This link has been bookmarked by 131 people . It was first bookmarked on 25 Jan 2012, by someone privately.
-
15 Mar 14
-
But there is a problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work.
-
-
16 Sep 13
-
Brainstorming didn’t unleash the potential of the group, but rather made each individual less creative.
-
-
05 Jun 13
-
01 May 13
-
Organize a Squad to Create Ideas.” When a group works together, he wrote, the members should engage in a “brainstorm,
-
Brainstorming enshrined a no-judgments approach to holding
-
Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Process,
-
IDEO,
-
always nice to be saturated in positive feedback.
-
-
13 Feb 13
-
20 Jan 13
-
the thing that distinguishes brainstorming from other types of group activity—was the absence of criticism and negative feedback. If people were worried that their ideas might be ridiculed by the group, the process would fail. “Creativity is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom while discouragement often nips it in the bud,” he wrote.
-
Employees are instructed to “defer judgment” and “go for quantity.”
-
underlying assumption of brainstorming is that if people are scared of saying the wrong thing, they’ll end up saying nothing at all.
-
But there is a problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work.
-
The solo students came up with roughly twice as many solutions as the brainstorming groups, and a panel of judges deemed their solutions more “feasible” and “effective.” Brainstorming didn’t unleash the potential of the group, but rather made each individual less creative
-
-
12 Jan 13
Adam BroAccording to Nemeth, dissent stimulates new ideas because it encourages us to engage more fully with the work of others and to reassess our viewpoints. “There’s this Pollyannaish notion that the most important thing to do when working together is stay positive and get along, to not hurt anyone’s feelings,” she says. “Well, that’s just wrong. Maybe debate is going to be less pleasant, but it will always be more productive. True creativity requires some trade-offs.”
-
09 Jan 13
-
02 Dec 12
-
30 Nov 12
-
22 Nov 12
-
the thing that distinguishes brainstorming from other types of group activity—was the absence of criticism and negative feedback. If people were worried that their ideas might be ridiculed by the group, the process would fail. “Creativity is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom while discouragement often nips it in the bud,” he wrote. “Forget quality; aim now to get a quantity of answers. When you’re through, your sheet of paper may be so full of ridiculous nonsense that you’ll be disgusted. Never mind. You’re loosening up your unfettered imagination—making your mind deliver.” Brainstorming enshrined a no-judgments approach to holding a meeting.
-
Brainstorming provided companies with an easy way to structure their group interactions, and it became the most widely used creativity technique in the world.
-
IDEO, famous for developing the first Apple mouse, brainstorming is “practically a religion,” according to the company’s general manager. Employees are instructed to “defer judgment” and “go for quantity.”
-
The appeal of this idea is obvious: it’s always nice to be saturated in positive feedback
-
-
01 Nov 12
-
27 Oct 12
-
07 Aug 12
-
Brainstorming didn’t unleash the potential of the group, but rather made each individual less creativ
-
-
13 Jul 12
-
19 Jun 12
-
17 Jun 12
-
14 Jun 12
-
09 Jun 12
-
s “using the brain to storm a creative problem—and doing so in commando fashion, with each stormer attacking the same objective.”
-
Osborn said—the thing that distinguishes brainstorming from other types of group activity—was the absence of criticism and negative feedback. If people were worried that their ideas might be ridiculed by the group, the process would fail.
-
The underlying assumption of brainstorming is that if people are scared of saying the wrong thing, they’ll end up saying nothing at all.
-
But there is a problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work.
-
. The solo students came up with roughly twice as many solutions as the brainstorming groups, and a panel of judges deemed their solutions more “feasible” and “effective.” Brainstorming didn’t unleash the potential of the group, but rather made each individual less creative.
-
-
29 May 12
-
-
The book outlined the essential rules of a successful brainstorming session. The most important of these, Osborn said—the thing that distinguishes brainstorming from other types of group activity—was the absence of criticism and negative feedback. If people were worried that their ideas might be ridiculed by the group, the process would fail. “Creativity is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom while discouragement often nips it in the bud,” he wrote. “Forget quality; aim now to get a quantity of answers. When you’re through, your sheet of paper may be so full of ridiculous nonsense that you’ll be disgusted. Never mind. You’re loosening up your unfettered imagination—making your mind deliver.” Brainstorming enshrined a no-judgments approach to holding a meeting.
