Regarding the 10 000 hours idea: not everyone in that field appears to agree that this is a valid rule.
"individual differences in accumulated amount of deliberate practice accounted for about one-third of the reliable variance in performance in chess and music, leaving the majority of the reliable variance unexplained and potentially explainable by other factors."
The are a number of articles there on the subject, if one cares to go in-depth.
David Z. Hambrick, Erik M. Altmann, Frederick L. Oswald, Elizabeth J. Meinz, Fernand Gobet, Guillermo Campitelli, Accounting for expert performance: The devil is in the details, Intelligence, Available online 24 February 2014, ISSN 0160-2896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.01.007.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000087)
/Lars
.........................................................................
LARS ALBINSSON
+46 (0) 70 592 70 45
[log in to unmask]
AFFILIATIONS:
MAESTRO MANAGEMENT AB
CALISTOGA SPRINGS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY OF BORÅS
LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY
.........................................................................
5 maj 2014 kl. 13:17 skrev Salisbury, Martin <[log in to unmask]>:
Hi Terry,
A number of people have respectfully taken your propositions seriously and devoted some time to composing messages that ask you to elaborate a little and to answer some simple, fundamental questions in order that we can more fully understand what you are putting forward. It is disappointing that these have been met with slippery evasions again. Surely Ken’s first two questions at least can be addressed if we are to take what you say seriously? -
(1) Are these skills important for ALL designers? If so, why? If not, why?
(2) If these skills are not important for all designers, for which designers
are these skills important? Why?
All that is being asked for is clarification as to whether we should be reading you in relation to all areas of design, or just your own. Is this unreasonable? If the latter, we can move on. If the former, you will need to do a little better in explaining.
Phrases such as ‘There is a problem in what you ask.’ and ‘your questions presume a particular outcome…’ are no more useful or relevant than are avocados and cabbages (reminiscent of Eric Cantona's wonderfully baffling allusions to sardines and trawlers). I am sure I am not the only one who would appreciate some answers, rather than wooly assertions. If I understand correctly, you now seem to have moved to suggesting that the maths would be useful only to model the likely effects of designs and in basic measurements e.g. typeface sizes and the strength of the heel of a shoe. This is a different tack. There is nothing new here.
By the way, I was interested to read this morning in the New York Times (international weekly- comes free with my Observer) an article titled ‘And They Call This Progress?’ by Tom Brady. Beginning with the hopeless inaccuracy of wristband fitness trackers, the author examines the disappointing failure of ‘big data’ to solve problems and the ‘echo chamber’ effect of so much data coming from the web: “If a big data analysis is a product of big data, vicious cycles abound, as users of Google Translate can attest.”
I still cannot quite see what purpose is served by failing to accept that design is all about bringing together technology and humanity, not trying to drive a wedge between the two.
Best wishes on a sunny public holiday Monday,
Professor Martin Salisbury
Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration
Director, The Centre for Children's Book Studies
Cambridge School of Art
0845 196 2351
[log in to unmask]
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Terence Love [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 5:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ten Thousand Hours for Expertise
Dear Ken,
Thank you for your message.
There is a problem in what you ask. When you ask and interpret, you do so
from a particular point of view.
Your questions presume a particular outcome and your comfort at comparing
things with a particular way of proceeding you see as normal. Its better
if I don't answer your five questions and instead try to answer the spirit
of what you were asking.
The reason is the situation is a bit like me proposing someone might like to
try avocadoes and having responses such as: ' Avocadoes are the same colour
as the cabbage I like. Please tell me why I should eat them as they don't
have leaves' or 'Explain exactly how long I should boil the avocado'.
Instead here are sensible suggestions.
Simple arithmetic is simplistic viewed from the level of the school student.
The roles , understanding and usefulness of 'simple' arithmetical
operations becomes much more powerful as mathematical understanding
increases. This is much the same, but very different to, the way the same
words might be used to make a simple children's story or an advanced
allegorical teaching story. The difference depends on the understanding of
the creator.
As a more practical alternative to that presented in your 5 questions, I'd
suggest incremental inclusion of maths in conventional design courses,
starting with simple arithmetic examples and support in 1st year and
building mathematical conceptual richness and skill over the program, whilst
using an operationally -limited palette of mathematical concepts.
Probably the easiest starting point is simple proportions and ratios.
An example: What size typeface does a headline of a billboard have to be to
be read at 150 metres? (ratios from on-screen eye reading distance to 150
metres)
Second example: For largest percentile of individuals, how much stronger
does the heel counter of a shoe have to be relative to the anthropometric
norm? (ratios of leverage due to different scale of bones (1:1) and muscles
(square law))
Simple use of proportions can become quite complex.
Third example: As screen size decreases, information density increases for
a fixed web display, and cognitive effort increases in due to changes in
multiple factors (e.g. Fitts Law, font size, element size and proximity,
reduction in resolution etc). Using proportions estimate the differences in
properties of a webpage elements and content that need to be made to
maintain equivalent cognitive effort reducing from a Macbook Pro 15" to an
iphone 5 display.
Additionally, using proportions might be beneficially extended to simple
first order predicate logic (for avoiding basic fallacious reasoning),
combinatorics for visual element combinations (see www.designtheory.org ),
morphological analysis for design structures, and thence to simple
non-dimensional analysis for scaling successfully off existing design
solutions.
This would simply require some ongoing continuing professional development
for design educators. Something that one would expect as a matter of course?
All in fun and in the fullness of time in course development.
Incidentally, I was surprised about your comment about the guidelines for
design thinking I listed. The guidelines I gave for design thinking are in
common use in many areas of technical design (the largest group of design
fields) and used by all who use graphic design software as they are embedded
in e.g. Adobe products. They were earlier described by authors such as John
Chris Jones, Christopher Alexander, Nam Suh, Henri Petroski, Michael French,
Archer, Asimow, Nigel Cross, Dasgupta, W Gordon, and many others and are
explicit in codes such as VDI 2221. Hardly just my way of designing?
Best wishes ,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Honorary Fellow
IEED, Management School
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
--
World-leading research. The government rated 8 areas of our research activity as world-leading in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, they were: Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration.
This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named
recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in
error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show
them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and
then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions
expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University.
Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are
free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing
practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which
may not be a 100% secure communications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
