We're all Creative

In Moving To Higher Ground, Wynton Marsalis writes that creativity is not the province of  a small, specialized group of people but that everyone is creative.  He gets kids to blast away on instruments doing whatever and points out that they are creating.

He goes on to say "I told you it was easy [to be creative].  It's only hard if you want to sound good."

We don't lack creativity.  The trick is bringing that creativity to fruition.

Relationship of Art & Science

Too often we focus on our strengths. Scientists & engineers have strong analytical skills and cultivate those throughout their education. Others have artistic skills and cultivate those. Frequently this is of necessity because we don't have time for both. Mae Jemison, an astronaut, doctor, and dancer (not necessarily in that order) talks about the relationship between art and science in a TED talk.

Problem solving requires creativity and as I've mentioned before, developing our creativity requires developing all parts of our mind. Try doing something new. Even if you aren't successful (or even moderately good), it will stimulate your mind. Bust out the crayons and color with your kids, try photography, write a Haiku, who knows what. Just try something you wouldn't normally do today.

Scientific Method and Problem Solving

In the scientific method one suggests a hypothesis and then tries to find evidence disproving it. Failure to find evidence that refutes the theory means the theory is true.

This approach is a more robust method of problem solving than suggesting a solution (hypothesis) and then doing experiments to support it.

As Heuer points out in Chapter 4 of his book, a hypothesis (solution) can never be proven by even a large body of evidence since many hypotheses may be consistent with the evidence, but a single instance of incompatible evidence is enough to sink a hypothesis.

When suggesting solutions, plan some experiments that seek to disprove them. If you are unable to cause your solution to fail deliberately, it will be that much stronger.

Psychology of Intelligence Analysis

I recently came across a book written for Intelligence Analysts in the CIA. After reading just the introduction and the a couple of chapters I can tell it will be the subject of several (many?) future posts. Although this book by Richards Heuer, Jr. is directed towards the analysis of what I call "soft" information, it is equally useful for scientists and engineers working with more concrete (or simple) evidence.

Psychology of Intelligence Analysis is available on-line. There is also a 2006 version available .

This book is about avoiding pitfalls when analyzing information and looks like it will address the topic from a higher level. In Chapter 2 Heuer already addresses the issues of simple evidence and confirmation bias. Heuer points out that "We tend to perceive what we expect to perceive" It is easier to notice data that already fits into our mind-set and is similar to what we already know. This is a little different than perceiving what we want to perceive which I think is a little easier to recognize and avoid.

Confirmation Bias

We often look for data to support our proposed solution. "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives " mentions this in relation to us picking only the random events that support our hypotheses. We also will plan experiments that support our existing hypothesis instead of looking for ways to disprove it.

The best solutions are those which can't be made to fail as opposed to those which need the stars aligned (or maybe that special operator) to work.

Psychologist's also have a term for this as I heard on the radio this morning. "Magical Thinking" or something like that. We tend only to remember what we want and not look at the data impartially.

Fly larvae and simple evidence.

In the Monster of Florence, the investigators ignored simple evidence that cannot be faked and instead relied on the testimony of people with vested interests in the outcome. Instead of taking the evidence of fly larvae on the corpses (fly larvae had no interest in the outcome of the murder investigation), they instead trusted the testimony of people since that testimony fit their theory as to the time of death better than the physical evidence of the body's decay.

When investigating a root cause and gathering evidence to support a solution, keep in mind the types of evidence you are gathering. Often we want a certain outcome to be true and interpret information to fit that outcome. This will often lead you down the wrong path. Try to gather evidence that is independent of the solution you seek. I call this simple evidence. It cannot be faked and can only be interpreted in one way.

If your evidence requires assumptions then it is not simple evidence. Those assumptions may be wrong. Often our assumptions are biased by our experiences our outlook. Try to avoid them.

Occam's Razor

I just finished, "The Monster of Florence ". Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi's account of a serial killer in Florence, Italy and the investigations attempting to find the killer(s).

I was struck by the complexity of the theories that the investigators proposed in order to build their case against some individuals (and groups). This brought to mind Occam's Razor's, a principle that states that you should make as few assumptions as possible when trying to explain a phenomenon.

This applies to finding solutions. The more complex the solution, you develop, the more chances there are for problems in the future. Keeps things simple and your solutions will have greater longevity, be easier to implement, and easier for others to follow. Complex solutions can be a house of cards that will come crashing down when one aspect or another isn't fully implemented as intended.