The first thing I saw when I opened this document was a comment that looked like it was in the opening cover, “This is a book to savour, not speed read”. This lead to me gaining speed in my reading, mainly because the person that made that comment set me a challenge. Anyway, it discusses the early days of the internet and the certain realisations that followed the newly created internet gadget of Instant Messaging. It was the story of a boy who messaged a girl in Colorado about a massacre that was going to take place the next day. The police ordered that the boy be taken in custody and find out what his intentions were. It ended up being a misunderstanding where he was only meant to be imitating an actor of this messaging device. Making him something much more than an amateur actor.

The idea that you can be anything / anyone you want to be on the internet is really quite scary. Its also kind of funny that in these early stages of internet and communication that these ideas weren’t really addressed until someone went and acted crazy on the internet.  Weinberger also breaks the internet down into 4 different segments, space, time, self and knowledge.

Space – A website is a ‘space that occupies no space’

Time – We determine how long we participate online depending on what suits us

Self – Unlike our ‘real world’ selves, online selves are ‘intermittent and most importantly written’

Knowledge – The web is a research tool, we are constantly learning when online

All this is very weird and exciting and i’m looking forward to witnessing the next outbreak in the online world that no one could have prepared for!

Ward discusses the harsh truth about Designers contemporary products that have constantly been dismissed over and over again by corporations that don’t see the object fit for them due to a range of social and economic reasons. Sci-Fi writer Bruce Sterling defines design fiction as the ‘deliberate use of diegetic prototypes to suspend disbelief about change’. These products have come to be known as vapourware, which I think is a bit of a waste. Imagine the amount of people that have created something worth while only to be set aside until the world can catch up with the idea or design. It is quite mind boggling but also quite exciting in the sense that people are using fictitious concepts to create these things.

Ward also discusses a manifesto that he formulated that embraces and interrogates the role of fiction in design.

One important note I found from the 14th point was that the designee can’t let the fictional element of their work pull them away from the reality aspect of their design. I also found the reoccurring aspect of the object rather then the character. I think this makes sense, I can never really tell if my descriptions are ever close to what is actually being said.

Ah well I think I understood this and found it interesting, I personally love the idea of creating or inventing objects that are beyond any current technologies.

What can I say?

Chris Argyris is an incredibly dense man that really likes theorising about how theories effect other theories which then go on to create new theories??? All these theories and variables take me back to my VCE psychology days which did not sit with me so fondly. I’m not going to try and unpack the initial spiel discussing all of Argyris’s achievements and workings however I did find some things that I found interesting… I think.

The first section talks about the Theories of action: Theory-in-use and the espoused theory:

Espoused theory – The words we use to tell what we would do in a given situation. The answer given when asked how we would act when placed in a certain position.

Theory-in-use – The actual behaviour sought from personal tactic structures. Their relation to grammar. (I’m not sure if these can be instinct type reactions)

Just as I was typing that i found a video that explains the difference between the two in language that people like me can understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maAyBcVw5LU

The Theory-in-use also has a model WOOHOO

This is a model which shows the difference between single-loop and double loop learning.

Single Loop Learning – This is a response to a problem through a strategy that will work and within the governing variables.

Double Loop Learning – An alternative to this is to question the governing variables to critical scrutiny.

There are also a number of methods that Argyris devised to help improve / enhance the double loop learning method. There is a group of phases that outline a method that can also help achieve  a environment where an organisation can grow and improve as a collective.

Model I – This is the model of theory-in-use that most people begin in, which usually has them personally on top, not really talking into account what other people are thinking or feeling. Involves making inferences about another persons behaviour without checking if it is valid.

Model II – This has more mutual connotations and calls on a persons ability to make inferences using personal good quality data.  

I believe that this reading is widely used and related towards workplace environments however i think that it is useful for Networked Media as it is very relatable to student cohort. Working together in groups is a very important aspect of classes within the media course and being able to evaluate your position in the group may very well help improve group morale and production.