Hypnagogic creativity, or why your best ideas hit when you’re falling alseep

Every now and then, I find a book that I want everyone I know to read. The last time this happened, I bought a half-dozen or so copies of Michael Pollan’s eminently readable “Food Rules” and gave one each to friends and family.

This time round, it’s Anne Miller’s “How to get your ideas adopted (and change the world)“, which I’ve bought now for a few people and recommended to several more.

A tweet by Danielle Baiz – a Miami-born, Trinidad-based, copywriter – prompted me to go back to one of my favourite sections of Miller’s book, on “accessing hypnagogic creativity”:

The transition between wakefulness and sleep is also a very productive time [for idea generation]. Many great creative individuals deliberately use the hypnagogic state (falling asleep) and hypnopompic state (waking from sleep) to generate ideas…

…This state is very productive. This is because when we are dreaming we make strange associations and connections between things, probably as part of the process or learning and memory. It can very often produce new creative insights, but normally the chemical noradrenaline is produced to stop us remembering them and getting confused with reality. In the hypnagogic and hypnopompic state, however, we are still dreaming, but the brain has stopped producing noradrenaline so we can remember the results.

Source: Anne Miller, “How to get your ideas adopted (and change the world)“, page 52 (paperback edition)

Miller reiterates the well-worn advice that you should always have a pencil and paper (or laptop, or smartphone) next to the bed, the better to sieze on those moments of “sleepy creativity”.

Crucially, she adds:

If you wake in the nght with an idea, jot it down, but, unless you want a sleepless and productive night, do not try to work on it analytically until the morning.

Source: Miller, “How to get your ideas adopted (and change the world)“, page 53 (paperback edition)

Sweet dreams.

Relevant:
You’re most creative when you’re at your groggiest – Research Digest
How to use the Hypnagogic for Creative Problem Solving – Jeff Warren

Does gender matter? Or, can (wo)men write compelling characters of the opposite sex?

A polemic from M-Cue regarding the ability of (Hollywood) writers to craft compelling characters of the opposite sex:

Men don’t know how to write likable female characters, and Women can’t write likable male characters.

…let’s start with Breaking Bad…The 2 major female characters that I’ve encountered thus far (Skyler and Marie) are annoying, bitchy, pushy, shallow characters…. Male writer. Perhaps working out some inner issues with the females in his life; who knows, but def not doing his female characters justice.

Moving onto United States of Tara. Amazing show. Awesome subject matter…Great writer, but she lets her female protagonist get away with murder…It becomes more apparent as the show moves forward, that she has no idea how to write a male character who isn’t a receptacle for her drama and emotional scraps…I think its because the writer doesn’t know how to write a strong yet sensitive man, because you have to be one to know how to write one (or at least research a few in real life)

Etc.

A variation on a theme, this, and an argument I don’t think is as black and white (I know, I know) as presented above.

Responses from the meta-webs (Twitter-sphere) below:

‘Entourage, 2 1/2 Men, prime examples of [men can't write likable female characters]‘ – VeesEye

‘empirically not true’ (With link to Jojo Moyes’ “Me Before You“) – Charles Arthur

disagree with the actual piece. It’s bunk. TV series aren’t written by “one person”. Nor, usually, films. – Charles Arthur

‘the average woman updates her relationship status to “Engaged” within two hours of the guy actually proposing’

There is so, so much wrong with this:

And if really want your head to spin, think about this: according to a friend in retailing, the average Facebook woman updates her relationship status to “Engaged” within two hours of the guy actually proposing…so Facebook sells that relationship status information to retailers who have bridal registries.

