Earlier in the week I read an article about a Dutch scientist who has spent the last 5 years “growing” a burger in a lab. He claimed that incorporating lab grown foods into our diets would be beneficial for several reasons; sustainability (about 70% of the world’s “blue water withdrawals” go towards irrigation, often for the sake of animal farming), to stop widespread animal cruelty, and help provide food to third world countries, eliminating famine. This ties in neatly with what we are learning; it sounds like something from science fiction, and for so long would have been design fiction. But now the product has been designed and in a few years could be commercially marketed and become a household product. This encouraged me to think on other inventions that seem sci-fi inspired, inventions that seem too good to be true – yet have made it in the world. Things like spray on skin.

This led me to think about some other creations from science fiction and which ones are at the top of my want list:

Number Three: Dream Recorder. In comparison to the others I guess this one seems kind of trivial. The concept is simple, a machine that does the equivalent of filming your dreams so they are crisp, clear, unfragmented and rewatchable. I am in no way a spiritual or superstitious person. I don’t read horoscopes or crap my dacks when a black cat saunters past, but I am fascinated by dreaming. From a psychological position, they are captivating. They are something that we all experience but don’t have a definitive answer for. Dreams have a huge impact on the way I view my environment and how I feel in myself. Sometimes the dreams are so vivid, or strange, or emotional that I don’t know how they could be ignored.

I connect with family members who have passed away, see the most picturesque landscapes and have cryptic messages repeated. I remember once I had a dream I lived my whole life, the years passing like seconds until I was old. That must be significant. I have no theory for what it means, I don’t think it is prophetic or even reflective of any emotion present in me. But I am still so interested in it, and it was something I spent a long time reflecting on. Other times I have dreamt I am talking with my late grandfather, and a lot of the time he is very sick, which is difficult, but there is always some positivity in the experience. I also have a lot of dreams that I am being chased or there are plots to murder me. I feel like if I could replay these moments, rewind and pause and rewatch the dreams I would feel more connected to my subconscious (that sounds like hippy bullshit I know) and could perhaps pin down the meaning, or at least study them without the dream fading quickly as it so often does. But this brings me back to the time remote control, is there a danger of becoming trapped in the past, obsessed with rewatching things that have already happened? I feel like that would defeat the purpose of design fiction, where the point of designing is to be forward-looking.

Number Two: A remote control that can pause or rewind time.

sourced from http://www.popcornreel.com/jpgimg/CLICK_Dom_C-289A_wb03_comp_v5_hd_vd8_0046_r.jpg

This idea has been explored in a number of different story lines, but perhaps most memorably in Adam Sandler’s Click. Shame such a good idea is communicated in such a poor format. Whenever anyone asks what “superpower” I would most like (admittedly this conversation doesn’t come up that much) I always think that the ability to control time would be the best. However, it is the kind of tool that I would only want me to possess. I love the idea that I could mess up as tragically as I could and erase it, rewind and start again.

But for me there are so many problems with this. It seems intrinsic to human life that we make mistakes and learn from them, and a huge part of this is doing it in a public forum. You need that external judgment for it to be a real learning experience. Having this device would make every moment seem like a dress rehearsal rather than real life. When I dissect why this appeals to me, I realise the rewind function would be more to preserve memories, have the ability to rewatch moments of my past; my first word, my first kiss, first day of school, the last moments with my grandfather. But then where do you draw the line? At what point does the past fully possess you and you become lost in it?

I also like the idea of pausing time, taking a break from it all. There is the relaxation aspect of it, but also the sense that you are doing something deliciously illicit. I feel like wanting to pause time and walk around in a suspended scene alone is such an only-child desire. Craving that solitary time that I’m used to. I feel like there is something vaguely (VAGUELY) poetic in that but most of all its just sad. Who wants to feel alone in a crowded room? Maybe this is the point of design fiction, to create something seemingly fantastical, but feel free to criticize it too, seeing if it we can realistically envision it in the real world.

Number one: The Point of View Gun from the Hitchhiker’s Guide.

sourced from http://www.empireonline.com/features/absurdly-cool-movie-weapons/p12

The Hitchhiker’s guide is one of my favorite books and its inventions and ideas could give me enough material to fill up the blog for the rest of the year. The knife that toasts your bread as it butters it, the Babel fish that, once inserted in the ear, allows you to understand any language (a concept adapted in Dr Who), and the real-life thinking cap (from in the film). As Adams describes, the Point of View Gun “conveniently, does precisely as its name suggests”, and allows whoever fires it to transfer their viewpoint onto someone else. As I look back over this blog, the majority of posts are me grappling with ideas outlined by Adrian, trying to understand where he is coming from. One zap from the gun and everything about the course would be clarified for me, and vice versa, he could see why I have issues with certain comments.

