# Everything I know about creativity is false  ## Episode metadata - Episode title: Everything I know about creativity is false - Show: Nudge - Owner / Host: Phill Agnew - Guests: [Adam Alter](https://share.snipd.com/person/0978a735-fc3b-4186-a847-3c9fd86ac53d) - Episode publish date: 2024-10-07 - Episode AI description: Adam Alter, a marketing professor at NYU Stern and author of works on creativity, dives into the surprising science of creative breakthroughs. He reveals that 90% of great ideas emerge from a specific method, challenging conventional wisdom. Alter discusses the power of diverse perspectives in problem-solving and how self-imposed limitations can spur creativity. He emphasizes the importance of deep work and accepting failure as crucial components of the creative process, equipping listeners with actionable insights to overcome their own creative blocks. - Mentioned books: [Anatomy of a Breakthrough](https://share.snipd.com/book/2463bb5c-f204-411d-b3cd-8f2becf89abf) by [Adam Alter](https://share.snipd.com/person/8daecdf2-f5b7-46d8-9970-ce6b73bffe15) - Duration: 31:02 - Episode URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/episode/80d33338-1fc4-453c-831f-bc33a4f9f428) - Show URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/show/368e312d-6ad3-475a-91a9-12d5e97283fb) - Export date: 2026-02-11T20:06:35 ## Snips ### [2min snip](https://share.snipd.com/snip/01453920-4403-4226-9607-1fa6057cd851) 🎧 03:24 - 04:45 (01:21) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/f3a315ca-7efc-453e-a1cc-09e576729a68" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> #### 📚 Transcript **Adam Alter:** There's no good manual for doing it, despite the fact that it happens all the time. So anatomy of a breakthrough is essentially an attempt to figure out how humans can get unstuck systematically using science. And it's an attempt to sort of provide a roadmap for people when they feel stuck, a process they can go through that's more systematic than just throwing things at the wall and hoping some of them stick. Before **Phil Agnew:** we discuss the scientifically proven ways to improve your creativity, Adam first wanted to explain what to do if you're stuck. If you are struggling with a problem and unable to find a solution, Adam says you must first do this. **Adam Alter:** I think one of the first things you can do when you're trying to get unstuck is to perform what I call a friction audit. And a friction audit essentially is designed to find points of friction, to figure out where the stuckness actually is. And so you can run this sort of process of interrogating yourself with respect to the domain where you feel stuck and just asking, where might the sticking points be. And there are a few ways to do this. One thing is to say, when I think about doing this task, what is the part that makes me feel either the most anxious or the least engaged, the most demotivated? And that's useful to know what that is because you can either weed that out or you can throw money at the problem. If you have some to throw at the problem, you could say that's the area where I'm going to outsource that. --- ### [Originality through Recombination](https://share.snipd.com/snip/9bcf8619-ee38-4d13-ae86-969e5dfa824f) 🎧 07:20 - 09:11 (01:51) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/2a146c17-b588-4d2e-bc71-c8986994f8b2" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Many creative individuals see creativity as either insightful or hard work. - However, true originality often stems from recombining existing ideas, as exemplified by Bob Dylan's music. #### 💬 Quote > What people see as originality is actually more aptly described as recombination. > — Adam Alter Adam Alter on the nature of creativity #### 📚 Transcript **Phil Agnew:** That audit can help us get unstuck. But to become more creative, we must first look at where comes from. When you speak to people in **Adam Alter:** creative industries, they have one of two basic theories about where creativity comes from. They either talk about this idea that creativity is about insight. Good ideas sometimes land on you from above. Some people are better at catching those ideas. They generate more good ideas. They're just known for being ideas people. Then there are other people who talk about a production lens where they say, actually, creativity is hard work. That the more ideas you have, the better they'll get, the better they'll be, the more fluent you'll become at this process of coming up with creative ideas. So you just have to work hard. And I think the second idea is nice because it means you don't have to have some special god-given talent but it's also true i think that's true that the variance within a human within a single human is much greater than the variance across people on my worst day i'm a two on creativity and in my best moments i'm a nine and so a lot of a lot of creativity is i think strategy and time and effort and diligence and so here's an example of that a number of musicians were asked in the early 2000s who was the the most creative and original and unique western musician of the 20th century and a lot of people pointed to bob dylan they talked about him as truly original there was no one quite like dylan his voice his approach to writing music his style And that came up consistently. But the truth is that Dylan wasn't original in a genuinely novel way. He had combined other artistic styles that came before. He had evolved those styles in ways that were interesting and obviously appealed to people. But even in his own telling, some of the songs that he was best known for, he had essentially not quite ripped off, but he had borrowed bits from other people, sometimes with attribution, but often not with attribution. You --- ### [Two Theories of Creativity](https://share.snipd.com/snip/1549e7e8-c0c1-4ab9-a3ea-c44c42a7a989) 