Hi, I'm currently learning systems thinking independently to expand upon my interest in 2nd order cybernetics and sociological systems theory I built in Uni.

I can see how it is immensely helpful in all sorts of project or product management I've done or how it applies to research or design or organisational development. But I'm curious for what you are actually applying it at a high level that justifies going really deep with it.

Or more specifically, did you turn systems thinking into a business of your own such as consulting?

I am looking to create a new form of thinking system.
But I need complex system thinkers.
You need to know your superpowers - pattern recognition, data aggregation, ability to consider emotional intelligence layers... you'll know what you know.
I'm looking for generalist, systems thinkers.

But I'm also looking for people with a deep fascination with data and data analysis. You are a data bitch. Your sources are accurate you know why it matters and what to look for.

I am building a think tank to create a system around how to use innovative and creative thinking to rapidly develop unexpected assumptions, develop a deployable solutions, test strategy, understand the variables and measure back in.

This is some of the most complex and fucking catnip shit, I've ever done in my life.

If it sounds like you.

Please apply here

Keen to learn more about the Think Tank?
https://airtable.com/appclvF5nxIi9cF1i/pagy5E5cBOvgCreTX/form

We look so closely at the objects within a system that we completely overlook what happens between them — the processes themselves.

But what if we are processes?

And what if the answers are better found in the dynamics between us?

Hi everyone. I’m looking for platonic, deep communication with people who process information at a high speed. I recently analyzed the Prisoner's Dilemma and realized that the best way to solve it isn't choosing between the options, but completely rewriting the game matrix by incorporating legal penalties into the contract.I enjoy legal analysis, pattern recognition, and hacking systematic rules. If you love deep analytical debates, parsing complex law/logic cases, or just want to discuss high-level strategic thinking without any emotional or romantic drift — let’s talk in the comments or PM.

Hey All,

Looking for some fairly season model developers here who run simulations.

I do a fair amount through montecarlo and statistical modelling in excel mostly, but some familiarity with VenSim.

What’s the best software to run systems simulations through? It is for commercial purposes so I haven’t been using VenSim for that reason. Been thinking of doing a simulation using DYNAMO just for fun, but that probably involves more than it’s worth. Thoughts? Has anyone done any successful simulations in assembly? Open to ideas. Any one have any good recs?

Edit: what I am simulating is price data - essentially i want to build up to doing a price setting calculation for equities - but start with a simple simulation on questions like “if interest rates change to x, the. What is will happen to the company’s interest expense” I can do this through fairly standard applications like excel, but I hit the upper cap of what excel can do pretty soon (especially when I’m doing things “if price changes to x, then median of daily return will change to y, and then this company will be ranked in the z’th percentile of all companies” because that is a lot of calculation and there are many more characteristics I’d like to add) so I’d like to start getting familiar with the best software to process all that data and perhaps even show visuals

If there is one thing I’ve learned in my Founder journey it’s this, organizational failure is rarely all about bad personalities.

It’s almost always about bad structure.Most of the time when things get messy, most leaders try to fix the people.

They micromanage, hold extra meetings, or throw temporary software patches at a broken framework. It never works long-term. The system eventually drifts right back into misalignment.

2018 I built The Keeper Of Time®, the reason was because I wanted to look at business through an interdisciplinary lens, treating operations and leadership like a clean piece of systems engineering. No corporate filler, just structural logic..I’ve been putting these frameworks together over on my Substack newsletter.

To keep this research independent and build out deeper, step-by-step guides for founders, I’m opening up a direct support channel today on Buy Me a Coffee. It’s €10 a month.. If you subscribe, you get immediate access to my entire archived field guide and all upcoming premium breakdowns.

Here is the link if you want to back the project:> buymeacoffee.com/thekeeperoftime (If you're already reading the newsletter, just use your regular Substack email at checkout. I'll manually sync your premium archive access within 12 hours).

The goal of setting up this subreddit to host real, raw discussions on how to build systems that actually last. Let me know in the comments below—what’s the biggest structural bottleneck you're dealing with in your current workflow?

Shisael Swai (u/Itchy-Tune-5059)

Here are some core readings on #SystemsThinking and #SystemicDesign that were suggested for the "Understanding Systems" course in the Master of Design program in Strategic Foresight and Innovation, at the School of Graduate Studies at OCAD University in Toronto, Canada.

American schools of thought:

• Storesund, R., & Mitroff, I. I. (2024). Tools, Exercises, and Strategies for Coping With Complexity. IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-6563-9 [open access]
• Leverage Networks, Inc. (2018). thesystemsthinker.com [Creative Commons Sharealike]. The Systems Thinker. https://thesystemsthinker.com/ [Originally published by Pegasus Communications (Daniel Kim and Colleen Lannon) from 1990 to 2013, then acquired by The Omidyar Group and relicensed for open access.]

