51–56 of 56 posts
“ These stories suggest that an initial period of concentration—conscious, directed attention—needs to be followed by some amount of unconscious processing.”
These (unconscious processing) moments for me almost always happen in the shower. I'd love to find another ritual that gets me in a similar mindspace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's quite an optimistic assessment of little children. I'm not sure if it is. Little children lack preconceived ideas, and, often, inhibition. That combination is a good recipe for accepting the unknown and coming up with new ideas. That is not to say they can't be cruel at times.
Little children are also easily led and controlled by other people like their parents. And no doubt that is what Mr. Preacher-man also wants: Followers. Thank the Lord and pass the bucket. Become dependent on me telling you what is the truth, you believing that if you just believe what I tell you you are granted the ticket to heaven, if not you go to Hell. Very conveniently it is very easy to make little children bel…
My counter-intuitive opinion is that children are quite skeptical of religion. They may enjoy the make-believe part of it. Pretending, after all, is child play, but they will never take it for granted just because an adult tells them so. On the contrary, kids will know when something is made up. An adult seriously resorting to magic to answer a child's question will raise doubts. That kid is likely to question authority and religion ever after.
I'm curious if anyone has run into situation where being an "idea" person has been a negative at work. Sometimes there is the perception of ideation as a waste of time, or that the ideator (is that a word?) is one of those "whacky ideas" people. "Why are you going for walks, don't you have work to do?"
It can be frustrating if the idea person is constantly talking about them, but doesn't act on any. It's easy to have ideas... validating/building them, that's the hard part
Coming up with something truly new is much, much harder than people give it credit for. We take the sun being the center of the universe for granted today, but it was an extremely non-obvious fact for the smartest people in the world for millenia. One of my math professors had a great take on the difficulty of injecting a new idea into the world: he said that the greatest mathematical achievement that anyone had ever…
Like your example, leaps in math may be easy to see in retrospect but were hard to come by without anticipating a world that supports their existence: The concept of zero. The concept of limits. The concept of imaginary numbers. None of these are hard concepts, but on face value they seem arbitrary and "not entirely real". It is only deeply through exploring their implications that they have value. This is difficult not only because there are so many possible random ideas that lead to nowhere but also because fruitful ones seem like they must have been considered already.
How many people thought that "zero" might be a useful abstraction but didn't go further because it seemed like it must already have been considered? If you want to have a new idea, take a germ of a simple idea and follow it curiously without self-doubt. Think of the famous story of how Feynman came up with quantum electrodynamics: trying to understand the physics of a wobbling plate.
There's plenty of new ideas around, you don't have to generate them yourself. If you ask in forums or search the web you can get a big list. The problem is culling the list for practical and successful ideas. Somebody has to invest the time and/or money do actually do it, and accept the high risk of failure typical of startups and new open-source projects. That's probably the bottleneck. Ideas are cheap, execution is…
I feel, in my opinion, getting an idea and generating something comparatively easier part compared to actually educating the market / users about what the idea is and what is the solution we have generated, we all see / are a part of so many good products which just had a steep learning curve and hence failed / didnt get accepted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Little children are also easily led and controlled by other people like their parents. And no doubt that is what Mr. Preacher-man also wants: Followers. Thank the Lord and pass the bucket. Become dependent on me telling you what is the truth, you believing that if you just believe what I tell you you are granted the ticket to heaven, if not you go to Hell. Very conveniently it is very easy to make little children bel…
> Very conveniently it is very easy to make little children believe all that My counter-intuitive opinion is that children are quite skeptical of religion. They may enjoy the make-believe part of it. Pretending, after all, is child play, but they will never take it for granted just because an adult tells them so. On the contrary, kids will know when something is made up. An adult seriously resorting to magic to answe…
I think if adults SEEM to be believing it then kids will believe it too. Maybe you can say that then is not misleading them since you believe it to be true, but I don't think that proves that kids really have a critical thinking ability. That is why I think they are easily mislead. Of course there is much good to be said about having an "open mind", but having an "open mind" basically means anything can enter it. Kids' brains have their doors wide open. Is that good or bad? I don't think we can say it is just plain good. They need to learn critical thinking, all humans do, that is the skill to acquire.