-
-
28 May 12
-
24 May 12
-
30 Apr 12
Tim McCormickIn @newyorker, Jonan Lehrer ponders "brainstorming" and extols MIT's famed building #20, which encouraged it: http://t.co/nlNntu5n
-
29 Apr 12
-
26 Apr 12
-
16 Apr 12
gthaberlachhe first empirical test of Osborn's brainstorming technique was performed at Yale University, in 1958. Forty-eight male undergraduates were divided into twelve groups and given a series of creative puzzles. The groups were instructed to follow Osborn's guidelines. As a control sample, the scientists gave the same puzzles to forty-eight students working by themselves. The results were a sobering refutation of Osborn. The solo students came up with roughly twice as many solutions as the brainstorming groups, and a panel of judges deemed their solutions more "feasible" and "effective." Brainstorming didn't unleash the potential of the group, but rather made each individual less creative. Although the findings did nothing to hurt brainstorming's popularity, numerous follow-up studies have come to the same conclusion. Keith Sawyer, a psychologist at Washington University, has summarized the science: "Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas."
And yet Osborn was right about one thing: like it or not, human creativity has increasingly become a group process.
. . . .
Once the data was amassed, the correlation became clear: when coauthors were closer together, their papers tended to be of significantly higher quality. The best research was consistently produced when scientists were working within ten metres of each other; the least cited papers tended to emerge from collaborators who were a kilometre or more apart. "If you want people to work together effectively, these findings reinforce the need to create architectures that support frequent, physical, spontaneous interactions," Kohane says. "Even in the era of big science, when researchers spend so much time on the Internet, it's still so important to create intimate spaces." . . .
Annals of Ideas
Groupthink
The brainstorming myth.
by Jonah Lehrer January 30, 2012
“Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas.”
And yet Osborn was right about one thing: like it or not, human creativity has increasingly become a group process.
Ben Jones, a professor at the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern University, has quantified this trend. By analyzing 19.9 million peer-reviewed academic papers and 2.1 million patents from the past fifty years, he has shown that levels of teamwork have increased in more than ninety-five per cent of scientific subfields; the size of the average team has increased by about twenty per cent each decade.
Jones’s explanation is that scientific advances have led to a situation where all the remaining problems are incredibly hard.
Criticism allows people to dig below the surface of the imagination and come up with collective ideas that aren’t predictable. And recognizing the importance of conflicting perspectives in a group raises the issue of what kinds of people will work together best.
Uzzi found that the people who worked on Broadway were part of a social network with lots of interconnections: it didn’t take many links to get from the librettist of “Guys and Dolls” to the choreographer of “Cats.” Uzzi devised a way to quantify the density of these connections, a figure he called Q. If musicals were being developed by teams of artists that had worked together several times before—a common practice, because Broadway producers see “incumbent teams” as less risky—those musicals would have an extremely high Q. A musical created by a team of strangers would have a low Q.
Uzzi then tallied his Q readings with information about how successful the productions had been. “Frankly, I was surprised by how big the effect was,”
The best Broadway shows were produced by networks with an intermediate level of social intimacy, Q. The ideal level of Q—which Uzzi and his colleague Jarrett Spiro called the “bliss point”—emerged as being between 2.4 and 2.6. A show produced by a team whose Q was within this range was three times more likely to be a commercial success than a musical produced by a team with a score below 1.4 or above 3.2. It was also three times more likely to be lauded by the critics. “The best Broadway teams, by far, were those with a mix of relationships,” Uzzi says. “These teams had some old friends, but they also had newbies. This mixture meant that the artists could interact efficiently—they had a familiar structure to fall back on—but they also managed to incorporate some new ideas. They were comfortable with each other, but they weren’t too comfortable.”
A new generation of laboratory architecture has tried to make chance encounters more likely to take place, and the trend has spread in the business world, too. One fanatical believer in the power of space to enhance the work of groups was Steve Jobs.
In the spring of 1942, it became clear that the Radiation Laboratory at M.I.T.—the main radar research institute for the Allied war effort—needed more space. . . Building 20 quickly became a center of groundbreaking research, the Los Alamos of the East Coast, celebrated for its important work on military radar. Within a few years, the lab developed radar systems used for naval navigation, weather prediction, and the detection of bombers and U-boats. According to a 1945 statement issued by the Defense Department, the Rad Lab “pushed research in this field ahead by at least 25 normal peacetime years.” . . . . The space forced solitary scientists to mix and mingle. Although the rushed wartime architects weren’t thinking about the sweet spot of Q or the importance of physical proximity when they designed the structure, they conjured up a space that maximized both of these features, allowing researchers to take advantage of Building 20’s intellectual diversity.
Chance meetings in an elevator tend to terminate in the lobby, whereas chance meetings in a corridor tended to lead to technical discussions.” The urban theorist Jane Jacobs described such incidental conversations as “knowledge spillovers.”
