Talk:Cybernetics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flagg2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead + definitions

Hi, I have never read anything on cybernetics, so coming from a complete outside perspective. I found the lead and definition section to be a bit difficult to grasp. Offering these in simpler English and then widening their definition to included nuances might help clarify exactly what cybernetics is to the lay reader.

Oxford languages provides that cybernetics is: "the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things". Starting with something along these lines and building onwards to more complex ideals of what cybernetics entails would be beneficial. Jamzze (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

--- Good points. I have had a go, bringing the example of steering a ship up into the lead section. How does this read? I think its best to avoid definitions in the lead paragraph as once you start with definitions of cybernetics they start expanding (there is a whole section of these in the article...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:60A9:5301:71A6:A1FE:79F9:E25C (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Improving the introduction

I'm probably not able to write a better introduction, but I feel like this is the most verbose way of opening the subject of cybernetics, while ignoring the part where it has to do with living beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Word Lizard (talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

-- I thinned out the opening paragraph - moving detailed examples of feedback to main body section. See what you think. The multiple examples in the first para were added in response to other comments on the talk page, so its a question of finding the right balance I think. Hinterlander1 (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Socialism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 23 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xen725 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xen725 (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

--- thanks for adding the cybernetics and socialism section. I wonder if it might fit better under 'wider influence' rather than history? Hinterlander1 (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Practice/Application/Influence structure

Re the edits by the anon IP. I think removing the top level categorisation here is not the best move. At the bottom level, cybernetics touches almost every field. Whereas the groupings in terms of (1) natural science/technology, (2) social/behavioural sciences, (3) various forms of practice such as design and management, and (4) philosophical concerns and cultural impact do make sense as a way to describe the field's structure (and to some extent periodisation). Perhaps it would work out best to keep these top levels categories and combine underneath them. I will have a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinterlander1 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that the categorization makes sense to you but ultimately it is arbitrary. Biology and engineering fit into the same category as much as economics and psychology do, which is to say not at all. Meanwhile, the section in general is now shortened enough (and it was much needed) that the necessity for further categorization is no longer there, I believe: having the dangling sub-sections is certainly no worse than having it grouped by non-sensical categories. Most importantly though, while we are arguing about how to organize the headings there, I dispute the encyclopedic value of that section entirely as it is bordering on Template:Peacock or Template:Buzzword (although I settled for the less-inflammatory "overly-detailed"). Perhaps the ideal solution is to find a better way to introduce all this information into the article (or even a new article)? I've seen that you are a major contributor to this page and I want to honestly thank you for that - our different opinions on this specific topic aside, I think the page is now in a vastly better state than a week ago, much closer to a proper Wikipedia layout, easier to read, (very much) shorter... I hope at least we can both agree on that :) 177.81.20.20 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the section I think Template:Peacock or Template:Buzzword are fully relevant here. For buzzword, the section is littered with "gene regulatory networks", "smart mobs", "Cybernetic Serendipity". For peacock, trivia facts like *Project Cybersyn attempted to apply cybernetics to the economy at large scale during the early 1970s* don't really contribute to the overall article much other than subjectively justifying its notoriety. Let me make it clear that I'm not disputing that the section has good information in it, just its overall writing style and encyclopedic value for the general reader. Much (if not most) of the section is too specific to be of interest to the general population, which is Wikipedia's intended audience. I think a good way to start pruning the section's useful content from the too-particular is to try to define where the line is between both and I think looking at similar articles would be a good place to start. 177.81.20.20 (talk) 177.81.20.20 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP user, understood, and thanks for the input into this page. It is difficult to get the balance right here, because of how widespread the subject matter is. Your work on the structure is appreciated. It now needs some work on the balance of content, which I can work on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:60A9:5301:4F3:3B84:3A48:6AEE (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP user. I reviewed the text and agree with your flags re the text you highlight. I have removed some already. There are other bits that just need better contextualisation. If you keep pointing things out, I can try to do edits as I have some overview of what content is more central than others. I will try a reorganisation/rewrite of influence section, moving some parts to subfields (which I think will need renaming, or splitting). Will reintroduce some of the more important headers (eg sociocybernetics, second-order cybernetics) you removed with expanded text. LMK what you think of the direction.... Hinterlander1 (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

