Have Lots of Ideas
Linus Pauling, the only person in history to win two individual Nobel Prizes, succinctly describes the essence of productive creativity: “The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas.”
Pauling’s claim has been supported by various research efforts over the last several decades. One recent study claims, "We found that higher number of responses on the divergent thinking task was significantly associated with higher creativity (r = 0.73) as independently assessed by three judges." Which is to say, having lots of ideas is the best way to have good ideas.
Sounds simple enough. But just how many is “lots”?
By one man’s measure, that number is 5,127. That’s how many iterations James Dyson undertook to perfect the world’s first bagless vacuum cleaner. The exact number varies by field, but suffice it to say, “lots” means hundreds, if not thousands of ideas.
Which is to say, “lots of ideas” is likely lots more than you’d normally think.
I’m curious to know: what are folks’ favorite tactics to stimulate imagination and feed the flow of ideas? Drop your comments below, if you’re interested in the conversation, too.
Related: Join the Quantity Group
Related: Set An Input Quota
Related: Inputs —>Outputs
Click here to subscribe to Paint & Pipette, the weekly digest of these daily posts.
My new favorite diagnostic: if you cannot find ways to generate more than $200 of value from frontier AI over the course of an entire month, you're failing a basic creativity test.
This isn't about AI's limitations—it's about yours.
“Think:Act Magazine” was curious about how I incorporate AI into my own creative process as a writer, so they visited my home studio to observe my workflow. What followed was a fascinating exploration of how I use multiple LLMs as collaborative partners rather than just tools. Fun to be featured alongside heroes of innovation like Astro Teller, Amy Edmondson, and the legendary design duo Charles and Ray Eames!
A recent study by American Management Association revealed that 58% of professionals feel "behind" in their AI adoption journey. While most folks know me as "the Beyond the Prompt guy," here's what you might not know: I struggle with this stuff too.
Last week, I proposed a simple but fundamental shift: we need to stop thinking about AI as a technology rollout and start treating it like a new teammate. What I didn't fully explain is that this isn't just a semantic distinction. It produces measurably better results.
I’ve been seriously thinking about AI for over two years now, and I’m finally hitting my stride when it comes to my point of view. The fundamental shift I believe everyone must make is from thinking of AI as a technology, to thinking of AI as a teammate.
Still waiting on other people before you tap AI? Big mistake. This post exposes the silent tax of “AI inaction,” hands you the five‑rung ladder for turning any model into your on‑call mentor, and launches a seven‑day sprint that will hard‑wire the habit—so you can seize the advantage while everyone else is still scheduling meetings.
Last week, Shopify CEO Tobi Lütke released an internal memo that's been making waves. My take: this isn't just another tech CEO jumping on the AI bandwagon. It's the clearest articulation I've seen of a principle I've been exploring the past 18 months: the greatest risk with AI isn't failure—it's inaction.
I'm best known for my work on innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship. My “shift” toward AI might seem like a radical departure. But it's not a shift—it's an evolution. Having taught and spoken to tens of thousands from ~100 countries in the last two years, I’m more convinced than ever that AI isn't separate from innovation; it's the most profound innovation platform of our lifetime.
AI isn't coming for your job. But someone using AI almost certainly is. So why not take your own job before someone else does? It’s time to prioritize and systematize disrupting ourselves.
I thought I was running a standard innovation workshop with one of my favorite clients. Instead, I came to face to face with my own biases, and accidentally broke an entire organization's understanding of what's possible.