Form Leading To Function Versus Function Leading To Form

[HydrogenBond]

Let me approach this from another angle. Form equals function can be approached from both sides of the equation. Form leading to function is more likely to be subjective, compared to function leading to form. Function has a goal in mind, with certain designs more optimized. If you start with form first, there is more room for subjectivity. 

 

As an example, what is the function of the tool below, with the picture showing its form? Is it an old fashion pizza cutter? Is it a type of key that was used to wind a clock? Is it a type of wrench to tighten something? When the form is unusual, similar, and/or unknown, the function is not so clear cut. This can lead to subjectivity and debate. If the function is not settled, the debate can become more about an appeal to emotions to win the favor of the audience. The audience may settle for the answer given by the most confident because it is not yet settled. 

 

Let us now start from the function side. The function is, we a need a tool to do a very specific task. One might try many things or many forms for the tool to see what works. As time goes on, the form starts to narrow into the form that is most optimizes the function; there is a cause and effect with less subjectivity. The picture is of a wood working tool, that can chew away at wood. 

 

The current discussion/debate is not about right and wrong, but it is really about approaching form  equals function, from both sides. The path of form leading to function and function leading to form. I often complain how liberalism tends to add social costs; form that leads to unoptimized functionality; high costs. Form leading to function is creative and can be useful for brain storming. However, unless it is also optimized to function, it may become an old fashion pizza cutter, which creates a lot of waste; jagged slices.

 

As an example, say the tool below was bought at a yard sale. One person might bring it home and use it to hammer tacks. This may become its new function within that household, with that person getting good at this. This can sort of work, but this is not the best tool for that job. His neighbor, who also bought one ,might uses it as door stop. This also may work, but again there are better forms for that function. The carpenter who is knows historical tools would think these functions are strange and reflect naivety. He would place  function before form. This may sound insulting to the neighbors who have subjectivity settled on their function. They may even think this is an insult because all is relative; subjective. 

 

If we go back to the original discussion of dress up, the path of form leading to function, makes dress up all subjective. It is up to the individuals to dress for fun or shock value. But from the path of function leading to form, one is looking for an optimization; logical explanation. What is that tool designed for; reverse engineer what function is needed of this tool form. This can lead to misunderstanding because its optimization does not have the same subjective liberty, but can pigeon hole it. Using the wood working tool as a hammer, when this is not a good hammer design, makes the carpenter think this person is odd. He is not thinking form equals function, therefore my neighbor is a free creative spirit. 

 

Edited March 28, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

We're splitting off these incoherent ramblings in a separate thread in the Silly Claims section precisely because you've refused to address any of the objections raised to your so called "theory of equivalence of form and function."

 

You don't really even seem to have a point, you just like to hear yourself talk about it. We're leaving it here as an object for people to ridicule, but if you keep it up you're likely to find yourself once again uninvited from the party.

 

 

When we're dealing with the people in our family - no matter how annoying or gross they may be, no matter how self-inflicted their suffering may appear, no matter how afflicted they are with ignorance, prejudice or nose hairs - we give from the deepest parts of ourselves, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

Form and function are connected, with the composite able to start in either direction; form leading to function or function leading to form. If you start with form first, the result can be very different from starting with function first. Form first is more random and divergent, while function first is more rational and convergent. You tend to work under the assumption of form before function, which is one of the two options. I tend to go function first. Both are part of the whole. 

 

For example, at one time, automobile styling had more variety, since it was based on form first, without regard to fuel efficiency and aerodynamics. When oil prices went up, in the 1970's, wind tunnel testing resulted in function first playing more of a role in styling decisions, with the cars now looking more and more alike. The differences in form, between car companies are more subtle, because the function of efficiency sets limits to form. 

 

With natural selection, genetic changes will alter form to create new variety; form first. The DNA changes are assumed to be random, so they will change form, without regard to final function. 

 

But the selection process, itself, is more often based on the functionality first. This is imposed by the environment and competition. Competition will wind tunnel the variety of random form, into the direction of that which is optimized. The result is, species tend to become more uniform within a narrower range of parameters. 

 

Humans are the exception, because we have will power and choice and can ignore the natural path of selection via function. We can assume that form before function is just as good, leading to lack of optimization. Liberals tend to be form first without regard to wind tunnel testing. This adds drag to form, which make it less efficient; controversial and needs social propping. Conservative is more about time tested, or wind tunnel based form; natural selection. The conservative tend to be more self reliant which is how nature works; function first will do that. 

 

The natural way is a composite approach. It is form first to create alternatives; genetic changes. Then nature takes over with function first; select optimized form. Liberals are good at making alternatives,  but conservative is better at optimization. Gender disobedience is a form first trial balloon, that may not be optimized under the conditions of function first. 

 

[HydrogenBond]

Here is an application of form and function. Alzheimer is a disease that creates diminished mental capacity, impacting the short term memory, more than the long term memory. My mother has Alzheimers and she functions more independently at home, but has more difficulty functioning on her own outside the home, in new environments.

