Welcome to Planet Preterist
Search Site:     
Submit an article | Submit a link
3275 articles; 634 encyclopedia terms
 Submit  Links  Exclusives  Forum  Downloads  RSS Feeds New Account
Planet Preterist Blogs
Tools & Links
Login
Nickname

Password

Please create a free account to post in the forums, submit articles, links...etc.
Funny Stuff
"What is the bottom line, my friends? Should we be terrified? If you're terrified, I suggest that you don't study prophecy. It's not good for you."
-- Ron Graff
Our Columnists
Catalog Items
News: Innovative Minds Don’t Think Alike
Posted on Tuesday, January 01 @ 16:16:50 PST by Virgil

Other by Janet Rae-Dupree
It's a pickle of a paradox: As our knowledge and expertise increase, our creativity and ability to innovate tend to taper off. Why? Because the walls of the proverbial box in which we think are thickening along with our experience.

Andrew S. Grove, the co-founder of Intel, put it well in 2005 when he told an interviewer from Fortune, “When everybody knows that something is so, it means that nobody knows nothin’.” In other words, it becomes nearly impossible to look beyond what you know and think outside the box you’ve built around yourself.

This so-called curse of knowledge, a phrase used in a 1989 paper in The Journal of Political Economy, means that once you’ve become an expert in a particular subject, it’s hard to imagine not knowing what you do. Your conversations with others in the field are peppered with catch phrases and jargon that are foreign to the uninitiated. When it’s time to accomplish a task — open a store, build a house, buy new cash registers, sell insurance — those in the know get it done the way it has always been done, stifling innovation as they barrel along the well-worn path.

Elizabeth Newton, a psychologist, conducted an experiment on the curse of knowledge while working on her doctorate at Stanford in 1990. She gave one set of people, called “tappers,” a list of commonly known songs from which to choose. Their task was to rap their knuckles on a tabletop to the rhythm of the chosen tune as they thought about it in their heads. A second set of people, called “listeners,” were asked to name the songs.

Before the experiment began, the tappers were asked how often they believed that the listeners would name the songs correctly. On average, tappers expected listeners to get it right about half the time. In the end, however, listeners guessed only 3 of 120 songs tapped out, or 2.5 percent.

The tappers were astounded. The song was so clear in their minds; how could the listeners not “hear” it in their taps?

That’s a common reaction when experts set out to share their ideas in the business world, too, says Chip Heath, who with his brother, Dan, was a co-author of the 2007 book “Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die.” It’s why engineers design products ultimately useful only to other engineers. It’s why managers have trouble convincing the rank and file to adopt new processes. And it’s why the advertising world struggles to convey commercial messages to consumers.

“I HAVE a DVD remote control with 52 buttons on it, and every one of them is there because some engineer along the line knew how to use that button and believed I would want to use it, too,” Mr. Heath says. “People who design products are experts cursed by their knowledge, and they can’t imagine what it’s like to be as ignorant as the rest of us.”

But there are proven ways to exorcise the curse.

In their book, the Heath brothers outline six “hooks” that they say are guaranteed to communicate a new idea clearly by transforming it into what they call a Simple Unexpected Concrete Credentialed Emotional Story. Each of the letters in the resulting acronym, Succes, refers to a different hook. (“S,” for example, suggests simplifying the message.) Although the hooks of “Made to Stick” focus on the art of communication, there are ways to fashion them around fostering innovation.

To innovate, Mr. Heath says, you have to bring together people with a variety of skills. If those people can’t communicate clearly with one another, innovation gets bogged down in the abstract language of specialization and expertise. “It’s kind of like the ugly American tourist trying to get across an idea in another country by speaking English slowly and more loudly,” he says. “You’ve got to find the common connections.”

In her 2006 book, “Innovation Killer: How What We Know Limits What We Can Imagine — and What Smart Companies Are Doing About It,” Cynthia Barton Rabe proposes bringing in outsiders whom she calls zero-gravity thinkers to keep creativity and innovation on track.

