Skip navigation

The single most important thought model for a designer, that which he must train his brain to keep going back to, is to unfocus need and focus might.

Unhappily, that is exactly what design education seems to be trying to suppress.

A designer must get rid of “i got to” and put “i fancy if”.

That’s just common sense. Without the “might” mode of thinking you can’t diverge from established ways of doing. Needs, by definition, are things you can’t negotiate. Thus, need-oriented thought is mostly rule-following supplementary-only change-avoiding reworking of past experiences. It is restricted to problem solving. It does not think outside the box — it couldn’t even if it wanted!

If you question about what might, it’s like you are walking into uncharted territory: you don’t even know what you can expect to find. Might-mode of thinking, likewise, is willing to propose ideas that might not work. Ideas that might not even make sense.

Need-mode of thought, even when you “need to make something different”, is unable to do the same — simply because it gets all it’s ideas from assumptions. Thus need only goes to rooms that have been visited before.

The usual fallacy is that need could lead to new ideas if you need something you didn’t have before. But even your searching will be framed. If you search based on assumptions, the results of the search can’t fall outside the horizons of the assumptions of the searching agent. Framed search is like picking a list and checking every item, it is not like adding new items.

Obviously, no man’s brain can keep only one mode of thought for more than a fraction of an hour, so neither need-mode nor might-mode can be said to monopolize a given thought process. Thus, even the most anal “design by need” advocate will have some wild thoughts now and then. But if you condition yourself to have might-mode as a fall-back, the very scope of your thoughts is altered.

The advantage of this is you become independent from rules or principles. You can use them, but you can also forgo them and overturn the game board. You can change the laws.

This is what need-oriented people call creativity, but it is much better described as curiosity.

2 Comments

  1. Essa é uma excelente abordagem, mas ela pede uma pergunta – COMO aprender a pensar em “might mode”?

    Abraço,
    J.

    P.S.: Respondi em inglês no pitro post por que foi automático, li o post e já fui respondendo…rs

    Chato.

  2. Man, primeiro: Não sei se eu sou a pessoa certa pra responder uma coisa dessa, afinal eu não entendo muito de ensino e didática. Quando eu tenho que ensinar alguma coisa, ou fazer uma palestra ou algo assim, o que eu faço é só confiar num instinto sobre o que se passa na cabeça das pessoas, mas esse é um processo impreciso por definição — e aliás uma coisa que eu mantenho imprecisa ativamente.

    Então assim, eu acho que a princípio essa “forma talvez de pensar” não deveria ser muito difícil de treinar, não. Por exemplo, desenhar é uma prática muito rica nisso de ficar explorando ideias. O problema mesmo é que essa forma de pensar, pelo menos naquele lugarzinho tosco que a gente estudava, era ATIVAMENTE cagada. Foids.

    Toda essa história de “ser designer”, pra mim, sempre foi uma tentativa de condicionar tipos de pensamento que eu considero melhores. Tips? Não sei, não sei mesmo. Afinal, isso ainda é um experimento em andamento.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: