11 ms·

One of the things that separates ordinary people from smarter people is the topic of this article, the ability to imagine new concepts, questions, ideas. Colloq

One of the things that separates ordinary people from smarter people is the topic of this article, the ability to imagine new concepts, questions, ideas. Colloquially we call this creativity, and it stems from a large degree of playfulness and enjoyment of the subject at hand. What separates geniuses from the crazies is the ability to test those ideas and the humility to dismiss the ones that do not work. It’s that combination that makes a great thinker.

gerdesj 3y ago
Ooh, please define "ordinary" as opposed to "smarter". The article is about not artificially constraining your thoughts when considering a problem. Mathematics and by extension - mathematicians - are famous for looking kindly on a line of enquiry that subsequently turned out to be wrong. To be fair to mathematicians: Anyone can trot out any sort of bollocks and call it maths, rather cheaply, by jotting down some vaguely plausible looking ramblings on paper. If you try to fiddle up, say: cold fusion, you have to at least persuade your readers on archive that you have found the open end of a test tube and work on from there! There is a damn good reason why scientists, mathematicians and everyone else who works via publishing papers (for want of a better inclusive term) are rather dismissive of "dumb questions". Rather often the question ... is dumb. I hate that term and being British, I prefer: "stupid". This is all about "thinking outside of the box", which is nice until you note how people get treated for doing exactly that. I suggest you keep your thoughts inside your head when you are thinking outside of it! Once you have your thoughts all lined up and you are not wearing your underwear on your head and have stopped dribbling, you might be in a good place to deliver your pontifications. Your mother may well have given you the advice: "think before you speak" - she was a wise woman. She probably doesn't blog about it.
- justanotherjoe 3y ago
  I once thought like this. Still do. But I had known one guy who didn't seem to exercise any limit in thinking stupid questions. He was like the antichrist to me, everything i hate. But he said some things that i still remember today cause it's just pure genius, that perfectly encapsulates the reality in so little words. And there's some sick natural barriers that prevent 'normal' people from knowing them, cause the language, while precise, also sounds dumb. But it's really not.
  - cookie_monsta 3y ago
    Hmm, I would like to hear an example of one of the Antichrist's thoughts
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      The Eurasian region must (bleh)* be engaged in protracted war to ensure that the populace is distracted from the Omicron program. * Frog emerges from mouth
    - justanotherjoe 3y ago
      i'm kinda hesitant to say most of them. Like I said, they sound silly and reductive at first. And none of them is exactly what people here will find interesting. One thing he said that a game becomes engaging when 'things that were once hard, is now easy'. I like the formulation cause it works on just right abstraction level. It lends to many interpretation and it works as long as the 'rule' is satisfied. And I've obsessed over it and just how true it is. Another thing he said that fantasy is about 'sky upon sky'. Which is one of the more abstract things he said. I swear I was fuming when he said it with such elation as if he's discovering electricity. The refusal to elaborate was also infuriating, as if I was supposed to understand what he meant. And I did, eventually. The abstraction works perfectly, at least for me...
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  I think a lot of the (over)reaction to “dumb” questions is that people of average capability can’t explain the conventional wisdom, and therefore feel an ego threat when it’s questioned. To quote the point: > So one should be unafraid to ask “stupid” questions, challenging conventional wisdom on a subject; the answers to these questions will occasionally lead to a surprising conclusion, but more often will simply tell you why the conventional wisdom is there in the first place, which is well worth knowing. I’m always amazed at how many people insist the world is round, but can’t explain how we know that. Or explain the experiments you can see yourself, eg pendulums or round pools.
  - gwervc 3y ago
    > I’m always amazed at how many people insist the world is round, but can’t explain how we know that. I've played a few times this game with people on a topic that generates strong feelings (climate change) enough to keep play for awhile, and I have yet to find someone going further than "scientists say". Each person wasn't able to cite a single name of a scientist or paper. In general there is a lot of assumed "knowledge" about everything everywhere and it's better not asking questions because it can make people really angry.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - feoren 3y ago
