Dayuhan---have you yourself ever taken the time to take a specific problem and tear it into ever smaller "pieces" until you "see" and "understand" the real driver which might in fact be totally different from where you started with your own biases/assumptions when you initially looked at the problem set?

Everything these days the last time I checked are human driven and in order to "understand" and "see" the WHAT and the WHY one must fully "understand" the environment of the human, the reasons for his actions, the relationships of humans inside his environment, the interrelationship with other humans in their specific environments, the environment itself and the inherent drivers inside that environment and on and on ---this is what ecosystem is all about---every insect/animal on this planet has one and so humans are what not to have one?

Are you saying we are in fact so different from other life forms that we kind of have our "own" life space thing going for us, BUT it is in fact not an ecosystem?

So how do you describe yourself and the environment you live in--WHAT terms do you use--and WHY do you use them?

What we are just a bunch of humans drifting through the time/space continum who pretend to understand they know what is going on around themselves, but in no way are capable of changing anything as we humans have what no influence on things around us because we belong to no "system" thus are not required to interact with anything else---come on.

One is often surprised at the actual driver, relationship, or event of a problem set when it is all said and done---but it takes someone who understands how to use the method---throwing words, comments such as the comment below does not really work when attempting to "understand" and "see" a problem.

Throwing words, comments, around can be done by anyone ---doing the actual work is far harder and more intensive than you seem to think it is.

It is not about trying to "prove" your own particular (personal/political/religious) beliefs or biases---it is all about trying to "understand and see" the drivers of a particular group, person, population, environment---or Robert calls his WHAT and WHY.

The reason I am "assuming" you have not ever done a really thorough analysis on any problem set is actually reflected in the first sentence in your comment below--
"My observation of the discourse
" infers you have never conducted a thorough analysis on anything using as you yourself quoted
"conflict ecosystems", "complex adaptive systems". "complexity theory", "quantum mechanics", "postmodernism", etc, ad nauseam
Give me one example of your own actual analytical research on any particular problem set where you have used nothing taken from any of the methods you have just quoted above.

What do you use then as an analytical tool/tools -personal observations, personal biases, political views, religious views, media reports, gut instinct (which many times is actually correct), other people's quotes--?

My observation of the discourse ecosystem in which we operate is that about 99.7% of the invocations of terms like "conflict ecosystems", "complex adaptive systems". "complexity theory", "quantum mechanics", "postmodernism", etc, ad nauseam, have minimal relevance to the construct referred to and are intended not to explain, but to identify those who invoke them with what are presumed to be cutting edge intellectual concepts. In short, they aren't meant to clarify, they are meant to make those who use them sound erudite, to position the user in a hypothetical inner circle, and avoid the risk of explaining something clearly. To use an expression Robert has been known to use, they are meant to complify, not simplicate. Buzzwords and jargon do not promote clarity, they obstruct it.
Buzzwords and jargon do not promote clarity, they obstruct it.
You are so totally right but what do you yourself specifically use in analyzing the world around you----buzz words and jargon---interesting is it not?

So when you ask repeatedly for evidence--WHAT research methodology are you actually using if given evidence when you have excluded any of the research techniques listed in your quote?

Personal biases are easy to state, but really hard to defend.

Or as the old saying goes "talk is cheap so everyone has an opinion"---that is one analysis method I guess.