Am I creative or is it all coincidence?

June 24, 2007 5:48 AM

Is my knack for coming up with "revolutionary" social policy ideas independently of the thinkers who get a lot of media attention for them anything special? And what can I do with it? More explanation inside.

This is anonymous because I'm afraid of coming off like a braggart, when I am really interested in knowing whether I have any future in social policy/humanities/public planning/whatever work.

I do not consider myself to be a very socially adept person. I didn't grow up associating with a lot of people outside my family and subsequently spent a lot of time thinking. Theorizing on the development of the feminist movement, failure of various drug policy initiatives, ideas about how to get people out of poverty, run non-profits more effectively, what have you. Philosophizing about human nature and the best way to fix society's ills by adapting policies that accounts for basic human failings and successes. This started in elementary school. Yeah, way too few friends and way too much time on my hands.

I don't give my ideas much account or weight. They're just something I throw in during conversations or post in message board debates or write to myself. As I said, I am not confident with my social skills and given how awkward I feel talking to people I can't believe I could possibly be a good judge of what would or would not work for "people" or predict how "people" think.

But as I've read more and paid more attention to social policy debates it's been impossible to notice that very, very frequently people who are considered great writers and thinkers get a lot of recognition for ideas that are considered revolutionary--ideas that I also happened to think of before I ever read their books or articles. Before you think me crazy I'm not at all implying they stole my ideas, I'm just struck that everyone thinks that person has a great idea and it turns out I had that idea too. Implying, that maybe I came up with a good idea.

For example, I basically outlined the principles of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism to myself in middle school, years before I read his tract or knew who he was. Or finding out the content of a highly-regarded book about modern feminism closely parallels a few essays I wrote in a personal journal of mine when I was in ninth grade. Or I'll read a widely-distributed article in the New York Times Book Review or New Yorker where some political analyst is waxing philosophical about solving a particular political crisis and his thoughts are the same thing I've written about to myself in the past. There have been times when people have been surprised I haven't read the work of this famous economist or that philosopher because the argument I'm making is basically the argument they're making, I just happened to come up with it independently. Most often, this idea thing manifests in me rarely finding as much enthusiasm or surprise for analysis articles that blow others away, because it's something I've already thought of myself.

I know this sounds dumb. These people are smart, way smart, long out of college, and have had more education and training than me. There is no possible way I'm that smart. At most, maybe all that thinking alone means I have a better grasp of human nature than I think I do so I can make these kinds of connections easier.

I have wanted to work in the public service industry but part of me is resistant as it often requires the ability to understand other people and connect with them, and come up with realistic solutions to problems that are in line with an accurate understanding of a person or group of people you're trying to help. Given my perceived poor understanding of people and social norms I'm afraid I would be terrible at it. But maybe my skill at coming up with good ideas means I'm not?

So I'm wondering, is this a common phenomenon, coming up with social policy/philosophy/whatever ideas and finding out later that not only do others think it's a good idea, but there are very smart people who have come up with the idea and are lauded for that idea? Does it mean I have a knack for this kind of thing and should research and write on my ideas more? Do I actually have a better grasp of people and analyzing situations than I think I do? Does this mean maybe some other ideas on politics and other stuff I've had might be good too? Or is this pretty par for the course for many Mefites?

This is difficult to explain, so I can follow-up if more clarification is needed.

posted by anonymous to Grab Bag (30 answers total)

When you said you had this idea or that idea, it's hard to know exactly what that means. There's a lot of difference between having an idea and writing a 700 page book or policy report detailing it, with reference to the ideas and evidence which supports it. You might genuinely be a savant in these areas, but unless you put your ideas out there, who knows? You could go to university, I suppose and test your ideas out. One bachelor's degree and one PhD later, they might be noticed. Instead, webpage in which your ideas can become concrete and detailed - a task which I think you'll find harder than have an initial notion, to be honest.
posted by A189Nut at 6:15 AM on June 24, 2007

well, i can't comment on how common or unusual this is, but it sounds like you have a pretty strong interest in the subject and would benefit from getting a degree in public policy or something like that.

