·
4 minute read
The Problem With “Systems Thinking”
For decades, systems thinking has been touted as the ultimate tool for understanding complexity. From leadership to education to policy, its frameworks claim to provide structured ways to think "holistically" and solve real-world problems.
But there’s a problem. Most of what is called “systems thinking” lacks any real scientific validation. Instead, it’s a house of cards built on circular references of opinion pieces, case studies, and conceptual models with no empirical foundation.
The Myth of Empirical Support in Systems Thinking
We often hear about frameworks like:
- Critical Systems Thinking (CST)
- Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH)
- Cynefin Framework
- General Systems Theory (GST)
- Viable System Model (VSM)
- Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
But here’s the reality: none of these have been empirically validated. They are opinions, philosophical musings, or management fads that rely on case studies (if even that) and subjective interpretations rather than controlled experiments, statistical validation, or repeatable scientific testing.
The Few That Have Been Tested
Among all the frameworks labeled as “systems thinking,” only two have undergone rigorous scientific validation:
✅ DSRP-483 (Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, Perspectives) – Empirically validated in three ways:
- As the fundamental structure of human cognition
- As a universal pattern in material reality (physics, biology, etc.)
- Through effect studies showing a 580% increase in cognitive skills
✅ System Dynamics (SD) – Validated as an effective modeling tool, widely used in policy, resource management, and feedback loop analysis. But, there is no proof SD exists as a fundamental structure in the universe—it’s just a tool to simulate complexity rather than a law of nature.
🚫 Every other systems thinking framework is just a concept with no scientific backing.
The Circular Logic of Systems Thinking Frameworks
How do most systems thinking frameworks survive without scientific proof?
They rely on two techniques, both that trick the untrained general public into thinking they are valid. First, circular citation networks—a game of intellectual ping-pong where experts cite each other’s conceptual work, creating the illusion of validation.
Second, they use the facade of crony-peer reviewed journals to bolster their opinions. Published in any other format or medium and the article would be called a blog or an op-ed. But get your friends to support your paper in a "peer reviewed" journal and poof 💨 its science! 🔬
The combination of circular citation networks and crony-peer reviewed journals create the illusion of a house, but it is a house of cards. Here's how it works:
1️⃣ An academic (not a scientist) writes their opinion and proposes a framework (e.g., CST, Cynefin).
2️⃣ Other crony academics accept it as "peer reviewed" even though it has no empirical evidence, sample, replicable methods, etc.
3️⃣ The crony academic network starts citing it because it agrees with what they are saying
4️⃣ The framework is now “widely used” but never actually tested.
5️⃣ More citations accumulate, reinforcing its legitimacy without any scientific evidence.
This academic echo chamber makes it look like these frameworks are scientifically grounded when, in reality, they’re unverified opinions.
Empirical Evidence: Who Stands Up to Scrutiny?
Here’s what happens when we actually apply scientific standards to systems thinking frameworks:
| Framework | Empirical Studies (Experimental, Statistical, Repeatable)? | Key Empirical Findings |
|---|---|---|
| DSRP (Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, Perspectives) | ✅ Yes—Multiple experimental studies, statistical validation, proven in cognition, material reality, and effectiveness studies | Universally present in cognition and material reality. Effect studies show a 580% improvement in systems thinking skills and measurable effects on cognitive complexity, policy outcomes, and problem-solving. |
| System Dynamics (SD) | ✅ Yes—Empirical studies exist on SD as a tool for modeling, but no validation of SD as an inherent structure of the universe | Validated for use in policy modeling, resource management, and dynamic system analysis, but not as a universal structure in nature. No cognitive or material reality claims. |
| Critical Systems Thinking (CST) | ❌ No—Purely philosophical and theoretical | No experimental evidence—arguments are conceptual and philosophical. |
| Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) | ❌ No—Case study and anecdotal applications only | Used in case studies but lacks statistical validation or repeatable methods. |
| Cynefin Framework | ❌ No—Qualitative discussions and conceptual adoption only | Anecdotally used in management but zero empirical validation. |
| General Systems Theory (GST) | ❌ No—Highly conceptual with theoretical applications | Theoretical influence in multiple fields but zero empirical validation. |
| Viable System Model (VSM) | ❌ No—Applications exist but no statistical validation | Organizational applications exist, but no experimental validation. |
| Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) | ❌ No—Primarily case-based, qualitative analysis | Used in organizational problem-solving but not tested empirically. |
*NOTE: If I am wrong on any of these--I don't think I am as significant research suggests so--there is a simple solution. Show me even a single empirical study. If you do, I'll post it here.
The Hard Truth: Most of Systems Thinking is Just Talk
It’s time to separate science from opinion in systems thinking.
- If a framework hasn’t been tested in controlled studies and doesn’t show measurable real-world effects, it’s just an opinion, not a science.
- DSRP stands alone as the only framework proven universal in both mind and nature.
- System Dynamics is useful but limited to modeling—not a fundamental truth about reality.
Everything else? A house of cards—conceptual models stacked on top of each other, with no real foundation.
So, What Needs to Happen?
If systems thinking is going to evolve beyond an academic echo chamber, we need to:
✅ Demand empirical testing. Stop accepting frameworks as truth unless they are rigorously validated.
✅ Stop confusing citations with proof. Just because a concept is widely cited doesn’t mean it’s scientifically valid.
✅ Hold systems thinking to the same standards as any other scientific field. At the very least, look for a sample (hopefully significantly greater than 1), look for repeatable methods, look for hypotheses that are falsifiable, statistical methods, data of some kind.
Final Thought: Time to Rebuild on Solid Ground
Most of what’s called “systems thinking” is just opinion dressed up as science. The only frameworks with empirical support are DSRP (as a universal structure) and SD (as a modeling tool). Everything else? Unproven ideas circulating in academic echo chambers.
If systems thinking is ever going to be taken seriously outside of academia, it needs to stop relying on circular references and crony networks and start producing real scientific results.
The question is: Will the field step up, or will it keep building castles in the air?
What Do You Think?
Have you encountered untested systems thinking concepts being treated as scientific fact?