Source: Is Facebook Killing Google? No, But…

H/T @moorehn and @mickwe

‘Instant Gratification With Bookmarking Can Replace Actual Consumption’

An interesting and nuanced piece from Chris Tackett at the Atlantic on how sites like Pinterest and Svpply might be reducing consumption, and which cites a Megan Garber article that prompted my recent post on lifehacking-through-Instapaper:

I don’t disagree some forms of conspicuous consumption are fading, but in the context of how we present ourselves online, I think we’ve entered a new era of hyper-conspicuous digital consumption. While the poor economy may be reducing our urge to buy an expensive car just to show we can, the new additions to our ever-growing arsenal of social-media tools are giving us new ways to show the world what kind of things we like, what clothing or jewelry we would wear (if we could), what kind of cars we would drive (if we could), what kind of homes we’d live in (if we could) and on and on. If there wasn’t a social element to Svpply or Pinterest (or Twitter or Facebook or blogs, for that matter) I think far fewer people would take the time to use these tools for personal organization. It is the overtly conspicuous nature of sharing the pretty things we find that makes these tools fun to use in the first place.

Relevant:
‘with sharing both intentional and “frictionless” — we can define ourselves not just by what we read, but by how we read.’ – Nieman Lab
‘We are seeing the twilight of conspicuous leisure, and of conspicuous waste and conspicuous consumption as well.’ – Rick Bookstaber

 

 

 

‘a click on a Read Later button is…an act of desperate, blind hope.’

As part of my never-ending quest to hack my life to fit more into 24 hours, I’ve been rethinking my Instapaper strategy.

Previously, my Insta-workflow went something like this:

- Favourite a tweet in Twitter + ifttt = add to Instapaper

- Sifting through RSS on mobile or iPad + “ooh, that’s interesting but a bit long and probably about something related to finance” = add to Instapaper

- Skimming aggregator emails à la Percolate’s Daily Brew or Jason Hirschorn’s Media Redefined  + 50 tabs open and Chrome yelling that I need to kill some of them = add to Instapaper

etc.

Result: crazy, crazy long Instapaper queue, which I tried to manage by viewing oldest-first, and by binge-reading on planes, trains and weekends.

Result: only a slightly shorter queue, and constant feeling of unease about not being caught up induced by the near-endless scrolling of said.

Could I ever read everything? No. Was I in denial about that? Maybe.

Which is why I found this piece by Megan Garber at the Nieman Journalism Lab (in my Insta-queue since December…) so interesting (emphasis mine):

…if my own use of Read It Later and Instapaper are any indication, a click on a Read Later button is, more than anything, an act of desperate, blind hope. Why, yes, Foreign Affairs, I would love to learn about the evolution of humanitarian intervention! And, certainly, Center for Public Integrity, I’d be really excited to read about the judge who’s been a thorn in the side of Wall Street’s top regulator! I am totally interested, and sincerely fascinated, and brimming with curiosity!

But I am less brimming with time. So, for me, rather than acting like a bookmark for later-on leafing — a straight-up, time-shifted reading experience — a click on a Read Later button is actually, often, a kind of anti-engagement. It provides just enough of a rush of endorphins to give me a little jolt of accomplishment, sans the need for the accomplishment itself. But, then, that click will also, very likely, be the last interaction I will have with these worthy stories of NGOs and jurisprudence.

This strikes me as a modification of the Gollwitzer premise - that there’s a gap between intention and action that is worsened by a (public) declaration of intent. In other words, saying you will substitutes for doing; in this case, bookmarking is a substitute for reading.

To quote Garber again:

The line between the aspirational and the actual is thick

I’ve since changed my bookmarking behaviour. Now, Twitter favourites go to Pinboard (via ifttt) where they are marked as unread. And then, when I have (set aside) the time I very deliberately go to Pinboard, choose some of these unread items, and send them to Instapaper for proper perusal on my iGadgets, or better, my Kindle*. 

Result: Pinboard now acts as a digital repository for all things I would-like-to-read (intention) and Instapaper acts as a platform for things-I-will-read (action).

And I find that while I might be skimming much less, I am reading much more.

The lifehacking continues.