In the eighteen-twenties, the city was full of small shipyards built for the flour trade. Over time, the shipyards became centers of expertise in the internal-combustion engine. Nearly a century later, those engines proved ideal for powering cars, which is why many pioneers of the automotive industry got their start building ships. Jacobs’s point was that the unpredictable nature of innovation meant that it couldn’t be prescribed in advance.
Building 20 and brainstorming came into being at almost exactly the same time. In the sixty years since then, if the studies are right, brainstorming has achieved nothing—or, at least, less than would have been achieved by six decades’ worth of brainstormers working quietly on their own. Building 20, though, ranks as one of the most creative environments of all time, a space with an almost uncanny ability to extract the best from people. Among M.I.T. people, it was referred to as “the magical incubator.”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lehrer#ixzz26XoP0i77 -
09 Apr 12
-
08 Apr 12
-
26 Mar 12
-
Osborn said—the thing that distinguishes brainstorming from other types of group activity—was the absence of criticism and negative feedback. If people were worried that their ideas might be ridiculed by the group, the process would fail. “Creativity is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom while discouragement often nips it in the bud,” he wrote. “Forget quality; aim now to get a quantity of answers.
-
But there is a problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work.
-
“Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas.
-
-
25 Mar 12
De SignerGroupthink
The brainstorming myth.
by Jonah Lehrer January 30, 2012 -
22 Mar 12
-
20 Mar 12
-
19 Mar 12
-
16 Mar 12
-
13 Mar 12
-
11 Mar 12
-
09 Mar 12
-
08 Mar 12
-
04 Mar 12
-
02 Mar 12
-
01 Mar 12
-
-
Alex Osborn, a partner in the advertising agency B.B.D.O
-
. His book “Your Creative Power” was published in 194
-
“Your Creative Power” was filled with tricks and strategies
-
The brainstorm had turned his employees into imagination machines.
-
the absence of criticism and negative feedback.
-
Brainstorming was an immediate hit and Osborn became an influential business guru, writing such best-sellers as “Wake Up Your Mind”
-
Employees are instructed to “defer judgment” and “go for quantity.”
-
Brainstorming seems like an ideal technique, a feel-good way to boost productivity. But there is a problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work.
-
Keith Sawyer, a psychologist at Washington University, has summarized the science: “Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas.
-
-
29 Feb 12
-
“Your Creative Power” was filled with tricks and strategies, such as always carrying a notebook, to be ready when inspiration struck. But Osborn’s most celebrated idea was the one discussed in Chapter 33, “How to Organize a Squad to Create Ideas.” When a group works together, he wrote, the members should engage in a “brainstorm,” which means “using the brain to storm a creative problem—and doing so in commando fashion, with each stormer attacking the same objective.”
-
The book outlined the essential rules of a successful brainstorming session. The most important of these, Osborn said—the thing that distinguishes brainstorming from other types of group activity—was the absence of criticism and negative feedback.
-
The first empirical test of Osborn’s brainstorming technique was performed at Yale University, in 1958.
-
Brainstorming didn’t unleash the potential of the group, but rather made each individual less creative. Although the findings did nothing to hurt brainstorming’s popularity, numerous follow-up studies have come to the same conclusion.
-
Keith Sawyer, a psychologist at Washington University, has summarized the science: “Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas.”
-
-
27 Feb 12
-
26 Feb 12
-
21 Feb 12
Harish KanabarFantastic piece on why 'brainstorming' doesn't work but group work with criticism does: http://t.co/fSYGkmRd
-
20 Feb 12
-
maxisimcicRT @NewYorker: Think brainstorming is effective? Think again: http://t.co/gpUv9M5O via @JonahLehrer
-
19 Feb 12
Peter ElamNo-debate brainstorming doesn't work. Nature of successful collaborations and collaborative spaces.
-
18 Feb 12
-
-
The underlying assumption of brainstorming is that if people are scared of saying the wrong thing, they’ll end up saying nothing at all. The appeal of this idea is obvious: it’s always nice to be saturated in positive feedback. Typically, participants leave a brainstorming session proud of their contribution. The whiteboard has been filled with free associations. Brainstorming seems like an ideal technique, a feel-good way to boost productivity. But there is a problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work.
-
“Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas.
-
-
17 Feb 12
-
But Osborn’s most celebrated idea was the one discussed in Chapter 33, “How to Organize a Squad to Create Ideas.” When a group works together, he wrote, the members should engage in a “brainstorm,” which means “using the brain to storm a creative problem—and doing so in commando fashion, with each stormer attacking the same objective.”
-
The book outlined the essential rules of a successful brainstorming session.
