Last semester, I wished I would have written down a few of the important thoughts I had. Some of my thoughts had to do with systems thinking. It seems that the nodes of the systems are of equal value to the connections. Since, if you don’t make a connection, you never realize that node is out there. Also, I hope to live in a world where systems thinking is not “the way” for two reasons. One, it will mean that we have achieved it as a norm in society and there isn’t a need for convincing anymore. Two, if a person starts thinking it is “the way,” that person is bound to be missing out on other ways.
Which brings me to the major thought of the week: Designing for versus with something/someone is probably the most wicked problem of all. To have the self-righteousness to assume you know the exact way how to do something is to ignore what is actually needed in the system. Additionally, if you are fully immersed in the system, how can you actually attain the “big picture” and make the decision needed in that moment?
Thus, a person needs to both be connected without bias? We are taught that bias is bad when it comes to doing research, but if we don’t have any bias, what is our true stake? Does it take someone to have a stake in the issue to bring value to the possible solution? What makes a valuable contribution?
Lastly, we should be weary about sticking to only one thing. For example, its not just the left or the right side of the brain, it is both. In order to be a well-rounded individual in this universe, a person should be functioning in both capacities. If the person cannot, then it is the job of the universe to balance it out with another person, situation, skill and/or tool.
I am left-handed (but ambidextrous in early childhood), right foot dominant and with sports I go from left to right when it comes to throwing/pitching/hitting. I think that stressing musical instruments or sports that demand multifunctional capabilities on the body and mind are crucial for total brain development.
A few questions: If systems thinking is a norm, what makes you think that there would be no more need for convincing? Aren’t there always perceptions of certain ways of being as “the way,” and aren’t there always going to be those who blindly follow and those who rebel? For example, the current widespread acceptance of the scientific method.
There would be no more convincing the majority. Yes, people will rebel and people will follow.
I think when I was writing this I was thinking about this conversation at OSU. It was the head of the Women’s Center, and she said she would be very happy when there was no need for the Women’s Center anymore – it would mean that the fight for this cause wasn’t needed anymore – that equal rights for women were finally established. I feel similarly to Systems Thinking or anything else – when it actually becomes established, there isn’t a need to fight for a way of thinking.
When it comes to Scientific Method – it’s already a widely approved by the majority. Systems Thinking still needs a cheering squad.