Assignment 1 – Sophia
Posted: February 21st, 2013 | Author: Sophia | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments » I think the H-LAM/T system Englebart describes, well-defined but general, is very helpful in thinking about how to approach the design of augmentation systems. I also really liked his description of human intelligence: “If we then ask ourselves where that intelligence is embodied, we are forced to concede that it is elusively distributed throughout a hierarchy of functional processes — a hierarchy whose foundation extends down into natural processes below the depth of our comprehension. If there is any one thing upon which this ‘intelligence depends’ it would seem to be organization.” Building on this understanding of intelligence, he writes, “The important thing to appreciate here is that a direct new innovation in one particular capability can have far-reaching effects throughout the rest of your capability hierarchy. A change can propagate up through the capability hierarchy; higher-order capabilities that can utilize the initially changed capability can now reorganize to take special advantage of this change and of the intermediate higher-capability changes. A change can propagate down through the hierarchy as a result of new capabilities at the high level and modification possibilities latent in lower levels. These latent capabilities may previously have been unusable in the hierarchy and become usable because of the new capability at the higher level.” I am interested in how we can augment our creative capabilities. Reading about creativity, I haven’t yet found anything which describes the creative process in as useful a way as Englebart describes his framework. In what ways would it be possible to augment certain portions of our creative process? Can different kinds of symbol manipulation through an AR system affect our abilities to manipulate concepts (conceptual blending or “aha moments”)? Perhaps a small change in the capability hierarchy would have a large impact on overall creativity, which is a higher-order capability. Reading suggestion: Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto (http://www.egs.edu/faculty/donna-haraway/articles/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto/)Assignment One – Dhairya
Posted: February 19th, 2013 | Author: dhairyadand | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments »
#Mastery and Mimicry
I found Sep’s article an inspiring manifesto for how our tools should be.
##Self-Limitation
His first section about Self-Limitation, was ideologically empowering for me. I have always pondered what happens when our life is so full of technology that we loose control, how much is enough, should we the technologists start imposing ethical reasoning on our work. This self-debate has led me to a cyclic argument of ‘it will be when it will be’. With his examples of the bacteria and the body, I found a beautiful analogy to technology and humans – that in chaos peace will find its way. Having rested this argument with myself, I can move on.
##Accessibility
This section talked to me of the ripple effects our tools can have outside of their intended use. Specifically his example of Gandhian DIY loom and its effects on the socio-political mindset of Indians was interesting, partly because thats is my heritage and more so because I could find some similarity in my past project – ThinkerToys – which started out as a hack but had educational and environmental impact. It was a good reminder about the nature of tools I should keep building – upstream and accessible.
##Cyclicity
Particularly his argument about metrics struck me, how I should re-evaluate my work and re-measure it in terms of its qualified purpose and not its quantified goal. Lots of learning here for me.
##Heart and Head
Oh my god, this was poetry, I was tripping through each word. Sep doesn’t paint an ideal unachievable vision but rather dissects into the heart of a builder. I am still trying to soak in parts of this. I found beautiful his idea of what our tools should serve – connection, intuition, gift, purpose. I feel like taking longer walks, getting back to analog photography, sketch with charcoal more, and write more poems – connect to myself to make the tools in my most pure image.
#Augmenting Human Intellect
This was a rather heavy read an interesting one in terms of its historical perspective. Overall I found Doug’s motivations for augmenting human intellect still valid today, although written in the 70s, many of the things he envisions aren’t a functional reality today. I liked his approach by proposing his H-LAM/T model of an operating system-like workings of the mind. Having established his model made it much easier to then digest his proposal. Something I felt we do less often today, there is less ground theories that aid our explorations, mostly hunches. Yes discovering by doing is good and more often leads to breakthroughs; but having a model to go by is more systematic wandering. I still haven’t made complete sense of his proposal, but to me when I build tools I now would like to spend more time investigating the problem from a psychological and evolutionary perspectives. Assignment 1 – Mohit
Posted: February 14th, 2013 | Author: Mohit | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments » I found certain similarities between the Kamvar’s and Engelbart’s pieces. Both alluded to the emergent properties of a system which are different in character from the combined properties of its sub-pieces. Kamvar attempted to co-relate natural processes to the constructed world of humans. Though I have a slightly different opinion on his definition of self-limiting tools. He contends that search engine is an example of self-limiting tools while television and video games are not. I would argue that even search engines are not self-limiting. The method of perpetuating the usage of tool is of different kind in the case of search engines. The more accurate the search result, the more likely the user is going to return. It is not continuous self-reinforcement like video games and TVs but a discrete and disjointed form of it, but self-reinforcement nonetheless. I was a bit surprised by Kamvar’s contention that companies which provide free services supported by ads are somehow benevolent. This reminds what Brain Acton and Jan Koum (of Whatsapp) said,” Remember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product.” I remember reading Pierre Bourdieu’s ‘Sur La Television’ where he said that if you think television channels sell ads to support the programming they make for you, you’ve got it the other way around! Engelbart says that, “The entire effect of an individual on the world stems essentially from what he can transmit to the world through his limited motor channels. This in turn is based on information received from the outside world through limited sensory channels; on information, drives, and needs generated within him; and on his processing of that information.” I think there is more to what a human can do in the world which goes beyond his/her sensory capacities as an individual. In real life situations, to compensate for the limitations of attention and working memory, individuals offload certain cognitive tasks on to the environment to increase efficiency and epistemic reach. This offloading does not necessitate advanced/electronic tools but can occur even in the presence of natural artifacts and environment. While designing tools for augmentation, it is particularly important to keep the “embedding” nature of of cognitive constructs in mind, so that the activities and scenarios can be structured in a way that encourages effective offloading strategies while retaining the most essential cognitive processes.Assignment 1 – Anette von Kapri
Posted: February 14th, 2013 | Author: kapri | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments » There are two aspects in the text that I want to highlight. Engelbart distinguishes conscious from unconscious processes. While we are learning something the ideal would be to transform a highly conscious thought into a more and more unconscious one. This way we keep more open conscious space in our mind for other processes while the unconscious processes can run in parallel. One example could be learning how to write. First it takes some effort to learn how to hold the pen, how the ordering of the strokes are, how to connect characters etc. But this becomes more and more unconscious to a point where when writing a letter I don’t need to consciously think about how to write but rather what I am writing about. This brings me to the second point. Engelbart distinguishes 3 different human process capabilities. explicit-human(executed completely within the human integument), explicit-artifact(possessed by artifacts) and composite. Explicit-artifact would be how to hold a pen and explicit-human would be what to write about. It seems to me that the explicit-artifact processes are easier to learn and easier to automate. There is a tool that I need to operate, there are x different ways how to do that and if I have done it long enough I can remember it. The explicit-human seems to be more difficult. It is not only about specific algorithms running in the head such as doing mathematical calculations but rather how to create new ideas and design new systems. Engelbart talks about an executive process that brings all these processes together: how to combine motor action with what I see and what I learned in class the other day for example. This defines how I can combine things in my head. What I would like to consider when designing tools for learning is how my way of thinking can be changed. At the media lab we have students from so many different backgrounds. students with a formal education in computer science think in different patterns than with a formal education in design. Through the focused study of their field over 4 years or more the thought patterns have changed, how things are combined or analyzed is done differently. How would we teach such kind of thinking process?Assignment1-Anirudh Sharma
Posted: February 14th, 2013 | Author: Anirudh | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments » Mastery and Mimicry Sep talks about Gandhian approach to developing tools. Today developing economies should design tools of their own ‘by the people, for the people’. Thoughts such as OLPC being relevant came to my mind. What if those tools were developed by the local engineers, who’ve themselves been a part of the society? The problems faced by under-developed world are rather more than just technological. A hungry boy will rather feed him first than use a laptop designed by powerful economies. He’d rather sell it and feed himself. The Arduino/Processing on the contrary is a great example(not being ‘expensive technology’)- it was developed by people who themselves pursued art, design and had an itch to create something for similar people. If tools like these are given to the right people- amazing things can happen. They’re like the Gandhi’s wheel of the modern world where technology can be a great tool. Tools like these are a great leveler, anyone can participate, design and build now. Unlike 1990′s where only elite universities/research institutes could. Example, a modern day movement- a strong community and a self sufficient village in Rajasthan that thrives on designing solar panels. http://www.barefootcollege.org/- User Centered Design: Its valuable when in cases where a specific iteration of a present technology needs to be done. People didn’t know in 1990s that they’d need an iPod, till Apple actually designed one and showed them. Poets don’t do a survey of what people would like to read- they write it, and see if people like them. Same with art/music. You can’t design a guitar with a user centered survey. That inventive spark has to be there- which is somewhat synonymous to being an artist.
