Reasoning short circuits comprehension.
Reasoning is part of behavioral change that has happened due to
dependence on 'knowledge'. What is known can only be understood using
reasoning. Among the literate cultures language becomes the cognitive
source or source of 'knowledge'.
My study of almost 25 years has been on the difference in 'BEING'
between the literates and non literates. Non literates should be re
named as sense literates and literates the text literates.
The fundamental difference between these two are that among literates
reasoning is the frame work with which intuition is used and non
literates use intuition as the frame work and reasoning becomes an
integral aspect.
The alienation of modern man is precisely due to the fragmentation of
mind and body caused by conscious reasoning. Reasoning is an embodied
aspect of being. The child in the womb follows an internal logic,
develop itself autonomously responding to mother's activities.
Among non literate communities the child is left free to understand
the world. Modernity treats 'freedom' as something that can be given
or taken away where as among non literates freedom is an existential
reality. Like a dog on the street or a tree it grows in autonomy,
responding to the context, making sense of what the world is about.
Autonomy is not same as individuality. Individuality is the corrupted
form of autonomy. Individuality is driven by conscious or fragmented
reasoning.
In order to understand cognition it needs to be studied the way
digestive system has been studied. The moment we shift this to its
total phenomenon or we study as cognitive system we are able to see
how the source influences what is understood. we need to explore
comprehension the way we studied digestive system. Looking at all
aspects related to food and digestion- from why we eat, what we eat,
how we eat, when we eat, how it changes with age, how does the body
regulate out likes and dislikes, how does the mind interfere in the
likes and dislikes of the body, what happens after we eat, what gets
eliminated, what gets ingested, what transformation takes place and
what we become in terms of not only physical health but also mental
health and so on.
So cognitive inputs also needs to be studied in depth in this manner
and looking at how cognitive input effects the body. We need to ask
the same questions.
Among non literates the process begins with observation and this by
and by leads to understanding. The unknown can only be observed with
open ness. Infact designers unlike people from other professions tend
to use this as designers have to 'observe'.
It is interesting that the subject is 'engineering and culture conflicts'.
Infact this is so accurate to describe lierates and non literates if
we change this a little and re write as 'engineered minds and cultured
minds'.
What we are experiencing in the modern world is nothing but
engineering the mind of people. This is natural outcome of the modern
beingness which is to plan and control.
At this juncture it will be interesting to do a study on the three
paradigms which are experiential, literate and digital. One can see
the structure and nature of the cognitive source in the structure and
nature of human beings that fall in to the respective paradigms. The
structure of language- linear, sequential, fragmented is the structure
of the literate minds.
The integral nature of the real world is totally missing in the
digital world even though it is being claimed as new orality. The two
are worlds apart.
See the video of Prof Iain Mcgrilchrist The Divided Brain and the
Making of the Western World.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbUHxC4wiWk&noredirect=1
Jinan
On 17/02/2014, Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> don
> since you talk or introduce the issue of reasoning i am with you at least
> half way. offering reasons for what was done or is proposed to be done is
> common and necessary whenever other people have tone on board. reasoning is
> situation specific, geared to particular addressees, and has to do with
> something of concern to speakers and listeners.
>
> this is miles apart from abstracting and objectifying a universal
> rationality from the practice of reasoning - as if there would be one
> correct way for all - which I was reacting to
>
> klaus
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Feb 16, 2014, at 19:25, "Don Norman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Klaus Krippendorff <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> I vowed not to continue this discussion, so here is a mild violation:
>>> Three papers and their abstracts that I have found useful.
>>>
>>
>> Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2010). Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an
>> Argumentative Theory. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.
>> 57-74, 2011*. http://ssrn.com/paper=1698090
>> Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make
>> better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads
>> to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the
>> function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the
>> function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate
>> arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given
>> the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their
>> vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the
>> psychology
>> of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better
>> explained
>> in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning
>> tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same
>> problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to
>> be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but
>> after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious
>> confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are
>> actually
>> arguing but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective
>> of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort
>> evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist.
>> Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify
>> but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally
>> described
>> as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an
>> argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion,
>> and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found.
>>
>> Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why Heuristics Work. *Perspectives on
>> Psychological
>> Science, 3*(1), 20-29.
>>
>> The adaptive toolbox is a Darwinian-inspired theory that conceives of the
>> mind as a modular system that is composed of heuristics, their building
>> blocks, and evolved capacities. The study of the adaptive toolbox is
>> descriptive and analyzes the selection and structure of heuristics in
>> social and physical environments. The study of ecological rationality is
>> prescriptive and identifies the structure of environments in which
>> specific
>> heuristics either succeed or fail. Results have been used for designing
>> heuristics and environments to improve professional decision making in
>> the
>> real world.
>>
>> Gigerenzer, G. (2007). *Gut feelings: the intelligence of the
>> unconscious*.
>> New York: Viking.
>>
>> Gigerenzer is one of the researchers of behavioral intuition responsible
>> for the science behind Malcolm Gladwell's bestseller Blink. Gladwell
>> showed
>> how snap decisions often yield better results than careful analysis. Now,
>> Gigerenzer explains why intuition is such a powerful decision-making
>> tool.
>> Drawing on a decade of research, Gigerenzer demonstrates that gut
>> feelings
>> are actually the result of unconscious mental processes--processes that
>> apply rules of thumb that we've derived from our environment and prior
>> experiences. The value of these rules lies precisely in their difference
>> from rational analysis--they take into account only the most useful bits
>> of
>> information rather than attempting to evaluate all possible factors. By
>> examining various decisions we make, Gigerenzer shows how gut feelings
>> not
>> only lead to good practical decisions, but also underlie the moral
>> choices
>> that make our society function.
>>
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>> Don Norman
>> Nielsen Norman Group, IDEO Fellow
>> [log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
>> Book: "Design of Everyday Things: Revised and
>> Expanded<http://amzn.to/ZOMyys>"
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