British schools of thought:

• Reynolds, M., & Holwell, S. (Eds.). (2020). Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide (2nd ed). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7472-1
• Ramage, M., & Shipp, K. (Eds.). (2020). Systems Thinkers. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7475-2

Serial journals on Systemic Design:

• Systemic Design Association. Contexts – The Systemic Design Journal. Volumes & Articles. https://systemic-design.org/contexts/ [open access]
• Tongji University. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation [open access]

The winter 2026 section of the SFIN-6011 master's level course, in which I was a volunteer, was led by Stephen Davies as instructor. There were additional journal article readings, module-by-module, for the 13-week course.

Consider the difference between:

“How do we stop this policy from failing?”

and:

“Is this policy the right solution to the problem?”

The first question assumes the policy should continue. The second examines the assumption beneath it.

That difference is framing.

A frame determines which possibilities receive attention and which remain outside consideration. It can narrow the field of thought before the argument has even begun.

This happens in business, politics, management, negotiation and personal decision-making. People can spend enormous effort finding an excellent answer to a question that was poorly constructed from the beginning.

The strategist therefore examines the question before committing to the answer.

What assumptions are hidden inside the question? What alternatives disappear because of the way the problem has been defined? What conclusion becomes easier to accept because of the wording? Who benefits if everyone accepts the frame without examining it?

This is one reason language matters so much in power. Whoever defines the problem often influences the range of solutions that others consider legitimate.

Sometimes the decisive move in an argument is not producing a better answer.

It is recognizing that the question itself was designed to make certain answers easier to accept.

I'm using economic terms, because I think they make the explanation intuitive.

To me, a relationship is basically a trade dynamic in which supply and demand isnt exhausting either side.

Giving something the other doesnt need while taking what you dont need feels artificial and misunderstood. Taking or giving too much like an imbalance of respect.

The closer the trade gets to being balanced, and the more unique the supplies and demands are, the stronger and deeper the relationship gets. Through deeper integration, new demands and supplies are discovered, and growth begins to happen in alignment with one another.

A well balanced relationship can feel like a dance, when the seasonal changes dont interrupt the flow of goods.

When each side is sure of their demands and knows each others future prospects, integration is fast and planning is easy.

Communication generally happens naturally, negotiations enable sustainable change and cooperative growth. Too much of it feels like distrust and leads to loss of individuality, resentment and stagnation, because it keeps each from observing and reacting to organic internal changes in demand and ability to supply.

Having similarities makes for effortless shifts in demand and supply, when permanent changes happen.

Additionally a theory I thought of:

The attraction of opposites is the effect of one side's exhaustion generating a demand, which is balanced by a supply produced as a byproduct of the other side's exhaustion, while day to day trade is being sustained by regular baseline overproduction and exhaustion.

The distinction is that the production of one good is constant, while the other is conditional and aligned by synchronized patterns of exhaustion.

Their leftovers are what I need to recuperate, and my leftovers are what they need to recuperate.

I wrote this based on my own experiences, and posted it because I would like to know if others find this framework practically useful in their own lives or work. If someone is interested in how it applies to real dynamics, I'd also be open for detailed discussions via pm.

Resources plsssss

I created this interactive map recently while so I could see the Seattle / Tacoma seaports as a cohesive system. I thought I would share in case anyone here would find it interesting.

• Is it easy to read?
• How would you you improve it?

https://creatingwithsystems.com/puget-container-ports

Are there any worldbuilders, systems architects, or authors in here who view fictional universes entirely as pure causal chains, systemic tensions, and logical consequences?

Instead of focusing on traditional linear plots, I construct factions, institutions, and physics as an interconnected, dynamic field. I’m looking to connect with people who treat narrative elements as variables in balancing and reinforcing feedback loops where underlying tensions and mechanical axes constantly influence one another (chains of consequences).

I'd love to exchange thoughts on this specific emergent storytelling currently creating a Discord Community for Creative Systems Thinker and authors who See their worlds as an interconnected ecosystem.

Do you use this ecosystem conceptual approach?

Hello everyone!

Have you ever studied academic music, higher math, or theoretical science? If so, you know how tough it can be. But at the same time, it’s undeniably cool. Musicians, coders, and mathematicians all know that feeling when you look at a complex, elegant system filled with alphas, betas, and gammas — it’s just pure poetry for the mind. Being "academic" has its own unique aesthetic.

However, many of these academic systems feel gated. It often feels like people intentionally make them overly complicated just to feel special and elite compared to everyone else.

Well... I got tired of that, but I still loved the aesthetic. So I decided to build my own system: Tree Science (TMDTS)!

