MOOC: Methods for Solving Problems (Part the First)

I’ve signed up for a class in Coursera called Methods for Solving Problems (I’m not sure if that will resolve to the course page or not, since I’m “enrolled” and you may not be. But that’s the course name, so a simple search should get you there if this doesn’t. I tried.). I came across the class while looking for something that addressed unconscious bias. This course does talk about biases to some extent, but a large portion of the course is dedicated to deconstructing the human problem-solving process and how this translates to machine learning. I don’t care much about the machine-learning part, but I’m definitely interested in learning more about how we solve problems as human beings.

The course, presented by the University of Colorado Boulder, is available to audit (take for free) and offers material in video form and via text. I’m just getting into the meat of it, but here’s what I’ve got thus far:

First reading assignment: “Recognizing, Defining, and Representing Problems” by Pretz, Naples, and Sternberg

Notes:

After identifying that a problem exists, we must:

• define its scope, and
• define our goal(s).

Example: You discover there is a need for additional daytime parking in the city where you work.

Ask yourself: can the problem be turned around and redefined?

Perhaps you might instead say that the problem is that there are too many vehicles needing a place to park during the day.

By reframing the question, you may arrive at a solution which resolves not particularly the first question, but the new version as it was reconceived.

Arrange a greater carpooling system and create a private taxi service using personal vehicles (a la Uber–this was written pre-2003)

Problem solving doesn’t usually begin with a clearly stated problem:

• most problems must be identified in the environment,
• they must then be defined, and
• they must be mentally represented.

In summary, the early stages of problem solving are:

• Recognition
• Definition
• Representation

Thoughts:

I love it when something turns my thought process on its ear. That moment when I read or hear something and think, “Oh my God,” is precious; it tells us that we’re still open and able to consider new ways of thinking. Our brains are still soft, squishy, and ready to challenge our beliefs. (I don’t know if our brains are, in fact, soft and squishy, as I’ve never touched one, but they seem like they would or should be. Feel free to chime in if you’ve ever held or touched a brain. Share as many details as you like. I’m into science.) I’m not sure if it’s always a full-blown paradigm shift, but if it makes you stop and question what you’ve been doing with your life, I feel like we’re on the right path in terms of mental elasticity. That being said, think long and hard before running away and joining the circus. Not sure about you, but I know I don’t have the upper-body strength to be a trapeze artist.

The parking example above made me question my approach to problem solving, which is good. Thinking about your thinking is critical. We have to question ourselves, our approaches, our “givens” as we operate day-to-day. The most recent event that comes to mind that really made me go “wow, yeah” in terms of my thought processes was as follows:

I was reading a news article about a person who chose to speak out against their domestic abuser in social media.* I ended up going down the rabbit hole of “likes” and responses on the media post itself, when I came across a post which basically delivered this message:

“If your first question is ‘why didn’t they leave?’ and not ‘how could they hit them?’ then you’re part of the problem.”

I’m not delving into any hot-button issues or disputes here because that’s not what this blog was designed for (domestic violence is wrong, we all know that). I’m citing this specific example because this post really made me question my thought process; looking back, I feel like my question was always something along the lines of ‘why didn’t you gtfo?’ which really is not the answer here. It’s placing responsibility on the wrong party. I have to reframe this in my brain. This was a good wake-up call for me to stop and take stock of my perceptions. Re-evaluation is GOOD. Embrace it, even when it makes you uncomfortable (or, ESPECIALLY when it makes you uncomfortable).

What’s the last thing that made you go, “Oh, WOW,” in this respect? If you can’t remember, let me know and we can look for something together. I’ll be back with more notes on the ‘Methods for Solving Problems’ course as I continue. Feel free to work along with me.

-h

*To clarify, I didn’t write ‘alleged domestic abuser’ here because 1) I didn’t name names, and 2) in my mind, this discussion right now is more focused on ‘how are we approaching this?’ than ‘who did what?’ and I didn’t want to distract from that. I’m not tackling the domestic abuse case itself. I’m tackling how I approach and consider situations. (Also, on a semantic note, I personally feel that the term ‘alleged’ has adopted a connotative tone of disbelief, implying that the stated victim was not a victim at all. Not sure if this is because of the media or pop culture or what. I’m always up for a word discussion if you’re of a different mind on this.)