refers to the movement to consider broader impacts of design work on the world; to redefine design as an active and investigative process that addresses social issues and reflects both personal and cultural contexts.

Critical Fabulations

• for: societal design, designing societies, societal architecture, transforming society, whole system change, SSO, social superorganism, John Boik

The seven main ideas for societal design: 1. societal transformation - is necessary to avoid catastrophe 2. the specific type of transformation is science-based transformation based on entirely new systems - de novo design - 3. A practical way to implement the transformation in the real world - it must be economical, and doable within the short time window for system change before us. - Considering a time period of 50 years for total change, with some types of change at a much higher priority than others. - The change would be exponential so starting out slower, and accelerating - Those communities that are the first to participate would make the most rapid improvements. 4. Promoting a worldview of society as a social superorganism, a cognitive organism, and its societal systems as a cognitive architecture. 5. Knowing the intrinsic purpose of a society - each subsystem must be explained in terms of the overall intrinsic purpose. 6. The reason for transformation - Transformation that improves cognition reduces the uncertainty that our society's intrinsic purpose is fulfilled. 7. Forming a partnership between the global science community and all the local communities of the world.

• for: whole system approach, system approach, systems thinking, systems thinking - societal design, societal design, John Boik, societal design - evolutionary approach, designing societies - evolutionary approach -paraphrase
  • currently, all societal systems function as silos
  • how does the total system change and achieve new stable states?
  • advocating for designing societal systems so that the cognitive architectures of the different component systems can all serve the same purpose
  • design a fitness evaluation score Rather than tackling problems in individual silos, John is promoting an integrated approach.

This is wholly consistent with the underpinnings of SRG Deep Humanity praxis that stresses the same need for multi-disciplinary study and synthesis of all the various parts of the SSO.into one unified Gestalt to mitigate progress traps. https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthetyee.ca%2FAnalysis%2F2019%2F09%2F20%2FRonald-Wright-Can-We-Dodge-Progress-Trap%2F&group=world https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthetyee.ca%2FCulture%2F2018%2F10%2F12%2FHumanity-Progress-Trap%2F&group=world

This is, in part, why the tools for thought space should be looking at intellectual history to see how people have worked in the past.

Rather than looking at how writers have previously worked and building something specific that supports those methods, they've taken a tool designed for something else and just thrown it into the mix. Perhaps useful creativity stems from it in a new and unique way, but most likely writers are going to continue their old methods.

As humans we're good at separating things based on categories. The Dewey Decimal System systematically separates mathematics and history into disparate locations, but your zettelkasten shouldn't force this by overthinking categories. Perhaps the overlap of math and history is exactly the interdisciplinary topic you're working toward? If this is the case, just put cards into the slip box closest to their nearest related intellectual neighbor—and by this I mean nearest related to you, not to Melvil Dewey or anyone else. Over time, through growth and branching, ideas will fill in the interstitial spaces and neighboring ideas will slowly percolate and intermix. Your interests will slowly emerge into various bunches of cards in your box. Things you may have thought were important can separate away and end up on sparse branches while other areas flourish.

If you make the (false) choice to separate math and history into different "sections" it will be much harder for them to grow and intertwine in an organic and truly disciplinary way. Universities have done this sort of separation for hundreds of years and as a result, their engineering faculty can be buildings or even entire campuses away from their medical faculty who now want to work together in new interdisciplinary ways. This creates a physical barrier to more efficient and productive innovation and creativity. It's your zettelkasten, so put those ideas right next to each other from the start so they can do the work of serendipity and surprise for you. Do not artificially separate your favorite ideas. Let them mix and mingle and see what comes out of them.

If you feel the need to categorize and separate them in such a surgical fashion, then let your index be the place where this happens. This is what indices are for! Put the locations into the index to create the semantic separation. Math related material gets indexed under "M" and history under "H". Now those ideas can be mixed up in your box, but they're still findable. DO NOT USE OR CONSIDER YOUR NUMBERS AS TOPICAL HEADINGS!!! Don't make the fatal mistake of thinking this. The numbers are just that, numbers. They are there solely for you to be able to easily find the geographic location of individual cards quickly or perhaps recreate an order if you remove and mix a bunch for fun or (heaven forfend) accidentally tip your box out onto the floor. Each part has of the system has its job: the numbers allow you to find things where you expect them to be and the index does the work of tracking and separating topics if you need that.

The broader zettelkasten, tools for thought, and creativity community does a terrible job of explaining the "why" portion of what is going on here with respect to Luhmann's set up. Your zettelkasten is a crucible of ideas placed in juxtaposition with each other. Traversing through them and allowing them to collide in interesting and random ways is part of what will create a pre-programmed serendipity, surprise, and combinatorial creativity for your ideas. They help you to become more fruitful, inventive, and creative.

