Fiona's Second Year: Discovering "I Opt"

By: Fiona (a/k/a Pciona) Wells
Apprentice Organizational Theorist
Professional Communications, Inc.

In my last blog I reported how I helped Dr. Salton—I call him Umpah—define the foundations that underlie his “I Opt” theory. I told him how I figured out what “things” were. I showed him how I was able to group these things and come up with other things—like “people.”  I told how I discovered that I could make things I want to happen actually happen. Finally, I described how I could use patterns to learn things without having to do them myself. 

Umpah listened to me and gave my discoveries big names. He called them things like generalization, causation, abstraction and modeling.  Umpah likes big names.  I told him that big names were okay as long as he remembered that these were just tools.  He told me that my next job was to use these tools.

One of the first things I noticed as I entered my second year was a new pattern. Things happen in sequence. First Mommy talked. Then Daddy talked. Then Mommy talked again. I told Umpah about this. He was impressed. He said that I was building new “objects.” In my first year the objects were physical things that were defined by their edges.  I had now discovered how to replace the edges with events. This let me see patterns in the relationship of things.

Umpah said that relationship patterns were called interactions rather than objects. But the principal was the same.  He said I could put these together the same way I did physical things. I could then construct the situations that I wanted to participate in.  The “I Opt” styles I would use as a grownup would depend on where I decided to put the event “edges” on relationship patterns. That was a lot for a 2-year old to chew on. I told Umpah to put it back in the cooker and see what it looks like when it is done.

As I progressed in my second year I spent a lot more time playing. I was gradually able to use my muscles more exactly to do what I wanted done. That led to an interesting discovery. I noticed that if I moved a toy one way, it played music. If I moved it another way, nothing happened.  I told Umpah about this. He said that I had discovered experimentation—another tool. It is a way of figuring out what is going to happen by trying it on a small scale. I told him that I’d keep it around but now wanted to learn how to make things work without having to test them each time.

Chloe wrote in her Growing Up with “I Opt” blog that she used Umpah’s spontaneous RS strategy in her first year as a way of surveying her environment.  I did the same thing. Really it is the only way you can figure out the scope of the world you were born into.  What I did different from Chloe was to try to figure out the building block tools that it generated the style.  Now I wondered how these tools would help me get to the second development   phase that she reported—the methodical LP strategy.

The answer came as I progressed through my second year. I found that things held my attention longer than they used to. I wondered why.  Umpah said that it was probably because I was actually using the tools that I had discovered.  He said my neural network was growing (more big words!). Bigger networks just take longer to navigate. He said I was able to focus on things longer because I had more things to think about.

I thought about Umpah’s speculation.  I think he is right. I can now figure out when something is really new to me.   I have ways of figuring out how to get it to do what I want.  I can use things that worked in the past. A little experimentation can tell me if I’m right  or wrong. Putting these and my other tools to use—the stuff; Umpah calls causation, generalization, experimentation and so on—means I have more things to think about. Umpah says that big people call    this attention span. He said it is not something you teach. You get longer attention spans because you have use for them.  

Okay, but what is that use? The only use I can think of is that these tools help me to both predict and affect  my future.    That means I can arrange things so I get more of what I want. And the things I want right now is to know how to tie my shoes, feed myself without help, open things by myself and put on my own clothes.   I have the tools.  I have the attention span. All I need is to learn the sequence of actions—   the procedure.  Umpah says that that is why I’m going to be using the Logical Processor style in my next phase. It’s going to help me get what I want when I want it.

And I think I’ve figured out a way to get a jump on the game. Umpah got me a Lego set with a boy and girl for Christmas. He also got me a figurine of Dora the Explorer and her pet Boots.  I knew about Dora from TV and I’ve been to the playground with other kids. So I kind of knew how little people behaved. So I started pretending that Lego Boy and Lego Girl and Dora were playing together.

Aunt Shannon—that’s what I call our CEO—made me a little playground on her window sill. She used plastic spoons to build a teeter-totter, the pull-string tied to the window handle as a swing and kind of a bowl for a merry-go-round.  I had great fun pretending that my toy people were playing at a real park. I asked Umpah why this was so much fun.