I’ve had relationships disintegrate from not being able to see inside the other person’s head, desperately wanting to build trust and convey feelings, but so many things getting lost in translation. I love the idea of wordless communication, a ‘weapon’ that allows someone to enter into your mindset immediately, like an automatic clarification and empathy trigger. Imagine how much easier pitches, relationships, assignments, negotiations would be if this kind of technology existed? I guess the flipside is, seeing things from someone else’s viewpoint doesn’t always make you empathise with them.

Things that didn’t quite make the list are the neuralyzer from Men in Black (for all those moments you get foot-in-mouth or make a bad impression, and you rewrite history so that, according the to others present, it never happened. Or, take the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind approach and wipe your own memory, eradicating all those unpleasant memories a break up leaves you with), the invisibility cloak, the “dinner pill”, which tastes and feels like a full meal but is just one pill, with none of the carbs the meal would usually have, teleportation, and cryogenic freezing that actually works. These have been left off my list because they are problematic for many reasons, but perhaps I can explore those at a later date.

Looking at the top three designs that would exist in my utopian world, I find it a little disturbing 2 of 3 encourage perpetuating solidarity, or obsessed with the past. Maybe these products don’t exist for a reason.

The concept of double loop learning was one that interested me. There is a saying that the definition of madness is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. If single loop learning encourages you to change your behavior to modify the outcome, it would seem that going above and beyond that and challenging the assumption behind the initial action (double loop) would be the antithesis of madness. Which makes sense, it explains the sense of both freedom and direction (and un-insanity) I get when I question ideas and assumptions at have been informing the way I perform. Changing the way you think is exciting. It’s like that moment before you open a gift, and anything could be wrapped in that paper you hold in your hands. The possibility seems infinite.

Although little abstract, an example of the two learnings I thought of was dieting. The desired outcome is to be happy with your figure. The action usually involves cutting out food groups, detoxes, fasting, a buttload of vegetables, and kale smoothies. This behavior can achieve the goal, however, it the achievement is usually fleeting. The moment your will gives, so does your waist. A double loop approach would perhaps involve questioning why you want to look this way, or why you think a fad diet will achieve this for you. Maybe it entails questioning why you want to change, why are you aren’t happy in the first place.

Anyway, that’s great in theory and corny to read, but it’s not where I was planning on going.

The point is, I understand the concept of double loop learning, I appreciate it and I can apply it. But, as per usual, when I attempt to apply my logic or my knowledge of the world to this class, everything goes tits up.

I have one big questions when it comes to understanding and applying double loop learning in the context of Networked Media.

In this particular example:
Assumption = what you believe makes a good blog
Action = executing a blog that conforms to your notion of what makes a good blog
Goal = a good blog.

First I looked at what I thought made a good blog (outside the sphere of the networked media class). I think a good blog is engaging, is interesting stylistically (literarily and visually), tells me information I didn’t know, or hadn’t considered from that angle previously, has a sense of humour (not essential but it helps) and is addictive to read. For this subject, I believe a good blog addresses the key issues and ideas raised in class and in the “unlecture” and looks at them in a unique way, interacting with the ideas playfully, critically, philosophically. And yes recognize all of these descriptions are very vague. But even so, do I need to reevaluate them and the assumptions that lie behind them? Perhaps a great blog is informal, not based on course content and is largely situated outside of the networked media bubble. These are all approaches I am going to experiment with.
But there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE GAPING PROBLEM here.

In pretty much every ore example I could think of for double loop learning the outcome is directly measurable and apparent. Take the diet example, you’re happy with the way you look or you aren’t. You lose weight or you don’t. Your self esteem increases, or it doesn’t. Based on this, you can change your behaviour and change your assumptions too.The huge problem here is that I don’t know if my blog is good or not. I might think it is. I might be meeting my assumption of what a good blog is, executing it perfectly, have compliments streaming in from my peers and even those from outside the course. My mum might love it and my dog doesn’t sick up when I read it aloud. An international publishing house offers me a lucrative contract to keep pumping out my gems of wisdom and I become a millionaire. But when it all comes down to it, if Adrian doesn’t like it, I don’t get a good mark. It’s a simple as that. And the problem with that is that I don’t know how he feels toward it until I get that HD or that credit 10 weeks from now. It’ll be a smidge too late to apply this feedback, change my behavior + assumptions then because the mark has been given. It means that I’m perpetually in a loop of questioning, second guessing myself, changing, never settling on one style, constantly challenging my view of myself and my assumptions of what makes my writing good or bad. Being critical and analyzing your work is essential, I get that. But when there is no baseline, how do you improve?

