Seems to me there are two assumptions in this logic - both A and B need the same types of resources and both utilize them at the same efficiency. So if one is getting fewer resources, they are producing less output; which means they will get fewer resources, and the loop continues. This works if resources are controlled by those who expect a return, which is then tied to output.
Most importantly your article highlights how we can break out of this cycle by innovating and jumping to a new S curve.
Thanks, Naveen! Yep, you're right about those other assumptions. And on breaking out of cycles, one reason why I like studying archetypes is that the easier it gets to identify them in practice, the easier it gets to break out of suboptimal patterns too.
While not exactly on point, system design often creates the distortions that predict outcomes. Many years ago I read a book by Malcolm Gladwell. It focused on a couple of youth sports activities, as I remember Little League baseball and hockey. Both of these sports had STRICT rules on age eligibility and dates when a kid turned 6 for example. It turns out, in both cases, that the very best and exclusive teams at age 18 will be LOADED with kids who were 5 years, 11 months in age since those children will SIMPLY be nearly 17% more mature than their peers. If I remember correctly the Olympic Gold Medal team for ice hockey had more than 70% of the players born in the most advantageous month. Perhaps parents interested in sports should plan their births accordingly :) Those kids get on the "better" team from the start and often stay together through youth. This is the danger of G&T programs as they are arbitrary in selection of aptitude at a given time. This has consequences and is best exemplified in nations with high--stakes aptitude testing.
This is really interesting about the sports teams (and a little disappointing! Could so many would-be superstars really just lag early by virtue of their birth month and then drop out? With data saying yes, that's sobering.)! And I agree about G&T programs, they should be much more flow-in/flow-out with open start/end dates. And a poor score on a single test should never be a no-do-overs situation.
The book is titled "Outliers" -- a fun, provocative, and contrarian read. This is likely what helicopter parents are up to holding their kids back for first grade to get an edge. Humans are the most edge case of creatures as parents commit nearly 1/4 of their lives to raising them. Parents, I believe, might do this unconsciously and just have difficulty letting go. I have a brother who is a college professor. He constantly shares stories of helicopter parents in all of their absurd forms. It is funny on first blush but also quite sad. My sons all have seemed to experience this in both their college and work experience. It would probably make a fun and entertaining post.
Ah, good question! This is because the sign is determined by each pair in isolation. So, as resources of B go up, the likelihood of success of B also goes up (a positive/direct relationship). And as the likelihood of success of B goes up, the success of B also tends to go up. I walk through individual pair-relationships and reading the overall feedback loops in detail in this primer: https://riskmusings.substack.com/p/a-system-dynamics-primer-drawing
Hi Stephanie - I love your casual loop diagrams.
Seems to me there are two assumptions in this logic - both A and B need the same types of resources and both utilize them at the same efficiency. So if one is getting fewer resources, they are producing less output; which means they will get fewer resources, and the loop continues. This works if resources are controlled by those who expect a return, which is then tied to output.
Most importantly your article highlights how we can break out of this cycle by innovating and jumping to a new S curve.
Thanks, Naveen! Yep, you're right about those other assumptions. And on breaking out of cycles, one reason why I like studying archetypes is that the easier it gets to identify them in practice, the easier it gets to break out of suboptimal patterns too.
While not exactly on point, system design often creates the distortions that predict outcomes. Many years ago I read a book by Malcolm Gladwell. It focused on a couple of youth sports activities, as I remember Little League baseball and hockey. Both of these sports had STRICT rules on age eligibility and dates when a kid turned 6 for example. It turns out, in both cases, that the very best and exclusive teams at age 18 will be LOADED with kids who were 5 years, 11 months in age since those children will SIMPLY be nearly 17% more mature than their peers. If I remember correctly the Olympic Gold Medal team for ice hockey had more than 70% of the players born in the most advantageous month. Perhaps parents interested in sports should plan their births accordingly :) Those kids get on the "better" team from the start and often stay together through youth. This is the danger of G&T programs as they are arbitrary in selection of aptitude at a given time. This has consequences and is best exemplified in nations with high--stakes aptitude testing.
This is really interesting about the sports teams (and a little disappointing! Could so many would-be superstars really just lag early by virtue of their birth month and then drop out? With data saying yes, that's sobering.)! And I agree about G&T programs, they should be much more flow-in/flow-out with open start/end dates. And a poor score on a single test should never be a no-do-overs situation.
The book is titled "Outliers" -- a fun, provocative, and contrarian read. This is likely what helicopter parents are up to holding their kids back for first grade to get an edge. Humans are the most edge case of creatures as parents commit nearly 1/4 of their lives to raising them. Parents, I believe, might do this unconsciously and just have difficulty letting go. I have a brother who is a college professor. He constantly shares stories of helicopter parents in all of their absurd forms. It is funny on first blush but also quite sad. My sons all have seemed to experience this in both their college and work experience. It would probably make a fun and entertaining post.
It looks like the signs on the Likelihood of Success of B and Success of B are + when they should be - on the diagram.
Ah, good question! This is because the sign is determined by each pair in isolation. So, as resources of B go up, the likelihood of success of B also goes up (a positive/direct relationship). And as the likelihood of success of B goes up, the success of B also tends to go up. I walk through individual pair-relationships and reading the overall feedback loops in detail in this primer: https://riskmusings.substack.com/p/a-system-dynamics-primer-drawing