[Cognitive Engineering Theory of Creation] OS Protocol for Creators Part 1: 'Deconstructing Writing Ability'
Is 'that' really a matter of talent?
The moment people give up on their dreams by saying 'I have no talent,' they feel a little bit relieved.
After continuing to make an effort, you hit a wall and conclude, 'This is a matter of talent.'
At that moment, you find an answer to a painful question.
Why am I not getting better?
Why am I not being recognized?
The answer is 'talent'
It is a simple, clean, yet tragic conclusion.
But, is it really because of that 'talent'?
Have you truly verified it?
In many cases, people reach a conclusion while leaving the option of verification completely outside their scope of thought.
Why do people dismiss things with the word 'talent'?
Before concluding it is 'because of talent,' there are things we should think about in detail.
What did you want to get better at?
What elements is that 'skill' composed of?
When you hit a wall, did you properly look at the true nature of that wall?
We open the door to the reason called 'talent' without looking closely at the subject.
That is because we have not defined the words we use to speak about it in the first place.
So, let's start by defining our terms.
If language is not correct, then actions will not be successful.
(If words are not in order, then things will not be accomplished.)
The heading is a famous saying by Confucius.
Translated into modern terms, it feels something like, 'If the definitions of words are off, the logic of the discussion will not align, and the project will fail.'
So, following the example of Master Confucius, let's check the definition of 'Theory of Creation'.
Surprisingly, it does not exist.
Just to be sure, I checked a paper dictionary, but it was not listed there either.
In other words, a single definition for 'Theory of Creation' has not been established, so it becomes a matter of thinking about 'creation' + 'theory'.
Originally, the word 'creation' itself is a very broad concept.
However, the majority of what is currently circulating as 'Theory of Creation' is concentrated on theories of creative technique.
But when thought of as 'creation' + 'theory,' the term extends far beyond creative techniques to cover every generative act of human beings.
When I scrutinized the definition of the word following the teachings of our predecessors, I began to see a blind spot in the term 'Theory of Creation'.
So, what exactly is the 'free theory of creation' that lies beyond that discrepancy?
What will be developed from here on is a 'cognitive OS protocol that switches the brain's mechanisms for creators' under the name of 'Theory of Creation'.
I will introduce methods that will reshape your 'inner brain'.
Deconstructing 'Writing Ability'
I once read a certain note article.
It was an article by someone who aimed for success through writing and continued to write every day for over a year.
They read a massive amount of books, wrote a massive amount of articles, and trained their writing ability.
Even so, after being told it was 'amateur writing' and falling into despair,'Writing ability is talent'was the conclusion they reached.
I felt very sad while reading it.
I am sure it was serious for that person.
I have no intention of mocking a conclusion reached after serious effort.
But at the same time, a snag formed in my mind.
Was 'putting in the quantity' really equal to 'improving one's ability'?
I believe there is a cognitive trap in the word 'writing ability'.
This word creates the illusion that it is a skill at the output stage (word choice, style, rhythm).
That is why prescriptions like 'you will get better if you write a lot' or 'you will acquire it if you trace beautiful prose' circulate, and many people are working on them.
However, hidden behind the word 'writing ability' is a more complex set of skills.
Writing is an output result.
And an output result is born from the act of outputting.
Then, what is supporting that act?
The answer is 'thinking,' 'objectivity,' and 'experience.'
Writing = Output result
Output = Act
There is a complex set of skills before that.
Specifically, it looks like this.
Structuring ability (thinking)
What do you want to say, in what order, and what should you omit?
How do you assemble it and how do you convey it to the reader?
It is not a writing technique, but an editing ability of thought.
Ability to move between abstraction and concreteness (thinking)
The ability to handle concepts at an appropriate level of granularity.
If you cannot make this round trip and remain stuck on the concrete (talking about yourself), you will not be able to connect to the abstract (universal claims).
Conversely, if you remain stuck on the abstract side, the reader will not be able to keep up.
Ability to be aware of one's own thinking (objectivity)
The ability to see what you are thinking implicitly.
The objectivity of your claims, how the intended reader reads it, how to place the phrases you want to use, etc.
The ability to view yourself and your work from a bird's-eye perspective.
If this is weak, you will end up writing while relying on unverified premises like 'quantity = effort' or 'belief = truth,' and after receiving fatal counterarguments, you will lose sight of yourself.
Experience
Topics you can write about, impressive phrases, ways of thinking, results of writing training, etc.
Gathering parts for writing and how to organize the act of writing.
Input is the amount of knowledge and the extent of actual experience.
Output is spoken of in terms of tens of thousands of characters or how many days it took.
Because it is quantitative and easy to understand, many people recognize only this as 'effort.'
As a result, it leads to the experience of 'I tried hard but it didn't go well.'
Organizing cognitive traps
Various cognitive traps have appeared up to this point.
In this section, let's organize them.
Trap 1: The Illusion of the Term 'Writing Ability'
The expression 'writing ability' gives the impression that it refers only to output-stage skills (vocabulary, style, rhythm).
In reality, despite a complex set of skills—structuring ability, abstraction ability, objectivity, and experience—lying behind it, people look only at the surface of the words and limit the issue to 'techniques of how to write'.
Trap 2: The Unverified Equation of 'Quantity = Effort = Improvement'
The trap of unquestioningly accepting prescriptions like 'You'll get better if you write a lot' or 'You'll master it if you trace beautiful prose'.
Because the quantity of output (character count, number of days) is easily visualized, people recognize only that as 'effort' and unconsciously exclude the perspectives of 'thinking ability and objectivity'.
Trap 3: The Simplistic Conclusion of 'Effort Without Reward = Lack of Talent'
As a result of repeating efforts using the wrong methods, you hit a wall.
There, instead of correctly analyzing the cause, you jump to the conclusion of 'lack of talent'.
Because this conclusion is psychologically easy as an 'answer to a painful question', it is easily adopted without verification.
Trap 4: The Implicit Premise of 'Quantity = Effort' and 'Belief = Truth'
If your 'self-awareness of thinking (objectivity)'—the ability to see what you are unconsciously assuming—is weak, you will continue to write while relying on unverified premises.
Unable to take a bird's-eye view of the direction of your efforts or the validity of your arguments, you repeat the experience of 'doing it but not succeeding'.
Trap 5: Fixation on 'Concretes (Self-Narrative)'
If you lack the ability to move back and forth between the abstract and the concrete, you remain stuck on your own experiences and emotions, unable to connect to universal arguments (abstractions).
On the other hand, if you get stuck on the abstract side, the reader will no longer be able to keep up.
As a result, you end up mass-producing writing that fails to resonate with readers.
Summary of Part 1
What is truly scary is not a lack of talent, but having the 'brain circuits' that initiate trial and error and feedback closed off.
What went wrong?
Why didn't it get across?
Where should I change it?
Continuing to ask these kinds of questions.
That should be a much stronger force for changing your writing than talent ever could be.
Accepting 'a version of yourself that lacks talent' and 'blaming talent to stop thinking' are similar, but they are completely different.
Which one will you choose?