One of the FallaciousArguments, wherein it is asserted that because a system (political, technical, economic, whatever) works with small groups, datasets, etc., that it will work equally well with large ones. Often used in the context where the system being advocated is "clean", "simple", "elegant", etc... and is being suggested as a replacement for an existing large-scale system which is full of warts and compromises.
Examples, from various disciplines:
- Folks who suggest replacing an RDBMS with a set of text files (especially XML ones)
- Note that a database could perhaps be implemented under-the-hood with text-files so that one can scale up without changing the interface. Related: SimplifyingRdbms.
- Folks who suggest that a LispMachine (or a similar system) is better than an industrial-strength, production operating system.
- Advocates of minarchist social systems (often based on voluntary cooperation) who assert that such structures, being successful in small contexts (like kibbutzim and cooperatives), should become the basis for governing states.
This fallacy often works in reverse:
- Managers who foolishly try to apply processes and structures designed for 100-person development teams (and large corporations) to a startup company with a handful of engineers
Compare with
SlipperySlope
Assumed Scalability Fallacy