Summary of my interchanges with Lloyd Philpótt

This is my summary of the interchanges with Lloyd Philpótt (to see the whole context you need to read comments one by one in   http://lnkd.in/ce9jP6  ):

1. Lloyd gave me his design perspective on why he didn’t like abducting, when he wrote:

With jounalists using "....child was abducted today ...."

Thank you very much, I want nothing to do with any context of that connotation associated with my profession of serving others by design, regardless of how it may possibly be loved by José or any branding spinners. As an senior man who was abused by a teacher in my childhood, please get over that word, keep it in a drawer of logic thought and move on to words that already have positive meanings.
There's a word that in its origin just means black, but I do not use it because of the connotation of its past use to hurt a whole race, and so it would hurt my friends if I just thought the dictionary was the only reference to life.

José, write a book about the word abducting.. You can campaign for its truth. It will sell because the world knows its present meaning to be a tragedy of our children. While you're abducting about the book, try abducting about how to stop abductions of children.

2. This is what I normally do in social media to respond aggressive comments like his: I search for information; in Linkedin I first look for profiles. In the current discussion, I found “coffee” for Mark; "the science of design; the design of science," for Bruce; and Designarc for Michael Smythe . 

As can be seen, Lloyd, who seem to used to giving order, even told me what to do. His hint for me to search for the truth was what moved me to go to his Linkedin profile, because he still didn’t convince me. In fact, my firmed believe is that as the complement of deduction and induction, abduction must be a winner for the whole Design Thinking discipline. Every school kid will need to learn about adductive reasoning, because it’s now much more important than deductive and inductive reasoning. In that process, today’s magazine connotation is bound to eventually shift to a really beautiful everyday word, unless there’s a paid attack to it and the profession.

3. Looking for the truth, this was what I found and the questions I asked:

@Lloyd: I searched the http://www.coroflot.com/ website looking for the kinds of jobs they have:

For design, I found 1072 job listings. To my surprise, for “design thinking,” I found only 25 jobs listings out of 1072. For deduct, induct, and abduct, no jobs were listed. Finally I searched for reasoning and got 5 different job listing in http://www.coroflot.com/public/jobs_search_results.asp?keywords=reasoning

* • Creating project deliverables that clearly and persuasively communicate the IXD strategy and the reasoning behind it.
* • Excellent communication, reasoning, organizatinal, and team skills are also required
* • You will be expected to present and formulate compelling design reasoning that exceeds client expectations
* • You must challenge conventional thought, but support your challenges with sound reasoning and evidence.
* • REASONING ABILITY: Must show good judgment and logic. Also, must be able to competently handle potentially controversial issues and situations.

After all the comments in this whole thread, I guess that reasoning means abductive reasoning, in “the reasoning behind it,” in “excellent… reasoning,” in “reasoning that exceeds client expectations,” in “sound reasoning,” and in “reasoning ability… to show good judgment and logic.” But, there must be something wrong with the other 1,067 jobs listed that don’t call for any reasoning. What’s going on? What did I mised? Is coroflot going to let the competition atract away the candidates which excel in abductive reasoning?

4. The next step Lloyd took was to write the following highly disrespectful comment that the group manager, that deleted the Still Active Discussion, didn’t looked at:

One thing I noticed about all our bulls as I grew up feeding them on the farm in the heart of Tennessee, they continued to shit for all their lives, and I continued cleaning out the barn, spreading it on the pasture to fertilize the fields. But it was only after my introduction to Bauhaus/Ulm educated German design professors that I learned what BS is. Still, I'm thankful for their teaching and exposing me to Max Bill, Bruce Archer and Die Gestalt.
Sometimes we have to endure dung to get our fields to become fertile.

5. Instead of fighting back, my humble response was very polite:

@Lloyd: I am still not sure if you are capitulating or not, to favor of “abductive reasoning” jobs in this community. In any case, I love that you mentioned "Bauhaus,” because it reminded me of Newton’s physics, which is still applied successfully in some non systemic engineering situations.

