• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

The Ecology of Thought: Steven Johnson’s Where Good Ideas Come From

October 15, 2010, 8:00 am

Steven Johnson

I bring outstanding news to absent-minded academics everywhere: According to Steven Johnson, recent neuroscience suggests that “the more disorganized your brain is, the smarter you are.” Although the mechanism is not well-understood, Johnson suggests that this disorganization, moments when clusters of neurons seem utterly out of sync, allows the brain to seek out new organizational patterns–literally to make new connections.

Steven Johnson’s new book, Where Good Ideas Come From will interest ProfHacker readers across at least three different axes: how to fruitfully pursue longterm research; how to foster collaboration, whether among colleagues or among students; and, most surprisingly, its lucid defense of universities as a public good, a critical repository of research and development–and one made more necessary, not obsolete, by the explosive growth of the Internet.

Where Good Ideas Come From attempts to describe the features of an idea-rich ecology, the sort of environment where innovation comes almost naturally. It also looks to demystify creativity, shifting focus away from the solitary genius toward the interactions among people, networks, and other forces that allow innovation to happen.

The term ecology is not idly chosen, nor is the reference to “natural history” in the book’s subtitle. Johnson borrows liberally from evolutionary biology, noticing how the ingenuity of evolution can help explain how creativity works. A good example is exaptation, which is the way particular structures or traits can be repurposed by selective pressures into altogether new functions. Or, as William Gibson once out it, “the street finds it’s own uses for things.” Another example is the idea, borrowed from Stuart Kauffman, of the “adjacent possible,” which reminds us that at any given time only certain ideas are possible, and they can only be discovered in particular ways. At the same time, some discoveries become almost inevitable, given the right technological, economic, or political developments.

Johnson devotes three chapters to serendipity, error, and “slow hunches,” each of which can be a source of creativity and which, according to Johnson, can be harnessed by individual researchers. Countering the usual curmudgeonly complaint that the Web kills serendipity, Johnson argues that the ubiquity of mobile computing makes new forms of serendipity possible: “If the commonplace book tradition tells us that the best way to nurture hunches is to write everything down, the serendipity engine of the Web suggests a parallel directive: look everything up.”

Johnson also explains how the best ideas are a bit like LEGO bricks, in that they come ready-made for new connections that can’t yet be anticipated. His great example here is the Application Programming Interface, or API. (See Julie’s API series: part one, two, three, and four.) Johnson attributes the success of Twitter, for example, to the fact that it was an API even before it was a real service, and the proliferation of Twitter apps and 3rd-party add ons has made the service a vital source of connection and exchange.

Johnson’s most important claim is that we consistently overvalue the idea of the lone inventor, or of proprietary research, in thinking about creativity. Many ideas are discovered at more or less the same time by different people (calculus, natural selection, etc.), and some of he most important ideas emerge almost without an inventor (double-entry accounting.)

The research university, Johnson suggests, plays an important role in facilitating, even driving innovation today. By bringing together teams of researchers, and by making their research as publicly available as possible, universities allow more and more ideas to come into fruition. (This also suggests the moral imperative behind open-access scholarship, in that the rapid, free exchange of information is the key to creativity.) the tenure system in universities also facilitates the playing out of slow hunches.

Thanks to the information networks of the Internet, even academics at non-research schools are better able to contribute to the flow of ideas than in previous generations. This is the real payoff of academic blogging and Twitter networks: a professor at a smallish school, without teams of graduate students or colleagues engaged in similar work, can nonetheless exchange ideas and problems with researchers worldwide. And it helps explain why posts such as this one are so wide of the mark: As Johnson says, “Good ideas may not want to be free, but they do want to connect, fuse, recombine. They want to reinvent themselves by crossing conceptual borders. They want to complete each other as much as to compete.”

So often these days you hear technopundits and futurists proclaiming the death of the university, often with a little too much glee. The author of Everything Bad Is Good For You, Johnson certainly has technopundit credentials, and he calls us to remember the most important functions of universities: to open up ideas and make them accessible. An important implication of this argument is that it’s important to preserve the aspects of universities that make idea-generation possible. Rather than armies of contingent wage-slaves flitting from campus to campus to teach their classes, universities need faculty who have the time and the resources to do sustained research projects. It is depressing to think how often in recent years universities have turned their back on both openness (by pursuing patent arrangements and spinning off startups) and a broad-based commitment to vital research (by shifting resources to a few stars and employing more and more contingent faculty).

On the one hand, longtime readers of Johnson will recognize parts of this book–he’s been writing about cities and brains and the emergent properties of networks for a *very* long time now, and his piece about how he uses DevonThink is also widely known. On the other hand, this is also Johnson’s best-written book, and it’s an argument that this connection-making thinker was seemingly born to pursue.

Full of stories of innovation from across the disciplines, but with recurring themes from biology, cities, the arts, and the web, Where Good Ideas Come From is an unmissable book for anyone who cares about creativity, innovation, networks, or higher education.

Image by Flickr user Meet the Media Guru / Creative Commons licensed

This entry was posted in Reviews and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment (4)

4 Responses to The Ecology of Thought: Steven Johnson’s Where Good Ideas Come From

lee77 - October 18, 2010 at 9:37 am

The lead paragraph reminded me of a sign I saw in in a messy person’s office: “a clean desk is a sign of an empty mind.”

allenratkins - October 18, 2010 at 4:05 pm

Linus Pauling once said, “The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas.” seems to be supportive of this thesis. A particular process that I used once was to give a subscription to a magazine to my team on a subject totally out of their professional field. Each month we set aside part of Staff Meeting for each person to provide an example of something in the magazine that provided a new idea or an “ah-ha”. After a year of this, the team were subscribing to more than one magazine just to find those ideas in places not normally considered. A DARPA Program Manager once said that the more we exposed the brain to new stuff (technical term), the more idea space we had. If we only knew two things, the idea space was four. If we knew four things, the idea space was sixteen, etc. His message aligned with Pauling. Look at Einstein a patent examiner for several years, getting exposed to new ideas everyday. Did it help him?

haroldfs - May 26, 2012 at 10:26 am

I was chair of a department of  languages and literatures at a respected west-coast instituion, and I could have used some training, too.  What I dreaded in advance was having to deal with budgets, but it turned out that I had no power to control the budget, so that wasn’t the problem.  What I wasn’t prepared for was personnel issues, such as having to try to get a tenured professor to retire, and dealing with interpersonal rivalries between members of various areal sections of the department.  Things like backstabbing, poison-pen letters and the like that I had no control over, which undermined morale and made people look foolish.  After 5 years I was ready for a change.

awegweiser - May 27, 2012 at 11:59 am

Some considerable time ago I spent 5 years as chair of a department. Those times were relatively tranquil and things mostly went quite smoothly. Administrators were civilized and intelligent (mostly) and funds flowed adequately from a State not yet governed by cretins and dolts. Subsequently I wanted to go full time back to the classroom and let someone else deal with running things. Others then took the chair and it went rather well for a substantial time until one really nasty, unpleasant and vindictive person took charge and the backstabbing, etc, as mentioned above, started. Finally and thankfully he too left the stage for good. As emeritus I sit back now and look back at things as they were, as they became and now I will attempt to find out how they are now.

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037