Bruce Sterling says in an interview that ‘design fiction’, (thinking up new ideas for technologies and trying to find ways to bring them to life) could foster a new wave of problem solving around the world. Sterling’s idea is an interesting one as he asks us to move away from totalising theories about the future, to leave behind the grand, apocalyptic designs of the 60’s, in favour of small-scale practical solutions to everyday life. This kind of atomised, independently-driven thought, asks questions like “how do we solve this specific problem and what steps do we have to take to bring about this change?” instead of “how do we solve every problem simultaneously?”

Sterling believes this more modest approach to thinking about change could prompt a new wave of interest in futurism, most likely due to the way that things will somehow become more manageable, instead of merely being put in the ‘too-hard’ basket. Design fiction does have a few illustrious champions already. Maven sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke was the inspiration behind the first satellite and Sterling also mentions how a version of the modern “i-pad” appears in that epic Clarke/Kubrick collaboration ‘2001’. Unfortunately, Clarke’s ‘space-elevator’ has failed to materialise. Perhaps he was thinking too big?

Sci-fi writer Neal Stephenson, in his novel ‘Snowcrash’, alludes to a system that resembles for all intents and purposes what we now know as ‘Google Earth’ and was, according to the creators, the direct inspiration for that self-same program. Orwell’s ‘telescreen’ sounds perilously close to Microsoft’s controversial addition to the x-box and once quantum computing makes its way into households, why not upload our consciousnesses into hard-drives ala William Gibson’s ‘Neuromancer’? Still, all this comes back to thinking versus doing. Perhaps by looking at problems individually and practically, rather than all at once, real change may become science-fact, rather than science-fiction.

The panel discussion was useful for condensing the readings into their most relevant parts, which I summed up in the previous post. One further related and important point arising from the discussion is the idea of setting realistic expectations for output and workload. Do a little bit all the time, instead of trying to do a lot some of the time. Naturally, everybody must work in the way that suits them best but the more ‘shortcuts to cheating’ we can find, the easier things will get. Work smart, not hard, but as my Year 9 physics teacher so joyfully pointed out, you cannot avoid work, only distribute it across different planes to make it seem like less.

For instance, how many words do I write before checking my Scrabble games on Facebook? Some. 

Here are some thoughts from my friend and classmate, Stacey. http://www.mediafactory.org.au/stacey-katsaros/

The Mason and Argyris readings reflect common themes of ongoing, flexible and critical evaluation regarding works-in-progress. These kinds of ideas are becoming central to modernist conceptions of organisational theory and encapsulate the idea of the ‘Knowledge Worker’, a fluid and adaptable individual ready to meet any challenge that is put to them. However, actors can be constrained by workplace and market pressures, timidity, lack of ability or any host of reasons that create disparity between the espoused, ‘what is said’ and the actual,’what is done’. In any case, the main point that Argyris makes is that instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, by being aware of our own biases and ways of doing, we might be better equipped to find more creative solutions to problems. Mason refers to a kind of active participation in observing and doing that in theory, will assist ‘experiential learning’. This is an ideal, to apply measured and dispassionate assessment to problems in order to find best-practice solutions, but as Argyris alludes to, knowing something and doing it, can be hard to reconcile.

Argyris has formulated the idea of “Single Loop” and “Double Loop” problem solving. ‘SLL’ involves trying to solve a problem using the existing rules. ‘DLL’ refers to a more thorough process of attempting to redefine success from the ground up. I don’t know if there is a better example of the pitfalls of “Single-Loop Learning”n and lack of attention to ‘experiential’ problem solving than our current approach to traffic, which is now manifesting in Melbourne as the East-West link – a project founded on the false idea that building more roads will ease congestion. In our imaginary, ideal and experiential world, we would simply apply “Double-Loop Learning” by modifying our underlying assumption (more roads = less traffic) and build a vibrant and affordable public-transport system.