It certainly does, but that is not a good thing.

For those who disbelieve that there are highly creative individuals–indeed, geniuses– who simply have a different sensibility from others, I have two words for you: William Blake. I really doubt that Blake’s, or even Coleridge’s, creative work arose merely from simple hard work, knowledge of their fields, and rumination and revision.

For the rest: Weisberg simply has an axe to grind, in my view, and is just another in that long, boring procession of authors (like Gladwell) who make their reputations (and money*) from being “daringly contrarian” and puncturing received wisdom–which usually turns out to be their straw man caricature of the latter. De Bono, for example, in no way downplays the need for fundamental knowledge of a given field, nor do I recall his saying (and I’ve read plenty of his work) that lateral thinking is *required* for creativity; merely that one needs to pay attention to the way one organizes information via one’s perceptions.

My intention is not to convince the pro-Weisberg faction one way or the other, except that an honest representation of de Bono’s ideas would be a good start.

*It’s funny how, in the other thread on lateral thinking, where we read caustic comments about de Bono’s skill at self-marketing, no one raises the issue of how lucrative “contrarianism” has become. Sauce for the goose, anyone?

I needed that, concentrate on doing (actions, routines, processes)

But I’d rather spend an evening listening to the Velvet Underground.

Yes, certainly, the Velvet Underground and the Kinks please the conoisseurs (and me!), and they’ve enjoyed influence far beyond their (substantial) record sales. They might be “better” than the Beatles by a given critic’s measure of skill. But they aren’t — not even arguably — more influential than the Beatles.

I need to read the book but this does presuppose that one finds the Beatles or Microsoft that interesting. Successful certainly but some might argue that the less polished music of the Velvets or the social commentary of the Kinks are more enduring artefacts from the 60s.

Marketing and image is key – the Beatles and Stones had the best management to promote them and therefore they are ingrained in the popular consciousness in a way that Arthur Lee or Lou Reed are sadly not.