4 ms·

This is just "long term thinking". I would say the article isn't worth reading. But at least, it's a good reminder to focus on thinking about the long term cons

This is just "long term thinking". I would say the article isn't worth reading. But at least, it's a good reminder to focus on thinking about the long term consequences of actions/decisions.

forgotusername6 4y ago
Not necessarily. It describes 2nd order and above in contrast to the immediate effects of a decision. The 2nd order effect may be in 5s time or even immediate but not a direct consequence of the original action.
- rob_c 4y ago
  how is that not long term thinking?
  - matwood 4y ago
    Because second order can also be immediate, it just may not be a direct intention of the action.
    - rob_c 4y ago
      I... If we're going to argue the temporal component of planning you better not look back over the last 3 years...
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    > > The 2nd order effect may be in 5s time > how is that not long term thinking? What does "long term" mean to you ... 5s (i.e. 5 seconds) is pretty short term to me.
    - rob_c 4y ago
      Long term being further down the line, i.e. net result in 5 years is still the same regardless of how quickly things evolve. I'd argue that because happens in 5min that's an immediate effect regardless of if it happens after something or not. How is there any higher order evolution to that? Are you trying to argue that people can't cope with time in a plan therefore it must be a higher order thinking to understand the rapid evolution of something?
      - thfuran 4y ago
        No, time has nothing to do with it, only the length of the causal chain. That's why it's not really "long term" thinking even if higher order effects might sometimes not be felt immediately.
  - tinco 4y ago
    It is long term thinking. But long term thinking is not necessarily 2nd order thinking. It's basically good long term thinking, where you don't just come up with a plan that addresses a problem, but you also enumerate all the secondary effects, and the effects of those effects, etc. Any good long term thinking would do that, but it's not always clear if people really have thought it through. If someone says ban ICE vehicles so that we might have better air quality and reduced rate of climate change, have they taken into account what the economic, cultural and political ramifications of such legislation would be? They might have, someone might have, but definitely not everyone has. Who had "Texas secedes from the USA" on their list of possible outcomes of their long term plan for addressing climate change?
    - rob_c 4y ago
      It is but it isn't? Followed by some banter about illegals. This comment in it's blind ignorance is a godsent gift to people of a leftwing political bias...
      - tinco 4y ago
        I don't follow, what do you mean? Is there blind ignorance in my comment? edit: oh you mean you don't understand how something can be a superset of something else without being the same set. So I'm saying there's long term thinking with 2nd order thinking, and there's long term thinking without 2nd order thinking.
  - snapcaster 4y ago
    Some second order thinking might involve long term thinking but my understanding of what is commonly meant is: Long term thinking is termporally based, what will X look like in Y amounts of time Second (or third) order thinking, is based on response to consequences or changes. Could be over a long term, or over a short term. This seems pretty straightforward but you seem to take issue with it. I'm curious what you think is being messed up by people using these definitions?
anoplus 4y ago
Thanks for the TL/DR
natmaka 4y ago
Indeed, and in many ways it leads to holism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
Ensorceled 4y ago
In my day job, I encounter a lot of suggested solutions from my team and colleagues that will not succeed for various reasons. Just because we will not discover those failures until after the implementation in a couple of weeks does not make my better solutions "long term thinking". Long term thinking is "will this solution that will work perfectly fine right now, still be the right solution in 2023"
- 12ian34 4y ago
  Whether or not "long term thinking" is what you say it is, I don't think the article does a good job of providing any real value. The author is getting confused between "long term" and "second order" thinking. The concept of "second order thinking" seems to just mean "thinking about the indirect impact of one's actions" which seems hardly book-worthy to me.

This is just "long term thinking". I would say the article isn't worth reading. But at least, it's a good reminder to focus on thinking about the long term consequences of actions/decisions.

forgotusername6 4y ago

Not necessarily. It describes 2nd order and above in contrast to the immediate effects of a decision. The 2nd order effect may be in 5s time or even immediate but not a direct consequence of the original action.

rob_c 4y ago
how is that not long term thinking?
- matwood 4y ago
  Because second order can also be immediate, it just may not be a direct intention of the action.
  - rob_c 4y ago
    I... If we're going to argue the temporal component of planning you better not look back over the last 3 years...
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  > > The 2nd order effect may be in 5s time > how is that not long term thinking? What does "long term" mean to you ... 5s (i.e. 5 seconds) is pretty short term to me.
  - rob_c 4y ago
    Long term being further down the line, i.e. net result in 5 years is still the same regardless of how quickly things evolve. I'd argue that because happens in 5min that's an immediate effect regardless of if it happens after something or not. How is there any higher order evolution to that? Are you trying to argue that people can't cope with time in a plan therefore it must be a higher order thinking to understand the rapid evolution of something?
    - thfuran 4y ago
      No, time has nothing to do with it, only the length of the causal chain. That's why it's not really "long term" thinking even if higher order effects might sometimes not be felt immediately.
- tinco 4y ago
  It is long term thinking. But long term thinking is not necessarily 2nd order thinking. It's basically good long term thinking, where you don't just come up with a plan that addresses a problem, but you also enumerate all the secondary effects, and the effects of those effects, etc. Any good long term thinking would do that, but it's not always clear if people really have thought it through. If someone says ban ICE vehicles so that we might have better air quality and reduced rate of climate change, have they taken into account what the economic, cultural and political ramifications of such legislation would be? They might have, someone might have, but definitely not everyone has. Who had "Texas secedes from the USA" on their list of possible outcomes of their long term plan for addressing climate change?
  - rob_c 4y ago
    It is but it isn't? Followed by some banter about illegals. This comment in it's blind ignorance is a godsent gift to people of a leftwing political bias...
    - tinco 4y ago
      I don't follow, what do you mean? Is there blind ignorance in my comment? edit: oh you mean you don't understand how something can be a superset of something else without being the same set. So I'm saying there's long term thinking with 2nd order thinking, and there's long term thinking without 2nd order thinking.
- snapcaster 4y ago
  Some second order thinking might involve long term thinking but my understanding of what is commonly meant is: Long term thinking is termporally based, what will X look like in Y amounts of time Second (or third) order thinking, is based on response to consequences or changes. Could be over a long term, or over a short term. This seems pretty straightforward but you seem to take issue with it. I'm curious what you think is being messed up by people using these definitions?

anoplus 4y ago

Thanks for the TL/DR

natmaka 4y ago

Indeed, and in many ways it leads to holism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

Ensorceled 4y ago

In my day job, I encounter a lot of suggested solutions from my team and colleagues that will not succeed for various reasons. Just because we will not discover those failures until after the implementation in a couple of weeks does not make my better solutions "long term thinking". Long term thinking is "will this solution that will work perfectly fine right now, still be the right solution in 2023"

12ian34 4y ago
Whether or not "long term thinking" is what you say it is, I don't think the article does a good job of providing any real value. The author is getting confused between "long term" and "second order" thinking. The concept of "second order thinking" seems to just mean "thinking about the indirect impact of one's actions" which seems hardly book-worthy to me.