He said that I was testing out things that may happen in the future.  He said I was figuring out how the new things I discovered—the stuff he called interactions—worked together. He said that big people call this simulation.  It’s kind of an experiment without the need to actually do the stuff. He said that I was testing the procedures I might use in real life. Playing let me test a lot of things faster than by actually doing them. Playing is really just practicing stuff.

A lot of things are beginning to make sense to me now.  I like Sesame Street, Dora the Explorer and cartoons because they tell simple stories.  They are teaching me structure—how “objects” in my world relate to each other. The duck game I played with Umpah now makes sense. He would give me a stuffed duck; I threw it down; he picked it up and gave it back. I threw it down again. He picked it up again. He was teaching me about patterns of interaction.

Coming to work with Mommy taught me that that where you are matters.  The rules were different from those at home. You have to use different structures—different patterns of activity—in different places. The TV shows, coming to work with Mommy and playing “duck” with Umpah were all preparing me to develop the procedures. I figured out that procedures are just purposeful forms of structure.  I will be building on this in my next phase of growth.

There is one thing I’m still puzzling over. When I was very little I would hear music and rock in a particular way. Everybody at work got real excited when I did that. They called it the Fiona Shuffle.  I liked the praise. I repeated it.  In the process I got pretty good at it. I asked Umpah if this would have any effect on the kinds of things I’m learning about in “I Opt.” He said maybe. 

Umpah told me that all of the tools I had learned about were just ideas in my head—he called them mental constructs (more big words).  He said that the same idea could be interpreted with words, pictures or by how things felt to my senses (he called them visual, auditory and kinesthetic just to show off).   He said that words tend to be precise and definitive—kind of like formulas that give you one result. Pictures tend to be expansive—he said that you can look at the same picture and see different things at different times. Kinesthetic understanding kind of combines words and pictures.  You get to use more variables than are available with words but fewer than are contained in pictures. How much we stress one or the other will affect the kind of options we’ll consider in addressing life’s issues.  He said everyone uses all three of these approaches. 

Umpah said he did not know how much I would come to rely on any one of these modes.  He said he did not know how much getting praised for the Fiona Shuffle would affect me but he thought it would have some effect.  I guess big people do a lot of things without really knowing what they are doing.   We little people just have to do the best we can with what we get.

I thought I’d conclude this blog by trying to extend Umpah’s theory. After all, I am an apprentice organizational theorist.

There is a picture above Mommy’s desk of an alien that I really liked since I was little.  Below it is a framed statement of Umpah’s Alien Hypothesis.  It claims that “I Opt” is universal.  It does not say why.

I got to thinking about the stuff I discovered in my first two years of life. It seems to me that any living creature would have to learn about the tools I discovered just to live. They have to learn to define objects, generalize, abstract and cause things to happen.  The only way anyone can use these tools is through Umpah’s basic “I Opt” process—method (input), mode (output) and process (linking).  Successful strategies will tend to be repeated.  “I Opt” styles are merely patterns of behavior that repeat. That means that—in one form or another—styles will automatically appear. This means that we will find the principles underlying “I Opt” everywhere that we find life anywhere in the universe. The only limit is that the laws of physics that we understand has to apply. “I Opt” may not work in a multi-verse where causation is not applicable   

When I grow up and can use big words I just might try to explain exactly how this works. But that will have to wait. For now I’ve got to work on how to tie my shoes—first things first.

Fiona's First Year: Discovering "I Opt"

By: Fiona (a/k/a Pciona) Wells
Apprentice Organizational Theorist
Professional Communications, Inc.

What a Year! I got born, learned to walk and helped Umpah flesh out his theories.  That's a lot of travel for a 1-year old!

I met Umpah when I was still at the hospital. His real name is Dr. Salton but I call him Umpah.  He said that he knows that his theory—he calls it “I Opt” technology—really works.  But he wanted to know how it develops.  I agreed to help him figure it out.

The first thing I had to tell Umpah was that I was not born tabula rosa. I was born knowing about sucking, crying, moving and other stuff like that. I told Umpah that this was what computer scientists called the “kernel.” It was the link between “me” and whatever else there was that was “not me.”

