JULY, 1949
SOME THOUGHTS ON ORIGINALITY R. T. SANDERSON University ol Florida, Gainesville, Florida
W H O E V E R first said, "There is nothing new- under the sun" was by no means entirely wrong, for hardly a discovery is made which is not closely related t6 facts already familiar, if only their appropriate interrelation is recognized. Neither was he entirely right. The sun shines daily, sometimes with its brightest light, on countless truths which will be felt to be very new indeed when man, in his groping way, finally stumbles over them and, in a rare lucid moment, turns to see what tripped him. Those of us who long for new ideas and have them too infrequently may be encouraged if we consider carefully the nature of originality. In my opinion, originality is not ne%rlyas much that mysterious, brilliant "flash of genius" richly rewarded by the Patent Office, as it is a deliberate reshuffling, a reorganization of known facts and ideas out of their conventional order into a new order from which new truths become apparent or new experiments are indicated to be desirable. These new truths may be entirely upexpected, or the new experiments may lead to unexpected results; but the chief essential of the process of being original is not the results, but the placing together of facts or ideas in a new order. 1should not say that a man is original who discovers a new compound formed from materials ignorantly or accidentally put together. He is merely observant. If, on the other hand, he deliberately places materials together which have not previously been combined in that manner, and thereby forms and recognizes a new compound, he is original whether or not the result achieved was the desired one.
Most of us are not very original because we have become bogged down by the weight of knowledge fed to us in a highly conventional, uninspiring, and necessarily arbitrary manner. Any conscious urge of our intelligence to deviate from the norm in thinking seems inhibited by a subconscious envx of the lower forms of life with their total reliance on instinct, and a consequent subconscious resistance to cutting loose the comforting ties that bind us to our ways of l i e and thought. We specialize, and as we specialize, unless we be wary, we become soothingly accustomed to highly restricted forms of thought. The deeper wesink, the narrower the the rut. We lose our perspective: We lose our capacity to imagine. We are not original. How, then, can we be original? If we need merely to place facts out of their usual order, it should be easy. But we must do more than that. The first requirement for original thought is that there be some stimulus to extite it. Creative thought represents a high energy level of mental activity; it is not the normal state. The energizing influence must come from a combination of two factors: (1) keen observation of nature, and (2) an insatiable curiosity as to the underlying causes. The first rule then is to be alert. Many new ideas are lying in the open, merely. waiting for some one to recognize them. Many, too, are the data only awaiting intelligent sorting to disclose new truths. Countless more ideas are a t hand, only partly buried, to be dug out by the careful observer curious to learn what may lie at the other end. Originality does not require exotic fields of endeavor or farfetched fantasy-merely close observation in the sub-
380
ject a t hand. Probably no subject in chemistry, for example, has been so thoroughly investigated as to be impervious to a new and original attack. Next, the conventional facts or ideas must be reorganized judiciously, not a t random. This requires imagination. If it is not native, we must cultivate it. Imagination is, I believe, merely a manner of thinking, wherein thought is neither consciously nor unconsciously guided along conventional routes. If we are narrow in our intellectual interests, we are likely to be unimaginative, because by having concentrated much along certain channels, we have become loathe to risk the possible inefficiencyof allowing our minds to experiment with other channels. We are sometimes not aware of the vast difference between heing sure one road is best because we have always traveled it, and heing sure it is best because we have tried or a t least thoroughly considered all imaginable roads, compared them without prejudice, and decided on the best with careful judgment. I would say then that imagination would best be stimulated by a breadth of interests. This is not the broadness of a physical chemist who reads the Jourml of Organic Chemistry! I refer to the individual who takes an active interest in the world about him, whatever his Specialty. The chemist whose interests hardly hesitate a t the borderlines of chemistry, but pour over into such fields as geology, botany, forestry, music, art, psychology, economics-he may be less expert in the field of his major specialization,-but he may nevertheless be more productive there because of the stimuli to which he exposes his imagination. Broad experience and extensive interests will usually encourage healthy doubt as to the superiority of any one theory or method or process, however time-tested, and will suggest many alternatives. It is sometimes assumed that knowledge inhibits imagination. This may be true but I do not believe it should he true. Imagination can only be based on known facts, no matter how they may be distorted in the final product. Therefore gfeater knowledge should expand the sphere of imagination, not restrict it. The inhibitory effect must lie in the tendency for greater knowledge to be disparaging of the results of imagination, and not to a tendency to place narroxer limits on the scope of the imagination itself. As will be discussed below, this tendency must be avoided. The more knowledge and especially the more diversified the knowledge, the better the imagination should be. Of course, if we would broaden our viewpoint, we must sacrifice some of our ambitions of specialization. This is often a sacrifice difficult to make, because time is ?o short and the powers of one man are so limited. The sacrifice may perhaps come easier if we approach the problem fatalistically. Why try to know everything about one subject, when actually even this is far beyond our power? Why not admit and accept our limitations, and realize that specialization to the exclusion of other interests not only is narrowing and eventually depressing, but actually defeats its own purpose, by destroying the creative power essential to its advancement? Re-
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
member that the most creative work done in any field may not necessarily be that of the man having most information in that field, and the man having most information may have done his most original work before he learned all that he now knows. In addition to diversity of interests and knowledge, another aid to the imagination is mental relaxation. We must not be afraid to put the mind to work and then go away and leave it. Sometimes the mind can do better work when left to its own devices, without constant conscious regulation and interference by its owner. What we may naively think of as sudden inspiration may actually be the deliberately and systematically developed product of the subconcsious. Give it a chance. Even if the subconcsious rests too, there is nothing more productive of a fresh outlook than a good rest. Imagination is essential, but it is not enough. Of equal importance is to be keenly thoughtful about the products of imagination. Accept them without prejudice. Cherish them for a while. Even nourish them. Often a good original idea may be one which has already occurred to the minds of many, hut each time has promptly been rejected without fair trial, as being unworthy of the owner. Give your imagination credit. Make the assumption, not necessarily valid but certainly useful, that the idea must have some merit or it would not have occurred to you in the first place. As soon as it occurs, write it down, lest you do not think of it again until gomeone else publishes it. Discard an idea only if you have first let it ferment for a while and then found i t totally unpalatable. The more original an idea, the longer it may take for you to be.* come used to it. Perhaps y6u are already'highly original, full of ideas, but just too cautious or lacking in confidence to let them get out into the bright light of day where they can be more adequately evaluated. Do not be afraidgive your wildest idea a t least the benefit of your own thorough judgment. Then, if' kstill seems incredibly foolish, do not be embarrassed. If you do not tell, nobody will ever suspect that you had it. A final help to original thought, and perhaps the most productive of all, is the manual application of the brain. Nothing will stimulate creative thinking like applying i t by actual work in the laboratory. There is no better way of evaluating an idea and, especially, there is no better way of improving on it. Even if the original idea appears by laboratory test to have no merit, the chances are good that the process of working on it may result in a new idea that does have merit. In conclusion, to be original, be ever skeptical of the self-evident, and remember that the obvious often escapes attention. Remember, too, that creative thought is a process, not a quality or an endowment, and should be within the power of everyone. Cultivate many interests, and receive with motherly tolerance and patient wisdom the ideas which they will stimulate. Finally, never hesitate to walk with your head in the clouds, but be sure both feet are firmly on the ground.
