[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.This assumption leads to the idea that char-acters in a play use the language of the play quite literally as the materialfor their thoughts.I favor a somewhat broader interpretation of material causality; thethought of a play can appropriately deal only with what can reasonably be inferredfrom enactment, pattern, and language.Most of us have seen plays in whichcharacters get ideas out of the blue suddenly remembering the locationof a long-lost will, for instance, or using a fact to solve a mystery that hasbeen withheld from the audience thus far.Such thoughts are unsatisfying(and mar the play) because they are not drawn from the proper material.Inancient Greek theatre, the Deus ex Machina (Latin for god in the machine )serves as an excellent example.A god shows up, typically lifted by a crane,to provide the solution to a seemingly unsolvable problem. The Six Elements and Causal Relations among Them 69Projective ConstructionThe notion of inference has a logical aspect, but that s not the whole picture.When I see red rocks in a canyon, I may infer things about their qualities thetype of rock, patterns of erosion and breakage that suggest exposure to flows ofwater or fracturing, etc.But when Ilook at red rocks in a canyon, some-times I see faces or animals or ob-jects.Anyone who has looked forpetroglyphs knows the tricks thatrocks can play on you.Somethingabout the geometry or texture ofthe rock or its pattern of light andPetroglyph in Mauishade triggers the brain to con-struct a familiar shape.If you ve looked at clouds or patterns in plastering, for ex-ample, likely the same thing has happened to you.My friend and colleague Rachel Strickland first gave me a name for this phe-nomenon during the Banff expedition to create Placeholder.She called it projectiveconstruction. A stimulus with sufficient ambiguity can evoke in the mind of theperceiver the construction of something other than what is actually there.It mayalso be colored by what we want to perceive (e.g., hunting petroglyphs) or some-thing that is on our minds (e.g., seeing an ice cream cone in the clouds when weare hungry).Projective construction isn t limited to the realm of the visual.Most of us havehad the experience of someone taking something we said the wrong way. We reat a loss to explain how it could have happened.What we may not know is whatwas on that other person s mind or in their desires.The Placeholder project provided a great example of projective constructionin discourse.The narrative of the piece used the lore of magical animals or animalspirits, and some of its images were intended to represent rock art.A few of themore politically correct members of the community busted us for this, accusing usof appropriating First Nations stories and images.The critique was a projective con-struction.When I explained that most of the images had been inspired by the caveart of Western Europe, for example, a woman spluttered, Well, that s even worsebecause you re relying on my ignorance! I still don t know what she meant by that.(continues) 70 Chapter 2 Dramatic FoundationsThe lesson for us is that, while we may do everything possible to assure thatthought is properly inferred from representations, we can never prevent projectiveconstruction.Interactive designs may actually wish to evoke projective construc-tion in certain cases so that interactors can experience deeper, more personalizedconnections.By planning where and when we wish such constructions to occur,we may diminish the likelihood of their derailing the whole experience.Designingmoments that invite projective construction may allow interactors to feel a differ-ence between such moments and others when correct inference is of greater sig-nificance to the whole action.Plays, like human-computer interactions, are closed universes in thesense that they delimit the set of potential actions.As we will see in the dis-cussion of action ahead, it is key to the success of a dramatic representationthat all of the materials that are formulated into action are drawn from thecircumscribed potential of the particular dramatic world.Whenever thisprinciple is violated, the organic unity of the work is diminished, and thescheme of probability that holds the work together is disrupted.This principle can be demonstrated to apply to the realm of human-computer interaction as well.One example is the case in which the computer(a computer-based agent) introduces new materials at the level of thought out of the blue. Suppose a text messaging system is programmed to beconstantly checking for spelling errors and to automatically correct themas soon as they are identified.Yes, you know this one you want to type hell and the program changes it to he ll, unless you know that youcan disregard the program s respectful correction by taking the additionalaction of deleting its suggestion before the word is completed.If the poten-tial for this behavior is not represented adequately, it is disruptive when itoccurs, and it will probably cause the person to make seriously erroneousinferences e.g [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.This assumption leads to the idea that char-acters in a play use the language of the play quite literally as the materialfor their thoughts.I favor a somewhat broader interpretation of material causality; thethought of a play can appropriately deal only with what can reasonably be inferredfrom enactment, pattern, and language.Most of us have seen plays in whichcharacters get ideas out of the blue suddenly remembering the locationof a long-lost will, for instance, or using a fact to solve a mystery that hasbeen withheld from the audience thus far.Such thoughts are unsatisfying(and mar the play) because they are not drawn from the proper material.Inancient Greek theatre, the Deus ex Machina (Latin for god in the machine )serves as an excellent example.A god shows up, typically lifted by a crane,to provide the solution to a seemingly unsolvable problem. The Six Elements and Causal Relations among Them 69Projective ConstructionThe notion of inference has a logical aspect, but that s not the whole picture.When I see red rocks in a canyon, I may infer things about their qualities thetype of rock, patterns of erosion and breakage that suggest exposure to flows ofwater or fracturing, etc.But when Ilook at red rocks in a canyon, some-times I see faces or animals or ob-jects.Anyone who has looked forpetroglyphs knows the tricks thatrocks can play on you.Somethingabout the geometry or texture ofthe rock or its pattern of light andPetroglyph in Mauishade triggers the brain to con-struct a familiar shape.If you ve looked at clouds or patterns in plastering, for ex-ample, likely the same thing has happened to you.My friend and colleague Rachel Strickland first gave me a name for this phe-nomenon during the Banff expedition to create Placeholder.She called it projectiveconstruction. A stimulus with sufficient ambiguity can evoke in the mind of theperceiver the construction of something other than what is actually there.It mayalso be colored by what we want to perceive (e.g., hunting petroglyphs) or some-thing that is on our minds (e.g., seeing an ice cream cone in the clouds when weare hungry).Projective construction isn t limited to the realm of the visual.Most of us havehad the experience of someone taking something we said the wrong way. We reat a loss to explain how it could have happened.What we may not know is whatwas on that other person s mind or in their desires.The Placeholder project provided a great example of projective constructionin discourse.The narrative of the piece used the lore of magical animals or animalspirits, and some of its images were intended to represent rock art.A few of themore politically correct members of the community busted us for this, accusing usof appropriating First Nations stories and images.The critique was a projective con-struction.When I explained that most of the images had been inspired by the caveart of Western Europe, for example, a woman spluttered, Well, that s even worsebecause you re relying on my ignorance! I still don t know what she meant by that.(continues) 70 Chapter 2 Dramatic FoundationsThe lesson for us is that, while we may do everything possible to assure thatthought is properly inferred from representations, we can never prevent projectiveconstruction.Interactive designs may actually wish to evoke projective construc-tion in certain cases so that interactors can experience deeper, more personalizedconnections.By planning where and when we wish such constructions to occur,we may diminish the likelihood of their derailing the whole experience.Designingmoments that invite projective construction may allow interactors to feel a differ-ence between such moments and others when correct inference is of greater sig-nificance to the whole action.Plays, like human-computer interactions, are closed universes in thesense that they delimit the set of potential actions.As we will see in the dis-cussion of action ahead, it is key to the success of a dramatic representationthat all of the materials that are formulated into action are drawn from thecircumscribed potential of the particular dramatic world.Whenever thisprinciple is violated, the organic unity of the work is diminished, and thescheme of probability that holds the work together is disrupted.This principle can be demonstrated to apply to the realm of human-computer interaction as well.One example is the case in which the computer(a computer-based agent) introduces new materials at the level of thought out of the blue. Suppose a text messaging system is programmed to beconstantly checking for spelling errors and to automatically correct themas soon as they are identified.Yes, you know this one you want to type hell and the program changes it to he ll, unless you know that youcan disregard the program s respectful correction by taking the additionalaction of deleting its suggestion before the word is completed.If the poten-tial for this behavior is not represented adequately, it is disruptive when itoccurs, and it will probably cause the person to make seriously erroneousinferences e.g [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]