I have long suspected that it may be a brain hemispheres thing.

For most people (essentially all right-handed people and the majority of left-handers), language is primarily in the left brain. According to an article in the July 2009 Scientific American:

Thus, writing and designing tend to use different parts of the brain.

So how does music fit in?

Well… Until I started doing the research for this post, I had the impression that music is processed primarily in the right brain, and I was thinking that it thus competed with a left-brain activity (writing) and complemented a right-brain activity (designing). This idea is supported by various sources, such as the Encyclopedia of Psychology, which states: “While the left-brain hemisphere performs functions involving logic and language more efficiently, the right-brain hemisphere is more adept in the areas of music, art, and spatial relations.”

But it turns out that things are not that simple, and that piece from the Encyclopedia of Psychology is nine years old. I came across a lot of contradictory research findings, exemplified by the following:

• “Findings … revealed a high correlation between perception of musical ability and right brain function… .” (from the abstract of “Brain hemisphere dominance and vocational preference: A preliminary analysis”, 2007)
• “…these data contradict a strong hemispheric specificity for music perception, but indicate cross-hemisphere, fragmented neural substrates underlying local and global musical information processing in the melodic and temporal dimensions.” (from the abstract of “Receptive amusia: evidence for cross-hemispheric neural networks underlying music processing strategies”, 2000)
• “Our data suggest that musicians and non-musicians have different strategies to lateralize musical stimuli, with a delayed but marked right hemisphere lateralization during harmony perception in non-musicians and an attentive mode of listening contributing to a left hemisphere lateralization in musicians.” (from the abstract of “The cerebral haemodynamics of music perception” (PDF), 1999)
• Other findings showing differences between musicians and non-musicians, between men and women, and even between adults and children

But the kicker is Daniel Levitin’s work, as described in his book “This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of an Obsession”:

So why do so many of us designers find it difficult to listen to music while we write but helpful while we design? The answer is apparently not as simple as I had imagined.

Oh well, there goes a nice hypothesis. (At least I know better than to call it a theory. But here comes a potential research project.

And oh, btw — I would never say that “mathematics” is in the left brain. Having a graduate degree in mathematics, I know all too well that it depends on what kind of mathematics. I would place computation primarily in the left brain, but would suggest that geometry, abstract algebra, and possibly number theory are solidly in the right brain. (I remember that after struggling with multivariate calculus — as left-brained an activity as ever there was — I felt a great sense of relief to get into abstract algebra and find it so fascinating I couldn’t wait to get back to the dorm to do the homework. But most of my classmates didn’t see it that way.)

Conversations play a critical role throughout user-centered design, from requirements elicitation to usability test debriefing to issue resolution. And when our objective is to be objective — to avoid biasing the information we collect and the responses we receive — it behooves us to pay close attention to how our words affect those with whom we are conversing. Herewith, three words to avoid: why, but and can’t.

Why

Think about the last time you asked someone for something and they asked you why you wanted it. How did you feel?

Although asking “why?” is usually intended to elicit the underlying reasons, it often comes across to the listener as a challenge, implying that something is not quite right about the request or the action. This question often creates defensiveness, which can make it harder for us to obtain the information we want. So here are some alternatives:

For an action taken:

• “What led you to do…?”
• “What was your purpose in…?”
• “How did you come to…?”

For a design feature requested:

• “What objective are you trying to reach?”
• “What would it help you do?”
• “How did that idea come to you?”

But

Think about a time when you’ve asked for something and your listener has started his or her response with “but…”. Doesn’t that diminish the value of your request just a little?

“But” (as does “however”) creates a false or exaggerated contradiction or dichotomy. It discounts the importance of what came before. Here are some alternatives to consider:

• “and”
• “still”
• “yet” (maybe!)

The only alternative that I really like, though, is “and”.

Can’t

Think back again to a time you asked for something that was important to you and your listener started with “We can’t do that.”

“Can’t” gives the impression that the client/user has made a wrong request. It gives the discussion a negative tone, even adversarial. Here are some alternatives:

• “That’s an interesting idea. Tell me more.”
• “Here’s what we can do…”

Others

Have you noticed any other words or expressions that tend to produce resistance when someone uses them in talking with you? What problems do you think they might create in an interview? What might be some alternatives?

