This calls for a link to simulated annealing, an optimization heuristic. Here, initial sampling is "provocation" and the jumps later in the process of cooling are "movement".
It shouldn't be so surprising to me, seeing simulated annealing in so many places. It's a good approximation for optimising NP problems, it should develop organically in places dealing with NP problems.
How do you set your prior for initial sampling? This seems like the fundamental problem to me (with regards to creativity). Suppose I want to brainstorm about a scientific problem. I don't want to start with "cars have square wheels" because that has nothing to do with my problem. But, if I start with a statement of the problem, I have already "primed" myself in a certain direction, even if I just negate the problem statement. I guess the analogy breaks down a little. For SA, I would use a uniform prior, and I'm guaranteed eventually to explore every part of the space. Idea space is too big for that. On the other hand, the trade-off is similar: more random starting points that are random, or fewer random starting points using a better prior.
Isn't that the purpose of the 5 provocation techniques? You pick a few statements which are taken for granted related to the area of the problem, and then reverse/negate/distort them in some way. This isn't a uniform distribution over idea space, since the taken-for-granted statements are related to the problem area.
This raises interesting off-topic question: does 'intelligence' itself confer significant advantage over such methods (which can certainly be implemented without anything resembling agent's real world utility)?
We are transitioning to being bottlenecked (in our technological progress, at least) by optimization software implementing such methods, rather than being bottlenecked by our intelligence (that is in part how the exponential growth is sustained despite constant human intelligence); if the AI can't do a whole lot better than our brainstorming, it probably won't have upper hand over dedicated optimization software.
This is a great post full of low investment methods with potentially high payoffs.
Yet, I find the structure of this post to be personally hilarious! My favorite technique/provocation is not listed: randomly matching successful systems(or their principles) into new pairs. While effective, this notion is commonly rejected- that a new combination of old ideas/principles is not new, unworthy of respect, and furthermore can be considered criminal behavior(a violation of intellectual ownership). I find the absence here understandable and even defensible- but the irony of starting the post with a quote from Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is too much.
Short version: It frequently helps for people to bounce ideas off each other, but forbidding disagreement isn't useful. (The article doesn't discuss possible ill-effects of too much hierarchy.)
At least for musicals, the best results seem to come from groups which include both people who've worked with each other before and newbies.
Huge gains can be gotten from random contacts-- it's good to be in a building where people from different specialties come in frequent contact with each other.
The book this post is based on (Serious Creativity) is also pretty critical of traditional brainstorming and "withholding judgment." I chose the word "brainstorming" in the title because it's catchier and more connotative than something like "idea generation." Here's an excerpt:
The traditional process of brainstorming sometimes gives the impression that deliberate creativity consists of shooting out a stream of crazy ideas in the hope that one of them might hit a useful target...a scatter-gun approach to creativity makes no more sense than having a thousand monkeys banging away on typewriters in the hope that one of them might produce a Shakespeare play.
He also discusses later in the book the differences between group and individual brainstorming, with the suggestions that, if you want to do a group brainstorming session, it should be split into repeated individual-thinking (separate from each other) followed by discussion, followed by more individual thinking, etc. One problem he identifies with group brainstorming is that you have to slow down a lot to explain things to other people.
Yes. This is lovely and the technique works quite well.
I am also delighted by the grammatical construct of "Po," and may well adopt it in speech.
Incidentally, a rather popular tourist site near where I live features a restaurant where the wait staff is known for being rude. It's considered a feature.
In SF, the infamously "rude" waiter Edsel Ford Fong was considered an attraction at the restaurant Sam Wo.
I am curious about what transformation in tourists' thoughts occurs to consider rude waitstaff a feature of said location. Can you elaborate?
My guess:
A restaurant famous for having rude staff? I don't believe it. I have to see it. If it's really true, that will make a good story for my friends.
I can't speak to what cognitive transformation occurs, if any, but the restaurant is Durgin Park. I'm not sure what kind of elaboration you're looking for.
It's kind of fun, if one is in the right mood for it.
I find something similar (though less extreme) is not uncommon in diners.
Conan O'Brien sent Jack McBrayer and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog to The Wieners Circle (which in the words of Wikipedia is, apart from its food, known for "the mutual verbal abuse between the employees and the customers during the late-weekend hours").
This American Life also did a story on The Wieners Circle.
Questionable Content features a coffee shop whose main selling point is rudeness to customers as well. It's mostly portrayed as sassy banter the customers enjoy and occasionally partake in. Wikipedia's article on Durgin Park gives the same impression. In the webcomic, customers also tend to be hipsters who enjoy the originality; I don't know about real life.
Durgin Park's customers are more middle-class tourists, and it's not quite as extreme as the fictional coffee shop in QC, but the spirit is similar. As long as we're talking fictional examples, I'm reminded of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi as well, which I also gather was inspired by a RL vendor.
Thanks PECOS-9, this is one of my favorite posts.