🎧 07:28 - 08:58 (01:29) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/5b529758-af44-46ed-b684-7c9100e0ad02" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Two prevailing views on creativity exist: the 'insight' perspective and the 'production' perspective. - 'Insight' suggests creativity comes from sudden inspiration, while 'production' emphasizes hard work and generating many ideas. - Adam Alter highlights that personal creativity can vary greatly, implying that strategy and effort are more important than inherent talent. - He notes that even artists like Bob Dylan, known for originality, combine existing styles and borrow elements from others. #### 💬 Quote > When you speak to people in creative industries, they have one of two basic theories about where creativity comes from. They either talk about this idea that creativity is about insight [...] Then there are other people who talk about a production lens where they say, actually, creativity is hard work. > — Adam Alter Adam Alter describing two differing perspectives on the source of creativity #### 📚 Transcript **Phil Agnew:** When you speak to people in **Adam Alter:** creative industries, they have one of two basic theories about where creativity comes from. They either talk about this idea that creativity is about insight. Good ideas sometimes land on you from above. Some people are better at catching those ideas. They generate more good ideas. They're just known for being ideas people. Then there are other people who talk about a production lens where they say, actually, creativity is hard work. That the more ideas you have, the better they'll get, the better they'll be, the more fluent you'll become at this process of coming up with creative ideas. So you just have to work hard. And I think the second idea is nice because it means you don't have to have some special god-given talent but it's also true i think that's true that the variance within a human within a single human is much greater than the variance across people on my worst day i'm a two on creativity and in my best moments i'm a nine and so a lot of a lot of creativity is i think strategy and time and effort and diligence and so here's an example of that a number of musicians were asked in the early 2000s who was the the most creative and original and unique western musician of the 20th century and a lot of people pointed to bob dylan they talked about him as truly original there was no one quite like dylan his voice his approach to writing music his style And that came up consistently. But the truth is that Dylan wasn't original in a genuinely novel way. He had combined other artistic styles that came before. He had evolved --- ### [Dylan's Borrowing](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5cc4eca3-a05c-4961-be56-3450c035cf89) 🎧 09:11 - 10:14 (01:02) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/dfea10ec-70f8-4133-90f9-57729b7232d7" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Bob Dylan, often hailed as an original artist, borrowed elements from others, like Odetta's "No More Auction Block." - This highlights how creative work often builds upon existing art forms. #### 💬 Quote > we don't call this stealing or appropriation. We call it passing on the folk tradition. > — Odetta Odetta on Bob Dylan's use of her melody #### 📚 Transcript **Phil Agnew:** can hear this in Dylan's music. Here's one of his first big hits, Blowing in the Wind. How many roads must a man walk down Before you call him a man This track sounds an awful like another song, a song released two years earlier by a musician Dylan had reportedly fallen in love with. It's Odetta's No More Auction Block For Me. No more auction block there's the same melody, the same structure, and both Dylan and Odetta knew it. Odetta discussed it in a New York Times interview cited in Adam's book. She says, we don't call this stealing or appropriation. We call it passing on the folk tradition. What --- ### [Algorithmic Creativity](https://share.snipd.com/snip/6985ad59-f9de-4988-968e-180afce0bad8) 🎧 10:14 - 11:00 (00:46) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/6d947d64-d0e7-45ee-b60b-d2f753cc479f" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Collect good ideas consistently. - Combine them in new ways to generate original products or solutions. #### 💬 Quote > Take two old things and combine them in a new way and you have what seems like an original product. > — Adam Alter Adam Alter on a practical approach to creativity. #### 📚 Transcript **Adam Alter:** people see as originality is actually more aptly described as recombination. Take two old things and combine them in a new way and you have what seems like an original product. But the nice thing about that act of recombination is that it's algorithmic. If you collect good ideas for 20 years, I've been doing this in a document I have, it's now hundreds ideas long. You take any of those two ideas that have never been combined, think about how to combine them and you have what is essentially an original product and so i think this idea that you can take what seems ethereal and hard to pin down and make it algorithmic give it a process is liberating for people very encouraging and i think it means that as long as you tweak how you live your life and the way you record ideas you you can be creative too the best --- ### [Iridium's Failure](https://share.snipd.com/snip/29d6d2fc-33a0-4d05-b3af-53838ef6b04c) 🎧 11:00 - 11:58 (00:57) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/1ad269d4-f172-40f2-b4d9-ff236c19efb2" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Motorola's Iridium satellite phone, although technologically advanced, failed due to its high price driven by perfectionism. - Consumers preferred cheaper phones with minor imperfections, demonstrating that perfection can hinder success. #### 💬 Quote > Iridium failed because Motorola aimed for perfection above all else. > — Phil Agnew Phil Agnew on Motorola's pursuit of perfection #### 📚 Transcript **Phil Agnew:** creative ideas can come from combining original ideas. Rather than aiming for perfection, combining two mediocre ideas can actually be superior. It's the case with musicians and with organisations. As an example of this, in Adam's book, he writes about Motorola's 1990s satellite phone, Iridium. The promise behind Iridium was spectacular. It was a global phone network that offered perfect reception from anywhere on the planet. Even the most sophisticated smartphones today can't compete with Iridium's decades-old technology. It was perfect, but the perfection made the phones expensive. At $3,000, they were thousands of pounds more than the competitive phones at the time. And this perfection was a problem. Phone users didn't need perfect reception anywhere on the planet. They were happy with a small number of dropped calls if it meant the phone significantly cheaper. Ultimately, Iridium failed. --- ### [Motorola Iridium Satellite Phone](https://share.snipd.com/snip/1349f963-1f98-4ed7-a4d4-39048d60ef8c) 🎧 11:10 - 11:34 (00:23) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/f5d1b16a-57f9-44da-bbe1-8415a2d0a988" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Motorola's Iridium satellite phone from the 1990s offered perfect global reception, even better than today's smartphones. - However, this perfection came at a steep price of $3,000, significantly higher than other phones at the time. - This high cost made the phone impractical for most users, who were generally satisfied with less-than-perfect reception at a lower price. - The anecdote highlights that aiming for perfect, original ideas can sometimes be less effective than combining existing ideas. #### 💬 Quote > It was perfect, but the perfection made the phones expensive. At $3,000, they were thousands of pounds more than the competitive phones at the time. > — Phil Agnew Phil Agnew on Motorola's Iridium Satellite Phone. #### 📚 Transcript **Phil Agnew:** It's the case with musicians and with organisations. As an example of this, in Adam's book, he writes about Motorola's 1990s satellite phone, Iridium. The promise behind Iridium was spectacular. It was a global phone network that offered perfect reception from anywhere on the planet. Even the most sophisticated smartphones today can't compete with Iridium's decades-old technology. It --- ### [Pfizer's Pivot](https://share.snipd.com/snip/69a46e90-c40e-4ad5-8d87-f304c026d95e) 🎧 12:17 - 14:55 (02:37) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/becd2f12-e957-4ff5-b87a-22a939bfc37b" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Pfizer's Viagra, initially intended for angina, became a $40 billion success after a surprising side effect was observed during trials. - This demonstrates the power of pivoting and recognizing unexpected opportunities. #### 💬 Quote > this erectile dysfunction drug, which became Viagra and ended up earning $40 billion for Pfizer [...] this was something worth pursuing. > — Adam Alter Adam Alter on Pfizer's successful pivot #### 📚 Transcript **Phil Agnew:** Pivoting **Adam Alter:** is essentially failing well. We fail all the time we fail and by failure i mean not reaching a particular benchmark that's important to you in any domain failing well is where you you say to yourself which bits did i do best there where did i come closest so did anything work here was there anything that if i tried this again i would want to do again replicate so i think that's that's what pivoting is. It's saying about the bits that worked. Based on that, here's a small shift I could make. And there are a lot of famous examples. One of the famous examples in business is Pfizer in the 80s was looking for a particular drug for the heart condition angina. And they were working with a whole lot of welsh foresting workers lumberjacks and they had them in this big room and it was the last ditch attempt they tried multiple formulations for this drug it wasn't seeming to work the chemist who was in charge was interviewing them in this kind of focus group setting and they all reported that it didn't help their angina they still had the same kind of heart pain that they had before and it didn't feel like the drug was efficacious and this chemist david brown became a bit dejected you know he said this is just not working there's nothing that's working here but as they were packing up and leaving this room where they were all having this conversation one of one of the the workers reported that this drug, for whatever reason, every time he took the drug, he seemed to have a persistent erection. And he was confused about it. And he said, I don't know what the deal is with that. And all the other guys are listening to this. It's obviously a sort of catchy thing to hear someone say it. So it catches your attention. And they all said the same thing. They were all like, that's true for me as well. Now, Brown could have said, that's bizarre. That obviously not what we're looking for but what he said was he asked them is that is that a bad thing is that a good thing and some of them said well actually it's not a bad thing that's okay and so he he decided that this drug he wasn't looking for something that dealt with this particular issue but he figured out that this erectile dysfunction drug, which became Viagra and ended up earning $40 billion for Pfizer over the next 20 years, that this was something worth pursuing. And he managed to get funding for it. And it ended up becoming this incredibly brilliant business pivot from a chemist. He wasn't a businessman. But to see that, I think if David Brown had been replaced by 99 other chemists, they would have called that a failure and an embarrassing one. But he didn't see that. He said, well, what's the best