Talk:Synergy/Archive 1

Archive 1

(missing header)

I have beanershowever I don't know if any of the other edits by the same user are valid for this topic or not. Could these be checked please? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

anyone know what the antonym for synergy is (or if one exists at all)? ie. two things having less effect combined than if they were employed seprately.

Cancellation? Amanita June 30, 2005 11:24 (UTC)

Congress? Just kidding. Thesaurus.com suggests blockage, delay, encumbrance, handicap, hindrance, obstruction, prevention, stoppage... but I think in general (as in Physics, specifically), it is the normal state for things to be less than the sum of their parts. It's not entropy. That's for sure. (That sentence is just bizarre in this article). Jaykul (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Usage of Synergy

"Person A alone is too short to reach an apple on a tree and person B is too short as well. Once person B sits on the shoulders of person A, they are more than tall enough to reach the apple. In this example, the synergy would be one apple."

This sounds wrong to me so I changed it, but perhaps this page could use a usage of synergy section. I find that buzzwords like this are hard to use properly since their meanings are often difficult to pin down. --Daev 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah! But that's the whole point of a buzzword! :) Nuwewsco 13:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Synergy's Antonyms

A google search shows that there seems to be enough interest in the antonym of "synergy" that a subheading here might be justified. Absent any objections, I'll make one up once I get a few minutes.

By the way, if anyone sees this in the interim, the frontrunners seem to be "antergy" then "dysergy." --electric counterpoint 12:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Quantity and Quality

Sources? This section seems like original research... Amcfreely 19:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statistical sloppiness

"Pest synergy, for example, would occur in a biological host organism population, where the introduction of parasite A may cause 10% fatalities of the individuals, and parasite B may also cause 10% loss. When both parasites are present, the losses are observed to be significantly greater than the expected 20%, and it is said that the parasites in combination have a synergistic effect."

This is only accurate if the effect of the two parasites are assumed to be purely additive in a rather unrealistic way. If the effects of the two parasites were truly independent, then the expected fatality rate would be 1 - (0.9 * 0.9) = 19%, not 20%. NTK 04:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

corporate synergies - very brief, not detailed enough

this needs some work; more detail is needed; the topic is worthy of a page in itself.--ToyotaPanasonic 11:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Synergy on Wikipedia

Should there be a reference to Wikipedia itself as a synergistic effort to share information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.54.213.68 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Before you do that you should probably read the policy WP:ASR. If not a reference directly to Wikipedia it could be a ref to the type of work that can be done in communities on the net. Rettetast 09:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Synergy electronic music

In the 70's-80's there was an electronic group called "Synergy" with Larry Fast

Looks like that's already covered in Synergy (disambiguation) dougmc 16:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bosshogs?

`Computers and bosshogs' ... does the term `bosshogs' here have some special significance that I'm not aware of? It seems like it's just being used as a replacement for `humans'. If there is some special significance, it probably should be mentioned here. dougmc 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

BossHogs --- removed, suprised this is a discussion item. Bosshog refers to a character on the Dukes of Hazzard TV Show, then later the Movie. And is not relevant to the article or the paragraph it titled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.26.129 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That was vandalism. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 17:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It don't make sense

"Often (but not always, see Toxicologic synergy, below) the prediction is the sum of the effects each is able to create independently." -- Okay this took me about 5-10 seconds to understand because it's missing the word "that", see the following:
"Often (but not always, see Toxicologic synergy, below) the prediction is the sum of the effects that each is able to create independently."
I've changed this in the article. If this is a problem, or if this renders it less accurate, you can revert. Thanks Rfwoolf (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Management section: "An easy way to interpret and understand both positive and negative synergy is: Positive: 2 + 2 = 5, Negative: 2 + 2 = 3" Surely that's not synergy, just crap arithmetic? Tsuguya (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact there are not a source about such crap. AFAIK "one plus one is more than two" (1+1>2) is used as a informal motto to define Synergy. Negative synergy is just a euphemism/dysphemism used at whim of some situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.154.149 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing needed by expert in Toxicologic part of article

Their is a sentence at the end of the first paragraph that should be somewhere else or something, I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil5329 (talk • contribs) at 21:25, 25 March 2008

Synergy vs. synergism

Synergy and synergism are used interchangeably in this article. Is this appropriate? Seems to me that it should be discussed. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 17:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