i think if you did come up with all those ideas, you probably are pretty smart, smarter than you think, and a knack for the subject matter. you just need an education and an academic community in which to express those ideas. you can write about your ideas all you want, but you need some authority on the subject before anyone will pay attention to you. charisma isn't enough, unless you're founding a cult. :)

i wouldn't worry about not being a "people person." you absolutely don't have to be, unless you want to become a politician or a lobbyist. the word you're looking for is "wonk." wonks are the brains of the operation, not the public faces. they're academics, maybe socially awkward, and you never see them on tv. they're the ones who feed the ideas to the pretty people and the politicians.
posted by thinkingwoman at 6:19 AM on June 24, 2007

Off the top of my head response; I hope it's relevant.
I think its more than possible that you're indeed this clever and original. I think however that your experience says more about the social environment that frames debate and governs how ideas enter the public arena than it being an indication of some unique insight in your possession.
I'm often struck reading history by how many concepts we think of as modern are prefigured by much earlier writers, including the ancients. I have met people through the course of my life in all walks of life who offer cogent comment on the societies they live in but whose voices are not heard outside of there immediate social circle. This is to say that I think your experience will be more common than you think. It's something that I believe is related to the generation of folk art and folk wisdom.
If I were you, I would be wary of your social isolation. You seem well aware of this. In essence, the point is really that good ideas alone are rarely enough. As important are questions of power, praxis and practicality. These are not things you will find worthwhile answers to alone. The institutions of the society or field of endeavour you would like to operate in will be key too, of course.
As frustrating as collective work can be, if your solutions are intended to apply to more than just yourself, you will at some point have to engage.
posted by Abiezer at 6:24 AM on June 24, 2007

I don't have any advice for you, but it sounds like you have really diverse interests; this thread from a while back discusses (rather tangentially) what it might be like to be someone who doesn't put in 40 hours a week and chooses to spend that time doing something non-traditional.
posted by mdonley at 6:32 AM on June 24, 2007

I'm not even tangentially involved or interested in your field (I'm and engineering student).

Almost everyone I know in the field thinks of new algorithms, software ideas, or hardware techniques (I'm an EE) as a matter of course. My first reaction to having such an idea is usually to google it (often kind of tricky) and find out who's done similar things before. Almost all of the time these ideas, and I mean exactly, those ideas have been done before. This used to disappoint me, but now I see it as perfectly normal. In fact, I'm kind of happy when I find a patent for my idea, or an implemented product, because then I know it was at least feasible. I think this only demonstrates basic creative thinking and understanding of my subject. To ever do anything "new", I'll need to understand more.

This is probably applies more in hard-science related fields, simply because they are more incremental and structured.

Anyway,0 I would Nth the "go to school for it" recommendation.
posted by phrontist at 6:48 AM on June 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Don't forget those articles you're reading have a fairly long lead time. In other words, there's a constant back-and-forth of ideas out there, and a bunch of people reach the same conclusions around the same time on all kinds of fronts.

In my opinion, there are a lot of great 'ideas' out there, but not much great thinking on implementation. Many great ideas don't look so great when you start asking "Okay, so who's going to do this?"
posted by atchafalaya at 6:52 AM on June 24, 2007

I have wanted to work in the public service industry but part of me is resistant as it often requires the ability to understand other people and connect with them, and come up with realistic solutions to problems that are in line with an accurate understanding of a person or group of people you're trying to help.

This isn't necessarily true, especially if you are working on the research or policy end of the non-profit world. A lot of people working to solve a wide array of social problems from substance abuse to child abuse to poverty have never done front line work in those fields.

Likewise, oftentimes child welfare workers or other front liners aren't informed about or engaged with the current debates in the research ends of their fields. Social researchers work with people who try to disseminate their findings to the front line; they aren't charged with doing so themselves and I speak from having worked on the research end of a couple very large non-profits that were leading their respective fields.

So, yes, it's possible to work on the research or policy end of for instance the child abuse problem and never once come face to face with an abused child. That's actually quite common. If you have no clinical skills or training, why would you be working face to face with them? Clinical practice and social research are different worlds that are totally divorced. Information exchanged between those worlds would go from clinician to researcher, not child to researcher, unless that's absolutely necessary for a particular study, and even then you could simply pull someone on to your study with clinical experience who could work with the children for you.