IP User, can you have a look over this heading structure. I have reframed and relocated material about applications to be with subfields. This avoids duplication. However, this will mean some of the flags may apply to that section - please review. I have reintroduced some subheadings and added basic text, which can be developed when we are ready. Some subsections could be merged, some could be split, but this is the ground to cover. This leaves the influence section as focusing on those outside of cybernetics influenced by it, which deserves its own section. Hinterlander1 (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I will write a simple proposal for the problems in this section in a minute, in a new talk section. I may have to come back to properly reply to your newer comments later when time permits. I don't edit Wikipedia a lot and when I do it's often in the form of bold edits - I will take the opportunity again to thank you for your understanding in taking the flags raised to heart! 2804:14C:183:8BED:A14B:1DDC:26F5:FE2 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

History section

I have done some edits to improve/trim the history section. It could have some more detail removed from precursors and first wave section if desired, but I think how the water clock worked is helpful to keep (desire generally on this talk page for examples), the von Neumann sentence was the result of some careful negotiation I think (see talk page) and seems to get it right. Perhaps more of the Soviet details can just be on their own page, but there is also a balance to strike in making sure the page isn't too of a USA story (again see talk page). There will be a bit to add to second/third waves, so it should even out in time. Hinterlander1 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I should read the section in full after the recent changes when time permits but I have a small suggestion: adding a small introduction,(in the form of a list perhaps) defining each wave's characteristics, periods, notable figures and researches and references to works by people who helped formalize each wave. This helps as a proper summary of the section as a whole and to add citations to the notion of waves (which aren't currently in the page but that I have confirmed are established concepts through simple web-searches). Something like this:

History

The history of cybernetics is organized in waves. The people who helped introduce this structure were A¹ and B¹. There are X waves of cybernetics:

• First wave (1940s to 1950s): defined by these characteristics and noteworthy figures C and D.
• Second wave ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:183:8BED:A14B:1DDC:26F5:FE2 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinterlander1 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You could also propose a separate article here, if you like. Hinterlander1 (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Split section "Subfields and applications" to new page "Applications of cybernetics"

There are many issues with the current section and perhaps the best way to summarize them is that while they are obviously relevant to the topic, much of the information there probably doesn't fit the criteria of importance to be on a general-purpose encyclopedia article on cybernetics.

While I haven't found any manual to help in this particular conumdrum, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not makes it clear that Wikipedia is not a repository of links (internal or external), Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which are all directly relevant here.

Another issue is that as the number of entries in this heading grows, we will go back to the "very long" issue that was just fixed recently. This section can be and has been a "catch all" for all types of trivia-like (but relevant) information and it cannot grow indiscriminately without lowering the article's quality with each new sub-heading and entry.

My proposed solution is to move the entire section to a new article Applications of cybernetics, where all this information will be both relevant and important enough - much of the trivia currently in this section is not of any interest to the general person reading the page but is going to be right a home in a page that is specifically and solely about the many applications of cybernetics.

The idea has come from finding Applications of artificial intelligence, which sets a very clear precedent for this change as a good intervention.

If this improvement goes through, the current section should be rewritten as a summary that explains how far-reaching the applications of bybernetics are (from psychology to biology to engineering...) with an appropriate "Main article" hat-note to the new page.

I hope this is a thoughtful solution (with a great reference in Applications of AI) for the last major outstanding issues with this article, which has been majorly improved recently with the help of all involved. 2804:14C:183:8BED:A14B:1DDC:26F5:FE2 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes this is a good idea.

If there can be a wording that is not just 'applications' that would be better, however. Cybernetics has not progressed just as theory being applied to other domains but also in the other direction, with ideas coming from domains like biology and management into its theory. Perhaps 'Practice and application of' or similar.