      > a single name of a scientist or paper Unlike philosophy or religion, science does not rest on the laurels of one accomplished prophet. The idea that something is only true if it comes out of the words of a famous scientist is antithetical to science. Compare the temperature of the inside of your car to the outside on a hot sunny day if you want an example of the greenhouse effect.
      - kragen 3y ago
        scientific conclusions rest on specific arguments in specific papers by specific people, including specific evidence. the people don't have to be famous or prophets; they just have to provide evidence but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why. it's just as easily used to support false statements as true ones; for example, climate change deniers often say that scientists say we are in more danger of global cooling, or that scientists say that volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide vastly exceed anthropogenic emissions
soundarana 3y ago
Crazies say they validate and test their idea, but they actually suffer from severe confirmation bias where they summarily dismiss any counterexample or problem.
- gerdesj 3y ago
  "Crazies" Would you be able to spot a Ramanujan from the dross? You say that "they" ... something ... but ... they ... something ... disagree with the world. Care to flesh this out with an anonymised example?
  - swagmoney1606 3y ago
    > Would you be able to spot a Ramanujan from the dross? Yes. We would do this by analyzing their arguments for logical errors, then testing their new theory, then hopefully proving their new theory. The difference between a crazy and genius is the results their new ideas produce.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      Ideas are cheap and proof is expensive. It’s impossible to give all ideas equal consideration. You have to apply a filter, it’s inevitable. The question is just what filter you apply.
      - l33t7332273 3y ago
        In math, proof is not generally so expensive, so perhaps Ramanujan was not the best example.
        penteract 3y ago
        Ramanujan was missed by at least one maths professor. Also, there are mathematical proofs such as that of Fermat's last theorem, or the claimed proof of the abc conjecture by Shinichi Mochizuki for which verification is very difficult. I'll agree that the costs don't come close to replicating work by LIGO or CERN.
FPGAhacker 3y ago
> One of the things that separates ordinary people from smarter people is the topic of this article, the ability to imagine new concepts, questions, ideas. Colloquially we call this creativity, and it stems from a large degree of playfulness and enjoyment of the subject at hand. Pretty sure we call that imagination. Creativity, shockingly enough, involves creation, not just imagination.
- phito 3y ago
  What's the difference? OP could have said "create new concepts, questions and ideas" and it would be exactly the same
- mym1990 3y ago
  You can creatively destroy things as well. It’s kind of pedantic to say that creating in the mind does not count as “creating”, just imagining. What about solving abstract problems?
p1necone 3y ago
One bit of advice for problem solving that I've taken to heart and find very effective is to not shy away from trying solutions you'd be embarrassed to tell other people because they'd probably think you were crazy/an idiot. Sometimes that direction is where the truly effective stuff is. Of course you should also try the obvious, simple, "normal" solutions - but don't be afraid to experiment. A bit like "write drunk, edit sober" but instead of drunk, you're a raving lunatic.
- broscillator 3y ago
  Man, I think feeling crazy for trying stuff even when completely alone, is something not enough people talk about. It's clear when you do it that most artists and creatively successful people have done it and gotten over it, but it's like something that you actually don't hear about or maybe don't register until you start doing it, and do it enough to get used to the feeling and carry on with whatever you were thinking of.
- mock-possum 3y ago
  The way I frame this for myself is - just get the stupid solutions out of the way first. Do them so you can see how dumb they are, and move on to the better ones. And that comes with the proviso that sometimes, the stupid solution is actually just fine, and you didn’t even need to make it so complicated.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  General research advice: I would also go in with the mindset "I am trying to disprove this approach as quickly as possible". This allows you to iterate quickly across hypotheses and not get dogmatically fixated on one approach. Cast the net wide in the initial search, including both normal and crazy solutions, then measure what approach is working, and then narrow the search based on that, learning lessons along the way. Don't start with a narrow search. Also, be sure that the different approaches you're trying are uncorrelated and ideally thematically/qualitatively different. Many researchers get tripped up trying "different" things that are really just superficial iterations of the same core concept.
  - 3y ago

