Let us view the encounter of a social problem like a pothole in a public road. The conventional wisdom of government is to patch it. When another social problem arises, it too is patch... and the same methodology continues year after year, decade after decade, century after century. The government not only wants everyone to travel along the road it patches, but it bribes an education system to teach generations of citizens to think that it is their patriotic duty to abide by its mentality. It is a mentality which enables them to force people to pay for the interminably stupid way in which it addresses social problems through various forms of taxation, called licensing (and fees), traffic violations (and fees), parking enforcement (and fees), impounding (and fees), as well as property taxation because everyone must set up their lives alongside the government's designated road. And those who want to fly over the road(s), they too are taxed by way of passport fees.
This is the logic not only found in government, but business and religion as well. They all want to control a road with respect to their practiced philosophy. If people start to make new trails, one or another of these entities will try to force compliance to their wishes, or take ownership of the new trail. With respect to religion, such trails were once referred to as pagan beliefs. When it was found that such beliefs could not be eradicated, the beliefs were simply contoured to fit within the prevailing mentality of a given religion. The same goes for government. when it can't get businesses to abide by given laws, it simply sets up a system in which it can extract fees from ill-gotten gains. Yet, the collected tithings, taxes and business tabulation do not provide for the basic sustenances of all citizens.
The path of governments is based on the usage of convergent thinking attempting to address divergent problems or public interests. When more people practice a belief (such as homosexuality), the government and religion as well as business first attempt to shame and ridicule the practice. Then, when a small segment of the population defies authority and begins to protest for homosexuality's existence, all of them reassess their position by adopting other convergent forms of thinking which enable them to profit off of the belief... like ancient religions did in the face of pagan practices. The problem is, conventional convergent so-called wisdom does not allow the three entities to think outside the conventions of their institutionalized thinking. They simply embrace that which they are faced with in their path in order to maintain the path... at a profit to themselves.... but again, the collected profits are not providing for even the basic sustenances needed by every single citizen. What the citizenry are paying for is more of the same traditional abuses at a greater cost.
The conventional perspectives of business, government and religion do not do well with divergent thinking. What they describe as creative thinking, imagery and imagination is the practice of convergent deceit, illusion, and falsification. Business, government and religion are all obsessed with making money, and all of them have their various rationales for gaining either money or some resource which can be traded for money, or use to bribe, finagle, or force more control on the public in order to extract more support for their views. As long as everyone, or most everyone goes along with their respectively advertised beliefs, the social structure remains relatively intact. But when more and more people see through the prevailing nonsense, larger holes in the business, government and religious roads begin to occur. More frequent patchwork efforts at greater costs is required... so the government adopts a strategy in which the road becomes a menagerie of convoluted twists and turns in an attempt to encapsulate all forms of divergent path taking by the public. The problem is, that with so many side roads, paths, trails, and the like, the available money to make repairs is spread too thinly, and officials/executives are forced to place the money into a concerted (convergent) area, typically near themselves or their respective interests. In other words, more and more people begin to suffer a diminishment in the purported equality of taxation benefits.
Divergent thinking in business terms is to create a new product, redesign an old product, or be a functional intermediary (packager, advertiser, manager, producer, transporter, financier, legal staff, etc.,)... in order to make money in order to increase its growth measured in terms of income, social status, personalized neurosis, etc... If solvency means it must steal and prepare a fund for fines (if it gets caught), cheat, bribe, coerce, manipulate, lie, back stab a partner, kidnap, rape, seduce, pay for political campaigns, buy out competition, control production resources, or artificially create social conditions so as to promote the belief in the need of a given product, then so be it. It will do whatever is necessary to keep alive, like any predatory creature learning how to control the public like a domesticated animal in a barn, pen, or corral.
Divergent thinking in religious terms is to transform conventional (traditional) beliefs into the language of a given place and era in order to insure that their will be enough believers who will buy into the religious product being sold... that is if current populations of believers begin to dwindle. If a religion must adopt the strategy of permitting all faiths to attend services in which a tithing collection takes place, then so be it. If it must transform its traditional beliefs to be more accepting of current trends which are antithetical to its early teachings, it will modify its language, or at least significantly curtail its denouncement in order to appear to be accepting of all people, and still retain a personal denial of a given social practice. In short, religions practice whatever hypocrisy is necessary to keep themselves solvent... such as maintaining the insistence that they be given the public subsidy of receiving money by not being taxed. It is alright for them to tax the public through various social mechanisms and machinations of manipulation which play on emotions, guilt, and the like, but it is not alright that they be taxed so that they collected funds be used by the government... supposedly to benefit everyone. While religions say they want to help humanity, they want to help only in so much as they themselves are rewarded by those who purchase their philosophy of social control.
