Despite my best intentions, I am being dragged in yet another fight about
the role, powers, etc. of science. Please, may we have a nuanced stance?
Science is good. Evidence is god. But neither are all knowing or all
powerful.

I said:

"Designers who believe they know enough about human behavior to predict all
the results are simply delusional -- and therefore dangerous."


Mike Zender said:

I'm going to share it with my colleagues and may (with Don's permission)
print it in a coming issue of Visible Language. It's great!


Great -- Yes, Mike, you have my permission (see my suggested enhancement
below).

Uh oh -- here comes Terry, who says:

'Designers who believe that human behaviour cannot be predicted have been
mistaught and need retraining (along with those that taught them)'

First it is more useful. Second it's more accurate. Third, as a personal
criticism it is more positive, accurate and specific: and less of an
emotional attack.



​I wish people would read what I say, not what they wish to hear.

Here is what i said -- with the one typographical suggestion I make to Mike:

​"Designers who believe they know *enough* about human behavior to predict
*all* the results are simply delusional -- and therefore dangerous."


​As an experimental, cognitive psychologist (and cognitive scientist), I
firmly believe that we have already made great strides in understanding and
predicting human behavior. But we cannot predict all of human behavior. Not
only do we not know enough, but because so many components are the result
of unknown environmental factors, personal history, culture, genetics,
(whatever you wish to add), full prediction and understanding is not
possible.

So yes, I claim to be an expert at prediction. I do it all the time, using
the best, up-to-date scientific knowledge and models. Hell, I got tenure
because I had developed mathematic, predictive models. But what I could
predict was pretty simple stuff about perception, memory, and attention.
Once we get to complex human behavior, our models are incomplete and often
erroneous. So yes, I often predict, and  I am often wrong.

Terry: You simply read my statement the way you wanted to read it as
opposed to what I said.  I am often on your side in the belief that we need
better models for prediction and that even the ones we have are not used
enough.  But I will never argue that we know enough, nor that it is
possible to know enough.

​Life is not a binary system: true or false, right or wrong, art or
science.  The correct stance is a nuanced on, embracing what is best about
all approaches (although I do insist upon evidence).

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/
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------