What if I told you that engaging in the arts could make you a better scientist? Researchers at Michigan State University found that scientists who won the Nobel Prize were significantly more likely to engage in the arts than scientists who didn’t win the coveted prize. In fact, winners of the Nobel Prize were 7x more likely to be artists like painters, 12x more likely to be writers like poets, and 22x more likely to be performers like dancers than their counterparts who didn’t win the prize. As Professor Adam Grant notes in his book Originals, the “unique combination of broad and deep experience is critical for creativity.” Professor Grant also notes how Galileo was able to identify mountains on the moon because he was able to decipher the contrasting patterns of light and dark on the surface of the moon whereas other scientists failed to make such discovery even though they were observing the same moon surface. Galileo, because of his experience in the painting and drawing, was able to recognize what these patterns of light and dark were depicting.
The above examples shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that becoming a dancer will make you a better scientist. And these examples should definitely not be interpreted to suggest that becoming an artist will help you win the Nobel Prize. But there is a correlation and these findings support the concept that broadening our perspectives can help us become better at our specialties.
To further expand on this concept, I would like to discuss what I call static thinking and dynamic thinking. Static thinking occurs when we think within one discipline. Dynamic thinking is when we think fluidly across two or more disciplines. Based on these definitions, it is possible to have multiple forms of static thinking and dynamic thinking; however, having multiple forms of static thinking does not naturally give rise to dynamic thinking. For instance, you may be a scientist and an artist. By default, you are able to engage in static thinking as a scientist and as an artist, respectively. Unless you are able to link these two modes of thinking, you will not be able to engage in dynamic thinking. Additionally, if you are a scientist, artist, and athlete, you, by default, can engage in static thinking within these three modes individually. If you are able to think fluidly between your scientific mindset and your artistic mindset, then you will be able to engage in dynamic thinking between those two modes. But, if you are unable to think fluidly between your scientific mindset and your athletic mindset, then you will not be able to engage in dynamic thinking between these two modes. Lastly, it is impossible to have a dynamic perspective without having a static perspective in at least two areas.
(Note that there are multiple definitions available for static and dynamic thinking. The definitions that I use here should not be confused with how these terms are used outside of this article, as the definitions presented here are used precisely to fit within this framework of understanding.)
There is great value in each of static thinking and dynamic thinking — one should not be prized over the other. There are, however, certain situations where one mode of thinking can provide more value than the other. In particular, static thinking is more suitable for building foundational understanding and isolated expertise, and dynamic thinking is more suitable to drive innovation and change.
Static Thinking
Static thinking is particularly important when you are building a particular knowledge base within a specified field. If you want to be a programmer, you need to build expertise in the foundations of computer science. If you want to be a doctor, you need to build expertise in the foundations of medicine. At the same time, if you want to learn more about the field that you are in, diving further into the minutia of the subject matter can deepen your understanding and practice.
When you are building a team, it is typically better to bring on people with a diverse set of skills. If you are, for instance, running a company, it is important to have a chief executive officer to manage the daily operations and lead the vision of the company, a chief financial officer to manage the finances, a general counsel to manage the legal aspects of your business, and a chief operating officer to navigate and coordinate the logistics of the company. When filling these roles, there is an expectation that these individuals will have the expertise that they were hired for and that they can apply their specialized thinking towards the company. Although it is also important for these individuals to be able to leverage their dynamic thinking, they must also be skillful within their subject matter qua subject matter. Another way to think about this is to compare how sports teams manage their players and their positions. A quarterback must be able to think like a quarterback, a running back must be able to think like a running back, and so on. Of course, star players are able to apply dynamic thinking as well. But, at the core, they must be able to perform their specific role better than anyone else on the team — or else they will be dropped from that position.
