Comments on: New models on existing technology vs. old models on new technology

by: /personal » Blog Archive » Building things in four steps

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:53:47 +0000

[…] A comment on bootstrapping.net: […]

by: Gunnar Langemark

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:07:35 +0000

Just thought about building models last night, when reviewing a process for software development:
Analysis: Is building a mental model of the whole thing.
Design: Is building a visual and language based model of the system.
Prototype: Is building a “working model” of the thing.
Development: Is building the thing.

So this “waterfall” model of systems design - is also an iterative model - which btw reflects the philosophy of hermeneutics - an ongoing interpretive investigation into (a future) reality.

We always build on old models - and always rearrange them into new patterns, according to the feedback we get from what we just did.

Sure thing.

by: Claus

Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:59:33 +0000

oops: Last sentence, replace ‘but buying’ with ‘not buying’

by: Claus

Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:58:25 +0000

I’ve now listened to the talk Eno and Wright gave and in fact it turns out they’re not really talking about the same thing at all.
What they’re talking about is very unrelated to the kind of paradigmatic thinking you’re suggesting - what they’re talking about is more the constant reeneactment of reality in play (music and games and culture in general)

That being said I’ve noticed that there’s an interplay along the lines you describe in how standards emerge, that might function as a useful starting point for this kind of discussion.
I hinted at it in this post. It seems to me that there’s a duality between the data (culture) and the tools (technology), where the data is put out there, then somebody tool it - imperfectly - and then the presence of the tool makes people modify the data to hit the technology sweet spot. On a larger scale this seems a reasonable starting idea for thinking about technology and culture. The technology arrives as an afterthought to existing culture (e.g. The Web as Vannevar Bushian ‘hyperlibrary’) which in turn makes culture adapt to fit into the tool, i.e. the multifunction many-faceted web of the present, which is two way in a manner that I honestly don’t think Bush imagined. To him it was all about reading, but buying plane tickets.

by: Thomas Madsen-Mygdal

Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:47:18 +0000

Obviously agree on everything you say.

What i’m really interested is the peculiar way of adopting technology using old models and the shift then to a state where it’s the “new” models that the technology allows that gets adopted.

The perception shift in terms our mental models of how everything works.

by: Claus

Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:42:27 +0000

There’s no doubt in my mind that culture and language beats technology as change agents. Specifically. Technology can’t change a thing without accompanying culture change, and culture change isn’t wrapped up in technology at all.
And there’s no doubt in my mind either, that the what really sets the pace of change is our rate of cultural adoption. The history of the world is full of examples of transformations that appear at more or less the same time scale as the internet revolution of the 90s - it seesm “5-10 years” is simply the incubation time for a cultural pandemic.

That being said, technology change is very real.

The creativity of play is of course extremely well studied, I imagine you could get book lists from hundreds of ITU students.