mgr-processjournal540

[mgr-processjournal540]

Blog 7: Evaluation

So right now we’re at a little bit of an impasse. We all seem to have decent buy in to the basic premise but after Aaron’s comment’s matched some internal concern’s we’d had in advance of last weeks class, I think some of us are wanting to retool so the implementation makes more sense.

One thing to note is that the level of concern toward mutating the idea is variable across the group.

The first thing we’re doing and have been planning to do is sending out a survey. I’m really hoping this exposes and angle we didn’t see because right now I feel we’re a little pigeon holed into something that we can make functional but doesn’t get me excited. I’m not sure why I’m not feeling the internal buy in, even as some of the cool miscellaneous feature we developed over time are fitting in nicely  (such as auto ordering based on profile and what that could look like). The fundamental idea is still a produce truck, one that now does pre orders.

Since we didn’t have a better solution available, even in retrospect, and based on what’s stated in Proposed Improvements I wonder if we need to go back to ideation. I’ve thought for some time that we should take a subset of our product and focus and expand upon it, but that idea hasn’t gotten any traction.

Based on this week’s async, I think reviewing the problem statement could be good and seeing if we need to do additional research. I think we’ve learned more since the writing our original statement and environmental factors have changed, so I think maybe a retooling of the product statement could mean that even a similar implementation could sit better or serve a more precise purpose.

One of the biggest things that stood out to me in the async was emphasizing the cost of mistakes in order to learn from them. I think that’s a great idea because it adds an anchor to mistakes. Objectifies them in my mind. I wonder if we could do that as a group and try to understand where I missteps have been and through seeing the costs we’ve incurred have a better intuition on what to avoid continuing the final leg.

[mgr-processjournal540]

Blog 6: Implementation 2

Iterating on the solution this week was weird. Our team is fragmented in their vision and we were only able to get a bit closer. It’s still all sort of taped together. That said, I think we’re finally laying the ground work to see eye to eye next week.

Most of us have a similar vision of the implementation but the emphasis is on different areas, which describes the system. One person is trying to make it learn so it can be more profitable and sustainable. One person is trying to make it more reliable and functional. One person is trying to make sure it serves those who need it most. One person isn’t convinced all of the components need to make it into the final vision and would prefer to focus on a single component.

I spoke one on one with some of the group members and I found still a lot of similarity in tone and concern. Which is why I think after one more shake out we should have a streamlined idea we can unify around.

Ultimately, this week we pared down the idea and made it more realistic. Repurposed bus became the agreed upon medium over mobile drone stations. I also think this is good. I think the more pared down the idea becomes, the more we’ll be able to add a little bit of focus on one component to secure a twist.

We also started constructing a slide deck. It’s nice to have a presentation structure to check against and start to iterate on. I think one key will be presenting most of the idea clearly and effortlessly enough to let the final hook shine.

[mgr-processjournal540]

Blog 5: Implementation

I think we’re having real trouble in this phase and I’m glad we have two weeks.

As we filter into the real world different group members are seeing different issues and we’re splitting based on our understanding of businesses.

One approach to implementation is simplifying the service. Instead of building a fancy truck we could refurbish a used one. Maybe we’re less lofty in our sourcing goals. Maybe we’re only predictive in the smallest sense.

Another approach is to hone in on only one component. Maybe we’re only a predictive sorting service for other food delivery services. Maybe we only build a fancy truck.

I think this is the hardest step so far because all our dreams can’t come true, so what is the smallest unit of dream?

On the other hand, we’re fighting against time. We also need to make concrete decisions for one of these options. It’s hard for 5 people to stay in order at a time like this

I want to make an argument to slow down and refine our focus before making concrete decisions, but what if I’m wrong?

That’s so hard for me -- what if I’m wrong? What if my instincts are wrong? Do I explain things to the group every time I have a feeling and they have to logically process it? Do I try to push my agenda and learn with experience? Maybe I raise it to one person and then branch out if they think I’m onto something. Can’t analyze that for too long either..

[mgr-processjournal540]

Blog 4: Ideation

(Unsuprisingly) I found a lot more comfortability in this block. I think it’s a more fun block and also something I’m more experieneced in. But outside of that, I think my group really benefitted from the extra week and some cool stuff happened.

I had the pleasure of brainstorming with different subsets of our group (not by design -- things happened, people got busy) at different times in the last two weeks. It really let me experience different dynamics within the group and it helped me to feel comfortable in the group and understand each individual better.

Each of the brainstorming sessions naturally formed around a theme and many many cool and fun ideas were pitched. It was exciting to see a topic that I had felt was dry be populated with so many interesting solutions.

Every individual brought forward different energy and ideas which I think came together really nicely.

I think we did so well because we had the extra time to slow down and chat and really enjoy the brainstorming.

Additionally, Elyssa gave us a special treat and got her brilliant cousin to consult with us on food distribution and farming. He is a gardening social media presence (Epic Gardening) and was a great resource. It was amazing how quickly his knowledge and experience was able to illuminate the space around our ideas and seperate out the most promising ones.

All in all, this block was enjoyable. It’s a weird time so I can’t say I had a good two weeks, but the group provided a nice touchstone of normalcy in a world determined to twist and slide away in every direction.

[mgr-processjournal540]

Blog 3: Definition

Definition is a funny thing. It’s almost the most important part. I learned through my creative process interview that much of creative work is filtering data. A thought crossed my mind today which furthered an idea I had filtered for months ago.

I think definition is a mix of pursuing/refining an idea linearly and Boolean logic. One needs to follow the information one has collected and naturally extrapolate about it but then big cuts and additions need to be made here. Like clay early on in a sculpture. What will actually be tackled?

It hit me that food distribution as a public good is essentially something that needs to be handled at the government level because it’s such a basic and wide social contract. I wrote as a note to myself and the group:

“There are Americans who have issues getting enough healthy food. We haven't had such a radical revolution in technology that changing our distribution system at the government level makes sense. I believe that this is a governmental problem because the government is our highest level social contract. 

So

How might we develop a system that will augment the government's ability to distribute healthy food?”

Ultimately we went elsewhere. I also think it could be argued that I’m moving into ideation here but this feels like definition to me.. I think a problem is tied to its system among other factors. I have an instinct that if you separate a problem from its system it’s suddenly in a vacuum and doesn’t necessarily mean anything. I can’t tell if I’m trying to jump the gun!!

Anyway,

I think we settled on a good problem definition based on a large amount of overlap we saw in our individual statements. After that, mostly iteration and voting.

[mgr-processjournal540]

Blog 2: Acceptance and Analysis

Success in this case for me will be contributing well to my team. I consider brainstorming to be one of my strengths but I wasn't able to find much footing in this exercise. I think the prevailing team values and interests largely different than my own.

I feel comradery with every member of the team. They are all excellent people. I've gotten the chance to speak with each one of them individually here or there and I've greatly enjoyed those chances. Personally, I find each person interesting and likable. I find the aggregate direction and interest of the group alien. We settled on the idea that every person should be able to have adequate food. All of us, including myself, agreed that this was a good topic. I even lobbied for the topic early on. It is a good topic, but I'm not very interested by it. Food equality is a very old human issue. Plenty of people have worked on it and many solutions and technologies have been developed around it. When I look at a problem I aim to see it in an unusual light. In life, people have pitched things to me like "Hey, why don't we build a better pair of shoes?" I can't build a better pair of shoes. I don't have the infrastructure of Adidas. That said, I have been able to predict shoe trends by approaching design from different angles. The way we're tackling food equality seems to me an execution issue. I think every other member of the team is expertly equipped for this. I am not. I feel useless. I tried consistently to spur unusual and creative discussion in the ways I know I can generate it best and didn't find any takers. I was heard out politely, even appreciated for my words, but then we moved on immediately each time. My estimation is that my teammates are very strong in follow-through and execution. I think they will be able to develop a good system or product to meet whatever needs. So I don't think they require my process. I like to do most of my thinking work upfront. So we'll see. Can I contribute meaningfully to a team taking a direct path? Can I package what I view as my abilities in a way that can be useful to the team? Will I find my own interest in this topic? During the IPR, my teammates pushed each other farther and farther to develop ideas. The important turning point which resulted in our final idea was not mine, but gave me incredible energy. In terms of analysis. I looked things up on the internet. I didn't find much, but I noted that I'm more of a collector than a packrat. I thought that was interesting. I've never done morphological analysis before and I found it fascinating and fun. I think it's really cool because it sort of combines force fit + attribute listing + patterns and paradigms + micro and macro (maybe even model making potentially?) I think there's great excitement in dissecting a system, dissecting an object, and then pitting their characteristics against each other to force interaction points. Incredible. You get to model so many scenarios and interactions between scenarios. I wonder if it can be generated in more dimensions. At what point does a process like this break? Does it become more useful the more you push it? What kind of novel interactions and cross-sections can be found?

