On 01/06/2014 09:52 AM, Prof David West wrote: > My own opinion is that not all thought is rational - specifically not > all thinking about design is rational. I am almost done with a book on > "Design Thinking" that is premised on this exact issue - designers think > differently and business and CS/SE types would benefit from learning how > they do what they do and thereby complement their rational thinking with > an equally powerful (in the realm of complexity and wicked problems - > superior) mode of thought.
Can you identify a method that you would call irrational? or non-rational? Or, is it, perhaps that we're using "rational" to mean known or observable, as Arlo suggests? Personally, I would consider thinking without considering multiple options as irrational. (E.g. pure deduction without inferential cycles -- ambiguity -- is non-rational by my definition.) So, I would be able to describe methods of irrational thought. In fact, I do it every day when I program. Some of my simulations are rational (because their outcome is decided by external interaction). But many of them are fully determined, closed to external inputs, incapable of "changing their minds", which makes them non-rational. But I'm having trouble identifying non-rational thinking without using my own definition (making me less rational than I'd like to be 8^). -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
