Welcome back. In our previous module, we explored various economic and market principles, concluding with Teeter's Law and the bias of viewing familiar systems as the most authentic. Today, we begin a new module focused on Systems, Complexity, and Evolutionary Models. Our first topic is a powerful principle for understanding how stable systems come to be.
This lesson examines Gall's Law, which posits: "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system." For someone with your background in statistics and simulation, you can think of this as an argument for iterative, bottom-up model building over monolithic, top-down design.
We will apply Gall's Law to argue that a functional, complex lingerie sizing system must evolve from a simpler, working foundation, and similarly, that a successful multi-partner relationship often grows from a stable, functioning dyad.
The Principle of Evolving Systems
Before diving into applications, it's crucial to grasp the core mechanism of Gall's Law. It distinguishes between two types of complexity: "living" complexity that emerges organically from a successful base, and "dead" complexity that is imposed top-down. The following article provides an excellent overview.
Gall's Law: But First, Simplify - by Coleman McCormick - Res Extensa
This article from Res Extensa breaks down Gall's Law and its implications for systems design. It clearly defines the law and introduces the vital distinction between emergent and imposed complexity.
Please read the following sections to build your framework: Start with the introduction to get the full statement of Gall's Law. Continue to the next section to understand the key components. Focus on the distinction between a 'system' and a 'complex system', and particularly the less-appreciated but critical requirement that the simple system must work. Finally, read the section on "Living complexity." This is the most important part for our applications. Absorb the contrast between dead vs. living complexity. This distinction will be the lens through which we analyze our two case studies.
The key takeaway is that successful complex systems are not designed; they evolve. Attempts to engineer intricate systems from scratch—what James C. Scott calls "authoritarian high modernism"—are prone to creating "dead" systems that fail to adapt to real-world messiness.
Application 1: The "Dead" Complexity of Bra Sizing
The modern bra sizing system is a textbook example of a complex system that does not work. The widespread difficulty women have finding a proper fit is empirical evidence of the system's failure. Gall's Law helps diagnose why: it is a "dead" complex system, designed top-down as a patchwork of competing standards, rather than having evolved from a simple, universally working foundation.
The history of bra sizing reveals this fragmented, non-evolutionary development. Different companies introduced different components at different times, creating a convoluted structure rather than a coherent one.
The Wikipedia entry on "Bra size" chronicles the haphazard development and resulting dysfunction of the current sizing system, providing a perfect case study for Gall's Law.
To see how this complex system was constructed (not evolved), please read the following sections: Under "Measurement method origins," read the subsections on Cup design origins and Band measurement origins. Notice how key components like alphabet cups and adjustable bands were introduced separately by different companies (Camp, Warner's, etc.) with no initial standard. This is not evolution from a single working system, but an accretion of uncoordinated parts. Now, jump to the section "Consumer measurement difficulties." Read the paragraph describing how a bra is a complicated article of clothing to make. This highlights the inherent complexity that any sizing system must manage. Finally, review the section "Manufacturer design standards." You don't need to memorize the tables, but scan the text to appreciate the sheer chaos: the discrepancy between US and EU systems, the different cup progressions (inch vs. 2 cm), and the custom sizing used by major retailers. This illustrates a system that has become complex through incompatible additions, not through organic evolution.
The result of this top-down, fragmented design process is a system that, as studies show, fails for up to 85% of users. It is a "complex system designed from scratch" (or rather, patched together from multiple uncoordinated starts) that "cannot be patched up to make it work."
According to Gall's Law, a truly effective lingerie sizing system would need to be built differently:
- Start with a working simple system: Identify a single, simple, robust measurement principle that demonstrably works for a core group of users. This could be based on breast volume, as some engineers have proposed, or a radically simplified band-to-cup relationship.
- Evolve, don't design: Once this simple system is proven to work, complexity can be added incrementally. For instance, adjustments for different breast shapes (e.g., projection, root width) could be layered on top of the working base model. New styles and materials would be adapted to the core system, not the other way around.
By violating Gall's Law, the lingerie industry created a "dead" system that prioritizes manufacturing convention over user function, leaving millions of customers with a system that simply doesn't work.
Application 2: The "Living" Complexity of a Vee Relationship
The logic of Gall's Law applies with equal force to the architecture of human relationships. Attempts to design a complex relationship structure—like a polyamorous vee—from scratch, complete with a full set of rules and expectations before the connections are established, are often exercises in creating "dead" complexity. They are rational designs imposed on an emotional reality that is inherently messy and emergent.
A successful, stable vee relationship is more likely to be a "living" system that has evolved from a simpler, working foundation.
-
The Simple, Working System: The most common simple system from which a vee evolves is a strong, secure dyadic relationship. In your professional context, this is the core relationship between the husband and wife. For this simple system to be considered "working," it must possess its own internal stability, characterized by robust communication, established trust, and effective conflict resolution. They are a functioning unit.
-
The Evolutionary Step: The introduction of a new partner (the wife's lover) represents a significant increase in the system's complexity. The system now has three individuals and three distinct dyadic relationships to manage (Husband-Wife, Wife-Lover, and the non-romantic Husband-Lover dynamic).
-
Applying Gall's Law:
- If the simple system works: When the initial dyad is secure, the complex three-person system has a stable foundation to evolve from. New agreements, boundaries, and communication patterns can emerge organically from the interactions. For example, scheduling isn't dictated by a pre-written "polyamory rulebook," but evolves based on the felt needs and capacities of all three individuals. The complexity is added as the system proves it can handle it. This is a living system.
- If the simple system does not work: If the initial dyad is unstable—perhaps opening up to "fix" pre-existing issues—Gall's Law predicts failure. Adding a new person to a broken system doesn't patch it; it adds stress and accelerates its collapse. You cannot build a stable triad on the foundation of an unstable dyad. The complex system designed to solve the simple system's problems "never works and cannot be patched up." The only path forward is to "start over with a working simple system"—that is, for the original couple to first achieve stability on their own.
As a relationship analyzer, Gall's Law provides a powerful diagnostic tool. It allows you to assess whether a polyamorous structure is growing organically from a healthy foundation or if it's a fragile, top-down construct destined to fail under pressure. The key question is not "Does this vee have good rules?" but "Did this vee evolve from a dyad that already worked?"
Conclusion
Gall's Law offers a profound insight into why some complex systems thrive while others collapse. It champions an evolutionary, bottom-up approach to building things, from products to social structures.
Key Takeaways:
- Gall's Law: Working complex systems are always the result of evolution from a working simple system. Complex systems designed from the ground up are doomed to fail.
- Application in Lingerie Sizing: The current bra sizing system is a prime example of a failed, "dead" complex system because it was patched together from multiple, incompatible starting points rather than evolving from a single, simple, working principle.
- Application in Vee Relationships: A stable vee relationship is best understood as a "living" complex system that has evolved from a strong, functional dyad. Attempting to use polyamory to "fix" an unstable dyad violates Gall's Law and is a predictable recipe for failure.
In our next lesson, we will continue our exploration of evolutionary models by examining the Lindy Effect. This principle suggests that the future life expectancy of a non-perishable item is proportional to its current age. We will apply this to predict the longevity of classic bra designs and analyze the durability of long-standing relationship agreements.