chapters, making things very hard to find) and prettych much all of the graphics are low quality or unreadable. My recommendation would be to go for a printed edition if possible.
September 20, 2018
The sight you see before you is me with a glassy gaze, a slack jaw, and dribble coming out of the corner of my mouth. Followed by me saying "Wha?"
Which is how I feel about this book.
For the most part, Weinberg is quite readable and has a lot to say. The problem I have (which others may not), is that I find it hard to summarise what I've just read. And furthermore, find it hard to see how I would apply this book to my work as a programmer.
BUT Even though I feel I've barely grasped it's concepts, I know I've been affected by it and it will influence my work.
And it's definitely worth a re-read or even many re-reads in the future. Which is true of any Weinberg book.
Which is how I feel about this book.
For the most part, Weinberg is quite readable and has a lot to say. The problem I have (which others may not), is that I find it hard to summarise what I've just read. And furthermore, find it hard to see how I would apply this book to my work as a programmer.
BUT Even though I feel I've barely grasped it's concepts, I know I've been affected by it and it will influence my work.
And it's definitely worth a re-read or even many re-reads in the future. Which is true of any Weinberg book.
June 16, 2019
This book should be called "An investigation into what you do when you think you're producing scientific thought". The book discusses the domain of medium scale systems with large randomness; and consequently low predictability. It tries to law before the methods of understanding those systems; exposing assumptions, fallacies and the like; that make your methods weak. It does seem to have many interesting idea but feels largely dry. I was unaware that it was intended as a textbook, which explains the dryness of the material. Might need a second reading to enjoy it.
January 29, 2017
Weinberg provides in clear language interesting ways to think about systems, in whatever incarnation they take. I feel like it's deceptively simple, verging on common sense. The thing is, so much of our perception is clouded by long-ingrained habit that it is useful to take a step back, and actual think about what how we think. Anyway, the principles and "laws" Weinberg introduces are something I intend to revisit.
May 29, 2017
I'm having a hard time writing a review for this book and figuring out what star rating to give it. I think a second reading or reading more on the topic would help.
It was good. The book presents some ways of thinking about systems that might enhance how you approach general problem-solving.
Sometimes the language was awkward. This forced me to reread sentences and paragraphs to grasp what they were saying.
It was good. The book presents some ways of thinking about systems that might enhance how you approach general problem-solving.
Sometimes the language was awkward. This forced me to reread sentences and paragraphs to grasp what they were saying.
November 23, 2018
This is a really demanding book. It deals with approaching and analyzing systems and building their models. It's filled with laws and principles and every chapter ends with several exercises that you can use to deepen your understanding of this part of the book. To me, it's a book that needs to be revisited, as grasping its content in once, is really hard (at least for me).
I can tell right now, that I'm sold and will read more books from Weinberg for sure.
I can tell right now, that I'm sold and will read more books from Weinberg for sure.
September 20, 2021
My ratings of books on Goodreads are solely a crude ranking of their utility to me, and not an evaluation of literary merit, entertainment value, social importance, humor, insightfulness, scientific accuracy, creative vigor, suspensefulness of plot, depth of characters, vitality of theme, excitement of climax, satisfaction of ending, or any other combination of dimensions of value which we are expected to boil down through some fabulous alchemy into a single digit.
February 18, 2024
I really, really wanted to read this book for years, hoping I would learn new and wonderful ways of thinking. But at about 1/4 into it, I abandoned the book to the DNF pile. The author is clearly very educated in a wide variety of fields. But the writing style was impenetrable to me. And all the suggestions for additional reading were books from the 60s and 70s. If there was a version of this written in plainer language, with examples from the past couple decades, that would be better for me. This book just felt like a lecture by a philosophy professor in 1965.
November 25, 2022
Did not finish. I am either too dumb to understand this book or this book is too vague and has no discernible structure. It's very broad and at around 15% I still didn't get anything useful from it and was constantly distracted and loosing interest. Tried to skip some boring examples and analogies, but it didn't help. I'll pass.
January 10, 2025
The only purchase option for this book is electronic, I think, and the electronic version images are scanned and with a low resolution. So that's a shame, and will remove one star.
But anyways, this is a philosophy book, a philosophy of science book, but still philosophy. And as such, it is only useful to make us think, and maybe make us think better. But no real application.
But anyways, this is a philosophy book, a philosophy of science book, but still philosophy. And as such, it is only useful to make us think, and maybe make us think better. But no real application.
April 17, 2018
Like in most social sciences, the book's ideas are pretentious, but too general and vague to be of any use. The book if full of inaccurate trivia, used as examples of its ideas, paradoxical scepticism towards science and invented names for common-sense concepts, but very little valuable.
July 18, 2020
The book is like a gold mine, there are nuggets of gold but they are hard to extract.
I personally prefer Thinking in Systems to learn about systems, but this book has some interesting points and rephrasings of systems thinking.
I personally prefer Thinking in Systems to learn about systems, but this book has some interesting points and rephrasings of systems thinking.
Read
July 12, 2021Questions assumptions and fixed ways of perceiving systems and behavior within systems
it's really a study of how we think about things, and how we classify and transform our assumptions, difficult, worthwhile.
it's really a study of how we think about things, and how we classify and transform our assumptions, difficult, worthwhile.
May 30, 2022
I was contemporaneous with Weinberg.
Read the book a very long time ago.
It was great as far as it went.
But as with most systems books it was incomplete. Not wrong, just incomplete.
It is definitely worth reading as a classic book on systems stuff.
Read the book a very long time ago.
It was great as far as it went.
But as with most systems books it was incomplete. Not wrong, just incomplete.
It is definitely worth reading as a classic book on systems stuff.
June 29, 2017
Essential reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews