Because it's a lot faster.
To use my Complexity piece as an example, the 'smell' of the idea was to notice that people who were infected by the CAS idea-virus seem to all have a similar approach when thinking about complex domains.
Noticing this similarity was the key insight.
Conversation
I could've written it down in a note.
But when the idea is a seedling, sometimes you shouldn't crystallise it because you're not sure what you're noticing. You just want to sit with it, in your head, and notice how the shape of the idea itself changes as you investigate.
1
1
16
Eventually two things — a meeting with two years ago where he argued against predicting the future, and a paper on Complexity investing (nzscapital.com/news/complexity), crystallised the shape of the idea in my head.
It was like pulling the cloud down and firming it up.
1
10
The organising principle was that all the similarity between these thinkers that I had been noticing (for about a year!) was that they were acting without prediction. They observed the nature of the complex system and reacted to it.
This finally allowed me to write the piece.
1
8
My point: good, deep synthesis is more like this than not. You sit with an amorphous cloud of an idea in your head, and wait until you can find an organising principle to give structure to the cloud.
'Connecting ideas' or 'connecting notes' misses the point.
2
2
9
The limiting factor is getting better at 'sitting with the cloud', 'noticing interesting threads in your inputs', and 'developing taste for good organising principles'.
You think better by learning to think better, not by making better notes as a substitute for thinking.
6
1
28
Replying to
Totally, I find that tools mostly augment the induction part of synthesis (logging external facts, “inspiration”), and the later deduction part (once you have a structure, investigate how existing knowledge fits, try to interrogate it, and investigate its implications)
1
1
The model-making part where you work with a limited set of data & make the mental leap definitely happens away from the tool.
But the tool’s ability to capture and recall inspiration at a whim can help surface material for connection where you would otherwise forget them.
2
2
Hmm. I agree with most of what you’re saying (and I think the way you put it — re: splitting this to deduction/induction) but I want to push back on this last bit a bit.
I know it’s a common narrative that a tool can resurface inspiration — but is this really important?
2
I guess where I’m coming from is this: I do a decent job at synthesis, and I am friends with folk who are good synthesisers. And none of us find that resurfacing for connection is a bottleneck for our process.
The real difficulty is in the theory crafting/model creation.
1
1
And so I worry that this narrative of ‘oh you can connect your thoughts to resurface / generate new insight’ is a neat story that isn’t built on a actual cognitive task analysis of good synthesisers.
It is, instead, built on a toolmaker’s assumptions about synthesis.
I don’t believe my own argument as well, btw, because it might be a limitation of the tools I (and others like me) use, so I intend to investigate this claim more thoroughly.
But it certainly doesn’t match what comes out of a CTA of our process.
1
Replying to
Who are you speaking to who are doing this synthesis work? In what domains?
My experience comes from graphic design, product design, UX research.
2
Show replies