[mgr-processjournal540]

Creative Interview 1/3: Luli

NOTE: these are posted in reverse order so they can be read chronologically without needing to jump around

Luli is an excellent animator who worked for some time at Tit-Mouse and is now working to be an independent artist. I met her through a friend of mine, who she is dating. Recently, I was privileged to see some of her solo work and I was very impressed. It stuck with me so I thought of her immediately upon getting this assignment and was pleased she agreed to do this interview.

Me: Hello.

Luli: Hello.

Me: Thank you for doing this interview with Me.

Luli:  Yeah, of course.. Thank you for choosing Me as someone to interview.

Me: I'm interested to see how you'll respond to these questions. First question: How do you generate ideas? (How, when, and where are you inspired? What inspires you? What obstacles do you face in coming up with a new idea and how do you overcome those obstacles?)

Luli: So, I think the question, how do you generate ideas is like a really extremely broad question. So I guess I have to take this like a creative aspect. I think there's two different branches that this could go down and one is like, am I creating for myself or am I creating to like solve a problem or is there something facing me that saying like, I need to create something to do this? Largely like work, like getting assigned a task and and giving being given constraints and then working within those constraints. Then creating how to fill those constraints in a way that satisfactory for everyone's needs, whether it's the employer or your client or whatever.

Me: With yourself, aren't there still constraints?

Luli: Absolutely. I think that's one of the things. The first step I think in creating for myself is if I just pretend okay let me create a thing with nothing informing what it should be. Creating something from nothing is really hard. I think of making a drawing and how it's a lot easier to make an interesting drawing within a canvas,some kind of bounding box. Because then you get things like the rule of thirds and composition rules and and just like frames within frames and it sets context. Without context, I think my creativity can become daunting. Maybe that's the end of the first tree, when I'm creating for myself, The first thing is to establish context and when I'm creating to fulfill something the context is already established. I think maybe that's a really good first rule : context is probably the first thing I would start with for what I'm creating.

Me: I totally agree. What I noticed was when I was trying to break down creativity, you need knowledge to frame stuff. Otherwise, you really just working in randomness.

Luli: I guess once context is established, how do you generate ideas? To me, when I hear that question my brain instantly says that ideas are really big thing and instantly needs more context. An idea I guess is furthering the context, but this time within those constraints of the original context. My own judgement of what could make the previous context as good as possible, as fulfilled as expressive, as whatever the demands are as possible.

Me: So your second step is to make decisions to refine the context.

Luli: So how do I refine the context then? One of my first instinct is to figure out the negative space, what doesn't work in any given situation, which hilariously feels like all of these things are just going to be about context. As if context was like a giant block of marble or something and whittling the context down is just getting to a finished sculpture and then that's just the thing that was needed for the context.

Me: I feel like things often are like a single algorithm or a single method that is reapplied in multiple ways. So I think what you're talking about could be a good algorithm.

Luli: The way the best when I'm creating a thing or generating ideas or whatever is just the concept of just like doing what's next. Just like putting anything down, if I know that the character need some kind of gesticulating hand, and I don't know what I want that hand to be doing, I can just put any hand there and from that baseline of whatever the fuck that hand is doing I can make it better from there or worse from there. And so even breaking things into its components each individual component kind of has its own bounding box that you can continue to hone in on the best thing that that component can do.

Me: It seems like it's different methods of refinement. It's a tool for refinement, you're putting something in that you think could go there, but you know it's not necessarily ideal. It's giving additional context to other things. So it's like the then you have a suite of tools every level of context to further refine.

Luli: Right. Have you ever seen a CGI program like Maya or Blender render out a still image?

Me: Yeah.

Luli: So you know, it starts like pixels everywhere. Giant pixels. But in my head, those pixels are each like "okay there's a couch." Bam. It's one big pixel but you know it's there and then you get wall, floor lighting, whatever. Then with more time, that gets refined. One more pass, resolution has doubled, you can kind of make out the shapes better, kind of get more of the story of what you're looking at and then every time that resolution hammers itself out a little bit more. It goes from a massive chaos that sort of shapes where things will go and eventually becomes like recognizable shapes that have undetectable details. So at this point, you might not know if it's a corduroy couch, but it's a couch. It's a green couch or something. Then in the future, it becomes so detailed after you've rendered the entire frame at maximum resolution that you can tell something like the thread count of the sheets on the on the couch or whatever. I had to overcome the desire to make something that detailed. I realized that the importance of the things I create is not making perfection, but communication. Theoretically, I could zoom into my canvas and draw the mandibles of a worm, but the important part is that the viewer knows it's a worm. So you need constraint there too. The start is nebulous, the end is nebulous too. You could draw one thing for 90 years. What is enough for this creative task? This story? For this image? When do I stop?

