Based on what you’ve written here I think I am safe in equating a visual framework with a theory. The more territory covered by a theory, the greater the risk posed by anomalous observations that don’t fit the theory. As the theory approaches universality, the risk of new anomalous observations becomes existential. We have seen this over and over in history. And when universal theories collide, as they do sometimes, people who follow different ways have nothing useful to say to each other. All this to say I agree that mono-theories are dangerous. Consider the recent theory that all problems can be solved by design thinking.
Yes! I had not thought of “ground covered” = surface area for incongruence , but it seems to make sense.
Totally agree on the Design Thinking distortion.
What I think Design Thinking does best is acting as a gateway to the (controlled, in DT) iterative and tentative processes of creativity, for non-creative audiences.
But then a lot of people got stuck in that simplified version.
Based on what you’ve written here I think I am safe in equating a visual framework with a theory. The more territory covered by a theory, the greater the risk posed by anomalous observations that don’t fit the theory. As the theory approaches universality, the risk of new anomalous observations becomes existential. We have seen this over and over in history. And when universal theories collide, as they do sometimes, people who follow different ways have nothing useful to say to each other. All this to say I agree that mono-theories are dangerous. Consider the recent theory that all problems can be solved by design thinking.
Yes! I had not thought of “ground covered” = surface area for incongruence , but it seems to make sense.
Totally agree on the Design Thinking distortion.
What I think Design Thinking does best is acting as a gateway to the (controlled, in DT) iterative and tentative processes of creativity, for non-creative audiences.
But then a lot of people got stuck in that simplified version.