Where do new ideas come from?

Is analogy is the key to how we think? Hofstadter thinks so. He proposes that “every concept we have is essentially nothing but a tightly packaged bundle of analogies,” and combines cognitive science with semantic analysis to prove it. Here’s how it works: Abstractions capture the “essence” of an idea in our mind. Those essences are concepts which serve as containers and allow us to think at multiple scales. As an example, “airline” contains planes, hubs, and terminals. The way we connect these webs grows our intellect.

The “primal mark” describes that first moment that an idea is created, similar in likeness to the first brushstroke of paint on a canvas. This study explores how choosing how we start an ideation activity really matters and frames ideas on a spectrum of familiar to totally new. Creating a “primal mark” that is intentionally new and combining it with familiar content forms the most promising combination of novelty and usefulness.

This classic two-year study provided creativity training to 150 students (with another 150 as a control group). The research approach separated students into class sections to receive four 15-week semesters of creative study courses. These courses provided semantic and behavioral tests which showed improvement in divergent thinking and problem solving skills. The findings suggest that creativity can be improved through training.

Using observations and interviews, researchers studied 400 executives and entrepreneurs. The findings suggest that successful, innovative entrepreneurs differ from unsuccessful entrepreneurs based on their practice of four behaviors: questioning, observing, experimenting, and sharing ideas. Examples of interviews include Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Mark Benioff (Salesforce), and Diane Green (VMWare).

What’s behind an “aha” moment? This paper explores the nuances of insight, especially in light of recent scientific research that explores this question. The authors explore interpretations of insight across disciplines ranging from neuroscience and cognitive psychology, with a section on the relationship between mood, attention, and focus. Generally, positive mood broadens our potential intake of information, while also allowing us to activate the parts of our brain responsible for keeping our attention on the task at hand.

Beginning with Darwin, Johnson debunks individual “eureka moments,” focusing more so on collaboration and context over time. He argues that the conference table at a lab—rather than the lab itself—drives innovation. The discussion among scientists, in combination with their work, is what makes new ideas possible. Johnson reviews almost 200 ideas and analyzes their origins, creating a framework based on individual vs. network and market vs. nonmarket. He suggests that increasingly networks will be a richer source of idea flow and origin.