Broadly the same thing is happening with respect to the structure of commonplace books. There one needs to do more work of randomly reading through and revisiting portions to cause the work or serendipity and admixture, but the end results are roughly the same. With the zettelkasten, it's a bit easier for your favorite ideas to accumulate into one place (or neighborhood) for easier growth because you can move them around and juxtapose them as you add them rather than traversing from page 57 in one notebook to page 532 in another.

If you use your numbers as topical or category headings you'll artificially create dreadful neighborhoods for your ideas to live in. You want a diversity of ideas mixing together to create new ideas. To get a sense of this visually, play the game Parable of the Polygons in which one categorizes and separates (or doesn't) triangles and squares. The game created by Vi Hart and Nicky Case based on the research of Thomas Schelling provides a solid example of the sort of statistical mechanics going on with ideas in your zettelkasten when they're categorized rigidly. If you rigidly categorize ideas and separate them, you'll drastically minimize the chance of creating the sort of useful serendipity of intermixed and innovative ideas.

It's much harder to know what happens when you mix anthropology with complexity theory if they're in separate parts of your mental library, but if those are the things that get you going, then definitely put them right next to each other in your slip box. See what happens. If they're interesting and useful, they've got explicit numerical locators and are cross referenced in your index, so they're unlikely to get lost. Be experimental occasionally. Don't put that card on Henry David Thoreau in the section on writers, nature, or Concord, Massachusetts if those aren't interesting to you. Besides everyone has already done that. Instead put him next to your work on innovation and pencils because it's much easier to become a writer, philosopher, and intellectual when your family's successful pencil manufacturing business can pay for you to attend Harvard and your house is always full of writing instruments from a young age. Now you've got something interesting and creative. (And if you must, you can always link the card numerically to the other transcendentalists across the way.)

In case they didn't hear it in the back, I'll shout it again: ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST YOUR NATURAL URGE TO USE YOUR ZETTELKASTEN NUMBERS AS TOPICAL HEADINGS!!!

https://lu.ma/e1jca29m

Priya Mohan: Design Thinking Strategies to solve complex problems in STEM

DICE Discover Ideate Create Evaluate

Mostly this was a tour through the DICE framing while using Obsidian for STEM.

One of my early prototyping experiences in the OER field.

Design thinking fosters innovative thinking.

It involes designing user focused, highly utilitarian and aesthetic products.

Kharal, L. (2020, May 16). “FORMATIVE RESEARCH” FOR SYSTEMATIC BEHAVIOR CHANGE PROGRAM DESIGN. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bpqfw

Papel e importância do desing thinking na Saúde 4.0 = facilitar o entendimento na intersecção entre paciente e o HCD para promover engajamento

The benefits of personalized learning through technology This resource is included in part because it connects personalized learning and technology. A brief list of benefits, such as increasing student engagement and bridging the gap between teachers and students, are listed. This is presented by a marketing unit of a university so there may be an agenda. Nonetheless it provides useful considerations such as helping learners develop 'design thinking.' rating 3/5

Teaching problem solving This page is included because some of our theories indicate that problem solving should be taught specifically. This page is a bit unusual; I did not find many others like it. It is rather easy to read and also addresses the differences between novice and expert learners. rating 3/5

Although this article emphasized the difference between critical design and critical making, the later being more process oriented and involving information systems than only physical objects I wish the author could have illustrated that with an example. How to make a digital object critically? How to think of UI design patterns critically? All the tacit knowledge a UI and UXer is expected to have in order to get hired and that they use everyday. If the aim of critical making of information systems concern is to uncover the embedded values in software and the process of designing of software than it also needs to question the industry jargon and process which forms the lived experience of designers everyday.

Also they give an opportunity to create work, professsions, hobbies. Entire groups of people can organize their time and energies around the creation and maintenance of that object. Communities could willingly decrease the complexity of their needs by negotiation of values in objects in order to create lower thresholds to economic participation

Yes but how? What if one doesn't even have the vocabulary and lived experience to identify that value and it's influence?

Cfg Leinonen.

Véase Trabajar y Crear en Abierto Desde el Sur (abisur).

Well said.

Sounds a bit restrictive. Though there are hairy UX problems making it even more difficult for teachers to contribute content, many other issues are likely to remain, preventing contributions, even if the User Experience were optimal for every single potential contributor. In other words, it’s one thing to set “the problem to be solved” in a manageable way. It’s another to grasp the complexity of the situation.