And how come I am writing about this?

Well, you know, they say we teach what we most need to learn…
And I find that I need to keep reminding myself of it, every time I work with a client or a development team.

“What Your Blog Says About You”

Typealyzer

Typealyzer is a research project that looks at how language reflects a person’s psychological type and his or her motivations and interests. The site was created by Mattias Östmar of PRfekt, a Swedish research and development company focused on media analysis.

For the past two years, Östmar has been collecting sample texts from blogs, based on research about personality type and writing style. The site uses a tool to run a statistical analysis of the text to come up with a word frequency algorithm for different personality types. After the blog is scanned, Typealyzer comes up with personality types derived from the Myers-Briggs model for looking at how people perceive the world and make decisions.

I’m familiar with the Myers-Briggs. In fact, I am qualified to administer and interpret it, and I’ve written about it. (See, for example, my article “Type and System Development: What’s the Connection?” , which is on my personal site and was published in System Development.)

So I ran the Luminanze Blog through Typealyzer, and it says I’m an INTP. Hmmm…

That’s pretty close, actually. Pretty dadgum close. But it’s not quite right: I’m an INFP . I do have strong T skills, though (having always been interested in math and science), and my profession allows me to blend technology and humanism. I’m in technology because I find its workings and possibilities interesting; I’m in usability because it allows me to find deeper meaning in my work, knowing that I’m helping make people’s lives easier. That’s classic NF stuff. But I think my writing reflects pretty well who I am, especially considering that I’m blogging about my professional field and not my personal life. I’ll give Typealyzer the benefit of the doubt and award it an A-minus.

I’ve run Typealyzer by a dozen or so INFP friends, and most of them say that it gets them wrong, sometimes very wrong. One thinks it’s because they aren’t blogging about their deepest selves. She may be right — and it makes sense to me — but without knowing how Typealyzer works I really can’t say.

King asks people to let her know whether their blogs match their personality types. Here’s what I wrote:

Mine was very close. From my blog (http://www.luminanze.com/blog), Typealyzer classified me as an INTP — and I am an INFP… with strong T skills. I’d say that my writing reflects pretty well who I am, and I give Typealyzer an A-minus.

I would find it very interesting to see a study of a large number of blogs in many fields, with the aim of teasing out the factors that can contribute to the discrepancies found.

To Jim Profit’s comment (“of course it fits, because no matter what sign you are the predictions are so vague they always fit”) — Jim, that’s just not so. Type is not about predicting the future, it’s about describing how a person relates to the world. I find commonality with more than one description — INFP and INTP, in particular (and to a lesser extent INFJ) — but in no way, shape, or form do I find that the ESTJ profile (just to take one example) describes anything remotely close to who I am.

So, about that study…

Here’s what I’d like to see:

Large number of blogs. Depends on the number of hypotheses tested (see below), but I would expect it to need at least ten blogs in each field. Maybe twenty.

Representative sample. This is going to be very hard to achieve. It can’t be done by broadcasting a request asking for volunteers. Self selection is one of the worst ways to recruit a sample that truly represents the population of interest, especially when you’re addressing issues of personality. (Some personalities are more likely to volunteer, eh?) So recruitment would need to be done by invitation. Perhaps the blogs could be submitted to Typealyzer and then the authors would be invited to take the Myers-Briggs (or related online questionnaire, although AFAIK none of those have been validated — I mean, we’re talking about a valid study here). However, the researchers would have to refrain from looking at the Typealyzer results before issuing the invitations.

Many fields. Not being an expert on the blogosphere, I can’t say off the top of my head how many fields the study should include, or which ones. I can only say right now that its designers would need to analyze the blogosphere and construct a categorization scheme that itself is representative of the blogosphere.

Teasing out the factors. This is all about hypothesis development. Can’t really be specified in a short blog post, without substantial analysis a priori. But I would expect it to include questions that would get at the four Ps: whether the blog was personal, professional, political, or playful.

Data collection. Just an online survey, I think. Except for the type inventory.

Whew, that’s a tall order!

Anyone up for collaborating?