I said that because Einstein proved Newton’s theory didn’t work under his theory of relativity. Even though "Bauhaus” is based on Cartesian theory, I don’t doubt it might still be applied successfully in some non systemic design applications. However, it’s for sure that "Bauhaus,” is unable to apply to wicked – systemic - problems, such as the one this community is facing. To unity this community, we need to start adopting (a really beautiful word that sounds very close to abDucTing) Peirce’s abductive reasoning.

Descartes attributed all human knowledge to the intellectual mind. For him, mathematics became a general method… the complete history of the Design development in the 20th century was characterized by this way of "Cartesian” thinking. Especially what we understand by the "functionalistic approach” was derived from this philosophical background. This [Cartesian} approach was first established in the German "Bauhaus“, from 1919-1925 at Weimar, later (from 1926-1932) at Dessau and finally until 1933 at Berlin.

6. The next part of the story came as a response of “Today's key highlight: Still Active Discussion was deleted - please see the comment that I guess was the object of the deletion that start with "@Lloyd: I searched the http://www.coroflot.com/ website looking for the kinds of jobs they have,” which was responded by Lloyd with “So José, you are an abductor?”

7. As nothing was being done by the group manager, my comment was:

@Lloyd - I am not an abductor, but the senior abDucTer that searched the http://www.coroflot.com/ website looking for the kinds of jobs they have... with only 5 out of 1072 jobs listed asking for reasoning skills, whatever that means. Whether you admit it or not in public, I am sure that it is very useful information for coroflot.

I now wonder if you asked to have that Still Active Discussion deleted in yesterday email by using the method of authority. As an abDucTer I use Peirce's method instead, which is where I suggest a united abDucTing community has the greatest opportunities to make the difference and become established. I also wonder if, with only 25 out of 1072 jobs that call for DT skills, you actually represent the “Bauhaus” status quo that has DT in a hole?

8. This was Lloyd’s last comment:

Abductor/Abducter, I don't want to be called either.
The world wide journalists have already forged the context of either word.
Page exist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductor
Page does not exist
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=abducter&title=Special%3ASearch

José, I don't know who the senior is to whom you refer or the "Still Active Discussion deleted in yesterday " point you wonder about, but it is not me, and you are so out of civility in your posts that I flagged your last post as inappropriate.

I have not read any other post that agree with much of anything you say despite your references. Your Coroflot/reasoning search only shows that HR people did not use it in their criteria. Could it be that in the industrial design profession, we have every reason to expect that any graduate of ID has such ability, like also to be able to read, and you can't seem to get grasp the other comments made, so I am leaving this discussion to the other people who are respectful not to hijack the space, and I suggest you do likewise.

9. And next is was the first part of my response to Lloyd. The rest starts with “Jim Isaac, the owner of the Linkedin group of the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology has responded the discussion ‘Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader…’" To see the remainder of Jim’s comment, please go to in   http://lnkd.in/ce9jP6 ..

@Lloyd. Thank you for admitting to all of us that you used your authority to flag out my comment. However, behind your decision there is an authority that decides if you are right or not to delete all the comments of an Still Active Discussions. My post was only telling about evidence I found on Internet and I didn't considered them as facts, instead I only asked questions about them to defend the need to follow Peirce's scientific method, which is based on abductions.

I am sorry to say that IQ is the best example of a Cartesian mindset, as it tells very little what skills an abDucTing professional must have. Please tell to HR people that they must upgrade themselves to learn about abDucTing professionals…

10. Notice please that Lloyd says “…I am leaving this discussion to the other people who are respectful not to hijack the space, and I suggest you do likewise.” I guess that’s why Mark wrote “There is one other issue that comes to mind - 'hijacking a discussion'. A discussion can be hijacked in three forms - said Mark; the 1st " I don't feel this has happened yet." The 2nd he said "This is border-line," but the 3rd  where "A group of individuals can form a common opinion and redirect their own statements in mob fashion, thus forcing an individual or other group to participate by oligarch rule. - This to me is the most outrageous due to sub-division of a group. this is also starting to happen." If go to the site, I guess you will see a mob.