Dear Ken,
No, you haven't used the term "final outcomes" but I think I
do see this notion hiding behind some of what you do write.
In your reply to David, for example, you say
"... We have been criticizing those people who design
products that lead to obesity, diabetes, and adverse health
consequences. ..."
as if some or all of the people involved in the design of
these food products intended this obesity, diabetes and
adverse health consequences, or at least knew that these could
result from typical eating of their designs. And the NYT
article does suggest that at least some of these people did
indeed know of these probable outcomes.
In my view, this NYT article sets out with a simple minded
essentially linear notion of how the design of food products
happens and why. As a result, it presents a hopelessly narrow
and superficial treatment of the important issues involved.
To be clear, I do believe there are important issues here that
need to be understood and responded to. But this NYT article
is not the way to do this. It's just another example of Big
Bad Business Bashing. It's easy to do, makes us feel better,
and leaves the real issues untouched.
That the processed food industry, in many so called first
world economies, have managed to exploit such widespread
ignorance, poor judgement, and personal health neglect, is an
indication of the poor state of the societies we live in, not
some wrong doing by some businesses. The role of business, as
Peter Drucker told us, is to create a customer. It is the
responsibility of the individual, together with the law making
society he or she chooses to live in with others, to guard
gainst possible bad consequences of becoming someone's
customer.
Very near the end of the book, "The Hidden Persuaders," that
Ranulph Glanville pointed us to, and reminded me of--I've not
looked at it since I read it in about 1982/3--Vance Packard
writes:
"The most serious offense many of the depth manipulators
commit, it seems to me, is that they try to invade the
privacy of our minds. It is this right to privacy in our
minds—-privacy to be either rational or irrational—-that I
believe we must strive to protect."
These are words I fully agree with, but I take it to be my
responsibility to prevent the privacy of my mind being invaded
for the simple reason that blaming others for doing so will
never stop it happening: final outcomes again.
Best regards,
Tim
On Feb 25, 2013, at 09:54 , Ken Friedman wrote:
> Hi, David,
>
> Just to keep things clear, at no point have I written about "final outcomes." I don't believe in "final outcomes" either. I used two specific terms: "preferred outcomes," borrowing from Herbert Simon, and "desired outcomes," the term that Victor used.
>
> No one in this thread has argued for "final outcomes." We have been criticizing those people who design products that lead to obesity, diabetes, and adverse health consequences. If you have not yet read the New York Times article, please do. My comments have very specifically been rooted in an analysis of the problematic and malevolent uses of design and design research in the multi-billion-dollar food industry.
>
> If I may, though, I will use the term "final outcome" with respect to those many persons who suffer from health problems that arise as a result of designing and selling bad food products. For some of these -- consumers? diners? victims? -- the outcomes are very final indeed.
>
> With that exception, occasioned by your introduction of a new term to this thread, I have not used the term "final outcomes" at all.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|