I think the "citation needed" mark regarding Buckminster Fuller should really be taken more seriously. Most of the information I can find on the etymology of the word suggests that it originated in the mid 1600's, over 200 years before Fuller was even born, and the Online Etymology Dictionary even suggests that this particular meaning regarding the "combined activities of a group" dates to 1847 (50 years before Fuller's time). In addition, the comparison to "entropy" seems incorrect, since entropy measures organization or disorganization, and in fact, a low degree of entropy still doesn't imply synergy at all (that is, just because you're well organized doesn't mean you're more productive working together). Jaykul (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"A synergy is where..."

If my revisions - which I challenge anyone to convince me are incorrect - are going to be undone, can someone please replace the introductory passage with a proper sentence while they're at it? "A synergy is where..."? An underachieving high school student could (and should) write a better sentence. Just because MBA students falling over themselves to 'synergize' things can't write doesn't mean the rest of the world's standards should slip.

Until the advocates of the existence of 'synergies' can express themselves in a way that doesn't embarrass the English-speaking world, I'll be forced to make revisions that, while perhaps not as uncritically celebratory as the corporate 'synergists' would like, at least display a modest understanding of English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subbevil (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My revisions continue to be undone. Given the apparent dedication displayed by some to the phrase "A synergy is where...", I've changed the remainder of the sentence to agree with its beginning. I hope that any change will either: 1) keep this sentence structure, or 2) discard the deplorable "A synergy is where..." wording altogether. Subbevil (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Aligrem" and the "Imam of Islam"

This article is clearly about Synergy and nothing else. It should NOT be used as a political or mystical/religious soapbox. Synergy has its origins in the Greek language and culture and has no relationship with "Aligrem" (if such a word exists in common usage). Synergy has NOT been derived from Arabic, and has nothing to do with Islam. There may be people in the world who believe that there are synergies within Islam or between Islam and other religious or political systems (and no doubt there will also be people who disagree with them) but that is not NPOV and should therefore not be included within an encyclopedic article specifically on the topic of Synergy itself (only).

I have therefore removed reference to "Aligrem (Aligrem, Ali Grem, Ali Grm)" as well as the large and equally irrelevant box entitled "Part of a series on the Imam of Islam".

If anyone feels that "Aligrem" is an interesting or relevant topic I suggest they create an entirely new article (or perhaps Wikipedia:Stub) specifically about that and, if they can demonstrate (with properly verifiable references and citations) any genuine relationship to synergy then they can cross-reference the two articles appropriately. Barryz1 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Headline text

00:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Prof Mad00:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I worked on 'The Potentiation of Methotrexate, Folate-Mediated, Breast Cancer Cell Destruction, (in vitro), by Indometacin'. My Professor was highly pedantic (& would certainly quibble over the above description). However, my point is, that 'He' used the word 'Potentiation, and not 'Synergy' , a word very popular at the time amongst Herbalists & other Alternative Medical Fields). I have thought for many years on the subtleties, (or not), of the differences, and whilst 'Synergy' is a phenomenon, 'Potentiation', is the more probable action that occurs in pharmaceutical actions, & its consequent philososophical descriptives. Profmad (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Prof Mad00:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC) 22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Prof Mad22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC) As an annotation! Attenuation, modulate, see a thesuaru u ate etc. have all been 'coined', in what the Taoist poem sums up (at a much more complex & deeper level) using a wheel. This being its three principle composite parts, without any of which,it ceases to be a wheel. Though I loathed the man, he did convince me of the pedantic usage of 'synergy'in pharmacology. An example is how I say above ' synergy is a phenomenon'. One off 'Pseud's Corner' 22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Prof Mad22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profmad (talk • contribs)

my simple explaination

synergy is syncronized energy.steven lee haffke 3-10-2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.62.55 (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

synergy definations and types of synergy

after searching many web site i was unable to found basics of synergy so i put a page on my site. definition and types of synergy. synergyRaza.pk.1989 (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

It might be useful to better define the etymology of this word. The Online Etymology Diction traces it's use to the mid-1600s. Jayarava (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Effective Definition & Analogy

The article describes "Synergy" in terms of "where." I humbly disagree; I have found no map that contains a place name of Synergy, nor do I know of anyone who has visited such a location. Likewise, a previous section of this "talk" co-article uses the term "when"; I have tried to set my watch to "Synergy" and I have not been successful. (I hope my humor here is obvious and respectfully informative.)

