On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:44:07AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > What data source do you have that contradicts the data provided by > people who have actually been highly creative?
Why are your anecdotal sources so much more credible than mine? I guess having a magic god-given brain makes your sources more credible? Well, maybe god just gave me a magic brain, and my brain has stronger magic than yours, did you think of that, didya, punk? :-) > But, I know what has worked successfully over the years. I've been > able to solve in 15 minutes what plodders haven't been able to do > working 12 hour days for many days. Oh, that magic god given brain again. Of course, the perceptions of a mundane, comprehensible, objective brain are more credible than a magic brain. Your past comments on the working of the brain and intelligence have demonstrated a pattern that I think lacks scientific objectivity and therefore loses some credibility with me. If you believe something is true, especially if it relates to mental processes, it is quite likely you will find a way to make it true. Self-fulfilling prophecy. > I look around and note the working habits of others who have > significant creative breakthroughs. I look at the habits of those who > don't. Why should one assume that the people who are creative would > be even more creative if they work like those who aren't? What did I say that made you think that? The creative people can think standing on their head for all I care, but the longer they stand on their head and think, the more work they are likely to accomplish (up to a point, of course, but as I said, I know and have known many creative people who get more results up to 10 to 14 hours) > Part of the problem with trying to be a creative plodder is that > creativity is an edge experience. For me, at least, its foundation is > coming up with a new way to ask the question. Long hard work tends to > get me in a groove/rut of looking at it the same way. Looks like a mental block to me, maybe the magic god-given brain isn't all its cracked up to be. There are lots of ways to work and look at things from a different angle other than playing golf. Although if you are thinking about the problem most of the time you are playing golf, then I would call that working longer hours. > The proof is in the pudding. Let me give one final example. After > months of effort, a theorist came up with a solution to a special case > of a general problem. He discussed it with Feynman. Feynman proved > to be interested and asked him questions. The guy was thrilled that > Feynman took an interest in his work. The next day, Feynman had the > general solution. Why did you get the idea that I was saying no one is better at problem solving than anyone else? If you had a story where Feynman worked 6 hour days and solved a problem more quickly than when he worked 12 hours days, then you would have something relevant. > Most breakthroughs are made by those with a God > given spark, not by the hardest workers. I assume you mean by that, "those with an exceptional mind". Or do you mean to say that only god can create an exceptional mind? Anyway, more breakthroughs will be made by those with exceptional minds WHO WORK LONGER HOURS than those with equally exceptional minds who work shorter hours. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
