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)
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)