Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Being Slow to Criticise

solipsys.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: Being Slow to Criticise

#91

Post by balnaphone »

fomine3 wrote: post #86
balnaphone wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing you mean something other than FOSS (free / open source software) in your critique of FOSS. Reason being, Swift is FOSS ( https://github.com/apple/swift ), both the compiler and the standard library. Likewise, the Microsoft C# compiler is also FOSS ( https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn ). You seem to enjoy closed-source platform libraries (WinForms, AppKit), and want to promote developing software that relie…

BTW WinForms (and WPF) is now open sourced. https://github.com/dotnet/winforms

Yes, that's true, but unfortunately these libraries only work on a closed-source platform, namely Microsoft Windows. My apologies if this wasn't clear in my earlier post.

Re: Being Slow to Criticise

#92

Post by ohvirginia »

KajMagnus wrote: post #76
ColinWright wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment was flagged dead, and I have vouched for it. Please don't downvote it ... it clearly shows an underlying misunderstanding, and as such deserves to be answered. My comment that you reference was an attempt to find the merit in the idea that I couldn't see, but I assumed would be there because I was assuming the proposer thought it was a good one. I was starting from a position of "Well, this person thinks…

I liked the reply you posted, I'd be happy for getting such feedback / replies. And I think your reply can be edited a little bit, to start in a little bit more positive tone, by changing from this: > There are many, many problems with the idea, ... to instead: > I can see problems with the idea, ...

Nope. I think it's better to start with, This is interesting. then the questions. if you really see problems, state them. lead with engagement not criticism.

Re: Being Slow to Criticise

#93

Post by Daub »

lmm wrote: post #39
Daub wrote: post #15

Holding back on criticism is one of the founding principles of the brainstorming technique... that and listening.

And research has shown that it's counterproductive. Culling bad ideas quickly makes for better results.

Creativity is a process. The function of a brainstorm is to initiate that process with open-ended thinking. Further into the process, more closure is required.

Re: Being Slow to Criticise

#94

Post by Daub »

hnick wrote: post #62
ColinWright wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fascinating ... can you provide references for that research? We've found the careful controlling of criticism to be invaluable in getting ideas up front quickly so they can then be dissected, mutated, co-evolved, and their best points combined. Iterating quickly and ejecting bad ideas quickly has its place, yes, but not always. I'd be interested to see the underlying context for your statement here. Thanks.

This doesn't support the point but the conversation reminded me about something I read a while ago that is related. Maybe you will find it interesting. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/the... The researchers found that a problem with brainstorming is the verbal component - due to social factors and limited oral and aural bandwidth, less ideas get shared, and people forget what they were about…

In the paper, group brainstorming was conducted between more than 50 individuals. I would say that 10 is the effective maximum.

Re: Being Slow to Criticise

#95

Post by Daub »

ColinWright wrote: post #45
lmm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And research has shown that it's counterproductive. Culling bad ideas quickly makes for better results.

That's fascinating ... can you provide references for that research? We've found the careful controlling of criticism to be invaluable in getting ideas up front quickly so they can then be dissected, mutated, co-evolved, and their best points combined. Iterating quickly and ejecting bad ideas quickly has its place, yes, but not always. I'd be interested to see the underlying context for your statement here. Thanks.

I like the fact that you aim for ideas to be "mutated, co-evolved, and their best points combined". This is creativity best-practice exemplified.

Re: Being Slow to Criticise

#96

Post by hnick »

Daub wrote: post #94
hnick wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't support the point but the conversation reminded me about something I read a while ago that is related. Maybe you will find it interesting. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/the... The researchers found that a problem with brainstorming is the verbal component - due to social factors and limited oral and aural bandwidth, less ideas get shared, and people forget what they were about…

In the paper, group brainstorming was conducted between more than 50 individuals. I would say that 10 is the effective maximum.

That's from the paper? I wasn't sure from the article - they mentioned 50+ individuals but then said they had various conditions (group first or individual first) so I assumed they ran them in different groups. I'll agree a single group of fifty is ridiculous - 10 would be pushing it for me. You'll probably get 2 people posturing/dominating in most places.

Re: Being Slow to Criticise

#97

Post by Daub »

hnick wrote: post #96
Daub wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the paper, group brainstorming was conducted between more than 50 individuals. I would say that 10 is the effective maximum.

That's from the paper? I wasn't sure from the article - they mentioned 50+ individuals but then said they had various conditions (group first or individual first) so I assumed they ran them in different groups. I'll agree a single group of fifty is ridiculous - 10 would be pushing it for me. You'll probably get 2 people posturing/dominating in most places.

My bad. I just mis-read the article. Just now I went and downloaded the paper, and I see no group size specified, nor indeed any details of the procedure they followed. That might just be the house style of the journal. However, they mention that models predict that creativity increase with the size of the group (to a point). But they don't specify this point.

The recommendations they draw are:

1. Combining group and solitary brainstorming

2. Having group brainstormers interact by writing instead of speaking (“brainwriting”)

3. Using networked computers on which individuals type their ideas and read the ideas of others (electronic brainstorming)

They nicely give some recommended readings:

- Paulus, P.B., & Nijstad, B.A. (Eds.). (in press). Group creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.

- Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T.S., & Paulus, P.B. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29, 495–526.

- Osborn, A.F. (1957). Applied imagination (1st ed.). New York: Scribner.

Many institutional brainstorming sessions I have attended are a complete waste of time, for all the obvious reasons (mostly ego-dominance and poor leadership). This the paper refers to as 'production blocking'. However, I find that managed correctly, there are few better ways to introduce diversity of thought into a process.

Re: Being Slow to Criticise

#98

Post by hnick »

Daub wrote: post #97
hnick wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's from the paper? I wasn't sure from the article - they mentioned 50+ individuals but then said they had various conditions (group first or individual first) so I assumed they ran them in different groups. I'll agree a single group of fifty is ridiculous - 10 would be pushing it for me. You'll probably get 2 people posturing/dominating in most places.

My bad. I just mis-read the article. Just now I went and downloaded the paper, and I see no group size specified, nor indeed any details of the procedure they followed. That might just be the house style of the journal. However, they mention that models predict that creativity increase with the size of the group (to a point). But they don't specify this point. The recommendations they draw are: 1. Combining group and…

Well the lack of numbers is a bit disappointing. I admit I'm not interested enough to really dig in but I do find the results interesting. And they did shoot down the previous advice I was given, which is to have everyone set aside time to write down some ideas before the meeting. It seems the presence of the group itself is a strong motivating factor.

Re: Being Slow to Criticise

#99

Post by gerland »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #26
gerland wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit off-topic, but what do you think is happening? I'm considering buying some s&p500 based stock, but I'm a bit afraid. What do you, anonymous stranger on the interweb think?

I have many thoughts on this topic, I'm not an expert and many of these are theories up with so the may also be flat out wrong, but I just disagree with the sentiment that markets are irrational or it's just feds pumping up the stock. I think saying those things is dismissive and anti-intellectual. When I'm trying to think about the subject and whether I should invest myself, I'm trying to figure out what are the act…

Thank you very much for that lengthy explanation. I experienced the fear of loss before and I was surprised how bad I handled it. It's shortcircuting all rational decisions.
Post reply on HN