May 22, 2004
Where to Get a Good Idea: Steal It Outside Your Group
By Michael Erard
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/arts/22IDEA.html

Although not necessarily a fan of the language of expression of this article — I have a kinder view of people, a somehow more generous view of what we are collectively trying to do and I certainly don’t advocate theft — I do certainly "get" and can get behind the base of the ideas/information presented here.

The gist of the article — written by Michael Erard speaking of Ronald S. Burt’s view of creativity — is the following…

Got a good idea? Now think for a moment where you got it. A sudden spark of inspiration? A memory? A dream?

Most likely, says Ronald S. Burt, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, it came from someone else who hadn’t realized how to use it.

In the article, Mr. Burt’s phrase "structural holes" comes up often. The idea is that "people can find opportunities for creative thinking where there is no social structure" so "People who live in the intersection of social worlds are at higher risk of having good ideas.&quot

But, yes.

The discussion also turns around what sort of system or network is, then, optimum for creativity. The theory is that a mixture of enough “homogenous/closed” structure together with enough “different/open” connections is the “best”. This makes sense to me given that you need enough familiarity with the tools/means/resources/context to affect whatever idea is being brought in and enough difference to find new solutions/approaches to similar problems/circumstances.

I suppose that this web log entry is exactly an example of this at work. The article came to me courtesy of my friend. I grabbed onto it and wrote of it here. You will grab onto it (or not) and will bring it into your world (or not). So… my friend is filling a structural gap between his reading circle and mine. I am filling a structural gap between my friend’s world and this “world” of the blog. And you are then filling a structural gap between this “our” world and the one you come from/go to.

Yes. That is exactly what networks are about.

And I suppose the difference between the language of the article and mine is that I would have described the “structural gap” in terms of the “relationship” between two entities. I would have — and usually do — spend time describing the nature of the active part of establishing, sustaining and evolving the relationship. This article objectifies that.

And/but in my view, where women describe the “relationship between”, men describe the objects being “linked”. So making an object out of a “relationship between” is a step in the right direction. Until we collectively objectify “relationships” and develop a vocabulary for qualifying, quantifying, acting on/in this/these, we will continue to find ourselves falling into nebulous gaps that we are unsure what to do with.

And in our virtual world of cyberspace, isn’t this exactly what the web and web logs are providing and are solving? Yes. This — exactly this web of entities and links, this continual meeting place of bunches of different “societal structures” — is where there is lots of creativity to be found. And generated. And fostered. Now. And through this is a new cycle of invention — of concepts, of vocabulary, of ways of being — that I am convinced will move back into the societal structure that we call "reality".

So… "hats off" to our collective creativity and our continual jumping into exactly structural holes! May we do with them well.