Divergent thinking in government terms is likewise directed along a path of controlling the public in order to insure not only a sustained income, but an ever-increasing profit so that established government agencies can play out their respective bylaws, mission statement, or enculturated philosophy. Be it a military belief system, an agricultural belief system, a spy-network perspective, a coast-line patrol system, a land management system, a legal system, or whatever. And though some would claim that social problems are a direct result of the government becoming too large, such a perspective is part of the type of convergent thinking which has created the very problems we are experiencing. Instead, it is not that the government is too large, but that it is not large enough. In a democracy, a system of government that does not actually exist anywhere in the world, all citizens would be participants in the functionality of the government. All of them would have the ability to directly participate in the legislation of laws and voting on anything which concerns them. Such a system is a HUGE government. If an Actual Democracy were practiced, it would be the largest form of government ever to exist in the history of humanity. Yet, the problem with social problems is that they are being looked at with a convergent and not a divergent perspective. The government, like business and religion, wants to control the public in order to reap whatever profit it can, and uses various "benefit to society" arguments, expressions, philosophies, advertisements, beliefs, excuses, etc., in order to get the public to go along with its taxation requirements.
It's not that businesses, governments and religions do not do a whole lot of good, but that they also do a whole lot of bad. The conventional way of looking at this dichotomy is to convergently conclude that more good is done than bad... instead of assessing the value in a divergent way and admitting that we not only need a new form of government, but a whole new rationale for living, in order to rid ourselves of the persistent social nonsense we are subjected to by the traditional perspectives of business, government and religion which are simply updated with each generation... like putting a new coat of paint on an old structure that needs to be completely retired and never resurrected. And no, we are not describing some Utopian idealism, but a divergent approach at looking at living standards as a requirement for being subjected to the environmental vagaries of Earth. Living on Earth, in the present solar system and galaxy, significantly contribute to social problems. Because the Earth, the solar system and galaxy are on an incremental course of destruction, humanity... as an adaptive creature, is incrementally adopting various rationales which will ensure some level of equilibrium is maintained. While some people do panic and resort to an "it's no use" perspective which influences them to engage in self-destructive acts, others resort to using one form or another type of denial... such as the current ignorance being played out in the American political arena.
Instead of Americans concluding that their political system needs to be rebuilt, they make excuses for the nonsense and allow themselves to be duped into accepting idiotic candidates whose mentality is suffused with a convergent form of self-entitlement perspective. They, and all those in government, the media, businesses and religion who think in this way, continue to participate in such nonsense and apply all their resources thereto as if it were some supernatural wisdom and intelligence. Yet it is a road that many of us realize is a dead-end. However, it is not actually a road, but a pothole we are all sharing as if we were ants trapped in an ant lion burrow. One example is to realize that the adoption of business, government and religious perspectives which accept homosexuality, is a form of convergent thinking in tune with the ongoing disintegration of the planet's environment. It is an expressed human dimension of the erosion taking place in the environment. No matter what rationale is used in the justification thereof for accepting it, homosexuality is a product of the ongoing incremental environmental erosions taking place which affects the survival ability of the species. If homosexuality were to become the standard by which all people were to live their lives, a demise of the species would take place on an imminent, rapid scale... and would not have to engage in various incremental gestures (war, famine, homosexuality, suicide, murder, etc...) reflecting the influence of erosions taking place on the Earth, with the solar system and the galaxy, if not the Universe as we know it.
The only way humanity can forestall what appears to be an eventual demise of the species is to deliberately create a government which permits divergent thinkers to head up leaderships so that the convergent focus will be to direct all resources in the direction of developing a society with a fundamental interest in getting off the planet Earth, out of the solar system and away from the Milky Way Galaxy. And yes, it will take generations for humanity to accomplish this. And true, business as well as religious philosophies will be dramatically altered. But we can't stay where we are in the present pot holes created by the current forms of government throughout the world. It is a terrible road that humanity is on and many of us are sick and tired of being forced to comply with the increasing non-sense of road rage clearly being denoted by the American presidential election in which the public is forced to choose between two idiots and the National News Media is playing out the role of cheer leaders engaged in under-handed tactics for securing public applause, chanting, and echoing of simple-minded sentiments.
