I wonder if you might be demonstrating the principle in your response?
I think the main point is that there may be advantages to explicitly giving room to both divergent and convergent thinking to exist in separate phases (this could be done in one cycle -- there's nothing that says any of the cute unworkable ideas would ever leave the meeting room or shopfloor or prototype. Reality/logic/laws of nature are the final arbiters).
Constraints/refinements/criticisms will emerge in the second phase, but we often don't give room to the first because we tend to want to edit too soon, and if we're honest, our impulse criticisms going to be based on our past experience and emotion rather than a cool, deliberate, rational analysis process or empirical reality.
A disciplined balance is what is sought. In creative processes, withholding judgment during ideation is a basic principle -- but many engineering types are too quick to ignore it, wanting to filter almost immediately. This is ok if the space is well-understood and what you're doing is cookie cutter (which to be honest, is all most engineers do), but definitely a blocker if you really want to challenge ideas and do something truly new. It snuffs out ideas pre-maturely and doesn't allow them to potentially grow into something that would work.
An example of this: I was against neural networks for years because they lacked explainability ("black boxes" was my criticism of them), and whenever someone brought them up I would enumerate my usual list of criticisms of why they would never work -- all rational and mathematically watertight. It became so habitual that a few good ideas (where neural networks actually would have worked if we had tried them, albeit it had to be in creative ways) passed us by. I snuffed that idea out before it had a chance to emerge in a form that I would have recognized as something workable.
Fair enough. I'd definitely agree there needs to be a disciplined balance, too much conservatism is just as bad as too little. But in defense of Engineers in general, it's quite possible that in their experience they've seen many situations where negatives ignored grew out of control.
An example I experienced a couple of weeks ago: Someone let code that "just works" slide through a code review back in 2017. That code had a hard-coded value that would have been easy to determine dynamically (he just set a max at an arbitrary value instead of counting how many of a resource there were) but wasn't due to general lack of discipline. Now it's a minor issue, and the code did indeed work up until a couple of weeks ago. Then the number of the resource in question changed, and all of a sudden that hard-coded max was no longer accurate.
The error manifested as a segfault in our C++ but only sporadically and was hard to reproduce when we didn't know what the issue was. Doesn't help that it was in a mountain of legacy spaghetti code. It took me and two other people two days to track down the original cause, which if you add up our de-facto hourly rates cost the company thousands of dollars. All because of one little minor piece of sloppy code.
Now imagine the effects of bigger, grander sloppiness at the design level. And then those effects get compounded because they're conveniently ignored and integrated into still further mistakes, and you get an exponentially multiplying mess.
I'm willing to bet many professional engineers have had an experience similar to that, and if they care about their craft at all it was likely extremely frustrating and painful to deal with. So it's not that they're "bad at divergent thinking" so much as they've been trained by experience to believe that the benefits of divergent thinking aren't worth the potential downsides. Whether that's an unconscious bias that should be worked against is an interesting question.
Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate where you're coming from -- and indeed engineers are wired to be critical and to eschew sloppiness because it is useful (indeed often crucial) in execution (as your anecdote bears out -- that has happened to me many times).
But that superpower, which is so instrumental for execution, seems to me to be simultaneously deleterious to creative enterprises. It is at best an incomplete superpower.
I would also say that the reverse is true. Artsy creative types who are gifted at divergent thinking, but not convergent, are typically weak at execution so their products never gain traction or do not actually work.
Creative endeavors are by nature "sloppy". Hence the need to withhold judgment and let an idea play out via a divergent phase, and then bring it back through the convergent phase.
It would seem to me that both rationals and creatives have blind spots, hence the usefulness of a 2-phase process.
I think the main point is that there may be advantages to explicitly giving room to both divergent and convergent thinking to exist in separate phases (this could be done in one cycle -- there's nothing that says any of the cute unworkable ideas would ever leave the meeting room or shopfloor or prototype. Reality/logic/laws of nature are the final arbiters).
Constraints/refinements/criticisms will emerge in the second phase, but we often don't give room to the first because we tend to want to edit too soon, and if we're honest, our impulse criticisms going to be based on our past experience and emotion rather than a cool, deliberate, rational analysis process or empirical reality.
A disciplined balance is what is sought. In creative processes, withholding judgment during ideation is a basic principle -- but many engineering types are too quick to ignore it, wanting to filter almost immediately. This is ok if the space is well-understood and what you're doing is cookie cutter (which to be honest, is all most engineers do), but definitely a blocker if you really want to challenge ideas and do something truly new. It snuffs out ideas pre-maturely and doesn't allow them to potentially grow into something that would work.
An example of this: I was against neural networks for years because they lacked explainability ("black boxes" was my criticism of them), and whenever someone brought them up I would enumerate my usual list of criticisms of why they would never work -- all rational and mathematically watertight. It became so habitual that a few good ideas (where neural networks actually would have worked if we had tried them, albeit it had to be in creative ways) passed us by. I snuffed that idea out before it had a chance to emerge in a form that I would have recognized as something workable.