This is an extract from the OPIP book, where Alice (A) and Bobby (B) discuss various factors that foster or hinder progress in physics.
A: Do you think the next big idea will come from an individual or a group?
B: As long as the subconscious and inspiration play such an important role in the creative process, I think it will be an individual.
A: How come?
B: Discussing ideas in groups means that they have to be expressed in words. This requires that they are brought up to the conscious surface. If the surface is only 10%[1], like with an iceberg, then it’s rather unlikely that this will be sufficient to get breakthrough ideas nobody thought about yet.
A: At least it’s 10% several times, i.e., from different people.
B: You cannot add it up like that. Take two people with an IQ of 80, it doesn’t give you 160.
A: But groups have proven time and again that they can produce outstanding work. In fact, in most cases, it’s the result of teamwork.
B: Yes, but that’s always work that was done on a conscious level. Also, we’re not looking for “good work” now, but for something special.
A: What do you mean?
B: Sometimes there are ideas, innovations, or creations—be it in physics, business, or elsewhere—that are not very good, and it’s obvious that their creator worked on it alone, without any outside feedback. Then, there are others that are really good, sometimes even outstanding. For those, it’s clear: it must have been a collaborative effort by several smart minds. And then, there’s this third category… the “sublime.” You look at it, you look at it again, and it dawns on you: this must be coming from one person’s mind, and from one person’s mind only. It has a certain soundness, harmony, and uniqueness to it—hard to put it into words exactly—that couldn’t have been the result of conscious team thinking at the surface only.
A: Please elaborate more on why you think that.
B: The primary purpose of words is to enable us to communicate with others. For that, they need to have certain meanings, which are understood by everyone. Hence, words are harmonized “chunks of meanings,” building blocks that create a “grid.” The reality, however, might be much more granular than that. Remember, the map is not the territory. Not only do we have to read between the lines or words, we have to work between them too.[2]
A: By imposing the framework of our word grid onto our thoughts, something gets lost in the process?
B: Yes. Words are excellent tools for expressing outcomes or solutions, but they may not reflect the path toward those. It’s similar to quantum physics, where looking at a quantum state destroys something (coherence) because we push reality into our thinking grid. The state of the system changes, making certain solutions impossible to find. Physicists try to avoid that, and tap the potential of the untapped, for example in the form of quantum computers. We’re doing the same when we innovate before verbalizing our ideas.
A: When does such “pushing reality into our grids” prevent innovation most?
B: Pushing reality into our grids hinders innovation especially when innovation cannot be derived by many little, conscious steps. Sometimes, “leaps” are required, when we don’t know exactly what happens subconsciously. In extreme cases, our subconscious mind needs to find the entire solution almost in one go. Mozart said that sometimes, the entire piece of music was in his head, finished, and the final act of writing it down felt like copying something. Such pieces of music could not have come about by a composer sitting at a piano, trying out a few keystrokes, noting down the ones that sound nice, then repeating it to continue the piece, and so on. It’s an entirely different process.
A: That would indeed need to happen in an individual. Any other weaknesses of groups?
B: Let’s take our discussion as an example. Do you think a group could have come up with it?
A: Probably it would not have, but for good reason. Our discussion went off the rails a few times. In teamwork, there are continuous checks to prevent that.
B: Yes, but those are exactly what obstruct radically new ideas. Please don’t misunderstand me—I’m not claiming that our discussion has any value. For simplicity, let’s assume it’s almost entirely worthless. However, what cannot be denied is that it came from a place that is apparently capable of producing ideas with a certain level of uniqueness. In the case of our discussion, it may have resulted in the unique excrements of an adult male cattle. But next time, it may lead to something valuable.
A: What do you mean?
B: Van Gogh’s marvelous paintings and his decision to cut off his ear came from the same place. It’s similar with Newton’s discoveries and paranoia, Tesla’s inventions and obsessive-compulsive behavior, Boltzmann’s achievements in statistical mechanics and deteriorated mental health, and Hemingway’s literature and schizophrenia. Those all point to underlying dynamics that couldn’t blossom in a group.
A: Ok, so you mean many ideas get filtered out due to soothing effects.
B: Yes, but we need the edges. Also, sometimes groups fail in the opposite direction by not filtering out enough. As mentioned earlier, an important part of the creative process is to filter out many bad ideas. In groups, social dynamics can make this difficult. You could still say, “That’s utter nonsense” to most ideas others suggest. In a way, this will indeed solve your problem of having to deal with complex social settings, but not in the way you intended.
A: You may have a point; I’ve seen bad ideas get carried further than justified because of such circumstances before. But still, what you’re saying sounds like groups are worthless in coming up with ideas. I don’t believe that.
B: I never said that. Of course, groups can contribute a lot. They can innovate well, especially if the path to progress is possible in single steps that can be expressed consciously. They can also provide inspiration. Additionally, groups are crucial in enabling the right environment, allowing individuals to blossom. The best innovators cannot achieve anything unless they are in the optimal environment. The final moment of epiphany, though, looks like it will occur in a single person’s mind.
A: What are the conclusions from this special role of the individual?
B: One is that we should recognize the importance of individuality, and cherish it. A wide diversity of minds, styles, and backgrounds maximizes the chances of hitting a winning combination. We should be glad that people are different, and celebrate those differences. Efforts to negate that reality, be it through equalization, leveling, or homogenization, go against creativity and progress.
(…)
To read the full chapter, get your copy now.
—
[1] The ratio may be even more extreme: Recent studies suggest that 95 percent of thought happens below the radar. See Young, E. (2018): “Lifting the lid on the unconscious” (New Scientist).
[2] This reminds me of the concept in good literature known as “doppelter Boden,” a German expression that literally translates to “double bottom.” It signifies that there’s much more beneath the surface, hinting at depth and layers of meaning that extend far beyond the words.
