In reading the article, one of the most interesting parts was the conversation about why we humans struggle to deal with problems and their long-term effects. Like the physicist and the economist, humans struggle to come up with solutions to issues and the long-term effects of these decisions. Several reasons for humans seeming tendency to think on an ad hoc basis, as well as struggle to consider the long-term effects of decisions, are presented in the article, ranging from claims of genetic programming to the “evolution that has placed on the development of the human cognitive apparatus”; however, the theory that I think is the most interesting is the one concerning male domination in our society (Dorner 6). As Dorner explains, this theory distinguishes “between ‘serial’ male thinking and ‘parallel’ female thinking and identify the latter as more appropriate for dealing with complex problems” (Dorner 6). This theory is most interesting to me because it seems to incorporate both biological and social factors in determining “better” problem-solving. Biologically, it distinguishes differences in thinking  between males and females, and socially, it argues that because males have dominated society (through the, directly and indirectly, the sexist foundation of our society), we do not have the parallel thinking of females present and thus this hurts our problem-solving abilities. I focus on this theory because if we accept it, several philosophical and practical questions arise, such as should we have mandatory representation of women in decision-making bodies where they are currently disproportionately not present, such as in the federal government? And with that, is this “parallel thinking” limited only to females, or can it be taught to others, and likewise, can this “serial thinking” be taught to women to create more balanced problem solvers in general?