

Generating Thoughts, or, the Feynman Family Phrase - jsomers
http://jsomers.net/blog/generating-thoughts

======
zby
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.

~~~
runningdogx
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
"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.

------
devmonk
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
>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
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.