For real, if every social researcher had to do front line work in their field, there would be far fewer of them. I do front line shit now and I can understand how a lot (I mean, A LOT) of people are not cut out for it. But that doesn't mean that smart people aren't allowed to care just as much and want to use their braind to help. In fact, social research struggles to find enough brain power and you'll never lack for a job especially if you have a healthy dose of statistics in your background, you can practically write your own ticket if you do.
posted by The Straightener at 7:22 AM on June 24, 2007

Is this a common phenomenon, coming up with social policy/philosophy/whatever ideas and finding out later that not only do others think it's a good idea, but there are very smart people who have come up with the idea and are lauded for that idea?

Yes, this is common. The reason that they're lauded for the idea is that told other people they had the idea.

Every major invention has usually been a race between at least two people (often more) to turn the idea into reality. Right now, there are probably at least thousands of people who can correctly foresee where the web is going. Only a few of them will have the drive to position themselves to either lead or take advantage of that. Note the two options there, more on that in a moment.

So yeah, you're a unique snowflake, just like everyone else. This is not meant to sound harsh, but to remind you that there are others like you in your seeming speciality and they might make the idea real before you do. You can argue about whether that is right or wrong, but it is the way the world works.

Real artists ship. Steve Jobs said that to the original Macintosh team, to point out that no matter how good your ideas are, you have make it real, you have to ship.

Are you shipping? Or are you whining about someone else being lauded for ideas you had? Again, not to be harsh, but there's a slightly whiny tone to your post, mixed with a bit of frustration as your perceived inability to work in your chosen field.

First, realize that you're an introvert. This is important to realize and understand, as it means someone with better people skills and worst ideas can get ahead of your faster, because hey, people love that person. This means that it's important that you find places to work that value original thinking over office/school politics. This also means that it'll be easy for others to take for a ride and steal your ideas, at least at first. Don't be surprised if, after a night of talking with some co-worker or classmate about this fabulous ideas you have and come to find out they're pitching them as their own. I mention this only a possibility, not as a certainty, so be careful out there.


Second, realize that as someone who can correctly see how certain industries go, you can either lead or take advantage of that insight. Or both. Meaning you can either work to be perceive as a leader in said industry and/or you also position yourself to take monetary advantage of coming changes. Money is very useful for getting power for yourself or in the case of you as an introvert, being able to deal with people on your terms as opposed to having to suck up to an idea stealing boss 'cause you need the paycheck.

Third, work on your self esteem and confidence. They help in convincing others of the validity of your ideas.

Fourth, good luck! You have what it takes to do what you want. If nothing else, believe that, because it's plainly obvious.

Lastly, it's entirely possible that you're as smart as heavily educated people. In ninth grade, I was writing in my journal about trying to feel up that girl from Chemistry class, meanwhile you were writing feminist essays. Clearly, you're smart, no question, and have great ideas. Now you need to start telling people about your ideas.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:40 AM on June 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

How consistent are your good ideas? You can talk to a lot of people who predicted, for example, the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina even years in advance...but they mostly also predicted that an asteroid was going to hit the earth, California was going to fall into the ocean, and the Segway would become the new hot product.

It's easy to have a lot of ideas and coincidentally have a few of them be good, but being able to separate the good ideas from the not so good ideas is what makes the difference between a great thinker and someone with too much time on their hands.
posted by anaelith at 8:05 AM on June 24, 2007

Happens all the bloody time.
posted by popcassady at 8:14 AM on June 24, 2007

Yes, this sometimes happens to me-- it sounds like it may happen to you more frequently, although it's hard to tell. A couple points:

1) If this often happens in relation to thinkers of the past, you should consider the possibility that even if you hadn't previously read what they wrote (ie Utilitarianism) you may have been exposed to the content of their ideas in other ways. In some cases these people are so heralded for being the first to think/write about something and/or because it was remarkable in the context of their society at the time. Coming up with the same thoughts independently, but in a later society which was influenced by the original thinker, is somewhat of a different thing.

