![[back]](back_teal.GIF)
Back to Cognition page
The reflective mode of cognition is that of comparison and contrast, thought, and decision-making. This is the mode that leads to new ideas and novel responses. We can clearly see the difference when we drive on auto-pilot and wind up taking the wrong exit!
A key point that goes throughout the book is "don't let the technology use you". Any technology that attempts to make you think like a machine, because it's easier to build a machine than to understand how the human mind really functions, is going to have pros and cons - you can never get rid of the cons. (see McKenna on evaluating interactive multimedia learning environments.)
Remember - our minds function better in an analog fashion, seeing patterns emerge; whereas machines have a tough time with this. Machines are quick in computation, but people have a tough time with this. (Partly, this is because some of our mental processing is pre-attentive - we notice patterns almost automatically.)
A representational system has two ingredients: see Nesher, Microworlds in mathematical education
The most appropriate representational format depends on the task - no format can be correct for every purpose. And, since the user of an information display must (1) find the relevant information, and (2) compute the desired conclusion, the best representation for a given task is one that transforms the task from reflection (top down, logical processing or computing) to experiencing (seeing the pattern emerge). Hence, we use graphs rather than tables to represent trends; and when we are counting things, it's easier to use tally marks than Arabic symbols. And this is why group theory is so powerful in particle physics.
Tasks may appear the same to a computer that uses an algorithm, but to a person, they may appear very different. Why? If people can make use of physical structures in the environment, there's less information they have to store in working memory, and the more cognitive power is freed up. So, if you are timing something very accurately, use a digital stopwatch; but if a cop is following you, you want to see if you are over or under the "55" red line.
Different technologies have different affordances. Those that rely on space have very different affordances from those that rely on time. That's why animated algorithms are much easier to understand than capturing sequential states of the solution and drawing them in order of occurrence in a textbook.
We are different from machines because machines find computation and memory for vast databases easy, but they can't deal with deception, the appreciation of beauty, music, etc., because these require the ability to represent knowledge and metaknowledge, to form representations, to compare resentations with each other, and to form causal explanations of events.
We are different from animals because we are capable of true, social, cooperative behavior (and can turn it off when it's no longer appropriate, not like bees), we can teach (break complex procedures into steps and model how to do each step properly, not just learn through imitation), and we can make and use complex tools (including tools to make other tools, and cognitive artifacts).
Human intelligence has evolved from
We prefer to work in an experiential mode (including preattentive processing, pattern recognition, recognizing the whole from a part - see Fleming & Levie). However, this often makes us jump to conclusions. We may talk a lot about using logic to make decisions, but often major decisions are based on stories (think about Reagan's awful campaign speech about riding along the California coast!) Why? Because logic is a branch of mathematics, not a branch of natural thought. It's an abstraction, not concrete. Moreover, logic can only handle aspects of a situation that are thought to be important - not the whole scene, so it can oversimplify to the extreme (and thus make crucial errors because the model doesn't always fit the real world, like in computer modeling of radar paths, or a true experiment in educational research). Logical analysis only applies to what can be measured - how can we measure beauty and morality? Stories carry context; logic tries to abstract, to generalize, to remove subjectivity. They are very different!
Errors
Slips and mistakes. We slip when the action performed is not
the one intended (dropping a dish on the new tile floor). We make a
mistake when the intended action is wrong (we run a red light). Why do
we err? Because we remember the substance and meaning of events, not the
details; and because we can only keep our mind on one conscious task at a
time. We have a short attention span. We are sensitive to changing
events, not to continual, sustained events. We also match present
patterns to similar events that have occurred in the past. And we have
tunnel vision. Once your mind is set, it's difficult to change it, even
in the face of contradictory evidence. In other words, we can quickly
come up with a good explanation for why something happened and how to fix
it (which a machine finds hard to do), but when this property gets
sidetracked by the wrong explanation, it's very difficult to get it
redirected - like misdiagnosing an illness. That's why it's best to get
an impartial observer (a "third eye") when you're getting stuck or things
aren't working out as planned. I think that's the role of the skeptic in
CSILE.
How to deal with this? We are good at creating mental models (unlike machines), not at highly accurate repetitious tasks (like machines). Don't require tasks that require using memory for details, or devoting long periods of attention to unchanging situations. Have the task make sense. And provide informative feedback to make sure our explanations are in sync with the actual situation.
