[The Electronic Oracle] ③ Assumptions Aren’t "Guesses": A Proposal for Transparent Democracy

 

[The Electronic Oracle] ③ Assumptions Aren’t “Guesses”: A Proposal for Transparent Democracy

When I teach System Dynamics or computer modeling, I often encounter a word that instinctively annoys both students and practitioners: "Assumption."

The dictionary reveals the source of this discomfort.

Assumption: 
“a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.”
(Oxford Languages)

For scientists, the phrase "without proof" can sound like an insult. So when someone says, “That’s just your assumption,” scientists rush to defend themselves: "No! I have evidence!"

In this post, I want to restore the honor of this word. Modeling assumptions are not mere tricks to patch missing data; they are influential political acts that transform secret dictatorships into transparent democracies.

This article distinguishes two layers of assumptions:

  • The Assumption as Belief (Type A) hides in the mind and operates on authority

  • The Model Assumption (Type B) is revealed for public debate.

1. Two Types of Assumption:
'Structurally Implicit' vs. 'Structurally Explicit'

We often confuse two different types of assumptions. The difference is not whether assumptions are spoken. It is whether they are laid out for scrutiny and challenge.

Type A: Assumption as belief: “Follow me.”

This aligns with the dictionary definition: "believing something is true without proof." Its key characteristic is that it is Structurally Implicit. Even if a leader shouts their assumptions from a podium(like Trump declaring, "I did it for the oil!"), the assumption remains "hidden" in a structural sense. Why? Because the logical connection—the mechanism, the feedback loop, the trade-off—is not exposed for examination. It relies solely on the authority of the speaker. It is a dogma that demands submission, not a logic that invites debate.

These "hidden beliefs" distort truth in two ways:

  • Type A-a. Hidden Condition: Overgeneralizing a statement that is true only under specific conditions, not universal.
  • Type A-b. Hidden Premise: Framing the discussion by taking a specific worldview or value system for granted, thereby blocking other questions.

Let us dissect common statements using these two lenses.

Case 1. “If you pay people more, they work harder.”
This is a classic belief about incentives.

  • Type A-a (Hidden Condition): overgeneralization
    This is true when basic needs are unmet or when compensation is seen as restoring fairness. However, hiding this condition leads to the linear fallacy that money solves burnout or motivates the already wealthy.  
  • Type A-b (Hidden Premise): a frame that blocks questions
    This assumes human motivation reduces to a single dimension: money. Once that premise goes unspoken, other drivers—recognition, mastery, purpose, autonomy, belonging—never reach the table. The organization tweaks pay while ignoring deeper structure: job design, authority, learning, and relationships.

Case 2. “Technology will solve social problems.”
This belief is powerful—especially in the AI era.

  • Type A-a (Hidden Condition): overgeneralization
    This is true when the problem stems from technical inefficiency. However, hiding this condition can lead to technological solutions for distribution issues or ethical conflicts. Technology expands the pie but cannot automatically resolve disputes over how to divide it.
  • Type A-b (Hidden Premise): a frame that blocks questions
    This establishes "Techno-solutionism" as the default alternative. It forces us to view social problems as objects of engineering optimization rather than as matters of political consensus, treating human values as inefficiencies to be eliminated.
Case 3. “A strong leader saves an organization.”
This belief often rises during crises.

  • Type A-a (Hidden Condition): overgeneralization
    This works in short-term emergencies. Generalized, however, strong control stifles collective intelligence during innovation phases.
  • Type A-b (Hidden Premise): a frame that blocks questions
    This assumes organizational success depends on individual capability, not system structure (Methodological Individualism). It blinds us to the real causes—flawed processes and feedback loops—and leaves us hoping in vain that changing the person will fix the system.

Type A assumptions are mental models in action. Leaders and policymakers often hold them as “what the world is like,” based on experience rather than evidence. They are implicit beliefs.

