Imman Suleiman
Dr. Sarah Allison
Writing 100-208
July 27, 2012
Textual Analysis
Within Jonah Lehrer’s and Steven Johnson’s articles discuss the different processes of
forming ideas either from a group or individually. They both use diverse sources to help them
lead to their own conclusion of whether brainstorming or group thinking works or not. They both
state some issues that can be caused while brainstorming, which could be from the environment
or the familiarity of the subject. They understand that it could be very difficult to get a
brainstorming session going if the people are not well expertized on the topic they are discussing.
Moreover, they state the importance of the diversity of people’s opinions and perspectives that
can lead to an open session. Also allowing everyone to have a say in the meeting will help excel
it. These two authors believe that brainstorming only works under certain circumstances.
In the piece of Jonah Lehrer, “Brainstorming Doesn’t Really Work”, expresses the
scientific explanations to why the author believes that brainstorming is no longer a successful
way of solving a certain problem. He started his article by discussing the establishment of the
brainstorming, which began with Alex Osborn. As the story of Osborn progressed, one can
assume that Lehrer is heading to a point in which he agrees with the positive effects of
brainstorming. He discusses the history of Osborn’s successful business in which he used
brainstorming with his partner. Osborn later put his ideas to work when he experimented on
groups to see if brainstorming in a group is better than thinking alone. While applying his ideas
on experiments, Osborn shows how his ideas of thinking as a group accomplish a task or solve a
problem faster and better than working alone. However, Lehrer begins to use other sources to
debate that brainstorming doesn’t actually work. One of his reasons for stating that is because of
the criticism that group members face from others as they just speak their minds. Lehrer quotes
“The underlying assumption of brainstorming is that if people are scared of saying the wrong
thing, they’ll end up saying nothing at all.”(pg. 3) In this line, one can see why brainstorming can
be hard to get much out of the participants. He related this issue to the solution that by grouping
people with similar characters and way of thinking would have the people get the courage to say
what they think of a way to solve the problem. Moreover, the author stated that grouping people
in groups of familiar faces. In other words, it means that if the people in the group are
comfortable with one another from familiarity. Lehrer believes that “Criticism allows people to
dig below the surface of the imagination and come up with collective ideas that aren’t
predictable. And recognizing the importance of conflicting perspectives in a group raises the
issue of what kinds of people will work together best.
Lehrer uses another source to back his conclusion up. Inside Uzzi’s research, one notices
that by allowing people who know each other and are familiar with one another are meant to
work well together than strangers. “Uzzi wanted to understand how the relationships of these
team members affected the product. Was it better to have a group composed of close friends who
had worked together before?” (pg. 6)Lehrer believes that the closer the relationship they people
have with one another, the better they work the issue out. Even though he still believes that
brainstorming doesn’t work. Through Isaac Kohane’s research “…when coauthors were closer
together, their papers tend to be significantly higher quality…”(pg.9) one can see that quality
work can get done when the people are closer together. For example, if I was to be in a group of
strange people, and I was asked to brainstorm along with them, I would most likely to be quiet
the whole brainstorming session. One of the reasons is that I will be shy and will be afraid of
their criticism if I contributed in solving the issue. The second problem is since the people aren’t
familiar with one another, the chances of having a discussion going is less likely. While on the
other hand, if I was grouped with my closest friends to brainstorm, I am most likely to participate
in the brainstorming session. For one, I won’t be afraid of their judgments because I know them
well enough to be willing to speak what could be a possible solution to the problem. Secondly,
since everyone is at ease with one another, they have learned to accept their personalities.
Like Lehrer, Johnson uses Arthur Koestler’s book; “The Act of Creation” as a source to
discuss the importance ideas in science and art. Johnson quotes, “On a basic level, it is true that
ideas happen inside minds, but those minds are invariably connected to external networks that
shape the flow of information and inspiration out of which great ideas are fashioned.”(pg. 59)
Within this line, it shows how our surroundings help our minds to form ideas that will guide us
to the next level in science and technology. Johnson uses many other sources to prove that
brainstorming works better than individual thinking when attempting to come up with a solution
to a problem “…most important ideas emerged during regular lab meetings, where a dozen or so
researchers would gather and informally present and discuss their latest work…”(pg. 61)
Through his study, it shows that during lab meetings, people are able to brainstorm fully because
they work alone and come together in the end to give feedback about their outcomes. Johnson
and Lehrer both use sources to prove whether brainstorming works or not. However unlike
Lehrer, he doesn’t go against the idea of brainstorming. Johnson believes that brainstorming used
to work better in the past but not so much anymore. He then uses another example to show why
brainstorming might not work. “… open-office plans have grown increasingly unfashionable in
recent years, for one compelling reason: people don’t like to work in them” (pg. 62). Johnson
believes that one reason a brainstorming session can die out is when people are not in a certain
environment in which they are not able to think fully. Johnson uses Dunbar’s study to show that
when people are always working in open space offices, they tend to lose focus on the
brainstorming session.
Subsequently, in Johnson’s view brainstorming works depending on the relationships
the people have with one another and the familiarity of the subject they are brainstorming. In
Jonah Lehrer’s article it shows that he is against brainstorming and he believes that it doesn’t
work by using many sources from the past. He started out by discussing the history of
brainstorming and who the founder. He carefully connected the sources according to their
research on brainstorming. By using these sources, Lehrer and Johnson came to a conclusion
that brainstorming doesn’t actually work.