Hi Don,
You help a lot. Thank you for your post. I would have made a similar argument.
Lubomir
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Norman
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 6:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: From material to "social design" (was Re: Clinical Research and Clinical Guidelines)
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Jean Schneider <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> I hope you will find time to elaborate more ! I would enjoy hearing
> more about your experience and insights !
>
Here is my elaboration.
I have often said that Engineers tread heavily into territory that psychologists fear. This is the same phenomenon.
To someone not in the social and behavioral sciences, it all seems obvious and straightforward. So engineers and designers use their over-simplified understanding to make bold predictions and designs.
I believe this is what Lubomir is also referring to.
Worse, the social and behavioral scientists cringe, because the engineers and designers use erroneous beliefs, or extract pithy statements from legitimate work, but extend it far beyond what the social and behavioral scientists consider reasonable.
I cringe every time I hear of Maslow's hierarchy, or oversimplified views of personality or what simple measures of skin conductivity or facial expression tell us about people's emotional states.
BUT, to be fair to the engineers and designers. The social and behavioral scientists give little choice in the matter. They are often completely uninterested in design and engineering applications, so they do not give us useful models that we can use in our work. As a result, engineers and designers are forced to use whatever little they know.
So I put a huge portion of the blame on the behavioral and social scientists.
(There are exceptions. The work of Chris Wickens, for example,provides very valuable models for attention and control.
http://www.fabbs.org/index.php?cID=190 )
Don
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jean
>
> Le 6 déc. 14 à 15:49, Lubomir Savov Popov a écrit :
>
> In this line of thought, I am surprised that "material" designers dare
> to engage in social design and believe they can do it, while
> sociologists and psychologists are quire reserved. Actually, they even
> reject the idea of social design. I am struggling to promote this idea
> at several social science conferences and at this point I am at the
> stage of being accused of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. It is
> strange that designers are ready to accept the idea of social design
> while the social scientists (from left and right) are rejecting it
> vehemently. Designers are so optimistic because they assume that
> organizing behavior is like organizing material and space. I will stop here because this is another talk.
>
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/
DesignX: A future path for design
http://tinyurl.com/designx-statement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|