Cybernetics Literacy Principles

American Society for Cybernetics · 2009 survey

Cybernetics Literacy

The Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts of Cybernetics

A synthesis of the 2009 American Society for Cybernetics survey on the big ideas of cybernetics. Draft for review · October 2026

Part 1How this document came to be

In 2009 the College of Exploration asked members of the American Society for Cybernetics (ASC) a simple question with no simple answer: what should an educated person understand about cybernetics? The question was put as an online questionnaire. Its vocabulary of “big ideas” and “supporting concepts” followed the Earth Science Literacy Initiative, which was then building its own framework with support from the US National Science Foundation, and the wider family of literacy statements begun by Ocean Literacy.

The survey answers lay in a scanned 22-page results document for seventeen years. This report returns to them. It reads every answer, gathers the concepts the respondents named, and offers them back in the form that Ocean Literacy and the Earth Science Literacy Principles made familiar to educators: a definition, a portrait of the literate person, and seven essential principles, each opened out into fundamental concepts.

  1. The 2009 survey

    An online questionnaire of 58 questions, organised by the College of Exploration and sent to ASC members. Respondents offered a working definition of cybernetics (Q1); named up to five big ideas, each with supporting concepts (Q2–Q11); added others and considered which belong to second-order cybernetics (Q12–Q14); rated the importance of cybernetics learning for eleven audiences (Q15–Q25); and gave their views on resources, obstacles, the name of the field, the vocabulary of the survey itself, the future of cybernetics, their own background and teaching, and a proposed ASC wiki (Q26–Q58). Ten people responded; nine were ASC members.

  2. The results document

    Answers were compiled question by question, with each question’s responses listed together and not linked to the person who gave them. Names, e-mail addresses and institutions were collected at the end (Q55–Q57).

  3. Reading and coding (2026)

    Each answer to Q1–Q14 was transcribed and every concept, thinker and claim it contained was noted. Supporting material came from the longer prose answers and from Q31–Q33 on vocabulary and framing. Concepts were then grouped into families, using the respondents’ own linking statements where they gave them (for example, “conversation is circularity in communication”).

  4. Weighing

    Families were ranked by how often, and across how many different questions, they recurred. Circularity and the observer were by far the most frequent; self-organisation, conversation and the construction of knowing came next; variety and the ethics of choice recurred steadily. These seven families became the seven principles.

  5. Drafting in the literacy form

    Each principle is written as a short declarative statement, followed by seven fundamental concepts lettered a–g, as in Ocean Literacy. Wherever possible the wording and the named thinkers are those the respondents themselves used. Each principle also lists its roots in the survey so that a reader can return to the source.

  6. Answering the respondents’ critique

    Several respondents objected to the hierarchy implied by “big ideas” and “supporting concepts”, asking for something “circular and dynamic”, and one proposed “main injunctions” or “key experiments” in place of propositions. This report keeps the familiar literacy form but answers the critique in two ways. The principles are numbered for reference, not rank, and are drawn as a ring in which the seventh returns to the first. And each principle carries an injunction, a small thing to try, so that the principle can be met as an action as well as read as a statement.

How to read the evidence

Stated by respondentsConcepts, wording and thinkers that appear in the 2009 answers. Short quotations are given in quotation marks and are not attributed to individuals, because the results document does not link answers to names.
EstablishedWell-documented historical facts used for context (for example, Wiener’s 1948 book and the Macy conferences).
SynthesisThe grouping into seven principles, their order, the statements themselves and the injunctions. These are editorial choices made in 2026 and offered for review, not a consensus of the respondents.

Ten respondents is a small and self-selected group, senior and largely academic, and drawn mainly from Europe and North America. The principles that follow are therefore a seed for a wider conversation, not a settled statement of the field.

Part 2The respondents

Ten people answered the 2009 survey, spanning design, mathematics, management, educational psychology, constructivist philosophy and community practice.