One thing I already do for a provocation is, I use half baked ideas that pop into my mind and are obviously bad, but have some element that is unique. I say "here's a bad idea for brainstorming purposes" then see if I can make good movement from it.
I've always like DeBono's ideas, esp. how he tries to look a bit deeper at clichés like "thinking outside the box", and his criticism with some of the other middlebrow creativity techniques. He's later books (in particular, "Think!") are a bit too much self-promoting to me, and linking his methods to all kinds of real-world successes where it is not at all clear what the role of of said method really was.
It'd be great to have some real experiments (with control groups etc.) to see how well these methods really work.
I won't wait for those though, and use the parts that have been helpful to me in the past; I especially like his reminders that to find a solution one should always focus on what it should do, and not how. E.g., the problem is not really "I need a towel", the problem is "I need something to dry myself".
I am terrible at commingled up with ideas for goals I want(meaning I cant think of any goals) How might I use these techniques for that
If I'm understanding correctly, this method is for randomly finding "creative ideas" but contains no way to direct those ideas towards solving any specific problem?
I usually consider creativity useful only when I can target it towards something I consider a worthwhile problem. Trying to realize a random creative idea would distract me from focusing my efforts on problems I've already found to be most important to work on.
Still, this does sound like it has potential- the more people using this, the chances that somebody would think of something related to a problem I am personally trying to solve would become higher.
You can direct the method toward a specific problem by choosing provocations related to the problem area.
I've added a paragraph to the Provocation section just now to clarify this:
If you are trying to solve a specific problem or innovate in a particular domain, then choose provocations related to the domain. That is, if you're trying to figure out how to improve wikipedia, don't use a provocation like "Po, the orange juice has me for breakfast," choose one like "Po, citations are not needed" (escape) or "Po, articles contain encyclopedias." (reversal).
Nice, I'm going to experiment with this. It is like a thought experiment that intentionally creates the opportunity for an "accidental discovery", which are usually the most useful.
- Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
- Edward De Bono, Serious Creativity
I will summarize some of the techniques for how to generate ideas presented in Serious Creativity. The book also has other material, e.g. interesting deep theories about why these techniques work, arguments for the importance of creativity, and more techniques beyond what's described in this post, but in the interest of keeping this post concise and useful, I will only describe one kind of technique and urge you to just try it. You should read the book if you want more detail or techniques.
These techniques can be used both when you have a problem you need to solve and when you have a general area that you suspect could be improved or innovated, but don't have any specific ideas of what's wrong (or even if you don't feel like there's anything wrong at all).
The technique I will describe in this post is that of "provocation" followed by "movement." A provocation is a seemingly random or nonsensical sentence or phrase. Movement is the process of going forward with a provocation and actually generating an idea. There are precise, formal techniques for generating provocations and movement, which I will describe after giving an example of how this "provocation-movement" process works.
Example
Provocation: Planes land upside down.
Movement: We can imagine this actually happening, and observe that the pilot would have a better view of the landing area. This naturally leads us to consider other ways to improve the pilot's view of the landing area. Perhaps we could move the cockpit to the bottom, or add video cameras. So using this technique, we've identified an area for improvement and two possible ways to make that improvement.
Setting Up Provocations
Provocation is a way to avoid getting stuck in the same "mental pathways" (see priming) so that you can find new ones. Provocations should not make sense and are not necessarily intended to convey meaning; they are just intended to "make things happen in our minds." The book precedes provocations with "po," a word used to indicate that the sentence is intended to be nonsensical and illogical. Po stands for "provoking operation." The book describes several techniques for generating provocations.
A provocation doesn't need to follow from one of these techniques. A provocation can be any incorrect or absurd statement. These techniques are just easy step-by-step ways to generate provocations without requiring any elusive "spark of inspiration." Once a provocation is generated, it should be followed by one or more of the movement techniques described in the next section.
If you are trying to solve a specific problem or innovate in a particular domain, then choose provocations related to the domain. That is, if you're trying to figure out how to improve wikipedia, don't use a provocation like "Po, the orange juice has me for breakfast," choose one like "Po, citations are not needed" (escape) or "Po, articles contain encyclopedias." (reversal).
Movement
Movement allows you to take some idea, concept, or provocation and move forward with it to generate more useful ideas and concepts. These techniques don't apply solely to provocations: you can use them for ideas and concepts too. The book describes 5 formal techniques for movement:
You can use these movement techniques not just on provocations, but also ideas or concepts. For example, you may start with a provocation, use the "moment to moment" technique which gives you an idea, and then you could use the "positive aspects" technique with that idea to generate more ideas. Also, of course, you do not need to strictly use just these techniques. If a provocation directly leads you to think of something interesting without explicitly choosing to use one of these techniques, that's fine, you should explore the idea more. Use these when you need them.
More Examples
Here's another example from the book. This one uses the "moment to moment" movement technique:
And here's another one from the book. The provocation uses the "escape" method and the movement seems to use the "circumstances" method:
Warnings