gunnar and rosan

on the issue of cause and effect, i side with rosan.

re. talent, this clearly is a cultural construct, an invention by which to
explain why some people are better at things than others. as such it makes
good sense to accept rosan's proposition that the culture she grew up in did
not (habitually) explain human abilities that way. if you grow up in a
culture in which talent is valued, then you are inclined to use the concept
(culturally appropriate i might add). ---- for another example, consider
consciousness. it is a cultural construct as well. there is a history of
development of this idea but no natural cause.

gunnar, you seem to look for a causal explanation of the explanation
"talent." and you seem not to realize that by searching for explanations of
explanations, you operate in the domain of language, not of the material
world, which physics attempts to explain causally. you might be preferring
causal explanation, as physicists attempt to do but then you are oblivious
to the language you are using.

gunnar, you say you wish to distinguish between cause and effects and you
question why rosan, less insistent on causal explanations, could be
interested in design. to me design cannot be explained causally. if it
were, then design would come naturally as leaves grow on trees or matter
decomposes in time. in fact any attempt to use causal models to explain
design, or write computer programs of design activity bypasses design.

i have nothing against causal explanations, but to conclude from someone
resisting the distinction between causes and effects that he or she couldn't
be interested in design is the opposite conclusion that i would draw from
the exchange.

have a happy new year

klaus


-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Gunnar Swanson
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 4:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Karate Kid and Spiderman


Rosan,

> what is interesting for me in your response is that you distinguish
> between cause and effect.

Yes. I do. If you do not then I wonder why you are the least bit
interested in design.

Just because two things are difficult to separate does not mean they
are the same.

> we don't know, if anything, we only know
> the results of 'talent' and as such, i prefer to call the results, the
> results of learning.

Even with my years spent in advertising I have learned that what
someone prefers to call something and what it actually is may or may
not be related.

Your earlier statement did not assert that the results of the exercise
of talents were solely the result of learning (although that statement
would have been contrary to evidence.) You asserted that the talents
themselves were the result of learning and clearly implied that they
were solely the result of learning. Is that your position? Do you
assert that for any reason other than personal ideology?

Gunnar

On Jan 2, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Rosan Chow wrote:
> what is interesting for me in your response is that you distinguish
> between cause and effect. and speaking of complexity theory, and for
> that
> matter its philosophical resemblance (e.g. john dewey), cause and
> effect
> are often indistinguishable.
>
> seeing in this perspective, 'talent' is a circular concept (sorry i
> didn't read all the posts, maybe it was mentioned already). that means
> i
> am not saying much about 'talent' except that it is a social construct
> that people use, in this case, to make sense of how people acquire
> competence.
>
> doesn't 'talent' really exist? we don't know, if anything, we only know
> the results of 'talent' and as such, i prefer to call the results, the
> results of learning.
>
> rosan
>
>> How have you come to believe that?
>>
>> I suspect that nobody much thinks intelligence (however defined) or
>> talent (by pretty much any definition) are the -cause- of learning.
>>
>> Various talents (I would include most definitions of intelligence in
>> that phrase) clearly have a great effect on patterns of learning
>> regardless of how the talents are formed. Do you disagree?
>>
>> Do you really claim that all potentials are equally distributed at
>> birth? Is it possible that you are confusing unnoticed talents being
>> revealed late with some universally distributed talent?
>>
>> Are you disagreeing that the operative question is, to the extent we
>> decide that talents are acquired, which talents can be learned to what
>> degree by which people at what time? (And to what degree specific
>> talents are required to do specific tasks in an excellent manner?)
>>
>> 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
>
>
----------
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