Larry Richards

Indiana University EastA collection of his writing, “Craft and Constraint, Clocks and Conversation”, was offered as a resource (Q48).

Stuart Umpleby

The George Washington UniversitySigned one answer by name (Q3); offered tutorials on the fundamentals and history of cybernetics and on management cybernetics (Q48).

Ranulph Glanville

CybernEthics ResearchWrote of his theory of Objects as “my invention” (Q11); described studying with Gordon Pask and Laurie Thomas and his award of a DSc in 2006 (Q39).

Bernard Scott

Cranfield UniversityListed his publications on Pask and conversation theory (Q48).

Lucas Pawlik

Danube University

Elizabeth Simpson

School for Designing a Society

Thomas Fischer

School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Louis H. Kauffman

University of Illinois at ChicagoPointed readers to his web pages at the University of Illinois at Chicago (Q40, Q48).

Alexander Riegler

Vrije Universiteit Brussel and KU LeuvenCited his own 2005 writing on radical constructivism and Constructivist Foundations (Q1, Q38).

Allenna Leonard

Complementary Set

Names and institutions are given as recorded in Q55 and Q57; the two lists, and the e-mail domains in Q56, align one to one. Institution names have been lightly regularised (the results list “GWU”, “Danuber University” and “VUB, KUL”). E-mail addresses are held in the original document and are deliberately not reproduced here. Notes record only what a respondent made identifiable in their own answers.

Part 3What is cybernetics literacy?

Cybernetics literacy is an understanding of circularity: of how living, mechanical and social systems steer, learn and converse through feedback, and of how we, as observers, take part in the systems we describe.

A cybernetics-literate person:

  • understands the essential principles and fundamental concepts of circular processes in nature, technology and society;
  • can converse about cybernetic ideas in meaningful ways, with people inside and outside the field;
  • recognises their own part as an observer in what they observe, and takes responsibility for the distinctions they draw; and
  • is able to make informed and responsible decisions about the systems they live within and help to design.

The definition draws on the respondents’ own answers to Q1, which included “control and communication in the animal and machine”, “the field that takes circularity seriously”, “a way of thinking about ways of thinking”, “a way of trying to describe and influence circularities” and “the science of dynamic regulatory processes”.

Part 4The seven essential principles

Principle 1 · Circularity

Cybernetics is the study of circularity: of feedback, regulation and control in living, mechanical and social systems.

  1. Norbert Wiener named cybernetics in 1948 as the study of control and communication in the animal and the machine. Its founders had met at the Macy conferences on circular causal and feedback mechanisms in biological and social systems.
  2. In a circular process the effects of an action return to influence its cause. Systems linked in this way affect one another’s behaviour.
  3. Feedback is a special form of circularity. Negative feedback corrects error and keeps a value within a preferred range; positive feedback amplifies a trend and can produce vicious or virtuous circles.
  4. Control, in the cybernetic sense, works only in a circular arrangement. The root image is steering: a helmsman correcting course moment by moment.
  5. Regulation always involves at least two parties, a regulator and the system it regulates, each affecting the other.
  6. A linear system can be understood as a circular one whose feedback is so weak that it can be ignored, much as Newton’s mechanics is now seen as a special case of Einstein’s.
  7. Thinking in circular relationships, rather than in hierarchical structures and one-way causes, is the first habit of cybernetic thought.
In the respondents’ words“Cybernetics is the field that takes circularity seriously.”
Try thisTrace a thermostat, a conversation or a household budget as a loop. Mark the point where an effect returns to change its cause.

Survey roots Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q10, Q13. The most frequently named idea in the survey.

Principle 2 · Variety

Only variety can absorb variety: a regulator must be able to match the complexity of what it regulates.

