I wanted to share the parent URL but HN didn't allow me.
In "Why No-One’s Noticed This Before"[1] the author makes a distinction of `self-consistents` and `confabulators`. I've found this very similar to Robert Pirsig's `classical thinkers` vs `romantics`[2]. It is unfortunate that ZAMM devolves into rationalizing irrational behaviour and ends with a shrug after having raised the reader's expectations. I haven't read all of the material here yet, but so far it all makes sense.
I haven't read past the first article yet, but already this is strongly reminding me of the "closed" vs. "open" mode idea of creativity—namely, that there is a sort of "mode switch" needed from the creative mode of idea generation (the "open" mode) to the more anxious mode needed when you actually get your hands dirty and do the work to implement the thing (the "closed" mode). This seems like a more neuroscientific explanation of this exact idea.
It's well-explained in this good (and funny!) talk by John Cleese, with some practical tips on how to create an environment to foster creativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmY4-RMB0YY
I love that talk, thanks for associating it with this.
I see the similarities but I think if you read the whole thing (I've finished it now) you will find out some differences as well.
I vaguely remember John Cleese talks about innovation/creativity and says something along the lines; writer's block, you just shut up, sit down and be creative. Not exactly with these words of course. Philosopher's Stone is pretty much all about stress. And actually it says `shut up, sit down and be creative` approach would backfire because it would produce stress which is counter-productive for this mode of thinking.
I like the phrase Rich Hickey uses in relation to software design; hammock time. It is open mode, but it also implies peace of mind and a lack of pressure to be creative.
Not to excuse my own incompetence but, in school, I had a tendency to totally go blank when asked a question in front of the whole class. Even if I had just been daydreaming about the very answer I was being asked.
In "Why No-One’s Noticed This Before"[1] the author makes a distinction of `self-consistents` and `confabulators`. I've found this very similar to Robert Pirsig's `classical thinkers` vs `romantics`[2]. It is unfortunate that ZAMM devolves into rationalizing irrational behaviour and ends with a shrug after having raised the reader's expectations. I haven't read all of the material here yet, but so far it all makes sense.
1: http://the-programmers-stone.com/about/why-no-one%E2%80%99s-...
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_M...