2) Also, in many instances, there is no assumption that the writer is the first/only person to have had the idea(s), but they are being heralded for making particularly good arguments on behalf of the idea(s)-- both thinking of good arguments and expressing them clearly and convincingly. Without additional specific examples from you, it's hard to say if that's what's happening here, but it's another thing to keep in mind.

3) The people who are writing the articles you're reading are not necessarily the ones who have the most brilliant ideas. They are asked to write them because they have the kind of background that makes them considered authoritative. Again, there's often no assumption that they are particularly original among the population at large-- at best, they are particularly original among the people considered expert enough to write these sorts of articles.

That said, I don't mean to discourage you. Perhaps my points are off base for you and you are indeed particularly brilliant at this-- and even if you're "just" good at it (which it sounds like you are) and interested in it, those are still great reasons to pursue this.

Also, I don't think your lack of social skills implies much of anything about your understanding of human nature-- it just means you're awkward. But it's a good idea to work on that anyway, because if you really want to get your own ideas disseminated, you shouldn't count on your talent naturally shining through-- a lot will depend on who you know, your ability to network, your ability to explain your ideas and arguments to people in conversation instead of just in writing, etc. (Plus it's a good life skill in general!)
posted by EmilyClimbs at 9:23 AM on June 24, 2007

Many non-specialty-educated people would refer to "common sense". You see this in the social sciences all the time. Intense specialist study results in break-though understanding about human nature. Everyone else finds it mildly interesting, but only because it confirms something they already figured themselves.

As many have said, it's one thing to develop a personal working model about how something works, we all do it - it's entirely something else to go to school, join a research team, get published, and go on Oprah to explain it to the masses.

either lead or take advantage of that

Few can lead, anyone can take advantage, could be a realistic course of action.
posted by scheptech at 10:19 AM on June 24, 2007

Lots of people have lots of ideas. You only hear about the ones lucky enough to get a break for them to get out, or savvy/connected enough to have built a network that tends to enhance the probability of these breaking out.

Ideas such as new techologies, social practices, or organisations, rarely emerge, Minerva-like, from people's heads, unbidden and singular. Instead, one way of understanding them is as contingent, emergent responses to similar environmental conditions produced from similar neural and social substrates of people's brains adapting to circumstances. That's why inventions, ideas, and fads tend to emerge in clusters. People are fundamentally similar. Our ideas flock together.

You need to build your network.
posted by meehawl at 10:36 AM on June 24, 2007

I'll add that it happens all the time.

You're only remembering the ideas that have been struck in the public consciousnes. What about the ideas you have that sucked? Don't even think of saying "no, they're all like that."

These people who have been lauded (or published); they've managed to earn their way into the position where people listen. If you want to be one of these people, quit trying to shortcut the system, go to school, get a degree.

If you have good ideas now, you'll have more later.
posted by filmgeek at 10:38 AM on June 24, 2007

Yes, it's a common phenomenon. I experienced the same feeling of "But, that's just what I came up with!" a lot when I was in my late teens and beginning to read 'serious' (nonfiction) works on topics I was interested in (philosophy or religious theory, usually), instead of only novels. Then I realized that there was nothing particularly special about either one of us (myself or the author) or several other thousand people coming up with the idea, because we had all probably been exposed to the ideas and education which made it possible to put together a certain thought. The people who published their ideas (which are often themes on things that have been floating around for at least a few hundred years anyway) obviously have certain advantages like a certain level of education, connections, etc. which gives them the respectability (for lack of a better word) which causes people to pay attention to them.
posted by frobozz at 10:38 AM on June 24, 2007

Just to put things in perspective, Mill's Utilitarianism isn't really all that novel. Utilitarianism dates back at least to Epicurus, though I'm sure plenty of people before him thought that happiness was pretty great, too. What Mill is famous for isn't coming up with a new theory, but supporting it in his own way.

