Several comments, most of which go against tradition.
*On the definition of Stigmergy*
The study of stigmergy might produce some wonderful new insights for
design, for designers, and for design education.
Wikipedia does a nice job of defining it:
Stigmergy is a mechanism of indirect coordination, through the environment,
between agents or actions.[1] The principle is that the trace left in the
environment by an action stimulates the performance of a next action, by
the same or a different agent. In that way, subsequent actions tend to
reinforce and build on each other, leading to the spontaneous emergence of
coherent, apparently systematic activity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stigmergy&oldid=759137352
In one of my books (Living with Complexity) I wrote about "desire lines"
in the landscape. That is, architects and landscape designers make nice
regular walkways. People like direct paths, so they take shortcuts,
avoiding the nice designed walkways. The first person who cuts across the
grass or field (or snowy area) leaves a faint trail of depressed plant
growth or footprints behind, which guides the next people. Eventually they
have worn a path.
The stupid architects and landscape architects put up signs and barriers to
avoid this destruction. The smart one realize that this is a good signifier
of where the path ought to go -- so they provide a better surface (e.g.,
they pave it). I am told that one of the walkways going to the Design
Department at TUE (Eindhoven) was made in this way.
That is *Stigmergy. *It is a wonderful concept to study and learn from, to
use in education. It is related to Von Hippel's "lead user" in his many
works. See his books (his latest, Fre Innovation, is available free in PDF
form from MIT Press: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/free-innovation
So ignore all the people trying to figure out where the word comes from.
Who cares? What matters is if it inspires you.
*On getting the meaning and origins correct*
I say the hell with it. Scholars care. Scientists don't.
A story. When I was a young scientist starting out in psychology, I read a
brilliant book by the British Psychologist, Donald Broadbent. It inspired
me and from that inspiration I wrote some early papers (that turned out to
be quite influential).
Years later, when I had become friends with Broadbent, he told me that I
had completely misunderstood his book, and in fact, my insights were
precisely the opposite of what he had intended.
My response? I didn't care. I will take my insights wherever i find them,
even if it is from misconstruing someone else's arguments. And i will give
them credit for my ideas, even if they hate them. Broadbent was an
inspiration to me. I learned a lot from him, even if it wasn't what he was
trying to teach me.
(He was a behaviorist, i was a cognitive psychologist. He thought he was
preaching behaviorism, but i found all his work fodder for the development
of a deep understanding of cognitive mechanisms.)
I say the same about my works. If someone misunderstand me and is puzzled,
I try to explain more clearly. If someone misunderstands me and then, as a
result, produces a brilliant new idea, I applaud.
Take your ideas wherever you can find them.
*On doing the "proper" thing first, and after you are established, do the
right (risky) thing. *
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> About Don's advice: My appreciation Don. About my advice: I think it can
> help people get on the bandwagon and then try to fly high.
That's a really bad idea. Basically, you only get one chance.
I have known numerous bright, energetic young assistant professors who have
really creative, earth-shattering ideas, but who tell me "I'm going to
publish a lot of safe, conventional papers so that I get tenure, and then i
will be able to explore these risky concepts."
Bullshit. They did get tenure, but they never returned to their creative
stage. Writing conventional papers turned them into dull, conventional
people.
Break the rules. Make a contribution.
it isn't easy. I have been publicly insulted, scorned and turned away. I
once gave a talk at a small university in the US and the department chair
was so annoyed that he told me he would try to avoid paying for my travel.
(But years later, the young faculty thanked me for my talk.)
That's life in science. At first, your work is ignored, denied
publication, and insulted. Then people start catching on and following. In
a decade or two you become the leader.
So do what you think is important. Do NOT "get on the bandwagon." People on
the bandwagon are always playing the wrong tunes. And if you join them,
you will find it difficult to get off.
* And then what happens?*
When you get older, with white hair (a grayback), the next bright
generation comes along and decides you are the old, dull establishment and
tries to replace all that you have done.
My response to that is to learn their arguments and build on them.
Invariably they have new insights that are valuable. When people
criticize, learn from the critics. But build your own path.
Don Norman
Prof. and Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego
[log in to unmask] designlab.ucsd.edu/ www.jnd.org <http://www.jnd.org/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|