With this definition, we can put all the difficult and important problems in one hat and all the tricks and methods in another hat and a good idea will mean a correct pairing of an item from the first hat with an item from the second hat. I hear you saying that this is too simplistic because often there are more tricks needed to solve a problem. This is true, but most often when we are stuck with a problem, there's one single trick that removes the obstacle and at least gets us closer to the solution. If more insights need to be applied at the same time, let's just bundle them together and label them as one insight.
So how to come up with ideas? Let's hear the great problem-solver himself (in an account of Gian-Carlo Rota):
Richard Feynman was fond of giving the following advice on how to be a genius. You have to keep a dozen of your favorite problems constantly present in your mind, although by and large they will lay in a dormant state. Every time you hear or read a new trick or a new result, test it against each of your twelve problems to see whether it helps. Every once in a while there will be a hit, and people will say, “How did he do it? He must be a genius!”
Ok, sounds simple enough. But we are left with a longing for symmetry. What about the opposite method:
Keep your twelve favorite tricks and techniques constantly present in your mind and whenever you hear of a new problem, test it against each of your twelve tricks to see whether they help.
Is this also a valid approach or is it just a variant of the "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" anti-pattern ?
From empirical evidence, it seems that there is a qualitative difference between the two approaches: proponents of the first are Nobel-prize winning physicist, proponents of the second write obscure blog entries on Novel Vig. For a proper assessment we would need a controlled experiment. But why is the second approach inferior ? Are there vastly more tricks than problems ? Are problems more complex and open-ended than tricks and require therefore more in-depth thinking ? Does a good idea require some genuine interest in the problem ? These are not immediately obvious. Any other suggestions ?
7 comments:
A qualitative difference between the two is not immediately apparent!
Both approaches above seem to suggest that there is a 'basis set' of problems and solutions available. Thinking about it with genetic metaphors then, new problems and solutions are created by recombination, and therefore innovation, like evolution, is slow and incremental.
However, I am tempted to think that genius has a certain inexplicable quality, i.e. that having explained all about the creative process, there is still something remaining to be explained.
Like a great writer: You can sort of see the formula adopted for the plot and the characters, but the experience of reading the book transcends any reductive explanation...
That is probably why certain books or movies fall 'short of the mark' because the creative process is too transparent, resulting in an 'I could have done that'
Continuing with the genetic metaphors, recombinations result in incremental innovation, and mutations result in paradigm shifts. Can we explain some kind of paradigm shift in science, like relativity, or quantum theory with the recombinant model? Where are the mutations?
Of course the whole thing was slightly tongue-in-cheek, as it started from the Feynman quote, which he probably meant semi-humorously. I was just trying to take this reductionism to its logical extreme.
Another starting point could have been this other "technique":
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm:
(1) write down the problem;
(2) think very hard;
(3) write down the answer.
The other way to be creative is the one suggested by Hugh Macleod at http://www.gapingvoid.com, summarized as maintain a constant tension between two or more creative tasks, and expect that tension to always be present.
Hi,
Perhaps the world is already effective at solving superficial "problems".
I define a problem as a conflict between 2 mutually exclusive intentions, such as "I want an big army so that my country is safe. I want to have a small enough army so that my neighbours are not threatened."
We have many workable methods of identifying solutions, after all we did solve most of the "problems" so far. What we need to do is to find a better way of identifying the problem.
Too often we are solving the effects of another problem, such as widening roads in the cities to handle traffic jams, when the real source is ineffective public transportation.
Icarus, thanks. That's one way to define a problem. Other ways implicit in this discussion would be, 'a real world need, that adds value to the end user, when addressed' e.g. a traffic planning system, or 'identifying an innate human need that can be tapped into and commercialized' e.g. the walkman
Hi Pavan,
Apologies for digressing from the original topic. If you don't mind, we can continue the discussion here, or else we can wait for someone to put up the right blog entry for this.
Can all "problems" be expressed as a conflict between 2 seemingly exclusive intentions? And that a real solution is one that can address both (previously conflicting) intentions (without creating a new problem)?
a. I want to have my choice of music all the time.
b. I want to be nice to other people and not force my selection music on them.
The solution would be a personal portal music player - aka walkman.
What if we try to verbalise all problems in this manner? Would it become clearer?
Cheers,
Icarius
Post a Comment