Balance cognitive overload with full accessibility of all
information
There is a delicate balance here. For air traffic controllers, they have
to deal with lots and lots of messages - cognitive overload. However, if
they only get the messages that pertain to them (say, they are dealing
with plane X landing on strip Y right now, and only get info. from plane
X), they lose sight of the total picture. This can cause more mistakes.
Mistakes
Norman uses the example of a ship's
crew. They communicate through handsets and hear each other talk.
Crosstalk. Yes, they do make mistakes, and under pressure or confusion
they make more mistakes. But to eliminate those mistakes by eliminating
the crosstalk means we eliminate the learning process by new crew
members, as well as the mentoring process by old crew members who need to
teach the newbies how to run the ship. "This shared communication
channel, with its shared teaching and correcting process, keeps everyone
at a uniformly high level of expertise.
Efficiency
Natural, smooth, efficient interaction should be
the goal of all work situations. However, natural interaction is often
invisible, unnoticed interaction. We don't know it is there till we
remove it, and then it may be too late!
Disembodied intelligence
He's talking about simulations.
Simulations are good for teaching. However, they're difficult to program
because of all the physical constraints that are automatic in the real
world, but have to be factored in when designing a simulation. All too
often, in the effort to come up with a programmable solution, scientists
simplify the situation, then solve a simpler problem, with the goal of
solving the real, complex one later. I've seen how this fails (with
atmospheric reflection, using lots of simulated little mirrors - it
simply doesn't work!)
Accuracy
It's not natural. Humans are organized around sunrise and
sunset, stories, social interactions. Just how important is accuracy to
our real daily lives anyhow, until we start introducing technology that
demands it? It becomes like Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times - going by
the clock, with studied movements, very dehumanizing.
Oral tradition
I disagree with Norman. He does not distinguish information transmission
from ritual communication, as Pea does. What he says is true for
information transmission - storytelling - but not ritual communication. In
the Sanskrit oral tradition, slokas are memorized in a very formal fashion.
You cannot substitute one syllable for another, because it will change
the root of the word, or it will affect the meter. This is true all
through Tibet, Nepal, India - anywhere that's based on the Sanskrit oral
tradition. Vedic (pre-Sanskrit) was not written - that oral tradition
still holds, even through they did come up with a written language around
1500 BC.
Wooten patent desk
Why don't these schemes work? Because human memory isn't hierarchical, following simple paths. It's "navigation by description" - describe what we care about, and it's there. You need multiple routes, by which the user can get to any piece of information, in a way most relevant to him/her. This can't be replicated by normal mathematical logic, which is what programmers would like it to be.
Basically, any time an innovation organizes something for you, it uses you. It makes you think mathematically, spell like the dictionary, organize stuff the way the inventor wanted you to, uses an algorithm - not "your" way. So for every pro, there's a con. Plus, you lose information that won't fit into the innovation's structure.
My research management product
I use file cabinets for papers, piles of paper on my desk with post-it
notes, piles of papers on one shelf of my bookcase, for hard copy. The
periodic backups of the hard drive are on a single Zip disk. I use
the desktop metaphor with folders to organize my files on my hard drive.
For my online stuff, I try not to be too "gopher server" or "laundry
list" oriented, but I simply cannot stay within the 2-click rule. Online
works better than the Mac, because I can put hypertext links into my
readings, where I consciously relate (form an elaboration) between the
new information and prior knowledge. Norman doesn't mention hypertext at
all.
New technologies introduce new problems: invasion of privacy, issues of equity between the haves and the have-nots, sociopaths and hackers, and new forms of personal interaction. Do you want someone to see you in the bathtub? Or do you want the videophone to look at a picture of you in the bathtub while you are doing something else? The technology has the power to falsify, to intensify your fantasies. Maybe it's OK for flight simulators, but just how much of a false image is OK for you to portray, to put on your best image, to even project yourself as an avatar. Does the technology have to degenerate to Dungeons and Dragons?
It's not a question of whether these technologies can be made to work. They will work. And they can even afford true reflective comparison (as well as mass deception) - what you will look like if you lose that 20 pounds, change the color of your dress, your hair, etc.
