IdeaTree

This blog is an adjunct to IdeaTree.us. Here I’ll offer some ideas and philosophies on how people think both as individuals and groups. Some of these were influential in the development of IdeaTree, others are just, hopefully, interesting.

Ron Newman
www.ideatree.us

There are surprising, and surprisingly important, things to be learned about making decisions. First of all, the ‘aha’ insight is everything. That is unerringly the goal if you want efficient, innovative, productive decisions that make your life easier rather than harder. Secondly, brainstorming has a huge Achilles heel that no one is talking about: the impossibility of picking the best idea from a stack of good ideas.

Warning: I’m going to get just a little academic for now, because that way I can pack a lot of information into a few words. Maybe there will be time later to expand what follows into a series of articles.

Decision-making may be conceptualized as consisting of two phases: idea generation (data collection, brainstorming, news-gathering) and idea selection (deciding on the best course of action from the available information). Idea generation techniques have been widely researched and methods developed that are empirically effective. However, once a pool of ideas has been generated, the probability of selecting the best ideas from the pool has repeatedly been shown to be no better than chance Rietzschel 2005a, 2005b) and does not improve with experience or with deep exploration (Simonton 2003, Rietzschel 2005b).

As a result, the burden of proof of effectiveness now lies with effective idea selection. Without a demonstrably effective idea selection phase, the quality and breadth of the information available to decision-makers and researchers alike has literally no impact on the quality of the decision that results. Therefore, effective idea selection has become the locus where increases in efficiency have the greatest impact.

Education has a large stake in the question due to its traditional emphasis on factual learning, since it now appears that an abundance of high quality facts (idea generation) says nothing about the ability to
apply those facts to real-world issues (idea selection).

Background

Most current approaches attack the problem by increasing the amount of cognitive reasoning applied. It would seem intuitively obvious that assembling smart people, experts in a given subject, and asking them to apply their experience to a problem would tend to result in smart answers. Surprisingly, this is not typically the case. On the contrary, innovation tends to occur on the edges between clusters of expertise, e.g. in the hallways of a conference rather than in the plenary session (perhaps related to the potential for divergent thought, see Paulus 2006).

Intellectual Ventures, a think tank founded by Nathan Myhrvold, is a case in point. Myhrvold started Intellectual Ventures after leaving Microsoft, where he founded the research division. Intellectual Ventures brings together high achievers in the same room to create
and then follow a train of thought. The groups are widely interdisciplinary; there might be a physician, a physicist, a biologist, and a paleontologist together. The results are staggering. At the first invention session it was thought that half a dozen ideas would be considered a success. They came up with between fifty and a hundred. They’re filing five hundred patents a year, with a backlog of three thousand ideas. (Gladwell 2008)

However, all this success is on one side of the equation: idea generation. As for idea selection: “Myhrvold admits that many of the ideas that come out of the invention sessions come to naught…[He] isn’t even willing to guess what his company’s most promising inventions are. ‘That’s a fool’s game,’ he says.” (Gladwell 2008)

What appears to be true is that idea generation can in fact be effected by throwing intelligent, and diverse, minds together and removing obstacles. Though messy, it’s relatively linear. Idea selection, on the other hand, seems almost mystical by comparison.

What can we say about idea generation, then, that might also be applied to idea selection? Two suggestions:

1. High-performing brainstorming groups tend to have certain qualities. Three examples of these (Paulus 2006):
•Autonomy and independence of the players
•Low blocking. Participants do not need to strive to be heard.
•High diversity. Meetings between individuals of differing expertise

These and other desirable characteristics do not have to be left to chance in a given environment. They have been the subject of numerous studies and can be enhanced through methods such as “brainwriting”, described below.

2. Innovation has a tendency to occur in the presence of a suspension of agenda, a unifying principle of the group qualities listed above. Suspension of agenda often occurs after removal of psychological inhibitors such as competition or goal-oriented thinking and may be accompanied by a feeling of relaxation, of “giving up” or of serendipity and accidental discovery. Shaw has documented suspension of agenda historically (Shaw 1988).

Suspension of agenda, unconscious thought, and divergent thought appear to have overlapping characteristics. Divergent thinking is an important measure of creativity in groups and is often enhanced in cross-disciplinary settings (Paulus 2006). It is also characteristic of unconscious processes which are highly associative, as opposed to the more focused and convergent conscious thought (Dijksterhuis 2006a). It is hypothesized that suspension of agenda works because it enables unconscious processing.

Unconscious thought is indicated as an effective decision-making tool (Gladwell 2005). In contrast to common practice, it has been shown that while simple decisions are better solved by conscious thought, complex decisions respond better to unconscious thought (Dijksterhuis 2006b). Simple decisions may also be made quickly (“thin-slicing”), but more complex ones are best made with a combination of unconscious thought and time (Dijksterhuis 2006b). Measurable results of suspension of agenda and group diversity are given in (Surowiecki 2004).