thing that can come from this particular outcome? And the best thing is we make $40 billion over 20 years because this is also a problem that people care about. --- ### [Pfizer's Pivot](https://share.snipd.com/snip/0ae75721-2917-4911-b5bd-7eac6a761c00) 🎧 12:42 - 13:19 (00:36) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/ed540b12-64e0-4166-8667-5fd18512fd78" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - In the 1980s, Pfizer was developing a drug for angina. - During a focus group with Welsh lumberjacks, the drug showed no effect on angina. - However, one worker mentioned a peculiar side effect. #### 💬 Quote > One of the famous examples in business is Pfizer in the 80s [...] they had them in this big room and it was the last ditch attempt [...] the chemist [...] was interviewing them [...] and they all reported that it didn't help their angina [...] but as they were packing up [...] one of the workers reported that this drug, for whatever reason, every time he took... > — Adam Alter Adam Alter on Pfizer's accidental discovery of Viagra. #### 📚 Transcript **Adam Alter:** It's saying about the bits that worked. Based on that, here's a small shift I could make. And there are a lot of famous examples. One of the famous examples in business is Pfizer in the 80s was looking for a particular drug for the heart condition angina. And they were working with a whole lot of welsh foresting workers lumberjacks and they had them in this big room and it was the last ditch attempt they tried multiple formulations for this drug it wasn't seeming to work the chemist who was in charge was interviewing them in this kind of focus group setting and they all reported --- ### [Wrigley's Evolution](https://share.snipd.com/snip/56fbc8b2-70e1-4756-954d-aa71b94f2678) 🎧 15:08 - 16:34 (01:26) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/612947f8-4460-4f9a-9e98-3e5da1c63770" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - William Wrigley Jr. initially sold soap, then baking powder, before pivoting to chewing gum. - This exemplifies the importance of adapting to market demands and iterating on ideas. #### 💬 Quote > He was no longer selling soap or baking powder, but rather spearmint and juicy fruity chewing gum. > — Phil Agnew Phil Agnew summarizing Wrigley's pivots #### 📚 Transcript **Phil Agnew:** isn't just restricted to the pharmaceutical industry. A century before Pfizer's pivot, William Wrigley Jr. began selling soap. The soap business was incredibly competitive back then because soap was so easy to make. And with only $32 in his bank account, Wrigley didn't have the capital to advertise to get ahead. So to differentiate himself, Wrigley combined two ideas and made a small pivot. He included a small pack of baking powder with each soap bar that he sold. In Anatomy of a Breakthrough, Adam writes that baking powder was an intelligent choice. Baking became a popular pastime in the early 1900s. Soon, customers were asking more questions about the baking powder than the soap. And just like David Brown at Pfizer, Wrigley was sensitive to these cues. So the Wrigley Soap Company became the Wrigley Baking Powder Company. Wrigley continued to offer bonuses with each sale, later including two packs of chewing gum with each large package of baking powder. He included sticks of chewing gum which were licorice flavoured and then tutti frutti flavoured. Wrigley decided that the product's combination of novelty and cheapness would make it the perfect add-on, but the gum was soon more popular than the baking powder and Wrigley pivoted a second time. He was no longer selling soap or baking powder, but rather spearmint and juicy fruity chewing gum. Wrigley followed Dylan and Brown in combining two good ideas and pivoting. --- ### [Building a Brain Trust](https://share.snipd.com/snip/95ae2e8f-9eeb-4ba0-bc22-e7ef3c4eaeca) 🎧 18:12 - 21:50 (03:37) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/e996525f-67a4-4dc8-b9d6-61b8cabd042e" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Build a diverse "brain trust" for creative problem-solving. Include experts similar to you, individuals with different perspectives, and "black sheep" who challenge groupthink. - This mix fosters innovation and avoids stagnation. #### 💬 Quote > there are three kinds of people you want weighing in on complex problems [...] experts in the domain, non-redundant actors, and the black sheep. > — Adam Alter Adam Alter on the importance of diverse crowdsourcing #### 📚 Transcript **Phil Agnew:** But Adam has more. Next up, he told me how important it is to surround yourself with the right crowd. The idea **Adam Alter:** of the wisdom of crowds is not a new one. The idea that asking, assuming that we're all sort of making random errors in all sorts of different directions, those errors will cancel out if you ask enough people to weigh in on a problem. Now, often those are quantitative problems, like guess how many jelly beans are in the jar? Some people underestimate, some overestimate, and they cancel each other out. And actually, the crowd does pretty well. For more complex problems, though, the question starts to become, first of all, should I have a crowd involved? And if I do have a crowd, what should that crowd look like? Are there certain people I should try to bring into my brain trust, and certain people who are perhaps less useful? And that's what this research on diversity and crowdsourcing that I talk about is focused on. And the basic conclusion is that there are three kinds of people you want weighing in on complex problems. The first kind of person is sort of obvious that you want people who are experts in the domain and who are a little bit like you in important intellectual respects. Maybe you're all trained in the same domain. You're experts, you're specialists. You get along really well. You might be friends. You may have grown