The man with ideas

in #philosophy6 years ago (edited)

Yesterday, @personz wrote an article about the structural problem of putting ideas forward without researching the plausibility of the idea itself. Essentially, the article was written about people like me and he is very, very correct. I have a problem yet, I take no offence and am unlikely to change my process of thinking and putting forward my thoughts with little to no research into the technical capabilities.

There is a simple reason for this, it works. For me at least. While I agree that ideas alone are relatively useless, there is a simple process to innovation that takes place for essentially anything to happen, thought, word, action.

Step one is the idea but that leads on to step two, words. Words are the voicing and the discussion of the idea to develop and investigate the concept. This can be done by one person in their head or, with a team of people dedicated to the task. Perhaps, it can even be done through a process of public discourse that puts ideas into the public sphere to marinate and get a wide selection of people involved. This is how I see ideas injected into the Steemit ecosystem.

It is in this communication and spread of the ideas that has value as even if the idea itself is immature, vague or altogether impossible, there is a chance that it falls upon ears that can either develop it or use it as a spark of inspiration to take thinking in an off-shoot direction. Ideas are the catalyst for creation.

The final part of the process is action of course which takes what has been discussed and turns it into a tangible reality. The final version may look entirely different from the initial idea even though its roots have grown in that soil. The evolution of ideas is a refining process.

Why does being an idea guy work for me? Because audience matters. In my day to day work, I deal largely with engineers and managers from IT and manufacturing areas. These range from mobile technologies to mining machinery to weapons systems. One part of my job is to help them break their various habits in order to perform better. This includes their creative thinking (or lack of) habits.

What is common among specialists in their field is a narrow view where they spend so much time in their specialisation, they develop a blindness to possibilities outside of it. This whittles away at their creativity and in time, their thinking becomes stagnant because now they know everything.

One reason for my personal ability to have ideas across many areas is because of my more generalist nature. I am not an expert at anything but, spend a great deal of time around experts in just about everything. This means I spend time between the expertise and can see similarities and trends across industries. This is valuable for my clients.

The amount of times that people have known that my ideas will not work is quite amazing yet, the amount of times some iteration of my idea has been developed (often by a competitor) is too. But, those that have come to be part of the discussion instead of dismissive of it, have found that they are able to develop in ways they were not thinking across earlier.

Rather than taking an adversarial position in the conversation, the discussions become one where they can run with ideas that they have not considered or approached from that direction before. For my clients, often this takes the role of the humans that will use their products and services as in general, Finnish engineers are lacking in the consideration of anything that has skin.

Now, I am completely understanding of @personz's position as it frustrates me no end that there are people who criticise, condemn and complain or have 'brilliant' ideas but, are flaccid when it comes to do anything about it. But, the expectation that one person must have all skills necessary to bring their idea 'to market' is very limiting.

In my view, the thought, word, action process of creation is not one that needs be limited to an individual, it can be a cooperative process where there is overlap and crossover of each part by numerous minds and technical abilities. There is literally massive potential in this and it should be encouraged, not shot down.

But if you are like me, ideas are not enough to be part of the process as once the idea has been put forth, if there is nothing else to come, your role in the discussion ends. But, technical capabilities come in many different forms as does action, the creative part. The ability to gather people, build conversation and drive it towards a common goal is also a technical (and learnable) skill that many forego.

Many specialists in their field seem to think that their technical abilities to build, code or create are enough to be part of the team. They are not. Their communicative skills are what makes them valuable. Communication is the ability to express and absorb information and many lack one or both of these skills which diminishes their value to the team.

Taking a different approach to the flow of ideas from the non-technical to the technical, if we reverse the stream, and instead go expert to layperson, we find the same issue. The technical people often lack the ability to communicate their ideas to others also. This is a technical deficiency.

Someone once said 'If you can't explain it simply enough, you don't understand it well enough' and this is often the case with technical people. They think that their technical brilliance is all that is needed but, in the complexity of a global environment, they are often sorely mistaken and all of their skills will sadly amount to nought without the right people to connect them to the real world.

Ever thought why so many people are lacking in the basic understanding of technical issues? Ever thought it may be because they haven't been exposed to it or when they have they have been, are faced with complexity and jargon they are unfamiliar with? Experts need to do a better job also. They have to think, 'Why does this conversation still exist?'

But, this is the beauty of the conversation, it is a continual development process where ideas can connect with skills and become something new, something better, something valuable. Very few people in this world have all the skills necessary to do this alone yet, very few are willing to admit their reliance on others.

So instead of the technical among us shooting down ideations, take the time to explain what is currently possible because if there is a problem, your skills haven't yet solved it, otherwise there would be no conversation necessary. Perhaps with better information, the idea creator may have another idea that arrives at the doorstep, and perhaps that one is the gateway to the solution.

This is why communities exist.

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]

Sort:  

you're an idea guy... heh - makes me think of Einstein and his thought experiments, or Tesla and his thought conversations. So you're probably in good company.