Static thinking is also important for developing precision. If you are going into the hospital for simple surgery, it’s important to consider that the department head is not necessarily the best surgeon for the job. She may be great at developing new procedures, running the department, and applying dynamic thinking because of her ability to take a broader view on the practice, but a more junior surgeon may be able to complete the surgery with greater precision because he has completed more surgeries of that type more recently. Alternatively, more complex procedures may be better performed by the department head because addressing novel challenges with higher degrees of success can come from dynamic thinking — e.g., the ability to spot issues and solutions outside of the norm.
The risks of applying only static thinking in your field of expertise is that you may miss other important information by being overly focused on a particular item. Researchers at the Brigham & Women’s Hospital conducted an experiment that asked radiologists to review CT scans of the human lung. Hidden in these images is a picture of a gorilla. When 24 radiologists were asked to screen a series of CT scans for cancer nodes, 83% of the radiologists missed the gorilla because they were laser focused on identifying white cancer nodes. This study furthered the body of research highlighting the existence of inattentional blindness amongst experts.
Dynamic Thinking
Dynamic thinking follows the development of static thinking in two or more fields. By being able to connect the dots across disciplines, dynamic thinking is great for innovating and challenging norms. To create something new, we must combine ideas that have never been combined before. To achieve that successfully, we need to think fluidly across fields. Just like how scientists who win the Nobel Prize differ from their peers or like how Galileo was able to make sense of light patterns in plain sight, we too can apply dynamic thinking to our own pursuits.
Take a moment and think about your favorite athlete. They will likely exhibit high levels of dynamic thinking in addition to their expert levels of static thinking. Although there are many professional athletes, there are only a few superstars. Many of them have been able to distinguish themselves from their peers because they were able to capitalize on something different from the pack. After all, if you do the same thing as everyone else, you will end up like everyone else.
My two favorite tennis players are Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Both players have vastly different play styles: Federer is elegantly precise with a play style perfect for grass where Nadal is elegantly physical with a play style perfect for clay. But both debated the same fundamental question: to pursue soccer or to pursue tennis? Can you imagine? What if Federer and Nadal both became soccer players?! The tennis world would have missed out on what I believe to be the greatest rivalry in tennis history. This soccer point isn’t just interesting from the “what if” scenario, but it’s also interesting to see how their soccer experiences play into their tennis. Both players have incredible footwork. Most people, including most tennis players, don’t fully appreciate the value of good footwork. When you watch professional matches, particularly the top players, you’ll notice a material difference between how much more their feet move when compared to novice players. Even when professional players are waiting for their shots to be returned, their feet are still moving! As a disclaimer, I have not had the wonderful privilege to interview Federer or Nadal on whether they engage in dynamic thinking between tennis and soccer. And, if they did engage in such thinking, it would likely be intuitive and second nature at this point. Nonetheless, the crossover seems apparent and the fact that both of these players have some of the best footwork in the game does not appear to be coincidence.
A more direct example of dynamic thinking comes from Bruce Lee. Recognizing the limitations of isolated martial arts forms, he sought to combine what he believed to be the most effective techniques across various forms to develop his own formless style known as jeet kune do. Bruce Lee emphasized that one should “Absorb what is useful. Reject what is useless. Add what is essentially your own.” In this way, Bruce Lee was a pioneer of his time and is highly recognized as the father of mixed martial arts.
If you are interested in adapting dynamic thinking to your pursuits, take a look at the below list of suggestions. This list is by no means exclusive. As this is an iterative process, there is no particular order that needs to be followed. The fundamental principle is commitment: you must commit to dynamic thinking in order to bridge connections and proactively apply them to problem solve. Once you establish those connections, dynamic thinking between your established fields may become second nature. If not, you can run through the below suggestions to jumpstart the process.
- Feed your curiosity regardless of what it is. As Steve Jobs famously noted, “You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards.” Although Jobs was remarking on the need to trust that the pieces of your life will come together, this comment also highlights the important idea of preparation. If you have more dots to work with, you can create more connections. Thus, if you are curious and acquire more knowledge, you can work to create more connections that drive dynamic thinking. You might not know how you might use this knowledge moving forward, but it’s better to have that in your back pocket in case you need it than to not have it at all. Again, new ideas require concepts to be connected in novel ways. If it’s obvious, it’s not innovative because someone did it already.
