Semilattice: Project Brief

This post is last updated on 20190927.


Context

In mathematics, semilattice means a partially ordered set in which elements could have multiple parents. Christopher Alexander compares the city with a tree and a semilattice in his essay, A City is Not a Tree. He borrowed the mathematical concept to illustrate the necessity of viewing a city not as defined and separated districts, but as multiple overlapped and organically-grown communities

Diagrams of tree (left) and semilattice (right) structures. Christopher Alexander.

The idea of semilattice doesn’t only apply to urban planning. It also offers designers an approach to map out dynamic systems and complex relationships. The word does not directly relate to the technology’s stance in our life. Instead, it honors the complexity of:

  1. The nuanced understanding needed to design intervention for systemic problems.
  2. The non-linear, spontaneous, and organic formation of thought.
  3. The societal, cultural, and political implication of the technology’s influence on one’s mind.

Intent

How does technology augment and/or undermine humans’ ability to think?

The full context of the inspiration could be found in the essay On Thinking, as a Way to Build the Future


Problem Space

The project considers the following items as relevant issues in the problem space.

Wicked Problems:

  • Deteriorating space for public discourse
  • Climate crisis
  • Political extremism and division

Technologies:

  • Algorithmic personalization
  • Information and knowledge management system
  • Machine learning

Skills and Abilities:

  • Systems literacy
  • Critical thinking
  • Agency / freedom of choices

Approach

To address different opportunities in the tangled and complex problem space, the project is organized as multiple short sprint sessions to create as many playful and communicative prototypes as possible. Each session focuses on a particular intersection of the problem space. (i.e. Climate crisis & critical thinking.) As the research progresses and new challenges emerge, the definition of the problem space will change accordingly.


Plan

In the first 6 weeks (Sep. 28 – Nov. 8), each session is two weeks long. In the next 4 weeks (Nov. 9 – Nov 29), each session is one week long.

Sat&Sun / Sat
  • Academic research into the problem space
  • Expert interview (depending on schedule)
  • Determine primary research interviewees (3 users/customers)
  • Contact and schedule appointments with primary research interviewees
Mon&Tue / Sun
  • Context collection
    • Inspiration
    • Analysis of existing solutions
  • Expert interview (depending on schedule)
  • Exploratory interview with users/customers
Wed&Thu / Mon
  • Expert interview (depending on schedule)
  • Formulation of exploration/problem statement
  • Brainstorming session
  • Technology/feasibility research
Fri&Sat&Sun&Mon / Mon&Tue
  • Rapid prototyping of interactive prototype or multiple prototypes
  • For two-week sessions: Documentation online
  • For two-week sessions: Reflection writing
Tue&Wed / Wed&Thu
  • Concept testing with interviewees
  • Evaluation of concept testing
  • For the next session: Brief academic research into the problem space
  • For next session: Determine expert interviewees (>1 expert)
  • For next session: Contact and schedule appointments with expert interviewees
Thu&Fri / Fri
  • Documentation online
  • Reflection writing
  • Refinement on problem space

In addition to sprint sessions, there will be daily JavaScript learning as preparation to kickoff building the MVP next semester.

In the last 2 weeks (Nov 30 – Dec 13), the project shifts focus as the semester comes to the end.

  • Wrap-up of any additional work from sprint sessions
  • Determine MVP direction from proofs of concepts
  • Evaluation of JavaScript learning progress
  • Project Plan for second semester
  • Presentation

On Thinking, as a Way to Build the Future

On Reflection

On the Third Annual Phil Patton Lecture, Natasha Jen, partner at Pentagram in New York, gave a talk about The Designer as Critic. She argued that designers should not be critics, for most of them already strive to be critical of, yet remain too close to their work. Instead, designers should be skeptics. The word opens up possibilities for designers, who are “obsessed with prescriptions,” to explore the possibilities beyond existing understanding of the field and its methodology, a.k.a. Design thinking.

A difference was pointed out between the critique on the quality of work and the reflection on the way we work. Reflection is important to designers because it gets us closer to the “possibilities removed” by the process of brainstorming, research, etc., even though we don’t know what we don’t know.

To an extent, designers’ trust and reliance on methodology resemble people’s trust and reliance on technology. Methodology promises abundance (of “ideas”) and excellence; technology (and consumerism) promises simplicity, freedom, and individual choice. Both could be deceptive. Our world is becoming increasingly complex, and people, including designers, have trouble navigating within it. Meanwhile, designers keep releasing inventions with vast implications into the world.

In the 1960s, Christopher Alexander, architect and design theorist, described designers’ unique role, which is summarized in Architectural Intelligence (2017):

Alexander argued that the designer was designing for an increasingly complex world in which it was impossible to keep in one‘s mind all of the inter-meshing systems with all of their details. “In spite of their superficial simplicity, even these problems have a background of need and activities which is becoming too complex to grasp intuitively.” The complex systems of which he spoke sat within a growing ecosystem of other pressures, whether social, cultural, or informational.

The reflection on how we engage in and create with technology is critical in the present world.

One could argue that it must and can only be done by designers because 1. they contributed more or less to the growing complexity of the world, and 2. they are more capable of “thinking out of the box” and recognizing the cognitive bias involved and deliberately used to construct the complexity.

On Thinking

Looking back on Vannevar Bush’s As We May Think (1945), many of the promises of technology became true today, but we are still confronted with a confusing world.

On the one hand, compared to fifty years ago, it is beyond our cognitive abilities to find answers to many systemic and global challenges that exist today. In New Dark Age (2018), the artist and writer James Bridle commented:

We don’t and cannot understand everything, but we are capable of thinking it. The ability to think without claiming, or even seeking, to fully understand is the key to survival in a new dark age, […] Technology is and can be a guide and helpmate in this thinking, providing we do not privilege its output: computers are not here to give us answers, but are tools for asking questions.

On the other hand, it is essential to examine if technology fulfills its promise as “intelligence augmentation.” To put simply, does technology help us think better or not?

In my last year at the undergraduate IxD program at CCA, I would try to answer this question. Many arguments and counterarguments could be made here, but without a focused and analytical approach, we will end up in spiraling fruitless discussions, which we’ve had too many before in this world.

We have to move forward, and it won’t happen if our ability to think is threatened.