up together. It doesn't really matter what it is, but there's simpatico there intellectually and perhaps socially as well. That doesn't surprise anyone. It's good to have other people around that you like and that see things the way you do. The other two kinds of people are really important, though. One of them is non-redundant actors which is a way of saying people who are different from you and i see this a lot when when big good companies come to recruit at nyu they don't come to us and say we are a branding or marketing agency and we want to find the best 10 marketing students they come to us and they say who are the two best marketing students who are the two best finance students? Who are the two best filmmaking students? Who are the two best Russian literature students, the two best chemical engineers, and so on? And the reason for that is that everyone comes with a different tradition. It's the opposite of the first kind of group where you just assemble like-minded people. But if you bring these different traditions together and you can train people in the bits that are a little bit more technical, having those lenses is very valuable. It brings different perspectives in and often for problem solving and getting unstuck, you want difference. Difference is very valuable. And then the third kind is the black sheep. The best example of this is Pixar. The way they make their films is often they will bring a team together of people who are like-minded, maybe some people who are non-redundant, but then they'll bring in someone who is chosen to be the black sheep. And an example of this is you might have a whole lot of people who focus on animation, which was Pixar's early competitive advantage. They make hair look like hair and they make water look like water. And it's this great skill, but you're never going to make a great movie because you have really just good images. You need more than that. You need narrative. And so they'll bring someone in who basically thinks that animation is secondary. They're a black sheep. They can be polite about it, but they basically say, look, until you've got the narrative down, until you write the first five minutes of the movie up that moves everyone emotionally and intellectually, you don't have a film. No one's going to want to watch the film that's beautiful, but that isn't well-written. So if we're going to spend our budget, we've got to a lot more money on narrative and a lot less money on animation. The animation can be 90% as good as long as the narrative is there. And so you essentially end up having a team where you have lot of people who think the same way, who are experts, a few people who are non-redundant, who bring in a different flavor, a different perspective, and then some people who actively militate against the group think that might emerge the way this group is naturally constructed those black sheep and that --- ### [Building a Diverse Team](https://share.snipd.com/snip/c5e6dcab-55e4-4a1b-9712-cbe62adcf36f) 🎧 19:09 - 20:46 (01:36) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/af17a67b-0895-484b-a672-43a70de6775d" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Assemble a team with three types of members for complex problem-solving. - Include experts in the relevant domain who share similar intellectual perspectives. - Add individuals from diverse backgrounds with different traditions and expertise. - Finally, incorporate a 'black sheep' with a contrasting viewpoint to challenge assumptions and stimulate innovation. #### 💬 Quote > The basic conclusion is that there are three kinds of people you want weighing in on complex problems: [...] experts in the domain [...], non-redundant actors [...] [and] the black sheep. > — Adam Alter Adam Alter on the importance of assembling a diverse team for problem-solving. #### 📚 Transcript **Adam Alter:** The first kind of person is sort of obvious that you want people who are experts in the domain and who are a little bit like you in important intellectual respects. Maybe you're all trained in the same domain. You're experts, you're specialists. You get along really well. You might be friends. You may have grown up together. It doesn't really matter what it is, but there's simpatico there intellectually and perhaps socially as well. That doesn't surprise anyone. It's good to have other people around that you like and that see things the way you do. The other two kinds of people are really important, though. One of them is non-redundant actors which is a long of saying people who are different from you and i see this a lot when when big good companies come to recruit at nyu they don't come to us and say we are a branding or marketing agency and we want to find the best 10 marketing students they come to us and they say who are the two best marketing students who are the two best finance students? Who are the two best filmmaking students? Who are the two best Russian literature students, the two best chemical engineers, and so on? And the reason for that is that everyone comes with a different tradition. It's the opposite of the first kind of group where you just assemble like-minded people. But if you bring these different traditions together and you can train people in the bits that are a little bit more technical, having those lenses is very valuable. It brings different perspectives in and often for problem solving and getting unstuck, you want difference. Difference is very valuable. And then the third kind is the black sheep. The best example of this is Pixar. The way they make their films is often they will bring a team together of people who are like-minded, maybe some people who are non-redundant, but then they'll bring in someone who is chosen to --- ### [Three Types of People for Creative Teams](https://share.snipd.com/snip/72021c2f-0c65-44cf-9486-b967583eb65f) 🎧 20:31 - 22:05 (01:33) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/1bb9ce05-3759-465d-bec1-ba32ec280e6a" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - For complex problems, assemble three types of people. - First, experts in the domain who share similar intellectual approaches. - Second, "non-redundant actors" with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. - Third, "black sheep" who challenge the groupthink and offer contrarian viewpoints, like Pixar's focus on narrative over animation. - This mix helps avoid groupthink and fosters more creative solutions. #### 💬 Quote > And the basic conclusion is that there are three kinds of people you want weighing in on complex problems. > — Adam Alter Adam Alter on the importance of diverse teams for creativity. #### 📚 Transcript **Adam Alter:** And then the third kind is the black sheep. The best example of this is Pixar. The way they make their films is often they will bring a team together of people who are like-minded, maybe some people who are non-redundant, but then they'll bring in someone who is chosen to be the black sheep. And an example of this is you might have a whole lot of people who focus on animation, which was Pixar's early competitive advantage. They make hair look like hair and they make water look like water. And it's this great skill, but you're never going to make a great movie because you have really just good images. You need more than that. You need narrative. And so they'll bring someone in who basically thinks that animation is secondary. They're a black sheep. They can be polite about it, but they basically say, look, until you've got the narrative down, until you write the first five minutes of the movie up that moves everyone emotionally and intellectually, you don't have a film. No one's going to want to watch the film that's beautiful, but that isn't well-written. So if we're going to spend our budget, we've got to a lot more money on narrative and a lot less money on animation. The animation can be 90% as good as long as the narrative is there. And so you essentially end up having a team where you have lot of people who think the same way, who are experts, a few people who are non-redundant, who bring in a different flavor, a different perspective, and then some people who actively militate against the group think that might emerge the way this group is naturally constructed those black sheep and that **Phil Agnew:** is the brain trust you want something like that that mixture of those three surround yourself with three types of people experts like you non-redundant actors and black sheep most of us opt for just people in that first group, the experts --- ### [Limit Your Choices](https://share.snipd.com/snip/31d8adcb-e010-4744-b4ce-fe4f6781abe3) 🎧 22:17 - 25:11 (02:53) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/ba0d5db8-8698-4817-9e45-052f09dd5c9e" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Counterintuitively, limiting choices can boost creativity. - Constraints force focus and resourcefulness, leading to innovative solutions. #### 💬 Quote > Artificially constraining yourself is incredibly valuable as a general approach. > — Adam Alter Adam Alter on the benefits of self-imposed limitations. #### 📚 Transcript **Phil Agnew:** It's hard to do, but surprisingly effective. A bit like Adam's next tip. It's another hard, counterintuitive suggestion that Adam says is incredibly powerful. Adam says you should limit your choices. Here's why. Artificially **Adam Alter:** constraining yourself is incredibly valuable as a general approach. There are a few reasons for that. mean, the best example is I'm colorblind and I don't do it as much as I used to, but I used to paint. And for a very long time, I would spend all of my creative energy trying to figure out how to make the colors look the way they should. I read about a French artist, Pierre Soulage, who at various points in his career, he a very long career. He painted with colors like I did. And at one point he said, I don't want to be focusing on color and form and subject matter and all these things. I just want to become the very best at a particular thing. And what he did was he said, I'm going to abandon one of those elements and really pour all my energy into the thing that's most important. And right now I don't want to focus on color. And he became an artist who only worked with black everything he did was black that was liberating to me and it meant that I could spend more time and energy on on other aspects and so I started using charcoal and pastels that were only black white and gray and if you look at the form what I was actually producing the substance of it I became much better at the other parts of the art that weren't about color because I was no longer so preoccupied with this bit that was just this extra thing hanging on the side and taking up all those resources. And there's a lot to be learned from that, that people always think that when you're stuck, the worst thing you can do is get even more stuck by limiting yourself even more. But actually, there's some paradoxical relief in finding that you've forced yourself into a smaller corner. And so there's not as much for you to do. You don't have as many options. Your menu is restricted. And there are some really interesting examples of people who do a particular thing. I've always been colorblind, but there are artists that there's an artist, Phil Hansen, who developed a tremor, a neurological tremor. So his hand would shake, which was a problem because the kind of art he was doing was pointillism, where he was applying thousands of small dots to the canvas. And he noticed over time that those dots became much more kind of tadpole shaped. He could no longer do pointillist art. He had to find something new. And with that limitation, that he could no longer use his hands the way he wanted to, he