The important thing is that you care. You think these issues are worth thinking about, analyzing, and writing down. That is noteworthy. I'm guessing you're fairly young, so I wouldn't worry too much about whether your ideas are entirely novel or not. There's so much to learn and so much to guide your enthusiasm. I nth getting a formal education. The more you learn about what previous thinkers have said, the more you'll be able to use their ideas as the jumping off point to your own theories.
posted by Ms. Saint at 10:53 AM on June 24, 2007

You sound very smart, and you sound like you're underselling yourself! Hie thee to a PhD, JD, or public policy program and learn how to put your good ideas into practice -- which is, of course, harder than actually coming up with them... Another option (assuming you're still in undergrad) would be to get an entry level researcher job at a public policy organization. But be sure to get a job that lets you do actual work, not glorified secretarial tasks.

And I can assure you that there'll be plenty of introverted, socially awkward people in your field. That's why god invented PR and fundraising people -- to handle the people-skills stuff while the wonks do the substantive work in the back room.
posted by footnote at 10:56 AM on June 24, 2007

I once had a very bright calculus student who quizzed me mercilessly about what I meant by "dx." He didn't care for the usual definition of the derivative in terms of limits, and wanted to set up a theory in which dx was an actual nonzero (but infinitesimal) quantity. In other words, he had, on his own, intuited that non-standard analysis would be an interesting idea. So I set up a meeting for him with a professor who knew a lot about non-standard analysis. But the meeting was a disaster -- as soon as the student realized that his infinitesimal quantities (which he had provisionally named after himself) had already been thought about, and their properties much studied, he lost all interest. I don't think he went on into higher math after calculus.

Don't be that student! If you're thinking hard and having ideas , and, more importantly, if thinking hard and having ideas is what you like doing, follow up. Of course, 95% of what you think of will have been thought of before -- but once you know a field inside and out you'll be better-positioned to know where there's room for truly new insights. I'd say, get a Ph.D. in economics or sociology -- you won't starve even if you don't become the John Stuart Mill of the age, and you'll learn how to take your ideas and break them on the wheel of empirical data.

If you are still in college, go to office hours and talk to professors about your ideas. They don't even have to be your professors! (Though in this case, you should certainly e-mail for permission first before just showing up at the office hour.) You'll get valuable feedback, and you'll be building good relationships with people who will be writing letters for you if you do go the grad school route. This may be hard for you, since you say your social skills are weak, but I think it'll be worth it.
posted by escabeche at 12:31 PM on June 24, 2007

I'm always hearing new songs on the radio that I could swear I was humming to myself before they ever came out. dirty thieves, stealing my thoughts...

As others have said, passion and enthusiasm count for a lot. You may have potential in the field, so give it a shot.
posted by Chris4d at 12:37 PM on June 24, 2007

Ideas are one thing, but implementation is everything. That's good that you have an interest in the subject, but to actually start having an effect and putting these ideas to reality (or helping to do so) will require more sophistication on your part. That is, go and learn more and flesh out your ideas. Also, learn more about the people you're trying to help so you can align your ideas with their desires without having to do so much people-person work. Learn about similar ideas that were attempted but failed, in order to refine your implementation.

Actually making something happen take more than an idea, it takes a constellation of ideas. Including the connections to those ideas in your plans will go a long way.
posted by rhizome at 12:53 PM on June 24, 2007

I would strongly suggest reading Do What You Are, or any other book that effectively explains the Meyers-Briggs personality types.

Short explanation: You're an INTJ. So am I. You work on meaning in your head, ferment it until it's finished, then find it's out of step with all that stuff other people worked out with each other, in things like conversation. Result: You are "revolutionary" but also a pain in the ass to majority types. Good luck.
posted by argybarg at 1:16 PM on June 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Does it mean I have a knack for this kind of thing and should research and write on my ideas more?

I would say yes to this, and recommend that you think of yourself as being in a conversation with all these other people's ideas. It's all well and good to agree with Locke or other theorists -- but the public already has those theories in its head. If you want to do something with this, then respond to those ideas. Read the articles that blow other people away but don't do anything for you, and figure out why this presentation isn't all that interesting.

