Discussion of fixing general problems

So the general discussion (open for all, old and new people) is this-
What do you need to 'fix' a problem?

To fix a problem you need (In my opinion, feel free to add your own ideas, )

1. To admit there's a problem.
2. Evaluate said problem- (questions below are not in order of importance but as they came to me)
a) Is it serious? Does it really matter or are you making it a problem?
b) What steps are necessary to rectify said problem?
c) Do you need help?
d) What can you do perhaps in order to avoid or set protection against the same problem reocurring?
e) Understand different solutions may be possible
f) Listen to (even if you don't accept) advice

3. OPTION- Do Something, or do Nothing. Carry out 'the plan' which may involve (?)
a) (Strangely) Leaving it can be a decision- it'll resolve in it's own time, so don't worry about it
b) Struggling with it
c) Just doing it,

So what do you guys think? How would you fix the variety of problems you might face? Could you generalize all problems into a few basic groups and a strategy to face them?
Enjoy the discussion people and have a nice day. If it's not a nice day for you- I hope you can just make it a nice day for yourself and those around you. Goodnight,

Perhaps just no having "problems" would be an approach. But really, I don't know ...

Tao Te Ching 24 :

He who stands on tiptoe
doesn't stand firm.
He who rushes ahead
doesn't go far.
He who tries to shine
dims his own light.
He who defines himself
can't know who he really is.
He who has power over others
can't empower himself.
He who clings to his work
will create nothing that endures. If you want to accord with the Tao, just do your job,
then let go.

In Post Korean War and Vietnam War era the USAF cooked up the OODA decision loop ( Boyd ) because air combat was getting faster and more complex; observe, orient, decide, act.

The introduction of missiles into the air battlespace meant the fight moved beyond visual range and decision making needed to be faster then before. Additionally jet powered aircraft were getting quicker and quicker. This meant things were happening a lot quicker at longer ranges and so more relient on complex systems of communication, radar etc.

The best position of the aircraft for survival and success needed to be determined through the fusion of different sources of second hand information about the threat, and weapon's become tiered through different ranges even up to concepts such as long, medium, short and close ranges. Each using a different weapon system and different tactics. War tends to accelerate technological revolutions and military pilot's were undergoing a transformation in air combat.

Note this was quite specific to the skillset's and environment. What can be taken from it is they identified the moments where the person in command needed to categorize and change types of behaviour. They are each distinct set's of behaviour for the pilot, even perhaps down to individual groups of systems.

1. Observe - use of communications and detection systems to get a picture of the threat.

2. Orient - apply air combat maneouvering tactics into applicable weapon system's parameters.

3. Decide - Confirm target identity, authority for firing, danger to friendlies and non-combatants.

4. Act - Engage target and restart OODA loop, or abort and restart OODA loop.

The OODA loop was seemingly expanded and applied more widely across the military for awhile, but the real lesson in it was to understand the nature of the process and determine at which points the decision maker needs to adjust their activity to best stay in touch with the nature of the problem.

In its simplest form, decision making could be broken down to things like see problem, fix problem - but that obviously ignores the nature of the problem which will always determine how fixing it should be approached and accomplished. Some problems even fix themselves.

The Temple's Three Tenet's are outlined as Focus, Knowledge and Wisdom and can serve as a useful approach to general decision making. Adjust your focus to achieve better knowledge of it's nature and generate an applicable resolution to it ie; wisdom. That's sort of how I approach the topic, but there are other decision making cycles and matrix's out there which are more specific to circumstances.

Additionally, in human cognition (the brain) it could be a 5 step process;

1. Attention
2. Recognition
3. Integration
4. Planning
5. Execution

Unfortunately I don't remember the exact source, so clearly a breakdown in step 2 and 3 as a result of poor steps 4 and 5
:pinch:

Ahh, the OODA Loop, that wonderful thing AF ROTC bashes into our brains every year Just gotta love it.

One of the steps you mentioned, in the process of "fixing a problem", is to evaluate the problem using some of the questions you've stated. Then, you go on to say that you can either do something about the problem or not, after you've evaluated it. Therefore, perhaps you are really asking "how to address problems, rather than how to "fix" them.

Often times, I've realized that obsessively and fixatively trying to "fix a problem" doesn't always lead to a better outcome of the situation. Often times, we need to address the problem by either "fixing" ourselves or surrounding factors that lead to the problem being of no sizable threat any longer. Still addressing problems. May be not "fixing" them, though.

Try fixing the actual problem and not trying to control the effect. They're not actually the same thing. Things are more efficient that way.

What do you need to 'fix' a problem?

I'm just a simple guy and the idea of having a process of "fixing" a problem is...well too much like engineering. I think problem solving is a skill you get with experience. The more you fail at it the better you get.

I try to understand the problem as best I can and as I do a "fix"/solution becomes obvious if it is still a proble at all after thinking about it. Some things we should ignore and just let go away and save our energies for more important things. We make a lot of our own problems and just recognizing that alone can minimize them.

Thanks for everyone's input,
Orion- I like the idea you suggested, and I feel I understand BUT (oh that horrible word i apologize now for using, ) I've come to think that much of Tao is about being effortless and releasing attachment to titles and the 'important' self we often believe central to our "seperate" worlds (If I'm wrong about the tao message and I probably am if I'm trying to understand it rather than feel it, send me a message anyway thanks). The reason for my description is that I wonder if problems are indeed part of that small 'self' and when you deny the 'self', there doesn't have to be the problems... Perhaps all these problems are just god having a good game with himself (good old watts, )

Adder- Thanks for the military input about problem solving in air battles, twas pretty interesting. You also wrote some problems resolve themselves, and I wonder if EVERY problem eventually resolves itself, just due to time. If there isn't an observer to an old problem, there's no problem. And if a problem was in the past and all observers of that problem has moved on, the problem sorta moves on with them, Is it strange I find that idea almost comforting?

Seanching- feels a little bit like semantics, but I do get your point. The word 'addressing' suits what I wrote better rather than 'fixing'. Your point about trying to 'fix' the problem not always leading to a better outcome fits in with what Orion wrote i think. A little like too much effort or enthusiasm to fix a problem can sometimes in fact make it worse.

Daniel L.- why not do both? Or by trying to control the effect of the problem are you suggesting by doing that hinders fixing the actual problem sorry?

Rickie- I half find your profile picture scary and half annoying (you've heard of annoying orange I assume?) Fair point about experience, but that can be a double-edged blade, sometimes your experience with one 'sort' of problem may worsen a different sort of problem. And indeed, we do make alot of of our own problems.. Guess knowing that keeps people a little more self-aware,

(P.s. Excuse me for all the smilies, there's quite a few!)

Vusuki wrote: Daniel L.- why not do both? Or by trying to control the effect of the problem are you suggesting by doing that hinders fixing the actual problem sorry?

Thats exactly what I'm saying Vusuki. Once the problem is fixed there is no need to control the effects of that problem. For example why would you keep dumping buckets of water when you have no leaky pipe? Controlling the effect is dumping buckets of water every time the leaky pipe fills it. Fixing the pipe so it doesn't leak at all leaves no effect to be controlled.

It seems obvious but this isn't always the case. Recycling is an example of our efforts to control the effect while failing to fix the actual problem. :dry: