I just read this article and thought of the survival implications:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/stumped-by-a-problem-the-generic-parts-technique-technique-unsticks-youThe idea is that the implied function of an object makes you blind to its other uses and to overcome it you have to describe the object (and its parts) in as generic terms as possible to yourself.
Unless an alternative function for an object is known (e.g. ice as a firestarter lens), chances are you're not likely to think of good uses for your resources until you start thinking of them in more generic terms.
I found this to be really good advice in general, ymmv <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
From the article :
"For each object in your problem, you break it into parts and ask two questions,” explains McCaffrey.
1. Can it be broken down further?
2.Does my description of the part imply a use?"
For example, say you’re given two steel rings and told to make a figure-8 out of them. Your tools? A candle and a match. Melted wax is sticky, but the wax isn’t strong enough to hold the rings together.
What about the other part of the candle? The wick. The word implies a use: wicks are set afire to give light. “That tends to hinder people’s ability to think of alternative uses for this part,” says McCaffrey. Think of the wick more generically as a piece of string and the string as strands of cotton and you’re liberated.
Now you can remove the wick and tie the two rings together. Or, if you like, shred the string and make a wig for your hamster.
McCaffrey has drawn his insights by analyzing 1,001 historically innovative inventions. In every one, he found, the innovator discovered an obscure feature or an obscure function.
