[sophacles]

I'm a pretty big believer in the idea the ideas are emergent phenomena. On creative days, I can average an idea a minute. Most of these are things I've heard already and forgotten (except some small part in the back of my head) or combinations of 2 or 3 comments/blogs or papers or whatever I've read here or elsewhere. Also most of them are crap. An even higher portion of the "original" ones are crap. But the ones that make it through my internal filter are usually not full ideas in themself, no matter how excited I am about them. (and again, most of those are crap too)

I suspect a lot of people work this way, based on conversations etc. Some people just don't realize it. A lot more ideas have already been done/started by someone.

What does this mean to me? It means that a lot of the new things are logical, or semi logical progressions (or at least natural extensions via human thought).

As I see more of this, I've started tracking how bits of thought and idea float through groups/networks of people[1]. I've decided that the basic notion of "my idea" is broken. In my experience ideas are usually the result of bouncing thoughts through a pile of distributed human nodes, getting filtered/modified/improved, until finally someone has "a flash of brilliance". Then finally a good idea emerges.

So I don't worry about people stealing my ideas. They probably aren't mine. The are ours (for a pretty large our). Instead I've decided that unless I am prepared to execute, and can gather the team to do so, the best course of action is to keep my thoughts streaming through the network. They will grow and build, and may help others get to execution of something awesome.

When I do plan to execute, then I will be a bit more careful about talking and spreading the thought, but I still find that until something solid is being produced, an NDA (or social implicit version thereof) really isn't needed. Everyone that can execute is probably already executing their own ideas and doesn't have time/energy to "take" it from you. There are more ideas than doers. (corollary: those who will try to steal probably can't execute...)

Finally, since there are more ideas than doers, even if your idea is taken, there is another one coming down the pipe tomorrow :)

[1] This is an interesting game. It is very hard to figure out how to formalize (probably because I don't care that much) but for example I've tossed some thought out in meetings, then seen it appear later in a another meeting in better/different form a week or two later, no attribution, but thats ok, its just experiment. Similarly, in college when I bartended (and thus was a member of a small core network of college-town bartenders with lots of links to the rest of the campus) I would play the 'rumor game'. I would randomly mention stuff (true or not) about me near known gossips, just to see how it would bounce around the network and see what came back. Highly amusing, and very informative in relation to this too.

[davemel37]

You should really read Napolean Hill's "Think and Grow Rich." Your comment was written by him in the 1920's.

He discusses how there are two types of creativity, one comes from applying your knowledge and experiences to other situations, and the other comes from what he calls, "infinite knowledge" that is floating out there and can be tapped into under the right circumstances.

[sophacles]

Thanks for the pointer!

[vessenes]

>>> Finally, since there are more ideas than doers, even if your idea is taken, there is another one coming down the pipe tomorrow :)

This has to be one of the hardest things to remember for entrepreneurs, especially new ones. I frequently have to remember not to fall too hard for some cool idea, and I've been at this for a while now..

[javajosh]

The grandpost is brilliant. But that comment assumes that ideas and execution are independent variables, which is not the case.

[sophacles]

Thanks! Can you expand on this notion that ideas and execution are not independent? What I think you're suggesting is that the act of executing (or attempting to execute) will add data to the process of what is good or bad about a particular idea, and perhaps provide hooks for new thoughts/improvements to that idea. Is this accurate?

[vibrunazo]

I think that's just semantic misunderstanding. Some people name as "idea" the combination of concept + execution proposal. Other's name "idea" as the concept alone. I don't think there's a right or wrong here, people just have different opinions of how to call what.

Personally, for practical purposes and pushing myself forward, I prefer calling idea something that has a clear execution strategy. If you have a brilliant concept but not sure how to put it in practice. Then in my opinion you got half an idea, and should work on the other half.

[vessenes]

Yes, exactly. This is a more nicely stated version of what I was thinking.

[javajosh]

Ideas and execution are not independent. For example, it is easier to execute an idea that you believe in rather than one you don't. (In a vacuum it may seem strange to think that someone would execute an idea that they don't believe in, but realize that this happens all the time, perhaps the majority of time). Another example, it is easier to execute an idea which actually has a market - the enthusiasm of customers is infectious and highly motivating. Final example, execution is better when the idea 'goes with the grain' of available technology (if it's a technology idea, of course).