Talk:synergy
One of the most important concepts of general systems theory, synergy often lulls thinkers into the idea that all synergy is good. In fact, synergy can be good or bad depending on how it manifests and who is observing the phenomenon. A related systems concept is that of the emergent properties of systems. See R. Buckminster Fuller's full definition and discussion at http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s01/p0100.html
antonym ?[edit]
In light of the previous comment, one would assume it has no antonym. To use 'antisynergetic' to highlight a perception of negativity seems crude.
Instead of "drought and poor soil are synergetic for a poor plantlife", I'd rather see, "drought and poor soil are ....antonym... for a healthy plantlife."
Apparently (according to Wikipedia), 'antagonism' is the antonym, but this doesn't seem satisfactory, particularly when used as an antidote to the use of 'synergy' as a business buzzword. Some people have taken to using 'dyssynergy' as an antonym.
With an antonym the business buzzword might become more reasonable. Applying the same mechanisms for constructing "synergy" (remove "e" from "energy" and add the antonym to "syn" from the same language) leads to "dysergy". This has also been proposed in the German Wiktionary. Using "dysergy" in economic articles is being understood and of practical value in an economic context. "Dysergy" should be restricted to the economic context.
- Note: the below discussion was moved from the Wiktionary:Tea room.
There's a note on feedback about a pharmacology sense for the interaction of drugs having a greater than merely summed effect. Also, I've heard it defined as "the total is greater than the sum of the parts" (i.e. that it is nonlinear and not only the independant effects are seen but also an additional component from the combination). Anyone see a neat way to incorporate this? RJFJR 03:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to add it. What do you think? — This unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) at 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
- That looks good to me. I think it's a good idea to keep those senses separate, as you did — they're similar and they're in related fields, but they're really applied quite differently. —RuakhTALK 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)