The scientific experiment, in Peircian sense, "Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader, that started the war against the Cartesians, has now a rich proof of the abuse committed by the Design Thinking manager, as the witness of our “private” discussions might confirm.
As I have been expelled out from the Design Thinking Group, the battle to have Charles Sanders Peirce recognized by the DT community seems to have been lost. The Cartesians, led by Paula Thorton, think they have won. However, nothing is father than the truth. Since it is still an open group, there is clear evidence at this moment that no discussions are left about Peirce and only one on Verganti.
Under the discussion, Summary of my interchanges with Lloyd Philpótt, you can see Bruce Renfrew’s last comment, deleted in the DT Group and repeated for convenience now:
Thirty percent of the contributions to this discussion originate from one man with an almost obsessive determination to stamp his definition of Design Thinking on the minds of the other contributors. It's clear he won't rest until his definition is acknowledged and adopted by the group, and the wider design community. (it's also clear, for various reasons, some aesthetic, some philosophical, that this is unlikely to happen).
What began as a kind of 'break-time' intellectual challenge, has now mutated into a rather disagreeable power struggle, recently accompanied by a side blog justification and chronicle of key exchanges in a spat between our man-on-a-mission and another who dared to challenge him.
There's no absence of humor in this discussion, but during his bludgeoning of us with his definition, our major contributor has failed, (or perhaps rather refuses) to recognize its existence. For contributors used to more courteous, lighthearted behavior in social medial forums, this is all rather tiresome.This whole post can be considered as and my reply which I guess has important evidence for how managers unable to deal with non trivial issues should not be allowed to be community leaders.
@Bruce - when you write “What began as a kind of 'break-time' intellectual challenge, has now mutated into a rather disagreeable power struggle, recently accompanied by a side blog justification and chronicle of key exchanges in a spat between our man-on-a-mission and another who dared to challenge him,” I guess you missed my repetition of group manager in my last comments. This has been a power struggle all alone with Paula. I guess that was the main reason she wrote: “I'm entirely not sure why you'd want to. One word for this discussion: useless.”
This battle started with my post Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader, which I guess she deleted several days ago. I further guess that Lloyd and you were used. He was certainly not the master mind of the deletion.
As a matter of fact, the struggle from my side has been not personal and as you discovered it is mostly philosophical. I also guess Lloyd took it personal, while being used by Paula. However, as you can see, it’s a year old struggle with a group manager unfit for the job, that I restarted with my first comment that I also guess you didn't see. That comment started an unintended discussion, which then led to my second comment to a discussion that was deleted this morning as Paula expelled out me and any trace of the Peircian Philosophy.
As you can see in the section "Battles," in the blog post First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth," I try hard to emulate my hero Uno Lamm, as "'The “Renaissance Man' story adds that 'As befits a widely educated man who is observant, articulate and outspoken on a broad range of issues, Dr. Lamm has not failed to attract his own share of criticism. That this has not visibly irritated him over the years is probably due to the fact that he is concerned with issues, not personalities. His targets are imprecise thinking, questionable logic an uncritical acceptance of political propaganda. In the course of his running battle to promote orderly processes of thinking in a frequently disordered world, he has not hesitated to cross swords (or at least exchange typewriter fusillades) with a prime minister, a Nobel laureate, a best-selling critic of capitalism and a host of other who, he often feels, are debasing modern communications.” I guess Lloyd fit that description.
@Bruce – thank you for saying “(it's also clear, for various reasons, some aesthetic, some philosophical, that this is unlikely to happen).” As you now may see, abDucTing is only a byproduct of the larger Design Thinking, Cartesian versus Peirce, philosophical war.
I left the Design Thinking Group for more than 10 months, when I discovered that the umpire Paula didn’t play a fair game as she took as personal my rebbutals. Although you didn’t see a response after my first post, because you didn’t hit the link (now unavailable) to go to the discussion "A Proposal to Define the Limits of Design Thinking" you can at least see the last three posts of that discussion:
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio • Thank you Paula. Those are very good points. I will try to see if my proposal still stands.
According to the Webster's American Dictionary, “determinism” is "a doctrine that all events have sufficient causes.” A boundary or limit may not be reached in every DT intervention, because the DT events are not deterministic. They depend on many circumstances, including those that you mentioned. Hence, abductive reasoning does not need to be a sufficient mechanism which is enough to guarantee a result.
I guess the fallacy that you mentioned was superseded by Roberto Verganti with his Design-Driven Innovation and also by Roger Martin’s article “Logical leaps into the future." I quote Roger saying that: “Apple has managed to leave open the possibility of abductive logic and has limited use of deductive and inductive logic to the areas for which it is actually useful. This has resulted in Apple becoming organizationally adept at inventing the future.”
Two minor details on "Top Influencers This Week," that doesn't seem to be working properly. You don't have a photo and I was included yesterday, but not today.
Paula Thornton • Jose: Note specifically "has limited use of deductive and inductive logic". It doesn't say that they've abandoned it. Again, it's a matter of balance and no one is suggesting what the balance should be. I guess a better term here would be equilibrium -- where sometimes the equilibrium might need to be somewhat 'out of balance' to allow for creative dissonance (noise).
[I've never figured out how Top Influencers works -- but surely you're not suggesting that I have any control over it? It's all automated by LinkedIn -- ask them.]
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio • Paula: By writing "If there is no abductive reasoning, in the reasoning mix, there is not Design Thinking" I meant not to abandon deduction and induction either. Roger's quote is way out of balance in the reasoning mix.
[I am not suggesting you have control, but that you are in charge of the group. There was a third minor detail that I could see. This conversation is not shown on Latest Discussions. Of the first two minor details, my photo is on. They could be just a bugs or maybe BIG BROTHER. ].