2 ms·

I absolutely agree that ideas need to start somewhere, but I think that truly innovative, original ideas won't come directly from consuming something. The same

I absolutely agree that ideas need to start somewhere, but I think that truly innovative, original ideas won't come directly from consuming something. The same way any web application must process an input in some way to add value to it, for me anyway, I need to process things in order to add value to them.

brg 17y ago
We agree about consumption, and the essay does a very good job of exploring this, but perhaps I was not clear in the point. In academics, I often see students continuously consume books and papers believing that they are doing research. While integral in the effort, this is the easiest step in research. What too many do not do is take the next step, which is the creation and evaluation of ideas. In mathematics, one can think of it as depth first search through the space of knowns in hopes of finding a proof of an interesting statement. To be continually successful, one must look at this proof discovery activity as a production step. But the essay does not look at this as such, instead saying that inspiration does not come from producing. By stating: It wasn’t until I started running that I realized the value of doing neither [consumption nor production], but instead of processing the things I consumed. It excludes mental rumination from production. It is this distinction that I don't think is valid. And the essay would be sharper by speaking only of consumption instead of combining consumption and production.
- frederickcook 17y ago
  I see your point. Mental rumination is, indeed, a form of production, and when I get home from my run, I reproduce that which I produced in my head into a paper or speech or discussion or whatnot. The essay is indeed weak in that it does not establish this. Perhaps I should be more explicit by stating that producing through the act of thinking, excluding any other mental engagement, is for me somehow a deeper or more efficient form of production. Thank you.

brg 17y ago

We agree about consumption, and the essay does a very good job of exploring this, but perhaps I was not clear in the point. In academics, I often see students continuously consume books and papers believing that they are doing research. While integral in the effort, this is the easiest step in research. What too many do not do is take the next step, which is the creation and evaluation of ideas. In mathematics, one can think of it as depth first search through the space of knowns in hopes of finding a proof of an interesting statement. To be continually successful, one must look at this proof discovery activity as a production step. But the essay does not look at this as such, instead saying that inspiration does not come from producing. By stating: It wasn’t until I started running that I realized the value of doing neither [consumption nor production], but instead of processing the things I consumed. It excludes mental rumination from production. It is this distinction that I don't think is valid. And the essay would be sharper by speaking only of consumption instead of combining consumption and production.

frederickcook 17y ago
I see your point. Mental rumination is, indeed, a form of production, and when I get home from my run, I reproduce that which I produced in my head into a paper or speech or discussion or whatnot. The essay is indeed weak in that it does not establish this. Perhaps I should be more explicit by stating that producing through the act of thinking, excluding any other mental engagement, is for me somehow a deeper or more efficient form of production. Thank you.