Whereas some homosexuals and the whole of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender)... etc. (alphabet) community of social colonies view themselves as progressive and perhaps even divergent thinking social emancipators; they actually are convergent thinkers in terms of being particularly self-obsessed and self-oriented with their own sexuality. They are not trying to push the boundaries of creativity, originality, talent or genius, but the conventionality of sexual self-interest practiced by many heterosexuals. And businesses, governments, as well as religions are readily buying into the prescriptions advocated by the alphabet community because they are accepting of it as an extension of their own convergent thinking.
However, with respect to thinking convergently and divergently, it is well to note that this dichotomy is itself a convention which incorporates the two into a convergency of thinking about thought processing. In other words, it to is a form of convergent thinking. Let us now diverge the discussion into a more comprehensive articulation of convergent and divergent thinking and adding that the present context involving social problems due to the present structure of government is that which the ideas of convergent and divergent thinking are being addressed, as a means of underlying that current thinking models being used in government are increasingly adding to social problems and we need to look elsewhere to solutions, such as by implementing the design of a New Government (a Cenocracy) because the current formula of government requires legislative processes to functional in a systematic way that is counter-productive to the well-being of society and humanity in the long run, because the current system of government has a "hole-patching" philosophy... like a pair of pants that has so many patches the original pair of pants can no longer be seen and only exists as a deteriorating skeletal remains:
Philosophers and psychologists alike have long realized that thinking is not of a “single piece.” There are many different kinds of thinking, and there are various means of categorizing them into a “taxonomy” of thinking skills, but there is no single universally accepted taxonomy. One common approach divides the types of thinking into problem solving and reasoning, but other kinds of thinking, such as judgment and decision making, have been suggested as well.
Problem solving is a systematic search through a range of possible actions in order to reach a predefined goal. It involves two main types of thinking: divergent, in which one tries to generate a diverse assortment of possible alternative solutions to a problem, and convergent, in which one tries to narrow down multiple possibilities to find a single, best answer to a problem. Multiple-choice tests, for example, tend to involve convergent thinking, whereas essay tests typically engage divergent thinking.
Many researchers regard the thinking that is done in problem solving as cyclical, in the sense that the output of one set of processes—the solution to a problem—often serves as the input of another—a new problem to be solved. The American psychologist Robert J. Sternberg identified seven steps in problem solving, each of which may be illustrated in the simple example of choosing a restaurant:
This example also illustrates how problem solving can be cyclical rather than linear. For example, once one has chosen a restaurant, one must determine how to get there, how much to tip, and so on.
While some may view the above example as one describing divergent thinking, it actually illustrates a type of convergent thinking process like a child consciously aware of their efforts approached in the steps taken in a given direction. Just because one proposes the notion of cyclicity in order to suggest a dynamical (moving) event as being one that describes divergency (not aligned with a static or non-moving, uni-directional approach); does not mean they are not using a form of convergent thinking in an attempt to describe divergent thinking. In other words, "divergent thinking" is better described as a Heisenberg (entity} principle seen in quantum mechanics. While its presence can be made known, pinning it down in order to illustrate where it will be in any given instant or in which direction it may go, is another matter. It is not so predictable. Convergent thinking is a predictability measurement before or after the fact. On the other hand, divergent thinking is an allusive sprite like a shooting star. When divergency is claimed, one can rest assure that convergent thinking is nearby. In this sense, divergent thinking needs convergent thinking for a given application of practicality. The problem arises when the practicality is set into stone as a tradition that does not permit the application of further divergent thinking which may involve the obliteration of the tradition itself. For example, whereas a government may claim it is open to a creative solution of problems, such solutions are forced to comply with government standards of acceptability which may stringently oppose the adoption of creative solving problem in order to insure compliance with measures that perpetuate a given tradition, though the tradition may don a different uniform and single different lyrics of a conventional refrain in order to given the illusion of being new, original, an improvement, etc...
If we want to solve (and not simply manage) social problems, we need to adopt a methodology which permits the inclusion of divergent thinking that does not think that "managing problems" is the best way to solve them. Because many politicians assume that many social problems are unsolvable (cyclical) issues caused by the way humans are in body, mind and spirit as described by their reading of history; they do not look to eradicate problems by considering a whole new design of social structuring. They do not have the ability nor capacity to think in such a divergent way because it was not part of their life-learning instruction which they received at home, at school, or personal experiences. Instead of looking outside the conventions of thinking called business, government and religion, they align their perceptions with thoughts which validate or denigrate one or another belief. It is improbable for most people to think that most human ideas are worthless in terms of being little more than survival mechanisms created by the conditions of an incrementally occurring environmental degradation humans are forced to adapt to. Instead of saying all businesses, governments and religions are different measurements of attempted equilibrium states, most people choose to adopt one or another functionality as being logical, necessary, honest, truthful, righteous, etc...
