I suggest we are not dealing only with creativity here. What passes
for new ideas or creative thinking is more often nonsense or insane
rambling. We are shocked by the rejection only when the idea is later
found to be correct or is applied in a useful way. Most ideas that
might be called creative do not reach this level because they are
based on nonsense.
The challenge is separating the nonsense from what is real early in
the process of evaluation. Some ideas get accepted early. Take the
computer for example. This was introduced into society very rapidly.
Of course a few people and businesses ignored the idea, but many other
people accepted the idea because it worked. Gates became a success
very quickly. The creative ideas introduced by Apple are accepted
without any rejection because they are obvious to the most
uneducated. In fact, the ability to understand and accept new ideas
is related to education. An uneducated society or person will
naturally reject complex ideas more often than an educated person.
In the case of CF and many other discoveries, the rejection is based
on a threat to self interests, which has no relationship to creativity.
Nevertheless, I find the basic ability to accept new ideas is built
into the individual mind. Some people have this ability and most do
not, regardless of education. The ability simply comes with the
package, like ability to speak new languages easily or musical
ability. These abilities can be enhanced but they can not be created
if they are not present initially. I suggest this is also true of
creativity and the ability to accept new ideas.
On Oct 17, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
about human fear of change this join this study
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/111212_creativity.htm
I think that sucess of failure of acceptance of something like LENR,
is partially determined, but hugely chaotic... few details could
have make LENR a success.
2013/10/17 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>
Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote:
Initially, the idea was not rejected by many people who later found
reasons to reject.
Some of them were standing by, nursing a grudge, waiting to speak
out in public. Especially the MIT plasma fusion group. That's what
Gene Mallove said. They hated it from the moment they heard about
it, and they began scheming to discredit it. They succeeded!
This happened with other discoveries such as the laser.
When it worked on occasion, I found these successes were generally
ignored. They were ignored locally at the laboratories where the
studies were made and later by the DOE panel.
This often happens. There are countless examples in history.
I can suggest three main reasons were used by normally rational,
honest, and educated men to modify what they believed.
1. The claim conflicted with known and expected behavior based on
hot fusion. People assumed CF and HF were the same phenomenon. Some
people still have this belief. . . .
I agree with these three main reasons. I would add a fourth reason:
human nature. Most people reject most novel ideas out of instinct.
People fear novelty. They fear the unknown; that is, unknown places,
sights, smells and other stimuli. This is instinct. It is a product
of evolution. There is a countervailing instinct explore the
unknown. The two instincts are at war with one another. Some people
are more inclined to fear, other to explore. You can observe the
same push-pull fear and attraction in other species. In the 1970s in
Japan I took part in studies in which we measured these effects in
guppies, and in Japanese ground squirrels.
This was masterfully described by Francis Bacon:
"The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid
down, (either from general admission and belief, or from the
pleasure it affords,) forces every thing else to add fresh support
and confirmation; and although more cogent and abundant instances
may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe or despises
them, or gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with
violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority
of its first conclusions."
- Novum Organum, 1620
And by William Trotter:
"If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have
begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely
stated."
- Jed