The first thing I had to do was make a connection to the “not me” world. I had to learn about “input.” Umpah told me that input was just patterns I would recognize as “things.” My first pattern was mommy. She fed me. I began to recognize a pattern of her smell, how she felt when I nursed and what she looked like. All of this happened at the same time. The combination of inputs was the “mommy pattern.”

Mommy’s face was interesting. At first I could only see clearly for about 18 inches. Everything beyond that was a blur. So what I saw was mom’s head—kind of an oval with lots of stuff inside. Umpah said that people tend to recognize things by their boundaries. Mommy’s head was the first “object” that I learned about.  I inferred that the “not me” world was stuff that had boundaries.

As I got older my eyesight improved. I began to notice lots of other things that had boundaries.  Daddy had the same kind of face as mommy. But it had fuzz on it. Then the Grannies began to appear. More faces. I studied them hard. I was able to begin to identify another pattern. It was my “people pattern.”  It was my first input category.  I had learned to generalize!

Umpah got excited when I told him. He told me that people are social animals. He said that it made sense that the core input concept of “people” would lie immediately adjacent (whatever that means) to my “kernel.” He said I would spend the rest of my life embedded in a network of people. It made sense that this was the first category of objects that I recognized.

When I was visiting my cousin Clementine I began to see the value of being a social animal. Clem is a little older than me. I couldn’t take my eyes off of her for over 2 hours! I watched what she did. I noticed her reactions. Everything she did was interesting. My “kernel” helped me recognize that “people” were different. Some are more like me than others. Clem was little. I was little. Umpah calls it an age cohort. Umpah likes to use big words. 

Umpah also told me that the reason I was interested in Clementine was that people model behavior. When I was watching Clem I was learning. She was teaching me what was possible. I could see what other people did when she acted one way or another. Umpah said that this was a lot easier than having to learn everything by myself. I can see why being social is a big advantage.

Output came next. My “kernel” had movement built in. I found that as I flailed around that I occasionally hit something. It would move. I could affect the world! Then I began to figure out that I could grasp some objects. I could move them to wherever I wanted.  I told Umpah that I had discovered causation! 

Umpah got excited again.  He said that causation was a key concept. He said that process—the third element of the “I Opt” model—did not make much sense without it. He said that I had discovered the sequence with which the human information processing model develops—input, then output and finally process. He said that this was a big deal.

Well, once I got the basic processing model down, I began to refine it. I had to figure out if color made noise. Did noise have a taste? Are objects with different textures different “things?” I spent a lot of time examining things. Throwing them. Tasting them. Pushing them. Umpah said that what I was doing was discovering stable patterns. He said that I was constructing a mental model of my world. 

Then an interesting thing happened. Aunt Shannon (she is the company CEO but I made her an honorary aunt) showed me a sheet of paper. I studied it. It had boundaries. It was an object.  Then she tore it in two! I found that hilarious! I asked Umpah why that was funny.

Umpah said that we laugh at things that are unexpected. He said that tearing the sheet was funny because I had been assuming that objects were fixed and permanent. When Aunt Shannon tore the paper she showed me that objects were made of other objects. I confirmed Aunt Shannon’s discovery by learning to tear paper myself. It could take a “thing” and make it other “things.”

Umpah said that philosophers had spent a lot of time trying to figure out what is a “thing.” I told him that it was simple. “Things” were just patterns of reality that I found useful. A sheet of paper was a thing if I wanted a sheet. Pieces of paper were things if I wanted pieces. Whatever I decided a thing was could then become “input” into my information-processing model.

Umpah said I had another important insight. He said that the patterns we create can cause us to “see” new things. He said a guy named Einstein took two “things”—time and space—and saw them as a new “thing.” He called it space-time. Neither could exist without the other. They were not separate “things” but really only one “thing.” I told Umpah to cool his jets. I don’t even know what a clock is yet.

I spent most of my first 6 months at home. I have lots of Grannies and they sometimes came over to take care of me when Mommy and Daddy went to the office. My environment was pretty stable. Stuff pretty much stayed in the same place and did the same thing. It made identifying the patterns of new “things” pretty easy.