developed all sorts of new techniques that he then applied elsewhere. He'd say things like, I'm going to do an artwork that costs no more than a dollar, or I'm going to do an artwork where the only material I use is cardboard or whatever. He would come up with all of these artificial methods. And they sound gimmicky, but he would report that he was creatively liberated by the constraints that he'd applied. And I think there's something to that when you feel stuck, that limiting yourself is paradoxically a relief. --- ### [Embrace Constraints for Creative Liberation](https://share.snipd.com/snip/128c3c36-d16e-4aba-9359-de9773100712) 🎧 23:50 - 25:12 (01:22) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/ccdcb17f-7a5c-42d5-8337-42638230a4c7" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - When feeling creatively stuck, consider limiting your options. - This counterintuitive approach can be liberating by forcing you into a smaller creative space. - By restricting your choices, you paradoxically free up mental resources to focus more deeply on the remaining elements. - Examples include a colorblind artist focusing on form after abandoning color and an artist with tremors developing new techniques due to physical limitations. #### 💬 Quote > When you're stuck, the worst thing you can do is get even more stuck by limiting yourself even more. But actually, there's some paradoxical relief in finding that you've forced yourself into a smaller corner. > — Adam Alter Adam Alter on the benefits of creative constraints. #### 📚 Transcript **Adam Alter:** And there's a lot to be learned from that, that people always think that when you're stuck, the worst thing you can do is get even more stuck by limiting yourself even more. But actually, there's some paradoxical relief in finding that you've forced yourself into a smaller corner. And so there's not as much for you to do. You don't have as many options. Your menu is restricted. And there are some really interesting examples of people who do a particular thing. I've always been colorblind, but there are artists that there's an artist, Phil Hansen, who developed a tremor, a neurological tremor. So his hand would shake, which was a problem because the kind of art he was doing was pointillism, where he was applying thousands of small dots to the canvas. And he noticed over time that those dots became much more kind of tadpole shaped. He could no longer do pointillist art. He had to find something new. And with that limitation, that he could no longer use his hands the way he wanted to, he developed all sorts of new techniques that he then applied elsewhere. He'd say things like, I'm going to do an artwork that costs no more than a dollar, or I'm going to do an artwork where the only material I use is cardboard or whatever. He would come up with all of these artificial methods. And they sound gimmicky, but he would report that he was creatively liberated by the constraints that he'd applied. And I think there's something to that when you feel stuck, that limiting yourself is paradoxically a relief. **Phil Agnew:** One well-known example --- ### [Pour Out the Bad](https://share.snipd.com/snip/02980089-03c6-46fb-a3b8-b0c13f4dd5fc) 🎧 26:03 - 28:43 (02:39) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/1c92e28d-0dc3-4b26-9eb2-ab84ae1886f8" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Overcome creative blocks by "pouring out the bad." - Spend 10-15 minutes creating without judgment, even if it's terrible, to get the creative juices flowing. #### 💬 Quote > he spends every day doing what he describes as pouring out the bad [...] writing music that's trite and boring and bad and not really criticizing it. > — Adam Alter Adam Alter explaining Jeff Tweedy's creative process #### 📚 Transcript **Phil Agnew:** These strategies, they will make you more creative, but maybe you can't be bothered. Maybe you don't want to do all of that. So I asked Adam, if he could only give one bit of advice to all of you to improve your creativity, what would it be? One **Adam Alter:** particular habit, one action-based approach that I find very useful, you know, getting unstuck, no matter how much you think about it and strategize, you ultimately have to act. Otherwise, you won't get unstuck. So the final chapter I titled Action Above All because that's really what matters more than anything. You know, we can, we can navel gaze and we can think about strategy, but we have to act. The problem with acting is that in many domains over time, we get tired, we lose motivation, we have good days, we have bad days. As I was writing the book, and I've written a few books now, I've experienced this where there will inevitably be days where you feel you should write a thousand words and you can write only 20 words or you can write no words at all. You unpick everything you've done. Jeff Tweedy the front man of the band Wilco he's he's a musical artist he writes books as well he's a bit of a renaissance man and he has been very articulate about his process over time and what he describes is that he he's very type a he wants good ideas to emerge. He only takes the very best of his ideas and turns them into actual songs or actual written material. But one thing that he does is in the morning when he wakes up, he gauges his level of intrinsic motivation. Sometimes it's high, sometimes it's low. But he spends every day doing what he describes as pouring out the bad. And pouring out the bad is essentially saying, you know, I'm sitting down at the computer, I want to write for the next four hours, I'm going to give myself 15 minutes to do that really badly. I'm going to lower my normally very stringent threshold down to the ground. And if you're writing music, that means writing music that's trite and boring and bad and not really criticizing it. And if you're writing a, you know, chapter of a book, it