I consistently challenge the "obviously", which stands as a cornerstone of creativity. Many times, this approach proves effective because individuals often unquestioningly defer to authorities, disregarding necessary prerequisites for relevance, and being laden with biases.
New radiotracer for epilepsy diagnostic and my PhD in radiochemitry was born, when my supervisor said "this chemical reaction is impossible" - but I've just tried and "contrary organic chemistry theories" it worked.
I love it! Would it be wrong to say that it relates the the Laughter thinkie? Personal example:
Long time ago I was an engineer in an R&D Dev tools organization. Some people on this team were interested in deploying ability to use a probabilistic programming language (PPL) in production. To them, it was “obvious” that they needed to modify the HHVM language and runtime to support new primitives before anyone could try it. That sounded like a complex surgery on core company infrastructure just to see if people would use it. So, instead I proposed and implemented (in about 2 weeks) a much simpler and a lot less elegant solution by enabling an open source PPL through embedded strings + glue code + external to HHVM service. This allowed a few other teams to try the functionality of a PPL at much lower cost.
There's something interesting in there about deferring social acceptance that enables this Thinkie. You have to not care about fitting in with the tribe, or actively seek to not fit in, to execute Obviously ideas.
Yes, and I think that "Obviously" implies some kind of "Because": "obviously we have to do it this way (because the other way is totally unacceptable)". In that sense, this is similar to Because/Can't Thinkie, it is just that the because part is SO obvious that we don't even want to name it.
For the above example, doing anything other than adding a first class language primitives would obviously be unacceptable because (1) it would look ugly, (2) we'd lose ability to do strong typing, (3) there is higher execution overhead, (4) it is close to impossible to do complier/runtime optimizations, etc
I consistently challenge the "obviously", which stands as a cornerstone of creativity. Many times, this approach proves effective because individuals often unquestioningly defer to authorities, disregarding necessary prerequisites for relevance, and being laden with biases.
New radiotracer for epilepsy diagnostic and my PhD in radiochemitry was born, when my supervisor said "this chemical reaction is impossible" - but I've just tried and "contrary organic chemistry theories" it worked.
Not often, but when it does…
I love it! Would it be wrong to say that it relates the the Laughter thinkie? Personal example:
Long time ago I was an engineer in an R&D Dev tools organization. Some people on this team were interested in deploying ability to use a probabilistic programming language (PPL) in production. To them, it was “obvious” that they needed to modify the HHVM language and runtime to support new primitives before anyone could try it. That sounded like a complex surgery on core company infrastructure just to see if people would use it. So, instead I proposed and implemented (in about 2 weeks) a much simpler and a lot less elegant solution by enabling an open source PPL through embedded strings + glue code + external to HHVM service. This allowed a few other teams to try the functionality of a PPL at much lower cost.
There's something interesting in there about deferring social acceptance that enables this Thinkie. You have to not care about fitting in with the tribe, or actively seek to not fit in, to execute Obviously ideas.
Yes, and I think that "Obviously" implies some kind of "Because": "obviously we have to do it this way (because the other way is totally unacceptable)". In that sense, this is similar to Because/Can't Thinkie, it is just that the because part is SO obvious that we don't even want to name it.
For the above example, doing anything other than adding a first class language primitives would obviously be unacceptable because (1) it would look ugly, (2) we'd lose ability to do strong typing, (3) there is higher execution overhead, (4) it is close to impossible to do complier/runtime optimizations, etc