Me: The second question is What process(es) do you use to solve problems? (Describe the steps of your problem-solving process. Explain your journey from inspiration to implementation.)

Luli: "What's the next thing?" is probably my primary process for solving any given problem. The only part of this problem that feels different to me than the previous sense of that I've given is the end like explain your journey from inspiration to implementation. I think the thing throwing me off is "explain your journey from inspiration to implementation," I think for me inspiration and implementation are kind of hand-in-hand and they're just happening back and forth. When I do the next the next thing, I get inspired by that new position I'm in and the problem I'm facing to look around and explore the information and then I implement the next step, and so on. I think that covers it, I don't know why I'm having so much trouble separating these questions from each other but they do feel related.

Me: I do think that covers it. Thank you. I hope these interviews turn out cool.

Luli: I'm excited to see what you make, I'll definitely read through it when you release it to the public. Nice talking to you.

Me: As always!

[mgr-processjournal540]

Creative Interview 2/3: Cory O’Brien

Cory O'Brien is a fantastically talented and skilled writer I went to college with. He writes for many forms of media including video games and online. He develops board games. He's one of the most creative people I've met so I was really excited he agreed to chat with me.

Me: Hi.

Cory: Hi.

Me: The meeting is recording itself just heads up, so I don't have to do it manually. And hopefully it will also provide an audio transcript.

Cory: Great.

Me: So okay, so I'll ask you the first question. Thanks for talking to me, by the way.

Cory: No problem.

Me: First question is how do you generate ideas? (How, when, and where are you inspired? What inspires you? What obstacles do you face in coming up with a new idea and how do you overcome those obstacles?)

Cory: One of the best theories that I have heard about how to get ideas and generating ideas which I do subscribe to is there's  a writer named Warren Ellis, who is extremely prolific he does about a lot of comic books and stuff and his thing is that the way that you generate ideas is by just consuming things all the time and just creating this big compost keep in the back of your brain and then that compost heap will sort of ferment and generate ideas so that that tends to be how it is for me, like, I read, I watch TV or I games I consume information in a bunch of different ways. And then every once in a while, a couple of those pieces will connect with each other and that will be an idea for me. The other way that I sometimes get an idea, actually often, is it if someone presents me with a specific problem. Or even if I discover a specific problem, then its very easy for me to generate ideas. If I have like, you know, a particular goal in mind because its very easy to check like "did that solve the problem or that solve the problem?" And then you can iterate really quickly in that kind of situation because its very easy to tell what ideas don't work so that is also very helpful for me to have a specific goal in mind. How many of the things that I answer there?

Me: I guess the obstacle thing is the only thing that you didn't really speak to.

Cory: So for me, certainly a couple of obstacles for coming up with new ideas - One is a lack of urgency, like I don't feel like I need to come up with an idea, even though I'm a freelancer so I should always be coming up with ideas. Sometimes if I don't feel urgency, or some sort of existential threat, it is hard for me to generate ideas. It's very easy to just sort of like wander away and not do something. Also a poor understanding of a problem or situation makes it really difficult to solve a problem or generate an idea because if there are no constraints for an idea, then it could be anything. I'm very susceptible to decision paralysis. If I have too many options, then I have a hard time coming up with an idea. I have to restrict it somehow.

Me: Okay. Second question. What processes do you use to solve problems? (Describe the steps of your problem-solving process. Explain your journey from inspiration to implementation.)

Cory: Well, like I was saying before, the most important thing is to understand what the problem actually is, understand the bounds of the problem. Without that nothing else is possible and it's a little bit ridiculous to try solving a problem that you don't understand. So if I'm working on like a piece of writing or something. Sometimes what I will do, because a lot of times you know there are problems in in like a novel, for example, where there are story problems that I need to solve. It's very easy for me to get caught up in trying to just sit silently and in my head, work out exactly how to solve that problem and have it all figured out before I start writing any words. Instead, I found that it's easier if I just try and get myself closer and closer to the point where the problem actually exists, rather than the point where I become aware of the problem. So like if I know that in chapter two of my story, there's some kind of plot point that I don't understand, like, I don't know how to solve. Rather than trying to figure that out before I start chapter one, I will write chapter one and then I'll even like start chapter two until I get to the point where I actually can't continue because the problem is physically right there. Then, I will figure out a way to solve the problem. By then I have more information about what the problem is and what other resources I've generated in that time while working on other things that I do know how to solve. So yeah, that is a big part of my problem solving process is just like doing everything that is not the problem. Sort of like putting together a puzzle like certain puzzle pieces are really hard to figure out where they go because it's like a piece of the sky or something. But if you put in all the other puzzle pieces, then you can just look for what's missing.