SOC should stay on this page, but can move to be with theories (will do this now). Hinterlander1 (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There hasn't been much discussion re the proposed split. I have tried a different approach, doing some cutting and making the section into a bulleted list rather than subheadings. Will be able to reduce text further by making coordinated edits on some of the pages that are linked to. Hinterlander1 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Precursors

The precursors section was removed as uncited. That's fair enough, and actually deals with the 'too detailed' flag (which can now be removed). But there should be something re precursors (otherwise the article underrepresents non-US centric sources and the extent that those in the 40s were building on historic work). I have copied the deleted text below in case anyone wants to rescue some of this (with sources).

The first artificial automatic regulatory system was a water clock, invented by the mechanician Ktesibios; based on a tank which poured water into a reservoir before using it to run the mechanism, it used a cone-shaped float to monitor the level of the water in its reservoir and adjust the rate of flow of the water accordingly to maintain a constant level of water in the reservoir. This was the first artificial truly automatic self-regulatory device that required no outside intervention between the feedback and the controls of the mechanism. Devices constructed by Ktesibios and others such as Hero of Alexandria, Philo of Byzantium, and Su Song, are early examples of cybernetic principles in action.

In the late 18th century James Watt's steam engine was equipped with a governor, a centrifugal feedback valve for controlling the speed of the engine. In 1868, James Clerk Maxwell published a theoretical article on governors, one of the first to discuss and refine the principles of self-regulating devices. Jakob von Uexküll applied the feedback mechanism via his model of functional cycle (Funktionskreis) in order to explain animal behaviour and the origins of meaning in general. In the Electric Mind 2-2 Model Model Patent from 1898, Tesla demonstrates his radio-controlled torpedo boat at Madison Square Garden in Ney York City.[18] Electronic control systems was also described with the 1927 work of Bell Telephone Laboratories engineer Harold S. Black on using negative feedback to control amplifiers. In 1935 Russian physiologist P. K. Anokhin published a book in which the concept of feedback ("back afferentation") was studied. Other precursors include: Alexander Bogdanov's tektology, Scottish philosopher Kenneth Craik and Romanian physician Ștefan Odobleja.

Hinterlander1 (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

There is currently a flag to expand the lead section. However, there was recently a longer version that was in good shape, but then there was an editing push to reduce it. Rather than just adding to it, I think it would be good to discuss how it should be expanded on the talk page first. Lots of things could be added - but else should be? How long should it be? Hinterlander1 (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Re the flag, I wonder to bring back some of the history overview into the lead, as this is part of the article but not mentioned in the lead.

This is from an earlier version of the page, which could be adapted:

"Cybernetics has its origins in exchanges between numerous fields during the 1940s, including anthropology, mathematics, neuroscience, psychology, and engineering. Initial developments were consolidated through meetings such as the Macy Conferences and the Ratio Club. At its most prominent during the 1950s and 1960s, cybernetics is a precursor to fields such as computing, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, complexity science, and robotics amongst others. It is closely related to systems science, which was developed in parallel. Early focuses included purposeful behaviour, neural networks, heterarchy, information theory, and self-organising systems. As cybernetics developed, it became broader in scope to include work in domains such as design, family therapy, management and organisation, pedagogy, sociology, and the creative arts. At the same time, questions arising from circular causality have been explored in relation to the philosophy of science, ethics, and constructivist approaches, while cybernetics has also been associated with counter-cultural movements. Contemporary cybernetics thus varies widely in scope and focus, with cyberneticians variously adopting and combining technical, scientific, philosophical, creative, and critical approaches." Hinterlander1 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Meaningless lede and other issues

The lede sentence as it is is meaningless. "Cybernetics is a wide-ranging field concerned with circular causal processes such as feedback." This is not a useful definition, nor is it a definition at all, for it does not actually state what cybernetics is, but merely what it concerns. A lede sentence should state what the field is, for example, "Physics is the natural science of matter."

I attempted to correct this by way of reference to other definitions available [1] [2], which mention control theory. @Hinterlander1 objects to this use, so I propose we work on a definition here.

Also, I removed a section called "circularity" that seemed to have no apparent connection to the article and having little sources. @Hinterlander1 If you could include some sources and demonstrate relevance, then I think it's a start, but I have no idea why the section as it stands should be included.

Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Dawkin Verbier - thanks for your engagement on this page, and for looking for some consensus on the talk page. It would be great to figure out the first sentence here. Defining cybernetics in one sentence has some difficulties compared to physics, as a lot of definitions refer only to parts of the field or particular approaches to it. There are two early definitions of cybernetics' subject matter, from the 1940s. One the subtitle of Wiener's book ('Communication and Control in the Animal and Machine') and the other from the Macy Conferences ('Circular Causal and Feedback Mechanisms in Biological and Social Systems'). The field expanded and fragmented after that point, so these only work to some extent now. I think the best way to include them would be as the second sentence, something like 'Cybernetics was initially defined as the study of...'.

I do like the idea of using your physics example as the shape of the first sentence. Taking it step by step in comparison to current sentence...

Physics is = Cybernetics is

the natural science = a wide-ranging field - > Cybernetics encompasses aspects of science but also work in the arts and practical fields such as management and design. This could also be 'transdisciplinary field' or 'wide ranging transdiciplinary field'.

of = concerned with - > Please suggest some alternatives to 'concerned with' Perhaps something like "that studies" or "based on the study of"?

matter = circular causal processes such as feedback - > the core theme is 'circular causality' (hence the 'circularity' section...), the most prominent aspect of which is feedback, other words that could go here are governance, purposeful action. Perhaps reversing the order of words would be better 'study of feedback and other circular causal processes'.

Re the circularity section - I agree it does not work as it is - I am thinking to merge it with 'key concepts'. Let me have a go at that (I will add more sources too). Hinterlander1 (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

So perhaps -

Cybernetics is a wide-ranging transdisciplinary field based on the study of feedback and other circular causal processes. It was initially defined as the scientific study of "circular causal and feedback mechanisms in biological and social systems" and "control and communication in the animal and the machine." Hinterlander1 (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That is way too complicated. If you had to explain it in one sentence to a middle schooler, how would you do it? That should be the first sentence. MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

What about - 'Cybernetics is the study of feedback processes' or 'Cybernetics is the study of circular causal processes such as feedback'. Hinterlander1 (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I have been looking back at some older versions of this page for previous opening sentences - and one of the simplest openings is 'Cybernetics is the study of feedback...' (e.g. 2007) so I am thinking to go with something like this (with feedback processes rather than just feedback) as the opening sentence. Hinterlander1 (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that this is not a useful definition — what is feedback? Is cybernetics the study of surveys that measure customer satisfaction? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point - (although the use of 'feedback' in that sense does originate with cybernetics, but the sense of circularity has been lost along the way). It is hard to define feedback within the first sentence without it getting complicated (the ship example comes later in the paragraph to unpack it - after discussion on the talk page to include an example). Some of the early drafts here have 'regulatory feedback' but I don't think that is better. 'Circular causal processes' is, I think, the most accurate - but is more abstract. It could be followed by some examples - 'circular causal processes such as feedback, goal-oriented behaviour, ...' Hinterlander1 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

How about 'Cybnernetics is the study of systems in which the output of the system is also used as an input to that system, as Feedback'. MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @MrOllie - Something along these lines would work from my point of view. Hinterlander1 (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I found a good discussion of circular causality on the ASC site - about half way down on https://asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/history/prehistory7.htm - and used this to help with the opening line. Hinterlander1 (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to expand the lead section in response to the flag, bringing back a precis of the history section that had been edited out previously. I think this is now about the right length, and covers more or less what is in the article. Does anyone have any comments on how to improve further? Hinterlander1 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It is Stearsman not Steersperson

The Greek word "kybernḗtēs" translates to "steersman," "pilot," or "governor" in English. I had the suspicion that the translation into steersperson is probably a wiki querk ideology thing, because the probability that the steersperson was a female is very low during that time period. Hence the translation is incorrect and the usual falsification of history. By today's standards steersperson whould be more adequate but makes no sense during the referenced time period. 2A02:3032:E0:7A7:3150:633D:C031:85C4 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Its more complicated than that, isn't it? Masculine gendered words have historically been used to refer to all biological genders, in English until relatively recently and also, as I understand it, in ancient Greek. Perhaps someone can clarify standard ways of translating genders from ancient Greek?. Otherwise, can probably edit to avoid the problem. Hinterlander1 (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)