XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 14/02/2026 9:40 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 12/02/2026 9:39 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 23:09:43 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.   
   >>> Lodder) wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> john larkin  wrote:   
      
      
      
   >> You don't brainstorm at scientific meetings. You do it in a more   
   >> cooperative environment where you try to find a new angle of attack on   
   >> problem that doesn't seem to have an obvious solution.   
   >   
   > IMHO brainstorming is much overrated.   
   > It may be useful in 'creative' environments,   
   > when for example inventing a new ad campaign   
   > to sell yet another useless product to the suckers.   
   >   
   > In a serious environment, in engineering or science,   
   > there is little room or need for it.   
   >   
   > High level professionals already know their stuff,   
   > and the likelyhood of instantly coming up with something   
   > that nobody has thought up yet is small.   
      
   Small, but not negligible. The aim is more to get people to look at   
   problems from variety of different points of view than it is to generate   
   some paradigm-shifting insight (though finding a sufficiently different   
   point of view can sometimes do that).   
      
   > And anyway, given the highly competitive environment,   
   > it would be quite unwise to blurt out half-baked 'brilliant' ideas   
   > rather than work them out first for yourself,   
   > (and claim them).   
      
   Brainstorming is designed to get around that inhibition. No idea is   
   castigated as half-baked - it's valued as potential stepping stone to a   
   different point of view.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)