means just writing something that's patently bad that you would never hope anyone else would ever read. And that has two effects, that 10 to 15 minute period. One thing is you're actually doing. You're starting to get into the motions of doing that thing, which then paves the way for better versions of that later on. But the other thing that's really fascinating is by lowering his threshold, he says sometimes those ideas are so different from the ideas that come when you're being really strict that they turn out to be pretty good. They're a little bit liberated in certain ways that you wouldn't expect, or they diverge from what you normally do in certain respects that makes them interesting to you, and they end up becoming the kernel of good ideas that follow later on. --- ### [Pouring Out The Bad](https://share.snipd.com/snip/9863fc07-dd41-4530-88bc-a6eeb338c964) 🎧 27:33 - 29:49 (02:16) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/c2664b95-7088-4b6e-84b3-5df18f8ee5af" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - To overcome creative blocks, especially on low-motivation days, dedicate 10-15 minutes to intentionally creating 'bad' work. - This involves lowering your usual standards and producing something you wouldn't typically share. - This technique, practiced by Jeff Tweedy of Wilco, serves two purposes: it initiates the process of 'doing,' which can lead to better work later, and it can spark unexpectedly good ideas due to the freedom of lowered expectations. - This 'pouring out the bad' approach can pave the way for better, more liberated creative work. - 90% of good ideas come from active task engagement, so deep work on a specific challenge is essential for creative breakthroughs. #### 💬 Quote > I'm going to give myself 15 minutes to do that really badly. [...] if you're writing a [...] chapter of a book, it means just writing something that's patently bad that you would never hope anyone else would ever read. > — Adam Alter Adam Alter on overcoming writer's block by allowing yourself to do bad work. #### 📚 Transcript **Adam Alter:** Sometimes it's high, sometimes it's low. But he spends every day doing what he describes as pouring out the bad. And pouring out the bad is essentially saying, you know, I'm sitting down at the computer, I want to write for the next four hours, I'm going to give myself 15 minutes to do that really badly. I'm going to lower my normally very stringent threshold down to the ground. And if you're writing music, that means writing music that's trite and boring and bad and not really criticizing it. And if you're writing a, you know, chapter of a book, it means just writing something that's patently bad that you would never hope anyone else would ever read. And that has two effects, that 10 to 15 minute period. One thing is you're actually doing. You're starting to get into the motions of doing that thing, which then paves the way for better versions of that later on. But the other thing that's really fascinating is by lowering his threshold, he says sometimes those ideas are so different from the ideas that come when you're being really strict that they turn out to be pretty good. They're a little bit liberated in certain ways that you wouldn't expect, or they diverge from what you normally do in certain respects that makes them interesting to you, and they end up becoming the kernel of good ideas that follow later on. And so he's used this technique for decades and i now use it as well if my motivation is low i give myself the liberty to do a bad job for 10 minutes and then it turns out it's much easier after those 10 minutes to **Phil Agnew:** do a good job let's revisit that study i shared right at the start researchers asked hundreds of physicists and writers to document their best ideas for 14 days in a row. What was the result? Did the best ideas come from hard work or a wandering mind? Was it a 50-50 split between the two? No. Researchers Gable, Hopper and Schouler found that only 10% of good ideas came from mind-wandering. The other 90% of good ideas emerged from active task engagement. In other words, deep work on a specific challenge. If you want to write a better book, paint a better picture, design a better website, or deliver a better speech, your most significant gains will come from consistent hard work on that problem. It's this deep work that leads to creative breakthroughs. It doesn't have to be perfect, it could be pouring out the bad, --- ### [Deep Work Wins](https://share.snipd.com/snip/7652e36b-8910-4481-a16e-fad4ada54ab0) 🎧 28:55 - 29:41 (00:46) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/c7160802-0e93-4069-b3f9-fead4b68def0" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - A study revealed that 90% of good ideas come from active engagement, not mind-wandering. - Consistent hard work is more effective than waiting for inspiration. #### 💬 Quote > 90% of good ideas emerged from active task engagement. In other words, deep work on a specific challenge. > — Phil Agnew Phil Agnew discussing a study on creativity #### 📚 Transcript **Phil Agnew:** do a good job let's revisit that study i shared right at the start researchers asked hundreds of physicists and writers to document their best ideas for 14 days in a row. What was the result? Did the best ideas come from hard work or a wandering mind? Was it a 50-50 split between the two? No. Researchers Gable, Hopper and Schouler found that only 10% of good ideas came from mind-wandering. The other 90% of good ideas emerged from active task engagement. In other words, deep work on a specific challenge. If you want to write a better book, paint a better picture, design a better website, or deliver a better speech, your most significant gains will come from consistent hard work on that problem. --- Created with [Snipd](https://www.snipd.com) | Highlight & Take Notes from Podcasts