 

The reason is, her home is like an external hard drive of her long term memories; 50 plus years of memories. These external objects can trigger her long term memory, to recreate long term adaptive routines; long term memory form, leads to long term functionality habits. This is why home care is much easier with such patients and needs less resources.

 

Outside the home, she has to depend more on her diminished short term memory because these are new memories. This makes adaptation more difficult because again, short term external memory form leads to short term functionality, which is diminished by the disease. This tends to require more care from providers since there is loss of independence. 

 

My mother used to be like a Martha Stuart, good at cooking, entertaining, arts and crafts, gardening, always decorating the house. Her long term memory still remembers this, but now her short term placements of objects is impacted by the disease. She may place a flower vase, at the edge of a table, where it can be knocked over. She still sees form; decoration, but now the form is no longer optimized to function. Her brain is not extrapolating the total form of vase plus table, to its full functionality, in a busy house. If I center the vase, she will move it back; form comes before function. 

 

Her diseases, sort of taught me that form before function requires less capacity. This may be due to form more connected to long term memory; habits, routines, symbolism. The other way, or function leading to form, appears to need much more access to short term memory, for extrapolation outside the box of fixed long term memory.

 

One can see this difference in politics, where the symbolism of political form often means more than actual functionality; Alzheimer approach. The immigration policy, although symbolic, does not seal the border, making it like the vase on the edge of the table. The health care plan also placed form before function, leading to unoptimized functionality right down to the web site; vase was at the edge even before it began.

 

The Republicans are better at making things work; run businesses that are not propped up by government. If they try to put the vase in the center of the table; seal the border, the  democrats put it back on the edge; image of diminished capacity. Form is not relative because form is connected to function and function has a sweet spot; vase in the center of the table. 

Edited March 31, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[HydrogenBond]

I did this analysis this morning, but it somehow failed to post. I can't recreate it but will do a new version.

 

Alzheimers patients tend to place form before function, due to diminished short term memory. For example, if you asked an Alzheimer patient to sign on the line, they may have a hard time centering or sizing the signature to the line. They can still supply the form of a signature, but it is not optimized to the function; line on the paper.  The form is relative and not optimized to function. 

 

My mother has Alzheimer disease. She was always very skilled at arts, crafts, decorating, and still likes to decorate. She might arrange her things in new way, and place one or more objects at the edge of the table. The form of her decoration is relative and not based on symmetry or safety.  If I move it to the center, she will eventually move it back to the edge, because form comes before function in Alzheimers patients. 

 

The reason for this is Alzheimers causes greater loss of short term memory compared to long term memory. Long term memory is can define a previous form of the flowers in the vase. Short term is needed to set up a unique application of decorating in real time. 

 

I would guess that form before function is older in terms of history and requires less capacity since this an Alzheimer default due to short term memory loss. If you look at the immigration laws, they don't seal the border. This is the vase at the edge of the table ready to tip over. If you try to center the vase to avoid the fall, it gets moved back to the edge. 

Edited March 31, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

No it posted, but all your, ahem, "contributions" on "form and function" have been moved to this thread.

 

You're welcome to prattle on about it there.

 

 

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

This is the title you gave my idea for me. 

 

Form Always Has A Function In All Cases No Matter What

 

 

The function of your title form, was to dismiss my idea as closed minded. You started with the function of how can I dismiss him, and then you created a title form to meet that function. This is an upgrade to form before function, since this way narrows it down.

 

If you do function first,  form is not relative, or else you would have let me do it. I would not have chosen a dismissive title. 

 

I would have used; 

 

Form leading to function versus function leading to form. 

 

My Alzheimer analysis hit the nail on the head, with form before function possible even diminished capacity, while function before form is harder to do.  

Edited March 31, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

Very well, the title has been edited, but it's actually less accurate now, and no more coherent.

 

No one's really arguing "function before form," and quite frankly the thing you seem to be hung up on is simply "form must have a function or it can never persist" which isn't exclusively true in all cases in Selection with multiple cases as I've outlined previously.

 

I am very sorry your mom has Alzheimer's. It's a horrible disease.

 

Of course her coping mechanisms are only incidentally related to Selection, although a form of it I suppose can be overlaid. If you do, then well the human intellect can conceive of a function first and then come up with a form to implement it. But other animals do that too at a simple level using sticks, blocks or coping with environmental challenges.

 

You know you'd seriously be surprised at how many of the most outrageously successful companies in the Silicon Valley were started and are run by Democrats. The stuff you say about Republicans is gibberish. Heck Mitt Romney basically made his money running companies into the ground and stealing from investors. If money is the only indicator of success, I suppose he was "successful," but the destruction left in his wake was awe inspiring (that is to say, not inspiring at all).

 

 

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then Success is sure, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

Very well, the title has been edited, but it's actually less accurate now, and no more coherent.

 

No one's really arguing "function before form," and quite frankly the thing you seem to be hung up on is simply "form must have a function or it can never persist" which isn't exclusively true in all cases in Selection with multiple cases as I've outlined previously.

 

I am very sorry your mom has Alzheimer's. It's a horrible disease.

 

Of course her coping mechanisms are only incidentally related to Selection, although a form of it I suppose can be overlaid. If you do, then well the human intellect can conceive of a function first and then come up with a form to implement it. But other animals do that too at a simple level using sticks, blocks or coping with environmental challenges.