In the same sentence, the analogy of "1 + 1 = 3"(sic) is used; I've tried and I've tried, I used a calculator, a computer, a smart phone, an adding machine, an abacus, pencil and paper, even a slide rule; I always came up with "1 + 1 = 2". All joking aside, I think that any analogy, simile, or metaphor that I use to make a point should be true. Furthermore, the referenced material does not, at this time, include that content.

It appears to me that the focus of the site http://www.loobymacnamara.com/ is to market a publication, instructional courses, and the related philosophy. I submit, that it is unrelated and inappropriate to the academic concept of synergy.

I hope my edits will be acceptable.

Wbfairer2 (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

References

The focus on Buckminster Fuller's view of synergy is reducing the quality of this article

It's my opinion that most of Buckminster Fuller's references to synergy are pseudoscientific and nonsensical. It might be appropriate to separate his work from the rest of this article somehow. Natsirtguy (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion. I would like to draw attention to the revert of my deletion of this material, and the fact that this revert was without an edit summary. This, in combination with going against the opinion of the only two other editors currently getting involved, is to me clear edit warring. I'll go further, though: this article has the flavour of a dictionary, and not of an encyclopaedia, and should perhaps be deleted in its entirety? It tries to define the word synergy, then goes into more depth into its various uses and meaning. An article should be about synergy, its impacts, its philosophical consequences, and its importance to people, not trying to push the rather narrow perspective of bolstering its interpretation as being a concept meaning the rather vague undefined "the whole is sum is greater than the sum of its parts", which is not correct in the usual meaning of the word. It might be a candidate for nomination for deletion. —Quondum 15:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the editor who continues to revert the changes (User_talk:91.122.11.68) does seem to be engaging in an edit war. As to your other point, I do think that the concept of synergy probably does deserve a Wikipedia article, preferably with the content that you mentioned in your above comment. Are you saying this article should be deleted so that we could start from scratch? I feel like there's probably a good deal of content that doesn't need to be discarded. Natsirtguy (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a good start would be to replace the lead to change the focus of the article to a proper definition and significance, followed by a progressive improvement by interested editors. This is not the type of article that I normally get involved in editing; the only reason I saw this was that the same IP was trying to expand the POV edits into more physics-oriented articles. —Quondum 00:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015

the description that is found in the etymology is incorrect. There is no Greek word συνεργεία. Although this would make the etymology easier to jump to "synergy" it is incorrect. According to the United Bible Societies Greek-English Dictionary, there are 3 possible words: συνεργἐω, συνεργός, συνέρχομαι. The proper etymology (if from koine Greek) would be the noun συνεργός; definition of that word is co-worker. It needs to be changed due to the information being inaccurate. 75.44.135.102 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done ([1]). - DVdm (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015

Please change "croud" to "crowd". Seekingcats (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. - DVdm (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The actual definition of synergy?

As far as I know, synergy is when two or more things work together to produce effects that are greater than the sum of the effects obtainable by each of the things working alone.

This can be represented by a 1+1=3 equation.

WordWeb dictionary agrees with me: Synergy is "the working together of two things (muscles or drugs for example) to produce an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects".

On the other hand, the article on Wikipedia says: "Synergy may be defined as two or more things functioning together to produce a result not independently obtainable."

I think this is not synergy. It is the simple sum of the effects of two or more things working together. This can be represented by 1+1=2.

If this is not readily obvious, I will look into providing citations of this definition and concrete examples when I get the chance. Some of the examples here seem to be actually cases of synergy, others not so - for example, the fact that if a person stands on the shoulders of another person, they can reach higher, is not a synergy. If both of them, for example, had a height of 2 meters, and one standing on the other's shoulders caused them to reach a height of 6 meters (something that seems impossible but in other examples is observable, which is why synergy is an unusual phenomenon and not just a common physical law), that would be synergy. Wawawemn (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with this conclusion. This Wikipedia article utterly trivializes the definition of synergy, synergistic effects, to the point that it has no useful or definitive utility as a word. In natural sciences and physics, where I work, I never hear, nor would expect to hear, a colleague use this term so carelessly. Synergy must have a scientific definition if it is to apply toward physical phenomena, where it is most definitively in effect. For example, the article's example of "water" itself is not an example of synergy (unless you trivialize the meaning). As the name itself suggests, --activity-- must be synergistic, SUCH that different unique --behaviors-- within a system can each ONLY exist as mutually and reliant on one another; i.e. a "bootstrapping process."

