Gunnar: Thanks for moving the conversation to something substantive (if
subjectively so)
I take the position that talent is both innate and nurtured. The innate
argument assumes that certain neural patterns and processing "styles"
are inherited. The "nurtured" argument assumes that whatever predispositions
are there at birth are developed further and adapted (or reduced and
diminished) through experience in the world (including design education).
The nature of those experiences are critical, given that they provide
whatever room for improvement there is. We are only now becoming aware of
how important very early learning experiences are. They "prune" the
potential of a child's mind by closing down certain neural pathways and
reinforcing others to help the child fit their "niche" in the phenomenal and
circumstantial world they find themselves in. Design education needs an
early start based on a better understanding of what is happening in (and to)
the minds of children. With better understanding there we might really
understand what to do with "higher"education.
I support Rand's idea that "intuition" is innate and the basis for talent
(which I understand as practical intelligence that is effectively applied in
any field of endeavour.) I just don't believe it is as all important as he
does. Rather, I believe intuition is present in everyone's thought in the
form of preconscious decisions regarding what approach to take in different
situations. Such decisions depend as much on prior experience as on the
"habits of mind" that may have emerged through genetic/physiological means.
I don't think "design science" has seriously considered how "intuition"
might work in design thinking. I also think design education is guided by
the "trained" intuitions of teachers who often don't realize the difference
between their "intuitions" and their students.
Have a great year.
Chuck Burnette
On 12/29/04 1:17 PM, "Gunnar Swanson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2004, at 3:07 AM, Ricardo wrote:
>> There is a large body of literature on 'innate talent', which is what
>> seems to be discussed here. Most accounts of innate talent make use of
>> circular reasoning: "X designs so well because X has talent. How do I
>> know X has talent? Thatıs obvious, X designs so well!"
>
> Yes. I have described Paul Rand's descriptions of good and bad design
> and how to judge as tautological egocentrism. I think the phrase may
> work for his comments on talent as well.
>
> The question of talents being innate is interesting but at the level of
> university education it may not matter whether talents are born or
> developed early. The immediate question for post-secondary educators is
> which skills can be learned late, which (if any) cannot, and by whom.
>
> The "by whom" part is the practical question for post-secondary
> educators: When can aptitudes (or lack thereof) can be spotted and how?
> Are the regular university admission standards worthwhile for
> admissions to design studies? (This assumes for the moment that they
> are worthwhile for university admissions.) What greater or lesser
> standards would be applicable as measures of what talents?
>
> Of course a good case could be made for developing certain design
> talents most among those with the least aptitude. If we assume certain
> sorts of "design thinking" would be of general benefit to society, a
> wider distribution of a lower level of some "talents" may be more
> important than the acute development of skills in a much smaller group.
>
> Gunnar
> ----------
> Gunnar Swanson Design Office
> 536 South Catalina Street
> Ventura California 93001-3625 USA
>
> +1 805 667-2200
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|