Couldn’t agree with you more, Dave. I see this from two  angles on a daily basis: I manage a UX team, and we work on software for high school students.

On my team, designers regularly have to take something fairly ambiguous and make sense out of it, deciding on the best way to implement an idea, how to keep it realistic without limiting their creativity too much, etc. Or, sometimes they might be presented with a requirement or idea that is just fundamentally flawed – but it’s presented as “final.” We have to be able to see through the veneer, back up the project, question all the underlying assumptions and make sure we solve the right problem rather than simply doing what is asked of us. It is very hard to find people who have this skill set – many designers I interview just simply can’t do it. I think your second bullet hit this one on the head.

With students, I agree completely with your first bullet point. Students are increasingly having difficulty seeing connections between ideas. From a cognitive science standpoint, this could very well be due to the relatively recent practice of “teaching to the test.” It’s well established that the human mind stores information in an interconnected neocortical network, and that the more connections you have in your LTM, the more able you are to recall and synthesize information. To form these connections effectively you need to be exposed to a range of ideas; if a student hears a song about something, then paints a picture of it, then reads an article, they can establish multiple ways of recalling that information later or connecting it to other things they see, hear, read, or do. I am oversimplifying a bit, but that’s the general idea. This can be especially effective during childhood and adolescence. Since schools have cut out so many of the “extra” programs like arts and music in favor of teaching “real” stuff that will be on the test, we’re producing less well-rounded kids who just don’t have the cognitive ability to make these connections.

This isn’t just happening in design. I had a fascinating conversation with an oceanography professor recently who bemoaned his students’ inability to relate basic concepts from high school science to things he was teaching in his class. He said he is having to back up and teach almost remedial content to help students establish some of these connections. This should not be happening in college – it’s too little, too late.

Back to your original question, I do think the truly great designers are the ones who can innately make sense out of abstract content. The rest may be capable designers, very good illustrators, etc. but without the tools for synthesizing abstract information they don’t have what it takes to see into the heart of a problem and find a way to solve it. To me, that critical skill is what makes a great interaction or service designer.

At some level, all design requires making the abstract concrete. This is why making is so central to the practice. This is why sketching works. At the end of the day, if we can’t embody the abstract, we fail.

So I think it’s bigger than taking direction. I think abstraction is always our starting point.

I agree as long as your creation of a problem definition doesn’t rise to the level of allowing clients (or critics) to get away with “I’ll know it when I see it” behavior. If you can’t get SOME advance definition from the person whose approval you ultimately need, you’re going down that road.