After about 6 months I started going to work with Mom and Dad. At first it was scary.  Umpah and Aunt Shannon were there but in a new place. I still wasn’t sure where they stopped and other “things” started. But Umpah had built a little nursery for me. It had the same toys and stuff in it every time I came. I could spend my time figuring out how “things” behaved rather than if they were “things.” I got used to the office pretty fast.

This “I Opt” stuff is pretty easy and makes a lot of sense even to a little person like me. Umpah said that things look complicated when you start out in the middle rather than at the beginning. My first work with “I Opt” had been at the core. He said that I could now use the ideas I had discovered to get even greater insights as I grew up. 

I told Umpah that “I Opt” was no big deal. It was kind of a “thing” like everything else. It was just a pattern. Umpah got excited again (he seems to be a pretty excitable guy). He said that I had discovered abstraction. I told him that was nice. But figuring out how to get the colored rings on and off the pegged toy was a lot more interesting. I had a lot more work to do on “process” before I started worrying about second order mental constructs.

Well, that about sums up my first year. I will be coming into the office more regularly now. I figure that I’ll be able to teach Umpah more about “I Opt” since we will have more time together. I just have to be a little patient. Umpah tends to go off the deep end on this stuff. 

Creativity Science

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D.
Chief: Research and Development
Professional Communications, Inc.


INTRODUCTION 

Video Link

There are at least 100 unique scientific definitions of creativity (1).  There are tens of thousands of books on the subject. “I Opt” technology is able distill all of this knowledge into three distinct components: creative volume, creative quality and creative direction. The research explains how these components can be used to consistently produce superior outcomes.

A companion video both abbreviates and expands this research.  It can be viewed on www.iopt.com or by clicking the link under the icon to directly access the YouTube video. 

THE BASICS
Creativity is a particular kind of result. Regardless of the definition used it always involves novel–i.e., new and unexpected—results. A “result” is just a form of output.  Humans are not gods. They cannot produce something from nothing. That means creativity must always involve the input of something (including concepts, materials, processes, etc.). Finally, to get from input to a creative output (i.e., result) some kind of “process” must have occurred.  Thus, regardless of the specific definition of “creativity” being used we know with certainty that the “I Opt” information processing paradigm will always apply.

Graphic 1
“I OPT” INFORMATION PROCESSING PARADIGM

Input provides the “things” to associate. The more unusual the input that is accepted, the greater the probability of a creative association. The greater the number associations considered, the greater the possibility that one or another will be successful. Thus input governs creativity by affecting the odds of encountering a novel result.

Process is the middle element of the “I Opt” model.  It tells input what to look for and accept.  It tells output what is possible given the input available. There are different kinds of input (i.e., spontaneous vs. purposeful) and different kinds of output goals (e.g., physical versus intellectual). Different kinds of “process” are needed to connect these different input-output relationships. Different processing strategies reflect themselves in creativity's quality and/or character. 

Output is the final stage. A person focused on understanding something is likely to produce a thought-based output (e.g., Newton’s calculus). A person whose interest is a tangible result is likely to produce action-oriented outcomes (e.g., Edison’s light bulb).  While both are creative, their effect on the world is markedly different (i.e., scope of impact, immediacy of benefit, duration of value, etc.). Output governs creativity by affecting its direction. 

Using the “I Opt” information-processing model gives us three distinct points of intervention to affect creativity. These are points of leverage through which we can directly influence the volume, quality and direction of creative efforts.


THE VOLUME OF CREATIVITY
Creativity is a numbers game. The more unusual inputs that are considered, the greater will be the creative volume. “I Opt” styles measure the willingness to accept different kinds of input. Some styles favor creative outcomes. Others forestall them.

People employing the Relational Innovator (RI) and Reactive Stimulator (RS) styles use an unpatterned input strategy. This strategy tends to accept a variety of inputs. Variety increases the odds of novel discoveries. People using the structured input styles (HA and LP) seek out and accept inputs that “fit” with the issues that they are addressing.  This predetermination limits input variability and thus reduces the opportunity for creative ideas.

While the above is true, it is not the whole story.  People do not navigate life using a single style. They tend to pick style combinations to serve as their general behavioral compass. These styles can have different mixes of input preference.  This means that creativity comes in degrees. The exact amount of creativity depends on the relative strength of the specific structured-unpatterned mix of the styles used.

