Eberhardt Rechtin identified four approaches to system design that have come to define the field of systems architecture. Concurrently, anthropologist Mary Douglas and colleagues developed the Cultural Theory of Risk, which argues for categorizing cultural forms into four types. More recently, Joel Moses has explored four generic systems architectural structures, and examined the relationships between these structures and a system’s flexibility - its capacity to respond to changes in the environment. In this paper, I compare and contrast these three paradigms. Overlap between these approaches implies that certain system structures, and their corresponding design methodologies, would be more preferred in certain cultural contexts. In particular, I examine how patterns of risk perception, risk blindness, and the attribution of blame when a system failure occurs may co-occur with architectural choices. I provide specific cases that highlight these patterns. Finally, areas where these paradigms differ are used to illuminate opportunities and challenges for incorporating flexibility into design given societal norms.