Login
Hide
Panel
Reply: Thu Mar 03 2016 12:34:09 GMT-0500 (EST)
Reply To: Design as Participation
Victor Zambrano 1 Contributor
March 03, 20161 Version
Not Featured in any Journals
Cite

Bibtex

@article{ReplyThuMar02016, title={Reply: Thu Mar 03 2016 12:34:09 GMT-0500 (EST)}, author={Victor Zambrano}, year={2016}, note={version: 57a22cd95a4037b8e01aea7a}, publisher={PubPub}, }

APA

Victor Zambrano. (2016). Reply: Thu Mar 03 2016 12:34:09 GMT-0500 (EST). PubPub, [https://www.pubpub.org/pub/56d87591572a953800d33760] version: 57a22cd95a4037b8e01aea7a

MLA

Victor Zambrano. "Reply: Thu Mar 03 2016 12:34:09 GMT-0500 (EST)". PubPub, (2016). [https://www.pubpub.org/pub/56d87591572a953800d33760] version: 57a22cd95a4037b8e01aea7a

Chicago

Victor Zambrano. "Reply: Thu Mar 03 2016 12:34:09 GMT-0500 (EST)". PubPub, (2016). [https://www.pubpub.org/pub/56d87591572a953800d33760] version: 57a22cd95a4037b8e01aea7a
LoginFollow
0 Followers
The hypothesis is that most designers that are deliberately working with complex adaptive systems cannot help but be humbled by them
Indeed, I'd say there will always be more chance for humility in a conversation than in a monologue. The interactive nature of a conversations has a larger chance in reinin in the hubris, whereas in the monologue the path might be perceived as frictionless and thus rather vulnerable to one's own perception.
 
I'd correlate conversation with design for complex adaptive systems (which have much of the conversational process inherent to them) and monologues with designing "stuff".
Contents
Discussions
Contents
Discussions
Show Threads