Assignment-1: Perovich
Posted: February 14th, 2013 | Author: Laura Perovich | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments » Kamvar –The measured thing becomes the important thing. But some things are very difficult to measure–the ones that are easy may not be truly important to our purpose, but yet as the metric they gain value and risk becoming the purpose. How to we tie people to the purpose behind the metric instead of the metric itself? Can we? Lots of metrics (or then we have no time for anything but measuring?) There can be fame/glory in “winning” the metrics, which makes them very tempting and short-term profitable to game. (e.g. standardized tests w/NCLB) Metrics as a way to create legitimacy (becomes self-reinforcing?). –The idea of tool-centric activism resonated with my experience in international development and environmental health. Using education as a means for change was part of the goal in both cases. In international development, tools could be a huge help (e.g. functional blackboard to teach with) yet you also often saw an excess of tools that lacked people, or tools that were poorly delivered or designed for the circumstances. For example, un-staffed medical posts and schools left totally empty or drug shipments with dosing instructions in Italian. Also, even good tools need to gain some currency in society to be fully adopted and effective; this is non-trivial. Engelbart “Clinical psychology seems to provide clear evidence that a large proportion of a human’s everyday activity is significantly mediated or basically prompted by unconscious mental processes that, although “natura” in a functional sense, are not rational. The observable mechanisms of these processes (observable by another, trained person) includes masking of the irrationality of the human’s actions which are so affected, so that few of us will admit that our actions might be irrational, and most of us can construct satisfying rationales for any action that may be challenged.” –It’s interesting to consider the ways that this fundamental irrationality can be leveraged in learning (or already is? classroom management techniques, motivation, emotional side to learning) “After all, we spend great sums for disciplines aimed at understanding and harnessing nuclear power. Why not consider developing a discipline aimed at understanding and harnessing “neural power?” In the long run, the power of the human intellect is really much the more important of the two. “Assignment 1 – Tiff
Posted: February 14th, 2013 | Author: ttseng | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments » Augment Human Intellect One aspect of Engelbart’s framework that surprised me was that the computers he describes require a great deal of artificial intelligence, and he does not suggest ways in which the computers can use human intelligence to supplement digital computation. For example, how can computers take advantage of what people are good at to offload some of its computation? How can computers serve as a vehicle for connecting people to each other (rather than to more computers)?Also, I always find it strange when I read a paper from the HCI community that doesn’t build upon the hundreds of years of research in human psychology devoted to how people think; modern computers have only really been around for the past half-century, but people have been thinking about human intellect for centuries. It doesn’t make sense to develop a framework without acknowledging what people from other fields know about our own capabilities.
Mastery and Mimicry
Self-limiting tools and self-reinforcing tools
An ultimate goal in learning is that the student is able to solve problems on her own; this doesn’t necessarily mean that the learner can solve problems without any external aid but that the learner knows which resources to use and what questions to ask in order to solve a problem. Education should be designed to help learners develop to a point in which they are no longer dependent on the educators themselves.
Metrics
Assessment is a tricky question in education because most people are skeptical of the relevance and accuracy of numerical assessments for measuring “what matters.” But I think this concern often masks a critical component to assessment, which is to provide feedback to the learner. Rather than utilizing assessment as a means to segment and classify, how can assessment be used to provide valuable feedback to the learner that helps them develop strategies to improve themselves and their skills?
User-Centered Design
This is not learning specific, but I was surprised by the ending of Master and Mimicry, which is more critical of user-centered design than I would expect (I studied design at Stanford before coming to the Media Lab). While I agree that many people don’t know what they want, an essential role of the designer is discovering implicit needs through observation and ethnography. Merely asking users what they want is quite a superficial way to go about designing a solution and is not what I believe user-centered design is about. Even as designers discover their own vision, their vision is often derived from their own observations of the world and what they perceive to be a necessary shift in how we think about this world; fundamentally, the designer is his own user.
Recent Comments