The idea is: intuitively any thing, developed as a programming application, can be considered, directly or indirectly a component of some human activity: in some cases they describes/modify/substitute procedures of some kind of process, or an object, on which a human being acts, or a tool used for some kind of action, or it is related to some environment, where human activities take place, or a tool, working for humans, applied for achieving some human needed result.
On the other hand, Psyche is in the basis of all human activities (except those related to basic biological behavior), and in the human activities structure all their components are systemically related.
What do you think?
You're saying that any programming application is connected to human activities in some way, whether it's by changing processes, representing objects, acting as tools, or creating environments. This makes sense because software is usually designed to improve or simplify what we do.
Your point about the psyche being the foundation of all human activities is also quite compelling. Since our thoughts, emotions, and motivations drive what we do, any system or tool we create is linked to these psychological processes. This connection means that understanding human activities requires looking at both the tools we use and the psychological reasons behind their use.
From a different perspective, though, one could argue that while software can deeply integrate into human activities, it can also create new kinds of activities and interactions that didn't exist before. For instance, social media has not only modified how we communicate but has also created entirely new social dynamics and behaviors. In this way, software doesn't just support or enhance existing human activities—it can also be a catalyst for new ways of thinking, interacting, and behaving.
Overall, your perspective highlights how technology and human behavior are intertwined. It emphasizes the need to consider both practical and psychological aspects when developing and analyzing software, while also recognizing that technology can drive the evolution of human activities in unexpected ways.
Systemic human relationships among tools, procedures, environments, and psyche provides insights into how technology integrates with and shapes human experiences and behaviors. Any usecase scenario which improve business or humans ?
Sai Sampath V L Kuricheti You have asked a key question.
Here there are two "moments".
-The framework is the model of human activity. It means, an abstraction of the human activity, including the essential relations among its components. And what are those components? i have in mind the active agent in every activity (the human subject, the agent who acts), the object on which the subject (material or ideal, including artifacts, situations, feelings, etc ), the tools mediating the actions of the subject on the object; the procedures or methods followed by subject for mediated (by tools) actions on the object; the external conditions where all these interactions take place (physical and socio - psychological conditions), and, finally, the result of the activity, it is, the modified object. Any problem, needed of a solution, can be described in terms of that categories. Consequently, any problem needed of the Computer mediation, can find its requisites expressed in terms of that categories and their relations.
-On the other hand, I assume (in fact it's not me, it is assumed in the foundations of several Psychological theories), that Psyche has its origin in the external material activity, it is its dynamic reflex (both directly and indirectly, by means of the -semantic based- communication in the last case), but, on the other hand, the Psyche is the "ruler", the guide, of external activity, they are in a dialectic interaction, and can take place thanks to the fact that both, external, material activity, and the internal, psychological, have the same structure ( that which is going to be used as a framework). Consequently that model of the human activity has to take into account the the psychological aspects of the activity, be founded on their principles.
Regarding use cases, I can tell about my own experience. Several years ago I had to model by ontologies the preferences of students in virtual learning environment. After a long study of possible candidates of preferences definitions, I consider the understanding of preferences as it is assumed in Rational decision Theory: a preference is a kind of choice.
Considering than choice take place in the context of concrete activity, I assumed that preferences are internal choice, made by the human subject. The question is: the choice of what. Here, given that every activity has the above mentioned structure, a preference is defined as the internal choice made by the subject of the activity components (structural moments). Specifically I followed the psychological activity structure define by a Russian Psychologist, follower of the Activity Theory (the classical one, because currently there are several trends, the most known in the European context -and in part of the American one-, is the Scandinavian Activity Theory).
Details of that processes can be found in at least to journal articles, an in a PhD thesis, that are accessible here, on RG (the drawback, for not Latin readers, is that they are written in Spanish, while the activity theory based description of the human structure, applied in the research, as far as I know, are published only in Russian).
Now I'm trying to figure out which other researchers think on it, or what other approaches they have applied or created.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction