The Medici Effect: Chapter 7-8

In chapter seven, Johansson (2006) states that creative people are characterized by having a lot of ideas. He really leans on this idea, giving several examples and argues that quantity and quality correlate, so that a person cannot have quality ideas if they do not also have quantity. Good ideas are also unpredictable. People who have them can have them at any time in their life. He also describes how intersections have the potential for exponentially more ideas.

In chapter eight, Johansson describes how to capture this explosion, giving three steps: strike a balance between breadth and depth, actively generate many ideas, and allow time for evaluation. In this chapter, he discusses brainstorming and notes that brainstorming actually works better for individuals than it does for most groups. He also debunks the idea that pressure makes people more creative and describes optimum timing for developing good ideas. 

My reaction to Johansson's description of the mass of ideas creative people have was tiredness. I wondered, "Isn't it possible that these people aren't just creative, but brilliant?" Johansson has this way of implying anyone can do it with just three easy steps. My own life experience does not suggest that.  Don't get me wrong, I do know what it means to have a lot of ideas, but the productivity of some of the people he mentions is daunting. Most of my ideas flow through my head and into either my journal or into oblivion--and I love to think about things. Not everyone has that kind of energy. On the other side of it, I really struggle to realize many of my ideas, which the examples he describes don't seem to do. I really wish that Johansson would go through and rewrite this book with a strengths perspective. 

I do think what he had to say about the number of ideas at intersections was pretty cool. I also think it is true from my own experience. When one's associative barriers are low, ideas are everywhere. In my cohort, people have talked about not being able to find anything to research, and I think, "Are you kidding?" I can think of maybe ten different topics that I could probably spend my life digging into in about a half an hour. In fact, I brought those ten topics with me to our first week of intensives and sat down with Alex and picked the topic I'm working on now. Finding ideas to research is like picking up pebbles off the beach... so many pebbles... so little time. Developing the idea is just so intensely time and energy consuming. That is where the bottleneck is for me. 

I have been having this experience lately, reading these books, where I predict something or react a certain way and then find the book echoing my thoughts. That was what happened this time when I started to read about brainstorming. Johansson quoted an author who said, "The average person can think of twice as many ideas when working with a group than when working alone." When I read that, I thought, "Well then I must not be average because that is not where I do my best thinking." And sure enough, it turns out that some scientists tested this statement and found out that no, people actually are more creative when they brainstorm alone--mostly because turn-taking rules in a group stifle people's ideas and then they forget about them. I think in my case, I also just have a very quirky way of thinking about things that some people find a little hard to accept. 

Social Justice and Diversity

So I don't think these chapters had a lot to say about social justice beyond the fact that most of Johansson's examples are old white guys who are good at technical innovation. I think it would be nice if he expanded his concept a little in those areas. At the end of chapter eight, Johansson suggests that there is more to innovation than having good ideas. He says, "You must make those ideas happen." I'll admit, that is my weak point. I think there were be more to say about social justice in those chapters because they have more to do with our relationship to each other. 

The Medici Effect: Chapters 5-6

Well, I was going to read three chapters, but I had so much to say about chapter six that I decided to stop there. In chapter five, Johansson (2006) describes the process of randomly combining concepts, using the example of Richard Garfield, who invented the card game Magic: the Gathering. He notes that combining concepts randomly is the basis of innovation. In chapter six, he outlines three ways to increase this tendency to find useful combinations of concepts. He suggests we diversify occupations, diversify our interactions with people, and look for intersections.

I have a complex and somewhat negative reaction to Johansson's ideas. I think that reaction is already clear in other posts that I've written about this book. It is not that his ideas are bad, uninteresting, or useless. Its more of a feeling of "been there, done that, and it's not as easy as you are suggesting!"

Here's a question. Our program embraces positive psychology and the strengths perspective that Clifton came up with. According to that perspective, Johansson is approaching this idea all wrong. He is writing a how-to book for uncreative people. He is saying, "You are not very creative now, but if you follow these steps, you will improve." If we agree with Clifton, this is the classic example of trying to teach a rabbit how to swim (Clifton & Nelson, 1992). On the other hand, I suppose Johansson's argument is that we need more creative people. So which is it? Are we building towards our strengths or trying to get people to contort into attitudes and concepts that are not natural to them? Or maybe Johansson really hasn't thought that through at all. Maybe he just wrote this book to profit off of people's tendency to admire and strive to be what they are not.

One of the reasons that I have this reaction to the book is that I am actually the native fish (to extend the teaching-the-rabbit-how-to-swim analogy). I don't need Johansson's advice. He is describing my natural tendencies. As a naturally creative person who is constantly trying to expand my horizons and find intersection (if that is what one wants to call them), I have not found the challenge to be actually doing it. I have found the challenge to be other people really understanding themselves or their reaction to my personality and gifts.

Take Johansson's idea about diversifying our interactions with people. He says: Humans have a tendency to stick with people who are like themselves and avoid those who are different. Psychologists have a name for this tendency. They call it the similar-attraction effect. I don't really seem to have this tendency. I love meeting people who are different from myself. I have across-the-room envy. I want to know what those people over there are talking about. The more different they are, the more fascinating I find them. This ends up being a somewhat self-destructive tendency because other people don't share it. They are usually pretty content not to know me, and it can be a little intimidating to try to break those social barriers. One of the lovely things about living overseas is that you mostly meet the people from other cultures who share a similar tendency. They wouldn't hang out with me if they didn't like hanging out with people who are different in general. They self-identify.

My native crowd, the one that I love the best, is the one that includes my Russian friend, my Mexican friend, my Indian friend, my Filipino friend, my Chinese friend, and my Taiwanese-extraction Californian friend. When we get together, we have so much fun and the conversation is so interesting, but it should be noted and even emphasized that none of these friends are typical of their native land. We are all freaks. Why would we be hanging out together in a residence hall for foreigners in China if we weren't? My Russian friend studied in Lithuania and is going to get her Ph.D. in the U.S. She says that her own countrymen tend to see her as a traitor because of her close ties with the west. My Mexican friend spent eight years in the U.S. before deciding to come and live with a bunch of American teachers in China. My Chinese friend chose to hang out with our motley crowd instead of her own people and is now studying for her MBA in California. None of us fit in in our native setting and it is very unlikely that we will ever be completely happy if we try to go back to that place. I am getting a Ph.D. in my native country, and I know I don't fit in at all.

So I already asked this question, but if Johansson cares so much about fostering creativity and innovation, why is he trying to make more creative people? Why isn't he instead writing a book about fostering the ones who already exist? We don't have a good deal generally. We are forced to specialize and there is not a general value for our differentness. Johansson notes:

Most people, for instance, think they are pretty decent at interviewing candidates for jobs. Some people even claim that they can tell as soon as a candidate walks through the door whether the person is suitable. “When you’ve been in the game as long as I have you can spot them straight away,” they say. Such talk flies in the face of hundreds of studies that have been conducted since the beginning of the century. These studies show conclusively that the unstructured interview has virtually no validity as a selection tool. Such an interview does not give us enough information to understand the candidate’s qualifications. There are many reasons for this problem. People tend to search for commonalities in others. Both the person conducting the interview and the interviewee try to find common ground quickly; if they do, they get a good feeling about each other. The result is that people tend to recruit candidates just like themselves. We do this because we are affected by subjective biases, and in particular by the similar-attraction effect. (Kindle Locations 1258-1266).

He says, "Go out and diversify your experiences" and then he says, "People generally only hire people who are like them." Does he notice the barrier there? I have experienced it. When I was young, I just wanted to explore the world. I wanted to be like the author of Dune, Frank Herbert, who went everywhere and did everything, but I wasn't good at breaking down those barriers, and I didn't really know where to start. I was always too different to get hired. That is the book that needs to be written--a book that helps creative people know where to start and how to connect. For me, ultimately, the answer was to sign up for the Peace Corps. They're not that picky and it really is an amazingly broadening experience, but I tried so many other things first, and there were so many doors closed in my face. Alternatively, there should be a book for non-creative people that helps them to recognize that other people have a gift that they don't have and that they should value and help to promote those people in the work they are trying to do--even if it isn't really obvious how it's going to work out. Maybe Johansson begins that conversation, but most of his focus is on reinventing the way people approach life.

For my student success comp, I suggested that the FHSU administration create a first-year seminar that would be team-taught by a Chinese and American faculty member. For me, this team teaching process would create the kind of dynamism that Johansson is talking about. I just get so excited thinking about the revolutions in pedagogy that might come from such partnerships, and I think it would help our program grow and become more competitive also, but it is really hard for me to communicate that vision to others because creativity and the value of diversity is so little understood--despite the generally mouthed allegiance to "diversity." I don't think the administration here would be willing to face the expense and complaints that such a decision would create (there is always resistance to collaborative work--or change for that matter), so there is an opportunity wasted. I really don't know how to change that. I guess I will hold my idea in reserve and wait for that moment when it might be received.

Social Justice and Diversity

Johansson says, "People tend to stick to their own disciplines and domains. They stick to their own ethnicities and cultures....Why are we so hesitant about working in diverse teams? The reason is at least in part a function of human nature. Humans have a tendency to stick with people who are like themselves and avoid those who are different. Psychologists have a name for this tendency. They call it the similar-attraction effect." (Locations 1243-1245).

I tried to point this phenomenon out in our Social Justice and Diversity class. I tried to make the point that white people are not intrinsically racist in a special way in which no other race is capable (see Coates, 2015, Between the World and Me for an explanation of that concept). I don't really remember what response I got--maybe it was just blank stares.

My point was that white people are like all people in that they trust other white people more than people who are different--because all people are that way--or at least the vast majority. This tendency to trust the in-group creates racism and social injustice. It is the unusual amount of power that white people have as a group that creates the abuses. (Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.) Any race would create the same abuses in the same situation and perhaps even worse ones, depending on how one looks at it. I'm not saying that to minimize or excuse the problem--simply to understand it and put it in perspective. We can't really solve a problem we don't understand.

Unfortunately, from my experience, that doesn't seem to be an idea that social justice advocates want to engage. Maybe they are afraid that it will let the white people off the hook and responsibility for racism will shift and become ambiguous instead of resting so certainly (and comfortably) on white people.

The Medici Effect: chapters 2-4

I have started reading Johansson's (2006) Medici Effect. I read the first chapter some time ago, so I started with chapter 2 and continued on from there. Chapter 2 describes the rise of "intersections" which is a term that Johansson introduces to describe the place where ideas combine to make new ideas, a sort of psychological place of innovation. He argues that because of three forces, increased movement of people, the convergence of science, and increased computational power, intersections between ideas are becoming increasingly common and important. In chapter 3, Johansson introduces the concept of associative barriers and describes how they inhibit innovation. In chapter 4, Johansson gives three ways that associative barriers can be broken down: being exposed to a range of cultures, learning differently, and reversing assumptions.

Johansson's ideas seem very familiar to me. That is, I feel like he is talking about me and my life. I have intensely pursued the cross-cultural perspective that Johansson describes. I have always been driven to learn differently, and I believe assumptions were made to be challenged--somewhat to the chagrin of my family and colleagues.

I always wanted to travel, but I didn't get the opportunity until my mid-twenties. At that point, I joined the Peace Corps. In my application essay, I stated that I needed to get out of American culture, that it was limiting the way I thought and that I felt stifled by it. I don't know how I knew this--only that I was right. Living overseas was a revelation and a catharsis. So many silly, petty, arbitrary rules that I had been acculturated to accept sloughed off me. It was wonderful. I don't think I can ever go back to living in a place that is not intercultural. People's ways of thinking are just too narrow and it is really hard for me to be patient with their perspective. Maybe God will ask me to grow in that area eventually.

In the section about learning differently, Johansson notes that education can inhibit creativity because the more we know about the established way of doing things, the less we tend to question those assumptions or try to find new ways to do things. Since I was a teenager, I have hated this about education. I have always wanted to turn things on their head and find a new way to look at them, but my impulse to do this was ill-defined, and teachers, not recognizing why I would want to do such things, overrode that desire and insisted I stick to the curriculum. To be fair, perhaps if I had been better at articulating what I wanted to do, they would have been more supportive... but when one is a teenager, this kind of clarity is hard to come by.

I wanted to drop out of high school, but persuaded myself to stay in order not to miss the "high school experience." Graduation was a complete letdown, and I spent the summer after I graduated mourning the loss of my senior year. I could have been doing so many other more interesting things besides sitting zombie-like in the classroom. It is one of my enduring regrets. I was less passive about my education in college, but that resulted in me changing my college four times and my major seven times. I finally got my bachelors in communications (almost as non-specialized as one can be), my masters in linguistics, and my Ph.D. in higher education. I have since been toying with the idea of getting a Ph.D. in neuroscience. It is just such an interesting field. It would mean starting all over again, but maybe I could wipe out a lot of the prerequisites with MOOCs... I don't know.

Assumptions were made to be challenged--including Johansson's assumptions. One thing that bothers me about this book is that Johansson makes so many grand statements. I understand it is probably an aspect of his personality. He strikes me as one of those excited idealists, but he sometimes undermines his credibility with me by taking such an uncritical view of the world. Much of what he talks about, I don't know enough about to challenge, but he did make one statement that I know is not true and given my general experience of the world, that statement makes me highly skeptical of some of the other statements that he makes.

He says: In biology virtually every discovery, including the double helix, has reinforced and refined Darwin’s theory of evolution, not questioned it (Locations 440). I am not an expert in biology, but from what I know of science in general, this statement strikes me as ridiculous. How can Johansson treat evolution as a forgone conclusion? I'm willing to acknowledge that it is a very respected theory, but there are scientists whose discoveries in biology have very much not "reinforced or refined Darwin's theory." There have been books written and documentaries made to this fact. Ben Stein created a documentary on a number of scientists who were ostracized from their academic communities for questioning evolutionary theory.

