So, to further explain systems views...
(just an imaginary case study)
E.g imagine a study showing that very few traders come from the state of Iowa. It is very disproportionate to the population size of Iowa. Of course there are natural variations by generations, and among any US state, but Iowa has consistently been at the bottom throughout the last 80 years. That looks like something that could be explored to understand --- it's a situational system where something is clearly contributing to the current state of affairs. It could be parental education, educational programmes, ethnic background, religious views etc - you name it ... an open mind is needed to consider "everything" and not disqualify anything.
So, we go through the case and see what is closest to this situation system study. Well, the firms employing traders are relevant, and so are the educational institutions for traders, the grants, the scholarships, the trading metropolitans, media, public interest, savings tradition, public understanding, successes, scandals, population diversity, available funds/fortunes, incentives, activism, contact network --- in short, a whole lot of things are relevant - to a varying degree. We already know that something is attributing to this trend, because there is something producing this consistent situation. It could be all natural and just the evolutionary path chosen by anyone from Iowa, but there is a fact of this imbalance and we can try and understand the reason behind the imbalance. There is nothing judgemental in this, it is just understanding it - maybe free will and choice by people from Iowa. We don't know... yet.
So we look into things, and we find that many of the people from Iowa follow traditions and have farms to keep running, passing on family traditions. Fair enough, nothing bad or something like that - just a choice. Further along, we see that traders are employed or funded according to contact networks, and this network favours and is skewed towards existing trader backgrounds. I.e it is not so easy to "break in" to the trading world - just a little resistance, but that is just because of evolution - however it is an influence that is present and continuous. Furthermore, we find that educational resources are geared towards completely different areas than trading in Iowa, so it is difficult to get an education relevant to trading -- as well as the media not covering success stories or informational/educational facts about trading - just the scandals and vilification of traders. Then we also see that religious leaders denounce traders and "speculators", further entrenching the views. Along the study we see that income of the people of Iowa is very low compared to where traders come from, as well as the debt of people in Iowa is invested into farms, property and similar. The population of Iowa as a whole is very centred around the agricultural economy, with little service completely detached from this epicentre.
OK, now we start to see an emerging systemic bias as to why there are so disproportionally few traders from Iowa - and it seems like it is normal evolutionary choices. So now we need to consider, if anyone wanting to become a trader, but is from Iowa - how does this whole process influence his personal path towards becoming a trader... then we see how many personal preferences and contact networks play out in making this path more difficult. Some is because of the geographical background and the society of Iowa, while other strong influences are caused by external societies and their bias towards supporting their own - and not any outsiders into the world of trading.
With the Internet, now anyone can become a private trader, but since the contact networks are so strong - the systemic bias continues to favour those within the already established contact networks ... tips, methods, information and secrecy.
That amounts to partly corruption of the system with negative influences on traders from Iowa, who are more prone to become losing traders - further entrenching the public image in Iowa - and making them easy prey for more established traders.
Through the study - we can identify single firms, contact networks, powerful individuals, educational bias and so on... but it is not fair to put all the blame on any single entity - because it is a total systemic bias. Is it fair? Well, obviously not all of it - since the negative influences should ideally be offset by more positive paths so that the freedom of choice is there - for ANY person to chose to become a trader, and have access to equal information as any other trader, emerging or already established. That is how the system becomes balanced - and no longer with a systemic bias enforced by negative influence or self-interests dominating and increasing the difficulty of the path to becoming a trader, when you come from Iowa.
Understanding the system makes it a neutral point of view, and while "conspiracy theorists" and "fringe science" starts looking into the individual entities contributing to the difficulty and systemic bias using logics and infering blame using reductionism and "logics" normally applicable to closed systems --- what is the systems view is how this whole situational system is compounded and needs to be able to change - consensually and foster freedom of information, thought and choice. That is how the system becomes more sustainable and not going through strong swings of ups and downs - maybe even breakdowns.
This is the big difference between "logics" and "system views". With logics, you would typically follow various "paths of reasoning, natural deduction" while all the time reducing the focus point and coming to a conclusion. Of course the conclusion of such reductionism is most times completely unreasonable - because of the inherent "complexity" - i.e the intersection of various systems, where logics applicable within the closed systems would be projected outwards and no longer have validity or applicability.
This is ultimately also true for "religion" and other ideology - where one sets a "universally absolute truth" and then tries to influence and control everything into alignment of this "truth".
In reality, truth is a component of any system - where it can be defined and found using knowledge and methods like logic. It is however, not always applicable to every other system, but many times into intersecting systems with situational close proximity and influence on each other.
E.g in astronomical terms ... what happens in other galaxies does not matter so much to our Milky Way, or local news do not matter so much to someone on the other side of the world. There is always the "Butterfly effect", but it is just an understanding that effects MAY be transferred and extrapolated from one situation to another - but there is NOT a true/false or yes/no bivalent impact from one remote event to another event in a separate system.
Bivalence is a very restricted and simplistic view of the world - and there is the modern understanding that the world is not digital or composed of true/false or yes/no facts or similar bivalent "universally absolute truths". Rather, the world is a complex of intersecting systems which effects and interactions are largely unknown - and changing, evolving - making us perceive randomness and chaos. Of course there is free choice and will, so the world is not predetermined or guided by "destiny" - but there can be temporary strong bias which directs anyone into a specific situation.
Hope this clarifies a little on systems philosophy.
