Conversation

Replying to
Totally, I find that tools mostly augment the induction part of synthesis (logging external facts, “inspiration”), and the later deduction part (once you have a structure, investigate how existing knowledge fits, try to interrogate it, and investigate its implications)
1
1
Replying to and
The model-making part where you work with a limited set of data & make the mental leap definitely happens away from the tool. But the tool’s ability to capture and recall inspiration at a whim can help surface material for connection where you would otherwise forget them.
2
2
Replying to and
Hmm. I agree with most of what you’re saying (and I think the way you put it — re: splitting this to deduction/induction) but I want to push back on this last bit a bit. I know it’s a common narrative that a tool can resurface inspiration — but is this really important?
2
Replying to and
I guess where I’m coming from is this: I do a decent job at synthesis, and I am friends with folk who are good synthesisers. And none of us find that resurfacing for connection is a bottleneck for our process. The real difficulty is in the theory crafting/model creation.
1
1
Replying to and
And so I worry that this narrative of ‘oh you can connect your thoughts to resurface / generate new insight’ is a neat story that isn’t built on a actual cognitive task analysis of good synthesisers. It is, instead, built on a toolmaker’s assumptions about synthesis.
1
Replying to and
I don’t believe my own argument as well, btw, because it might be a limitation of the tools I (and others like me) use, so I intend to investigate this claim more thoroughly. But it certainly doesn’t match what comes out of a CTA of our process.
1
Replying to
Who are you speaking to who are doing this synthesis work? In what domains? My experience comes from graphic design, product design, UX research.
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more