>Everybody can have his/her view. However, Ray is my partner, and he >just
>doesn't buy the idea of ST. and as a matter of fact, he hasn't read any
>book about ST seriously, and once I introduce the archetypes and the
>causal loop diagram to him, he think it is impractical and trivial. And I
>really frustrated by my inability to enroll him to study the essence of
>ST. So, I need some advice for me to enroll him again.
>Joey Chan <rfeynman@netvigator.com>
Hi, Joey,
I can sympathize with your difficulty about trying to introduce any new
thinking style, let alone systems thinking---the answer is typically, "We
just need to be more logical." Some things that I've learned/mistakes
I've made (and I invite everyone to add to this):
- Systems thinking at first glance is overwhelming. It may work better to
demonstrate systems thinking (without even making the point that it is
systems thinking) consistently in your analysis or in working increasingly
larger issues (start small). Work to de-mystify and uncomplicated systems
thinking by demonstrating it, first simply with a minimum of the language
peculiar to ST.
- Learn and use less complex thinking models to first raise awareness that
logic isn't all that there is and that having different thinking modes in
your toolbox is helpful.
By the way, I noticed your "rfeynman" e-mail address. His two biographies
are some of the few books I've read more than once for pleasure. Truly a
curious character (and one of my favorites).
Joe Brodnicki
JBrodnicki@hcfa.gov
--Joseph Brodnicki <JBrodnicki@hcfa.gov>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>