@tarazkp thanks for considering the points I made so deeply.

First I should make some clarifications.

[...] the expectation that one person must have all skills necessary to bring their idea 'to market' is very limiting.

I agree completely. And it wasn't something I said and I hope it's not something I implied as it wasn't my message. It takes a team to do anything useful in my experience.

In my day to day work, I deal largely with engineers and managers from IT and manufacturing areas. [...] One part of my job is to help them break their various habits in order to perform better. This includes their creative thinking (or lack of) habits.

What is common among specialists in their field is a narrow view where they spend so much time in their specialisation, they develop a blindness to possibilities outside of it. [...]

[...]

But, those that have come to be part of the discussion instead of dismissive of it, have found that they are able to develop in ways they were not thinking across earlier.

I underlined the limited usefulness of ideas that have no grounding in a technical survey. And the greater point is that if one is then confronted with technical reasons against an idea, dismissing them as possible with some other technology without actually looking reduces the idea to useless, or the ideationator (coined!) as lazy. All that might be required is some simple research or soliciting the advice of an expert.

However this passage is a good counterpoint to it. You're absolutely right, the overly technical get blinded by their narrow focus. In team social situations there are reputations at stake and differing priorities which often play out as ideas people overshooting sensible boundaries and technical people staying far too safely inside them.

Still, the compost fueled car is a good example problem. Why can't composite be used to fuel cars? If we don't bother to look we can discuss all day about how great the effects will be on our society, etc. etc. And the thing is there probably could be a process invented to turn composite into fuel. However I hazard a guess that the efficiency of that process would be terrible. This is often the case, it's not so much that something can't be done from a technical perspective, but that the costs can far outweigh the gains.

So instead of the technical among us shooting down ideations, take the time to explain what is currently possible because if there is a problem, your skills haven't yet solved it, otherwise there would be no conversation necessary. Perhaps with better information, the idea creator may have another idea that arrives at the doorstep, and perhaps that one is the gateway to the solution.

Good generalist advice, I support this. It try to do it as much as possible.

I want to add another layer to this. Yes the compost-fueled car is absurd, but not for the reasons you state. Using compost for fuel, while technically possible, is as stupid as using biomass or corn to produce ethanol to use as fuel, a process which is currently under way. What humans and their animals don't eat must be returned to the soil to increase tilth and fertility.

Healthy soil is far more important than transportation. This is an example where technical ability blinds. Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean that it should be implemented. Here is where the idea people become more essential than the technicians. Bad ideas can simply be discarded. Technical "advances" without the vision to see their ramifications, often lead to irreparable damage.

Really good point, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I can imagine a kind of anti-ideas ideas person who perhaps says "we shouldn't be doing this" but the technical people or other pro-ideas people say well not doing it can't be done! The use of fossil fuels comes to mind.

I would say however that the compost-fueled car is actually absurd for the reasons I state and the reasons you state. Yours are more important for sure.

You'll laugh at this. When I was a young man I tried to heat a hot tub with compost. I worked as a landscape maintenance gardener and had lots of wood chips and green grass, plus I lived near a ranch where I could take as much manure as I could haul away.

A well built compost heap can reach temperatures of 175F as thermophilic organisms break it down.

I ran a coil of copper pipe through my large compost heap, but I could only get my hot tub 15F degrees above ambient temperature. The heat wasn't generated fast enough to overcome the entropic loss of the thermal mass of water in the tub.

I was a high school dropout in those days and didn't have the math knowledge to calculate before I built. Though it wasn't enough to heat a hot tub, it was probably enough to keep a greenhouse from freezing in a mild winter area. I never took it that far. It was just a fun experiment.

There are many such things. Cryptokitties on the Ethereum blockchain?

I should be so lucky as to come up with something like Cryptokitties. Unfortunately, what becomes popular is so far beyond my ken that it will never happen.

I hope I didn't misrepresent you. I just took the basic idea and ran with it in stereotypical me fashion :)

Running with ideas spreads them and I thank you. I would have to know what my ideas represent to feel misrepresented. I don't. :)

I don't think having an "unworkable" idea is a problem. Technical people, that is "number" people work from the left side of their brains, the uncreative, computer-like side. If all progress were left to the technicians, stagnation would soon occur.

Jules Verne dreamed of and wrote about flying to and landing on the moon. He wrote of an underwater boat fueled by a mysterious Power X. None of this was technically possible in his day. His irrational and impossible ideas inspired the left-brainers to work toward and achieve what he merely envisioned. Though a few like Tesla do emerge, it's absurd to expect individuals to encompass both visionary creativity and technical ability. They are rarer than diamonds.

Yes, I see volume and diversification of ideas as important. If everyone has the same idea, it is probably pretty average.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.26
TRX 0.11
JST 0.033
BTC 63851.10
ETH 3059.36
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.85