Blog 6 Systems

From the reading and podcast this week, it was interesting to pinpoint the human tendencies that explain why we always seem to be making mistakes. Dorner suggests that it is innate within us that we cannot see one problem on a larger scale than our immediate situation. He says some analysts “see our tendency to think in simple chains of cause and effect as genetically preprogrammed and locate our inability to solve our problems in this genetic programming” (6). So, it’s genetic that we suck at making decisions sometimes… Whether that really is true or not, humans do still act in a set of patterns that Dorner and Bezio explore that are undeniable. In Dorner’s evaluation of the game stimulations some key patterns stuck out to me. It is interesting to note that good participants made more decisions than bad participants. That seems so simple to me, more decisions, more action, more good obviously. But it also speaks to good participants wanting to ask more questions and see more possibilities in front of them. Dorner suggests that good participants cared about the “why” not just the “what”. Bad participants focusing on the “what” did not dive deep enough into the problems they faced.

Bezio lays out a handful of things that help a system function best, and asking only “what” is not one of them. She tells us that systems function best when humans try not to oversimplify things. When a bad participant only asks “what” questions, they are seeking to simplify the task at hand and face it only at that level in front of them. That is when a system’s extreme complexity is fatally overlooked. Moreover, she tells us that systems function best when humans do not rely on their instincts, biases, or traditions. As good participants asked “why” questions, I think that exemplifies them going beyond their gut reaction in order to understand the new situation in front of them, rather than make assumptions based on surface level information. An over-reliance on tradition and biases is at the forefront of societal issues at the moment. From climate change, to polarized politics, to wearing masks, to racial inequality, humans right now are relying on biases and traditions that formed in an entirely different society with entirely different norms and practices. When humans continue to only rely on their previous knowledge with an unwillingness to change, the traditions and biases we hold onto become so outdated that they become useless even without us realizing. Systems thrive on smaller decisions that build upon each other. The best way to fix our biases is small, repeated exposure over time that allows us to see a different perspective. Humans tend to always think big, but clearly it’s time to change that instinct and think a lot smaller.

3 thoughts on “Blog 6 Systems

  1. Cassandra Gallardo

    I was surprised that “good participants” make more decisions than bad participants, because I had assumed that perhaps the game is more simple than I was making it out to be, changing too many variables until it was unclear what the actual root of my failure was. And I think that’s how people see the failure of systems in the U.S., so many practices have become so deeply engrained and build upon one each other, that it is hard to see where one problem starts and where another begins.

  2. Hannah Levine

    I also thought it was interesting that in the Borner experience, good participants simply made more decisions. I think that this shows a stronger level of dedication on the participants’ behalf to help the Moro community in as many ways as possible, even in light of obstacles. The bad participants, on the other hand, stopped making as many decisions as the meetings progressed and the challenges proved more difficult. This shows that we can’t back down from obstacles because there is always more work to be done, and even if something seems like it is fixed in the short term, it probably is not in the long run.

  3. John Sinuk

    I really enjoyed your analysis of the podcast. I agree that we as humans tend to oversimplify sometimes, but is this necessarily a bad thing? I understand the context matters but I also feel that going with your gut is necessary from time to time. I am curious as to how we find a balance between the two.

Comments are closed.