Type A lives in mental models. Because its logic is not laid out, others cannot inspect it, challenge it, or revise it. All that remains is authority: "My gut tells me so, do not argue." This is dictatorial.

Type B. Model assumptions: “Accessible Logic”

In contrast, Type B is an explicit premise/specification used to build a model.

  • Characteristics: Structurally Explicit. Expressed in equations, diagrams, and numbers.  
  • The Caveat: However, merely "showing" the model does not automatically make it democratic. Complex technical details—such as "dimensionless multipliers" or obscure table functions—can remain opaque to the public.
  • The Condition for Democracy: Therefore, true transparency requires more than just releasing the file. The modeler must (1) explain technical choices in plain language, (2) let others rerun the model, and (3) make it feasible to revise key assumptions. When the logic is not just available but truly accessible, we can debate whether the “slope is too steep” or the “delay is too long.

This represents the shift from Dictatorship (Authority-based) to Democracy (Evidence-based).

2. What you cannot see, you cannot criticize

Trouble begins when Type A (Implicit Beliefs) is used directly in policy-making. A leader's mental beliefs are often invisible; they cannot be challenged or critiqued. Only its authority remains.

Type B (Model Assumptions) is different. The moment a modeler says, “I assumed an S-shaped relationship between wages and productivity,” the claim becomes open to discussion. Others can ask for evidence. Others can propose another curve. Others can run the model and compare outcomes. That is what makes it democratic.

3. The True Role of System Dynamics: 'Externalization.'

System Dynamics does not turn implicit belief into “the answer.”

Its deeper role is to externalize belief—to convert hidden mental models into explicit, inspectable model assumptions. Once externalized, assumptions can enter public reasoning. People can debate them. They can improve them. They can discover where they fail.

When we enter assumptions into a model, we do not say, “This is the truth.” It is a transparent proposal: "I have structured my thoughts this way. What do you think? Let us examine it together."

4. Conclusion:
The Danger Lies in Concealment, Not Assumption

Let us return to the initial question: "Is it dangerous to use assumptions?"

No. The danger lies not in the Assumption itself, but in its Concealment.

Hidden thoughts become dogma; revealed models become public goods. This is why we must establish and disclose assumptions without fear, but with responsibility.

Does your model speak transparently to the world?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thinking in Systems Guide (1) – Preface

Image
   The Beginning of Systems Thinking: A New Lens on the World Taught by a Slinky "If a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory." - Robert Pirsig (Here, “rationality” can be understood simply as the reason or purpose behind it.)   Why do we always face the same problems? Have you ever had this experience? You worked hard to solve a problem at work, but before long, a similar issue appeared again in a different form. Or you may have tried to break a bad habit, succeeded for a while, and then suddenly found yourself back at square one. These kinds of repetitions happen because we focus only on the symptoms of the problem. The true cause—the underlying structure —remains untouched. The Slinky Experiment: The First Insight of Systems Thinking Donella Meadows, who taught system dynamics at MIT, often conducted a fascinating classroom experiment. She used nothing more than a Slinky—t...
Read more

The + and - Symbols: Simple Enough for Elementary Students, Yet the World's Most Confusing Concept

Image
Let me talk about the most challenging concept in the world—at least for me. It’s so simple that even elementary school students understand it. But believe me, it gets you when you least expect it. I’m talking about... + and -. And yes, there’s a twist. Actually, there’s a twist to the twist—so buckle up.  In my systems thinking lectures, I typically explain that when cause and effect move in the same direction, we use the + symbol and refer to it as a positive causal relationship. When they move in opposite directions, we use the - symbol and call it a negative causal relationship. I always emphasize firmly that "positive" and "negative" here are purely mathematical concepts—they have nothing to do with good or bad. Elementary School Level   For example, when the birth rate increases, the total population also increases. Since both birth rates and population changes move in the same direction, we write:  Births → Population (+)  Conversely, when the death rate incr...
Read more