Me: Cool. What does your journey from inspiration to implementation look like?

Cory: So generally, if I have an idea, the next thing that I want to do is flesh out the idea. I'll do some free writing exercises, write in a notebook, make lists, that kind of thing to get a clear idea of what it would mean to actually work on the idea and to see if its even actually interesting and worth pursuing. Then I start to try and figure out how much investment it would take to actually complete this idea. That's really how I decide if something is worth it is like how much investment compared to how much passion I feel for this idea. So, if I decided to go with it, then I need to know what things can I do myself, what things will I need help doing and start reaching out to people for help with the things that I can't do myself at the point where I need help with them. A lot of my stuff is writing, It's either writing or like game stuff and game stuff you have to build a team. So then building a team, iterating through -- with writing or games you iterate through a lot of versions of something, like try and create a shitty version of it and get it in front of people, so that you can get feedback and then

fix it based on the feedback. But that's when it's also important to have done a really good job of figuring out the bounds of what you're trying to do at the beginning because at the point where you're getting feedback, it's really important to know what you're trying to do so that you don't end up just like making some other random thing that other people wish that you had made.

Me: That's a good point. I spoke to an animator yesterday. They were also talking a lot about problem definition. I think that's cool, that's a big theme that I'm seeing. They had a self described problem with perfectionism and they were describing it as a number range or like chipping away at a block of marble, chipping away at chunks and then smaller chunks and smaller chunks to get exactly what they wanted. How much do you try to do that type of bi-section search process versus getting loosely into the area and then iterate.

Cory: For me it's mostly the second one because, for me, how writing works -- and writing is mostly what I do -- I also use the metaphor of chipping away at Marvel, but I have to get the marble first. I have to make a block of marble, which basically just means writing like a really garbage draft. Just like an almost deliberately bad version of it so that I have something to iterate on. That's how I avoid the trap that I was describing before where its like, oh, well, I'm gonna have a problem in 50 pages, so I need to figure that out now. In order to actually solve individual problems I need to have created some kind of concrete material that's outside of my own head, that I can tinker with.

Me: Well, that's all the questions. I have a couple observations. If you want to hear them.

Cory: Sure.

Me: it's really similar, what you and the animator said in terms of having to refine the problem area and also putting out something initially if you ever get stuck. I see a lot of similarities so far in creative process. I think it might be more concrete than people realize.

Cory: Yeah, I mean, I think that I think everybody has neuroses and part of a creative process is figuring out how to undermine your own neuroses for the sake of creating something. I definitely also have a problem with perfectionism, like the other person you talked to and so because of that I've had to create systems that counteracts perfectionism.

Me: Interesting. Okay. My one last thing I want to point out is the lack of urgency, I thought that was interesting. My best work will generally come when there's no urgency. For instance a random idea will come to me right when I'm about to sleep. Do you also experience that?

Cory: Well, there's two kinds of urgency, I guess for me. There's I guess what you might call local urgency and then and then like systemic urgency. So like local urgency is I need to have an idea in the next 15 minutes because like I'm working and my boss is going to fire me or whatever, if I don't have an idea today right now. Then systemic urgency is like, I have a project that that someone has asked me for, I have a project Im working on that's very important to me that I would like to finish within a reasonable time frame OR, you know, I have a deadline that's like six months out or something like that. That's more of a systemic urgency, where there is an external or at least a strong internal reason why this needs to be done before I die. That helps me direct more energy towards it. I think that part of the thing for me is that I can start a mental process and then go do other stuff and then have that mental process develop. That can seem like it's sort of for free, but that comes at the expense of whatever else I would be thinking about during that time. A lot of times if I get stuck on something, I'll just go take a really long shower with the intention of thinking about this specific thing. Like if I'm ever trying to write a rap and I get stuck, I almost always take a shower in the middle of writing a rap. Because it helps me come up with like a few lines. Showers are good because you're locked in a small hot room and it's very calming, but you can't actually actively work on something, but you can noodle around.

