5 ms·

Generating Thoughts, or, the Feynman Family Phrase

32 points by jsomers 16y ago

devmonk 16y ago
I think analytically also, but I don't think that this is why Feynman became what he became, nor that focusing on truly understanding something is always the best tactic for success. People that think analytically can really piss people off that aren't as obsessed with detail. I've learned this over time and have to turn myself off every once in a while. It takes the right environment to excel, and I believe that Richard was blessed with one. But he was also just a remarkable person. Love his books.
- endtime 16y ago
  >People that think analytically can really piss people off that aren't as obsessed with detail. It goes both ways - I find it very frustrating when it feels like someone is refusing to answer a simple, specific question. (Of course, he may think I'm nitpicking, or not even understand what I'm saying...)
  - nopassrecover 16y ago
    The thing is, if it's trivial it should take a moment to answer (even if they look puzzled). I find when they can't answer the simple question it's because you knew this was a potential hole (which is why you asked it) and they're (even subconsciously) unsure about the implications of what you're asking.
zby 16y ago
De Bono has also some interesting ways of 'generating ideas'. For example in one he proposes to start with something obviously paradoxical - like a car with square wheels - then you think how you could make it work - so for example you invent some new suspension design that would compensate for the problem - and then you think that maybe you could use it also for circle wheels.
- Natsu 16y ago
  That's interesting. I've done things like that all the time, but never really considered it.
- runningdogx 16y ago
  Generalizing the the thought patterns De Bono suggests, where you take a thing to be considered, and have a list of "lenses" through which to consider that thing, seems to be very valuable. The same methodology applied to businesses is described in e.g. Gareth Morgan's _Images of Organization_. The principle flaw of using that technique for decision making is that the n-dimensional consideration space has to be mapped into a single dimension, which can be problematic or impossible. Many intractable debates are the result of inability for two parties to agree on how to map the thought-space (roughly, where each separate aspect of the question is its own dimension) into a simpler (linear) space which facilitates making a decision. Knowing whether a dinosaur can see into, or get into, your 2nd story bedroom may help for some lines of inquiry, but whenever you instantiate a concept as a less abstract thing, what you gain in intuition, you often lose by introducing artifacts that hold true for the more concrete example but not for the concept itself. This happens all the time in mathematics where a theorem seems to be true when considered in a less abstract simplification, but counterexamples can be found when a more accurate but less intuitive and more abstract conceptual model is used.
  - ajuc 16y ago
    "This happens all the time in mathematics where a theorem seems to be true when considered in a less abstract simplification, but counterexamples can be found when a more accurate but less intuitive and more abstract conceptual model is used." That's exactly the place where asking yourself "That would mean that..." is a good idea - this provokes searching for counterexamples. Edit: When learning math I always try think of a few examples that would fit each definition, and that would not - it makes thinking about that definitions later much simpler.

32 points by jsomers 16y ago

I think analytically also, but I don't think that this is why Feynman became what he became, nor that focusing on truly understanding something is always the best tactic for success. People that think analytically can really piss people off that aren't as obsessed with detail. I've learned this over time and have to turn myself off every once in a while. It takes the right environment to excel, and I believe that Richard was blessed with one. But he was also just a remarkable person. Love his books.

endtime 16y ago
>People that think analytically can really piss people off that aren't as obsessed with detail. It goes both ways - I find it very frustrating when it feels like someone is refusing to answer a simple, specific question. (Of course, he may think I'm nitpicking, or not even understand what I'm saying...)
- nopassrecover 16y ago
  The thing is, if it's trivial it should take a moment to answer (even if they look puzzled). I find when they can't answer the simple question it's because you knew this was a potential hole (which is why you asked it) and they're (even subconsciously) unsure about the implications of what you're asking.

zby 16y ago

De Bono has also some interesting ways of 'generating ideas'. For example in one he proposes to start with something obviously paradoxical - like a car with square wheels - then you think how you could make it work - so for example you invent some new suspension design that would compensate for the problem - and then you think that maybe you could use it also for circle wheels.

Natsu 16y ago
That's interesting. I've done things like that all the time, but never really considered it.
runningdogx 16y ago
Generalizing the the thought patterns De Bono suggests, where you take a thing to be considered, and have a list of "lenses" through which to consider that thing, seems to be very valuable. The same methodology applied to businesses is described in e.g. Gareth Morgan's _Images of Organization_. The principle flaw of using that technique for decision making is that the n-dimensional consideration space has to be mapped into a single dimension, which can be problematic or impossible. Many intractable debates are the result of inability for two parties to agree on how to map the thought-space (roughly, where each separate aspect of the question is its own dimension) into a simpler (linear) space which facilitates making a decision. Knowing whether a dinosaur can see into, or get into, your 2nd story bedroom may help for some lines of inquiry, but whenever you instantiate a concept as a less abstract thing, what you gain in intuition, you often lose by introducing artifacts that hold true for the more concrete example but not for the concept itself. This happens all the time in mathematics where a theorem seems to be true when considered in a less abstract simplification, but counterexamples can be found when a more accurate but less intuitive and more abstract conceptual model is used.
- ajuc 16y ago
  "This happens all the time in mathematics where a theorem seems to be true when considered in a less abstract simplification, but counterexamples can be found when a more accurate but less intuitive and more abstract conceptual model is used." That's exactly the place where asking yourself "That would mean that..." is a good idea - this provokes searching for counterexamples. Edit: When learning math I always try think of a few examples that would fit each definition, and that would not - it makes thinking about that definitions later much simpler.