Quickthink

Jonah Lehrer recently wrote a book (called “Imagine: How Creativity Works”) that people are talking about. Is it important or is it trash? Steven Poole writing for the Guardian says it is trash. And now we find out that Lehrer made up quotes from Bob Dylan and took others out of context. Ooops. Poor Lehrer. The book is being withdrawn from sale and his promising career is toast.

So is it time to burn Lehrer at the stake? Well, not so fast. Poole has a point that we don’t really know how the brain works. Nor can we produce genius on demand. But at the same time, not everything Lehrer was talking about is rubbish either. We understand more than we used to about how creativity is related to exchange of ideas and interactions between people (Johnson and Ridley). And we understand more about the importance of the right side of the brain in producing creative solutions to problems (Cleese).

This does not mean that after reading a “how to” book, we could all suddenly write like Shakespeare. Nor does it mean that we can “explain” how Bob Dylan came up with the iconic lyrics for his songs. It does mean that by better using what we do know, we can more regularly find creative solutions to problems that we face in life. We can continue to raise the bar, so to speak, for what passes for normal. That is helpful for us as individuals and for group dynamics.

So Poole and Lehrer are on the wrong track in one sense, me thinks. Instead of obsessing about the genius that we cannot achieve (writing like Shakespeare), we do better by valuing the genius that we can and should achieve. That stuff is worth studying and talking about.

BTW, check out what Seth Godin has to say about the “hierarchy of success”. Seth argues that the starting point is to have the right attitude. And how does one nurture that? Remember that study about kids learning to play music? One group performed 300% better without more practice. A decision made by kids in that group produced an attitude that led to much more creative learning.  Is this rubbish? I don’t think so.

FOLLOW -  Dave Kinney points out an irony to the Lehrer story. It is about the subject of Lehrer’s made up quotes - Bob Dylan. Apparently in his non-fiction writing, Dylan made stuff up too. What’s more, he took artistic stuff that he liked from other poets and musicians and re-used it in his work. But Dylan gets a pass because we believe in him.

Something worth remembering

In his 1954 classic, The Practice of Management, Peter Drucker devoted an entire chapter to what he called the “spirit of an organization,” writing: “Management by objectives tells a manager what he ought to do. The proper organization of his job enables him to do it. But it is the spirit of the organization that determines whether he will do it. It is the spirit that motivates, that calls upon a man’s reserves of dedication and effort, that decides whether he will give his best or do just enough to get by.”

From Chad Dickerson, CEO of Etsy, writing for Fred Wilson about recruiting and culture.

The funny thing is that “spirit” cannot be quantified. It is a right side of the brain feeling.

NASA is about to land a 2,000 pound rover.  The Gleaner has the story. And for the time being, the story is that this will be a highly complex maneuver. It will take place on August 5th.

Bargaining is a form of negotiation. But not all negotiation is bargaining. We do quite a bit of negotiating both before and after we bargain. How should that work? Good question. It depends on the context. But there are plenty of stories out there about what does not work. Steve Blank offers this one - called “unrequited love”. It is a good one.

Paul Krugman gives his assessment today of the chances that Europe will reform the Euro. Nicht gut. Time to start thinking about a post Euro Europe? I ask the question only half in jest.

For some time, my mind has been drifting back to the sixties. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, I want to re-capture the feel of those years. I want to understand the big cultural change that the sixties brought about.

Apparently I am not alone. There has been a steady stream of writing about that change. Most recently, one sees the rather ugly conclusion that the sixties unleashed a new selfishness - a sense of self-absorption and self-indulgence that we can’t shake. Bill Keller writes about that today.  The obvious implication is that the wiser folks among us would step back and become a bit less self-absorbed. Less selfish. More loyal to meeting societal needs.

Like the folks who came before the boomers? Before we start organizing fifties revival parties, we might want to reflect for a moment. I agree that the sixties were about “me” versus “us”. And this has had a profound effect on culture and institutions.  One of those effects has been a renewed appreciation for what makes individuals creative. In the sixties creativity trumped loyalty as a value and it does so still.