Candidate Solutions

Brainwriting – Ideas are written rather than spoken, then passed among group members. Previous ideas are read and understood before appending your own. Contributions are anonymous. Brainwriting can be implemented electronically (Newman 2006), and this can make anonymity, diversity, and low blocking easier to achieve.

Suspension of Agenda – Anonymity is combined with both individual and group work to suspend conscious agenda and give unconscious associative processes a chance to work. Face-to-face meetings are crucial. However, these should be reserved for decision-making and maintenance of important social bonds rather than for presenting ideas, i.e. “what do we create” as opposed to “this is what I know”.

Conclusion

Idea generation can be improved through tested methods. Two methods have been suggested, brainwriting and suspension of agenda. In comparison, idea selection is non-linear and no methods more reliable than trial-and-error are currently known. A high percentage of failure is expected from even the most innovative brainstorming groups, and consequently research and development departments are trained to expect such failure as a cost of success. Even a small improvement in the accuracy of idea selection would pay large dividends. Imagine the payoff if Timothy Geithner could know he was even incrementally more accurate in picking the best ideas for economic reform.

To that end it is hypothesized that methods that remove agenda on an individual level in meetings while maintaining a specific group goal may be effective for decision-making. It is proposed that given the effectiveness of brainwriting in idea generation, it be applied in reverse to idea selection by

• assembling ideas, supporting information, and anonymous comment and subsequently
• selecting the best idea by voting among a large, highly diverse, anonymous, and autonomous group of users.

The idea selection group should differ from the idea generation group (Paulus 2006) and should consist of members with a wide diversity of expertise, experience, and ability (Surowiecki 2004). Anonymity should be preserved to prevent premature consensus and encourage suspension of agenda (Paulus 2006). Small groups may be preferred for idea generation (Allen 2004) and large groups for idea selection (Surowiecki 2004).

In addition, experiments in idea generation may be conducted by constructing an associative map of the brainwriting submissions, then applying alterations in various ways. For example, to spur innovation the map may be redrawn to emphasize less-popular paths through the idea space (Miller 2004). To experiment with “thin-slicing”, supporting hypertext information may be limited.

Can you deal with the most vital matters by letting events take their course? Can you step back from your own mind and thus understand all things? – Lao Tzu

© 2009 by Ron Newman, All Rights Reserved

References

Allen, Christopher (2004), The Dunbar Number as a Limit to Group Sizes, blog: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html

Dijksterhuis A, Meurs T. (2006a), Where creativity resides: the generative power of unconscious thought, Conscious Cogn. Mar;15(1):135-46. Epub 2005 Jul 12.

Dijksterhuis, Ap & Nordgren, Loran F. (2006b), A Theory of Unconscious Thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1 (2), 95-109. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00007.x

Gladwell, Malcom (2005), Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Little, Brown & Company. Gladwell, Malcom (2008), In The Air: Who Says Big Ideas Are Rare?, The New Yorker, May 12, 2008, p. 50.

Miller, John, Ph.D. (2004), Director, The Center for Computational Biology, Montana State University, personal interview.

Newman, Ron (2006), online software, http://www.ideatree.us/

Paulus, Paul, Ph.D. (2006), talk given to U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

Rietzschel, Eric F., Nijstad, Bernard A., Stroebe, Wolfgang (2005a), Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, January 2005.

Rietzschel, Eric Fulco (2005b), From quantity to quality : cognitive, motivational and social aspects of creative idea generation and selection, Tekst.- Proefschrift Universiteit Utrecht, http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2005-1208-200002/UUindex.html

Shaw, Marvin C., Ph.D. (1988), The Paradox of Intention: Reaching the Goal by Giving Up the Attempt to Reach It,Oxford University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives, Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494.

Surowiecki, James (2004), The Wisdom of Crowds, why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations, Random House.

I’m listening to a talk by John Seely Brown: “It’s not a question of new technology. It’s a question of how does new technology enable new teaching practices.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNwCGWXK6YU&feature=player_embedded#

What new ways can we see our tools? I see it as an analogy of a pencil. A pencil is never seen as an analysis engine, but as a servant of the human mind. How can a spreadsheet be used like a pencil? Could that be the next evolution of our wisdom as an analyzing species?

“A lot of decision-making research has focused on conscious rational decision-making, and reflective judgments to be more optimal. However, this research suggests the old saying of “sleep on it” or “put it on the back burner” might be better under certain conditions. This has great implications for everyday decision-making. In some cases, we should just put away the spreadsheets.”
http://acawiki.org/On_Making_the_Right_Choice:_The_Deliberation-Without-Attention_Effect

The intuitive way for many to approach problem-solving is to go with the gut when time is short, then when there’s more time for data-gathering and reflection to bring all your rational tools to bear.