Even that is not the end of the story. Raw input is not the only source of creativity. Even people who heavily rely on structured inputs will encounter unexpected relationships. Existing “things” have dimensions that can serve as new input.  For example, any process has multiple steps that can be altered. But there are fewer dimensions to standard inputs than there are external input varieties.  So there will be fewer creative  “discoveries.” But there will be discoveries.

These various creative routes mean that the volume of human creativity exists on a continuum as shown in Graphic 2. 

Graphic 2
RANGE OF CREATIVE VOLUME

“I Opt” technology measures the likely use of unpatterned input.  This means that the volume of creativity in any individual or group can be reasonably anticipated.  Knowing the position on the continuum gives the professional a point of leverage.  For example, team composition might be adjusted to produce a desired level of creative volume.

In addition, the professional can use the knowledge to guide their interventions. A location on the extreme unpatterned end would suggest that little beyond the comment of “have you got any ideas” would be needed.  Toward the middle of the continuum tools like brainstorming would probably be useful in generating options.  On the structured end of the continuum continuous improvement tools like check sheets, flow charts and cause-effect diagrams could be of value in producing a volume of alternatives. In other words, interventions can be targeted.

Knowing that unpatterned input is the principal (but not only) source of creative ideas is a starting point. Knowing how to measure the likely gradation of creative potential provides a practical tool with which to align people with a particular goal.  Applying these measures to the human assets available means that existing resources can be aligned to best match the demands of the goals being pursued. 

The raw volume of ideas influences the success of any creative effort.  But it is not the only aspect of creativity that  “I Opt” can address.  “I Opt” can also be used to foretell the likely direction that the creativity will take.

 
THE DIRECTION OF CREATIVITY
Creativity is a “connect the dots” exercise.  The input variables supply the dots. The more dots there are, the more possible “pictures” can be created. The actual shape of that “picture” is determined by the output orientation of the dominant individual or group style. 

Styles favoring action-based outcomes (LP and RS) will tend to “connect the dots” in a way that produces tangible results (e.g., products or well-defined methods). Thomas Edison exemplifies this stance with his stream of practical products (e.g., light bulbs, phonograph, motion picture camera, etc.).

Styles favoring a thought orientation (HA and RI) emphasize intellectual contributions—things like systems, plans or new theories. Isaac Newton with his stream of intellectual advances (e.g., calculus, theory of color, gravitation, theory of motion, etc.) illustrates this stance.

Output orientation controls creative direction because it determines focus. Graphic 3 shows the output options as a continuum ranging from “thought” at one end and “action” on the other. 

Graphic 3
RANGE OF CREATIVE DIRECTION

A person focused on “doing” something is likely to try to “connect the dots” in a way that produces a tangible outcome. A person interested in “understanding” will probably focus on the relationships between the “parts” (i.e., variables) and will be found on the “thought” end of the spectrum producing a plan, evaluation or other thought-based assessment.

As with creative volume, there is a mix and match quality to creative direction. In the real world, ideas and actions interact.  This creates the intermediate levels on the continuum. For example, Newton’s contribution was primarily thought-based.  But he also produced a working Newtonian telescope (mirrors rather than lenses magnify the image).  But in general, both individuals and groups will favor one or the other end of the spectrum.  “I Opt” can tell you by how much.

Foreknowledge of the direction of creativity has practical significance.  On an individual basis it can be useful in career planning or task assignment.  On a group basis it can help to design teams that are weighted toward producing a targeted creative output—for example a plan or a product. But there is still one more aspect of creativity highlighted by the “I Opt” lens—quality.




THE QUALITY OF CREATIVITY
Input primarily affects the volume and output influences the direction that creativity will take.  The third element of “I Opt” technology—process—also has a role.  It effects creative quality.

Our “connect the dots” metaphor sees input as providing the “dots” and output guides the image that is imposed on those dots.  “Process” insures that the quality (e.g., the certainty, depth, scope, accuracy, clarity, reliability, consistency, etc.) of the dots and lines meets the standards imposed by the goal. And the driving element of quality is self-imposed personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility comes in degrees and is driven by the way the “I Opt” model works as is illustrated in Graphic 4. 

