Login
You're viewing the mastodonapp.uk public feed.
  • Oct 19, 2026, 1:01 PM
    @theluddite@assemblag.es @hipsterelectron@circumstances.run Yes. Which claim are you dubious of exactly? You said nearly the same things as I did in your thread (which I apologize for not having read before I responded), for instance: "when bringing your own subjectivity into a system, you should challenge yourself to understand it on its own terms, which involves understanding its inputs and responses to those inputs". Where I take issue is when the "system" involves people. Slightly more subtly, the challenge being issued here, taken in context, involves a person in the system and tasks them with putting their subjectivity to one side, mechanizing themselves. Otherwise it's a restatement of scientific objectivity, and does no extra work; one does something with the understanding gained aside from pursuing further understanding.
    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 0

Replies

  • Oct 19, 2026, 1:27 PM

    @abucci

    The point of the passage I was quoting about "second order cybernetics" is that the observer is always part of the system. The challenge is not to find the outside, objective perspective, but that there isn't one.

    imo this is like critiquing pharmacology's view of humans as just a vessel for chemical reactions. It definitely can do that, and the critique has value in our current psycho-pharmacological context, but it can also be productive to view humans this way. (1/2)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 19, 2026, 1:28 PM

    @abucci

    re:mechanization - One of Taiichi Ohno's huge triumphs in industrial engineering at Toyota was specifically against mechanizing humans, so against the Taylorist view of human beings as unthinking machines, and for designing systems around human individuality and innovation. Cybernetics gives us a framework for why this was a productive move, and this is the kind of things that my reading group looked at. I'm happy to pass along pretty niche lit if this is of interest.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0