Best jargon-free description of #designthinking approach we applied at @ibmdesign … by @mjane_h at @autodesk: To advocate for investment, we don’t start by rationalizing the things we need to do. We start with a vision of what designing and making can feel like to our users. /1
That vision opens with a single, powerful statement that the business can rally around, with a few supporting points to make it visceral and visual. When we’ve done this well, business leaders see their own strategic intent in what we’ve presented. /2
The discussion turns to unpacking possibilities for what strategic intent might be like from this point of view. Only then, when leadership feels it too, do we introduce the areas of investment we request. /3
We connect research and information architecture to how they support the story we just told: a rallying cry we all now share. /END intertwingled.org/why-to-plan-an…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thanks! As I mentioned in my review, in claiming that imagination plays the primary role in aspiration, not reason, I follow in the footsteps of Richard Rorty. Though he doesn't mention aspiring to new values explicitly, I think the intent is clear. Here are a few examples. https://t.co/PB3LnHCZRd
@FHaruspex Here are some examples of Rorty substituting an X that is different from (opposed to, even) Y.
A 🧵...
@FHaruspex 'This substitution of objectivity-as-intersubjectivity for objectivity-as-accurate-representation is the key pragmatic move, the one that lets pragmatists feel they can have moral seriousness without "realist" seriousness.'
@FHaruspex 'Nagel can reasonably rejoin that he isn't interested in "something different, something describable." Rather, he is interested in preventing people from substituting the effable for the ineffable, for the intrinsically ineffable.'
I was hoping to channel Rorty's unflappability in writing my response to this essay by one of his former colleagues, but I will fall short in this one-line summary: I found it to be an almost sickening caricature of Rorty's philosophy and of philosophical pragmatism.
visceral reaction out of the way, I will now try to channel Rorty's patience, tolerance, and charity in the remainder of my comments in this thread.
I will say one complementary thing about the essay before addressing my criticisms: Edmundson's personal descriptions of Rorty are
wonderful.
There's lots to disagree with in the essay*, but I will limit myself to highlighting three fundamental caricatures of pragmatism: 1. Truth vs truthfulness 2. The hoary "Nazi Question" 3. Pragmatism as anti-idealism
I came across a wonderful book, "The Moral Psychology of Hope", which is somewhat misnamed in that it is also about the philosophy of Hope. I'm stunned how relatively neglected the concept of hope has been in philosophy (and apparently also in psychology). I have the feeling that
this is due to it being relegated to theology.
I found in it an essay touching on some of the themes I'm addressing in creating my "radically new kind of hope": "Pessimism and the Possibility of Hope". What the author labels "pessimism" isn't what I would call "pessimism". There
isn't a good word for it AFAIK: neither the belief that things are getting ever better nor the belief that they're getting ever worse. Neutralism? She makes the case that one can be hopeful despite not believing that things are getting ever better. I am attempting
@carl_b_sachs I think interpreting Wallace's "centrifugal governor" metaphor (CGM) as a model for natural selection generally is a misreading of the full passage in context. He's applying the CGM to a very specific phenomenon-a supposed balance between highly vs deficiently developed
I googled ["a deficiency in one set of organs always being compensated by an increased development of some others"] and there is virtually no discussion of this 'balance of organ development' hypothesis (BoODH) by Wallace. I think the CGM has been
@carl_b_sachs largely ignored because the BoODH simply not true.
Virtually all of those who reference the CGM part of the passage OMIT the BoODH part. They (including Bateson and CH Smith) misread Wallace as claiming the CGM as applying generally to NS instead of specifically to the
Bingo! I'm hard at work developing a pragmatism that can be awe inspiring. It's very hard to make a LACK of foundation & direction inspiring! I recently realized that the key is to forge a radically new kind of hope, which redefines & clarifies the muddy concept of
Michael Oakeshott's description of political activity is a perfect description of pragmatism:
'[Humanity sails] a boundless and bottomless sea: there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination.'
What kind
of hope does such a journey inspire? What does meliorism mean in such a context?