  1. Variety is the number of distinguishable states a system can take. It is a measure of complexity, and always relative to an observer who does the distinguishing.
  2. Ross Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety holds that a regulator can keep a system within bounds only if it has at least as many responses as there are disturbances to be met.
  3. Variety can be amplified and attenuated. Much of the craft of managing complex systems lies in deciding what to amplify and what to filter.
  4. Constraint is a reduction of variety. Laws, structures and habits are constraints; desires and values may be understood as constraints rather than as goals or objectives.
  5. Every encoding discards variety. Analogue and digital representations each carry benefits and penalties.
  6. Variety decays as systems settle and can be renewed; novelty is the return of variety.
  7. Ashby suggested that the systems theorist of the future must be an expert in how to simplify, without losing the variety that matters.
In the respondents’ words“Variety is the measure that allows us to understand whether a system can be a second order cybernetic system, or not.”
Try thisCount the ways a class of thirty can surprise a teacher, then count the teacher’s possible responses. What does the gap ask of the teacher?

Survey roots Q2, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q11, Q12, Q13.

Principle 3 · Self-organisation

Systems organise and maintain themselves through their own circular processes.

  1. Self-organisation: elements of a system interacting with one another can move towards an equilibrium and generate order without an external designer. Heinz von Foerster spoke of order from noise.
  2. Adaptation works through nested loops. In Ashby’s two nested feedback loops, a second loop changes the first when essential variables are pushed out of bounds.
  3. Homeostasis keeps essential variables within limits. Living systems do this through continual change, which some respondents preferred to call homeodynamics.
  4. Autopoiesis: a living system continually produces the components that produce it (Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela).
  5. Organisational closure and structural determinism: what a system does when perturbed is determined by its own structure. One cannot control the consequences of a perturbation; one can only anticipate the response of the system as it acts according to its structure.
  6. A system can be open to energy and matter while closed in its organisation. Whether a system is called open or closed depends on what is being described.
  7. Thinking in dynamic processes rather than static structures: what looks like a thing is often a stable pattern of activity.
In the respondents’ words“One cannot control the consequences of their perturbations, only anticipate the response of the system.”
Try thisWatch a path form across a lawn, or a queue form at a counter. No one designed it. Ask what keeps it in place.

Survey roots Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q11, Q12.

Principle 4 · The observer

The observer is part of the system observed.

  1. Everything said is said by an observer (Maturana).
  2. Second-order cybernetics, the cybernetics of observing systems, recognises that the observer is in the system and changes the observer from objective outsider to participant insider.
  3. Objectivity, von Foerster said, is the delusion that observations could be made without an observer.
  4. The participation of an observer may be weak, and so be ignored, but it is never absent: at the least the observer takes part in the knowing.
  5. Self-reference, recursion and reflexivity: systems that observe themselves, operations applied to their own results, explanations that include the one who explains.
  6. Different observers see a system in their own terms. Multiple perspectives may be more or less valid depending on context and purpose.
  7. Many respondents held that every big idea is second-order, and several asked whether the line between first-order and second-order cybernetics is still useful at all.
In the respondents’ words“The point of second order cybernetics is that the observer is always a participant.”
Try thisDescribe the room you are in. Then describe yourself describing it. What did the second description add?

Survey roots Q2, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q12, Q13, Q14. With circularity, the most frequently named idea.

Principle 5 · Distinction

Knowing is constructed by drawing distinctions.

  1. Drawing a distinction is the elementary act of observing (George Spencer-Brown, Laws of Form). A distinction is sustained by a going back and forth that compares two sides; there were never two sides before the distinguishing.
  2. Knowledge is not passively received but actively built up by the knowing subject (Ernst von Glasersfeld).
  3. Cognition is adaptive: it serves the organisation of the experiential world, not the discovery of an ontological reality (von Glasersfeld).
  4. The Black Box: faced with something whose workings we do not know, we examine its behaviour as we interact with it and propose an explanation that further interaction can test. Ashby considered the Black Box universal; the box and its explanation are constructions shared between the observer and what is observed.
  5. Ignorance and error are unavoidable. Our explanations are tentative structures that may stop working at any time, and this is the ground of our freedom to construct our worlds.
  6. Only those questions that are in principle undecidable can we decide (von Foerster).
  7. Second-order blindness: the noticing of one thing makes another invisible. We do not see that we do not see.
In the respondents’ words“We do not “know” in any fundamental, absolutist sense. Rather, we build tentative structures that make sense of our observations.”
Try thisDraw one line on a blank page. Notice that you have made two sides, and that you chose which side to call the inside.