I think that by and large, this is a good thing. Sure it opened the door to a lot of naval gazing, bad poetry and the rest. It also opened the door to accelerated innovation. And to building systemic innovation via platforming. I think we need more of this, not less.

FOLLOW -  BTW, the above revulsion against excess is not so unlike the revulsion that early Victorians felt towards the Georgians. The Victorians wanted propriety instead of wantonness. And they had just cause to feel that way. Georgian morality was crude. But the Victorians went to the opposite extreme. They ended up nurturing a fetish to be better than good. Purer than pure. Some good came of it. Compassion for the poor. Public works. And I think some bad too. A certain intellectual rigidity that by Edwardian times looked a bit like senility. Then came that terrible war, which I think was made much worse because of that same peculiar intellectual rigidity.

Ok, so the USA team undressed the French, who were supposed to be a “serious” rival in their group. What to make of it? I think that the NBA realized a while back that the Olympics provides them with a perfect marketing tool to take their franchise global. This time around, they have packaged their team just right to put on a great show. It is the dream team redux. And the other teams that may have a chance to upset the dream team? No problem. Any upset would only be possible because the other team has NBA stars too.

The point is not just to win gold. It is to showcase what the NBA is all about and create a global audience. With that perspective, check out this video of what the team did after they demolished France.

Brilliant.

Regular readers of Qt will know that I have been tracking education reform issues for quite a while. What have I learned? Well, there is a lot of talk about how to make our schools better. But when I see a quote like this, I get nervous

There is little question that our children are living in a world that is not simply oblivious to their needs, but is actually damaging them.”

From a NYT book review

Ouch. Assuming that we have the resources, isn’t our first priority to fashion a world that nurtures our kids?

And what would be nurturing? Well, at the outset, how about sharing with them how to be a success in life. Not how to score higher on standardized tests. But how to lead a great life after they turn out the lights in the testing room? What does that look like? I like Seth Godin’s hierarchy for success. I think he has it right.

From Roger Rosenblatt -   Auden about Yeats

Teach the free man how to praise.

And remember, in story telling anticipation is more valuable than surprise.

This comment from NYT today  caught my eye

… if Mr. Obama prevails, it will almost certainly be because his team executed a plan to try to win the race in the summer to make Mr. Romney unacceptable to voters by the fall.

I would agree and I think that Mr. Romney himself has invited this strategy. Think about it. Just who is Mitt Romney? Answer: On the one hand, he is a highly successful manager. A success story. So, at least we are pretty sure that there are no loose screws upstairs. On the hand, he seems ready to say just about anything to anybody to get elected. Not just a flip flopper. That would suggest that he is too dense to know what he is saying. More like a shark. One can imagine him in high level meetings calmly discussing how to game the electoral system. And with all that super pac money floating around behind him, one can imagine with whom he is chatting.

That is a huge political vulnerability. And Mitt created this political vulnerability by the way he won the Republican nomination. So it is no surprise that the Obamatrons are making a big, big issue of it. Because they know that they could lose if voters start to like good old Mitt.  And what to expect from good old Mitt in September? I expect a two pronged strategy. Mitt himself will be trying to get above the fray. Trying to be likable (this will be a challenge for him). And he is lining up his attack dogs to paint Obama as a pathetic failure. By the end of the campaign, I expect both sides to be going whole hog negative.

So let the games begin! Oh. And by the way, pay no attention to any polls until after Labor Day. That is when things heat up.

FOLLOW -  BTW, there is a bit of history that will have a big impact on the autumn elections. The last four years have shown pretty clearly how republicans play politics these days - no holds barred. The dems know that if Obama loses, they will be locked into political Siberia for years. So I would expect the dems to come out fighting for Obama. Not because they like him. But because they need him to win. That will be an interesting side story in the race.