When trying to solve a tough problem, should you try to fix the entire structure/foundation (yes) or just the minimal flaws (no)?

  • From the ground up

    From the ground up is almost always the best situation. Minimal fixes can actually be the best when cost is a serious issue, but, overall, fixing something from the ground up is almost the best in the long term - especially if a person needs to think about the very long term.

  • A Tough Problem

    I personally think that some moral values apply to everyone, or at least they should apply to everyone. Everyone should at least try and be a good enough person to not go out of their way to do bad things or hurt others. In that sense everyone should have that small amount of moral values.

  • Yes, when trying to solve a problem you should always try to fix the foundation.

    While it may be easier to put in a temporary fix to a problem you are having it will likely continue to re-occur because you did not take steps to prevent the problem from happening in the future, when you fix the foundation of a problem you are solving that problem for good.

  • Minimal flaws compound

    If, in the grand scheme of things, the only flaws that you will have to deal with are minor ones, it is a small matter to patch them up and move on. However, if the scope of the problem is great enough, simply throwing on a bandage every now and then will only be sufficient for so long. Eventually, a minor fix will not be enough to mend an inherently broken system.

  • Yes, you should fix the entire structure/foundation when solving a problem.

    I think that when trying to solve a tough problem, it is important that you try to fix the entire structure/foundation of said problem. Fixing just the minimal flaws here and there might be a good enough tactic, but it might also cause some problems with unresolved issues. That is why I think the former is better.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.