- Think of your knowledge like you do your finances. The simple and hard truth about establishing financial wealth is that you need to create multiple streams of income. The same is true of your knowledge. Imagine that static thinking represents one stream of income. Yes, you can generate a lot of cash flow from just one stream just like you can create a lot of value with static thinking. But imagine scaling this model up with multiple streams of income that interact with one another. For example, you can have a primary source of revenue that drives your investments into hard assets and stocks that drive your passive income. Now imagine doing this with your knowledge. By having multiple, interconnected modes of thinking, you can drive your intellectual wealth.
- Point the microscope inward. Take out a sheet of paper and list out your experiences, travels, skills, and studies, regardless of how irrelevant they may seem. Now ask yourself how they might relate to your task at hand. Of these, identify the top two or three solutions based on practicality and feasibility. Then, test them out. For example, if you are working to create a new dish at the restaurant you work for, think about how your travels can influence your approach to cooking. Or, if you are working on a new marketing campaign, think about how your background in tech can bring efficiency to your outreach.
- Have fun. Dynamic thinking should be an enjoyable process. Not everything requires dynamic thinking and static thinking may be the most appropriate approach to a particular situation. If you aren’t having fun during this process, take a step back and ask yourself why you want to engage in dynamic thinking. Fitting a square peg in a round hole will never work unless you force it, and by forcing it you destroy the integrity of the peg. This is but one tool for you to use.
As with static thinking, there are also important considerations when engaging in dynamic thinking. For instance, if you focus too heavily on just connecting the dots, you run the risk of having a breadth of knowledge without any depth. The scientists that won Nobel Prizes had deep static knowledge within their scientific field of expertise, but they were able to broaden their perspectives through the arts to give them new vantage points. Thus, where dynamic thinking can drive innovative value, be sure to establish deep modes of static thinking first.
Parting Thoughts
Different situations require different approaches. It is important to be mindful when applying static thinking and dynamic thinking to your everyday lives, as knowing when to use one over the other is just as important as being able to think in both modes.
If you enjoyed this article, hit the clap button below and follow me for more content like this.
Think well my friends,
Adam
This article is the second in a series of discussions focused on expanding your thinking. If you would like to learn more, feel free to connect with me on social media or subscribe to my “Weekend Thoughts” newsletter at https://www.atphilosophy.com/subscribe.
Adam advises businesses and individuals on business strategy, develops thought leadership content, and keynotes. As a business philosopher, he draws on his experiences in corporate law, sales, nonprofits, and philosophy to develop practical frameworks to shift business and individual mindsets and skillsets. He is the founder of At Philosophy and the president of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association Educational Fund. See www.adamtsao.com.
References (Not Sponsored)
- Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World, Adam Grant: https://www.amazon.com/Originals-How-Non-Conformists-Move-World/dp/014312885X.
- The Invisible Gorilla Strikes Again: Sustained Inattentional Blindness in Expert Observers, Trafton Drew, Melissa L. H. Vo, and Jeremy M. Wolfe: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3964612/.
- Roger Federer Explains Why He Chose Tennis Over Football, Luigi Gatto, https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Roger_Federer/68180/roger-federer-explains-why-he-chose-tennis-over-football/
- Rafael Nadal Explains Why He Chose Tennis Over Football, Luigi Gatto, https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Rafael_Nadal/70193/rafael-nadal-shares-why-he-chose-tennis-over-football/
- Jeet Kune Do, Bruce Lee, https://bruceleefoundation.org/jeetkunedo/#:~:text=Bruce%20Lee%20developed%20an%20expression,having%20no%20limitation%20as%20limitation.%E2%80%9D
- 2005 Stanford Commencement, Steve Jobs, https://news.stanford.edu/2005/06/14/jobs-061505/.
