Retrieved from, credited to Marisol Benitez

I dabble in the New York Times. I complete the sudokus, attempt the crosswords and listen to the Daily almost daily. I also read articles when one happens to jump out. And this past Monday, an article did jump out… for the wrong reasons.

The article was released on Monday, May 3, and called Reaching ‘Herd Immunity’ Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts Now Believe. Before going any further, I’d like to let the record show I don’t disagree with the content of the article. (After all, who am I to disagree with the experts?) On the contrary, I think…


If you look at the formula to problem solve using human-centered design (which you may know as “design thinking” and, although there are differences between the two, let’s call synonymous for now) and behavioral science, they look pretty similar. For some steps, they even use the exact same language.

Basically you define what your problem is, empathize with and understand the people your problem is affecting and to whom your solution will be targeted, ideate (or generate) solutions, prototype your ideas and then test out a final product, intervention or solution.

So are human-centered designers and behavioral scientists really the…

Allison Wishner

Allison (Alli) Wishner is a Master's candidate at the University of Pennsylvania's Masters in Behavioral and Decision Sciences.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store