Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Opinion

The forgotten half of scientific thinking

Marten Scheffer
  1. aEnvironmental Science Department, Wageningen University, 6700 DD, Wageningen, The Netherlands; and
  2. bSouth American Institute for Resilience and Sustainability Studies, 10302 Bella Vista, Maldonado, Uruguay

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS April 29, 2014 111 (17) 6119; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404649111
Marten Scheffer
aEnvironmental Science Department, Wageningen University, 6700 DD, Wageningen, The Netherlands; and
bSouth American Institute for Resilience and Sustainability Studies, 10302 Bella Vista, Maldonado, Uruguay
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Marten.Scheffer@wur.nl
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Although thinking is the core business of scientists, we rarely ponder how it thrives best; this is ironic, as there is abundant scientific insight to draw upon. For example, it is now known that thinking has two complementary modes: roughly, association versus reasoning (1). We systematically underestimate the role of the first (1), and the way our institutions, meetings, and teaching are organized heavily reflects this imbalance. By contrast, many of the greatest scientists systematically nurtured a balanced dual-thinking process. We should follow their example and reform scientific practice and education to catalyze the unusual combinations of knowledge that often turn out to have the highest impact (2).

Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Marten Scheffer.

Although the precise physiological basis of the two aspects of cognition is not yet resolved, it has become clear that the complementary mode to rationality is the “associative machine” in our brain. The capacity to make remote associations is linked to creativity (1). This capacity varies between persons, but also depends on our state of mind. For example, ideas may come while falling asleep, peeling potatoes, or walking. In fact, Charles Darwin had a special “thinking path” close to his house where he used to stroll twice a day to promote his thought. Recent experimental work confirms that our capacity to make novel associations is boosted by rapid eye-movement sleep (3) and by undemanding activities that allow the mind to wander (4). This finding suggests that it may be good in a daily routine to alternate our cognitive work with naps or activities conducive to mind wandering.

However, to let the associative machine come up with useful new ideas it needs to have good elements to connect. Darwin’s walks could generate his groundbreaking insights only because his mind was loaded with a rich array of life-long observations and ideas, which raises the questions: How can we best provide our minds with elements that might combine into crucial novel insights?

A study of 17 million scientific articles recently showed that the highest impacts often come from work that is well-grounded in a field of research but at the same time involves an unusual link to another field (2). Why are such influential links so unusual? How can we feed the associative machine in our brain with potential elements for such unexpected links? This is a tantalizing problem, because if the connection should be unexpected one cannot plan for it. Should we just allow curiosity to guide us on a random walk and collect elements for our associative machine on the way? Perhaps we should. As Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow, known for his many revolutionary contributions to economics, phrased his attitude in a conversation we had: “It is so far from anything I do, I must be interested.” The idea that such a broad interest can be productive fits with the finding that winners of the world’s top science prizes had, without exception, internalized a lot of scientific diversity (5).

However, if novelty arises from diversity, why does institutionally planned interdisciplinarity so rarely generate the sparks we hope for? Why do unplanned, random encounters seem to be more productive in this respect? This seems frustratingly uncontrollable, but unusual encounters can be promoted too. Small interdisciplinary institutes, such as the South American Institute for Resilience and Sustainability Studies, Santa Fe, and Janelia Farm, may have the best cards for that, although on a traditional campus simply creating irresistible informal places with nice food or free coffee may already catalyze a lot of unplanned cross-disciplinary encounters (5).

It may feel uneasy to count on the unplanned, and risky to pursue remote associations, but this is calculated risk. When I was discussing these ideas with Kenneth Arrow, he stated: “If you are not wrong two-thirds of your time, you are not doing very well.” He added, “if you are wrong you had better find out yourself, not only because it is more pleasant, but also because it helps you to learn.” Indeed, solid scientific skills are needed to weed out right from wrong. However, our current teaching and routines are focused almost exclusively on those skills, whereas the best science tends to come from a balanced mix of rationality and adventurous association. Why is half of that mix so hidden? If we know unexpected associations are important, and we know how they can be facilitated, why not act accordingly?

The idea that taking walks, reading things unrelated to your research, and hanging out with strangers in a campus pub should be considered part of the serious process of thinking, but might well meet with skepticism in practice. Should we really set time and space apart for things that distract us from our jobs? Yes we should, because many of the breakthroughs in science were made by people who were distracted.

Acknowledgments

The ideas reflected in this essay emerged from rich discussions with Jordi Bascompte, Stephen R. Carpenter, Laurie Beth Clark, Omar Defeo, Carl Folke, Pablo A. Marquet, Nestor Mazzeo, Mariana Meerhoff, Ana Parma, Osvaldo E. Sala, Eduardo Viola, and Frances Westley at the South American Institute for Resilience and Sustainability Studies (http://saras-institute.org). I am also grateful to Kenneth Arrow for sharing his stimulating and lively thoughts on these issues with me.

Footnotes

  • ↵1E-mail: Marten.Scheffer{at}wur.nl.
  • Author contributions: M.S. wrote the paper.

  • Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Kahneman D
    (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York), p 512.
  2. ↵
    1. Uzzi B,
    2. Mukherjee S,
    3. Stringer M,
    4. Jones B
    (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468–472.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Cai DJ,
    2. Mednick SA,
    3. Harrison EM,
    4. Kanady JC,
    5. Mednick SC
    (2009) REM, not incubation, improves creativity by priming associative networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(25):10130–10134.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Baird B,
    2. et al.
    (2012) Inspired by distraction: Mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychol Sci 23(10):1117–1122.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Whitfield J
    (2008) An indifference to boundaries. Nature 451(7181):872–873.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The forgotten half of scientific thinking
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The forgotten half of scientific thinking
Marten Scheffer
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2014, 111 (17) 6119; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1404649111

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
The forgotten half of scientific thinking
Marten Scheffer
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2014, 111 (17) 6119; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1404649111
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 111 (17)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
Image credit: Witsawat.S.
Model of the Amazon forest
News Feature: A sea in the Amazon
Did the Caribbean sweep into the western Amazon millions of years ago, shaping the region’s rich biodiversity?
Image credit: Tacio Cordeiro Bicudo (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), Victor Sacek (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), and Lucy Reading-Ikkanda (artist).
Syrian archaeological site
Journal Club: In Mesopotamia, early cities may have faltered before climate-driven collapse
Settlements 4,200 years ago may have suffered from overpopulation before drought and lower temperatures ultimately made them unsustainable.
Image credit: Andrea Ricci.
Steamboat Geyser eruption.
Eruption of Steamboat Geyser
Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Birds nestling on tree branches
Parent–offspring conflict in songbird fledging
Some songbird parents might improve their own fitness by manipulating their offspring into leaving the nest early, at the cost of fledgling survival, a study finds.
Image credit: Gil Eckrich (photographer).

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490