Talk:Synergy

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)

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)

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)

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)