Book chapter summary - Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity, Chapter 2: The Operational Mechanisms, by William J. J. Gordon

What I read

In Chapter two of the book, Gordon introduces the “operational mechanisms” that drive Synectics.

He starts this chapter with a richer and more precise definition of Synectics: It “defines creative process as the mental activity in problem-stating, problem-solving situations where artistic or technical inventions are the result.” Gordon makes the distinction between stating and solving explicit, in order to show that the process isn’t just about the end output.

As he drives deeper into Synectics, he simplifies the definition to two ideas: that it involves making the strange familiar, and making the familiar strange. The first part is an acknowledgement that a given problem has an objective, real, or conservative basis, and that a human’s brain naturally aims towards this form of analytical, detailed exploration. Gordon describes this as a bad way of looking at a problem. In contrast, he uses the idea of making a familiar situation strange to “distort, invert, or transpose” things that we take for granted. Synectics provides four unique mechanisms for encouraging this purposeful strange-making.

The first mechanism is using Personal Analogy when confronted with framing a problem. This is the idea of presenting oneself inside of the actual problem space, metaphorically literally: that if the problem is about, as Gordon describes, a motor-like shaft, the problem solver imagines themselves stuck in the middle of it. Faraday is referenced as looking into the middle of an electrolyte, and Einstein is referenced as playfully putting himself into a mathematics problem in a muscular way. Gordon also explains that this form of Personal Analogy is used in art, and cites Keats as explaining that he leaped into the sea physically (although he did not actually leap into a sea) as he was writing Endymion.

Next, Gordon provides an example from the Synectics working group, related to making a physical speed mechanism. The working group was prompted to use the Personal Analogy approach, where they “metaphorically entered a box” that connected an input and an output. A written transcript of the verbal protocol is then used to show how the group used the analogy approach. After the group discussed and bantered while using this approach, they arrived at a solution to the problem.

Gordon concludes his description of the first mechanism by recognizing that it requires “loss of self”, and that some people have such a difficult time with this that the facilitator needs to lead by example.

The next mechanism Gordon provides is the use of Direct Analogy. This is the idea of using a simile—how is this like that—to provoke new ways of thinking about existing things. He first cites Brunel, who mimicked a worm tunneling as he “solved the problem of underwater construction.” He also cites Alexander Graham Bell, who explains that he thought about the human ear, and used that to create a more robust version for the telephone.

As with the first mechanism, Gordon then provides an example from a Synectics working group. In this example, the group worked on a dispenser for liquids. Again, through back-and-forth, the group exhibits verbally how they leveraged “this is like that” thinking to arrive at a solution. The objects or ideas that were compared through direct analogy were a clam, human mouth, and a horse anus, and the last was then used in order to build a product that “operated almost exactly as described by the above analogy.”

Gordon emphasizes that most of the direct analogies that are used successfully leverage biology as a source of comparison, and that comparing things across disciplines is also highly successful.

The third mechanism that Gordon references is the use of Symbolic Analogy: the use of an objective point of reference that is purposefully wrong or illogical, which is used “in terms of poetic response.” This mechanism is faster than the others, and feels complete when selected appropriately.

Gordon moves quickly to an example of this from the Synectics working group. In this example, a group working on creating a small but powerful jack for moving heavy objects leveraged the mostly random idea of an “Indian rope trick” and a bike chain in order to arrive at a unique solution. Gordon ends this example in quoting Sir Francis Galton, who discusses the idea of disembarrassing an idea with words. This is a way of moving away from over rationalization of a problem.

The last mechanism Gordon presents is called Fantasy Analogy, and is about comparing a problem to something out of a child’s mind or dream. An example is quickly introduced from the Synectics group showing how they solved a problem of closing a space suit by considering how trained insects might approach the closure. This then led to a successful solution. Gordon recommends using this mechanism first in the familiar-to-strange process, as a way of pushing for problem framing before problem solving.

Gordon concludes the chapter by juxtaposing the Analogy mechanisms to “abstractions such as intuition, deferment, empathy, play, use of irrelevance, involvement, detachment.” He explains that the mechanisms can be used by everyone, because they have experienced them in some way, while the abstractions are impossible to teach. The mechanisms can be introduced without the participant feeling manipulated. He indicates that the mechanisms appear most successful when an expert in the topic is included in the working group.

Finally, Gordon describes that this form of problem thinking causes physical exhaustion, which was evidence in the working group when they alternated between a rational approach and this approach of using Analogies.

What I learned and what I think

I appreciate the way Gordon is working to develop a simple, concise way of using his ideas. The four analogies are fairly easy to understand, and three of the four of them can be used quickly, assuming that people feel comfortable using them. I think the first Analogy, Personal Analogy, is extremely abstract and can only imagine teams struggling with how to apply that. For example, if we were working on a project to help people during their real-estate online browsing experience, I doubt I could convince a client to “be the house”, and as I reflect on it, I’m not sure I can do it very well either.

I have successfully used the other three mechanisms consistently in our work at Modernist and Narrative, and the idea of the Direct Analogy is sort of baked into the way I think about things. I’ve also gotten extremely comfortable using a Fantasy approach, primarily related to the fantasy of work games.

Like the previous chapter, I have some problems with this work, and as I read more of these types of articles, I’m feeling a sense of problemness to what I’m reading (somewhat ironic, I suppose, given the idea that a problem is frustrating and that leads to a creative solution to unfrustrate it.)

My first problem is with the way the ideas are presented; they are presented using a technique I’ve used, and a technique that’s used in most popular pulpy creativity in industry books: each example used is perfect, too cute, too exemplary. It’s curation to make a point, and while it works, it also makes me wonder how much of the data doesn’t fit nicely. Gordon’s example of engineers discussing a horse shitting is something I would have come up with in a working session, and then highlighted in a talk; it fits perfectly. But how many times did the Synectics working group fail? Given Gordon the benefit of the doubt, the group existing for years. But design and creativity is about constant failure and iteration. These examples make it seem like, in a short working session, the group went from nothing to a perfect solution. I don’t see it. I know the value of presenting work this way; but I don’t think it’s real.

I don’t like at all that Gordon writes off empathy and play as being unteachable. He’s literally teaching people to be playful with this focus on analogy, and while he’s taken the word away, he’s being playful with ideas, language, and the built world around us. I teach students to be playful all the time, using lateral thinking and using humor. I’ve created physical studio environments that are playful, not with nerf darts but with a tendency to make fun of corporate work. And empathy is clearly teachable: that’s the entire point of ethnography, and contextual inquiry, and participatory design, and selfie-studies, and usability testing.

I’m also still and increasingly feeling like the conversation of creativity in the literature I’ve read so far is about Big Ideas. Big Ideas are awesome for selling books (or in this case, a new set of ideas and methods.) But the work that I’ve seen take over most design firms and companies is the creative work of Small Ideas, or even No Ideas, in the case of using pre-digested Figma components or using interaction design pattern languages. Maybe this doesn’t “count” as creativity, but I think it does. These are the ideas that I think describe a blandingness of the profession, so it’s not necessarily a good thing that they are happening. But they are happening. Maybe design is different than invention and art in that case, or maybe it’s just different than the way the professional world was in the 1950s.

There’s a “there there”, here, but I’m not sure it’s that interesting to explore more. Maybe it is.

Next, I’ll give one more chapter of Gordon a shot, the one on play. Then I want to jump to something more current.