Hm. I don’t see any “hold off on proposing solutions” methods. Though I guess prediction markets can be solution-agnostic.
Anyhow, that (plus background knowledge) makes me think there’s a lot of room for improvement here, but that discriminating between possible improvements is really hard.
“Hold off on proposing solutions” is an important technique because the Human brain is lazy, and once it thinks of one solution, it will not try to look for another.
I’d say that the interface between the “centrifugal phase” and the “centripetal phase” implicitly reduces the explicit need to protect ideation using “hold off on proposing solutions”—sure, you can present the solution you thought about in the “centrifugal phase” immediately, but the solution gets pushed into the meat grinder of whatever “centripetal phase” there is, as it must compete against other solutions. Ideally, none of the solutions presented at the start of the centripetal phase will be designated as the “best” solution (hopefully, given the anonymizing effects of Delphi and the self-consistency pushed on you by writing your ideas in the NGT (nominal group technique)).
Even in brainstorm sessions, “hold off on proposing solutions” is needed only if the initial idea(s) presented are given undue weight compared to later ideas. Delphi causes the initial ideas to be mixed with the others—ideally, your summarizer will be given the expert’s answer sheets in random order, and in the real-time online form that’s the reason why the group qualitative answer is randomized. Ideally in an NGT the facilitator will steer everyone away from overly discussing one idea at the expense of the rest—it is noted there with an IMPORTANT scare tag, after all. For prediction markets, you don’t discuss ideas anyway, so that is not even an issue.
Because the article about it specifically mentions that this is the failure mode to avoid:
Norman R. F. Maier noted that when a group faces a problem, the natural tendency of its members is to propose possible solutions as they begin to discuss the problem. Consequently, the group interaction focuses on the merits and problems of the proposed solutions, people become emotionally attached to the ones they have suggested, and superior solutions are not suggested. Maier enacted an edict to enhance group problem solving: “Do not propose solutions until the problem has been discussed as thoroughly as possible without suggesting any.”
So “hold off on proposing solutions” is just one possible solution. Deciding to take that solution immediately, without considering other options (such as NGT’s approach) is precisely falling into that same trap.
In short, hold off on proposing the solution of “hold off on proposing solutions”. v(^.^)v
edit:
Consider that under NGT, you are given 10 to 15 minutes to think of solutions before anyone gets to propose any solutions. That strikes me as longer than a typical “hold off”.
Somehow I think that “let’s follow best practices in our cognition” isn’t exactly a ‘proposed solution’ in the sense that one should be holding off from doing it.
shrug it’s best practice at a particular time and place, but is it the best practice at all times and places?
I’ll grant that the procedure “tell all participants: ‘hold off on proposing solutions’” is a good procedure in general, but is it the best procedure under all circumstances? How about enforcing the “hold off” part, rather than just saying it to participants? (cref. NGT’s silent idea generation).
Well, close. But as life is not always that cute, not quite :P
Consider that under NGT, you are given 10 to 15 minutes to think of solutions before anyone gets to propose any solutions. That strikes me as longer than a typical “hold off”.
I agree that this will definitely help with the social bits—I’m worried about the bits that are internal to a person, where people just have some common failure modes when trying to solve problems. To give a personal anecdote, say I give someone a polarizing filter, a light intensity sensor, and a piece of plastic and say “when this piece of plastic is at an angle, what happens to the light?” If they immediately start looking for solutions, rather than playing around, they will fail. 9 times out of ten. Kiss of death, no social stuff needed. The people who figure out the correct answer with any reasonable rate are the same people who explore things just to explore things.
I’m worried about the bits that are internal to a person, where people just have some common failure modes when trying to solve problems.
shrugs Well, seatbelts don’t stop accidents, but they do reduce the side effects of getting into one. While the disputation arenas do not directly prevent such internal failure modes, they help prevent that internal failure mode in a key influential person from spreading to the rest of the group. Yes, hold off on proposing solutions (don’t drink and drive). But also put some extra railing and padding so that others making a mistake do not necessarily get you into error either (seatbelts)
Hm. I don’t see any “hold off on proposing solutions” methods. Though I guess prediction markets can be solution-agnostic.
Anyhow, that (plus background knowledge) makes me think there’s a lot of room for improvement here, but that discriminating between possible improvements is really hard.
“Hold off on proposing solutions” is an important technique because the Human brain is lazy, and once it thinks of one solution, it will not try to look for another.
I’d say that the interface between the “centrifugal phase” and the “centripetal phase” implicitly reduces the explicit need to protect ideation using “hold off on proposing solutions”—sure, you can present the solution you thought about in the “centrifugal phase” immediately, but the solution gets pushed into the meat grinder of whatever “centripetal phase” there is, as it must compete against other solutions. Ideally, none of the solutions presented at the start of the centripetal phase will be designated as the “best” solution (hopefully, given the anonymizing effects of Delphi and the self-consistency pushed on you by writing your ideas in the NGT (nominal group technique)).
Even in brainstorm sessions, “hold off on proposing solutions” is needed only if the initial idea(s) presented are given undue weight compared to later ideas. Delphi causes the initial ideas to be mixed with the others—ideally, your summarizer will be given the expert’s answer sheets in random order, and in the real-time online form that’s the reason why the group qualitative answer is randomized. Ideally in an NGT the facilitator will steer everyone away from overly discussing one idea at the expense of the rest—it is noted there with an IMPORTANT scare tag, after all. For prediction markets, you don’t discuss ideas anyway, so that is not even an issue.
Hmm. Why do you think that? As the number of potential solutions increases, I feel like even proposing solutions gets harmful.
Because the article about it specifically mentions that this is the failure mode to avoid:
So “hold off on proposing solutions” is just one possible solution. Deciding to take that solution immediately, without considering other options (such as NGT’s approach) is precisely falling into that same trap.
In short, hold off on proposing the solution of “hold off on proposing solutions”.
v(^.^)vedit:
Consider that under NGT, you are given 10 to 15 minutes to think of solutions before anyone gets to propose any solutions. That strikes me as longer than a typical “hold off”.
Somehow I think that “let’s follow best practices in our cognition” isn’t exactly a ‘proposed solution’ in the sense that one should be holding off from doing it.
shrug it’s best practice at a particular time and place, but is it the best practice at all times and places?
I’ll grant that the procedure “tell all participants: ‘hold off on proposing solutions’” is a good procedure in general, but is it the best procedure under all circumstances? How about enforcing the “hold off” part, rather than just saying it to participants? (cref. NGT’s silent idea generation).
Well, close. But as life is not always that cute, not quite :P
I agree that this will definitely help with the social bits—I’m worried about the bits that are internal to a person, where people just have some common failure modes when trying to solve problems. To give a personal anecdote, say I give someone a polarizing filter, a light intensity sensor, and a piece of plastic and say “when this piece of plastic is at an angle, what happens to the light?” If they immediately start looking for solutions, rather than playing around, they will fail. 9 times out of ten. Kiss of death, no social stuff needed. The people who figure out the correct answer with any reasonable rate are the same people who explore things just to explore things.
shrugs Well, seatbelts don’t stop accidents, but they do reduce the side effects of getting into one. While the disputation arenas do not directly prevent such internal failure modes, they help prevent that internal failure mode in a key influential person from spreading to the rest of the group. Yes, hold off on proposing solutions (don’t drink and drive). But also put some extra railing and padding so that others making a mistake do not necessarily get you into error either (seatbelts)