I think that the article highlighted the number one issue with design thinking pretty well: you can alway fix the surface-level issues but fundamental issues are almost impossible to alter. This is an issue I see most with regards to the U.S. education system which prioritizes diversity in the least optimal time. Significant focus is always placed on diversifying college students when the issues are rooted earlier on in under funded neighborhoods and poorly taught elementary school. However, changing this will inevitably cause disruption to the public school education system and it is hard to tell what would be the pros or cons of changing the way tax money is distributed. Every solution seems to lead to a trail of misfortune for someone and striking a new dynamic can be more difficult than living with existing struggles depending on who you are. I think that the issues do lie in the way money is distributed within communities though and with regards to the “pull yourself up by the bootstrap” mentality within the U.S., our individualistic ideals make it hard to grow as a society. However, in the time we spend comparing ourselves with other countries, we fail to recognize the flaws within their issues and the rate of progress that is realistically possible. I think that resetting a new norm is extremely difficult but is necessary for us to progress. This most likely won’t come into affect though until a catastrophe occurs and a new version society is built from scratch.
The fact that design was once regarded in the same manner as math is comical in my opinion because while the process seem very similar, I’d argue the the human element of it is powerful enough to make the argument that design thinking is almost opposite of logical problem-solving. People are raised in diverse environments and rather illogical. Emotions take such a large role in individuals that while some common traits might consequently lead to more logical reasoning behind design, most things are arbitrary.
