Dear Terry 



I must admit I am quite fascinated by your very insightful comments. For me and my work with business groups in helping them to understand and apply Design Thinking to deal with and resolve complex problems, I have not really considered the physical process that precedes a thought entering the mind, yet I see it now as quite relevant especially given that everyone I deal with to date seems to think differently when we run our Design Thinking workshops. Each struggles with different aspects, but we usually get around this to some degree by carefully creating a psychologically mixed group.



I suppose the question in part is - is this due to differing forms of education, social and cultural experience that may or may not impact upon actually how each of us thinks as we mature or do we physiologically think in much the same way as individuals and the education etc., come into play in other ways or is there something else again entering the mix?



I have been mentoring (from time to time) psychology students and here again it would appear there are many cross-overs between Design Thinking and Psychology that I certainly did not really appreciate.



Regards



Philip



Dr Philip Whiting FDIA MCSD

Design Thinking & Research





15 Nariel Street Albion

Queensland 4010 Australia

0419 706 906



[log in to unmask]

www.zeroplus.com.au 





-----Original Message-----

From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 

Sent: Monday, 7 May 2018 1:48 PM

To: Philip Whiting <[log in to unmask]>; 'CHARLES BURNETTE' <[log in to unmask]>; 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design' <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: RE: "What is Design Thinking" and "Improvement In and Through Design Thinking"



Dear Chuck and Philip and all,



Thank you  for your thoughts and writing.



For me, the most challenging aspect of making a theory about design thinking is,



'Identifying the explanatory detail of the physical processes that precede either a thought coming into mind (consciously or subconsciously), or an action occurring (with and without the precursor  of either conscious or subconscious thoughts).'



Evidence-based information on these processes  seems to be the foundation needed for checking and evaluating any higher-level theories about design thinking



Similarly, evidenced explanation of the  same, or very similar, processes is required to explain how and why thoughts transition in themselves or between the different thinking modes.



To some extent, and for many circumstances, there appears to be evidence these processes can be theorised about mechanically -  in terms of conditioning, fixations and brain-washing based on repetitive learning via more or less explicit rewards and punishments. This can be seen as 'routine' learning (with the emphasis on routine).



There are, however, some situations that are different to this and non-routine. These are the situations in which the human as animal develops changes in its responses and ways of thinking that are novel: whose underlying processes extend beyond the mechanisms of conditioning, fixations and brain-washing based on repetitive learning.



Evidence-based explanations of the above phenomena are not yet well developed, and yet they are the essential foundations underpinning theorising about  design thinking.



If anyone has more information on these issues I welcome it.



Regards,

Terry



==

Dr Terence Love 

Director

Design Out Crime & CPTED Centre

Perth, Western Australia

[log in to unmask] 

www.designoutcrime.org 

+61 (0)4 3497 5848

==

ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566











-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------