Not only do our current problem solving efforts create more problems, but how we think about problem solving can get in the way as well because it is part of the system in which problem solving efforts have been devised. If one is confronted by an entire government of idiots, and a large pool of anti-government idiots... all of whom are well-meaning and may well describe themselves as pursuing what is best for humanity; how does one go about getting thousands, if not millions of people to alter the way they think? The difficulty is increased when someone is permitted to apply their model of creative thinking on a problem that is actually a symptom of a larger problem and can only be patched because prevailing social circumstances are aligned with conditions which permit patch-work "solutions" to be effective. For example, it is not that a Communist, Democratic or Socialist solution is wrong in a given instance, it's just that the social problems being addressed are symptoms and the application of a particular Communist, Democratic or Socialist model of creative thinking is ill-applied. Such thinking is more appropriately applied to the actual problem and not trying to use it to solve a given symptom. Whereas bits and pieces of Communism, Democracy and Socialism are used by current government systems in their patchwork efforts, applying a broad-spectrum formula of Communism, Democracy or Socialism are not appropriate for the present social structure which relies on a system `of patch-work fixes.
Let us now continue with a bit more of the Britannica article on thought, while restating it as a means to construct an image in the minds of readers whose interest is directed towards developing ideas for establishing a New Government, unless they prefer to address only a single social issue. It is necessary to address sociological structuring from a very broad-based approach because all our efforts are going to be scrutinized by so-called experts from different fields. They need to know that their expertise is being called into play because the restructuring of society will be multi-dimensional in scope. In so doing, it is necessary to make note of the fact that both traditional forms of psychology and philosophy thrust into present day applications often resort to the usage of (two-based) dichotomies, dualisms, and dualities, though some make mention of monisms (singularities), trinities (three-based), quadralinials (four-based), etc., but that there is a conservation of number in this regard. [However, such words may not be incorporated into a given writer's expose'.] In other words, we do not have a compilation of thought-ideas using (numerically) large organizational references and methodologies. This suggests that there is an environmentally influenced, physiologically-based reason related to survivability in the present planet, if not solar and galactic system as well. This is extremely important to acknowledge because it predisposes us to a given problem-solving ability. We may not be able to exceed this ability unless we remove ourselves for the present environmental/planetary constraint(s). As such, our ideas about Communism, Democracy, Socialism (etc.), are most likely nationalizations used as a means of complying with the constraint(s). Similarly, many are unknowingly using their personalized sociological interests as obstacles to furthering the development of their ideas. They create functional fixations that act like habits in thinking they have difficulty in removing themselves from.
Psychologists often distinguish between “well-structured” and “ill-structured” problems. Well-structured problems (also called well-defined problems) have clear solution paths: the problem solver is usually able to specify, with relative ease, all the steps that must be taken to reach a solution. The difficulty in such cases, if any, has to do with executing the steps. Most mathematics problems, for example, are well-structured, in the sense that determining what needs to be done is easy, though carrying out the computations needed to reach the solution may be difficult. The problem represented by the question, “What is the shortest driving route from New York City to Boston?” is also well-structured, because anyone seeking a solution can consult a map to answer the question with reasonable accuracy.
Ill-structured problems (also called ill-defined problems) do not have clear solution paths, and in such cases the problem solver usually cannot specify the steps needed to reach a solution. An example of an ill-structured problem is, “How can a lasting peace be achieved between country A and country B?” It is hard to know precisely (or, perhaps, even imprecisely) what steps one would take to solve this problem. Another example is the problem of writing a best-selling novel. No single formula seems to work for everyone. Indeed, if there were such a formula, and if it became widely known, it probably would cease to work (because the efficacy of the formula would be destroyed by its widespread use).
The solution of ill-structured problems often requires insight, which is a distinctive and seemingly sudden understanding of a problem or strategy that contributes toward a solution. Often an insight involves conceptualizing a problem or a strategy in a totally new way. Although insights sometimes seem to arise suddenly, they are usually the necessary result of much prior thought and hard work. Sometimes, when one is attempting to gain an insight but is unsuccessful, the most effective approach is that of “incubation”—laying the problem aside for a while and processing it unconsciously. Psychologists have found that unconscious incubation often facilitates solutions to problems.
