Chuck, Ken, Chris, et al.
I lean towards Chuck's take:
> I have resisted commenting on the ³wicked² vs ³tame² debate until now
> because I believe that it is a false dichotomy, a somewhat archaic
> conceptualization, and one lacking a theoretical basis that would make it
> worthy of the effort being expended to articulate the issues being raised.
> I suggest a much simpler approach based on how the mind works. Everyone
> (engineers and artists included) easily, often subconsciously, applies what
> they know (or know how to do) to resolve the needs, desires and problems
> they confront. When problematic situations are not ³resolved² through these
> means, we consciously focus on those things in the situation that trouble us
> and apply different ways of thinking to change the situation to something
> preferable, often resorting to new information, ideas and technology as we
> do so. Nothing is really ³wicked² or ³tame² except our emotional reactions
> to and feelings about the difficulties we encounter.
because I don't think 'nature' has problems - only humans do. And if there
are really no problems, then there aren't any wicked (or tame) problems. That
is, wickedness is in the eye of the beholder. However, humans do tend to see
things as 'problems' for whatever reasons, so there's 2 questions here:
1. How can we get to preferred situations without thinking about 'problems'?
2. While we're working that out, how can we deal effectively with how we see
things now?
It is as part of answering Q#2 that the wicked/tame thing can be handy. It
might not be the best answer, but it'll let us keep getting things done while
we work out something better. ...rather an engineering-y way of doing
things...:-)
Cheers.
Fil
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|