gerdesj 3y ago

Ooh, please define "ordinary" as opposed to "smarter". The article is about not artificially constraining your thoughts when considering a problem. Mathematics and by extension - mathematicians - are famous for looking kindly on a line of enquiry that subsequently turned out to be wrong. To be fair to mathematicians: Anyone can trot out any sort of bollocks and call it maths, rather cheaply, by jotting down some vaguely plausible looking ramblings on paper. If you try to fiddle up, say: cold fusion, you have to at least persuade your readers on archive that you have found the open end of a test tube and work on from there! There is a damn good reason why scientists, mathematicians and everyone else who works via publishing papers (for want of a better inclusive term) are rather dismissive of "dumb questions". Rather often the question ... is dumb. I hate that term and being British, I prefer: "stupid". This is all about "thinking outside of the box", which is nice until you note how people get treated for doing exactly that. I suggest you keep your thoughts inside your head when you are thinking outside of it! Once you have your thoughts all lined up and you are not wearing your underwear on your head and have stopped dribbling, you might be in a good place to deliver your pontifications. Your mother may well have given you the advice: "think before you speak" - she was a wise woman. She probably doesn't blog about it.

justanotherjoe 3y ago
I once thought like this. Still do. But I had known one guy who didn't seem to exercise any limit in thinking stupid questions. He was like the antichrist to me, everything i hate. But he said some things that i still remember today cause it's just pure genius, that perfectly encapsulates the reality in so little words. And there's some sick natural barriers that prevent 'normal' people from knowing them, cause the language, while precise, also sounds dumb. But it's really not.
- cookie_monsta 3y ago
  Hmm, I would like to hear an example of one of the Antichrist's thoughts
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    The Eurasian region must (bleh)* be engaged in protracted war to ensure that the populace is distracted from the Omicron program. * Frog emerges from mouth
  - justanotherjoe 3y ago
    i'm kinda hesitant to say most of them. Like I said, they sound silly and reductive at first. And none of them is exactly what people here will find interesting. One thing he said that a game becomes engaging when 'things that were once hard, is now easy'. I like the formulation cause it works on just right abstraction level. It lends to many interpretation and it works as long as the 'rule' is satisfied. And I've obsessed over it and just how true it is. Another thing he said that fantasy is about 'sky upon sky'. Which is one of the more abstract things he said. I swear I was fuming when he said it with such elation as if he's discovering electricity. The refusal to elaborate was also infuriating, as if I was supposed to understand what he meant. And I did, eventually. The abstraction works perfectly, at least for me...
zmgsabst 3y ago
I think a lot of the (over)reaction to “dumb” questions is that people of average capability can’t explain the conventional wisdom, and therefore feel an ego threat when it’s questioned. To quote the point: > So one should be unafraid to ask “stupid” questions, challenging conventional wisdom on a subject; the answers to these questions will occasionally lead to a surprising conclusion, but more often will simply tell you why the conventional wisdom is there in the first place, which is well worth knowing. I’m always amazed at how many people insist the world is round, but can’t explain how we know that. Or explain the experiments you can see yourself, eg pendulums or round pools.
- gwervc 3y ago
  > I’m always amazed at how many people insist the world is round, but can’t explain how we know that. I've played a few times this game with people on a topic that generates strong feelings (climate change) enough to keep play for awhile, and I have yet to find someone going further than "scientists say". Each person wasn't able to cite a single name of a scientist or paper. In general there is a lot of assumed "knowledge" about everything everywhere and it's better not asking questions because it can make people really angry.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - feoren 3y ago
    > a single name of a scientist or paper Unlike philosophy or religion, science does not rest on the laurels of one accomplished prophet. The idea that something is only true if it comes out of the words of a famous scientist is antithetical to science. Compare the temperature of the inside of your car to the outside on a hot sunny day if you want an example of the greenhouse effect.
    - kragen 3y ago
      scientific conclusions rest on specific arguments in specific papers by specific people, including specific evidence. the people don't have to be famous or prophets; they just have to provide evidence but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why. it's just as easily used to support false statements as true ones; for example, climate change deniers often say that scientists say we are in more danger of global cooling, or that scientists say that volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide vastly exceed anthropogenic emissions