A physical plasma, frequently referred to as a "bootstrapping process" precisely because it is a truly synergistic system, is a good example. The entire premise of evolutionary biology is clearly synergistic by this more strict definition, but, isolating an individual adaptive behavior and calling it synergistic is meaningless.

By these standards, the discussion under "Descriptions and usages" is entirely worse than useless. Wikibearwithme (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Douche bag word

I wish to debate the removal of sourced material I recently added to this article. Here's the old revision.

Section ==Etymology==

People who use this word are typically douche bags. Avoid using synergy in a real sentence.

I've found a number of websites that list synergy as a douche word, but this is perhaps the most valid reference I could find. I'm uncertain how I should include it in the article, however.

[03:52] <Raccoon`> q. [03:53] <Raccoon`> if someone used the word 'synergy' in a real sentence while speaking to you [03:53] <Raccoon`> would you punch them in the face? [03:53] <+number2> i would punch them in the face [03:53] <+number2> damn [03:53] <+number2> read your mind [03:53] <Raccoon`> just checking :) [03:53] <+number2> or you read mine [03:53] <Raccoon`> no, i think that's the general opinion

Help please? ~ 71.222.254.71 (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So true. My god this word is "rearing its ugly head again in 2015, it disappeared with it he introduction of "web 2.0" and now its coming back for another go. If you lived through the late 90's and early 2000's you were clobbered by this useless, mean nothing, made up word being used by everyone an anyone 500 times a day. From everyone from want to be graphic and web designers starting their gig to entrepreneurs and small tech companies and business wannabee people. Put a stop to it or you will severely be sorry. its probably going to creep into health care and pick up some sort of meaning.Starbwoy (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

As a theological concept

Could somebody better informed than me please take a look at the section As a theological concept and offer some reasoned advice regarding its merit and veracity? It may be a too niched and minority view or an overly POI interpretation of citations that were never intended to support this argument. Please discuss. Ex nihil ^(talk) 04:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Due weight and neutrality issues

Due weight and neutrality issues are a problem, as is intelligibility of the lead, with IPs massive changes. Time for them to start using the talk page as two editors disagree with their unilateral changes (and violation of 3RR). El_C 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I maintain that the original lead was far more clear about what synergy is, generally. Time to respond, IP. El_C 04:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I trust you can compose yourself enough to refrain from commenting on my mental faculties and stick to the material. El_C 05:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

In this edit, you have managed to insert two tautologies into a single sentence ("combined synthetic" and "constituent components"). That is why I deem it futile to discuss the clarity of meaning with you. 91.122.12.44 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Address the arguments and stop trying to find loopholes to avoid discussion. Tautology (rhetoric), was intentional, precisely in the interests of clarity. El_C 05:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You have not even understood the lead-in to Tautology (rhetoric):

In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion.

Read about the Dunning–Kruger effect and desist from further attacks. 91.122.12.44 (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Referring to the Dunning–Kruger effect is an outright attack—stop projecting and deflecting and address the material, instead. Shape up, IP. El_C 06:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an academic journal—we have policies in place to counter synthesis and original research. El_C 05:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Also your History section relies too much on lengthy quotations. Please address that as well. Write more prose in your own words and base less text on quoting others (I realise it's more difficult—but this is how Wikipedia works). El_C 06:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead versus lead

Original version: Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts. The term synergy comes from the Attic Greek word συνεργία synergia from synergos, συνεργός, meaning "working together".

IP's version: Synergy (Greek συνεργία "cooperation", from Greek σύν "with, together" + ἔργον "work") is the magnitude by which a synthetic force inexplicably exceeds the mere sum of its constituent forces.

Any thoughts? El_C 05:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Synergy (an increased capacity to do work) is a result of the creation of a whole, not the creation itself. 91.122.12.44 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to say that the IP's rewritten lead is better, but it suffers from the same issues of synthesis. I'm ready for someone else to offer their opinion. El_C 03:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)