Me: So you have local and systemic urgency, do both of these help you?

Cory: local agency is less helpful than system urgency, a local urgency can kind of, I think, counteract creativity. Systemic urgency is good for creating a reason to devote energy to a specific idea.

Me: Do you think that sometimes you can be stuck in too much randomness?

Cory: Yeah. Well, that's why I'm such a big fan of constraints is because constraints automatically expedite that bisecting search thing you were talking about by saying, Okay, well, here's a bunch of sections that aren't going to be involved in a search, which is, I think, really freeing.

Me: Very cool. Thank you, I'll consolidate this and I'll send you this and the other interviews if you're interested.

Cory: Yeah, I'm very much interested.

Me: Okay, great. Have a good morning!

Cory: You too, talk to you soon.

[mgr-processjournal540]

Creative Interview 3/3: James Lee

James Lee is a scientist and photographer who currently does research at Rockefeller University. I met him in college. I don't get to speak with him often, but whenever I do, it's a standout conversation and I find him especially insightful. I was honored when he was eager to do the interview. This is the third and final interview in the series so I'm including my concluding thoughts which naturally arose in conversation.

Me: Hello!

James: Hey, Rosie, how's it going?

Me: Good, good now. I hope getting into Zoom wasn't too hard.

James: No problem. Hey, thanks so much for inviting me to this, by the way.

Me: It's my pleasure. Thank you for agreeing to speak with me!

Me: I'm gonna ask you two questions which are the prescribed questions and then maybe some follow up if it comes up.

James: Sounds good

Me: First question. How do you generate ideas? (How, when, and where are you inspired? What inspires you? What obstacles do you face in coming up with a new idea and how do you overcome those obstacles?)  

James: I'm going to start by plagiarizing another person's answer, I suppose. I was watching this interview with Noah Baumbach and he was saying that -- so this is a quote separated from me by two degrees -- so he was saying that Philip Roth has this amazing quote, which was that he takes two stones of reality, Right? Then he rubs them together to generate the sparks of imagination, creativity, magic. That really resonated with me because like I feel like that is also how I get inspired, which is starting with the things that I know, but then from that point, trying to seek the magic, which is what we don't know, what I don't know. Sort of trying to push myself on to the thin ice. Right? So maybe we'll talk about like my photography and then my science because I feel like those are the areas where I think about what I do as a creative thing. I realized that with photography the worst thing that I can do, creatively speaking, is to try to find the photo. If I look around at my environment and I think "where is the shot? What is going to be the thing that's going to make the pretty photo? The cool photo?" Then my inspiration immediately dries up like that fucks everything up. Same thing with science too. If I sit down and then I try to think about "what's going to be the next really an idea? The next big finding?" Then I immediately just fuck myself over that way. I think instead there has to be a moment of spontaneity. So that kind of gets that like when and where I am when I get inspired. I feel like it has to kind of be spontaneous, it has to come in the moment. But you have to set that moment, so I feel like it's an issue of like active waiting, I suppose. You're actively waiting for the thing that is going to lead you down that path to the thing that you don't know. But, you have to actively center yourself on and organize yourself around the things that you do know. At least that's how I do it, that's what I do. For science, for instance, I find that I have to be extremely well organized, I journal a lot, I have my lab notebook, all that stuff. I'm constantly reading papers just to know what we know to keep myself abreast of that. Of course, that can be endlessly fascinating [laughs], but, You know, there's just the, feel free to stop me. By the way, because

 Me: So let me clarify what you're talking about it. It sounds like you focus on knowledge, what's known, maybe on the field itself, with photography, seeing others' photographs or looking at things, or maybe for me, looking at paintings and seeing how the composition differs. Is that related?  

 James: The interesting thing is, and I guess I want to kind of answer these questions by the inverse. So, I was telling you all the things that I avoid for when I try to get inspiration. So, I try not to squeeze it out or find the shot. Similarly, yeah. I try not to force it right. Similarly, I really try not to get enamored by the work of others and I really try not to use other people's work as too much of a reference point. Same thing with science, so you know I read papers, I have to, it's part of my job, but I really try not to fall into their way of thinking or seeing a problem. I try not to fall in love with their methodology, their experiments, their approach. Similarly with photography, I enjoy looking at other people's photos, but honestly, I can only name, maybe, one or two photographers by name. I could probably point out to you within my saved Instagram collection all the photos that I genuinely do love, but I don't really use that as a reference point. I don't really look at the photographs for that long even or try to analyze the composition and stuff like that. I feel like it's very important when we try to find where our own voices right that we don't get caught up in the voice of others. We all come into our creative little habits, hobbies or professions, because we genuinely love the thing, the field, and the craft and so I feel like it's very tempting and easy to become enamored by the people that we adore in the art form that we do, but I think that's a really good way of very quickly nullifying your own voice, or not setting yourself on the path to finding it.

