Einestein was rational… but it was often because of day dreaming and abduction (a best guess). Maybe it could help you too.
Designers are often charged with needing to prove the future they propose before they are given the money and means to move forward. It is as if the worst possible outcome of the change designers propose must be greater than the best possible outcome of what is being done now. Talk about an incredibly high huddle to jump. That is like running hurdles with a pole-vault stick!
How many times, designers, have you been charged with being irrational? Tons I presume. I submit that the reason for that is the boundaries to the common definition of rational. What is common is that rationality is either common, deductive or inductive.
Common sense does not build new things. Deduction and induction are powerful but often deal with conclusions about what already exists… Enter, Abduction! Yes, Abductive reasoning.
Abduction deals with a “method” (that should make the critics somewhat calm) in which a hypothesis if it were true would BEST Explain the relevant evidence regardless of methods. It starts by building a set of facts and infers explanations for them. Account planners have recently been batting around the value and use of “methods” in part provoked by this post.
Account planners focus on abduction in that they plan opportunities for brands, they look into the future to daydream through thought experiments about what could be. Try it out… think of a possible future best solution for something you’re working on. Shoot, it is a method of reasoning, give your self license to day dream a bit. It’ll be fun and very likely productive!
Tags: Design, design thinking, einestein, rationality