However, research has indicated that intuitive insight actually works better for complex problems with many variables, and rational thought for simpler ones. Past luminaries have spoken of this:

“When making a decision of minor importance, I have always found it advantageous to consider all the pros and cons. In vital matters however . . . the decision should come from the unconscious, from somewhere within ourselves.” —Sigmund Freud

“It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copybooks and by eminent people making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking about what we’re doing. The precise opposite is the case” – Whitehead, A. N., 1911, “An Introduction to Mathematics”

“…to arrive at the simplest truth, as Newton knew and practiced, requires years of contemplation. Not activity. Not reasoning. Not calculating. Not busy behavior of any kind. Not reading. Not talking. Not making an effort. Not thinking. Simply bearing in mind what it is that one needs to know.” – George Spencer Brown

The skill to develop, I think, is that of using the right process at the right time. There is a time of “loading up” with information, analysis, and linear thought. But the nonlinear aspects are a crucial part, and we can’t let ourselves fall into
the old dream that if we just had more information we could figure it all out.

“The mind does not grasp the whole, its focus is very narrow. It sees fragments onlly and fails to perceive the picture.” – Nisargadatta

Making the loading-up process more efficient is a goal of computing tools that gather and visualize data. Hopefully, they will also assist in the non-linear, perhaps in part by knowing when to get out of the way.

It’s like jazz saxophonist Charlie Parker said, “You learn your scales, then you forget all that s**t and just play your horn.”

It’s Teddy Roosevelt sneaking away from his entourage to go camping with John Muir in Yosemite for three days…Willie Nelson quitting music as a young man to return to his hog farm…biographies of famous people are replete with stories of
realization, problem solving or changes in direction coming after a period of decompression.

Dr. Irwin Shaw has found world literature full of references to this pattern and documented it in an interesting book, “The Paradox of Intention”.

But we habitually ignore our experience, because we hate to think that we aren’t in control of our own decisions and that in certain situations our reasoning power is not up to the task of figuring it out. Which is not to say that it won’t be figured out, just not by thinking harder or gathering more facts past a critical point. It’s an art. And we hate that.

I’ve been writing about the research behind group brainstorming and more importantly, decision making. I’d like to take some time out to insert some additional observations. These are my own empirically-based heuristics, not conclusions from scientific literature. There may be correlations to the research, but let’s talk about experience for a moment. What follows may seem vague, overly subtle, or touchy-feely to some, but actually these are the essential things that make up life. Ok, let’s get started. Perhaps you’ve noticed that:

When making important decisions, whether for your organization or yourself, it turns out that the subjective sense, also known as how you feel about it, can be a potent indicator of when you’re on the right track. Here are some guidelines:

The best decision is an ‘Ah’.
Next best is ‘Aha’.
Next best is ‘that sounds good’.
Next best is ‘climb every mountain’.

Ah
The best path, the real change you’ve been looking for, is marked by the subjective feeling of ‘Ah’, as in ‘ah, I see’. There is little or no emotion, either positive or negative. It’s more of a recognition of what now seems obvious, though if we think carefully we’ll realize that previously it wasn’t obvious at all. It’s as if the choice has already been made, though we don’t remember making it. That the action just happens as we watch ourselves making it. This is the holy grail. Truly valuable. Very mysterious. And very, very likely to be overlooked.

Aha
The next best is an ‘Aha’. It’s just so. You know, and you don’t know how you know. It’s the famous ‘gut feel’ that entrepreneurs know well. Sometimes you know what you don’t want to know, and you don’t know how you know it. The fail-safe marker: nothing you say to yourself can change what you know, even when you want to, yet when you ask yourself why such a thought should be true, nothing whatsoever comes to mind. You can give no reasons for what you “just know”. There’s an inverse relationship here when you’re trying to talk yourself out of what your gut is telling you: the more reasons you can give to justify an alternative, the less true it is. The truth “feels” absolutely no need to justify itself. Once you notice the power of this sense you will very naturally try to use it to your benefit, at which point things may become very challenging and confusing, potentially for a very long time. But if this sense becomes available to you take it and abandon everything that follows. If you dare. This is true courage, though it never beats its chest.

That Sounds Good to Me
Next best is ‘that sounds good’. A positive feeling. Usually marks a step forward toward our goal. Though not the final answer the giddiness of it can make us think we’ve arrived. Take it seriously but keep your head. Think of those in the public sphere, subject to large ups and downs, who nevertheless keep an even keel. Actor Tom Hanks says he tries never to get too high when he’s honored or too low when difficulties come up. And then there are the well-known anecdotes about “no drama Obama”. I once read a psychiatrist who said that a lot of tears in therapy aren’t the signal that a profound change has occurred, only that it’s being approached.

