Image from amazon.com

I’ve been wanting to write about this subject for awhile but it’s been a challenge to figure out exactly what I want to say about Jonah Lehrer – journalist, author of three books, public speaker and radio personality.  Lehrer’s a young guy (31, I believe) who has built quite a career for himself in media, leading to many comparisons to another celebrated writer, Malcolm Gladwell.  But first, here’s an overview of Lehrer’s situation:

Author Jonah Lehrer recently resigned from his new position with The New Yorker magazine after a series of disturbing revelations about his writing.  You can find details here, but in summary Lehrer’s offenses generally fall into three categories:

1. Self-plagiarism (more of an issue for Lehrer’s editor or publisher than you and I, he has reused some of his writings, almost literally word-for-word, in other paid assignments )
2. Questionable logic or conclusions (see Scott Berkun’s criticism of Lehrer’s criticism of brainstorming)
3. Quotation misuse (fabricating, improperly using or being unable to produce the actual sources of several Bob Dylan quotes in his book Imagine:  How Creativity Works)

None of these three categories are anything to be proud of.  It’s ironic in a way that Lehrer had such a prominent blogging presence and then got caught self-plagiarizing, consider how often many bloggers reuse old material, or at least link to it.

As far as the logic inherent in Lehrer’s writings and his conclusions, I can kind of excuse this because information can be subject to interpretation and, let’s face it, many of us who write are desperately trying to find some meaning in the information we’re trying to massage into a recognizable shape.  I haven’t read Imagine, so I can’t make a judgement about its conclusions.

BUT BUT BUT… quotation or anecdote fabrication, misuse and general trickery around what other people have said…  to me, this is dead wrong.  Lehrer was found to have misrepresented quotations to help make some of the points in his book Imagine, either by inaccurately attributing their meaning to the creative process or by splicing quotations from two separate conversations which didn’t necessarily go together.  In other cases, he cited certain quotations from sources that could not be independently verified.

Which is all to say that it looks like Lehrer used possibly false or unrelated quotations to try to bolster his arguments in his book.  And he didn’t admit to doing so until he was repeatedly questioned by a dedicated and knowledgeable Bob Dylan fan.

I suspect that a number of writers have engaged in these kinds of  shenanigans (can’t think of a better word at the moment) more often than we may think, leaving politics out of the equation.  They count on the fact that most people won’t bother checking source material.  I expected better from Jonah Lehrer – he’s an author that had interesting and thought provoking things to say.  I haven’t read Imagine and I don’t imagine (sorry) that I will because I don’t want to second guess everything I read in the book.

Quotations are powerful but they need to be treated with respect.  I know how tempting it is to see a quotation and attempt to use it to help make a point just because it sounds good or it makes for a good sound bite.  But all writers have to be better than that.  Arguments need to stand on a solid foundation of fact and logic or they are merely opinions.

It’s tempting to quote “common wisdom”, proverbs, and other sayings to help bolster an argument.  Sure, it can work, but for goodness sake get the context and meaning right!

The takeaway for me is an increased resolve to make sure I reference sources accurately and in the correct context and to avoid easy solutions.

As for Jonah Lehrer, he’s still a talented guy who made some serious mistakes.  I doubt he and his family will starve.  I just hope he does things better in the future.  But I won’t read his work the same way again.  Probably a good thing.

What do you think?  Is this too much hand-wringing over accurate quotations?  Or is misuse a problem that needs to be fixed?

Image by Robert___T @ Flickr

I was very recently reminded that I have a blog about introversion (although it’s been almost 4 years since I posted there..)

There’s been discussion over the years about whether or not introverted people are more creative than extraverts.  Susan Cain, in her new book Quiet, suggests that solitude may be important to the creative process, which would naturally appeal to introverts or shy people.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, author of the books Flow and Creativity, suggests that creative people exhibit the traits associated with both introversion and extraversion.

I don’t know who’s right – it may be a meaningless question.  But I came across this quote from Psychology Today which presents an interesting take on the subject:

…to oversimplify, introverts can generate new ideas, make plans, and help quietly, while extraverts can implement those plans, think quickly on their feet, and make use of their great energy.

I don’t think this definition is universally true by any means, but I think it helps to illustrate a common view of extraverts:  they seem to be the ones who have all of the energy and who can act and speak quickly.  Thinking on your feet – or being able to respond quickly to problems or questions – would seem to indicate intelligence, if not creativity.  By contrast, some introverts (like me) might not be good at being creative on demand, especially when we’re faced with subject matter or situations which we aren’t comfortable with.

By the introvert can be extremely creative and develop deep, comprehensive ideas.  They just might not be able to do it quickly.

Ultimately I think the Psychology Today quote captures the essence of Csikszentmihalyi’s concept:  delivering creative work requires multiple skills.  There is a time and place for quiet brilliance as well as a need for energy and hustle among other people to make things happen.