[*Re the Kindle - reading on the Kindle is a much more immersive/much less distraction prone environment for me than reading on the iPad. The downside is the Kindle makes it damned hard to then tag/archive those articles in a way that fits into my metadata obsessed intensive workflow. Using the Instapaper app on an iGadget, for instance, I can easily email articles, share them on Twitter or add tags/comments and archive them to Pinboard. If I read an article on the Kindle that I want to share or tag, I have to fire up an iApp or my computer...breaking me out of the immersive reading experience]

OECD: ‘Higher ed is an insurance policy against global downturns’

Peter Thiel is unlikely to be persuaded by a recent OECD survey which found that:

during the first two years of the global economic crisis, in country after country, people with a tertiary (higher) education were much less likely to be unemployed, much more likely to be participating in the labour force, and more likely to have higher earnings, compared to their less-educated counterparts.

And in chart form:

OECD Unemployment rates by level of education

Which reminds me: must sort out that MSc.

Related:
Education Indicators in Focus (January 2012, PDF) – OECD
Why Peter Thiel Is Wrong To Pay Students to Drop Out – Forbes
Meet the College Dropouts – Inc.

In which I disagree with Paul Carr r.e Wikipedia’s SOPA blackout

Paul Carr at PandoDaily asserts that Wikipedia’s SOPA blackout is a terrible idea. 

Carr bases his argument, as outlined in his post, on the following:

  1. Whatever your stance on SOPA, closing down a global business to protest an American law is foolish. And to shutter Wikipedia — a crowd-funded international encyclopedia — in protest of a single national issue is even worse. 
  2. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is its neutrality. No matter how controversial the topic, Wikipedia’s own neutrality guidelines stress the importance of balance, of not taking a side…The trouble with taking a political stance on one issue is that your silence on every issue 

On the second point – that the blackout violates Wikipedia’s avowedly neutral stance – I agree.

But to argue that SOPA is an “American law” or a “single national issue” is to thoroughly misrepresent the proposed legislation.

[Caveat: I am not a lawyer, etc]

Consider the following lines from the text of the House version of HR 3261 (PDF / HTML) (emphasis mine):

SEC. 102. ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. SUPPORT OF FOREIGN INFRINGING SITES.

(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site’ if–

(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;

(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and

(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.

The point of SOPA is that it is extraterritorial in scope – it is designed to bring to bear the weight of US law on foreign websites as if “such site were a domestic Internet site”. 

And as reddit engineer Jason Harvey pointed out in an excellent post on SOPA and PIPA:

Under these broad definitions, domestically hosted sites such as ‘redd.it’ and ‘bit.ly’ can be defined as foreign internet sites. On the other side of the coin, foreign hosted sites such as wikileaks.org and thepiratebay.org can be defined as ‘domestic’, since their domain names are registered through authorities located in the U.S.

On that latter point, an elaboration from Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa:

SOPA treats all dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org domain as domestic domain names for U.S. law purposes. Moreover, it defines “domestic Internet protocol addresses” – the numeric strings that constitute the actual address of a website or Internet connection – as “an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States.” Yet IP addresses are allocated by regional organizations, not national ones. The allocation entity located in the U.S. is called ARIN, the American Registry for Internet Numbers. Its territory includes the U.S., Canada, and 20 Caribbean nations. This bill treats all IP addresses in this region as domestic for U.S. law purposes. To put this is context, every Canadian Internet provider relies on ARIN for its block of IP addresses. In fact, ARIN even allocates the block of IP addresses used by federal and provincial governments. The U.S. bill would treat them all as domestic for U.S. law purposes.

Crucially, the bill would also affect foreign nationals, if such were:

(A) a registrant of a domain name used by a foreign infringing site; or (B) an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.

And here’s more on that from Dr Geist:

Should a [foreign] website owner wish to challenge the court order, U.S. law asserts itself in another way, since in order for an owner to file a challenge (described as a “counter notification”), the owner must first consent to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts.

So here I must disagree with Paul Carr.

SOPA and PIPA are not just “American” issues. They are global, for good or ill. Mostly for ill.