On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:06 AM, Charles Burnette wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:10 AM, jeremy hunsinger wrote:
>
>> I tend to think that humans are not going to act significantly
>> differently if you make different assumptions about them .
>
> I think you miss the point entirely. It is not the other person that
> will act differently because of how we interpret their intentions.
> The interpreter will - and that may lead to changes in the behavior
> of the one interpreted.
umm, i wouldn't say they are not reflexive, because they are, but the
point is, that while we do make messes, analytical tools are not going
to make people say 'oh hai, i can haz cheezburger' or murder someone
or really cause any social or ethical issues in the general populace,
so long as they are done ethically and reflexively. however, it
should be noted that critical research does in fact seek to create
that change, but alas, it rarely has such effects in my opinion. Has
actor-network theory changed design much? perhaps... have the majority
of designers taken it into any account... i'm guessing no.
>
> if we in the end have 2 designs, and we are talking about the
> designs, then for the purposes of research, there is no need to
> import any intent or other transcendental/hidden properties.
>
> We disagree. Interpretation of anything requires the application of
> assumptions or whatever knowledge is accessible to the interpreter.
> Knowledge is cumulative and adaptive and thus is selectively
> intentional and usually transcendental - ie factual evidence, if it
> exists, is repurposed to suit the situation at hand .
the factual evidence is merely that you have two processes producing 2
designed objects, if the designs are the same, then what can you
infer? if we don't tell you one was human designed, and one was not,
what can you infer? nothing. so if there is 'nothing' to infer from
the design in situation of non-knowledge, and you can explain the
design, then what is the necessity of differentiating the producers?
the idea is that you treat all acting agents the same, until you have
an observable reason to treat them otherwise that cannot be explained
by treating them the same. a machine and a human end up, if they act
in the same way, perform the same operations, as the same for
analytical purposes.
and no, nothing transcendental is factual, it is usually just
axiomatic and a matter of faith, but can't be tested in this world.
facts require some relation to the world, which i tend to think of as
'soundness', a fact is more or less sound as it corresponds more or
less with the world.
>
> When you manage to operationalize someone's intent without other
> narrative possibilities, I'll be interested to see it.
>
> So would I! Any Interpretation of an intent is a narrative! I can
> only give you a conceptual model of how I assume, based on knowledge
> of cognitive processes, an intent becomes operational in someone's
> mind. I can not situate the model in their mind, hence it is an
> interpretive stance that I take - one that helps me make sense of
> whatever information they present to me.
i don't deny the power of narrative here, but i don't think that
excluding the descriptive power of intent or intention will hurt
narratives of design. they might actually allow it much more freedom
in freeing it from the authorial and artistic narratives.
>
> Chuck
|