INTP Forum  

Go Back   INTP Forum > Within > School & Work

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 6th-September-2016, 10:58 AM   #1
Happy
ENTP
 
Happy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 853
macossafari
Default Cross-disciplinary Communication

I was recently listening to an interview with Alan Alda (Hawkeye from M*A*S*H) where he was talking about an organisation he started to help scientists communicate their work with the rest of the society.

Since then, I've been tuned in to the dialogues that happen in my work, and I've really begun to notice that some people are much better at communicating ideas across disciplines than others.

I'd like to know about some of the experiences you lot have had in interdisciplinary communication. Do you find yourself able to communicate your specialised work with the lay-person? Does it frustrate you when people don't comprehend what you're trying to tell them? How do you approach people who are not good at communicating their work to you? Are you good at communicating like this? Have you discovered any interesting ways to better communicate?

Spoiler:
I'm starting to believe that a big part of the negative image my profession (Architecture) has attained is due to architects' unwillingness to communicate effectively (due to ego, perhaps?). IMO architectural discussion should be extremely accessible (people interact with architecture every single day), but it isn't, and this may be due to the over-intellectualisation of architectural ideas (it's pretty simple shit after all). This is why I'm trying to better understand how to communicate with lay-people (the majority of my clients).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManBeyond View Post
bro if u don't risk at life u will become a boring piece of nothing
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManBeyond View Post
u never know if u fuck a lot
without shield
like a true warrior
Happy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th-September-2016, 11:07 AM   #2
redbaron
haHAA dog in a hard hat haHAA
 
redbaron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: 38S 145E
Posts: 5,759
linuxsafari
Default Re: Cross-disciplinary Communication

Thought this was going to be about scientists talking to other scientists from different disciplines.

Ian Lundt was an ecologist with a really cool blog and he made a post about just this thing. I'm a phone right now but I'll dig it up sometime soon.
__________________
They call me the man who isn't could not try to would it. But I would it.
redbaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th-September-2016, 11:11 AM   #3
Happy
ENTP
 
Happy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 853
macossafari
Default Re: Cross-disciplinary Communication

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
Thought this was going to be about scientists talking to other scientists from different disciplines.

Ian Lundt was an ecologist with a really cool blog and he made a post about just this thing. I'm a phone right now but I'll dig it up sometime soon.
It could be about scientists talking to scientists (from other disciplines). I'm sure that would advance the discussion.

Yeah that blog post sounds rad. Cheers.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManBeyond View Post
bro if u don't risk at life u will become a boring piece of nothing
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManBeyond View Post
u never know if u fuck a lot
without shield
like a true warrior
Happy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th-September-2016, 11:31 AM   #4
redbaron
haHAA dog in a hard hat haHAA
 
redbaron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: 38S 145E
Posts: 5,759
linuxsafari
Default Re: Cross-disciplinary Communication

This is the particular post I was thinking of.

It's not exactly the thing you're after but it's a very good article about how to get technical writing to make sense to a wider audience.
__________________
They call me the man who isn't could not try to would it. But I would it.
redbaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th-September-2016, 04:02 AM   #5
Kuu
Dolphins for Putin
 
Kuu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: A world half empty
Posts: 3,215
macossafari
Default Re: Cross-disciplinary Communication

It's not easy. Its quite frustrating actually. There's a lot to do with personality types. Some people just don't want to listen, are stubborn fucks, or communicate in totally different ways. But you can try to explain with examples, comparisons, histories, personal feelins (). Obviously avoid jargon, speak in simple sentences, don't try to cover too much too quickly...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy View Post
I'm starting to believe that a big part of the negative image my profession (Architecture) has attained is due to architects' unwillingness to communicate effectively (due to ego, perhaps?).
Me and an associate wrote a small essay about just that last year. "The crisis of architecture: a problem of communications". Hell, most of our association was based on the concept of bringing understanding to the masses (we failed).

