This is such a powerful question. I often think about designing and problem-solving from different perspectives. In many cases, solving a problem means benefiting one group at the expense of another, maximizing the majority’s gain, or uplifting an excluded minority. This approach aligns with a utilitarian view of the world. However, sometimes, it feels like every person is for themselves, making it difficult to fully grasp its ethics.

Yes, I see this happening in my life a lot. Some people are already good at what I’m trying to do. Some may even be younger than me, and I often wonder if they’re smarter. But no, it’s simply that they have more practice. I might take five hours to complete a project while they only need one, but I’ve realized I’m just making up for the time they’ve already put in. They’ve already invested those extra four hours at some point, and now I’m playing catch-up. In the end, though, we’re all going to reach the same destination

I found it interesting how most ancient designs, which encompass everything humans create, take into account high-level design processes. This includes the design process and how the designers keep improving and ideating. It makes the design process a natural human activity. Design schools are necessary because the materials we’re creating are not made by the people who need the product; rather, they come from third parties. Therefore, there are design schools that teach people how to design by immersing themselves in understanding how those things are done from an inside perspective.

I would like to think of a good design in context to ensure the flow of bigger actions being performed. The smaller things in the big field should be designed to make actions performed in a flow state. For example, a good classroom is a collection of smaller objects that exist in the classroom field. How can they make the bigger goal, in this case, learning, flow perfectly? For instance, the design of where the exit should be considered in the context of not interrupting others present in class.

I believe this is the most important step in problem-solving. At a country level, the changes we need often face challenges because we are fighting the wrong battles. Understanding the place where small changes can happen requires a good problem solver or designer.

This part resonates with what I’ve been contemplating for quite some time. Which is not specifically related to this class, but it is about morality and the concepts of good and bad. In this case, you can be a designer and choose either side: help the casinos or save gambling addicts from further financial loss. It made me realize that problem-solving doesn’t necessarily correlate with ‘good morals’ but rather depends on which side we choose to support.

I didn’t think about software engineering being a part of the design. It felt like problem-solving, but I realized that design is a part of problem-solving, usually occurring initially. I view design as pseudo code; after understanding the problem, I think about the approaches I’m going take to solve the problem, in this case, design.