Climb Every Mountain
Next best is ‘with work and dedication we can see the change we desire.’ The good ol’ American try. One for the Gipper. Write down your goals, be persistent, never give up, step up to the plate, put your game face on, etc. It’s rags too riches, the underdog who makes it despite all odds. It’s the the national mythology, the story of most every Hollywood film, and Horatio Algier. It’s a lot of work. But it is effective if you don’t mind inefficiency and unintended consequences. By inefficiency I mean that what happens will line up with what you wanted to happen only once in a great while. But you’ll remember that one time and thereafter be driven at great cost to try to get it to happen again, not noticing all the times that the story doesn’t work out like you had hoped it would.

In this progression from subtlety to the generally apparent some of you may notice a resemblance to Lao Tzu, and you’d be right.

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

The Master doesn’t talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, “Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!”
– Lao Tzu, The Tao Te Ching, Stephen Mitchell translation, 1988, ISBN 0-06-016001-2

© 2009 by Ron Newman, All Rights Reserved

After all the media hype, is there anything left to be said about Michael Jackson’s life? I think so. In fact, hidden within the hype itself is insight not so much about Mr. Jackson as about ourselves.

The traditions of spirituality are all at base about becoming utterly empty and ordinary in favor of something extraordinary. Great art hints at the extraordinary, and we assume that that makes the artist also extraordinary in some way. But for the artist himself, if he is a true artist, it is instead an experience similar in feeling to that of being in the face of a powerful storm at sea, with all the strange bliss of being inconsequential in the face of a mysterious force.

Notice how hard it is to put those two things together when imagining an actual life: ordinary and inspired. The word that combines these two is not in our vocabulary.

I am amazed at Michael Jackson’s music and dancing. A genius of performance, he had an uncanny ability to channel a stage presence – aggressive, sexual, commanding – vastly removed from who he was as a person. As he said himself, “fame and fortune, they’re all illusion”. It’s chillingly wonderful to see the extent of how far the distance can be between the personality of the artist and the personality of his art, how deep that illusion can be. Amazing. The dichotomy made Michael Jackson all the more mesmerizing, the shy person backstage talking in a whispy girl’s voice who seconds later commands thousands to listen, and listen intently. He was transformed in service of the storm. I think of the Rumi poem that speaks of being an empty pipe, a flute for the breath of the universe; or of Mozart saying that he didn’t compose symphonies, he just dictated them whole from what he heard in the ether.

Despite his commanding presence on stage, today his shy persona talking continually of love is what was most remembered by millions worldwide. His girlish softness was far more powerful than anyone would have predicted. Maybe Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jesus, and Lao Tsu were right about the power of the yielding and the meek over the strong.

The world wasn’t quite ready for what Jackson had to say and found itself stretched too far to take it in completely. His naive message, born out of his own loneliness and isolation, was love: love beyond boundaries, beyond distrust. He was androgenous, post-sexual, with an innocence that is yet to be grasped. “Where there is love, I’ll be there…togetherness is all I’m after.” We were too jaded to take him at face value.

Art feeds both the soul and the ego. Becoming addicted to music has the same effect as becoming addicted to heroin: your personal development stops, your maturity stuck at the age at which you became addicted. Everyone wants to be an artist and get paid for it in money or attention, and once that taste is there, it persists for a tremendously long time. The strength of that reluctance shows itself all the time even with people of modest talent. Music stores are filled with aging wannabe rock stars who’ve been playing bars for years. So can you imagine a Michael Jackson going from that identity to being a “nobody” (though apparently a part of him wanted to)? Yet, despite his being trapped by our collective addiction to being or worshiping “somebodies”, his greater intent – that everyone just love each other – still communicated itself.

For those willing to set themselves aside in service of something that transcends all boundaries, there is an opening into a less complicated world. Everyone senses that possibility. We all want to hear a certain something that’s never quite captured in musical notes. The price is simple, but radical: the performer, whether speaker, musician, actor or dancer, must be set to the side. When that happens the performer becomes an observer, watching just like everyone else, and we all feel it. If we’re lucky we benefit from the transformation that happens, having our personalities rebooted, giving us a vacation from ourselves for just a little while. Don’t be surprised if you feel little emotion. This is not about milking the moment for emotion, despite appearances to the contrary. James Brown, a mentor of MJ, understood that. He spoke of the calm center that’s got to be inside no matter how fast or intense the outside.

This setting aside is rare. But we saw it in Michael Jackson. You may say he was the center of attention, he never set himself aside. But you would be wrong. His shy, retiring self was completely gone, left backstage, and we all felt the power of that transformation.

We also saw a rare example today in MJ’s Los Angeles memorial service as one after the other extremely talented artist set themselves aside, giving one after the other self-effacing performance in service of something greater: love.

In death, Michael finally, inadvertently communicated to a billion people what he was trying to say all along.

© 2009 by Ron Newman, All Rights Reserved