Because lots of people having the same idea still leaves the world with a single idea. Lots of people talking about the same ideas leads to a collaborative process in which the ideas are expanded and improved. It's that engagement with ideas that marks the best thinkers, not simply their thoughts out of context.
posted by occhiblu at 1:18 PM on June 24, 2007

I meant "Mills" up there; don't know where I got Locke. Sorry 'bout that.
posted by occhiblu at 1:24 PM on June 24, 2007

One more voice here saying that yes, you probably are this creative. But like a few others have mentioned it isn't the ideas that's the hardest part. Writing them up and presenting them with arguments that both show the strength of the position and are appropriate for your audience is a considerable bit of work.

If you want to go in this direction, and it sounds like you would be good at it, focus on rhetoric and composition. Social skills will help as well, but the presentation of your ideas will matter more than anything.
posted by BigSky at 1:31 PM on June 24, 2007

If you are coming up with new ideas of quality (not just seeing an idea and thinking "oh yeah, I thought of that years ago"; everyone does that), then you should be writing. There are tons of outlets for original important ideas. You could make your name overnight. People with something important and original to say are few and far between.
posted by DarkForest at 2:50 PM on June 24, 2007

If you *do* happen to read the Myers-Brigg templates, a certain idea may occur to you that relates it to horoscopes. Other people have had this idea before.
posted by meehawl at 4:01 PM on June 24, 2007

In one of William Golding's book on Hollywood there is this quote that 'scripts are like arses - everyone has one'. Ideas are like this. People often put too much emphasis on the 'idea' and not enough on the work and execution required to get somewhere. Note, however, you have already, inadvertantly put work into thinking about things, just don't get too excited about. If you want to do public policy, go for it, it's really interesting and you sound like you would be into it.

You may also want to stop thinking in terms of 'smart' or talented. Let's say, which is highly likely, that you're IQ is in the top 10%. This means, that in the US alone - there are about 30 million people as smart as you. In the world there are 600 million.

This isn't to say that you don't have an ability for thinking up creative ideas. It's just that the work required is probably more important than the 'creativity' or talent involved. You may want to read The Myth of Prodigy and Why it Matters
posted by sien at 5:55 PM on June 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. Everyone has the ideas. What makes someone recognized and remembered is getting their act together to lay it out in intelligent, organized, understandable, workable (etc) detail. Sometimes some people act like certain ideas are really impressive, but it's more in the presentation than the seed of thought itself. Emerson suggested that we call genius the return of our own ideas in a new form...

So, as to particular advice, stop just thinking maybe you're special and get to work elaborating on those passing moments of genius! It's really easy to lose time thinking you're smart or gifted and sort of waiting for someone else to notice that you have something to offer. You have to choose where you want to focus your efforts, and follow through on the projects that will build toward a worthwhile contribution.
posted by mdn at 6:55 PM on June 24, 2007

There is no doubt some confirmation bias in you your self-assesment: You remember the ideas you've had that line up with great ideas other people have had, you forget the ones that either have never been verified, or have actually been discredited.

It's human nature, but so what. The people who had some of these truly great and lasting ideas almost certainly had a whole lot of crappy ideas too.

So, go for it. Start developing some of your ideas, expose them to other people. Take their feedback, let your thinking evolve. Don't overinvest in ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny, but learn from the experience.

You might find that it's easier to get started by getting started as a "hobby," perhaps picking an area where failure won't have any material impact on your life (ie, your job isn't on the line, your existing friendships aren't involved), but some success will, at the very least, give you confidence, and maybe even create new opportunities.

Good luck.
posted by Good Brain at 11:05 PM on June 24, 2007

I'm with the folks saying don't overestimate yourself. Good policy and social theory arguments are often (though not always) obvious and commonsensical, within their own cutural context. There are very few truly new ideas.

The work of actually doing the analysis and theory and practical application of even very old ideas is a lot harder than the work of thinking them. I once interviewed an ex-con and Vietnam vet who had spent years in jail for a drug-related killing; he had less than a high school education. He showed me essays he had written in a prison writing class. Other than the typos and grammar errors (which weren't much worse than the ones in your post), he had rewritten the core argument of Michel Foucault's *Discipline and Punish.* Happens all the time: those under the heel of power have no interest in its mystification. So what?
posted by spitbull at 6:33 AM on June 28, 2007