 |
 |
Dear Carlos, When I read your tips below, I was impressed. It seemed to me that you were expressing much of what I would think of as good rhetorical moves. If I’m reading your post correctly, your distain for the concept of rhetoric, or maybe just the word, seems to go against what you have written. As a rhetor (and a designer), I would never advocate claims without proof. That is not rhetoric. Hyperbole is also not good rhetoric. It seems to me that you’re defining argument/rhetoric as “mere rhetoric,” while I think of rhetoric as the “good person speaking,” certainly involved in rational thought (as well as emotional claims that also have proof, and claims to authority that also have proof) while again if I’m reading this correctly, you see it as BS. The snippet you use from Enbo’s post, in order to make your argument, also seems unfair to his larger concern. As I see it, it’s important not to put rhetoric into the “they create BS" category, just as it is important not to put design into the advertising category, or the “they make it look good” category. Design is so much more than that, and to have to fight the reductive assumption over and over is exhausting. We might need to do that professionally, but in academic settings, my colleagues in rhetoric should know better than to be reductive about design (and sometimes they aren't). Similarly, when it comes to rhetoric, a field in which critical thinking helps to move an audience from existing to preferred states (to borrow from Herb Simon), it makes me sad to see designers reduce it to BS. As Enbo points out, students in a design class can get stuck in “make it look good.” That is what I think he is trying to challenge. Similarly, students in a rhetoric class can get stuck in “creating BS.” In either case, they need correction. I’m sure that you don’t mean to denigrate my area of study. These two fields can inform each other. (Oh, and while narrative can be employed as an aspect of rhetoric, a good narrative is not the same a good rhetoric.) All the best, Susan Susan M. Hagan Ph.D., MDes | Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar > On May 12, 2015, at 9:40 PM, Carlos Pires <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > On 10/05/2015, at 17:29, Enbo.Hu12 wrote: > >> People talk to students how difficult to find a job referencing to news, personal experience and stories heard from someone. I think students have limited power to response appropriately to these pressure. > > > Dear Enbo, > > I think there are two distinct issues here: > > 1. The ability to master rhetoric > 2. The ability to master and communicate rational thought > > The text I quoted from you displays the concern of mastering rhetoric. In this particular case, to put it quite bluntly, the tools to market yourself. And by all means, you are right. If you don't market yourself no one is going to do that for you. And if you don't market yourself, no one is going to buy what you have for sale. > Now, marketing requires skills, but mostly it requires the ability and willingness to articulate hyperbole and to develop enticing narratives around your subject (in this case, your own persona), without the burden of truth or facts. This is also known as BS. > > The design courses I know of, for the most part have this huge handicap: they value truth and facts. I would go as far as saying that some designers and some teachers are made of the antimatter of marketeers (and vice-versa). > You can also use truth and facts to your advantage, and show people you know what you're doing and you know what you're talking about. But truth and facts always have less sheen that the shiny BS that marketeers can draw out from their sleeves. > > ----------------------- > > Then there is the second issue. Many people (or should I say everybody?) can't seem to exercise critical thinking properly, mainly because people have a really hard time being objective and systematic. > > Tips I gave to my students on this subject, when I was teaching Interaction Design in a Communication Design undergraduate course (I had them writing reports, besides doing the nitty-gritty design stuff): > > . Be objective: focus on the subject (don't stray). > . Be systematic: follow a clear line of reasoning. > . Correlation doesn't mean causation: beware of non sequitur. > . Don't mix beliefs with facts: if you don't have any facts to back your claims, keep those claims to yourself. > . Use operative verbs when describing a process, and always specify who does the actions. > . Try to use the same tense for all the verbs in the description of a process. > . Your conclusions must be precise. Vague statements are not conclusions. > . Your conclusions must be backed by the evidence you present in your argument. Again: wishful thinking and unfounded beliefs are not evidence. > > ----------------------- > > ...and then, there is another issue: > > 3. The looming shadow of the subjective monster > > This is something that has scared many designers for decades. Many design students are afraid to look under their subjective bed and find this monster. Many grown-up designers still have this phobia too. > What are the symptoms? The nagging feeling that what you are doing is worthless, and that you are an impostor because, in the end, everything is subjective. People all around you (those who aren't designers or design students) keep telling you that: "it's subjective", "it depends", "it's a matter of taste", etc. > This monster will haunt you all your life, if you don't have the background that a healthy dose of design theory and philosophy can provide. And if you are afraid of this monster, no rhetoric skill can save you. > Regarding your question, I think this is the first issue to tackle. Many students who are not comfortable arguing in defense of their work are in fact not comfortable with it in the first place. This might be because their work is actually flawed, but many times it is not. > > Best regards, > > > ================================== > Carlos Pires > > [log in to unmask] > [log in to unmask] > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL > > Check the project blog: > http://thegolemproject.com > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------