Graphic 4
HOW PROCESS WORKS

Process tells the input element what input to try to acquire or accept. It tells output what is possible given the input available to work with.  Process iteratively bounces back and forth constantly adjusting input and output. Ultimately it “homes in” on some kind of accommodation.

Styles favoring structured input and action output (the LP style) self-assign the most personal responsibility.  Structured input means that the LP “knows” what is needed.  Action output means that the outcome will be clear-cut and visible to all. The LP defines exactly what they want as input and accepts a specific output as an achievable goal.  So, if something goes wrong it “must” be due to a personal shortcoming. This is a lot of motive to make sure that everything is sorted out before they act. The resultant quality of work is likely to be high.

Next in line is structured input and thought output (the HA style).  Structured input means that there is responsibility for selecting the “right” input.  But thought output always carries a degree of ambiguity.  A slight miscalculation or a random variable may have compromised the output. Any damage will be minimal since no action was taken.  Any personal shortcoming is mitigated by these factors. The level of self-assigned responsibility is still strong but is lessened.

Unpatterned input and action output (the RS style) occupies the next position. Action output means that success or failure will again be clear-cut and visible. However, unpatterned input provides a good “reason” why an accepted goal was not achieved.  In addition, unpatterned input means not much was invested in preparation. The level of self-assigned responsibility moves down a notch. Failure still “stings” but does not seriously threaten the evaluation of personal self-worth.

Last in line of self-assigned personal responsibility is unpatterned input and thought output (the RI style). Unpatterned input means that not much was invested in seeking out particular inputs. In addition, the ambiguity and lack of direct consequence associated with thought output reinforces the personal shield. Under these conditions a “process” that quickly produces highly speculative ideas using only partially defined logic is rational.    Failure is not personal. This translates into an uneven quality of the creative output.

Self-assigned responsibility gives rise to the potential for blame.  “Blame” is an assignment of personal responsibility for a negative outcome. As shown above, the degree of self-imposed “blame” will vary.  No one has to impose it. It is embedded in the “I Opt” style elections.

Once again, everyone has varying elements of each “I Opt” style in their repertoire.  That means that there will be a mix and match quality to self-imposed personal responsibility on both an individual and group basis as shown in Graphic 5. 

Graphic 5
CREATIVE QUALITY CONTINUUM

Variation in self-imposed responsibility and blame potential causes people to differ in the effort they expend in assuring that a creative initiative is “right.” That gives rise to the difference in creative quality. But that is not the only implication.  “Blame” is personal and carries a potentially high emotional component.

An individual holding high levels of self-imposed responsibility  (LP) can “feel” disproportionate anguish over the “failure” of an initiative.  A person falling on the other end of the spectrum (RI) might simply dismiss even serious breaches.  Put those people on the same team and a possibility of team tension is inherent. Since emotional reactions are not rational the “cause” of any such problem is unlikely to be obvious. This is one of the prime causes of “dysfunctional teams” that just do not seem to work regardless of what is tried.

“I Opt” technology gives the professional a means of guiding organizational direction as well as a tool for managing at least some of the emotional elements of team operations.   This is no small advance. 



 "I OPT" AND CREATIVITY
The “I Opt” lens has exposed an entire calculus for creativity.  Three continuums of volume, direction and quality give the organizational professional a wide range of options. “I Opt” scores and technology give the practical tools with which to measure and predict likely outcomes of this selection for any particular group.  The professional need only combine these elements with their understanding of local conditions to produce consistently superior performance results.

There is also an opportunity for the academic in this analysis.  The self-imposed responsibility and “blame” aspects of the process element of the “I Opt” model provide a natural link to psychology.  The exploration of this channel is beyond the competence of this writer but its promise is obvious. It is a matter worthy of pursuit by someone better equipped in the field of psychology than is this author.



BIBLIOGRAPHY
Meusburger, Peter (2009). "Milieus of Creativity: The Role of Places, Environments and Spatial Contexts". In Meusburger, P., Funke, J. and Wunder, E.. Milieus of Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Spatiality of Creativity. Springer. ISBN 1402098766, 9781402098765.