George Dyson, Turing's Cathedral: The Origins of the Digital Universe (New York: Pantheon, 2012) ("'Mathematical reasoning may be regarded rather schematically as the exercise of a combination of two faculties, which we may call intuition and ingenuity,' Turing explained. 'Intuition consists in making spontaneous judgments which are not the result of conscious trains of reasoning. These judgments are often but by no means invariably correct (leaving aside the question what is meant by 'correct'). ' Turing saw the role of ingenuity as 'aiding the intuition,' not replacing it. 'In pre-Godel times it was thought by some that it would probably be possible to carry this programme to such a point that all the intuitive judgments of mathematics could be replaced by a finite number of these rules,' he concluded. 'The necessity for intuition would then be entirely eliminated.' What if intuition could be replaced by ingenuity, and ingenuity, in turn, by brute force search? 'We are always able to obtain from the rules of a formal logic a method of enumerating the propositions proved by its means. We then imagine that all proofs take the form of a search through this enumeration for the theorem for which a proof is desired. In this way ingenuity is replaced by patience.' No amount of patience, however, was enough. Ingenuity and intuition were here to stay." Id. at 252. Also see William Poundstone, "Unleashing the Power," NYT Book Review, Sunday, 5/6/2012; and Jim Holt, "How the Computers Exploded," NYRB, 6/7/2012.).
Jon Gertner, The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation (New York: The Penguin Press, 2012) ("It seems worth considering not only how [certain] endeavors failed, but what those failures represented. Innovators make different kinds of mistakes. The waveguide, for instance, might be considered a mistake of perception. It was an instance where technology of legitimate promise is eclipsed by a breakthrough elsewhere--in another corporate department, at another company, at a university, wherever-- that solves a particular problem better. It was perhaps understandable moreover, that a breakthrough in the creation of pure glass fiber wouldn't come from an organization such as Bell Labs, where materials scientists were experts on the behaviors of metals, polymers, and semiconductor crystals. Rather, it would come from a company like Corning, with over a century of expertise in glass and ceramics." "Mistakes of perception are not the same as mistakes of judgment, though. In the latter, an idea that developers think will satisfy a need or want does not. It may prove useless because of its functional shortcomings, or because it's too expensive in relation to its modest appeal, or because it arrives in the marketplace too early or too late. Or because of all those reasons combined. The Picturephone was a mistake in judgment." Id. at 262. Also see Walter Isaacson, "Inventing the Future," NYT Book Review, Sunday, 4/8/2012.).
Jonah Lehrer, Imagine: How Creativity Works (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012) "There is, of course, something very appealing about brainstorming. It's always nice to be saturated in positive feedback, which is why most participants leave a brainstorming session proud of their contributions to the group. The whiteboard has been filed with free associations, the output of the unchained imagination. At such moments, brainstorming can seem like an ideal mental technique, a feel-good way to boost productivity." "There's just one problem with brainstorming: it doesn't work. Keith Sawyer, a psychologist at Washington University, summarizes the science: 'Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas. ' . . ." "The reason brainstorming is so ineffective returns us to the importance of criticism and debate. . . . The only way to maximize group creativity--to make the whole more than the sum of its parts--is to encourage a candid discussion of mistakes. In part, this is because the acceptance of error reduces its cost. When you believe that your flaws will be quickly corrected by the group, you're less worried about perfecting your contribution, which leads to a more candid conversation. We can only get it right when we talk about what we got wrong." [] "'Most research and advice suggest that the best way to come up with good solutions is to come up with many solutions. Freewheeling is welcome; don't be afraid to say anything that comes to mind. However, in addition, most studies suggest that you should debate and even criticize each other's ideas." [] "[W]hile the brainstorming groups slightly outperformed the groups given no instructions, people in the debate condition were far more creative. On average, they generated nearly 25 percent more ideas. The most telling part of the study, however, came after the groups had been disbanded. That's when researchers asked each of the subjects if he or she had any more ideas . . . that had been triggered by the earlier conversation. While people in the minimal and brainstorming conditions produced, on average, two additional ideas, those in the debate condition produced more than seven, Nemeth summarizes her results: 'While the instruction 'Do not critize' is often cited as the [most] important instruction in brainstorming, this appears to be a counterproductive strategy. Our finding show that debate and criticism do not inhibit ideas but, rather, stimulate them relative to every other condition." [] "According to Nemeth, the reason criticism leads to more new ideas is that it encourages us to fully engage with the work of others. We think about their concepts because we want to improve them; it's the imperfection that leads us to really listen. (And isn't that the point of a group? If we're not here to make one another better, then why are we here?) in contrast when everybody is 'right'--when all new ideas are equally useful, as in a brainstorming session--we stay within ourselves There is no incentive to think about someone else's thoughts or embrace unfamiliar possibilities. And so the problems remains impossible. The absence of criticism has kept us all in the same place." Id. at 158-161. Needless to say, if criticism and debate are crucial to having "more new ideas," then organizations with top-down, authoritarian approach to management, where criticism and debate are viewed as evidencing a lack of team or institutional spirit, are likely to generate fewer new ideas, fewer solutions, fewer innovations and less creativity. Without open and honest debate and criticism, the result is essentially groupthink. Consensus reached in the absence of open and honest criticism is not real or true 'consensus;' it is an illusion of consensus. 'True consensus' occurs when, after the participants have made every reasonable effort to identify all characterizations of the problem/issue and all possible solutions to same, the participants are able to freely converge on an acceptable joint decision. Also see Christopher Chabris, "Boggle the Mind," NYT Book Review, Sunday, 5/13/2012.).