-
If people were worried that their ideas might be ridiculed by the group, the process would fail. “Creativity is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom while discouragement often nips it in the bud,” he wrote. “Forget quality; aim now to get a quantity of answers. When you’re through, your sheet of paper may be so full of ridiculous nonsense that you’ll be disgusted. Never mind. You’re loosening up your unfettered imagination—making your mind deliver.” Brainstorming enshrined a no-judgments approach to holding a meeting.
-
The underlying assumption of brainstorming is that if people are scared of saying the wrong thing, they’ll end up saying nothing at all.
-
he first empirical test of Osborn’s brainstorming technique was performed at Yale University, in 1958.
-
-
15 Feb 12
-
-
“Creativity is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom while discouragement often nips it in the bud,”
-
“Forget quality; aim now to get a quantity of answers. When you’re through, your sheet of paper may be so full of ridiculous nonsense that you’ll be disgusted. Never mind. You’re loosening up your unfettered imagination—making your mind deliver.”
-
-
14 Feb 12
-
13 Feb 12
-
12 Feb 12
-
09 Feb 12
-
08 Feb 12
aminggsBrainstorming was an immediate hit and Osborn became a popular business guru. The underlying assumption of brainstorming is that if people are scared of saying the wrong thing, they’ll end up saying nothing at all. Typically, participants leave a brainsto
inlink:Martin-Cortez psychology problemsolving creativity collaboration brainstorming alex-osborn jonah-lehrer thenewyorker import:delicious
-
04 Feb 12
-
03 Feb 12
-
02 Feb 12
Justin Medved“Brainstorming seems like an ideal technique to boost productivity. But there is a problem, It doesn’t work” J.Lehrer http://t.co/SvkLGJy2
-
01 Feb 12
-
The book outlined the essential rules of a successful brainstorming session.
-
The single most important of these, Osborn said, was the absence of criticism and negative feedback.
-
Brainstorming was an immediate hit and Osborn became a popular business guru.
-
The underlying assumption of brainstorming is that if people are scared of saying the wrong thing, they’ll end up saying nothing at all.
-
Typically, participants leave a brainstorming session proud of their contribution. The whiteboard has been filled with free associations. At such moments, brainstorming can seem like an ideal mental technique, a feel-good way to boost productivity. But there is one overwhelming problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work.
-
The first empirical test of Osborn’s brainstorming technique was performed at Yale University, in 1958. The results were a sobering refutation of Osborn. Although the findings did nothing to dent brainstorming’s popularity, numerous follow-up studies have come to the same conclusion. And yet Osborn was right about one thing: like it or not, human creativity has increasingly become a group process
-
the work of Charlan Nemeth, whose studies suggest that the ineffectiveness of brainstorming stems from the very thing that Osborn thought was most important.
-
“Debate and criticism do not inhibit ideas but, rather, stimulate them relative to every other condition,” Nemeth said.
-
-
-
the absence of criticism and negative feedback
-
human creativity has increasingly become a group process
-
“Debate and criticism do not inhibit ideas but, rather, stimulate them relative to every other condition,”
-
The lesson of Building 20 is that when the composition of the group is right—enough people with different perspectives running into one another in unpredictable ways—the group dynamic will take care of itself.
-
-
31 Jan 12
-
30 Jan 12
-
Stephen Harlow"By analyzing 19.9 million peer-reviewed academic papers and 2.1 million patents from the past fifty years, he has shown that levels of teamwork have increased in more than ninety-five per cent of scientific subfields."
-
29 Jan 12
-
27 Jan 12
-
Doris Reeves-LipscombGroupThink: the brainstorming myth, January 30, 2012
-
26 Jan 12
Dana Rosen-PerezThis is from the new issue of the New Yorker: this is just the abstract. Basically this article, which brings up more but similar issues to some discussed in a recent New York Times article, says 1) brainstorming hasn't been debunked as effective in idea creation despite scientific studies, and quotes Isaac Kohane of Harvard Medical School as saying that "If you want people to work together effectively, (the findings of a study he did) reinforce the need to create architectures that support frequent, physical, spontaneous interactions." Note the word physical; can this not be replicated virtually? The example that is much discussed is Building 20 in MIT which apparently spurred a great deal of innovation, referred to at MIT as "the magical incubator". Also it made me think about the serendipity factor in a video one of you posted. It also mentions a concept of Jane Jacob's an urban theorist, "knowledge spillovers" which happens as a result of chance meetings in hallways, etc.
-
-
But there is one overwhelming problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work. The first empirical test of Osborn’s brainstorming technique was performed at Yale University, in 1958. The results were a sobering refutation of Osborn. Although the findings did nothing to dent brainstorming’s popularity, numerous follow-up studies have come to the same conclusion. And yet Osborn was right about one thing: like it or not, human creativity has increasingly become a group process.
-
-
25 Jan 12
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.