Me: And expressing oneself is often important in creativity.

James: Yeah. This whole concept of finding one's own voice is something that I've kind of been obsessing about for the past year. And being here alone in New York has kind of jumpstarted that thinking. I've had to deal a lot with being alone and being lonely in myself. There I learned that I've never talked to myself. I feel like most people don't. I mean that in both a literal talking-out-loud kind of way but also in an internal, or understanding self organizational way. What's interesting to me is this idea of how can you trust somebody that you never talk to, and relatedly, how can you trust yourself? Relatedly, how can you trust your own voice or know your own voice? And related, how can you trust your own instincts and inspiration when they present themselves? This is something I've been thinking about.

So in short, I try to organize all the things that I do know, stay centered within that. There are things that I meditate on, not just self meditation, but just concepts. Things that have stuck in my mind, they have some resonance with me. These things that are familiar, these things that are known these things that are embedded within my reality. Just by sitting on them and and keeping an emotional abundance open to seeing the path forward from there, into something that I don't know, into something that I am curious about. I think that's what it's all about. It's generating that curiosity with the things that you know.

I think it's trusting your instinct. With any creative endeavor, there's an infinite number of things that you could do. Like with photography any angle technically works. And that's not even to talk about like what kind of lens would you use, what kind of body would you use, what kind of editing, color palette, how much exposure, shutter speed. It's daunting if you actually break it down that way. Same thing with science. Then just getting bogged down with knowing that every choice that you make is necessarily at the exclusion of other choices. Other ways of spending your time. That can be very daunting, but ultimately that then ends up being an issue of trusting your instincts and trusting your voice, finding and trusting in both of them, right? I'd say that's my main obstacle.

The other obstacle for a long time was giving myself permission to be a scientist, be a photographer and to allow those two parts to marry within myself right to create that ecosystem. That was several things. One is the culture of science and scientists. It's not that they frown upon or discourage the concept of the creative scientist or the artistic scientists, but it's not very commonplace. The other thing is that my job is to be a scientist, but I'd find myself thinking about photography and writing and and sort of feeling like "Am I just fucking around here?" If I could divert all of the creative energy I have for writing and photography into my science, wouldn't I get a Nobel Prize by now? [laughs] Those kinds of punishing and self defeating thoughts. For a long time I couldn't give myself permission to enjoy both. It felt like it had to be one or the other, and I don't think that's true. It creates an ecosystem. If you can see the connections and incorporate and internalize them into your own voice, into your own understanding of yourself, then I think you can move past those kinds of things.

Me: I think it's excellent you do both. I think creativity is ultimately technology, so I think it's intimately related -- and vitaly important -- that you do both. Next question. What process(es) do you use to solve problems? (Describe the steps of your problem-solving process. Explain your journey from inspiration to implementation.)

James: I wish I knew the answer to this one. I wonder if you know the answer to this one for yourself, and I will actually ask you that because I think your answer will help with my answer. But before that, I will say, my best understanding of my process is: I will sprawl. I will explore. I'll do it mostly in a subconscious way, a fraction of it in a conscious way. I'll collect tidbits here and there. Those become the stones of reality. Then I can sort of feel this moment coming, I always sort of feel it coming, but I can never like predict when it will happen. I can never tell you why it happens, but there's a moment where all those tendrils sort of come together into a convergence point or a moment of crystallization. Then I can see what I have to do next. I can see why I was picking up on these various channels. Prior to that moment, prior to it coming together a crystallizing, I cannot explain to you what I'm thinking about or why I'm thinking about it that way. So, this has led to a lot of trouble with me and my scientific advisers. They'll ask "what experiments are you doing? what are you thinking of? what's your hypothesis? What's your approach? What's your goal?" I won't be able to tell them when I'm in that exploratory phase. I can only tell them that I think I'm on the right trail and that I can sort of feel it coming, but beyond that they'll have to wait until it comes together for group meeting or for a paper draft or a practice talk, something like that.