A lot of experts want to pretend these questions don't even exist. They don't have good answers for the questions posed against evolution--they just sneer at anyone who would ask such questions and label them as ignorant or religious. This is a very ironic stance to take in light of the need to "reverse assumptions." Some assumptions are not allowed to be challenged, and Johansson, with his very uncritical approach, demonstrates that he does not follow the tenants that he is extolling. He is locked into his own cultural associative barriers. I suppose we all are, but I would respect what he has to say more if his own barriers were not so easy to see.

Social Justice and Equity

Another aspect of Johansson's approach that I really do not appreciate very much is how he ignores the way social rules and power structures affect innovation. As I noted in my first blog about Johansson's book, he states that innovation is different than creativity in that the general society has to accept and implement a creative idea in order to make it innovative. Perhaps I have just not reached the point in the book where he talks about this, but this social adoption of creative ideas is, from my experience, the single greatest barrier to innovation.

Johansson's examples of innovation include Edison, Da Vinci and Darwin--white males. He admires them for their creativity, but they would never have accomplished what they did without patrons and without the respect that their gender and race gave them. Lots of creative people are marginalized. They don't fit the usual paradigm of more conventional people in the world--people who have the power to sideline them. Prejudice is a rampant and common poison to creativity and innovation, and there is as much or more of that in the world than ever. I hope that later in his book Johansson acknowledges this fact. Innovation does not necessarily have a bright future. With all of the forces that he describes that create more intersections, we could very well have the rise of a totalitarian state instead.

Deep Change: Chapter 21-23

The last three chapters of Quinn's (2008) book on deep change address how the inner life of an individual affects a community. In chapter 21, Quinn talks about developing a vision, and most notably, uses Ghandi's approach to developing a vision as a ideal example. Ghandi traveled throughout India talking to people and finally developed a vision that everyone found compelling, addressing people's desire for "bread and salt."  Quinn states that a leader must find the "inner voice" of the organization and speak from that knowledge.

In the notes at the end of the chapter, Quinn gives the statement that one CEO developed for his organization. In those notes was this statement:

We tell them that they should be empowered. Occasionally, they make the mistake of taking us seriously and act on their own. For a moment, they become responsible adults. Their act of independence makes us uncomfortable, and we let them know how we really feel. They respond in amazement, "Oh, that is what you meant by empowerment. Now I understand. You don't need to worry anymore" (Kindle Locations 1758-1761).

This statement really resonated with me because I have experienced this event in so many situations. I'm the type to say what I mean and take other people at their word. I have recently been told that this is a very impractical thing to do, that "normal" people don't say what they mean. I really rebel against that kind of pragmatism, though, because to me, the idea that we accept that this is inevitably the system means that we have accepted this "slow death" that Quinn talks about. I hate that idea. I think I would rather be kicked out of a program for speaking out than accept that idea. I suppose that is the crux of Quinn's vision of deep change. Sometimes the system accepts one's honesty and sometimes it ejects the person. Sometimes, I suppose, it does both. It is hard to love an organization enough to accept that final outcome.

In chapter 22, Quinn gives the example of a Quaker, named John Woolman, who used his disruptive--but not confrontational--vision to convince other Quakers to give up slavery. Finally, in the last chapter, Quinn addressed the idea of empowerment, pointing out that people generally have different ideas of what empowerment means. Even as he was describing the two competing visions, I was speculating about my own view. I thought that the two views should be combined, and sure enough, that was Quinn's idea also.

He makes the statement, right at the end of the book, that leaders can create environments where empowerment is possible, but people need to empower themselves. That struck me as quite apropos. I try to structure my own class so that initiative is rewarded. However, there is only so much I can do to create space for students to strike out. If I make things too unstructured, the students are completely lost, not least because their Chinese classes tend to be so structured and we don't share common cultural assumptions about what a classroom experience is supposed to be. The disappointing part is that so few students try to stand up or really challenge the system that I have set in place. I wish they would, but mostly they just do the things that I make them do with as little thought as possible... *sigh* I am rather pragmatic as a teacher, because I spent so much time as a student. I have often behaved the same way.

Social Justice and Equity

John Woolman's one-man fight against slavery is a good challenge that we can take on social injustice even as one person and make a difference if we really hold to our vision strongly and understand the people we are trying to persuade. I think Quinn would agree that part of Woolman's success was that he was a Quaker himself. Sometimes we think it is enough to have the high moral ground, but being able to understand others' values and speak to those values in our efforts to confront social injustice is really important.

I mentioned that idea to one of the teachers in our program last intensive--that a lot of the reason that Trump won the election was that many social justice advocates had stopped listening to the people they were trying to persuade. We cannot force people to accept change--without a costly civil war, anyway--and even then it is not really successful, as Quinn notes. If we want the change to really come from the heart we have to deeply understand and appeal humbly to the people we are trying to change by asking real questions. Social justice advocacy is floundering in the United States for this reason: nobody is really listening anymore. There is a lot of, "Please tell us what you think... so we can point out how wrong you are."