Survey roots Q3, Q6, Q7, Q9, Q11, Q12.

Principle 6 · Conversation

Understanding grows through conversation.

  1. Conversation is circularity in communication.
  2. In Gordon Pask’s Conversation Theory, understandings are not transmitted or shared but constructed by each participant. I can only build my understanding of what I take to be your understanding, in a recursive loop.
  3. Teachback: understanding is tested by asking a learner to re-present what has been understood, so that error can be corrected in a circular loop. One respondent traced teachback to Pask’s collaborator, Bernard Scott.
  4. Coded communication of the Shannon type can be seen as the simple case of conversation, with very weak feedback. Channel capacity, transduction and filtering describe it.
  5. Genuine interaction is more than action and reaction. It involves a mutual generation of the unexpected.
  6. We live in language. Language has descriptive and orientating tracks, and objects can be understood as tokens for stable patterns of behaviour.
  7. Conversation differs from instruction, and design from showing expected behaviour. Ranulph Glanville’s theory of Objects describes entities that each observer sees differently yet believes to be the same, a structure that makes shared belief, and so conversation, possible.
In the respondents’ words“Understandings are not shared: rather we construct our understandings.”
Try thisExplain an idea to someone, then ask them to teach it back to you. Notice what returns changed, and what that tells you about your first explanation.

Survey roots Q3, Q4, Q5, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11.

Principle 7 · Ethics and choice

Cybernetics carries an ethic of participation, responsibility and choice.

  1. Von Foerster’s ethical imperative: act always so as to increase the number of choices.
  2. Because we cannot claim access to a reality that excludes us, we are left to make choices ourselves. Thus we are responsible.
  3. “Truth is the invention of a liar” (von Foerster). Appeals to truth should not be used to settle moral judgments; tolerance of paradox and scepticism towards ‘knowledge’, ‘information’ and ‘reality’ follow.
  4. Participation can be understood as dialogic process rather than as power relationships. The application of X to Y is a linear, one-way relation; cybernetic practice works with others rather than on them.
  5. Being in control and being out of control are both part of living; there is power in unmanageability as well as in management.
  6. Heterarchy: circular, many-centred organisation. An insistence on hierarchy as the only means of understanding can itself obstruct understanding.
  7. Cybernetics asks to be lived as well as taught. Practitioners try to enact what they discuss, so that practice informs theory and theory informs practice, in a circle.
In the respondents’ words“We are uncertain, as a result of which we are left having to make choices ourselves. Thus, we are responsible.”
Try thisBefore your next decision, ask which option leaves more choices open, for others as well as for yourself.

Survey roots Q5, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q28, Q38.

Part 5What else the survey said

Who needs cybernetics literacy

Very importantSomewhat importantLittle importance
Cybernetics and systems researchers 100%
University and college educators 90%
Educators of students aged 6–18 80%
Government policy makers 80%
University students 80%
Other science researchers 80%
General public 70%
Students aged 6–18 70%
Industry 70%
Textbook publishers 60%
News media 60%

Approximate percentages, read from the bar charts in the results document (Q15–Q25) and rounded to the nearest ten. No respondent rated any audience “not needed”. The bars imply a base of nine or ten respondents depending on the question.

Asked which other audiences matter (Q26), respondents named the arts and social activists; philosophers of science and social scientists; designers and artists of all sorts; communities and neighbourhoods; administrators in the arts, design and education; elected officials, investment bankers, transport planners, international development staff, physicians and peace negotiators; and, more than once, everyone.

