UX: Do you know what is the conception of your product?

Accidentally was passing by this relatively old article Lean UX: Getting Out Of The Deliverables Business (March, 2011). I find it worth reading anyway, as well as, and even more, the comments to it.

It provoked some thoughts about the process. The very essence of the lean/agile approach is to reduce the time, amount of documents, and costs, according to this article. But my personal impression (and as far as I can judge an impression of some commenters) is that reducing time of conception development we, instead, are increasing time of endless iterations in the quest for the same very conception.

That is, “agile” is a great tool for those who don’t actually know what is the product they are developing right now. When we don’t have proper and comprehensible conception, we are forced to search it, and for this search “agile” approach is really a solution.



Selfishness of the Groups (or) How I am sick and tired of idiots preaching “social Darwinism”

Today I was passing by just another yellow article Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows. It seems nowadays it has become fancy to consider “selfishness” and “co-operation” in terms of “social Darwinism” dragging the Game Theory in, just in case.

First of all, it seems some people don’t understand that artificial opposing “selfishness” to “co-operation” is pure fight of the totally abstract Good with the same abstract Evil.

The team of “scientists” just figured out that the dominance of purely egoistic traits would bring a species to an extinction! My sincere congratulations! They have plumped down something quite obvious and, generally speaking, correct in the guise of the great outcome or their “research”, whereupon some “journalist” devised a pompous headline “Evolution does not favour selfish people”.

Let’s start with the fact that the dominance of purely selfish traits really would have led to the extinction of species, as well as the dominance of purely altruistic ones. And it must be noticed that the latter would do much faster, because individuals lacking most powerful of all instincts — self-preservation instinct — would have died in droves “for that guy” before they could give birth to offspring.

Second, it doesn’t come to some people’s mind that considering a group of individuals (in general, any size – family, country, nation, race, species) a single organism we, right in front of our astonished eyes, can observe a transformation of “co-operation” of individuals in a group to a group selfishness. In other words, group begins behaving like a single selfish organism against other groups. A high-level self-preservation instinct, if you will.

Third, altruism is not equal co-operation as well as individualism is not equal egoism, and moreover: cooperation has nothing to do with compassion (if someone is an a great desire to discuss this, see Stanford Prison Experiment (at least it is something about real people behaviour), those people have demonstrated exceptional level of cooperation in punishing other group).

The very notion of “selfishness” is used in this yellow article in absolutely anti-scientific sense. It has a pure populist pseudo-moralistic meaning there. Science is concerned with clear concepts, which an author of any scientific work initially determines, whereas the authors of this article are concerned with ecclesiastical images coming from above.

This article has nothing to do with science, it is totally religious moralistic opus. So let’s don’t confuse.