In a world of high-intensity information barrage, the late author David Foster Wallace once said something simple yet valuable.  I want to share this with you today.

I received 500,000 discrete bits of information today, of which maybe twenty-five are important. My job is to make some sense of it.

Like Wallace, we are all rained upon by a continuous deluge of data that comes from both the physical and digital worlds.  It can be overwhelming, but it’s also ridiculous considering that we sometimes feel creatively blocked, like we have nothing to say or that the words just won’t come out the right way.  We say that we have no inspiration, no ideas, and we can’t get motivated to get to work.  We go to bed at night dreaming of great things which we haven’t started yet because we’re missing… something.

Wallace’s perspective clarifies the problem.  There’s a lot of information in the world but how do you learn how to recognize the really good stuff?

Is there gold – or usable creative material – in anything and everything?  Often, there is.  However, sometimes the gold is hidden or in such tiny doses that it’s easy to miss.

Gold prospectors, in the days before machines and processes for extracting gold, would find a promising spot on a stream or river and then use a pan to scoop soil from it.  Then they’d dump the pan’s contents onto a screen or filter and try to find gold by separating the sand from the rocks… and hopefully find gold nuggets within.  Lacking the screen or filter, they’d just have to sort through the contents of the pan with their fingers and hope they found something valuable.

Generating ideas and creating content is like prospecting for gold, isn’t it?

There’s one key difference, one that makes a huge difference, between prospecting for gold and looking for good creative ideas and material.  When prospecting for gold, you’re looking for that one thing, fully formed with certain characteristics like shape, size, color, and heft.

When looking for ideas, you’re looking for the unexpected.  You’re trying to find new stuff, stuff you haven’t seen before.  You’re searching for patterns and collisions of ideas that combine in new and unique ways.  You have a vague sense of what you’d like to find, but you don’t really know what it will look like.

You might go panning for creative gold, but instead you might find the equivalent of silver, iron, or diamonds.  Or a chocolate bar wrapper and an empty peanut butter jar with a bullet hole through it.  Or two different characters for a novel.  Or an old rubber boot with a 300 hundred year old fish living inside of it.

How do we get better at finding information, out of half a million pieces per day, and combining it to good use?  Maybe we need to get better at looking for both the obvious and the hidden.  Perhaps we need to combine things together more often, especially those things that seem like paradoxes or things that would just never happen.  Who knows, maybe there are neighborhoods were everyone isn’t left handed?  Maybe there’s a common ritual in your area that would seem innovative and clever elsewhere.  Maybe you use Twitter with your toes or your nose?  Who knows?

Just think:  maybe you are missing twenty five pieces of brilliance per day just because you aren’t looking for them:  you’re trying to find something else instead.  Maybe you are finding idea diamonds in your mental pan and you are throwing them away without understanding what you are tossing out.

What can you do differently to find the treasures in front of your eyes?  Are you looking widely enough?

EDIT:  this post has been revised on December 14, 2011

Subscribe to Thoughtwrestling so you can read more great ideas about creativity, problem solving, and getting things done.

Image by egenerica

I really don’t have a whole lot to say about the co-founder of Apple Computers, who passed away on October 5 after a long battle with illness.  But here’s something.

Most people are aware the influence of Steve Jobs influence on personal computers and other consumer electronics (Apple), entertainment (Pixar) and, indirectly, Western culture.  I think I have the same view on Apple products and Jobs himself as Mike Brown does, although I’m daily tempted to switch from the PC world enough to at least try an iPad.

But it would be completely remiss of me not to acknowledge the fact that under Jobs both Pixar and Apple made some really amazing and enjoyable stuff.   Great movies, fun products and a growing economic, techonological ecosystem – those are his legacy.

It’s staggering to think of the massive number of people that used Apple products to express their creativity and make wonderful things.  And how many animators, artists, and other technical professions were inspired by Pixar’s works?  And how many people have collectively enjoyed all of that?

Plus I really love my iPod.

In a parallel universe without a Steve Jobs this all might have happened, too.  But we’ll never know.

A sick man died yesterday,  probably one of thousands who also died of disease.  But at least he knew that he’d made an impact on the world and enabled a lot of great stuff.

So, rest in peace Steve Jobs.  Condolences to your family and friends.  May we all take your advice to “think different” and “ship” on our way towards our own creative achievements.

And let’s all take a moment to realize that while a particularly bright candle was extinguished yesterday, many more are still burning and still more great ones are waiting to be lit, too. The end isn’t here for the rest of us.  It’s not even the end of the beginning.  So let’s keep going.

Image via Ballistik Coffee Boy at Flickr

This is a great little video that will take less than two minutes to watch.  Check it out! Click on the link below if you don’t see the video…

29 WAYS TO STAY CREATIVE from TO-FU on Vimeo.

Thanks to Neatorama and Design.org for finding this gem!