Hacker News Reader

Comment by m52go | Hacker News Reader

> The most important process underlying strokes of creative genius is the tendency to pay attention to things that normally should be ignored or filtered out.

I'd add that it's not only paying attention to these things, but questioning them.

Noticing something no one else does is useless unless it incites action. Deciding to act upon something can only happen if there's sufficient curiosity. Curiosity comes from questions. Why? What if? How might one...?

Questions are so fundamental to everything from creativity to innovation, management, sales, relationships...I just had my eyes opened by A More Beautiful Question by Warren Berger.

View on HN

>I'd add that it's not only paying attention to these things, but questioning them.

Personally, I feel the rebellious aspects of intellectualism are far, far overplayed to the point of absurdity. It leads to buying into marginalized, if not discredited, ideas and not doing a proper investigation into mainstream knowledge. I mean, how many more reddit posts about the "evil" Federal Reserve or how terrible of a person Thomas Edison was do we need? Especially when these opinions are tied to politicized propaganda from the opposition and not remotely tied to a legitimate interest into monetary policy or late 19th century industry.

I don't think young geeky introverts need to be told to be more rebellious, if anything they should learn to conform more, learn better social skills, understand the power of teams and collaboration, etc. I really wish someone told me this when I was younger. These attitudes did me a big disservice in life and I imagine I would have been much more successful otherwise.

This. It took far too long for me to realize that noticing and questioning something that others have either not noticed or not questioned didn't make me any smarter or better than anyone else.

I think that a lot of younger, geeky types are always looking for or being told of reasons why they're better than their more socially-outgoing classmates. It's comforting to sit back and feel like you're winning because you see things that other people don't, but what really puts people ahead in the long run is being willing to confront the things which make them uncomfortable.

> I mean, how many more reddit posts about the "evil" Federal Reserve or how terrible of a person Thomas Edison was do we need?

Is that rebellion or groupthink? Either way, yes, most of it probably is useless.

But what about the rebelliousness that brought about the hyperlink, the mouse, and the iPhone? Surely those inventions were rooted in questions that sought rebellion against established ways of doing things?

There's a time to rebel and a time to conform. Rebellion without conformity leads to thinkers who have great ideas but no output. Conformity without rebellion leads to complacency and no progress.

As with everything else, one needs balance.

>But what about the rebelliousness that brought about the hyperlink, the mouse, and the iPhone?

Are those really rebellions? TBL was a pretty milquetoast guy who built on top of a lot of things before him: TCP/IP, server OS, interconnected networks, and of course text-based predecessors to the web like Archie. He didn't wear all black and call everyone an idiot and magically produce something wonderful. He stood on the shoulders of giants and reached a little further.

Do you need to be a black-wearing, idiot-calling rebel in order to be a creative genius?

Of course not.

But you need to observe reality, question it, and then act on your question. That's it. Milquetoast guys can do it too.

> Is that rebellion or groupthink?

It's groupthink, because if you ask why, then try to answer the question you'll soon come to understand that it is actually a really good institution for the economy, and not the opposite.

> As with everything else, one needs balance.

Does balance come from dismissing the other side of the argument as "probably useless"?

I was calling 'reddit posts about the "evil" Federal Reserve or how terrible of a person Thomas Edison' probably useless, not the entire other side of the argument.

Conforming to the norm leads to stagnation as progress requires change. Teams don't change the status quo, they just get known tasks finished faster.

Sure, if you just want to get by in life and be moderately happy then your advice is reasonable.

If you want to surpass the norm your perspective must be radically altered.

The problem with your approach is that unless you invest a non-trivial amount of time and effort into something, you're just not qualified to question things on a level where you can do a wholesale dismissal. Unfortunately, many don't adhere to this. Thus the endless diatribes about the evils of vaccines and Thomas Edison.

Rebelliousness is typically a shortcut to thinking. Its not actual thinking. From my experience, most self-styled intellectual rebels are dilettantes who are socially rewarded for their loudmouth views. From a scholarly or historical perspective, they believe and preach garbage.

The successful types, even in fields we agree tend to be rebellious, are almost universally the more milquetoast and calm personalities able to work with others who took interesting but usually incremental turns. This is why we all know who, say, Lou Reed is and accept his contributions to rock, but may not feel the same about guys like G.G. Allin or Marilyn Manson.

Wait, are you saying Lou Reed was milquetoast and calm?

Compared to Allin? Yes.

"Are you saying Kobe Bryant is short?"

"Compared to Godzilla? Yes."

:-)

> I mean, how many more reddit posts about the "evil" Federal Reserve or how terrible of a person Thomas Edison was do we need?

As many as it will take for mainstream thinking to be more aligned with reality.

You do understand that the Fed being necessary and Thomas Edison being a good guy is what is already taught in schools?

And you're saying people should investigate these mainstream ideas even more than what they're being taught in school?

In other words, it seems you're saying school is not educating people enough; and therefore students should keep focusing on the side the schools chose to take, but just study that side further; no need to consider the other side because... why?

I don't understand your position. You have a bigger speech around these ideas, that you then used as an excuse to dismiss those two ideas out of hand, because you don't like them. But have you studied them further or have you just chosen to dismiss them because you interpret disagreement and debate as "rebellious aspects of intellectualism"?

It's not so much the question as the pattern (either noticing a new pattern, or the break of an existing pattern). Everything operates in patterns, and some are more pleasing or more jarring than others. In either of these cases, it may spur you into investigating further, which may lead to an interesting discovery. Whether that discovery is useful or beautiful to other people or not is irrelevant.

> Everything operates in patterns

very meta of you :)

How can you define action? Is it the summation, selection, and order of thoughts leading up the action, or is a web that connects possibly every observation and thought you've had?

Acting is easy, its simply answering the question, or at least attempting to. That is the part where you can't just ignore it and go on with your life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com