soundarana 3y ago

Crazies say they validate and test their idea, but they actually suffer from severe confirmation bias where they summarily dismiss any counterexample or problem.

gerdesj 3y ago
"Crazies" Would you be able to spot a Ramanujan from the dross? You say that "they" ... something ... but ... they ... something ... disagree with the world. Care to flesh this out with an anonymised example?
- swagmoney1606 3y ago
  > Would you be able to spot a Ramanujan from the dross? Yes. We would do this by analyzing their arguments for logical errors, then testing their new theory, then hopefully proving their new theory. The difference between a crazy and genius is the results their new ideas produce.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    Ideas are cheap and proof is expensive. It’s impossible to give all ideas equal consideration. You have to apply a filter, it’s inevitable. The question is just what filter you apply.
    - l33t7332273 3y ago
      In math, proof is not generally so expensive, so perhaps Ramanujan was not the best example.
      - penteract 3y ago
        Ramanujan was missed by at least one maths professor. Also, there are mathematical proofs such as that of Fermat's last theorem, or the claimed proof of the abc conjecture by Shinichi Mochizuki for which verification is very difficult. I'll agree that the costs don't come close to replicating work by LIGO or CERN.

FPGAhacker 3y ago

> One of the things that separates ordinary people from smarter people is the topic of this article, the ability to imagine new concepts, questions, ideas. Colloquially we call this creativity, and it stems from a large degree of playfulness and enjoyment of the subject at hand. Pretty sure we call that imagination. Creativity, shockingly enough, involves creation, not just imagination.

phito 3y ago
What's the difference? OP could have said "create new concepts, questions and ideas" and it would be exactly the same
mym1990 3y ago
You can creatively destroy things as well. It’s kind of pedantic to say that creating in the mind does not count as “creating”, just imagining. What about solving abstract problems?

p1necone 3y ago

One bit of advice for problem solving that I've taken to heart and find very effective is to not shy away from trying solutions you'd be embarrassed to tell other people because they'd probably think you were crazy/an idiot. Sometimes that direction is where the truly effective stuff is. Of course you should also try the obvious, simple, "normal" solutions - but don't be afraid to experiment. A bit like "write drunk, edit sober" but instead of drunk, you're a raving lunatic.

broscillator 3y ago
Man, I think feeling crazy for trying stuff even when completely alone, is something not enough people talk about. It's clear when you do it that most artists and creatively successful people have done it and gotten over it, but it's like something that you actually don't hear about or maybe don't register until you start doing it, and do it enough to get used to the feeling and carry on with whatever you were thinking of.
mock-possum 3y ago
The way I frame this for myself is - just get the stupid solutions out of the way first. Do them so you can see how dumb they are, and move on to the better ones. And that comes with the proviso that sometimes, the stupid solution is actually just fine, and you didn’t even need to make it so complicated.
hackerlight 3y ago
General research advice: I would also go in with the mindset "I am trying to disprove this approach as quickly as possible". This allows you to iterate quickly across hypotheses and not get dogmatically fixated on one approach. Cast the net wide in the initial search, including both normal and crazy solutions, then measure what approach is working, and then narrow the search based on that, learning lessons along the way. Don't start with a narrow search. Also, be sure that the different approaches you're trying are uncorrelated and ideally thematically/qualitatively different. Many researchers get tripped up trying "different" things that are really just superficial iterations of the same core concept.
- 3y ago