An example of Meadows failure to understand and apply her own advice comes from the same column discussed in the previous post.

Listen to the wisdom of the system.

Aid and encourage the forces and structures that help the system run itself. Don't be an unthinking intervener and destroy the system's own self-maintenance capacities. Before you charge in to make things better, pay attention to the value of what's already there.

A friend of mine, Nathan Gray, was once an aid worker in Guatemala. He told me of his frustration with agencies that would arrive with the intention of "creating jobs" and "increasing entrepreneurial abilities" and "attracting outside investors." They would walk right past the thriving local market, where small-scale business people of all kinds, from basket-makers to vegetable growers to butchers to candy sellers, were displaying their entrepreneurial abilities in jobs they had created for themselves. Nathan spent his time talking to the people in the market, asking about their lives and businesses, learning what was in the way of those businesses expanding and incomes rising. He concluded that what was needed was not outside investors, but inside ones. Small loans available at reasonable interest rates, and classes in literacy and accounting, would produce much more long-term good for the community than bringing in a factory or assembly plant from outside.

Attempting to identify and measure system components without preconception or bias so as to better understand how it functions is critical to effective analysis. Meadows gives useful advice but fails to apply it in her own analysis. In the example above the agencies and outside investors are part of the system. They are part of all systems in every place and time. The history of humanity is littered with strangers who came to dinner and powered the plot of the story. They can't be dismissed, ignored or eliminated. System definitions that omit their roles and interventions that fail to consider them are flawed. The whole system includes those change agents - the big hitters who produce more strike outs than dingers - as well as the small and medium sized agents who get on base more often. Meadows and Nathan Gray allowed their preferences and biases to muddle their analyses and failed to see that the long-term good of the community is as intimately tied to the success of change agents as it is to that of the small players. Developing societies that encourage all elements of the community are much more successful. They develop faster and more uniformly which enhances robustness and resilience.

Another error often made by Meadows was failure to anticipate system changes caused by interventions. It wasn't because she was unaware of the dynamics of systems dynamics, it was willful blindness in service of cherished illusions. Her favorite type of prescription for regulation of elements of society of which she disapproved was establishment of intolerable pressures on their behavior. She naively assumed that they would change their behaviors in ways she would approve.

That isn't how things work in real life. We have libraries full of case histories that document how harsh restrictions result in social damage. Criminalizing common behaviors creates a larger criminal population and disrespect for regulators. Some offenders do change in ways Meadows would approve of but others find ingenious ways to evade and subvert regulation. Knowledge of such evasion permeates society, undermines authority and diminishes social cohesion.

Systems dynamics is a tool that when used well helps avoid these kind of poke-and-hope interventions. To use the tool well it is necessary to make peace with the system, to help it be what it wants to be rather than what you want it to be. This is a very difficult thing for ideologues who have a visceral dislike of humans and their foibles. There's no use for vision in systems dynamics but there's a great use for clear sightedness.