Many of the issues are an outgrowth of our present decadent, post-modern, post-critical era where commercialism has absorbed all and intellectuality is, like commercial architecture, all façade and no substance. I don't remember it all from the top of my head but some points:

a) Post-modernity, instead of recovering meaning, gave it its coup de grâce. Public buildings and public spaces are vacuous, polished commercialized projects, and private buildings glorify the personal ego or the banal genericness of globalized corporatism. Buildings rarely signify anything to the average person, alienation maybe. The scale and speed of industrial civilization makes it impossible for any coherence and depth in design. (Koolhaas apparently thinks we've become utterly powerless and therefore a heroic nihilism is the proper attitude).

b) We don't collaborate as an industry because competition is fierce and too much rides on "uniqueness" and "superstars". We've never been as international, yet intellectual movements are dead even at the local scale. Architecture was always political, but now there's no mission, therefore nothing to say together (well, sustainability, but that's largely marketing).

c) Developers, marketing and real estate speculation has taken over communication in our absence and distorted the public understanding of Architecture. Fashions and trends emphasize the superfluous. Things are made primarily to be sold, only secondarily to be used, and rarely to be enjoyed.

d) We are not taught to communicate with laypeople, but rather learn sophistry for pseudo-intellectual critiques and flashy magazines, because of b) and c).

e) We are not taught to work or think cross-disciplinarily, but rather encased in excessive specializations. This goes as much for others as for us.

f) It's an uphill battle. People are ignorant of history and art and science, often architects themselves are—giving my history class was truly painful. How can people understand modernism if they don't know/understand the history of socialism? How can they understand neoclassicism without understanding the enlightenment? How the fuck can they ever understand today? Clearly they can't.



Generally speaking, the main step I take is trying to explain how the manipulation of space to create useful place is the essence of architecture, and that construction is merely the means to achieve it.

Then I try to explain it as being fundamentally an act of problem solving, and differing from engineering in that the problems are often numerous and fuzzy, and therefore the solutions a complex balance of contradictory needs. Explains both historical styles and typologies as consequences of environmental, material, economic and technological conditions rather than the whims of egos and fashions.

That there are four great pillars to its aesthetic appreciation, all a specific area of problem-solving: tectonics (addressing the problem of the forces of nature, construction), atmosphere (addressing the human physiology/psychology), symbolism (addressing the conscious mind/soul) and raw functionality.

That is not unlike the classic Vitruvian triad, but I think "beauty" is too much of an ambiguous concept best subdivided into clearer domains. Hell, Christopher Alexander (an unsung genius) spends several hundred pages trying to define "the quality without a name" in The Timeless Way of Building. It's usually the aspects corresponding to "beauty" which people find most hard to communicate/understand, because they're the fuzziest. Why do I like/dislike certain colors, patterns, lights, volumes, places? Well, let's dive deep into color theory, gestalt, ergonomics, proxemics, optics, acoustics, biology, geometry, psychology... good luck keeping that explanation short! It's much easier to just put on a mystical air and say some BS and have people just nod awkwardly than actually get across a good explanation. And just like with religion, some people just want to be fed feel-good nonsense by a sweet talking priest.

For ideas of how to explain general basic concepts I recommend you read some good introductory texts like:
Bruno Zevi – Architecture as Space: How to Look at Architecture
Simon Unwin – Understanding Architecture


What specific things do you have most trouble explaining?
__________________
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do — Asimov

Spoiler:
Kuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th-September-2016, 03:56 PM   #6
Happy
ENTP
 
Happy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 853
macossafari
Default Re: Cross-disciplinary Communication

Thanks for your reply Kuu. Will reply when I can. Maybe not for a couple of days.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManBeyond View Post
bro if u don't risk at life u will become a boring piece of nothing
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManBeyond View Post
u never know if u fuck a lot
without shield
like a true warrior
Happy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th-September-2016, 06:11 PM   #7
Puffy
Demon Alpaca Overlord
 
Puffy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SOON
Posts: 2,668
macossafari
Default Re: Cross-disciplinary Communication

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuu View Post
It's not easy. Its quite frustrating actually. There's a lot to do with personality types. Some people just don't want to listen, are stubborn fucks, or communicate in totally different ways. But you can try to explain with examples, comparisons, histories, personal feelins (). Obviously avoid jargon, speak in simple sentences, don't try to cover too much too quickly...



Me and an associate wrote a small essay about just that last year. "The crisis of architecture: a problem of communications". Hell, most of our association was based on the concept of bringing understanding to the masses (we failed).