 

You know you'd seriously be surprised at how many of the most outrageously successful companies in the Silicon Valley were started and are run by Democrats. The stuff you say about Republicans is gibberish. Heck Mitt Romney basically made his money running companies into the ground and stealing from investors. If money is the only indicator of success, I suppose he was "successful," but the destruction left in his wake was awe inspiring (that is to say, not inspiring at all).

 

 

 

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then Success is sure, :phones:

Buffy

 

Mitt Romney went into failing businesses and amputated limbs off the business to save its life. If he had not amputated some division arms and legs, the entire body would be dead of gangrene. Liberals tend to whine about the lost arms; jobs, thinking others things could have been done, and it was the doctors fault the man fell off the cliff. 

 

Mitt Romney put function; need to save the business, before form, with the amputated company looking odd to those who judge by the appearance of form. The health business model does no have a relative form, but needs to flow from efficient function. 

 

 

 

Women use makeup to enhance form. Bu this does not necessarily change function. If a woman is a good writer or good business leader, adding makeup does not change her functionality, only her form. The only function that might be enhanced is sex appeal; which is subjective.

 

Men might lie or exaggerate their job and accomplishments. This will enhance their form, but it does not make them more functional. This may too enhance sex appeal. 

 

Mitt Romney could have blown smoke up everyone skirts with rhetoric to enhance the form of the bankrupt company. He was about function first, which does have subjective options where the final form will be conserved if function is changed. 

Edited April 1, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

Mitt Romney went into failing businesses and amputated limbs off the business to save its life. If he had not amputated some division arms and legs, the entire body would be dead of gangrene. Liberals tend to whine about the lost arms; jobs, thinking others things could have been done, and it was the doctors fault the man fell off the cliff. 

 

Mitt Romney put function; need to save the business, before form, with the amputated company looking odd to those who judge by the appearance of form. The health business model does no have a relative form, but needs to flow from efficient function. 

 

Good job of drinking the Kool-Aid dear! :cheer:

 

You're honestly saying that Mitt Romney was an altruist "saving" the company? Do you have a clue as to what Vulture Capitalism is FOR?

 

No, dear, that argument is they *want* you to believe: the whole point is to suck all of the good stuff out of it, give it a cheap paint job and then find some sucker to buy it. You can make money this way, but it sure ain't a productive use of resources. In fact it can destroy good companies far before their time. I used to work for one that was absorbed by Computer Associates (known as "The Borg" in the computer biz), who ripped the crap out of the company and dumped it's software out as Open Source. Very sad tale.

 

And it can be very profitable but here's the punch line: Mitt's crew was really pretty bad at it. They've made money, but most of the real profits went to the Bain managers, not the investors that poured billions into Bain's coffers. Here's a story about it that was published in that bastion of leftist liberal tripe Forbes magazine:

 

 

Good thing, because it could take a while. Over the past three months FORBES dug into the financial performance of every company Bain has invested in for the past decade, as well as the returns of Bain funds that raised some $42 billion in capital and commitments since Romney stopped working there in 1999. We also talked to some of Bain’s competitors and analysts, to understand how the firm does business. What we found:

• While funds raised through 2004 maintained the upper-quartile performance typical of Bain during the Romney years, returns for later funds — their biggest–have lagged as the company engineered multibillion-dollar buyouts of fragile consumer-dependent companies like Toys “R” Us, Burlington Coat Factory and Guitar Center at the peak of the 2005-08 private bubble. Those investments may yet recover, but they speak to a culture where reverent faith in decades-old techniques, rooted in consulting, have not kept pace with a new age of dealmaking.
• Bain exemplifies a worrisome trend for private equity as a whole. Megashops like Bain, with tens of billions to deploy and an insatiable need to buy, make profitable exits increasingly difficult. Mix in the meltdown and the tepid recovery, and you’ve got a toxic brew for investors, which include some of the nation’s largest pension funds.

Source: The Truth About Bain: Inside The House That Mitt Built, Forbes Magazine October 22, 2012

 

 

But here's another line you'll probably believe: "Yes, Rush, I want my boss to pay no taxes because then he might give me a job!"

 

 

Women use makeup to enhance form. Bu this does not necessarily change function. If a woman is a good writer or good business leader, adding makeup does not change her functionality, only her form. The only function that might be enhanced is sex appeal; which is subjective.

 

Men might lie or exaggerate their job and accomplishments. This will enhance their form, but it does not make them more functional. This may too enhance sex appeal. 

 

Thank you for continuing to provide examples that disprove your own points so effectively! :cheer:

 

Mitt Romney could have blown smoke up everyone skirts with rhetoric to enhance the form of the bankrupt company. He was about function first, which does have subjective options where the final form will be conserved if function is changed. 

 

No, seriously, he just likes to be President, whether it's of Bain or the Mormon Church (still workin' on that) or of the United States. You are right that he has had a single minded pursuit of money, which is a function, but the reason he pursues it is in the form of silly things like elevators for his cars.

 

 

No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less, :phones:

Buffy