5 ms·

I just finished reading her book, and I am trying to dig into this field to learn more about it, as I consider it pretty interesting. I am still surprised that

by mk89 10y ago

I just finished reading her book, and I am trying to dig into this field to learn more about it, as I consider it pretty interesting. I am still surprised that we don't teach it at school (high school). I want to believe it will happen in the next 20-25 years.

llamataboot 10y ago
You might be interested in the work that the Waters Foundation is doing: http://watersfoundation.org/ http://watersfoundation.org/
- mk89 10y ago
  Brilliant! I hope that more schools will follow/join.
theoh 10y ago
Isn't it 50% New Age pseudoscience though? I mean, how would you respond to that criticism? Particularly at the level of detail that might be taught in schools, I wonder about its falsifiability. I say this as someone who is prepared to consider the idea of systems thinking as a "second tier" cognitive strategy, as advanced by Wilber etc. I can't imagine that idea getting mainstream traction.
- llamataboot 10y ago
  Sure, some "systems thinking" falls under the woo-umbrella. But I'd hardly call the hard systems sciences New Age pseudoscience. System Dynamics, Agent-Based Modeling, etc all have methods and evaluative feedback loops in terms of measuring whether they are predictive or not. If you system dynamics model predicts a 10-year S-curve and you see 20 years of exponential growth, you probably don't have the model correct. If you stop at the level of "everything is connected" - it can lead to all sorts of woo-ey conclusions - much like a light understanding of quantum physics can (some of which I happen to agree with, but aren't yet falsifiable) - but SD was developed at MIT by engineers...
- mk89 10y ago
  The world is changing, as it's becoming evident that everything is more and more interconnected, and while studying History can help you figure some of these connections out, I believe that System Thinking gives a better insight about broader domains. After all, it's engineering applied to a broad field - not just maths, computers, and biology, but it's about finding out the connections that make our society/behaviors the way they are. It's like psychology. Some people nowadays still don't consider it a science, although it applies similar principles to human/animal behavior, but it's a science, isn't it? I believe it's a good way to discover new patterns to build more sustainable societies, as psychology is a good way to improve human life and relations among humans.
- tunesmith 10y ago
  I'm not sure how to respond to it being 50% new age pseudoscience, because I'm having trouble even putting my finger on that as a criticism. Are there more specific criticisms? A lot of systems thinking comes down to basic rationalism and causality, doing things like checking assumptions and conclusions through critical thinking. Maybe that part of it isn't rooted in empiricism, but that's not a bad thing at all. The rationalism vs empiricism debate goes back centuries.

by mk89 10y ago

llamataboot 10y ago

You might be interested in the work that the Waters Foundation is doing: http://watersfoundation.org/ http://watersfoundation.org/

mk89 10y ago
Brilliant! I hope that more schools will follow/join.

theoh 10y ago

Isn't it 50% New Age pseudoscience though? I mean, how would you respond to that criticism? Particularly at the level of detail that might be taught in schools, I wonder about its falsifiability. I say this as someone who is prepared to consider the idea of systems thinking as a "second tier" cognitive strategy, as advanced by Wilber etc. I can't imagine that idea getting mainstream traction.

llamataboot 10y ago
Sure, some "systems thinking" falls under the woo-umbrella. But I'd hardly call the hard systems sciences New Age pseudoscience. System Dynamics, Agent-Based Modeling, etc all have methods and evaluative feedback loops in terms of measuring whether they are predictive or not. If you system dynamics model predicts a 10-year S-curve and you see 20 years of exponential growth, you probably don't have the model correct. If you stop at the level of "everything is connected" - it can lead to all sorts of woo-ey conclusions - much like a light understanding of quantum physics can (some of which I happen to agree with, but aren't yet falsifiable) - but SD was developed at MIT by engineers...
mk89 10y ago
The world is changing, as it's becoming evident that everything is more and more interconnected, and while studying History can help you figure some of these connections out, I believe that System Thinking gives a better insight about broader domains. After all, it's engineering applied to a broad field - not just maths, computers, and biology, but it's about finding out the connections that make our society/behaviors the way they are. It's like psychology. Some people nowadays still don't consider it a science, although it applies similar principles to human/animal behavior, but it's a science, isn't it? I believe it's a good way to discover new patterns to build more sustainable societies, as psychology is a good way to improve human life and relations among humans.
tunesmith 10y ago
I'm not sure how to respond to it being 50% new age pseudoscience, because I'm having trouble even putting my finger on that as a criticism. Are there more specific criticisms? A lot of systems thinking comes down to basic rationalism and causality, doing things like checking assumptions and conclusions through critical thinking. Maybe that part of it isn't rooted in empiricism, but that's not a bad thing at all. The rationalism vs empiricism debate goes back centuries.