The social side is, among others, massively covered by Niklas Luhmann, the Zettelkasten guy. [1] is pure 2nd Order Cybernetics. The entry to it is a bit tough, it uses its own language. The precision presented, however, is brutal and you can’t get larger in scope, as it encompasses society as a whole, corporations, law, communication, all of it.

[1] Theory of Society, Volume 1+2

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann

> I am trying to help you

Quite the opposite. You are now trying to reframe your accusations as help.

1. I surely didn’t ask for accusations nor for help with this. If I need any, I will let you know.

2. Your assessment of my situation is incorrect and as such I'm removing myself from this conversation now. But I want you to have the last word, so, go ahead.

Let me summarize your chain of arguments up to this point:

“I don't think you really get either Design Thinking or Systems Thinking”

1. In the strict sense of science, Design Thinking is not a methodology, whether you like it or not. Look it up.

2. If you have no more arguments to offer besides falling back to accusations again and again, then I'm afraid I can't take you seriously.

There are so many subsets of the theory and I have no idea what would interest you and what you already know. Have you seen this paper?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220231906_The_Origi...

It leans a bit more on the cybernetic side but gives an overview and has what is possibly equally important as the text itself: some 7 pages of references. I started with openly accessible academic papers instead of books. If you find something interest there, you will surely have the direct reference to proceed further into that direction right at hand. Papers are shorter, you can switch the direction more easily. The price to pay is to miss the bigger picture a couple of times (which a book may convey) until some loose ends come together and create an aha moment.

(given what you said I would stay clear of all reinterpretations/popular science books. I would read something straight from the source, the people in the field, in whatever form it may show up.)

> So what do you mean by "Design Thinking does with its sole existence what Systems Thinking tried to avoid"?

It’s its approach to Systems. Take the 5 stages. Why 5, not 10 or 3? Why stages at all? Who’s to say? Why not enable people to create stages themselves and run from there? Or whatever fits their business.

Why not teach methodology instead of method?

>I'm not sure why you think it's relevant here.

I can only repeat myself: The value is in the process of inquiry itself. Systems Theory is not a set of methods. It is an epistemological based theory and requires a shift in how a person perceives reality, the often cited worldview. How do you know what you know? By assuming 5 stages? Is that objectively induced? What happens to that if looking through the lens of radical constructivism? The theory requires to incorporate multiple worldviews and with that, negates the assumption of an objective truth.