When experts have to slow down and go back to basics to bring an outsider up to speed, she says, “it forces them to look at their world differently and, as a result, they come up with new solutions to old problems.”

She cites as an example the work of a colleague at Ralston Purina who moved to Eveready in the mid-1980s when Ralston bought that company. At the time, Eveready had become a household name because of its sales since the 1950s of inexpensive red plastic and metal flashlights. But by the mid-1980s, the flashlight business, which had been aimed solely at men shopping at hardware stores, was foundering.

While Ms. Rabe’s colleague had no experience with flashlights, she did have plenty of experience in consumer packaging and marketing from her years at Ralston Purina. She proceeded to revamp the flashlight product line to include colors like pink, baby blue and light green — colors that would appeal to women — and began distributing them through grocery store chains.

“It was not incredibly popular as a decision amongst the old guard at Eveready,” Ms. Rabe says. But after the changes, she says, “the flashlight business took off and was wildly successful for many years after that.”

MS. RABE herself experienced similar problems while working as a transient “zero-gravity thinker” at Intel.

“I would ask my very, very basic questions,” she said, noting that it frustrated some of the people who didn’t know her. Once they got past that point, however, “it always turned out that we could come up with some terrific ideas,” she said.

While Ms. Rabe usually worked inside the companies she discussed in her book, she said outside consultants could also serve the zero-gravity role, but only if their expertise was not identical to that of the group already working on the project.

“Look for people with renaissance-thinker tendencies, who’ve done work in a related area but not in your specific field,” she says. “Make it possible for someone who doesn’t report directly to that area to come in and say the emperor has no clothes.”

Janet Rae-Dupree writes about science and emerging technology in Silicon Valley.


 
Related Links
· More about Other
· News by Virgil


Most read story about Other:
Login

Article Rating
Average Score: 5
Votes: 2


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Bad
Regular
Good
Very Good
Excellent


Options
   ^^Go to Top - E-mail to Friend - Print - View PDF View PDF -   Subscribe -   Comments RSS

"Login" | Login/Create an Account | 8 comments
Threshold
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
You are not logged in! Login to post comments:

Nickname:
Password:
[ Lost your password? | Create New Account ]
Re: Innovative Minds Don’t Think Alike (Score: 1)
by Virgil on Tuesday, January 01 @ 16:47:47 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
I wonder how what we know about fulfilled prophecy and eschatology limits our understanding of other Biblical things. I have always found it fascinating how arrogant some Preterists generally are about fully understanding prophecy and eschatology, which is an attitude that blinds them from seeing good things in other places; i.e. "we have it all..there is no more to learn, there is no place to go." In other words "we've arrived and you are all idiots for not agreeing with us."

I thought this was a great article. We have a lot to learn about how to bring Preterism mainstream. The message is viable; we have a lot of work to do on the packaging.


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: Innovative Minds Don’t Think Alike (Score: 1)
by Barry on Wednesday, January 02 @ 05:47:10 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Nice article.
Some of this (but not all) relates to how we process or feel about "knowing something".
That being the conclusions (that are internalized) we draw about being right.

So then Knowledge gets framed within the larger sphere of "being right" instead of love and relationship. Knowing something or knowing something about something becomes part of a self identifying or self defining process.

When we start with love and relationship then knowing something is seen in the larger scope of implementing that knowledge in love and relationship as opposed to defining one's self through that knowledge.

In fulfillment for example:
In stead of the thought that the knowledge of or understanding of fulfillment says something about one's own identity [IE, I am a preterist, or I know a lot about fulfillment and that says something about me] the thought could be something like, "how can this knowledge be put to usefulness in relationship?" or "how can this perspective be useful toward relationship with those who and those who do not have this same perspective?].

As such then we tend to remain more open about learning and even changing because we have not tried to self define through trying to be right, as if knowledge itself was ever actually the end goal.

Just a thought,
Barry
BTW, Happy new year!


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]


Web site powered by Planetpreterist.com Apache Web ServerPHP Scripting Language

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
The comments are property of their posters, all original content © 2008 by Planetpreterist.com
You can syndicate our articles using our RSS Feeds