Me: Now that you say that I think I've had a lot of frustration in my life where people will be like "Michael, what's your point?" I need that time and space too. I think you said that really succinctly. But I'll tell you my process, I think my process is essentially: I take in a lot of information and I sit with the information. I see what speaks to me. I look for correlations in what speaks to me. When I'm looking for information in the first place, I'll be filtering in advance, so what I look at and respond to will be dependent on what my prompt is. For example, I once wanted to design a clothing line and I started wondering, "what is sexy?" I had just finished swimming at the beach and I saw a surfer changing into his wetsuit and he was clearly sexy. After that I left the door open for that. Like a port on a computer. So that comes in, "that's sexy, okay, wow." Now I have a refined prompt. Now I'm wondering what makes that sexy? What's related to that? And I started working with the beach and water and different aspects of that geographically area that are sexy. Things that I thought were exciting and things I could speak to uniquely. I have a lot of projects going on in my mind, at any given time, when I'm being creative, and I'm always filtering them down. And I'll often leave one running and let if filter as time goes on. Maybe I'll have a question but nothing will relate to it for months and then I see something or have an experience and it hits me and suddenly I'm on a whole different prompt for that project. At some point, I might go looking for information, but it's really about an intake and filtering of information and then waiting until it clicks together. Sometimes that will be while I'm falling asleep, sometimes I'll have a deadline and I know something is far enough along so I'll sit down and work through it.

I think our creative process is actually very similar. I'm also finding that a lot of peoples' creative process is very similar. This is my big takeaway. Ultimately I think creativity is simply: we have a part of our brain that finds correlation and we have a logical side which can use correlation to create rules. I think creativity comes down to constraint and filtering, and furthering constraint and steadily narrowing down a focus.

James: Yeah.

Me: Thank you again for the interview.

James: I'm looking forward to seeing what the outcome of all these interviews are. Again, thanks. Have a good day.

Me: You too, James.

James: Buh-bye.

[mgr-processjournal540]

Blog 1: Creativity

Creativity is about pursuing a way forward. Creativity is whenever someone does something new with a goal in mind. Therefore, creativity fuels most meaningful change we make. Without creativity, we would only have whatever technology came about by sheer accident.

What’s most exciting about creativity to me is that it can’t be purely random or purely logical. Creativity must be brought about by a careful balance of algorithmic and brute force methods.

To be creative, one must know enough to distinguish useful ideas from randomness. In the PBS Off Book short we watched this week, they discussed how nothing is “original.” They said every idea is remix of old information. I disagree and I think that reduces creativity to nothing. I can come up with something no one has seen before but it won’t necessarily have a use. Pure originality is an important part of the creative process but must be tempered by knowledge to guarantee utility.

The mind is like a neural network which is always crunching to find associations. What’s exciting about humans is that we can take information we suspect is correlated and derive a logical rule. If we do not or cannot test our rule scientifically it may not be strictly correct, but the fact that we can abstract data into rules, which can then again be correlated and abstracted, etc. gives us tremendous creative potential.

I often like to think of myself as a dumb animal when I’m approaching a problem, because I know the simpler and smaller I can make something through abstraction, the faster and clearer ideas and solutions will be returned. Abstraction is paramount in importance with regards to creativity because we can create rules that we can leverage to understand more about a situation before needing to go into a generative step.

From the top:

The mind has very little data -> subconscious develops ideas and connections at that level -> human looks in and chooses data to test

-Repeat until a usable rule is generated-

The mind now has some rules -> use logic until logic can no longer explain or model the situation -> start process listed above but now at a higher level

Another exciting element of humans is our ability to share knowledge. Knowledge is comprised of the rules that we abstract. If properly tested knowledge has been passed along, the receiving human does not need to waste further time in that area.

This type of abstraction and sharing is maybe our super power as humans. We only live 100 years but there are many of us so we can each learn and develop further abstraction to make the species smarter and more powerful over time.

My ability to communicate these ideas to you now is based on such abstraction. Communicating through English isn’t necessarily right or wrong, but a convention agreed upon by us in this case. Developing the ability to communicate from nothing would take a tremendous amount of time. And this post is on the internet. I don’t have to deliver it to you physically. Communicating this could have taken my whole life, but instead it’s my beginning blog post in my first course of this degree. And I might not even be right.. Imagine inventing a language just to communicate your ideas about creativity just for the other person to tell you “that’s dumb, you’re dumb, cool language though.” 

Anyway--

The more control and knowledge we have in a domain, the higher level our idea generation and creativity can be.