Resources and willingness

9 of 10said there are not sufficient materials to communicate cybernetics to someone new to the field; one was uncertain and none said yes (Q27).
9 of 10favoured an ASC wiki of key cybernetic concepts; one was uncertain (Q45).
7 of 10were willing to contribute to such a wiki, and 6 to collaborate in explaining cybernetics more broadly; the rest were uncertain and none declined (Q46–Q47).
9 of 10considered themselves working cyberneticians, and 9 were current ASC members (Q36, Q58).

Obstacles to a cybernetics-literate public

Naming, vocabulary and the future

On the name of the field (Q31) most respondents were content with “cybernetics” or “cybernetics and systems”; one rejected the idea of naming a list at all. On vocabulary (Q32) several objected to the hierarchy implicit in “big ideas” and “supporting concepts”. They proposed instead a circular and dynamic arrangement in which an idea that is central at one time becomes supporting at another; “core” or “key” concepts; or “main injunctions” and “key experiments” that lead a person to act.

Views of the future (Q34) ranged from bleak to exciting. Respondents spoke of the need for baton passing between generations, of many linked platforms organised differently from current academic societies, and of finding the energy and commitment of the young. Several closing comments (Q54) preferred dynamic conversations to static texts, which is a fair warning to any document, this one included.

Part 6Questions left open

AppendixThe survey and its concept families

The 2009 survey instrument

QuestionSubject
1What definition of cybernetics do you prefer when explaining cybernetics to someone who is new to the field?
2, 4, 6, 8, 10Big Ideas 1–5: a cybernetics big idea that an educated person should understand.
3, 5, 7, 9, 11What concepts support each Big Idea to render its understanding more robust?
12Are there other Big Ideas that should also be considered important?
13Are any of these ideas particularly associated with second-order cybernetics?
14Are there further ideas you would add if the question had asked for the Big Ideas of second-order cybernetics?
15–25Rank the importance of cybernetics learning and resources to eleven communities.
26Which other audiences are important communities to understand cybernetics?
27Are there sufficient materials to communicate cybernetics to someone unfamiliar with the field?
28–29Biggest obstacles to a cybernetics-literate public, and to policy and legislation that reflect cybernetic understanding.
30Challenges in engaging the cybernetics community in creating this list.
31What name do you propose for the field?
32Would you prefer a vocabulary other than “big ideas” and “supporting concepts”?
33What key factors will most affect the success of creating and communicating this list?
34What do you see as the future of cybernetics?
35–44How respondents came to cybernetics; whether they consider themselves working cyberneticians; where it informs their life and work; background; teaching (courses, hours, learners, institutions).
45–47Support for an ASC wiki of key concepts; willingness to contribute and to collaborate.
48–50Publications and resources; preferred modes of expression; concepts respondents would define.
51–54Who else should receive the survey or take part; possible supporters; anything else.
55–58Name, e-mail, institution, and ASC membership.

Concept families and their survey roots

PrincipleConcept familyWhere namedFrequency
1Circularity, feedback, controlQ1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 13Very frequent
4Observer, second order, self-referenceQ2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14Very frequent
3Self-organisation, autopoiesis, closureQ2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12Frequent
6Conversation, language, communicationQ3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11Frequent
5Distinction, Black Box, construction of knowingQ3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12Frequent
2Variety, constraint, amplificationQ2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13Recurrent
7Ethics, responsibility, choiceQ5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 28, 38Recurrent

Frequency tiers are indicative. They reflect how often a family of concepts was named and across how many questions, not a statistical count.

Thinkers named by respondents include Norbert Wiener, W. Ross Ashby, Heinz von Foerster, Gordon Pask, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela (through autopoiesis), Ernst von Glasersfeld, George Spencer-Brown (through Laws of Form), Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead, Mary Catherine Bateson, Bernard Scott, Laurie Thomas, Alexander Riegler, James Clerk Maxwell, Valentino Braitenberg and Stafford Beer (through the Viable System Model and Syntegration).