If reality were based on analytical thinking, linear thinking would be a fine basis for studying reality.
It isn't, so it isn't. On Jan 14, 3:23 pm, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > Many systems require circular causation in total or in some of their > parts. For example the heat causes the thermostat to turn the heater > off which causes the room to cool which causes the thermostat to turn > the heater on which causes the room to heat which causes the > thermostat to turn off... until something causes this part of a system > to lose stability. This is a very simple example. To analyze some > parts linear thinking is helpful. However linear thinking tends to > make people miss the big picture and act in ways that often have > negative "side effects". > > On Jan 14, 1:20 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I don't understand the linear vs systems thinking. Most people think > > linearly about systems and try to figure out how the parts work > > together in a system. I don't think anyone (or few) thinks linearly > > naturally at any high level. That is why formal education works so > > hard to train & nurture linear and other ways of thinking at higher > > levels.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