Other means of solving problems incorporate procedures associated with mathematics, such as algorithms and heuristics, for both well- and ill-structured problems. Research in problem solving commonly distinguishes between algorithms and heuristics, because each approach solves problems in different ways and with different assurances of success.
A problem-solving algorithm is a procedure that is guaranteed to produce a solution if it is followed strictly. In a well-known example, the “British Museum technique,” a person wishes to find an object on display among the vast collections of the British Museum but does not know where the object is located. By pursuing a sequential examination of every object displayed in every room of the museum, the person will eventually find the object, but the approach is likely to consume a considerable amount of time. Thus, the algorithmic approach, though certain to succeed, is often slow.
A problem-solving heuristic is an informal, intuitive, speculative procedure that leads to a solution in some cases but not in others. The fact that the outcome of applying a heuristic is unpredictable means that the strategy can be either more or less effective than using an algorithm. Thus, if one had an idea of where to look for the sought-after object in the British Museum, a great deal of time could be saved by searching heuristically rather than algorithmically. But if one happened to be wrong about the location of the object, one would have to try another heuristic or resort to an algorithm.
Although there are several problem-solving heuristics, a small number tend to be used frequently. They are known as means-ends analysis, working forward, working backward, and generate-and-test.
In means-ends analysis, the problem solver begins by envisioning the end, or ultimate goal, and then determines the best strategy for attaining the goal in his current situation. If, for example, one wished to drive from New York to Boston in the minimum time possible, then, at any given point during the drive, one would choose the route that minimized the time it would take to cover the remaining distance, given traffic conditions, weather conditions, and so on.
In the working-forward approach, as the name implies, the problem solver tries to solve the problem from beginning to end. A trip from New York City to Boston might be planned simply by consulting a map and establishing the shortest route that originates in New York City and ends in Boston. In the working-backward approach, the problem solver starts at the end and works toward the beginning. For example, suppose one is planning a trip from New York City to Paris. One wishes to arrive at one's Parisian hotel. To arrive, one needs to take a taxi from Orly Airport. To arrive at the airport, one needs to fly on an airplane; and so on, back to one's point of origin.
Often the least systematic of the problem-solving heuristics, the generate-and-test method involves generating alternative courses of action, often in a random fashion, and then determining for each course whether it will solve the problem. In plotting the route from New York City to Boston, one might generate a possible route and see whether it can get one expeditiously from New York to Boston; if so, one sticks with that route. If not, one generates another route and evaluates it. Eventually, one chooses the route that seems to work best, or at least a route that works. As this example suggests, it is possible to distinguish between an optimizing strategy, which gives one the best path to a solution, and a satisficing strategy, which is the first acceptable solution one generates. The advantage of optimizing is that it yields the best possible strategy; the advantage of satisficing is that it reduces the amount of time and energy involved in planning.
A better understanding of the processes of thought and problem solving can be gained by identifying factors that tend to prevent effective thinking. Some of the more common obstacles, or blocks, are mental set, functional fixedness, stereotypes, and negative transfer.
A mental set, or “entrenchment,” is a frame of mind involving a model that represents a problem, a problem context, or a procedure for problem solving. When problem solvers have an entrenched mental set, they fixate on a strategy that normally works well but does not provide an effective solution to the particular problem at hand. A person can become so used to doing things in a certain way that, when the approach stops working, it is difficult for him to switch to a more effective way of doing things.
Functional fixedness is the inability to realize that something known to have a particular use may also be used to perform other functions. When one is faced with a new problem, functional fixedness blocks one's ability to use old tools in novel ways. Overcoming functional fixedness first allowed people to use reshaped coat hangers to get into locked cars, and it is what first allowed thieves to pick simple spring door locks with credit cards.
Another block involves stereotypes. The most common kinds of stereotypes are rationally unsupported generalizations about the putative characteristics of all, or nearly all, members of a given social group. Most people learn many stereotypes during childhood. Once they become accustomed to stereotypical thinking, they may not be able to see individuals or situations for what they are.
Negative transfer occurs when the process of solving an earlier problem makes later problems harder to solve. It is contrasted with positive transfer, which occurs when solving an earlier problem makes it easier to solve a later problem. Learning a foreign language, for example, can either hinder or help the subsequent learning of another language.