Many of the issues are an outgrowth of our present decadent, post-modern, post-critical era where commercialism has absorbed all and intellectuality is, like commercial architecture, all façade and no substance. I don't remember it all from the top of my head but some points:

a) Post-modernity, instead of recovering meaning, gave it its coup de grâce. Public buildings and public spaces are vacuous, polished commercialized projects, and private buildings glorify the personal ego or the banal genericness of globalized corporatism. Buildings rarely signify anything to the average person, alienation maybe. The scale and speed of industrial civilization makes it impossible for any coherence and depth in design. (Koolhaas apparently thinks we've become utterly powerless and therefore a heroic nihilism is the proper attitude).

b) We don't collaborate as an industry because competition is fierce and too much rides on "uniqueness" and "superstars". We've never been as international, yet intellectual movements are dead even at the local scale. Architecture was always political, but now there's no mission, therefore nothing to say together (well, sustainability, but that's largely marketing).

c) Developers, marketing and real estate speculation has taken over communication in our absence and distorted the public understanding of Architecture. Fashions and trends emphasize the superfluous. Things are made primarily to be sold, only secondarily to be used, and rarely to be enjoyed.

d) We are not taught to communicate with laypeople, but rather learn sophistry for pseudo-intellectual critiques and flashy magazines, because of b) and c).

e) We are not taught to work or think cross-disciplinarily, but rather encased in excessive specializations. This goes as much for others as for us.

f) It's an uphill battle. People are ignorant of history and art and science, often architects themselves are—giving my history class was truly painful. How can people understand modernism if they don't know/understand the history of socialism? How can they understand neoclassicism without understanding the enlightenment? How the fuck can they ever understand today? Clearly they can't.



Generally speaking, the main step I take is trying to explain how the manipulation of space to create useful place is the essence of architecture, and that construction is merely the means to achieve it.

Then I try to explain it as being fundamentally an act of problem solving, and differing from engineering in that the problems are often numerous and fuzzy, and therefore the solutions a complex balance of contradictory needs. Explains both historical styles and typologies as consequences of environmental, material, economic and technological conditions rather than the whims of egos and fashions.

That there are four great pillars to its aesthetic appreciation, all a specific area of problem-solving: tectonics (addressing the problem of the forces of nature, construction), atmosphere (addressing the human physiology/psychology), symbolism (addressing the conscious mind/soul) and raw functionality.

That is not unlike the classic Vitruvian triad, but I think "beauty" is too much of an ambiguous concept best subdivided into clearer domains. Hell, Christopher Alexander (an unsung genius) spends several hundred pages trying to define "the quality without a name" in The Timeless Way of Building. It's usually the aspects corresponding to "beauty" which people find most hard to communicate/understand, because they're the fuzziest. Why do I like/dislike certain colors, patterns, lights, volumes, places? Well, let's dive deep into color theory, gestalt, ergonomics, proxemics, optics, acoustics, biology, geometry, psychology... good luck keeping that explanation short! It's much easier to just put on a mystical air and say some BS and have people just nod awkwardly than actually get across a good explanation. And just like with religion, some people just want to be fed feel-good nonsense by a sweet talking priest.

For ideas of how to explain general basic concepts I recommend you read some good introductory texts like:
Bruno Zevi – Architecture as Space: How to Look at Architecture
Simon Unwin – Understanding Architecture


What specific things do you have most trouble explaining?
Great post. I have nothing to add, just wanted to say I appreciated it.
__________________

Puffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th-September-2016, 09:48 PM   #8
Tannhauser
angry insecure male
 
Tannhauser's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,470
linuxsafari
Default Re: Cross-disciplinary Communication

In the end, nobody knows stuff that any other person cannot understand. Even complicated mathematics appeals to intuitive concepts one way or another. The only thing necessary to convey the information is to have an idea of what kind of abstractions are readily available in the other person's mind.
Tannhauser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th-September-2016, 05:21 AM   #9
Bad Itch
Push to Start
 
Bad Itch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 445
windows_xp_2003safari
Default Re: Cross-disciplinary Communication

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tannhauser View Post
In the end, nobody knows stuff that any other person cannot understand. Even complicated mathematics appeals to intuitive concepts one way or another. The only thing necessary to convey the information is to have an idea of what kind of abstractions are readily available in the other person's mind.
Very much this.

I frequently have to discuss technical concepts with people who have varying degrees of subject matter expertise, ranging from those with little to no knowledge on the topic to those who know more about it than I do. I tend to rely heavily on analogy.

There's always some common thing that everyone can grok, the nature of which works well enough to illustrate the core concepts being discussed.

One does have to try not to get too abstract with them or they start sounding kinda weird, but I've had good results this way when discussing technical things with people are differently-technical. Also, my cross discipline conversations are usually more along the lines of "Why? Because this." as opposed to deep discussion. Mileage probably varies when it gets deep.
Bad Itch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:47 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Template-Modifications by TMS
no new posts