Deconstructing Ditkoff

Part One: So You're THIS Close  To A Breakthrough?

Those progressive thinkers over at http://changethis.com have posted a manifesto by Mitch Ditkoff called "14 Ways To Get Breakthrough Ideas". It's not exactly Das Kapital, but it does follow the general theme of the blog thus far. 


To begin with we will critique the essay as a whole and in part, then we'll take a stab at some of the exercises and see if I end up getting any humdingers of an idea. If it does I will take my proverbial cap off to Mr. Ditkoff. I'm not saying I don't believe it, let's just say I remain a little skeptical.


Personally, I believe you can increase your creativeness through mental exercises, and moreover, a lack of effort toward original thought will atrophy those creative muscles. However, I don't think that a power point presentation done in the style of a self-help guru is the truest way to thine own self-discovery. In this modern virtual world it isn't enough to just put your thoughts into text, but while reading the presentation I felt like the intro music for the Chicago Bulls should be playing in the background. I imagine Mr. Ditkoff giving these seminars in the convention rooms at airport Holiday Inns. To be fair, he's posted these ideas for free on this web-site, so I'm not calling him a cheap huckster out to make a buck, but presentation is key and this feels more like corporate training than it does artistic nurturing.


That isn't in and of itself a bad thing. But is the best idea the one that can be implemented in the workforce for profit immediately? Are the best leaders really those who can organize groups in to productive units to complete assigned tasks within the resources allotted? I have a feeling there are a lot of people who hire corporate trainers who would say yes to both questions. And I am sure that Mr. Ditkoff would not pigeon hole his program in that narrow a box. But for those who think that the notion of generating new and original ideas in any kind of structured formula this essay will raise their eyebrows. 


2. Just What Does This Ditkoff Fellow Say Anyhow?

Let's look some of the specific postings here. He has 14 steps to help the reader increase his or her idea potential. Let's start with number one:


1. Follow Your Fascination

Right from the start I like what I'm reading. Yes, of course, if something fascinates me beyond the scope of other topics naturally focusing on that is bound to get my creative juices flowing. Of course, naturally. Well, actually, Mr. Ditkoff is referring to the fascination we get by a new idea, suggesting that there's no thrill like a new thrill. And to that end I think he's being fair to human nature. We do get wrapped up in novelty and that certainly could extend to new ideas. It's a simple idea and one that no one would reasonably object to or disagree with. Not that I'm a reasonable man. 


The problem is that this isn't really more than the recitation of commons sense. It isn't that it's just such a good idea that it seems simple, and that all good ideas are simple ones (The old "Why didn't I think of that?" philosophy) but that this is a bit too obvious. I don't need someone to give me intellectual permission to muse my most recent notion. I need someone to help me GENERATE new notions. That's a bit trickier.


The other criticism of this article lies in the third paragraph. He takes more than half the text to define the word fascinate down to its Latin root. That's interesting to know the origins of the word but doesn't give his thesis more validity. He attempts to give his concept additional gravitas (another Latin word, so I must know what I'm talking about) by linking it to ancient Rome and therefore the authority and majesty of the classical age. But saying that fascination is a powerful word doesn't mean it will help me get new ideas. 


Concept number three:

3. Tolerate Ambiguity

This is a better article from the reading standpoint. he has a concept here that isn't just common sense, and he makes and supports an argument or it. He's saying that things won't go according to plan, and you need to accept it. Well, when put that way, it doesn't sound as radical as the title to this chapter would suggest. In fact, I have to wonder what the title actually means. The word "ambiguity" is in and of itself ambiguous. I know you should never use a word to define itself, but I think that's better than what Mr. Ditkoff does here, which is to mis-define it.


This article is not about accepting the uncertain, but plodding on in the face of failure. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Another old saw. And one that wouldn't be impressive so he just used a word in place of failure that doesn't actually mean failure but is odd enough to avoid that kind of labeling. The story about Edison is one of perseverance, not tolerance. Henry Miller's quote “Confusion is a word we have invented for an order that is not yet understood.” (paraphrased a bit by Ditkoff,, this is the original)  is about the acceptance of others with alternative lifestyles and is taken completely out of context. Even if Mr. Ditkoff is attempting to re-contextualize it, it has nothing to do with the creative process. 


Concept number five:


5. Fantasize 


This is the most straight-forward chapter in the entire essay, and the one that in theory I have the least amount of trouble with. Creative thinking does require us to think in the abstract, to dream, even to daydream. I wholeheartedly agree with that. He is in essence saying, "Use your imagination". And lest you think this is just Mr. Ditkoff dusting off another chestnut, he has a great quote about the power of fantasy from chess champion and grandmaster Gary Kasparov, fresh from his conquest of super-computer Deep Blue. Kasparov cited in his victory two human elements that the vaunted machine could not equivocate: intuition and the ability to fantasize. That's pretty heady stuff. 


But it doesn't wash. Kasparov didn't easily defeat Deep Blue. He won the six game match 4-2, with two draws. Kasparov was, unfortunately a terrible bully, and was notorious for complaining to judges in situations he could not win and ultimately getting a  draw from a circumstance other players would have simply lost. In fact, when he gave the computer a rematch in 1997, he lost to the silicone giant. 

Now at he bottom of each chapter he gives a task to be finished. For number five, he assigns this:

Think of a current challenge of yours. What would a fantasy solution to this challenge look like?
What clues does this fantasy solution give you?


A current challenge of mine is to get to school during inclement weather. A fantasy solution would be to improve my car so that it can drive though any amount of ice and snow. Put chains on the tires and soup up the engine. Switch the transmission four-wheel drive install a cable and mechanical crank on the bumper like they have on jeeps in the jungle to pull myself out of any ditches. Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!


The clues I take from that is my vehicle is not really road safe during heavy snowfalls and I am very worried about that. I'm not sure how that helps me get to a solution. I also don't think I violated the spirit of the exercise since it said only to use fantasy to consider the problem. It just didn't really help.


And that's the problem with the entire "manifesto". Good ideas are hard, and they are not always simple. Rewording axioms we already know may give the reader a sense of security in the material since it doesn't really challenge us, but it doesn't come closer to helping us not only get ideas, but promises "breakthrough ideas".  I wish it could help with that. And in some ways this can help a little. Nothing in here will inhibit creative thought. But it just doesn't add up to much of anything special.