HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016002.jpg
1.32 MB
Extraction Summary
0
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Book excerpt / evidence document
File Size:
1.32 MB
Summary
This document appears to be page 312 from a book, specifically a chapter titled 'Are the Androids Dreaming Yet?'. The text discusses the philosophical concepts of creativity versus process, using the evolution of the Volkswagen Polo car as a case study for innovation. The page bears a Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016002', indicating it was collected as part of a US House Oversight Committee investigation, likely as evidence found in a subject's possession.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Volkswagen |
Used as an example of product evolution (Polo model).
|
|
| NCAP |
Mentioned regarding 5-star crash resistance rating.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016002'.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"These stock statements misunderstand the infinitely complex nature of creativity and problem solving."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016002.jpg
Quote #1
"The doctrine of tradeoffs says I would have to give up something to gain these new features. But, I have not."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016002.jpg
Quote #2
"Creativity is unconstrained by linear rules and tradeoffs."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016002.jpg
Quote #3
"Process is a perfect tool for organizing the steps around being creative, but it won’t do the creating for you."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016002.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,051 characters)
312 Are the Androids Dreaming Yet?
How often do you hear the phrase, “It’s down to tradeoffs,” or “It’s a matter of priorities”, or even “You can’t have your cake and eat it.”
These stock statements misunderstand the infinitely complex nature of creativity and problem solving. Let us take a concrete example: the car.
My first car was a Volkswagen Polo. It was a great little car, quite nippy, cassette-radio, and four seats. The most recent Polo has antilock brakes, airbags, NCAP 5-star crash resistance, smarter styling, and a low emission engine. Shall I go on…? The doctrine of tradeoffs says I would have to give up something to gain these new features. But, I have not. The newer Polo is cheaper in real terms than my original, as well as being better designed.
Problems always have at least two dimensions of freedom. We can trade one feature for another or we can innovate to both have our cake and eat it! We are never constrained to simple on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand type decisions. Creativity is unconstrained by linear rules and tradeoffs.
These stock statements misunderstand the infinitely complex nature of creativity and problem solving. Let us take a concrete example: the car.
My first car was a Volkswagen Polo. It was a great little car, quite nippy, cassette-radio, and four seats. The most recent Polo has antilock brakes, airbags, NCAP 5-star crash resistance, smarter styling, and a low emission engine. Shall I go on…? The doctrine of tradeoffs says I would have to give up something to gain these new features. But, I have not. The newer Polo is cheaper in real terms than my original, as well as being better designed.
Problems always have at least two dimensions of freedom. We can trade one feature for another or we can innovate to both have our cake and eat it! We are never constrained to simple on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand type decisions. Creativity is unconstrained by linear rules and tradeoffs.
Process versus Creativity
How many times have you heard the words, “We must create a process for this!”
In its place, process is good; It makes things consistent, repeatable and predictable. You can follow a process by rote without error. Processes are also easy to document and communicate because they are symbolic. But process is limited. It is, after all, a set of prescribed rules for solving a particular problem – and, because of this, it falls into the same trap.
A process cannot solve a problem that requires creative thought or logic more complex than the logic limit. Logical processes are useful for tracking lists. I am reassured when I get on an airplane and know the pilot has been through a preflight checklist. I would not want to fly in an airplane where the pilot announced he was taking a creative approach to the preflight check.
Process is a perfect tool for organizing the steps around being creative, but it won’t do the creating for you.
How many times have you heard the words, “We must create a process for this!”
In its place, process is good; It makes things consistent, repeatable and predictable. You can follow a process by rote without error. Processes are also easy to document and communicate because they are symbolic. But process is limited. It is, after all, a set of prescribed rules for solving a particular problem – and, because of this, it falls into the same trap.
A process cannot solve a problem that requires creative thought or logic more complex than the logic limit. Logical processes are useful for tracking lists. I am reassured when I get on an airplane and know the pilot has been through a preflight checklist. I would not want to fly in an airplane where the pilot announced he was taking a creative approach to the preflight check.
Process is a perfect tool for organizing the steps around being creative, but it won’t do the creating for you.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016002
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document