Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Lex Clips" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. ​ @crawkn  The complexity theory you explained, is a study in itself. There is another layer to the interaction, which is how individuals or groups consider solving problems, which is either problem-focussed or solution-focussed (not a dichotomy, because these are nuanced concepts). If one falls into the trap of considering problems as complex, one would tend to focus on the problems. If one focusses on the solution which needs to be implemented, one can work towards finding workable compromises. I've studied history and current affairs for 35 years years, and every major event taking place, or which ever took place historically worth writing down as relevant, fits the 2 main categories (unity/division). That does not mean that other criteria are/were not important to individuals, either alive today or at any point in history. It simply means that any personal opinions matter little, if they were not implemented. What ultimately counts is what is/was implemented, not what anybody thinks (ideas, ideology, opinions, etc.) If you wish to do the test, you'll find all events fit these categories: create unity, division, not relevant. Ghengis Khan? An empire which achieved partial Eurasian unity. Arranged against that, were the forces which tried to avoid that (division). What happened elsewhere, was outside of the scope (for example, events in South America had no impact on the events in Eurasia). The Treaty of Versailles? It was a divide and rule strategy by outside powers, which divided Europeans with a "ruling." One simply wipes away all the different opinions, cognitive biases (perceptions), -isms at play (incl. political movements), individual emotions, etc. to realize that what was actually implemented by those in positions of power, which was a division of Europeans. Qui bono, from European "division"? The main category in this type of analysis is actually to figure out what was "not relevant/applicable" for the events unfolding the way they did. Once one can do that, one can figure out how the powers that actually steer unfolding events, interact, using strategies of power. If one continuously falls into the trap of considering that everything is complex and messy, one of two main results are created on individual levels: 1) analysts get bogged down by the details, missing the big picture, and 2) people avert attention, usually steered by their own emotions when looking at events, and turn away. Such distraction and disinterest (indifference, ignorance, complacency) can then be exploited by power players.
    1
  11. 1
  12. 1