Besides the previously mentioned obstacles, another problem arises in terms of thinking about so-called experts and novices. For example, politicians may claim they are experts in the processes of government and should therefore be able to make decisions for the public who are viewed as being ignorant and should neither have the means nor opportunity to make or vote on social problems or topics that are not yet problems but may become one. In other words, the public should be provided the illusion that they vote is that which decides on leadership, but that electoral processes actually function so that votes are restricted to those who will vote in a predictable and expected manner. Similarly, enlisted personnel are not permitted to choose their leaders because they are viewed as being too dumb, and that such selections are better effected by a select few who consider themselves better able to do the best job. In other words, enlisted personnel are viewed as being too stupid and inexperienced, just as some politicians might argue about the general citizenry and its ability to make the best choice.
People who are entitled to make choices over others may automatically feel/think they are better qualified, though their decision(s) may be based on some emotional preference and not any serviceable intellectual utility. In other words, so-called experts can be prone to the same sorts of errors in judgment which novices are. Simply being denoted as an expert does not guarantee the public will be guaranteed the desired expertise to be fully functioning at every moment. Many a person achieves a position of prominence because they are adept at completing required social steps, and not because they have more intelligence than most people whose social efforts may be directed primarily towards family social venues. For example, just because a person pursues a career of becoming a law enforcement officer (community police, state police, FBI, US Marshals, CIA, Homeland Security, etc...), does not mean they are automatically transformed into some astute criminal hunter.
The same goes for doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, etc., in their respective fields. While the word "practice" is applied in the context of describing a "medical practice", it can also be applied to all forms of employment and interest. Necessarily so, it is thus necessary to note that a Politician is in a "Political practice" of "practice of government", and are not automatically transformed into this all-knowing person endowed with great wisdom and intelligence simply because they get elected. While some practiced experts do have a slight edge over some novices, their ability does not always play out in novel situations. While they are good at "winning" under circumstances they are practiced at, and that some expertise is highly adaptable to multiple situations, this is not the case for many unfamiliar situations. There is a learning curve for both experts and novices with each having a disadvantage in some settings. For example, the expert may have a mind too contoured to structured formulas of thought that impede the learning process where a more malleable mentality is required such as a novice might have; and a novice may have to engage in too many "process of elimination" efforts that would to be a liability if a situation required immediate or short-term results (bureaucratically effected by the usage of time constraints).
And like the preceding excerpt by the "expert" Psychologist Sternberg, the following excerpt by yet another "expert" Psychologist, provides an indication of how convergent such experts can be in their thinking about thinking (and thereby being quite obstructionistic when it comes to fomenting the ideas of divergent thinking about thinking):
Research by the American psychologists Herbert A. Simon, Robert Glaser, and Micheline Chi, among others, has shown that experts and novices think and solve problems in somewhat different ways. These differences explain why experts are more effective than novices in a variety of problem-solving endeavours.
As compared with novices, experts tend to have larger and richer schemata (organized representations of things or events that guide a person's thoughts and actions), and they possess far greater knowledge in specific domains. The schemata of experts are also highly interconnected, meaning that retrieving one piece of information easily leads to the retrieval of another piece. Experts devote proportionately more time to determining how to represent a problem, but they spend proportionately less time in executing solutions. In other words, experts tend to allocate more of their time to the early or preparatory stages of problem solving, whereas novices tend to spend relatively more of their time in the later stages. The thought processes of experts also reveal more complex and sophisticated representations of problems. In terms of heuristics, experts are more likely to use a working-forward strategy, whereas novices are more likely to use a working-backward strategy. In addition, experts tend to monitor their problem solving more carefully than do novices, and they are also more successful in reaching appropriate solutions.
While the foregoing excerpt may be convincing to some readers, it is part of the problem the nation has in directing its efforts along a course for solving social problems. It represents a type of thinking that exists within a box inside a social structure where elaborate forms of rationalization give the impression of being an unassailable logic... and it is, so long as we permit ourselves to remain in the conventions of government preoccupation which helps to ensure the validation in this accepted formula of thought processing. In other words, it is like finding yourself waking up in a swimming pool being filled with sulfuric acid that is too deep to reach the sides of in order to crawl out and the only other means of exit appears to be the choice between an inflatable raft, a dangling rope, a megaphone, or a ladder one must jump for... and each is found to have a slight problem that must solved before it can be used. Not only must the reader decide what item(s) will be used, but why they even took the time to think about the problem as described by this reader? Like so many assumed social problems, this story problem is as much a fabrication (symptom) as other so-called social problems. In other words, it doesn't need to be solved as if it were a life-threatening issue... it is merely part of a thinking process that will disappear when the larger issue of designing a New Government takes place.