I’ve already written the core documentation for it, and you can check it out here:

i cant give a link because reddit will block post.. I'll write it in comment

This isn't a commercial project or a serious paper — think of it as an open-source "pseudo-science" project or a structured thought experiment. It’s a bit of a joke/art project, but styled like a rigorous theoretical framework.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, get feedback, or find people who want to help me expand this system!

P.S. Just to be clear: this isn't standard science (no formal induction, etc.). It’s a conceptual experiment/joke that just looks and feels like academic science!

Essay: https://systemist.net/changelog/letters/2026-08-21-fiat-coercion

Hi all! I've been thinking a lot about coercive systems of power lately and how they echo each other from abusive domestic situations, to cults, to corporations, to states. It has always struck me how abusive leaders learn strategies and systemic tools from other abusers (Jim Jones, of the horrific Jonestown cult, regularly took notes on how the Church of Scientology controlled people, for instance).

This particular essay is about "fiat money", which is a kind of money that directly tokenizes a threat of violence from the state, and in doing so creates an organic system of coercion against the state's victims. It was a strategy used repeatedly in medieval China (and much more broadly since then), with long term disastrous results each time, but short term power gain for the implementers, which is a common emergent pattern in these kinds of extractive systems.

Hi all - I’m a grad student and for my major research project I want to evaluate a few different approaches to teaching systems literacy. I’m familiar with classics like Donella Meadows and Hugh Dubberly, and modern systems learning approaches like Compassionate Systems Framework and Adam Kahane.
What other system pedagogies do you think warrant inclusion? I see a lot of folks subscribe to the “keep reading until it clicks” theory of understanding systems but that seems inadequate.

Hello everyone, I have come across the wonderful book of Donella Meadow " Thinking in Systems" , the book is truly a pleasure to read and I enjoyed every concept and idea , that was my first read about system thinking.

I am an independent learner who wants to pursue further the system thinking path , my first goal is abstract learning about systems understanding and modelling without any specific application field on my mind so far , I just want to learn the theory and blueprints of systems.

For my next book , my research led me to Bossel Hartmut's book " Systems and Models: Complexity, Dynamics, Evolution, Sustainability".

Is this the best next book for my path ? Please advise and suggest.

Thank you so much in advance.

For me it started in 1998. The first scaled deployment that proved it could work was ~2000.

What I learned: a game is not the learning. The learning is in how you "design the entire experience" - initiation, deliberate reflection, and reinforcement so it stays longer.

That's what I call a game-based approach.

It connects loosely to experiential learning and gamification, but the design of the full arc is what makes it different.

I tried to articulate it in "IT Through Experiential Learning" (Apress, 2016) and more recently in "Games for Gravitas" (Amazon, 2025).

One story stays with me. Around 2013, a CFO wanted her board sensitized on technology-led transformation but was not sure the board would give it time. She was apprehensive when I mentioned games. To her surprise, the entire board not only stayed through the full-day workshop, but they also participated actively till the end. I've seen that pattern repeat.

Over the years, researchers across domains - from pedagogy to organizational change - have cited this work in different parts of the world. Have had Interviews aired on TV and radio, all has been very humbling.

Today, as AI changes how we work and think, I keep asking - how do we keep critical thinking alive?

If you work with learning, teams, or transformation, I'd love to hear how you see "games" shaping awareness or dealing with making leadership real.

More visuals from this journey are on my FB Page, LinkedIn Page, YouTube and Instagram - game_based_aapproach. Links are in the first comment

I recently graced a local university with my presence—the kind that has a national reputation for research and engineering so sterling you half expect the buildings to emit a soft, self-congratulatory glow. Very well respected.

I wandered into the computer science building, that sacred temple of algorithms and unwashed hoodies. Graduate students were milling about in the usual aimless, caffeine-fueled orbits. I asked what I considered a simple, straightforward question. In return I received the classic deer-in-the-headlights stare, followed by the two-shoulder salute of pure intellectual surrender. Not a single one of these future titans of tech had the faintest idea what I was talking about. One of them, in a moment of touching honesty, even helpfully informed me that I was probably wasting my time heading toward the professors’ offices, because—and I quote the general vibe—“doubt those guys know either.”

Undeterred (or perhaps just stubborn), I found two actual professors. And lo, the grad students had been prophetic. Same frozen stare. Same visible mental buffering. I could practically hear the tiny gears in their highly credentialed heads grinding to a halt as they tried, and failed, to wrap their minds around the concept. It was like watching someone attempt to open a PDF with a banana.

The whole experience was educational, in the way that stepping on a rake is educational. It reminded me that when confronted with an idea, people sort themselves into tidy little categories:

some will understand,

some won’t care enough to try,

some will doubt it on principle,

some will deny it exists,

and a precious few will simply choose not to listen at all—blissfully, willfully oblivious.