This is a brief (and relatively incomplete) response to Chris Argyris’ Double Loop theory of learning.

When I first heard the term “reflection in action” I thought of my second blog post, when I questioned how we would get perspective when we were so close to the subject. I feel like this answers my question somewhat, or proposes an answer anyway.

My second thought was, “Gee, we seem to be learning a lot about how to learn, how we’ve been learning ‘wrong’ and how to respond to what we are learning, but I don’t feel like I’m learning anything!”. It’s like I’m being told how to process the information this course provides, kbut in reality I am receiving no information in the first place.

I continued to read and (although it might have been optimistic thinking) felt I could relate to the double loop of learning. Most of my experiences are based on the single loop, a kind of trial and error leaning where elements of the education process are modified slightly until the desired outcome is achieved. I think this class is encouraging the double loop, partly because everything is so formless. It’s easier to completely change your reinterpretation of the class and its tasks than to continue on with the trial/error. This is because (in my opinion), since the parameters of our learning are so undefined, the way we learn follows a similar pattern. Then again maybe I am interpreting and applying the theory in completely the wrong way. Maybe I need to recontextualise and reconsider the points and how they apply to me, have a total gear shift in my thinking.

Again.

To be continued…

There were several interesting points in the lecture, many of which challenged the notions I had constructed for myself on what the course would entail. Adrian’s distinction between how we do things and what we know was salient and I felt as though it applied to me. He emphasised that know-how is far more valuable than know-what. In an industry as competitive as communication, it is essential to differentiate yourself. In theory, all students in this course will know/be familiar with the same material. But how you apply this knowledge, and how you behave in a workplace is what sets you apart.

The notion of a speculative curriculum both intrigued and alienated me. For me, connotations of the word “speculative” are not hugely positive, especially when they are associated with education. I suppose this reaction is based on my rather linear experience of learning, a one-way model by which I am given information and expected to absorb it, largely without question. This model is not a great one so perhaps this class symbolizes a chance for me to break free from the stereotypical, didactic forms of education I have unfortunately become accustomed to. For me, “speculative” is also associated with literature. This genre is usually classed as sci-fi and is based in a utopian or dystopian society. Fingers crossed this class will draw on the utopian side of things… Science fiction and fantasy novels are interesting reads, but can sometimes be difficult for me to get into because they are so far removed from reality as I perceive it. Will this subject similarly be too foreign for me to be compatible with?

I am divided when I think of a speculative curriculum. On the one hand, I think it is hugely applicable to my future and will aid me in my career path. For example, a speculative approach would be an asset when going for a job interview. Being able to envision how I would positively contribute to the team and being able to articulate this is essential. Perhaps it would mean I will excel at risk management because I will be able to anticipate potential issues. It enables me to visualize the future and which role I need to adopt in order to function effectively in it.

Then, the cynicism takes over. Will a speculative background work against me? My résumé is strong because of my marks, my experiences and my references. It isn’t enhanced by a speculative outlook on the world (ie I can’t list that in my qualifications). We live in a world where stability is (usually) celebrated. With so much uncertainty and the ambiguity that digital media brings, facts and figures are comforting to many. An employer wants to hear solid statements about my background, and my abilities; not that I can speculate on a number of things (perhaps this would be more useful on the stock exchange). If this course encourages me to be experimental, inquisitive, forward looking and thinking, I think I will get a lot out of it and the experience will be valuable. If it, however, is based purely on speculation and does not place any importance on facts or tangible learning, I feel as though I will leave feeling unfulfilled.

Adrian made a good point about scarcity too. Scarcity is a thing of the past. As a uni student this line of thought is not regularly encountered; money is scarce, time is scarce, many things feel fleeting and rare. But in a larger context, it is very accurate to say scarcity simply does not exist the way it used to – scarcity is scarce! I am looking to differentiate myself, to succeed I want to become an item of scarcity – a rare, hardworking, one-of-a-kind worker with unique ideas and a good work ethic. However, I do need to conform to some degree to fit in in the first place. Also, am I really differentiating myself by writing a blog when every single other person in my class is doing it too? Perhaps this is what Adrian means when he talks about know-what and know-how. While we all blog, (the “what”), the emphasis should be on the “how”.