My project in this series is to document the history of the rhetoric of attacks on “political correctness” (“anti-PC discourse” for short), to show how it evolved over time. The last post was mainly about the 1984 Bennett Report. This post is about Allen Bloom’s 1987 The Closing of the American Mind (wikipedia, archive.org, pdf), which both increased the heat of the rhetoric and introduced new tropes. Closing was not expected or intended to sell well, but it became a surprise bestseller, selling nearly 500,000 copies in hardcover and a similar number in paperback.

Continue reading →

While writing a podcast episode on deconstruction as a method and an idea, I got sidetracked into doing a “close reading” and deconstruction of Chip Morningstar’s 1994 essay “How to Deconstruct Almost Anything”. It seemed to me that (1) the essay comes from a time when attacking “political correctness” in universities was popular, and (2) it used several common tropes of such attacks in a pretty revealing way. So I wanted to link Morningstar’s essay to those tropes.

Continue reading →

Consider a yellow coffee cup. It’s sitting on your desk. You periodically grab it to take a swig. How might this work in the brain? Perhaps there’s a mental map of the desktop, with the cup represented in that map. In this telling, you might think that you look at the cup to fix its exact position, then direct your arm to reach for it. In Being There, Andy Clark speculates differently, using something he calls a personalized representation.

Continue reading →

In episode 41, I list five principles for reducing the cognitive load of Doing the Right Thing in a workplace. They involve shifting work onto the environment or the body. The rough idea is you get pushed into doing the right thing rather than having to decide to do it. The principles are: Favor direct control links from perception to action. Prefer composite values over atomic values. Avoid primitive obsession.

Continue reading →

TLDR: This is a teaser for an upcoming Oddly Influenced episode. I hope it will interest people in being interviewed, and let them judge whether their experience maps onto – or comments on – the theory proposed in Michael P. Farrell’s 2001 book, Collaborative Circles. I’m looking especially for people involved in early Agile teams. I’m also hoping to do some interviews about Context-Driven Testing. ---- Collaborative Circles develops a theory of creative change, basing it on influential groups like the French Impressionists, the “Ultras” group of US first-wave feminists, the early psychoanalytic circle (specifically Freud and Fleiss), and so on.

Continue reading →

The very first episode of Oddly Influenced was about Star & Griesemer's idea of "boundary objects." That's proven to be a fairly hard concept to pin down, and I did at best an average job. Fortunately, I'm rereading Étienne Wenger's book Communities of Practice to prepare for episode 21, and he adds some useful words. A difficulty with the boundary object idea is that it's tied up with "meaning," not the most self-explanatory word.

Continue reading →

This is an addendum to podcast episode 20 on Orr's Talking About Machines, about copier repair technicians. Orr uses Levi-Strauss's idea of "bricolage" as a way of talking about what makes a good copier repair tech. Broadly, bricolage is the process of rummaging through a whole bunch of things (ideas, experience, tools) you've collected to see which might help you reach a goal, then assembling the pieces you've found (possibly tweaked) to actually reach the goal.

Continue reading →

Many years ago, I learned to fly gliders (sailplanes, airplanes but without the complicated engine bits). I learned two contradictory lessons that have stayed with me. Don’t just do something, sit there Since gliders don’t have engines, something has to pull them into the air. Probably the most common way is to attach a tow rope from the front of the glider to the rear of a single engine airplane. The two aircraft take off together, with the tow plane pulling the engine to, say, 2000 feet.

Continue reading →

@Migueldeicaza pointed to an article titled "The rise and fall of peer review", which argues that the current method of scientific peer review is relatively recent (it only became common in the 1960s) and hasn't worked out. The problems are fairly well-known: peer review takes a long time, greatly delaying the publication of useful results; reviewers don't catch the really important problem because they don't look closely at the underlying data, the statistical methods, and so on; some reviewers (stereotypically "

Continue reading →

In response to "What got left out of software design patterns," Joel Tosi asked what Alexander got wrong in Notes on the Synthesis of Form. To answer, I think it worthwhile to quote Alexander's "Preface to the paperback edition" in full. All emphasis is in the original. Today, almost ten years after I wrote this book, one idea stands out clearly for me as the most important in the book: the idea of the diagrams.

Continue reading →