Dear Don and List members
Well, here is an example of the too often unpleasantness of this list.
Don, I do not believe it is acceptable, reasonable or fair to cite a private exchange of creativity and ideas over dinner, in the context of academic debate. Especially when it is posted with no other meaningful intention than to diminish another person. Especially someone - who as far as I can see, has been pushed onto the stage of this list, without his consent.
Don- you appear to be accusing Tim of naiveté without any self-reflection or awareness of your own arrogance in doing this.
You are accusing Tim of the heinous crime of doing exactly what you are doing here - that is: expressing his/your own views
Fiona
Fiona Candy
[log in to unmask]
www.a-brand.co.uk
www.vimeo.com/fionacandy
https://www.linkedin.com/in/fionacandy
On 16 Oct 2014, at 17:44, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Jeremy hunsinger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Given recent and recurring debates on this list on the nature of things and
>> things with agency, this talk by Tim Ingold might be informative for some.
>>
>
> I am sorry to say that given the two long debates I just had with Tim, one
> after a talk he gave the other during dinner, that i cannot recommend him.
>
> He is witty and erudite, well-read and incredibly naive, ill-informed
> (despite being well-read), and just plain wrong.
>
> Example: at dinner he went on and on about why the concept of "flow" was
> flawed, explaining that flow also requires friction. He then explained that
> when he played his cello, as the bow flowed across the strings, no sound
> would be produced unless there was friction. I suggested he was taking the
> metaphor suggested by the word too literally. He then expanded on his
> definition of Flow. I tried to explain that his definition had nothing to
> do with the concept of "Flow" by Csikszentmihalyi. He responded that
> Csikszentmihalyi's definition was wrong and his was better. I tried to
> explain that his definition was for a completely different concept and he
> did not have the right to redefine a well-known concept simply so that he
> could criticize it He then started a loud argument about his right to
> define the concept any way he wished. I tried to say that he cold only do
> so if he changed the name, "call it Flow2," I suggested. He told me I was
> out of order.
>
> I wouldn't mind a legitimate criticism, but not one just for the pleasure
> of being witty in demolishing a concept.
>
> In his talk he did something similar about the field of cognitive science,
> which he described as being petty, wrong, and irrelevant. I tried to
> explain that his definition of cognitive science bore no resemblance to the
> field as i understood it. He told me I was wrong about what cognitive
> science is. Well, I am often wrong about things, but not this one: the
> audience here at UC San Diego enjoyed that one.
>
> I hate to attack people personally. Tim is a very pleasant guy: I enjoyed
> my dinner with him.
>
> But he distorts concepts to fit his rhetoric. I prefer that the rhetoric
> fit the concept.
>
> Don
>
> Don Norman
> Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego: Think Observe Make
> Prof. Emeritus Cognitive Science & Psychology, UCSD
> [log in to unmask] www.jnd.org <http://www.jnd.org/>
> http://designlab.ucsd.edu/
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|