First of all, my compliments with your well written and researched article. Here is some critical feedback.

First the why. Why do we as a society realy need “complexity thinking” (CT). You mention a few at the very end, but it would be good to refer to an article or so that explains this a bit more in-depth. Without it, the topic gives the impression of being just another academic dogma. (which it is not, but that is how it feels without proper legitimation.)

Concerning this, you perhaps might like Ian McHarg's lecture. https://issuu.com/papress/docs/ian-mcharg https://soundcloud.com/vanhoesenj/creativefitting

I agree very much that CT will help us deal with “ethnic conflict”. We ought to teach our kids as from age 7-8 that reality has multiple layers. That two kids may differ in their ethnicity, but actually match on far more levels. And at age 11-12, then learn to dissect fake news:)

“Unlearning” only applies to the current living generations. Which hopefully will be replaced by ones for whom CT is the new normal. So I would not invest too much energy on it but focus on what it should be.

“[The biggest] challenge is [enabling] people to become sufficiently competent in complexity thinking, and conscious of the reality it projects,”. Yes and forget the next part about unlearning. Dilutes the focus..

I agree with Blignaut’s “situational awareness,” Because in real life “Linear Thinking” is perfectly useful. So, no reason at all to discard it (that would be dogmatic:), but to understand under which specific conditions its use is validated.

In my field, engineering, most structures are calculated using simple static analysis. Works fine, but it is good to know that it is part (time = endless, load =constant) of a much larger whole: structures dynamic response to loading. The big problem is, is that all structural engineering schools start out teaching the student static calculations and only, much later on, introduce dynamics. This is not helpful, on the contrary.