4 ms·

That's fascinating ... can you provide references for that research? We've found the careful controlling of criticism to be invaluable in getting ideas up fron

That's fascinating ... can you provide references for that research? We've found the careful controlling of criticism to be invaluable in getting ideas up front quickly so they can then be dissected, mutated, co-evolved, and their best points combined. Iterating quickly and ejecting bad ideas quickly has its place, yes, but not always. I'd be interested to see the underlying context for your statement here. Thanks.

hnick 7y ago
This doesn't support the point but the conversation reminded me about something I read a while ago that is related. Maybe you will find it interesting. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/theres-a-better-way-to-brainstorm.html https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/the... The researchers found that a problem with brainstorming is the verbal component - due to social factors and limited oral and aural bandwidth, less ideas get shared, and people forget what they were about to say. They decided 'brainwriting' is more effective, particularly 'asynchronous brainwriting' which alternates between writing your own ideas in a group, then reviewing others' ideas. This method would support want you want - getting all the ideas out quickly, because people are less likely to hold back, then iterating on them.
- Daub 7y ago
  In the paper, group brainstorming was conducted between more than 50 individuals. I would say that 10 is the effective maximum.
  - hnick 7y ago
    That's from the paper? I wasn't sure from the article - they mentioned 50+ individuals but then said they had various conditions (group first or individual first) so I assumed they ran them in different groups. I'll agree a single group of fifty is ridiculous - 10 would be pushing it for me. You'll probably get 2 people posturing/dominating in most places.
    - Daub 7y ago
      My bad. I just mis-read the article. Just now I went and downloaded the paper, and I see no group size specified, nor indeed any details of the procedure they followed. That might just be the house style of the journal. However, they mention that models predict that creativity increase with the size of the group (to a point). But they don't specify this point. The recommendations they draw are: 1. Combining group and solitary brainstorming 2. Having group brainstormers interact by writing instead of speaking (“brainwriting”) 3. Using networked computers on which individuals type their ideas and read the ideas of others (electronic brainstorming) They nicely give some recommended readings: - Paulus, P.B., & Nijstad, B.A. (Eds.). (in press). Group creativity. New York: Oxford University Press. - Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T.S., & Paulus, P.B. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29, 495–526. - Osborn, A.F. (1957). Applied imagination (1st ed.). New York: Scribner. Many institutional brainstorming sessions I have attended are a complete waste of time, for all the obvious reasons (mostly ego-dominance and poor leadership). This the paper refers to as 'production blocking'. However, I find that managed correctly, there are few better ways to introduce diversity of thought into a process.
      - hnick 7y ago
        Well the lack of numbers is a bit disappointing. I admit I'm not interested enough to really dig in but I do find the results interesting. And they did shoot down the previous advice I was given, which is to have everyone set aside time to write down some ideas before the meeting. It seems the presence of the group itself is a strong motivating factor.
Daub 7y ago
I like the fact that you aim for ideas to be "mutated, co-evolved, and their best points combined". This is creativity best-practice exemplified.

hnick 7y ago

This doesn't support the point but the conversation reminded me about something I read a while ago that is related. Maybe you will find it interesting. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/theres-a-better-way-to-brainstorm.html https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/the... The researchers found that a problem with brainstorming is the verbal component - due to social factors and limited oral and aural bandwidth, less ideas get shared, and people forget what they were about to say. They decided 'brainwriting' is more effective, particularly 'asynchronous brainwriting' which alternates between writing your own ideas in a group, then reviewing others' ideas. This method would support want you want - getting all the ideas out quickly, because people are less likely to hold back, then iterating on them.

Daub 7y ago
In the paper, group brainstorming was conducted between more than 50 individuals. I would say that 10 is the effective maximum.
- hnick 7y ago
  That's from the paper? I wasn't sure from the article - they mentioned 50+ individuals but then said they had various conditions (group first or individual first) so I assumed they ran them in different groups. I'll agree a single group of fifty is ridiculous - 10 would be pushing it for me. You'll probably get 2 people posturing/dominating in most places.
  - Daub 7y ago
    My bad. I just mis-read the article. Just now I went and downloaded the paper, and I see no group size specified, nor indeed any details of the procedure they followed. That might just be the house style of the journal. However, they mention that models predict that creativity increase with the size of the group (to a point). But they don't specify this point. The recommendations they draw are: 1. Combining group and solitary brainstorming 2. Having group brainstormers interact by writing instead of speaking (“brainwriting”) 3. Using networked computers on which individuals type their ideas and read the ideas of others (electronic brainstorming) They nicely give some recommended readings: - Paulus, P.B., & Nijstad, B.A. (Eds.). (in press). Group creativity. New York: Oxford University Press. - Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T.S., & Paulus, P.B. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29, 495–526. - Osborn, A.F. (1957). Applied imagination (1st ed.). New York: Scribner. Many institutional brainstorming sessions I have attended are a complete waste of time, for all the obvious reasons (mostly ego-dominance and poor leadership). This the paper refers to as 'production blocking'. However, I find that managed correctly, there are few better ways to introduce diversity of thought into a process.
    - hnick 7y ago
      Well the lack of numbers is a bit disappointing. I admit I'm not interested enough to really dig in but I do find the results interesting. And they did shoot down the previous advice I was given, which is to have everyone set aside time to write down some ideas before the meeting. It seems the presence of the group itself is a strong motivating factor.

Daub 7y ago

I like the fact that you aim for ideas to be "mutated, co-evolved, and their best points combined". This is creativity best-practice exemplified.