You need your mind to have at least barely enough correctness-structure/Lawfulness to make your ideas semi-correct, or at least easy to correct them later.
Then you want to increase originality within that space.
And if you need more original ideas, you go outside that space (e.g. by assuming your premises are false, or by taking drugs; yes, these are the same class of thing), and then clawing those ideas back into the Lawfulness zone.
Reading things like this, and seeing how long it took them to remember “Babble vs Prune”, makes me wonder if people just forgot the existence of the “create, then edit” pattern. So people end up rounding off to “Youdon’t need to edit or learn more, because all of my creative ideas are also semi-correct in the first place”. Or “You can’t create good-in-hindsight ideas without editing tools X Y Z in your toolbelt”.
Agreed. I think of it as:
You need your mind to have at least barely enough correctness-structure/Lawfulness to make your ideas semi-correct, or at least easy to correct them later.
Then you want to increase originality within that space.
And if you need more original ideas, you go outside that space (e.g. by assuming your premises are false, or by taking drugs; yes, these are the same class of thing), and then clawing those ideas back into the Lawfulness zone.
Reading things like this, and seeing how long it took them to remember “Babble vs Prune”, makes me wonder if people just forgot the existence of the “create, then edit” pattern. So people end up rounding off to “You don’t need to edit or learn more, because all of my creative ideas are also semi-correct in the first place”. Or “You can’t create good-in-hindsight ideas without editing tools X Y Z in your toolbelt”.
The answer is probably closer to one of these than the other, and yadda yadda social engineering something something community beliefs, but man do people talk like they believe these trivially-false extreme cases.