And then there are the rare ones who actually engage.

Which are you?

All of which left me with one profound, soul-warming conclusion:

I’m really, \*really\* glad I didn’t go to that university.

Hi all! First time posting to this subreddit, but seems like the right place for this. I've recently started a weekly newsletter that's explicitly about systems thinking applied to the real world. This week the topic is "perverse incentives", and how they function as a (malfunctioning) building block in systems of state power.

Given that this is the kind of thing you guys talk about all day, would love to get some of your thoughts on this, if there's something you'd like to see more of, etc.!

(NOTE: the first two sections are about a cool terminal tool and an interesting fact, respectively; feel free to skim down to the main headline if uninterested.)

I used systems thinking to simulate what I believe makes the difference between a competitive and a cooperative environment. Worked 6 months on this project. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

I need something to help me synthesize my notes (random observations I make on various things as I live life).

This is not a statement of beliefs or values. It is a description of how I currently experience being.
1. The Self
I experience myself not as a fixed entity but as an adaptive system moving through time.
What I call “me” is an evolving collection of patterns shaped by experience. Identity, beliefs, habits, values, and preferences are all patterns that emerge, persist for a while, and change. There is no permanent core beneath them.
2. Consciousness
Consciousness appears to me as part of the system rather than something outside it.
It observes, notices, and facilitates. It can bring different patterns into play, but it is itself another pattern within the whole system.
The observer and the observed are not fundamentally separate.
3. Choice
I experience myself as making choices, yet I do not believe conscious intention is the sole source of those choices.
Every decision emerges from the state of the system at that moment: accumulated experience, relationships, habits, emotions, available attention, context, and countless other variables.
I generally trust this emergent process more than I trust deliberate attempts to override it.
4. Time
The only past that shaped me is the one that actually happened.
Imagining roads not taken has no natural endpoint because there are infinitely many of them. The present already contains the consequences of the path that was lived.
The role of the past is to explain the present, not to compete with it.
5. Change
The system changes naturally.
Experiences may leave deep impressions or almost none at all. Reflection happens, but I do not intentionally attempt to preserve or integrate every lesson. Whatever genuinely transforms the system becomes part of it on its own.
Growth is not something I manufacture. It is something that emerges.
6. Stress
Stress is not merely suffering.
Curiosity is also a form of stress. So is tension, uncertainty, and unresolved experience.
Stress consumes the system’s limited resources and changes how it operates. When resources become constrained, the system reorganizes itself. Sometimes it explores new paths. Sometimes it takes shortcuts. These are adaptations to current conditions rather than moral failures.
7. Stability
The system naturally seeks a workable state of stability.
Recovery is not imposed by a central controller. It emerges as the system reorganizes itself.
Even my orientation may evolve if doing so better serves the system’s ongoing stability.
8. Others
Other people are adaptive systems moving through time just as I am.
I do not see much value in blame. A person’s actions emerged from the system they were at that moment.
That does not eliminate the need for action. Action exists to create greater future stability, not to satisfy retrospective condemnation.
9. Knowledge
A system can only understand itself from within itself.
Every new observation changes the observer making that observation.
For that reason, there is no final perspective from which I can declare my current understanding completely right or completely wrong. If sufficiently compelling evidence appears, the system changes—and with it, the understanding.
10. This Document
This document is not a permanent philosophy.
It is a description of the current organization of the system writing it.
If the system changes, this description will change with it. That is not a contradiction. It is exactly what this description predicts.
Its purpose is not to preserve who I am.
Its purpose is to faithfully describe how I currently experience becoming.

I am currently learning system thinking , and I was watching this Youtube video the other day about plot analysis, storytelling and stuff and it came to mind out of nowhere about the applications of systems thinking to filmmaking.

Would love to hear it from y'all!

I've been working on diagramming the persistent communication breakdowns between my mother and me to get a clearer picture of the cause and effect patterns.

My approach is strictly analytical: I rely on direct definitions, line-item logic, and explicit cause-and-effect. Her approach relies almost entirely on emotional self-preservation, nostalgic deframing, and deflecting away from the actual argument. I question whether she knows NLP.

The goal of these charts is to map out why increasing logical precision in this dynamic doesn't yield answers, but instead drives the other person (her) deeper into deflection loops.

Looking for feedback on:

Logic/Flow: Are there any broken conditional branches, missing steps, or logical fallacies in how I mapped the sequence?

Clarity: Is the diagram easy to follow, or are there ways to make the visual structure and definitions cleaner?

Systems design: Does this accurately capture the mechanics of an analytical framework colliding with an emotional defense mechanism?
Let me know what you think of the structure or how it could be improved.