Week 4 Reading Reflection

For each reading reflection post, I ask you to address the following areas:
1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations? 
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?


While reading this chapter, the part that immensely surprised me was the fact that terrorism is more of a governmental trend than a societal one. My initial thought was that terrorism would be considered more of a societal or even international trend, but not governmental. I would think terrorist attacks such as the Paris shooting by ISIS affects communities and the people living in it rather than the government. But in the end, I guess the government is eventually affected because they have to react and compensate for the attack.

I found the two different approaches to creativity a tad confusing. I know that creativity is a great set of ideas one would have that results in "improved efficiency or effectiveness of a system." But I thought this was more of a general thing. Instead, the passage apparently has two "approaches" to creative problem solving: adaptive and innovative. But I see that as the same thing.

One question I would ask the author is to go into more detail about process needs. I don't quite see the correlation between "pain and painkillers" and entrepreneurship here, so maybe if he explained that a bit more, that would be great. The second question I would ask is do you think we would be technologically behind if 9/11 didn't occur thus bringing about innovative homeland security ideals?

When reading about the creative problem solving, there was a section about "common idea killers" which are expressions that can "quash creative ideas from further development." I disagree with this because I believe that this creates a drive to prove the "common idea killer" wrong and to continue with the idea. Not only that, but if an idea is great enough, there is nothing that can stop it from being spread and changing the world.