pimg alt=”portigal_rnd_1.jpg” src=”http://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/portigal_rnd_1.jpg” width=”468″ height=”238″ class=”mt-image-none” style=”” //p
pemWonder what the conversation is like at someone else’s shop? Ever wanted to go backstage at a design firm? We asked Steve Portigal, Julie Norvaisas, and Dan Soltzberg of a href=”Portigal Consulting”Portigal Consulting/a to sit down and share what they’re talking about. Here’s their open mike/chin-wag/theory slam./em/p
pbDan:/b I envisioned sitting down here to have this conversation and trying to figure out what we’re really talking about. So I pulled this statement out of some notes Steve wrote the other day: “The Analog Human; The Digital Machine.” I thought that was really provocative, so I wanted to start by asking you to say a little more about this idea?/p
pbSteve:/b I feel like there’s this tension that goes on in business and especially in marketing, this conceit that we can take humansmdash;you know, messy, irrational, organicmdash;and somehow cut them open and figure out the binary, rational, predictable, money-making algorithms that determine what they do. You see all this harnessing of science, you know, whether it’s neuro-this or lie detector-that or psychotherapy-this that gets used in the service of, not helping people, but helping marketers crack the nut of what people want, where is the desire center in the brain. You know, that we can learn things about people in a way that is “true”mdash;that is predictable and true, and will determine consumption patterns. I find the idea that we should be able to do that just fascinating, because that’s not the world of people that we live in as people, so why as marketers or designers or producers do we think that we should turn people into things that they really aren’t?/p
div class=”article_quote”It’s easy to harsh on science, but I guess that I’d rather harsh on marketing and the way that they try to corral science to do their work for them./div
pbJulie:/b There’s another aspect of that that I find really fascinating too: that you’re just talking about it in this dichotomy like there’s “us,” and then there’s “people.” Well, we’re people, right? We’re people trying to understand people and trying to create these scientific methods of doing it is justmdash;I think you’re absolutely rightmdash;a conceit, and we often kind of remove ourselves from the situation. And I think empathy is a much more powerful tool than science in that case./p
pbSteve:/b It’s easy to harsh on science, but I guess that I’d rather harsh on marketing and the way that they try to corral science to do their work for them. Because every time you see how scientists talk, they actually evince much more empathy and they seem to be a population that has more sensitivity to the human condition, despite the fact that they workmdash;you know, we think of people with Bunsen burners and spreadsheets./p
div class=”article_quote”It’s like the opposite of the Scientific Method: you’ve created this paradigm where it’s impossiblemdash;you reject any information that’s new because it doesn’t fit the framework of the information you already have. /div
pbDan:/b That’s interesting, because that kind of takes me back to what you said about “money-making algorithms,” and I wonder if there’s something about the purity of science as just an act ofmdash;an attempt at discoverymdash;without that kind of consumption-based function that allows it to be more pure./p
div style=”align: right;”img src=”http://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/2010/03/portigalconsulting-biodome.jpg” width=”468″ height=”302″ alt=”portigalconsulting-biodome.jpg”//div
pemBiosphere 2/em/p
pbSteve:/b There was something we were talking about the other day. Some friends took a tour of a href=”http://www.b2science.org/”Biosphere 2/a. And I guess the story of the tour was that the guides were quick to point out that it wasn’t a “failed” experiment. And of course if you know the scientific method, there aren’t failed experimentsmdash;you have a hypothesis and you either accept or reject that hypothesis. And that’s so different from marketing languagemdash;you know, “oh we put people in there and we didn’t know there were going to be cockroaches, they didn’t know this was going to happen.” Well scientifically, that’s just discovery. And I think scientists are maybe more grounded in sort of pure discovery, and that as a consumption culture we keep framing those things as “failed experiments.”/pa href=”http://www.core77.com/blog/featured_items/core77_wiretap_portigal_consulting_talk_about_the_analog_human_and_the_digital_machine_16075.asp”(more…)/a
pa href=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Zz4aeclL4h5d5taba-cP7bQXJ3Q/0/da”img src=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Zz4aeclL4h5d5taba-cP7bQXJ3Q/0/di” border=”0″ ismap=”true”/img/abr/
a href=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Zz4aeclL4h5d5taba-cP7bQXJ3Q/1/da”img src=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Zz4aeclL4h5d5taba-cP7bQXJ3Q/1/di” border=”0″ ismap=”true”/img/a/p