Human beings can also be trained to work with the technologies - see what the elementary school kids are doing with computers today. Not like adults whose brains have gelled! We are capable of learning all sorts of arbitrary means of communicating ideas, making representations, and sharing them with others. We could also become like the Borg on Star Trek.
There are always limitations to the technologies, that don't interface well with humans. Norman talks about many possible ways the technology might change in the future; he should read Negroponte's Being Digital and compare futuristic visions. Whereas Norman complains about the limitations of the technology, like the graininess and jerkiness of virtual reality, Negroponte says you should forget vr and putting yourself into some false environment - holographic images projected around your room will fix the situation and everyone can watch them. But he also talks about touch screens and how they are not sensitive to real human fingers. Whoever you believe, Norman warns us to beware of the quick-fix!
And what about group interaction? We see lots of papers on CSCW. Yes, you can draw stuff on a jointly shared workspace. But what are the effects on the social processes of interaction among the group? Norman says that when technology supports the individual, the individual can still control the situation, and the technology/person pair can find some graceful means of interaction. But when people work together, social tensions can arise, that can only be avoided by the good will and cooperative attitude of the team. Add an inflexible technology, and you make this difficult.
Well, there are problems with e-mail, but I have seen lots of growth here at the Ed School as people learn to work with it, discover its affordances and effectivities. Maybe we are training ourselves to think like machines and compensate for the lack of body language, but it certainly empowers us to create a knowledge base and community that is distributed in place and time. I am not such a pessimist!
Norman's last comments are that it's not just the technologies, but the people who work with them. Same argument as he used before - the entertainment people use the experiential mode for entertainment at the cost of reflection; the programmers use reflection at the cost of experience. How many of us can program the vcr?
Besides the hard-wired perceptual abilities, people also map problems back onto their own personal knowledge and experiences - mental maps, like Kintsch with the city maps. Humans use stories; machines use logic. Logic abstracts the critical, quantitative aspects of a situation, and provides general (decontextualized, mathematical) methods for reaching conclusions. Stories emphasize the special aspects of the situation (contextualized, non-generalizable, situated), that emphasize the human side of the matter. Since they emphasize the qualitative aspects, they are not quantifiable, and will not have the reliability that a logical process will. It is like the difference between qualitative and quantitative methods in research - I think you have got to have both! Norman agrees.
Humans use language that has taken aeons to evolve to its current form - it allows for ambiguity and imprecision, and emphasizes ease of use rather than linguistical rigor. Languages vary according to the shared experiences of the culture in which they are found. They are not easy to analyze logically. They are "soft".
Technologies, too, are hard and inflexible, forcing humans to conform to their needs, rather than the other way around. The stamp machine, for example, doesn't have an "undo" command - something that software developers have found that humans consider essential in good software design. From the point of machines, people are vague, disorganized, distractible, emotional, and illogical, whereas machines are precise, orderly, and logical. However, from the point of humans, it's the other way around: people are creative, attentive to change, resourceful and flexible, whereas machines are rigid, insensitive to change, unimaginative, and prone to "a foolish consistency - the hobgoblin of little minds". It's all in your point of view.
It's important to make the link with Turkle & Papert here, because their paper deals with not only the gender difference in approaching technology, but the whole arena of soft vs. approaches to technology.
Each medium has its affordances as ( Allen & Otto also say. Plus, Diane Ravitch warns us about the dangers as well as the benefits of the new technologies as they should or shouldn't be used in the curriculum. Reading affords control of pace, mental concentration, and effort. TV affords ease of watching, and a continuous flow of information that drives the senses experientially.
People are capable of reflection; machines are not. To reflect, a system must have an internal representation of knokwledge and the ability to examine, modify, and compare its representations - he calls this a "compositional" representational medium. Paper and pencil can augment this - TV cannot. But reflection also requires the time and ability to elaborate upon and compare ideas - TV cannot afford this. However, when used interactively, TV changes, since human beings can transform any technology into a reflective one.
Technology can be used appropriately, as long as it conforms to humans rather than the other way around. This can be done, like hiking boots and pocket calculators. "The difficult problems are the social ones, not the technological ones" (p. 252) - but this is another matter altogether...